Remember me
▼ Content

Physics of climate change question


Physics of climate change question25-11-2017 00:13
Skaha
☆☆☆☆☆
(2)
For photons to escape the atmosphere they need to reach around 5km in altitude. If we double the co2, the atmosphere gets thicker and the altitude at which photons escape is increased. Energy out = sigma * T^4 where "T" is emission temperature. At higher altitudes "T" is lower, therefore the energy that escapes is lower, thus a warmer planet.

My question is: If the density of co2 doubles, wouldn't the surface area of the atmosphere (4*pi*r^2) also increase? And with greater surface area, wouldn't the amount of photons emitted also increase? Counteracting the warming effect?

I would appreciate it if someone could answer this question because it is really bugging me.

Sincerely, Havard
25-11-2017 01:21
litesong
★★★★★
(2297)
Skaha wrote: Counteracting the warming effect? I would appreciate it if someone could answer this question because it is really bugging me. Sincerely, Havard
Since this webcyst was started by AGW denier liar whiners, an AGW denier liar whiner will "come forth" (like Lazarus) to confirm your idea & anti-AGW denier liar whining will start all over.... anew.
25-11-2017 01:56
Skaha
☆☆☆☆☆
(2)
litesong wrote:
[quote]Skaha wrote: Counteracting the warming effect? I would appreciate it if someone could answer this question because it is really bugging me. Sincerely, Havard
Since this webcyst was started by AGW denier liar whiners, an AGW denier liar whiner will "come forth" (like Lazarus) to confirm your idea & anti-AGW denier liar whining will start all over.... anew.[/quote

It's not my theory, and I doubt climate scientists missed this in their calculations, but I found it strange that no one has mentioned it in their reports. (Of those I've read)
I thought the consensus on this page was in support of human caused global warming.
25-11-2017 02:59
Into the Night
★★★★★
(5247)
Skaha wrote:
For photons to escape the atmosphere they need to reach around 5km in altitude. If we double the co2, the atmosphere gets thicker and the altitude at which photons escape is increased. Energy out = sigma * T^4 where "T" is emission temperature. At higher altitudes "T" is lower, therefore the energy that escapes is lower, thus a warmer planet.

What you are describing is almost the Stefan-Boltzmann law. That law states:

radiance = SBconstant * emissivity * temperature ^ 4.

The SBconstant is a constant of nature.
The emissivity constant is a measured constant. It describes how well the surface absorbs and emits light, as opposed to reflecting or scattering it.
Temperature is in Kelvin.
Radiance is in watts/square meter.

While the colder air does radiate less because it's colder, it also radiates less because the air is so thin there isn't much 'surface area' to radiate from. Gases are kind of funny in calculating effective radiating 'surface area'. They do have one though.

This, however, is ignoring the Earth surface itself, which is the warmest of all, the densest material also, and therefore radiates the most energy in the form of light.

Most of the radiance of the Earth is from the surface, not the atmosphere.

Skaha wrote:
My question is: If the density of co2 doubles, wouldn't the surface area of the atmosphere (4*pi*r^2) also increase?

No. The total material on Earth stays the same. We do not get CO2 from space. We get it from other materials already on the Earth. Adding CO2 to the atmosphere by burning something takes away from the O2 in the atmosphere. Burning something takes the carbon from the surface of the Earth (or under it), and combines it with the oxygen in the atmosphere. The result is no more material is added to Earth. It just changes form.

Skaha wrote:
And with greater surface area, wouldn't the amount of photons emitted also increase? Counteracting the warming effect?

If you COULD somehow add material on the Earth in the form of adding gasses to the atmosphere from space, yes, more photons would radiate, but the Earth would also be absorbing more energy from the Sun by the same ratio.
Skaha wrote:
I would appreciate it if someone could answer this question because it is really bugging me.

Sincerely, Havard



It could be argued that pulling carbon materials out of the ground and converting them to CO2 is adding to the atmosphere, but the other half of the carbon cycle should be considered.

Plant life on Earth absorbs CO2 and manufacture carbohydrates, which is food and material for the plant. Later this is our food.

The carbon is returned to solid form by this process. The other result of photosynthesis is the release of excess oxygen from the chemical reaction.

Plants convert CO2 to carbohydrates and release O2. It just one big circle of life...as they say.

You can find more information on these subjects from many physics textbooks, but putting it together in the form of an answer to your question is not that common. The key material you want to study is the Stefan-Boltzmann law and how it applies to all bodies. Related laws are Planck's laws. You can derive the Stefan-Boltzmann law from Planck's law.


The Parrot Killer
25-11-2017 03:00
Into the Night
★★★★★
(5247)
Skaha wrote:
litesong wrote:
[quote]Skaha wrote: Counteracting the warming effect? I would appreciate it if someone could answer this question because it is really bugging me. Sincerely, Havard
Since this webcyst was started by AGW denier liar whiners, an AGW denier liar whiner will "come forth" (like Lazarus) to confirm your idea & anti-AGW denier liar whining will start all over.... anew.[/quote

It's not my theory, and I doubt climate scientists missed this in their calculations, but I found it strange that no one has mentioned it in their reports. (Of those I've read)
I thought the consensus on this page was in support of human caused global warming.


There are those who believe in 'global warming' and those who don't here.

A debate needs two or more sides.


The Parrot Killer
25-11-2017 05:27
litesong
★★★★★
(2297)
"old sick silly sleepy sleepy sleezy slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner badnight" bluffed: A debate needs two or more sides.
Same thing was babbled (& bluffed) by the smoking-cancer denier lobby (heartless heartland, paid by the cigarette industry), as they tried to make room for mouthy mumblings.... & more babblings. Surprise, surprise! heartless heartland is up to the plate for the oil industry, using the same tactics.




Join the debate Physics of climate change question:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
The Emissivity Question5522-06-2017 23:01
Question1223-05-2017 23:05
Just one simple question3604-01-2017 17:58
Maybe I'll understand you if we take this topic one question at a time?1505-10-2016 13:32
University Physics textbook re the 'greenhouse' effect1921-07-2016 23:58
▲ 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 © 2009-2017 Climate-Debate.com | About | Contact