Item 1.
Is CO2 an absorber of thermal IR radiation in the Earth's atmosphere?
A:
CO2 is a greenhouse gas which means that it allows sunlight to pass through, but absorbs infrared radiation (heat) emitted by the Earth back out to space. This is due to the fact that its molecules are only excited by radiation at very specific wavelengths (a consequence of quantum mechanics). In CO2, those wavelengths are mainly found in the ~14-16 micron portion of the spectrum.
Item 2.
But in concentration of only ~400 ppm, is CO2 a significant absorber of thermal IR radiation emitted by the earth's surface?
A:
Satellite measurements of the earth's IR emissions spectrum show that CO2 absorbs a large amount of this radiation and re-emits it from the tropopause, or even from the stratosphere in some observations.
The conclusion is thus yes, CO2 in its present small concentration is capable of absorbing significant amounts of thermal IR radiation slowing the earth's natural cooling mechanism.
Image below is of a terrestrial radiation spectrum measured over Northern Africa by the Nimbus – 4 mission; Infrared interferometer spectrometer (IRIS): for measuring the emission spectra of the earth/atmosphere system.
Item 3.
Scientific skepticism is a good thing, it's healthy, it’s the heart of the scientific method. Skeptics don’t come to a conclusion until they have considered the evidence; and then there are those who come to a conclusion first and then discount any evidence that conflicts with their beliefs. The two approaches are polar opposites but one is good science and the other is charlatanism. We should always challenge ourselves to improve our understanding. When faced with opposing views we should ask, do their arguments have any scientific basis? What does the peer reviewed scientific literature say? It is in that spirit that I am making an attempt to read through the "proofs" on your website as you instructed. Starting with the introductory paragraph I already see misinformation and inaccuracies, one is entitled to one's opinion but not to one's own facts. I quote one of my most admired mentors here, "You say some things that are true and some things that are new, however the two don't intersect."
To wit,
from: https://www.coatsengineering.com/disproofs_of_the_co2_emissions_global_warming_theory.htm Disproofs of the CO2 Emissions Global Warming Theory*
you say:
"Many believe that the theory of global warming due to increased levels of co2 in our atmosphere from hydrocarbon combustion is "accepted science", including most scientific and academic organizations and governments. However, the opposite is true."
The American Chemical Society says:
The Earth’s climate is changing in response to increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases (GHGs) and particulate matter in the atmosphere, largely as the result of a broad range of human activities. The American Chemical Society (ACS) acknowledges that climate change is real, presents serious risk for civil society and business, and that human activity is the primary cause. Atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) concentrations are increasing at a rate never observed before, primarily due to emissions from fossil fuel combustion.
Reading this word-salad of a website reminds me of the reason I mainly consult peer reviewed literature, data and models answer more questions than pure ideology.
Item 4
1. "The Greenhouse Effect" is false (adding insulation does not cause warming)
I say...
First of all, John Tyndall did not postulate the greenhouse effect. It was Joseph Fourier in the 1820s who first realized that the Earth's atmosphere retains heat radiation. He posed some seemingly simple questions for his time: what determines the average temperature of a planet like the Earth? When light from the Sun strikes the Earth's surface and warms it up, why doesn't the planet keep heating up until it is as hot as the Sun itself? Fourier's answer was that the heated surface emits invisible infrared radiation, which carries the heat energy away into space however he lacked the theoretical tools to calculate just how the balance determines the Earth's present temperature. Based on physical intuition, he realized that the planet would be significantly colder if it lacked an atmosphere. (Later in the century, when the effect could be calculated, it was found that a bare rock at Earth’s distance from the Sun would be well below freezing temperature.)
John Tyndall later set out to find whether there was in fact any gas in the atmosphere that could trap heat rays. In 1859, his careful laboratory work identified several gases that did just that. The most important was simple water vapor (H2O); also effective were carbon dioxide (CO2), although in the atmosphere the gas is only a few parts per million, and the even rarer methane (CH4). Just as a sheet of paper will block more light than an entire pool of clear water, so a trace of CO2 or CH4 could strongly affect the transmission of heat radiation through the atmosphere.
Second, no definition was ever "deceptively" changed by anyone as you wrote. Referring to the infrared trapping effect of CO2 as the greenhouse effect is a simile which in the 1820s must have come in handy for conceptualizing how certain gases in the atmosphere allows sunlight to pass through, but absorbs infrared radiation (heat) emitted by the earth back out to space. You do understand simile no?
Third, you say that CO2 does not absorb any significant infrared radiation with respect to water. Show your proof for that claim please! Water vapor unlike the CO2 molecule has no infrared activity in the 15 micron band which is very important for longwave radiative transfer in the atmosphere because it is positioned near the peak of the Planck emission function for terrestrial temperatures and renders the atmosphere completely opaque between 14 and 16 microns, see the figure below.
Fourth, you say
"If anyone wishes to send us any publication claiming that ch4 or co2 are causing warming, please send it and we (I) will show how the authors have fooled the world..."
See below the historical temperature record of actual temperatures as well as the history matched calculations without and with AGW. I would like to see your models that tell a different story.
Item 5The IR absorption activity of a given molecule in the atmosphere is determined by quantum mechanics.
When photons are introduced into a hypothetical sample chamber containing one molecule CO2 and the rest N2 they will interact with the gas molecules by changing either (1) their kinetic energy, (2) the rotational energy of polyatomic molecules, (3) the vibrational energy of (again) polyatomic molecules, or (4) the distribution of the electric charge within the molecule. Since most modes of energy storage at the molecular level are quantized only certain energy transitions are allowed, meaning that only certain energy levels of transitions are allowed, which is to say that if the energy carried by a photon matches the allowed energy transition of the molecule it will be absorbed by the molecule raising the molecule's energy state by an amount delta-E equal to the photon's energy.
Because of the differing quantization of energy states, different wavelength bands tend to be associated with different types of transitions. Rotational transitions primarily involve low energy photons with wavelenghts >20 microns, vibrational transitions involve photons of 1-20 microns, and in electronic transitions photons of <1 micron are involved.
The diatomic-linear Nitrogen molecule (N2) has neither an electric nor a magnetic dipole moment and therefore has no rotational absorption spectrum, furthermore its vibrational mode consists only of stretching and compressing motions along the axis of the molecule. There are no allowed quantum transitions by which a photon could be absorbed by N2.
The triatomic-linear Carbon Dioxide molecule (CO2) has no permanent electric or magnetic dipole moment either, but because it does have bending vibrational motions that break its linear symmetry an oscillating dipole moment can be induced which permits vibration-rotation transitions at shorter wavelengths. The most important absorption bands for CO2 are around 2.8, 4.3, and 15 micron, as demonstrated by satellite data of the terrestrial IR spectrum.
I note here that the triatomic-asymetric-top Water molecule (H2O) has a permanent electric dipole moment and a wide range of rotational and vibrational transitions making it the most active atmospheric absorber in the IR band.
Now moving on to the question of what constitutes a "significant" amount of absorption, let's assume instead of a one CO2 molecule sample we now have two CO2 molecules with the rest N2, the amount of IR energy absorbed by the sample will be greater than in the first experiment but still all the absorption will be by the CO2 molecules provided the incoming energy contains photons in the allowed energy levels (wavelength); continuing to add CO2 to the sample (and N2) and measuring absorption we see that the amount absorbed will increase with the mass of absorbing molecules for a given wavelength. What I have described here is a measure of the absorptivity of the sample as a function of mass of the absorbing molecules and the wavelength of incoming radiation. If in addition to CO2 and N2 we add H2O to the sample, the total absorption will be a function of mass of each absorbing molecule and the wavelength of the allowed energy transitions. Keep in mind that energy transitions are quantized and therefore if you hit the sample with a monochromatic light beam absorption will be by one or another molecule where there is no overlap in allowed energy levels; where there is overlap absorption will be by both molecules in proportion to their absorption coefficients and mass of each; if instead you hit the sample with a broadband beam, calculating the absorptivity involves integration over a larger number of terms of course. If I remember correctly the process I describe here is a form of Beer's law, maybe Beer-Lambert's law.
Note that so far I have explicitly described what happens to the absorbed photons, those that are not absorbed continue on to the next layer (sample) where they may encounter other absorbing molecules and repeat the process over and over until they reach a level in the atmosphere where there are no more absorbing species for that wavelength and they escape out to space. Figure 1 from Heinz Hug's paper where in panel 1(a) I have edited in arrows showing CO2 absorption at two different levels in the stratosphere; the spike in the center of the CO2 absorption ditch is taking place at a higher level; again observation clearly supports theory. I encourage you not to think of the atmosphere as a uniform "blanket" of fixed composition but rather as a layered system with discrete temperature, pressure and composition finite elements.
Item 6The US Air Force did some extensive research in this area at least 70 years ago and much of their database was transferred to several universities who currently maintain and manage them. It is not that hard to find if you look. Also, besides the Air Force's data many universities have developed their own databases. Finally, any organization involved in not only climate science but also weather forecasting, remote sensing through the atmosphere, space flight and the like have extensive databases that can be accessed by simply registering with them I'm sure.
Item 7
Posted 01-11-2020 10:09 AM
Edited by Brian Coats 01-11-2020 08:20 PM
"Does anyone disagree that insulation doesn't cause warming???"... An analogy is that wrapping a rock with insulation will not change its average temperature when exposed to an oscillating energy source. CO2 absorbs no significant ir wrt water (all have been fooled by authors ignoring compositional effects in published work)."
Have you done this experiment? Did you scale the temperatures of the source and sink properly to the sun's 6000K and earth's 300K in space, as well as insulation material that allows about 70% of the incident heat energy to pass through while also reducing the amount of infrared heat emitted by the rock to match the earth atmosphere's emissivity? If done correctly you will see warming.
Apologies for the cartoonish nature of these images, I don't have access to my library at the moment and it's the best Google could offer...
First image w/o insulation, second with. Adding CO2 insulation to the atmosphere raises the level from which IR radiation (heat) ultimately escapes to space.I believe this last installment addresses all your various questions to me specifically.Bibliography.
Archer, D., and B. Buffet (2005). "Time-Dependent Response of the Global Ocean Clathrate Reservoir to Climatic and Anthropogenic Forcing." Geochemistry, Geophysics and Geosystems 6: Q03002 [doi:10.1029/2004GC000854].
Archer, David, and Raymond T. Pierrehumbert, eds. (2011) The Warming Papers: The Scientific Foundation for the Climate Change Forecast. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley-Blackwell.
Arrhenius, Svante (1896). "On the Influence of Carbonic Acid in the Air Upon the Temperature of the Ground." Philosophical Magazine 41: 237-76,
Arrhenius, Svante (1908). Worlds in the Making. New York: Harper & Brothers.
Fleagle, Robert G. (1992a). "From the International Geophysical Year to Global Change." Reviews of Geophysics 30: 305-13.
Fleagle, Robert G. (1992b). "The U.S. Government Response to Global Change: Analysis and Appraisal." Climatic Change 20: 57-81.
Fleagle, Robert G. (1994). Global Environmental Change: Interactions of Science, Policy, and Politics in the United States. Westport, CT: Praeger.
Fleagle, Robert G. (2001). Eyewitness: Evolution of the Atmospheric Sciences. Boston: American Meteorological Society.
Fleagle, Robert G. and Businger Joost A. (1963). An Introduction to Atmospheric Physics. Academic Press, New York.
Foote, Eunice (1856). "Circumstances Affecting the Heat of the Sun's Rays." American Journal of Science and Arts 22: 382-83
Fourier, Joseph (1824). "Remarques Générales sur les Températures Du Globe Terrestre et des Espaces Planétaires." Annales de Chemie et de Physique 27: 136-67. Translation by Ebeneser Burgess, "General Remarks on the Temperature of the Earth and Outer Space," American Journal of Science 32: 1-20 (1837)
Fourier, Joseph (1827). "Mémoire sur les Températures du Globe Terrestre dt des Espaces Planétaires." Mémoires de l'Académie Royale des Sciences 7: 569-604. English translation by R.T. Pierrehumbert.
Hug, Heinz (2000). "A CRITICAL REVIEW OF THE HYPOTHESIS THAT CLIMATE CHANGE IS CAUSED BY CARBON DIOXIDE." Energy & Environment, vol. 11, no. 6, pp 631-638.
Kastin, James F. (2020). "The Rock-Solid Scientific Evidence For Anthropogenic Global Warming." Search and Discovery Article #80728. Posted July 27, 2020. DOI:10.1306/80728Kasting2020.
Pierrehumbert, Raymond T. (2004). "Warming the World." Nature 432: 677.
Pierrehumbert, Raymond T. (2011). Principles of Planetary Climate. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Pierrehumbert, Raymond T. (2011). Infrared radiation and planetary temperature. Physics Today 64, 1, 33; doi: 10.1063/1.3541943.
Ramanathan, V. (1988). "The Greenhouse Theory of Climate Change: A Test by Inadvertent Global Experiment." Science 240: 293-99.
Ramanathan, V., et al. (1989a). "Climate and the Earth's Radiation Budget." Physics Today, May, pp. 22-32.
Ramanathan, V., and Andrew M. Vogelman (1997). "Greenhouse Effect, Atmospheric Solar Absorption and the Earth's Radiation Budget: From the Arrhenius-Langley Era to the 1990s." Ambio 26: 38-46.
Tyndall, John (1861). "On the Absorption and Radiation of Heat by Gases and Vapours..." Philosophical Magazine ser. 4, 22: 169-94, 27.
Tyndall, John (1863a). "On Radiation through the Earth's Atmosphere." Philosophical Magazine ser. 4, 25: 200-206.
Tyndall, John (1863b). "On the Relation of Radiant Heat to Aqueous Vapor." Philosophical Magazine ser. 4, 26: 30-54.
Tyndall, John (1873a). Contributions to Molecular Physics in the Domain of Radiant Heat. New York: Appleton.
Tyndall, John (1873b). "Further Researches on the Absorption and Radiation of Heat by Gaseous Matter (1862)." In Contributions to Molecular Physics in the Domain of Radiant Heat pp. 69-121. New York: Appleton.
US Air Force (1961). "Atmospheric Radiation Tables." Final Report under contract AF 19(604)-2413. Unclassified.
------------------------------
Luis Chirinos
Retired
Katy, TX United States
------------------------------