Remember me
▼ Content

Why would an atmosphere made of O2 not trap heat?


Why would an atmosphere made of O2 not trap heat?07-01-2019 04:14
Tai Hai Chen
★★★★☆
(1013)
Why would O2 not trap heat and how would scientists know O2 does not trap heat?
07-01-2019 06:13
still learning
★★☆☆☆
(244)
Tai Hai Chen wrote:
... how would scientists know O2 does not trap heat?


Measurement.

"Trap heat" isn't a very good phrase, isn't actually possible. Look up the strict physical meaning of the word "heat."

The absorbance of electromagnetic radiation by gasses can be, has been measured. Absorbance varies according to the Beer-Lambert law. Also varies with the kind of gas and the wavelength of the electromagnetic radiation. You know from the evidence of your own eyes that visible light is little absorbed by atmospheric gasses. Infra-red, not visible to the human eye, is strongly absorbed at some wavelengths by some gas molecules such as water vapor and carbon dioxide. This can be measured. The more abundant atmospheric gasses nitrogen and oxygen don't strongly absorb infra-red. This too can be measured. John Tyndall made some of these measurements in the 1850's. Others since.

As to the why of one gas absorbing infra-red and not another, has to do with something called a "dipole moment" interacting with the electric fields of photons. Try a chemistry textbook.
07-01-2019 19:40
Wake
★★★★★
(4012)
Tai Hai Chen wrote:
Why would O2 not trap heat and how would scientists know O2 does not trap heat?


What occurs is that the Sun radiates heat onto the Earth. The surfaces upon which visible light falls absorb the energy and warm to the lower infrared heat bands. These in turn do not radiate heat but rather conduct it though the atmosphere.

Radiation goes at the speed of light whereas conduction is very slow. So the atmosphere can't be said to "absorb" heat so much as slow the transfer of it down.

The absorption bands of O2 is in the ultraviolet and hence there is no absorption of outgoing radiation which is in the low infrared. It is the average water vapor content of the Earth's atmosphere of about 3% that is catching the Earth's radiation and turning it into molecular vibrations - conduction where the heat is transferred not by radiation but from the energy in a molecule causing the molecule to bounce around and transfer energy by running into other molecules. Conduction acts pretty much equally on all molecules O2 and N2 alike. Here is a descent article on it if you ignore anything that says that "greenhouse gases" are important - they are not.

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


Here is a chart of the energy transfers of visable and infrared radiations:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Absorption_band#/media/File:Atmospheric_Transmission.png
08-01-2019 18:02
Into the Night
★★★★★
(7643)
Wake wrote:
Tai Hai Chen wrote:
Why would O2 not trap heat and how would scientists know O2 does not trap heat?


What occurs is that the Sun radiates heat onto the Earth. The surfaces upon which visible light falls absorb the energy and warm to the lower infrared heat bands. These in turn do not radiate heat but rather conduct it though the atmosphere.

Visible light does not cause much heating at all, Wake. It is the infrared light from the Sun that causes heating.
Wake wrote:
Radiation goes at the speed of light whereas conduction is very slow. So the atmosphere can't be said to "absorb" heat so much as slow the transfer of it down.

Absorption of light occurs everywhere, Wake. It isn't limited to just the atmosphere. Most of the warming of Earth is by absorption directly by the the surface. See the Stefan-Boltzmann law.
Wake wrote:
The absorption bands of O2 is in the ultraviolet and hence there is no absorption of outgoing radiation which is in the low infrared.

This is correct. The Earth does not emit much UV light.
Wake wrote:
It is the average water vapor content of the Earth's atmosphere of about 3% that is catching the Earth's radiation and turning it into molecular vibrations -

WRONG. Everything on Earth absorbs infrared light, Wake. The surface absorbs most of it...not the atmosphere.
Wake wrote:
Conduction acts pretty much equally on all molecules O2 and N2 alike.

Irrelevant. Absorption of infrared light is what heats the atmosphere, the surface including the oceans, etc. The surface is warmer than the atmosphere is, Wake. You can't make heat flow backwards. See the 2nd law of thermodynamics.
Wake wrote:
...deleted Holy Link...

Here is a chart of the energy transfers of visable and infrared radiations:

...deleted Holy Link...

This chart, while generally useful for describing the frequencies involved, is still wrong. The amount of light that Earth emits is far weaker than the amount of light the Sun emits that happens to intersect Earth.

The mistake you are making (yet again) is that not all of the light from the Sun is absorbed. Most of it reflected. Again, see the Stefan-Boltzmann law. The emissivity of Earth is unknown. The value for emissivity is the same as absorptivity. The inverse of these values is known as the albedo.

None of these values are known.


The Parrot Killer
08-01-2019 18:03
Into the Night
★★★★★
(7643)
Tai Hai Chen wrote:
Why would O2 not trap heat and how would scientists know O2 does not trap heat?


For the simple reason that it's not possible to slow or trap heat.


The Parrot Killer
08-01-2019 18:06
Into the Night
★★★★★
(7643)
still learning wrote:
Tai Hai Chen wrote:
... how would scientists know O2 does not trap heat?


Measurement.

"Trap heat" isn't a very good phrase, isn't actually possible. Look up the strict physical meaning of the word "heat."

The absorbance of electromagnetic radiation by gasses can be, has been measured. Absorbance varies according to the Beer-Lambert law. Also varies with the kind of gas and the wavelength of the electromagnetic radiation. You know from the evidence of your own eyes that visible light is little absorbed by atmospheric gasses. Infra-red, not visible to the human eye, is strongly absorbed at some wavelengths by some gas molecules such as water vapor and carbon dioxide. This can be measured. The more abundant atmospheric gasses nitrogen and oxygen don't strongly absorb infra-red. This too can be measured. John Tyndall made some of these measurements in the 1850's. Others since.

As to the why of one gas absorbing infra-red and not another, has to do with something called a "dipole moment" interacting with the electric fields of photons. Try a chemistry textbook.


Generally correct. It is also important to remember that infrared light is a very wide band of energy. Only a few narrow bands of light are absorbed by things like CO2 or water, and only when the molecule has less energy than the photon itself.


The Parrot Killer
08-01-2019 19:20
Wake
★★★★★
(4012)
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
What occurs is that the Sun radiates heat onto the Earth. The surfaces upon which visible light falls absorb the energy and warm to the lower infrared heat bands. These in turn do not radiate heat but rather conduct it though the atmosphere.

Visible light does not cause much heating at all, Wake. It is the infrared light from the Sun that causes heating.
Wake wrote:
Radiation goes at the speed of light whereas conduction is very slow. So the atmosphere can't be said to "absorb" heat so much as slow the transfer of it down.

Absorption of light occurs everywhere, Wake. It isn't limited to just the atmosphere. Most of the warming of Earth is by absorption directly by the the surface. See the Stefan-Boltzmann law.
Wake wrote:
The absorption bands of O2 is in the ultraviolet and hence there is no absorption of outgoing radiation which is in the low infrared.

This is correct. The Earth does not emit much UV light.
Wake wrote:
It is the average water vapor content of the Earth's atmosphere of about 3% that is catching the Earth's radiation and turning it into molecular vibrations -

WRONG. Everything on Earth absorbs infrared light, Wake. The surface absorbs most of it...not the atmosphere.
Wake wrote:
Conduction acts pretty much equally on all molecules O2 and N2 alike.

Irrelevant. Absorption of infrared light is what heats the atmosphere, the surface including the oceans, etc. The surface is warmer than the atmosphere is, Wake. You can't make heat flow backwards. See the 2nd law of thermodynamics.
Wake wrote:
...deleted Holy Link...

Here is a chart of the energy transfers of visable and infrared radiations:

...deleted Holy Link...

This chart, while generally useful for describing the frequencies involved, is still wrong. The amount of light that Earth emits is far weaker than the amount of light the Sun emits that happens to intersect Earth.

The mistake you are making (yet again) is that not all of the light from the Sun is absorbed. Most of it reflected. Again, see the Stefan-Boltzmann law. The emissivity of Earth is unknown. The value for emissivity is the same as absorptivity. The inverse of these values is known as the albedo.

None of these values are known.

At what point are you going to realize just how stupid you are? Visible light has more energy in it than IR. Why do you suppose the SUN emits most of it's energy in the visible range stupid?

This means that any surface that does not reflect visible light gets MORE energy from that than the lower energy IR moron.

Why do you continue to repeat "Stefan-Boltzmann" when you do not understand what it means? Yes stupid - energy that is not reflected is absorbed. And 30% is reflected back into space via one form or another.

The average albedo of the Earth is known. All you have to do is use visible light detectors pointed towards the Earth from satellites and since the Earth emits only in the middle and lower IR any visible light is reflected from the Earth giving you the albedo.

I really cannot understand just how stupid you are. And you are entirely incapable of understanding the very problems you are telling us can't be solved when they've been solved more than 100 years ago.
09-01-2019 19:05
Into the Night
★★★★★
(7643)
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
What occurs is that the Sun radiates heat onto the Earth. The surfaces upon which visible light falls absorb the energy and warm to the lower infrared heat bands. These in turn do not radiate heat but rather conduct it though the atmosphere.

Visible light does not cause much heating at all, Wake. It is the infrared light from the Sun that causes heating.
Wake wrote:
Radiation goes at the speed of light whereas conduction is very slow. So the atmosphere can't be said to "absorb" heat so much as slow the transfer of it down.

Absorption of light occurs everywhere, Wake. It isn't limited to just the atmosphere. Most of the warming of Earth is by absorption directly by the the surface. See the Stefan-Boltzmann law.
Wake wrote:
The absorption bands of O2 is in the ultraviolet and hence there is no absorption of outgoing radiation which is in the low infrared.

This is correct. The Earth does not emit much UV light.
Wake wrote:
It is the average water vapor content of the Earth's atmosphere of about 3% that is catching the Earth's radiation and turning it into molecular vibrations -

WRONG. Everything on Earth absorbs infrared light, Wake. The surface absorbs most of it...not the atmosphere.
Wake wrote:
Conduction acts pretty much equally on all molecules O2 and N2 alike.

Irrelevant. Absorption of infrared light is what heats the atmosphere, the surface including the oceans, etc. The surface is warmer than the atmosphere is, Wake. You can't make heat flow backwards. See the 2nd law of thermodynamics.
Wake wrote:
...deleted Holy Link...

Here is a chart of the energy transfers of visable and infrared radiations:

...deleted Holy Link...

This chart, while generally useful for describing the frequencies involved, is still wrong. The amount of light that Earth emits is far weaker than the amount of light the Sun emits that happens to intersect Earth.

The mistake you are making (yet again) is that not all of the light from the Sun is absorbed. Most of it reflected. Again, see the Stefan-Boltzmann law. The emissivity of Earth is unknown. The value for emissivity is the same as absorptivity. The inverse of these values is known as the albedo.

None of these values are known.

At what point are you going to realize just how stupid you are?

Insult fallacy.
Wake wrote:
Visible light has more energy in it than IR.

True, But there is less total energy in the visible light bands than in the infrared light bands.
Wake wrote:
Why do you suppose the SUN emits most of it's energy in the visible range stupid?

It doesn't. Most light emitted from the Sun is infrared light.
Wake wrote:
This means that any surface that does not reflect visible light gets MORE energy from that than the lower energy IR moron.

Absorption of visible light does not generally cause conversion to thermal energy. It mostly converts to triggering chemical reactions.
Wake wrote:
Why do you continue to repeat "Stefan-Boltzmann" when you do not understand what it means?

I know exactly what it means. YOU keep trying to change it. It is YOU that is denying the Stefan-Boltzmann law.
Wake wrote:
Yes stupid - energy that is not reflected is absorbed.

The effect of that absorption is also important. Only infrared light generally causes conversion to thermal energy.
Wake wrote:
And 30% is reflected back into space via one form or another.

The emissivity of Earth is unknown.
Wake wrote:
The average albedo of the Earth is known.

Nope. It's not possible to measure it.
Wake wrote:
All you have to do is use visible light detectors pointed towards the Earth from satellites and since the Earth emits only in the middle and lower IR any visible light is reflected from the Earth giving you the albedo.

That doesn't give you the albedo. You don't know what light has been reflected, or absorbed than emitted.
Wake wrote:
I really cannot understand just how stupid you are.

Insult fallacy.
Wake wrote:
And you are entirely incapable of understanding the very problems you are telling us can't be solved when they've been solved more than 100 years ago.

What problems are that?

We can't measure the temperature of the Earth. It is not possible. We don't have enough thermometers to even begin a sensible statistical analysis.

We can't measure global ocean levels to any accuracy better than dozens of feet. We have no valid reference point.

We can't measure the albedo of Earth. We don't know it's temperature.

We DO know that CO2 is not capable of warming the Earth by using surface IR.
We also know that no gas or vapor has this capability.


The Parrot Killer
09-01-2019 23:09
HarveyH55
★★★☆☆
(592)
I wonder how much influence light from other suns, outside our solar system, influence the Earth. Everything out there is moving around, some of them must get closer occasionally. True, they are very far off, but there is nothing in space to stop the light, we see them as stars at night, so light reaches us, some of it ought to be infrared, right? I know, it's not enough to worry about, discount it, like so many other things. But, there are a lot of stars out there, just can't help but think some of their energy makes it out this way, must add something.
10-01-2019 00:26
Wake
★★★★★
(4012)
HarveyH55 wrote:
I wonder how much influence light from other suns, outside our solar system, influence the Earth. Everything out there is moving around, some of them must get closer occasionally. True, they are very far off, but there is nothing in space to stop the light, we see them as stars at night, so light reaches us, some of it ought to be infrared, right? I know, it's not enough to worry about, discount it, like so many other things. But, there are a lot of stars out there, just can't help but think some of their energy makes it out this way, must add something.


Uh, think about this - The Sun at it's zenith, the amount of sunlight that reaches the ground is about 1130 Watts/meter^2.

Mars is quite close at about only 1.7 AU and the energy upon Mar's surface is only 590 W/m^2.

Neptune is our outer planet and the solar radiation hitting its surface is only 1.55 W/m^2. Neptune is around 30 astronomical units from the Sun this is a distance of 5.5 million miles from the Sun.

The closest star is Alpha Centauri which is 4.3 light years from our Sun. This is a distance of about 26 Trillion miles or about 5 million times as far from our Sun as Neptune is.

So, no, other stars have no effect on the Sun except their gravitation which causes deviations on our orbit around the galactic center.
10-01-2019 11:24
HarveyH55
★★★☆☆
(592)
Pretty much what I expected, only man-made CO2 can create enough energy to heat the planet at such an alarming rate...
10-01-2019 19:16
Into the Night
★★★★★
(7643)
HarveyH55 wrote:
I wonder how much influence light from other suns, outside our solar system, influence the Earth. Everything out there is moving around, some of them must get closer occasionally. True, they are very far off, but there is nothing in space to stop the light, we see them as stars at night, so light reaches us, some of it ought to be infrared, right? I know, it's not enough to worry about, discount it, like so many other things. But, there are a lot of stars out there, just can't help but think some of their energy makes it out this way, must add something.


It's pretty insignificant. It helps to light up the sky at night, for example, but very little energy that affects Earth comes out of other stars. They are just too far away.


The Parrot Killer
10-01-2019 20:10
Wake
★★★★★
(4012)
HarveyH55 wrote:
Pretty much what I expected, only man-made CO2 can create enough energy to heat the planet at such an alarming rate...


I don't know where that is coming from - CO2 cannot "create" any energy. It can only transmit it from someplace else. What's more, in the wavelengths at which CO2 absorbs there is very little energy. At about 250 ppm CO2 has absorbed all of the energy in it's absorption bands that it can. So there is no change in heat transfer at 250 ppm no matter how much CO2 you add. During the last real Ice Age the CO2 in the atmosphere was 5,000 ppm.
10-01-2019 23:28
HarveyH55
★★★☆☆
(592)
5,000 ppm? Wonder how they figured that one, ice core samples?

Anyway, we can see stars at night, visible light, figure they must radiate infrared as well, and there a billions, and billions of stars, which are Suns, not all exactly like ours, some much bigger, more active. Ours goes through hot and cooler cycles, so others probably do as well. One distant sun might be no big deal, but billions of them, adding just a little, some times a lot. Just something, nobody really study much, and it doesn't help the global warming cause.

I'm really not concerned about the planet, it's done fine for a very long time, no reason to believe it's not going to do well for much longer. I'd just like to see this whole political mess put to rest soon, starting to get annoying...
11-01-2019 19:18
Into the Night
★★★★★
(7643)
Wake wrote:
HarveyH55 wrote:
Pretty much what I expected, only man-made CO2 can create enough energy to heat the planet at such an alarming rate...


I don't know where that is coming from - CO2 cannot "create" any energy.

Then why are you saying it can??? WTF???
Wake wrote:
It can only transmit it from someplace else. What's more, in the wavelengths at which CO2 absorbs there is very little energy.

Infrared light from the Sun has plenty of energy, Wake. Energy is due not only to frequency, but intensity as well.
Wake wrote:
At about 250 ppm CO2 has absorbed all of the energy in it's absorption bands that it can.

WRONG. Any closed container of CO2 with infrared light showing through it can show you to be wrong.
Wake wrote:
So there is no change in heat transfer at 250 ppm no matter how much CO2 you add.

WRONG. CO2 is heated by the Sun, just like everything else, Wake.
Wake wrote:
During the last real Ice Age the CO2 in the atmosphere was 5,000 ppm.

It is not possible to measure the global atmospheric CO2. It wasn't possible then, either. Ice is permeable to CO2. They are not a valid proxy and they are only a few dozen sites as well.


The Parrot Killer
11-01-2019 19:25
Into the Night
★★★★★
(7643)
HarveyH55 wrote:
5,000 ppm? Wonder how they figured that one, ice core samples?

Yes...this is their claim. Ice cores, however, can show neither CO2 content nor the temperature of the Earth at any given time. Ice is permeable to CO2, and the few sites collected do not show global anything.
HarveyH55 wrote:
Anyway, we can see stars at night, visible light, figure they must radiate infrared as well, and there a billions, and billions of stars, which are Suns, not all exactly like ours, some much bigger, more active. Ours goes through hot and cooler cycles, so others probably do as well. One distant sun might be no big deal, but billions of them, adding just a little, some times a lot. Just something, nobody really study much, and it doesn't help the global warming cause.

The intensity of light decreases with the square of the distance. This includes infrared light. The contribution of infrared by stars is insignificant. Relative to the stars, the Earth itself is a far brighter source of infrared light.
HarveyH55 wrote:
I'm really not concerned about the planet, it's done fine for a very long time, no reason to believe it's not going to do well for much longer. I'd just like to see this whole political mess put to rest soon, starting to get annoying...

Crap 'science' has been around for thousands of years. People using it manipulate others and to control them have also been around for thousands of years.

This is nothing new, nor will it go away. Eventually, people wise up to the crap science (in this case many already are beginning to). They know something is wrong with this 'science' and are also beginning to realize it's a religion. They can't quite put their finger on what, but they know something is wrong with it.

That's the good news.

The bad news is that the Church of Karl Marx is getting more and more vocal about pushing it's cause. Also those that believe in the Church of Global Warming, like any fundamentalists when their religion is threatened, are starting to become more fanatical (and dangerous).


The Parrot Killer
Edited on 11-01-2019 19:28




Join the debate Why would an atmosphere made of O2 not trap heat?:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
What makes IPCC thinks CO2 is better than O2 at trapping heat?028-04-2019 15:40
Heat7119-04-2019 23:53
Ocean heat sources419-04-2019 23:21
What makes IPCC thinks N2, O2, O3 are not as good at capturing and retaining heat than CO2 can?218-04-2019 20:57
Considering O2, N2, O3 absorb more than 99% of incoming shortwave radiation, which is far more powerful118-04-2019 19:31
▲ 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