What would the world be like if every molecule in the atmosphere is a CO2?

spot wrote: I would think warmer although in such a unrealistic scenario the climate would be the least of our problems. What do you think and what do you expect to learn by asking that question?

Tai Hai Chen wrote:
Would it be warmer? Cooler? The same?

Tai Hai Chen wrote:
Venus and Mars both have close to 100% CO2. It can be expected Earth would be intermediate of these two if Earth has 100% CO2 in the air.

Tai Hai Chen wrote:
Would it be warmer? Cooler? The same?

Surface Detail wrote: Obviously there'd be more warming due to increased IR absorption from the high level of CO2

Surface Detail wrote: Obviously there'd be more warming due to increased IR absorption from the high level of CO2

IBdaMann wrote:

Surface Detail wrote: Obviously there'd be more warming due to increased IR absorption from the high level of CO2

...as if that radiation would otherwise not be absorbed.

There would / could NOT be any more solar energy absorbed. It all gets absorbed. You're trying desperately to create additional energy but you keep slamming into the 1st LoT.

Surface Detail wrote: What I keep slamming up against is your apparent inability to comprehend the energy flows involved.

Surface Detail wrote: Let me try another analogy.

Surface Detail wrote: . If I then add insulation to my house, then it will warm ...

Surface Detail wrote: It's just like that with the Earth.

Surface Detail wrote: We have a constant flow of energy in, in the form of shortwave solar radiation,

Surface Detail wrote: . If we then "insulate" the Earth with additional greenhouse gases...

Surface Detail wrote:It obviously didn't help. You don't appear to grasp the concept of an analogy.

Surface Detail wrote:ITell me, do you actually think the 1st LoT makes it impossible for the Earth to be emitting less energy than it is receiving under any circumstances?

Ceist wrote:
Here's an analogy. IBdaMann and Into the Dark are like a little boy who was given a 10,000 piece jigsaw puzzle that when completed would be a complex picture of the earth. The boy took 10 pieces that didn't fit together and arranged them in the rough shape of a squirrel, tossed aside the other 9,990 pieces, then ran to his mummy yelling "Mummy! I solved the puzzle! Look! It's a squirrel! I'm really smart!"

As adults, they are doing the same thing as that little boy, but with science.

They post incessantly on internet forums that all the scientists are wrong and they are right. But their posts are just the equivalent of that little boy shouting "Look! It's a squirrel!"

Of course if anyone tries to explain to them that their 10 pieces don't even fit together and they are missing the other 9,990 pieces, they'll just keep insisting "It's a squirrel! You're just stupid!"

IBdaMann wrote:

Surface Detail wrote:ITell me, do you actually think the 1st LoT makes it impossible for the Earth to be emitting less energy than it is receiving under any circumstances?

That's not what the 1st LoT states. It states that energy can neither be created or destroyed.

Surface Detail wrote:

Ceist wrote:
Here's an analogy. IBdaMann and Into the Dark are like a little boy who was given a 10,000 piece jigsaw puzzle that when completed would be a complex picture of the earth. The boy took 10 pieces that didn't fit together and arranged them in the rough shape of a squirrel, tossed aside the other 9,990 pieces, then ran to his mummy yelling "Mummy! I solved the puzzle! Look! It's a squirrel! I'm really smart!"

As adults, they are doing the same thing as that little boy, but with science.

They post incessantly on internet forums that all the scientists are wrong and they are right. But their posts are just the equivalent of that little boy shouting "Look! It's a squirrel!"

Of course if anyone tries to explain to them that their 10 pieces don't even fit together and they are missing the other 9,990 pieces, they'll just keep insisting "It's a squirrel! You're just stupid!"

That's certainly the impression they'll be giving to anyone who has some understanding of atmospheric science, but we're not their audience.

IBdaMann writes well. His posts are always grammatically correct and he has a persuasive writing style. He is also an extremely active poster and adjusts the style of his writing (humour, abuse) on the fly as he judges fit. I'm sure that he does, in fact, have some understanding of the science but, for whatever reason, chooses to use rhetorical methods to to persuade those without a scientific background that the science is in some way flawed.

Into the Dark, on the other hand, just doesn't seem that bright. He keeps using the same stock phrases ("You've denied you own argument") regardless of applicability, and sometimes obviously loses track completely. And I wish he'd learn that the possessive form of the third person pronoun in English is "its" and not "it's", which is an abbreviation of "it is"!

If I were paying them to deny AGW, I'd give IBdaMann a rise and consider sacking Into the Dark.

Ceist wrote:
Here's an analogy. IBdaMann and Into the Dark are like a little boy who was given a 10,000 piece jigsaw puzzle that when completed would be a complex picture of the earth. The boy took 10 pieces that didn't fit together and arranged them in the rough shape of a squirrel, tossed aside the other 9,990 pieces, then ran to his mummy yelling "Mummy! I solved the puzzle! Look! It's a squirrel! I'm really smart!"

As adults, they are doing the same thing as that little boy, but with science.

They post incessantly on internet forums that all the scientists are wrong and they are right. But their posts are just the equivalent of that little boy shouting "Look! It's a squirrel!"

Of course if anyone tries to explain to them that their 10 pieces don't even fit together and they are missing the other 9,990 pieces, they'll just keep insisting "It's a squirrel! You're just stupid!"

Surface Detail wrote:

Ceist wrote:
CSIEA

That's certainly the impression they'll be giving to anyone who has some understanding of atmospheric science, but we're not their audience.

IBdaMann writes well. His posts are always grammatically correct and he has a persuasive writing style. He is also an extremely active poster and adjusts the style of his writing (humour, abuse) on the fly as he judges fit. I'm sure that he does, in fact, have some understanding of the science but, for whatever reason, chooses to use rhetorical methods to to persuade those without a scientific background that the science is in some way flawed.

Into the Dark, on the other hand, just doesn't seem that bright. He keeps using the same stock phrases ("You've denied you own argument") regardless of applicability, and sometimes obviously loses track completely. And I wish he'd learn that the possessive form of the third person pronoun in English is "its" and not "it's", which is an abbreviation of "it is"!

If I were paying them to deny AGW, I'd give IBdaMann a rise and consider sacking Into the Dark.

Surface Detail wrote:If I were paying them to deny AGW, I'd give IBdaMann a rise and consider sacking Into the Dark.

Surface Detail wrote: Where do you think the greenhouse effect supposes that energy is created or destroyed?

IBdaMann wrote:

Surface Detail wrote: Where do you think the greenhouse effect supposes that energy is created or destroyed?

Did I not answer that question in the immediately previous post, and in many other previous posts?

Nonetheless let's address it again, slowly, step by step.

Step 1. Does "greenhouse effect" involve an increase in temperature?

Tai Hai Chen wrote:

Surface Detail wrote:If I were paying them to deny AGW, I'd give IBdaMann a rise and consider sacking Into the Dark.

rise -> raise

Surface Detail wrote:If I were paying them to deny AGW, I'd give IBdaMann a rise and consider sacking Into the Dark.

Tai Hai Chen wrote:

Surface Detail wrote:If I were paying them to deny AGW, I'd give IBdaMann a rise and consider sacking Into the Dark.

rise -> raise

IBdaMann wrote:

Surface Detail wrote:If I were paying them to deny AGW, I'd give IBdaMann a rise and consider sacking Into the Dark.

I take exception to this. I established myself as the champion "bad guy" of this forum back in the trafn days (Into the Night came in a solid 2nd and Tim the Plumber came in third). Into the Night does not get to usurp just because he addressed a few logical fallacies. The rules on this are pretty straightforward and the standings are listed here:
http://www.climate-debate.com/forum/who-is-who-on-climate-debate-com-d15-e789.php#post_4329



Wait a minute! Are you saying that I could get paid for posting?


.

Into the Night wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

Surface Detail wrote:If I were paying them to deny AGW, I'd give IBdaMann a rise and consider sacking Into the Dark.

I take exception to this. I established myself as the champion "bad guy" of this forum back in the trafn days (Into the Night came in a solid 2nd and Tim the Plumber came in third). Into the Night does not get to usurp just because he addressed a few logical fallacies. The rules on this are pretty straightforward and the standings are listed here:
http://www.climate-debate.com/forum/who-is-who-on-climate-debate-com-d15-e789.php#post_4329



Wait a minute! Are you saying that I could get paid for posting?


.

Rest assured, you can keep first place. Trafn's vote certainly overrides Surface Detail.

After all, it's one thing to be a simple moron vs. the fantastic temper tantrum that Trafn turned into.

It's certainly no surprise my writing style grates on his nerves though, he's English. We haven't used English in America for years.

Surface Detail wrote:It's not your writing style that grates; it's your poor grammar and irrational arguments. You inability to spell the names of scientists (Planck, Kirchhoff) is also a bit annoying.

Into the Night:

It makes no sense to attempt to limit Plank's law to certain chosen exceptions. It applies everywhere...always...all the time
...

This is why Plank's law works. It take more energy to shake the electron faster. If you have no electric field to do it, the temperature of the substance is what does it, regardless of the substance.

...

Your use of radiation in this way violates Plank's law. It also violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics as well as the first.

...

Planck's law applies to all bodies, not just black bodies. It cannot work with a totally black body since there is no light emitted. The only such theoretical body is one at absolute zero.

...

Grey body or black body, it is the same. Nothing changes about the application of Planck's law...ever.

...

Spectra has nothing to do with black body radiation.

...

Planck is talking about absorption, not radiation.

...

Planck's law operates at all times...on all substances...in all cases. Nothing has changed

...

An ideal black body has zero temperature. It is at absolute zero. If it is emitting anything, it is not an ideal black body.

Considering that you can't get this simple concept through your head, you seem to be hopelessly lost.

...

Go back and read Kirchoff's definition again. You will find the only possible ideal black body is one at absolute zero. This was Planck's effective conclusion on Kirchoff's ideal black body.
...

Kirchoff wasn't even talking about radiation or absorption (...)

...

In my opinion, Planck's law is the most solid evidence to date that achieving absolute zero will never be possible. An ideal black (i.e. something that is absolute zero), causes Planck's law to break down, since there is no such thing as a light of zero frequency (direct light, like direct current).

...

Nope. It simply distributes any energy absorbed to surrounding molecules. It is the same temperature as everything else. It therefore emits the same as everything else. This is Planck's law.

...

This is where you screw up. The atmosphere has a temperature. At the surface it is the same as the temperature of the surface. The radiation from the atmosphere at the surface is the same as the surface temperature. The color shifts further red due to loss of temperature as you rise in altitude (up to the tropopause). No 'greenhouse' gas changes that at all. The color of emission is the same for all components of the atmosphere since it is not dependent on the composition of any one component. You are making 'greenhouse' gases a magick substance this way.

IBdaMann wrote:

I understand Planck's Law very well
...

First, Planck's Radiation Law is about radiation, not about absorption.
Second, this is another point of disagreement between us. I think all matter, even a single molecule, radiates per Planck's Law.
...

If so, do you think Global Warming will falsify Planck's law and require it to be discarded? (that's the one that says the planet's radiation is based solely on temperature and not on any substance's ability to prevent/restrict/modify/block/trap/hinder/reduce thermal radiation)
...

No substance can affect thermal radiation. Temperature is the only determinant.
...

Temperature drives thermal radiation, not the other way around.
...

Nope. Planck's Law is more general. A body's radiation is dependent upon it's temperature. You should focus on "temperature" being the independent variable and the "radiation" being the dependent variable
...

Yes, because according to Planck's Law, temperature is the independent variable controlling radiation, so naturally the earth is radiating more energy into space now than when it was cooler, and it is now radiating less energy into space than it did when it was warmer.

You should focus on "temperature" being the independent variable, and atmospheric composition (e.g. amount of CO2, amount of water vapor, amount of methane, et. al.) is not even a factor.
...

In our discussions I believe I indicated that earth's thermal radiation adheres to Planck's Law which renders it independent of atmospheric composition (assuming the atmosphere remains equivalently transparent to visible light).
...

No substance can "trap" thermal radiation. Insulation, clothing, etc.. all work in conduction/convection. Planck's Law applies here. Temperature is the sole determinant of thermal radiation; particular substance or atmospheric composition plays no role and has no effect.

Yes, Planck's Law applies right here. It blows a gaping hole in most "greenhouse effect" versions.
Temperature is the sole determinant of thermal radiation, both strength and frequency. As you heat metal, the frequency of the thermal radiation will increase until it rises above the infrared and rises into red, thus glowing red.
...

Every substance has its own unique EM absorption signature, along with its own unique EM reflection signature.
All EM energy that is absorbed, regardless of frequency, is converted to thermal energy.
All EM energy that is reflected, regardless of frequency, ceases to be a factor.
...

it does not matter the frequency of the electromagnetic energy that is absorbed.
...

I forgot to mention that you need to review thermal convection and thermal radiation. You are conflating the two. The blanket imagery applies to convection and conduction but thermal radiation is governed by temperature according to Planck's Law. No substance has any magical superpower to regulate thermal radiation outside of Planck's Law. Nothing can act like a thermal radiation "blanket."
...

...but no, the warmer lower atmosphere vs. the cooler upper atmosphere is simply a result of Ideal Gas Law, with the weight of the upper atmosphere weighing down the lower atmopshere and thus compressing it to a higher atmopsheric pressure, thus rendering more atmospheric mass per volume, and thus more thermal energy per volume in the lower atmosphere than in the upper atmosphere.

Gases at the very top of the atmopshere, although potentially as hot as the daytime surface of the moon, would nonetheless "feel" cold because there is "so little of it" (being under virtually zero atmospheric pressure), thus having so very little thermal energy per unit volume.
...

False. I don't know what you consider to be "greenhouse gas" but if you were to swap out the earth's atmosphere for one of equivalent mass that is strictly 79% nitrogen and 21% oxygen, the earth's surface would not be like the moon's. In fact, nothing would change temperature-wise if all the "greenhouse gas" were removed.
...

Earth, as a body, radiates per its temperature. Earth's atmosphere radiates per its temperature. Check Planck's Radiation Law. All things radiate per their temperature per Planck's Radiation Law.

So when someone like you implies that earth's atmosphere somehow radiates differently because of a change in material composition, you are implying that earth's atmospheric radiation is determined by something other than just temperature, which implies that earth's atmosphere does not radiate per Planck's Law.
...

earth's atmosphere radiates according to Planck's Law
...

As I explained to you, what CO2, or any substance for that matter, absorbs is a function of its absorption signature, and what is emitted is a function of its temperature, specifically Planck's Law.

Ceist wrote:
And here are some examples of IBdaMned's incorrect statements based on his poor understanding, despite him claiming to "understand Planck's Law very well"

IBdaMann wrote:

I understand Planck's Law very well
...

First, Planck's Radiation Law is about radiation, not about absorption.
Second, this is another point of disagreement between us. I think all matter, even a single molecule, radiates per Planck's Law.
...

If so, do you think Global Warming will falsify Planck's law and require it to be discarded? (that's the one that says the planet's radiation is based solely on temperature and not on any substance's ability to prevent/restrict/modify/block/trap/hinder/reduce thermal radiation)
...

No substance can affect thermal radiation. Temperature is the only determinant.
...

Temperature drives thermal radiation, not the other way around.
...

Nope. Planck's Law is more general. A body's radiation is dependent upon it's temperature. You should focus on "temperature" being the independent variable and the "radiation" being the dependent variable
...

Yes, because according to Planck's Law, temperature is the independent variable controlling radiation, so naturally the earth is radiating more energy into space now than when it was cooler, and it is now radiating less energy into space than it did when it was warmer.

You should focus on "temperature" being the independent variable, and atmospheric composition (e.g. amount of CO2, amount of water vapor, amount of methane, et. al.) is not even a factor.
...

In our discussions I believe I indicated that earth's thermal radiation adheres to Planck's Law which renders it independent of atmospheric composition (assuming the atmosphere remains equivalently transparent to visible light).
...

No substance can "trap" thermal radiation. Insulation, clothing, etc.. all work in conduction/convection. Planck's Law applies here. Temperature is the sole determinant of thermal radiation; particular substance or atmospheric composition plays no role and has no effect.

Yes, Planck's Law applies right here. It blows a gaping hole in most "greenhouse effect" versions.
Temperature is the sole determinant of thermal radiation, both strength and frequency. As you heat metal, the frequency of the thermal radiation will increase until it rises above the infrared and rises into red, thus glowing red.
...

Every substance has its own unique EM absorption signature, along with its own unique EM reflection signature.
All EM energy that is absorbed, regardless of frequency, is converted to thermal energy.
All EM energy that is reflected, regardless of frequency, ceases to be a factor.
...

it does not matter the frequency of the electromagnetic energy that is absorbed.
...

I forgot to mention that you need to review thermal convection and thermal radiation. You are conflating the two. The blanket imagery applies to convection and conduction but thermal radiation is governed by temperature according to Planck's Law. No substance has any magical superpower to regulate thermal radiation outside of Planck's Law. Nothing can act like a thermal radiation "blanket."
...

...but no, the warmer lower atmosphere vs. the cooler upper atmosphere is simply a result of Ideal Gas Law, with the weight of the upper atmosphere weighing down the lower atmopshere and thus compressing it to a higher atmopsheric pressure, thus rendering more atmospheric mass per volume, and thus more thermal energy per volume in the lower atmosphere than in the upper atmosphere.

Gases at the very top of the atmopshere, although potentially as hot as the daytime surface of the moon, would nonetheless "feel" cold because there is "so little of it" (being under virtually zero atmospheric pressure), thus having so very little thermal energy per unit volume.
...

False. I don't know what you consider to be "greenhouse gas" but if you were to swap out the earth's atmosphere for one of equivalent mass that is strictly 79% nitrogen and 21% oxygen, the earth's surface would not be like the moon's. In fact, nothing would change temperature-wise if all the "greenhouse gas" were removed.
...

Earth, as a body, radiates per its temperature. Earth's atmosphere radiates per its temperature. Check Planck's Radiation Law. All things radiate per their temperature per Planck's Radiation Law.

So when someone like you implies that earth's atmosphere somehow radiates differently because of a change in material composition, you are implying that earth's atmospheric radiation is determined by something other than just temperature, which implies that earth's atmosphere does not radiate per Planck's Law.
...

earth's atmosphere radiates according to Planck's Law
...

As I explained to you, what CO2, or any substance for that matter, absorbs is a function of its absorption signature, and what is emitted is a function of its temperature, specifically Planck's Law.

Surface Detail wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

Surface Detail wrote:ITell me, do you actually think the 1st LoT makes it impossible for the Earth to be emitting less energy than it is receiving under any circumstances?

That's not what the 1st LoT states. It states that energy can neither be created or destroyed.

I know what the 1st LoT states. The problem is that you seem to think that the greenhouse effect violates it in some way. Where do you think the greenhouse effect supposes that energy is created or destroyed? Do you think the 1st LoT makes it impossible for the Earth to be emitting less energy than it is receiving under any circumstances?

One Punch Man wrote:

Surface Detail wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

Surface Detail wrote:ITell me, do you actually think the 1st LoT makes it impossible for the Earth to be emitting less energy than it is receiving under any circumstances?

That's not what the 1st LoT states. It states that energy can neither be created or destroyed.

I know what the 1st LoT states. The problem is that you seem to think that the greenhouse effect violates it in some way. Where do you think the greenhouse effect supposes that energy is created or destroyed? Do you think the 1st LoT makes it impossible for the Earth to be emitting less energy than it is receiving under any circumstances?

Venus is proof that a planet can radiate more energy than it receives from the Sun alone. Venus is radiating at 17,000 W/m2 and yet the measured and calculated top-of-atmosphere (TOA) solar isolation is around 2600 W/m2. Whether this is due to the greenhouse or pressure, whatever the case may be, the planet is still radiating more energy that it gets from solar radiation. Also the average temperature in a desert is lower than a tropical rain-forest and probably the biggest difference between these two environments is water vapour. Just thought I'd point that out once again.

Surface Detail wrote: Although the surface of Venus radiates at about 17,000 W/m2, only a small fraction of that energy actually makes it out into space

One Punch Man wrote: Venus is proof that a planet can radiate more energy than it receives from the Sun alone.

One Punch Man wrote: Venus is radiating at 17,000 W/m2 and yet the measured and calculated top-of-atmosphere (TOA) solar isolation is around 2600 W/m2.

IBdaMann wrote:

Surface Detail wrote: Although the surface of Venus radiates at about 17,000 W/m2, only a small fraction of that energy actually makes it out into space

This is absurd. According to you, the atmosphere is continually accumulating energy at an incredible rate, and has been for as long as Venus has had its atmosphere.

Your statement is false. All the energy radiating from the surface of Venus drains off into space. Yes, it passes through the atmosphere but it does go into space.

One Punch Man wrote:

Surface Detail wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

Surface Detail wrote:ITell me, do you actually think the 1st LoT makes it impossible for the Earth to be emitting less energy than it is receiving under any circumstances?

That's not what the 1st LoT states. It states that energy can neither be created or destroyed.

I know what the 1st LoT states. The problem is that you seem to think that the greenhouse effect violates it in some way. Where do you think the greenhouse effect supposes that energy is created or destroyed? Do you think the 1st LoT makes it impossible for the Earth to be emitting less energy than it is receiving under any circumstances?

Venus is proof that a planet can radiate more energy than it receives from the Sun alone. Venus is radiating at 17,000 W/m2 and yet the measured and calculated top-of-atmosphere (TOA) solar isolation is around 2600 W/m2. Whether this is due to the greenhouse or pressure, whatever the case may be, the planet is still radiating more energy that it gets from solar radiation. Also the average temperature in a desert is lower than a tropical rain-forest and probably the biggest difference between these two environments is water vapour. Just thought I'd point that out once again.

Surface Detail wrote:

One Punch Man wrote:

Surface Detail wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

Surface Detail wrote:ITell me, do you actually think the 1st LoT makes it impossible for the Earth to be emitting less energy than it is receiving under any circumstances?

That's not what the 1st LoT states. It states that energy can neither be created or destroyed.

I know what the 1st LoT states. The problem is that you seem to think that the greenhouse effect violates it in some way. Where do you think the greenhouse effect supposes that energy is created or destroyed? Do you think the 1st LoT makes it impossible for the Earth to be emitting less energy than it is receiving under any circumstances?

Venus is proof that a planet can radiate more energy than it receives from the Sun alone. Venus is radiating at 17,000 W/m2 and yet the measured and calculated top-of-atmosphere (TOA) solar isolation is around 2600 W/m2. Whether this is due to the greenhouse or pressure, whatever the case may be, the planet is still radiating more energy that it gets from solar radiation. Also the average temperature in a desert is lower than a tropical rain-forest and probably the biggest difference between these two environments is water vapour. Just thought I'd point that out once again.

Although the surface of Venus radiates at about 17,000 W/m2, only a small fraction of that energy actually makes it out into space (just enough to balance what it receives from the sun). Most of the emitted radiation is returned to the surface as back radiation by Venus's monster CO2 atmosphere. It's the mother of all greenhouse effects!

Surface Detail wrote:What you are proposing is absurd. How could Venus be emitting far more energy than it receives from the sun?