Global Climate Status Report

[babe]

Greenhouse effect is caused by the absorption by greenhouse gases of low frequency/ high wavelength light being reflected from the Earth's surface.

Greenhouse effect is not caused by higher heat capacity for CO2/ other greenhouse gases (with ~400 ppm CO2 the heat capacity is negligibly different from 0 ppm CO2)

This is neither controversial nor political. Check out any scientific literature.

Heat capacity is not a reservoir. It is the amount of energy it takes to heat a certain amount of material by a certain temperature (calories/ (gram degree C)

So, since apparently conversations in here are cyclical in nature..... here is where we started.

"Greenhouse Effect" requires complex molecules in the atmosphere with their higher heat capacity properties. Why? Because they capture radiation from more light/radiation of every part of the spectrum..... hold it.... warmly.... and slowly radiate it..... some of it back to Earth.

The "heat capacity" idea might be confusing to someone with a textbook definition who does not understand the process, the concept. Yes, technically, capture and radiation of radiation/heat is not defined by the term "heat capacity". But the ability to store the energy is. But "heat capacity" is a made up term as defined in the textbooks, and the definition has no direct application to this concept, except as a descriptor in general terms for the idea of capacity for heat storage.

It is the actual capture and storage, and radiation, of energy that is described as "Greenhouse Effect".

At 400 ppm, the amount of heat stored in CO2 in the atmosphere is significant.

Atomic gases like the noble gases have very low "heat capacity" and correspondingly lower factors in heat capture/storage/radiation. Diatomic gases have higher factors. But water and CO2 make up most of the heat capture/storage/radiation. Methane and other hydrocarbon molecules, and SO2, are also powerful factors relative to their abundance.

 

[silesian]

I'm well aware that microwaves are also "infrared" in the sense of being longer wavelength than "red" light.

"infra beneath, below Latin infrastructure - underlying framework of a system; infrared - below the regular light spectrum."
https://www.learnthat.org/pages/view/roots.html#i





The "infra" actually refers to the frequency of the light, not it's wavelength, hence the "below" as in "below the frequency of the regular light .

IR is the frequency directly below red. Other frequencies further below IR are not classified IR. Not complicated. But if you want to call others as IR, be my guest. Just don’t expect any scientifically literate person to understand you.

 

[babe]

IR is the frequency directly below red. Other frequencies further below IR are not classified IR. Not complicated. But if you want to call others as IR, be my guest. Just don’t expect any scientifically literate person to understand you.

There is one EM spectrum. There is "light" we see in a part of it. Then there is light we don't see. Some of it is higher frequency.... uv.... ultraviolet.... with higher frequency. The other end is infrared.... with lower frequencies. This is the English language.

You think the textbooks make it simpler. yah. go for it. obtuse. The meanings of words are not dictated by textbooks, but by meaning.

 

[Alfalfa]

There is one EM spectrum. There is "light" we see in a part of it. Then there is light we don't see. Some of it is higher frequency.... uv.... ultraviolet.... with higher frequency. The other end is infrared.... with lower frequencies. This is the English language.

You think the textbooks make it simpler. yah. go for it. obtuse. The meanings of words are not dictated by textbooks, but by meaning.

You're more or less correct about the definition of heat capacity, and in the other **** you said about the EM spectrum (although I'm skimming thru, so it's not a rigorous analysis). I'm just not sure why you think you're reinventing the wheel. Any science undergrad would have at least as good an understanding of these concepts.

 

[babe]

So here is the point I've tried to make above:

"Greenhouse gases do not act as a reflector, but rather absorb long-wave radiation, warming the individual molecules which re-radiating energy, in the form of heat, back to Earth and also to outer space."

https://arewetoast.com/atmosphere-gases-and-energy.html

 

[silesian]

There is one EM spectrum. There is "light" we see in a part of it. Then there is light we don't see. Some of it is higher frequency.... uv.... ultraviolet.... with higher frequency. The other end is infrared.... with lower frequencies. This is the English language.

You think the textbooks make it simpler. yah. go for it. obtuse. The meanings of words are not dictated by textbooks, but by meaning.

And here I’ve always thought that gamma was the highest frequency. Thanks for the breaking scientific discovey.

I haven’t read a text book for some time but you have inspired me to give you some help with the basics.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_spectrum

Good luck and have a great day.

 

[babe]

For Sil, I want to gather some facts/data about atmosphere composition and the EM absorption/storage of each component.
I think, when you multiply the effects of each component by the amount of that component..... you will see the picture I have tried to explain.

And no, this is not re-inventing the wheel. It is an attempt to portray the situation we are in.

 

[babe]

And here I’ve always thought that gamma was the highest frequency. Thanks for the breaking scientific discovey.

I haven’t read a text book for some time but you have inspired me to give you some help with the basics.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_spectrum

Good luck and have a great day.

ha ha. Your link doesn't even list "microwave". I like it though because it has many more breakdowns, although I don't know why anyone would care unless we're talking about some device/product/health effect that matters enough to create the distinction.

 

[babe]

Here is an "official" sort of description..... damn.... I've been scooped. I really thought nobody in the world knows this but me!!!!

I am in fact contesting one aspect of the "official story"..... that of course we all must accept "Science" has proven we're gonna go on a runaway heat train if CO2 gets any higher..... But on balance, this is the kind of thing I'm trying to describe..... I only differ on the extrapolation and projections scenario, not on the present facts.

https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/features/EnergyBalance/page6.php

 

[silesian]

ha ha. Your link doesn't even list "microwave".

Have you looked carefully? You might want to try again.

 

[Alfalfa]

EM classification is somewhat arbitrary. No natural cut off for anything other than visible light.

 

[One Brow]

EM classification is somewhat arbitrary. No natural cut off for anything other than visible light.

Even what is visible can vary from person to person.

 

[babe]

Looking for the data relevant to net heat content distributions by component..... No... good..... compilation has been done yet, at least online....

nitrogen....78%.…. very low absorption factor with EM radiation..... not much rotational or bond stretching storage modes.
oxygen.... 21%... pretty near the same, a little more mass so a little more kinetic heat storage.....
water//// 0-4%, unevenly distributed.... more over tropics, ocean marine layer, rainforests.... less over poles/cold.... less at higher altitude....
less kinetic energy storage (mol wt 18 vs. 28 for N2 and 32 for O2, but odd shape gives more rotational energy, and bond angles plus 2 bonds allow scissors stretch as well as two bond stretch modes. evaporation and condensation are major modes of action for redistribution of atmospheric heat....
Carbon Dioxide..… mol wt 44, significant more kinetic storage. symmetric shape only allows for two rotational modes, but two bond stretches with much higher atomic weights in movement make this the most powerful energy storage molecule so far..... by an order of magnitude. At 0.04% it is about 10% if water's, but there is no change in state occurring.

So here's my guess.... estimate....

0.78 x 1 for N2 = .78
0.21 x 1.1 for O2 = .23
0.02 x 2.5 for H2O = .05
0.004 x 25 for CO2 = .10
other greenhouse gases
0.0001 x 50 = .05

So the ability of our atmosphere to hold heat would be a 1.0 with just nitrogen and oxygen, but by my estimate is increased 20% by the presence of small amounts of "greenhouse gases". This is not exactly the same as efficiency in absorbing radiation, but positively related. Maybe closely correlated....

This means that for equilibrium to be attained, the temperature of the atmosphere must rise....get warmer....

NOAA says that radiative losses increase by the exponent of 4 relative to temp increase, and they even say that this is a strong limiting factor on how hot we will get before the energy flow rebalances.

Evaporation from water surfaces will also rise.... exponentially with temperature.... and atmospheric transport of humidity will greatly increase snowfall over Arctic areas..... snow accumulations will launch another "Ice Age"..... a sort of thermostat will act to bring temps down.... once again. No runaway thermal train, folks.

 

[silesian]

EM classification is somewhat arbitrary. No natural cut off for anything other than visible light.

Totally true. It is just a language of categories that allows people to communicate more clearly.

 

[babe]

The article I linked above from NASA estimates that without our atmosphere as it is, having the effects of storage and radiation as a "greenhouse effect", we'd be 30 degrees colder as things are.

I believe the theory goes that a rise in CO2 from 320 to 360 ppm has increased our temp by 2 degrees so far. I think that would give us about 10% more evaporation and precipitation overall..... if simple kinetic equations were all there were to it.... But so far I haven't seen any report of general sustained trends to that extent.....

If there is an increase in water cycling, I suppose most of it is over the oceans, disproportionately. But I'd be wanting to get some really good data on that....

 

[babe]

I've seen some estimates of what Earth temp would be without natural atmospheric "greenhouse effect" as much as 60 degrees colder.

I noticed in the articles I linked today, or read today but didn't link, that the Earth itself generates more than 5% of our heat. Heat coming up from the core, some say with ongoing nuclear processes. Natural fission.

I think there is a cycle of volcanism on a long time scale....millions of years.... maybe a hundred million years or so, the consequence of gravity and increasing rates with concentration near the center. Hot spots near the center becoming upwardly mobile…. creating plutons that can rise to the surface and start volcanos.... trigger tectonic movement.....

At any rate, there is some geological evidence for "volcanic epochs".....

Here in Utah we had some age of increased activity around 150 million years ago, and again about 30 million years ago. Recent volcanism in the Great Basin is related geologic stretching of bedrock layers, reducing pressures on hot material not so far underneath. We have been underrun by a great sheet of molten rock, the source of our mineral deposits, and it is withdrawing now, carrying us out to sea, so to speak. But not as fast as California..... lol.

 

[silesian]

the Earth itself generates more than 5% of our heat. Heat coming up from the core, some say with ongoing nuclear processes. Natural fission.

That's the fact, Jack. Every radioactive fission process on earth warms the planet. Although the figures I've heard are higher than 5% (impossible to measure precisely). The atmosphere is the insulator that slows the flow of heat into space.

 

[Alfalfa]

By the way, the definition of heat capacity given by Silesian is the classical definition. Not the "text book" definition. The modern qm definition is the one with degrees of freedom for translational motion (temp) vs potential energy like the chemical bonds in a molecule, as given by babe. They can both be found in text books.

 

[LogGrad98]

Even what is visible can vary from person to person.

I see dead people

 

[LogGrad98]

Where is our resident physics professor to set the record straight here?