Remember me
▼ Content

No, CO2 is not more efficient than O2 at retaining heat.


No, CO2 is not more efficient than O2 at retaining heat.09-02-2019 16:38
Tai Hai Chen
★★★☆☆
(560)
If CO2 shines IR down, a lot of IR get intercepted by CO2 below rather than by ground. When O2 absorbs heat from ground by conduction, then shine IR down, and all of that IR get absorbed by ground none of that IR get intercepted by O2 below. So ground gets heated more efficiently at night by O2 compared to by CO2. So O2 is arguably a more efficient greenhouse gas than CO2.
09-02-2019 18:45
Wake
★★★★★
(3805)
Tai Hai Chen wrote:
If CO2 shines IR down, a lot of IR get intercepted by CO2 below rather than by ground. When O2 absorbs heat from ground by conduction, then shine IR down, and all of that IR get absorbed by ground none of that IR get intercepted by O2 below. So ground gets heated more efficiently at night by O2 compared to by CO2. So O2 is arguably a more efficient greenhouse gas than CO2.


Whatever you've written here doesn't make sense. Most of the energy in sunlight is in the visible spectrum. There is some in the upper and middle IR bands but only the lower part of the middle band can be absorbed by CO2. This is mostly trapped in the Tropopause and the small amount of energy in the very narrow band never makes it any further.

The rest of the Sun's energy shows upon the Earth and heats it. Some of it is absorbed in the O2, O3 and N2 of the atmosphere but not much since they too have very narrow absorption bands.

The Earth is heated and hence emits energy. Since this is very low energy it emits in mostly the lower IR bands. CO2 can absorb some of this but actually a large portion of it is absorbed by the humidity in the atmosphere and the water droplets in the clouds. This warms these gases and liquids which causes them to rise through convection. Also O2 and N2 are heated manually by the warmed Earth and they too rise though the process of convection.

Part of the energy is also radiated off of the surface and never gets trapped on the way to outer space.

Radiation occurs at the speed of light (or nearly so since SOL is in a vacuum and through matter it is slower) while convection occurs very slowly.

Because of the slower speed of convection this allows the Earth to heat to a higher level than would be the case without an atmosphere when all energy would be released though radiation only.

This is demonstrated by the inner planets - while Mercury is closest to the Sun, all of it's atmosphere was boiled off almost as the planet formed. Venus on the other hand, is further away, receives less energy and maintained what became a very heavy atmosphere and is the hottest of all the planets due to the extremely slow release of energy almost entirely due to convection.

Venus is not "that hot" because it's atmosphere is composed of CO2 but because it's atmosphere is so thick and traps radiation converting it to heat through conduction leading to the slow processes of convection, condensation and radiation.

None of this is a mystery and there is no new science here. This has all been described and proven in the 18th century.
09-02-2019 19:04
HarveyH55
★★☆☆☆
(288)
It's not directional, the molecules radiate in all directions. Greenhouse is misleading BS. The IPCC only point out the parts that are convenient for the agenda, and ignore the rest, lie by omission. Every atmospheric molecule does basically the same thing, some are more active than others. None of these molecules are locked into a single position, they are all moving around. Heat rises, so warmer molecules would tend to move fasted, away from the surface, carrying away heat. Consider that it's generally warmer during the day, unless the Canadians attack us with an arctic wave of cold wind (bastards). After the sunset, temperatures start to drop, and much cooler by morning. A lot of the heat from the previous day went some place, most definitely not back down to the surface.
09-02-2019 20:36
Into the Night
★★★★★
(6585)
Wake wrote:
Tai Hai Chen wrote:
If CO2 shines IR down, a lot of IR get intercepted by CO2 below rather than by ground. When O2 absorbs heat from ground by conduction, then shine IR down, and all of that IR get absorbed by ground none of that IR get intercepted by O2 below. So ground gets heated more efficiently at night by O2 compared to by CO2. So O2 is arguably a more efficient greenhouse gas than CO2.


Whatever you've written here doesn't make sense. Most of the energy in sunlight is in the visible spectrum. There is some in the upper and middle IR bands but only the lower part of the middle band can be absorbed by CO2. This is mostly trapped in the Tropopause and the small amount of energy in the very narrow band never makes it any further.

Nothing is trapped in the tropopause, Wake. IR light from the Sun, even those frequencies absorbed by CO2, do make it to the surface.
Wake wrote:
The rest of the Sun's energy shows upon the Earth and heats it.
Only infrared light from the Sun heats the surface, Wake. Visible light does not provide significant heating. UV light provides practically none. See quantum physics, which you also deny. Only light that results in conversion to thermal energy upon absorption is heating, Wake.
Wake wrote:
Some of it is absorbed in the O2, O3 and N2 of the atmosphere but not much since they too have very narrow absorption bands.

No significant bands in the infrared, which is the band of light that heats the Earth, Wake.
Wake wrote:
The Earth is heated and hence emits energy. Since this is very low energy it emits in mostly the lower IR bands.

Frequency is only one factor in the energy, Wake. The other is intensity. Earth emits a wide range of IR frequencies, not just one.
Wake wrote:
CO2 can absorb some of this but actually a large portion of it is absorbed by the humidity in the atmosphere and the water droplets in the clouds.

Very little. The surface is cooled by this, not warmed.
Wake wrote:
This warms these gases and liquids which causes them to rise through convection.

If and ONLY if the air can't cool fast enough through radiance, Wake. Air does not necessarily rise, even when heated by the Earth's surface.
Wake wrote:
Also O2 and N2 are heated manually by the warmed Earth and they too rise though the process of convection.

The Earth can't heat anything manually, Wake. It has no hands.
Wake wrote:
Part of the energy is also radiated off of the surface and never gets trapped on the way to outer space.

You can't trap or slow heat, Wake.
Wake wrote:
Radiation occurs at the speed of light (or nearly so since SOL is in a vacuum and through matter it is slower) while convection occurs very slowly.

The only way to cool the Earth is radiance, Wake. Convection does not cool the Earth. There is no convection where there is no mass.
Wake wrote:
Because of the slower speed of convection this allows the Earth to heat to a higher level than would be the case without an atmosphere

WRONG. The outer skin temperature of the ISS typically reaches 250 deg F on the sunlit side, yet there is nowhere on Earth's surface that gets anywhere near that hot. If your statement is true, why is the Earth's surface so much COLDER?
Wake wrote:
when all energy would be released though radiation only.
All the energy leaving Earth IS through radiance only, Wake. Convection does not work in space.
Wake wrote:
This is demonstrated by the inner planets -
No, it is not.
Wake wrote:
while Mercury is closest to the Sun, all of it's atmosphere was boiled off almost as the planet formed. Venus on the other hand, is further away, receives less energy and maintained what became a very heavy atmosphere and is the hottest of all the planets due to the extremely slow release of energy almost entirely due to convection.

WRONG. Venus is hot because the Sun warms the surface, and that surface is more intimately in contact with the atmosphere above it. It is 900 times the pressure of Earth's atmosphere. It also has no oceans, allowing more land to become baking hot.
Wake wrote:
Venus is not "that hot" because it's atmosphere is composed of CO2 but because it's atmosphere is so thick and traps radiation converting it to heat through conduction leading to the slow processes of convection, condensation and radiation.
You can't slow or trap heat, Wake.
Wake wrote:
None of this is a mystery and there is no new science here.
You are denying the Stefan-Boltzmann law, Wake. You are also denying the 2nd law of thermodynamics. You are not using science at all.
Wake wrote:
This has all been described and proven in the 18th century.

No, it has not. Science has no proofs, Wake. Science is a set of falsifiable theories. Science is never 'settled'.


The Parrot Killer
09-02-2019 20:38
Into the Night
★★★★★
(6585)
HarveyH55 wrote:
It's not directional, the molecules radiate in all directions. Greenhouse is misleading BS. The IPCC only point out the parts that are convenient for the agenda, and ignore the rest, lie by omission. Every atmospheric molecule does basically the same thing, some are more active than others. None of these molecules are locked into a single position, they are all moving around. Heat rises, so warmer molecules would tend to move fasted, away from the surface, carrying away heat. Consider that it's generally warmer during the day, unless the Canadians attack us with an arctic wave of cold wind (bastards). After the sunset, temperatures start to drop, and much cooler by morning. A lot of the heat from the previous day went some place, most definitely not back down to the surface.


It actually IS somewhat directional. No molecule will absorb a photon of less energy than the molecule already has. Heat flows from hot to cold only. It never flows backwards or 'uphill'.


The Parrot Killer
10-02-2019 19:44
Wake
★★★★★
(3805)
Into the Night wrote:
HarveyH55 wrote:
It's not directional, the molecules radiate in all directions. Greenhouse is misleading BS. The IPCC only point out the parts that are convenient for the agenda, and ignore the rest, lie by omission. Every atmospheric molecule does basically the same thing, some are more active than others. None of these molecules are locked into a single position, they are all moving around. Heat rises, so warmer molecules would tend to move fasted, away from the surface, carrying away heat. Consider that it's generally warmer during the day, unless the Canadians attack us with an arctic wave of cold wind (bastards). After the sunset, temperatures start to drop, and much cooler by morning. A lot of the heat from the previous day went some place, most definitely not back down to the surface.


It actually IS somewhat directional. No molecule will absorb a photon of less energy than the molecule already has. Heat flows from hot to cold only. It never flows backwards or 'uphill'.


More ignorance from the science denier - photons carry energy and not heat. Whether or not a photon can be absorbed by a gas is dependent upon the specific heat capacity of the molecule and not the "heat" of a photon.

When you deny science you speak from a position of ignorance and you indeed are parked right in the middle of that position.
10-02-2019 20:46
Into the Night
★★★★★
(6585)
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
HarveyH55 wrote:
It's not directional, the molecules radiate in all directions. Greenhouse is misleading BS. The IPCC only point out the parts that are convenient for the agenda, and ignore the rest, lie by omission. Every atmospheric molecule does basically the same thing, some are more active than others. None of these molecules are locked into a single position, they are all moving around. Heat rises, so warmer molecules would tend to move fasted, away from the surface, carrying away heat. Consider that it's generally warmer during the day, unless the Canadians attack us with an arctic wave of cold wind (bastards). After the sunset, temperatures start to drop, and much cooler by morning. A lot of the heat from the previous day went some place, most definitely not back down to the surface.


It actually IS somewhat directional. No molecule will absorb a photon of less energy than the molecule already has. Heat flows from hot to cold only. It never flows backwards or 'uphill'.


More ignorance from the science denier -

The usual insult fallacy....
Wake wrote:
photons carry energy and not heat.

Photons are light, Wake. If that light results in a transfer of thermal energy, they are also heat. It's called 'radiant heat'.
Wake wrote:
Whether or not a photon can be absorbed by a gas is dependent upon the specific heat capacity of the molecule

WRONG. Specific heat has NOTHING to do with the ability of a molecule to absorb a photon! Specific heat is not a 'capacity'. It is an index value. It is not some kind of magick bucket.
Wake wrote:
and not the "heat" of a photon.

Photons ARE heat, Wake, if they result in the movement of thermal energy. Now you are denying radiant heat entirely!
Wake wrote:
When you deny science you speak from a position of ignorance and you indeed are parked right in the middle of that position.

Nonsense statement. Try English, Wake. It works better.


The Parrot Killer
10-02-2019 21:54
Wake
★★★★★
(3805)
And more denial of science from Nightmare. It don't exist cause he say it ain't.
11-02-2019 01:08
Into the Night
★★★★★
(6585)
Wake wrote:
And more denial of science from Nightmare. It don't exist cause he say it ain't.


Insult fallacy. Void argument fallacy. No argument presented.

Try making an actual argument, Wake.


The Parrot Killer
11-02-2019 01:12
Wake
★★★★★
(3805)
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
And more denial of science from Nightmare. It don't exist cause he say it ain't.


Insult fallacy. Void argument fallacy. No argument presented.

Try making an actual argument, Wake.
You cannot argue with a fool. You are far too practiced in the art if ignorance. Tell us again that the science of spectroscopy doesn't exist. That entire sciences don't exist because you say it is so.
11-02-2019 01:27
Into the Night
★★★★★
(6585)
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
And more denial of science from Nightmare. It don't exist cause he say it ain't.


Insult fallacy. Void argument fallacy. No argument presented.

Try making an actual argument, Wake.
You cannot argue with a fool. You are far too practiced in the art if ignorance.

...the usual insult fallacies...
Wake wrote:
Tell us again that the science of spectroscopy doesn't exist.
It does, Wake. You just don't know a whole lot about it.
Wake wrote:
That entire sciences don't exist because you say it is so.

Never said so, Wake.


The Parrot Killer
11-02-2019 01:50
Wake
★★★★★
(3805)
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
And more denial of science from Nightmare. It don't exist cause he say it ain't.


Insult fallacy. Void argument fallacy. No argument presented.

Try making an actual argument, Wake.
You cannot argue with a fool. You are far too practiced in the art if ignorance.

...the usual insult fallacies...
Wake wrote:
Tell us again that the science of spectroscopy doesn't exist.
It does, Wake. You just don't know a whole lot about it.
Wake wrote:
That entire sciences don't exist because you say it is so.

Never said so, Wake.

So you admit you were lying when you said that no records of past climate can exist?
12-02-2019 01:12
Into the Night
★★★★★
(6585)
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
And more denial of science from Nightmare. It don't exist cause he say it ain't.


Insult fallacy. Void argument fallacy. No argument presented.

Try making an actual argument, Wake.
You cannot argue with a fool. You are far too practiced in the art if ignorance.

...the usual insult fallacies...
Wake wrote:
Tell us again that the science of spectroscopy doesn't exist.
It does, Wake. You just don't know a whole lot about it.
Wake wrote:
That entire sciences don't exist because you say it is so.

Never said so, Wake.

So you admit you were lying when you said that no records of past climate can exist?

Data isn't science, Wake. No records of 'past climate' exist, because there is no such thing as a 'global climate'. There is no such thing as a global weather.


The Parrot Killer




Join the debate No, CO2 is not more efficient than O2 at retaining heat.:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
Anyone explain how does N2 and O2 don't absorb electromagnetic radiation?2715-02-2019 22:38
10 ppm O3 in stratosphere convert 98% of UV into heat, so what makes people think715-02-2019 19:09
Do you think Marxists in America will gain power and rocket CO2 into space215-02-2019 04:42
10 years ago, Marxist Obama declared CO2 was a poison gas in EPA to bankrupt215-02-2019 04:37
Do air CO2 capture factories make more CO2 emission?215-02-2019 03:58
▲ Top of page
Public Poll
Who is leading the renewable energy race?

US

EU

China

Japan

India

Brazil

Other

Don't know


Thanks for supporting Climate-Debate.com.
Copyright © 2009-2019 Climate-Debate.com | About | Contact