Remember me
▼ Content

excessive heat creation factor



Page 1 of 212>
excessive heat creation factor31-01-2017 23:38
bfoster
☆☆☆☆☆
(10)
It appears that the entire global warming problem is being blamed on co2 emissions. To assume that the problem is only being caused by a single factor is tantamount to a form of single-minded science. I offer another factor, which I submit is involved, and which lends itself to strong possibilities in our effort to get the problem under control. It does not take a rocket scientist to observe that planet earth has both, a heating cycle and a cooling cycle, which repeats every 24 hours. Man, in his constant quest for security has succeeded in illuminating the inhabited parts of the planet to considerable excess during the hours of the cooling cycle. If the illumination were all that were done, no big deal. But the process requires a great deal of energy, which in turn produces great quantities of heat, thus somewhat impeding the cooling process. There needs to be inquiries into the degree that this factor adds to the overall problem. In addition the degree of a ratcheting effect, that adds to the temperature increases should be analyzed.
01-02-2017 22:19
Tim the plumber
★★★★☆
(1295)
No.

The total energy output for all human activity is trivial in comparison with the energy levels of the natural world.

Edited on 01-02-2017 22:19
02-02-2017 00:52
still learning
★★☆☆☆
(244)
"There needs to be inquiries into the degree that this factor adds to the overall problem."

You aren't the first person to wonder about this.

Quoting from a Wikipedia article: "The total solar energy absorbed by Earth's atmosphere, oceans and land masses is approximately 3,850,000 exajoules (EJ) per year.[10] In 2002, this was more energy in one hour than the world used in one year." (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_energy )

More energy from the Sun in one hour than the world uses in one year, says the article. Human energy consumption is less than 0.02% of insolation, of what the Sun delivers.

Geothermal energy isn't much either compared to insolation. From another Wikipedia article: "Despite its geological significance, this heat energy coming from Earth's interior is actually only 0.03% of Earth's total energy budget at the surface, which is dominated by 173,000 TW of incoming solar radiation." (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth%27s_internal_heat_budget )

Don't care for Wikipedia? You should be able to google other sources. Might start with the IEA for world energy consumption, can find lots of sources for insolation.
02-02-2017 01:05
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
The total energy usage by man is somewhere around 110,000 Trillion Watt Hours per year. The emissions from the Sun striking the earth are about that high in one hour or in simple terms the sum total of man's addition of what ends up to be waste heat to the Earth is about 0.0002% per year.
02-02-2017 01:13
bfoster
☆☆☆☆☆
(10)
I am inclined to think that your reply may be a bit quick, in that a full moon is said to raise the earth's temperature by .02 degrees for a short interim. If this should be a fact, then it is apparent that the earth's temperature is very susceptible to changes due to very slight phenomena. I find it interesting that you so easily dismiss the premise I have proposed. The production of our electrical energy is only a small part of the heat factor I have in mind. If we consider the heat generated by the prodigious number of distribution transformers operating during our dark cycle, it should be clearly evident that we are adding a considerable burden upon the planet's ability to dissipate the heat. Please bear in mind that the ability to dissipate heat from our surface is to be considered something of a fixed constant. And the disparity that may exist between heat production and heat dissipation could be adding greatly to the problem. This is the reason I have suggested the possibility that a ratcheting effect may also be creating even more problems. Thanks for your reply.
02-02-2017 01:31
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
bfoster wrote:
I am inclined to think that your reply may be a bit quick, in that a full moon is said to raise the earth's temperature by .02 degrees for a short interim. If this should be a fact, then it is apparent that the earth's temperature is very susceptible to changes due to very slight phenomena. I find it interesting that you so easily dismiss the premise I have proposed. The production of our electrical energy is only a small part of the heat factor I have in mind. If we consider the heat generated by the prodigious number of distribution transformers operating during our dark cycle, it should be clearly evident that we are adding a considerable burden upon the planet's ability to dissipate the heat. Please bear in mind that the ability to dissipate heat from our surface is to be considered something of a fixed constant. And the disparity that may exist between heat production and heat dissipation could be adding greatly to the problem. This is the reason I have suggested the possibility that a ratcheting effect may also be creating even more problems. Thanks for your reply.


Wouldn't you think that suggests that the reflection of the Sun off of the Moon's surface radiating back on the Earth is the same amount of energy in a couple hour period as man makes in an entire year?

So exactly what do you mean by "very slight phenomena"?
02-02-2017 02:34
bfoster
☆☆☆☆☆
(10)
I am simply suggesting that the problem that exists may only be that the earth's cooling capacity is no longer sufficient to dissipate all the heat which is being created, regardless of the source of the heat. I am a retired master electrician and all too aware of the amount of heat produced by a single distribution transformer. Incidentally, all transformers produce considerable heat even when they are not operating under a load. Additionally they are so widely dispersed in our world that they quite likely present something of a single heat source in major cities. That the blanket effect of greenhouse gases further adds to the problem can not be denied. It appears to me that we are experiencing a duality of factors, and we are up against a bit of a conundrum, and likely will have to make some tradeoff decisions. The use of low energy requirement LED lighting for our streets will go a long way for starters, since they do not use the energy to operate, nor do they produce the heat of operation that current lights do. I opine that the various means of power production do not produce nearly the amounts of heat that the devices being powered, en masse, do. Again, the heat, itself, and the means of dissipating it, given earth's obvious limitations, are the core problems. Thanks for the reply
02-02-2017 03:20
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
bfoster wrote:
I am simply suggesting that the problem that exists may only be that the earth's cooling capacity is no longer sufficient to dissipate all the heat which is being created, regardless of the source of the heat. I am a retired master electrician and all too aware of the amount of heat produced by a single distribution transformer. Incidentally, all transformers produce considerable heat even when they are not operating under a load. Additionally they are so widely dispersed in our world that they quite likely present something of a single heat source in major cities. That the blanket effect of greenhouse gases further adds to the problem can not be denied. It appears to me that we are experiencing a duality of factors, and we are up against a bit of a conundrum, and likely will have to make some tradeoff decisions. The use of low energy requirement LED lighting for our streets will go a long way for starters, since they do not use the energy to operate, nor do they produce the heat of operation that current lights do. I opine that the various means of power production do not produce nearly the amounts of heat that the devices being powered, en masse, do. Again, the heat, itself, and the means of dissipating it, given earth's obvious limitations, are the core problems. Thanks for the reply


Technically we are in an interglacial period of an ice age. So exactly what sort of "cooling" are you looking for? We are freezing like never before in Earth's history and we're listening to GLOBAL WARMING. You know what? Bring it on.
03-02-2017 06:59
still learning
★★☆☆☆
(244)
"I am simply suggesting that the problem that exists may only be that the earth's cooling capacity is no longer sufficient to dissipate all the heat which is being created, regardless of the source of the heat."

Not enough cooling capacity?
Yes, exactly.

More CO2 in the atmosphere, enhanced "greenhouse effect," things don't cool off quite as fast. A little warmer.
03-02-2017 15:46
bfoster
☆☆☆☆☆
(10)
Finally someone is connecting the dots! As I have previously said, we undoubtedly need to evaluate the variables. The expanded use of heat pump technology to heat our homes, although it would appear to be a small contribution to the solution, would at least be a beginning. It may be that we could eliminate the continuous operation of the current number of street lighting in use. As we have arrived at this semi-critical point in small incremental steps, the adoption of small steps to alleviate the problem should not seem unwarranted. The amount of heat created in the production of electricity is infinitesimal when compared to the heat created when we use it.
03-02-2017 18:36
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
still learning wrote:
"I am simply suggesting that the problem that exists may only be that the earth's cooling capacity is no longer sufficient to dissipate all the heat which is being created, regardless of the source of the heat."

Not enough cooling capacity?
Yes, exactly.

More CO2 in the atmosphere, enhanced "greenhouse effect," things don't cool off quite as fast. A little warmer.


Pick up any freshman's chemistry book and look up the difference between CO2 and O2 from which CO2 is generated. Surprise - O2 has a higher latent heat content. So more O2 = more heat held in the atmosphere and more CO2 the less heat is held.

Also look up the emission spectra of the Sun. Then look up the emission spectra of the Earth. Then look up the absorption spectra of CO2 - surprise - CO2 is below the Sun and above the Earth. You can't hold any energy that you can't find.

The "greenhouse gas" of the Earth is water which is 100 times more that CO2 and 400 times more than the quantity of CO2 that they claim is dirty, evil, mean, rotten and nasty. CO2 has tiny absorption lines where very little energy resides. Water has EXTREMELY wide absorption lines over almost the entire spectrum.
Edited on 03-02-2017 19:20
03-02-2017 18:41
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
bfoster wrote:
Finally someone is connecting the dots! As I have previously said, we undoubtedly need to evaluate the variables. The expanded use of heat pump technology to heat our homes, although it would appear to be a small contribution to the solution, would at least be a beginning. It may be that we could eliminate the continuous operation of the current number of street lighting in use. As we have arrived at this semi-critical point in small incremental steps, the adoption of small steps to alleviate the problem should not seem unwarranted. The amount of heat created in the production of electricity is infinitesimal when compared to the heat created when we use it.


I suggest you look up heat pumps; what they do, how they do it and where they can be used.
03-02-2017 19:33
Tim the plumber
★★★★☆
(1295)
bfoster wrote:
Finally someone is connecting the dots! As I have previously said, we undoubtedly need to evaluate the variables. The expanded use of heat pump technology to heat our homes, although it would appear to be a small contribution to the solution, would at least be a beginning. It may be that we could eliminate the continuous operation of the current number of street lighting in use. As we have arrived at this semi-critical point in small incremental steps, the adoption of small steps to alleviate the problem should not seem unwarranted. The amount of heat created in the production of electricity is infinitesimal when compared to the heat created when we use it.


The "evaluation" youwant done is something that is done as a simple example in a physics access course.

It is easy and trivial.

The direct heating of the world due to the energy use of humans is tiny. This effect is only at all significant in cities.
03-02-2017 21:54
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
Tim the plumber wrote:
bfoster wrote:
Finally someone is connecting the dots! As I have previously said, we undoubtedly need to evaluate the variables. The expanded use of heat pump technology to heat our homes, although it would appear to be a small contribution to the solution, would at least be a beginning. It may be that we could eliminate the continuous operation of the current number of street lighting in use. As we have arrived at this semi-critical point in small incremental steps, the adoption of small steps to alleviate the problem should not seem unwarranted. The amount of heat created in the production of electricity is infinitesimal when compared to the heat created when we use it.


The "evaluation" youwant done is something that is done as a simple example in a physics access course.

It is easy and trivial.

The direct heating of the world due to the energy use of humans is tiny. This effect is only at all significant in cities.


To be direct to Mr. Foster - he had a totally valid question and it was answered. But it then became bickering other than simply answering the question.

Mr. Foster, you may think that every little bit hurts but in fact it does little since it simply causes a heated atmosphere to generate more stratospheric clouds and reflect more of the Sun's energy.

The sunny side of Mercury and the ground level on Venus are very close to the same temperature because the orbital period and the rotations period are the same so that they heat to the level at which the energy necessary to maintain this temperature (the level of molten rock or lava flows) where they can absorb no more energy and reflect the rest of it into space.

The Earth reflects something like 37%, if memory suffices, and tiny differences in MGT make tiny differences in the Earth's reflections. The thing that is now the controlling factor is the amount of heat placed upon the Earth caused by both solar cycles and the Milankovitch cycles. The severity of these increases in energy input overwhelm the Earth's protection system to some but not very large extent.

In short - there ain't no man-made climate except in an air conditioned building.
03-02-2017 22:32
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
Wake wrote:
Tim the plumber wrote:
bfoster wrote:
Finally someone is connecting the dots! As I have previously said, we undoubtedly need to evaluate the variables. The expanded use of heat pump technology to heat our homes, although it would appear to be a small contribution to the solution, would at least be a beginning. It may be that we could eliminate the continuous operation of the current number of street lighting in use. As we have arrived at this semi-critical point in small incremental steps, the adoption of small steps to alleviate the problem should not seem unwarranted. The amount of heat created in the production of electricity is infinitesimal when compared to the heat created when we use it.


The "evaluation" youwant done is something that is done as a simple example in a physics access course.

It is easy and trivial.

The direct heating of the world due to the energy use of humans is tiny. This effect is only at all significant in cities.


To be direct to Mr. Foster - he had a totally valid question and it was answered. But it then became bickering other than simply answering the question.

Mr. Foster, you may think that every little bit hurts but in fact it does little since it simply causes a heated atmosphere to generate more stratospheric clouds and reflect more of the Sun's energy.

The sunny side of Mercury and the ground level on Venus are very close to the same temperature because the orbital period and the rotations period are the same so that they heat to the level at which the energy necessary to maintain this temperature (the level of molten rock or lava flows) where they can absorb no more energy and reflect the rest of it into space.

The Earth reflects something like 37%, if memory suffices, and tiny differences in MGT make tiny differences in the Earth's reflections. The thing that is now the controlling factor is the amount of heat placed upon the Earth caused by both solar cycles and the Milankovitch cycles. The severity of these increases in energy input overwhelm the Earth's protection system to some but not very large extent.

In short - there ain't no man-made climate except in an air conditioned building.

You're sort of getting there, but you have some way to go yet. Small changes in solar irradiance due to Milankovitch cycles are indeed thought to have been the trigger for the interglacial warm periods, but these small changes are nowhere near large enough to account for the large swings in temperature by themselves. They must have been amplified by positive feedback effects such as ice albedo and greenhouse gases.

The fact that CO2 concentrations vary so closely with temperature indicates very strongly that CO2 has been the main factor involved in amplifying the initial Milankovitch perturbations. This, as well as radiative theory, shows that CO2 has a strong warming effect and, hence, that recent warming has been driven by human emissions of CO2 as well as other greenhouse gases.
04-02-2017 00:22
bfoster
☆☆☆☆☆
(10)
I see that I am quite well undone by those, who have obviously dedicated a great deal of time and energy in their search for relief from this crisis. I also appreciate the time they have taken to help me along. I first noticed the trend toward climate change upon observing the beginnings of the changing of habitats in wildlife. Mourning doves began to appear in Maine in the early 60's. We now have opossums, buzzards, etc. that were unheard of prior to the 60's. Is it at all possible, that we still do not really know the true cause for global warming? It almost appears that for every answer we seem to find, we also seem to find evidences for doubts. Since this seems to be so at this point, perhaps we need to question other areas of potential. Far-flung as it may be, could the rotation of the earth's core be slowing. Or ?perhaps the reversal of earth's poles, as is predicted, may be a factor? America has done much to cut back on CO2 emissions. There are no longer smog-filled cities, as Los Angeles once used to be. There are no more of the images of billowing smokestacks from England's industrial era. We appear to be unable to curb the pollutants being created by China and India. It appears the only third world country that makes no contribution to the problem is North Korea. In a manner of speaking, it is dark both night and day in that hapless nation. Has anybody considered the possibility of trying to remove some of the CO2, possibly by things akin to cloud seeding techniques? To end this reply, I submit that all things are worth looking at, even as Thomas Edison found ten thousand things which wouldn't work before trying carbonized silk!
04-02-2017 09:56
still learning
★★☆☆☆
(244)
bfoster wrote:
I first noticed the trend toward climate change upon observing the beginnings of the changing of habitats in wildlife. Mourning doves began to appear in Maine in the early 60's. We now have opossums, buzzards, etc. that were unheard of prior to the 60's.


You've noticed changes over the decades with your own eyes. I've read some of what a Vermont gardener has observed over the decades regarding earlier spring thaws, earlier planting now possible. Supposedly changes are really plain in the arctic.

Regarding some of your other comments/questions:

Regarding the basic cause of today's global warming, it's CO2 from fossil fuels. Mostly. Well established science. A lot of work is being done in finding out the details of what's going on today, finding out about what has happened in the past regarding natural climate change and figuring out what the future holds. The basics of the science aren't that difficult to understand if you remember some chemistry and physics and algebra. There are online courses available. Some pretty good explanations at some websites. There are textbooks too. A general audience book (not a textbook) that I'd recommend is Thin Ice by Mark Bowen. I checked it out of our local public library about ten years ago. Maybe your local library has it too.

As far as other explanations for global warming go, quite a few folks have tried to come up with something, but nothing seems to hold up.

As far as the US cutting back on CO2 emissions, not very much. See https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/us-greenhouse-gas-inventory-report-1990-2014

You mentioned reduction in US smog. Smog producing pollutants like unburned hydrocarbons and nitrogen oxides and soot/particulates are a fairly small percentage of any exhaust stream. Mostly they're products of incomplete or inefficient combustion or of unwanted impurities in the fuel. Complete combustion of a pure hydrocarbon fuel would result in no carbon monoxide, no unburned hydrocarbons, no soot. The carbon dioxide (not a smog component) is unavoidable though, a necessary result of combustion. A lot of it too. A gallon of gasoline has about 5.5 pounds of carbon in it and results in about 20 pounds of CO2. See https://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/contentIncludes/co2_inc.htm

As far as removing CO2 from the atmosphere, there's lots of ways, but they cost money, require energy. There is a $25 million prize to be won though. See http://www.virginearth.com/
04-02-2017 09:56
still learning
★★☆☆☆
(244)
bfoster wrote:
I first noticed the trend toward climate change upon observing the beginnings of the changing of habitats in wildlife. Mourning doves began to appear in Maine in the early 60's. We now have opossums, buzzards, etc. that were unheard of prior to the 60's.


You've noticed changes over the decades with your own eyes. I've read some of what a Vermont gardener has observed over the decades regarding earlier spring thaws, earlier planting now possible. Supposedly changes are really plain in the arctic.

Regarding some of your other comments/questions:

Regarding the basic cause of today's global warming, it's CO2 from fossil fuels. Mostly. Well established science. A lot of work is being done in finding out the details of what's going on today, finding out about what has happened in the past regarding natural climate change and figuring out what the future holds. The basics of the science aren't that difficult to understand if you remember some chemistry and physics and algebra. There are online courses available. Some pretty good explanations at some websites. There are textbooks too. A general audience book (not a textbook) that I'd recommend is Thin Ice by Mark Bowen. I checked it out of our local public library about ten years ago. Maybe your local library has it too.

As far as other explanations for global warming go, quite a few folks have tried to come up with something, but nothing seems to hold up.

As far as the US cutting back on CO2 emissions, not very much. See https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/us-greenhouse-gas-inventory-report-1990-2014

You mentioned reduction in US smog. Smog producing pollutants like unburned hydrocarbons and nitrogen oxides and soot/particulates are a fairly small percentage of any exhaust stream. Mostly they're products of incomplete or inefficient combustion or of unwanted impurities in the fuel. Complete combustion of a pure hydrocarbon fuel would result in no carbon monoxide, no unburned hydrocarbons, no soot. The carbon dioxide (not a smog component) is unavoidable though, a necessary result of combustion. A lot of it too. A gallon of gasoline has about 5.5 pounds of carbon in it and results in about 20 pounds of CO2. See https://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/contentIncludes/co2_inc.htm

As far as removing CO2 from the atmosphere, there's lots of ways, but they cost money, require energy. There is a $25 million prize to be won though. See http://www.virginearth.com/
04-02-2017 14:20
Tim the plumber
★★★★☆
(1295)
Surface Detail wrote:
Wake wrote:
Tim the plumber wrote:
bfoster wrote:
Finally someone is connecting the dots! As I have previously said, we undoubtedly need to evaluate the variables. The expanded use of heat pump technology to heat our homes, although it would appear to be a small contribution to the solution, would at least be a beginning. It may be that we could eliminate the continuous operation of the current number of street lighting in use. As we have arrived at this semi-critical point in small incremental steps, the adoption of small steps to alleviate the problem should not seem unwarranted. The amount of heat created in the production of electricity is infinitesimal when compared to the heat created when we use it.


The "evaluation" youwant done is something that is done as a simple example in a physics access course.

It is easy and trivial.

The direct heating of the world due to the energy use of humans is tiny. This effect is only at all significant in cities.


To be direct to Mr. Foster - he had a totally valid question and it was answered. But it then became bickering other than simply answering the question.

Mr. Foster, you may think that every little bit hurts but in fact it does little since it simply causes a heated atmosphere to generate more stratospheric clouds and reflect more of the Sun's energy.

The sunny side of Mercury and the ground level on Venus are very close to the same temperature because the orbital period and the rotations period are the same so that they heat to the level at which the energy necessary to maintain this temperature (the level of molten rock or lava flows) where they can absorb no more energy and reflect the rest of it into space.

The Earth reflects something like 37%, if memory suffices, and tiny differences in MGT make tiny differences in the Earth's reflections. The thing that is now the controlling factor is the amount of heat placed upon the Earth caused by both solar cycles and the Milankovitch cycles. The severity of these increases in energy input overwhelm the Earth's protection system to some but not very large extent.

In short - there ain't no man-made climate except in an air conditioned building.

You're sort of getting there, but you have some way to go yet. Small changes in solar irradiance due to Milankovitch cycles are indeed thought to have been the trigger for the interglacial warm periods, but these small changes are nowhere near large enough to account for the large swings in temperature by themselves. They must have been amplified by positive feedback effects such as ice albedo and greenhouse gases.

The fact that CO2 concentrations vary so closely with temperature indicates very strongly that CO2 has been the main factor involved in amplifying the initial Milankovitch perturbations. This, as well as radiative theory, shows that CO2 has a strong warming effect and, hence, that recent warming has been driven by human emissions of CO2 as well as other greenhouse gases.


No. The fact that CO2 varies with the global temperature only shows there is a link between them. It does not say which is the cause.
04-02-2017 14:23
Tim the plumber
★★★★☆
(1295)
bfoster wrote:
I see that I am quite well undone by those, who have obviously dedicated a great deal of time and energy in their search for relief from this crisis. I also appreciate the time they have taken to help me along. I first noticed the trend toward climate change upon observing the beginnings of the changing of habitats in wildlife. Mourning doves began to appear in Maine in the early 60's. We now have opossums, buzzards, etc. that were unheard of prior to the 60's. Is it at all possible, that we still do not really know the true cause for global warming? It almost appears that for every answer we seem to find, we also seem to find evidences for doubts. Since this seems to be so at this point, perhaps we need to question other areas of potential. Far-flung as it may be, could the rotation of the earth's core be slowing. Or ?perhaps the reversal of earth's poles, as is predicted, may be a factor? America has done much to cut back on CO2 emissions. There are no longer smog-filled cities, as Los Angeles once used to be. There are no more of the images of billowing smokestacks from England's industrial era. We appear to be unable to curb the pollutants being created by China and India. It appears the only third world country that makes no contribution to the problem is North Korea. In a manner of speaking, it is dark both night and day in that hapless nation. Has anybody considered the possibility of trying to remove some of the CO2, possibly by things akin to cloud seeding techniques? To end this reply, I submit that all things are worth looking at, even as Thomas Edison found ten thousand things which wouldn't work before trying carbonized silk!


Clearly you are facinsted by all this.

If you were to take an entry level physics night school course you would enjoy it imensley. I suggest that you do so.
04-02-2017 16:49
litesong
★★★★★
(2297)
still learning wrote: A gallon of gasoline has about 5.5 pounds of carbon in it and results in about 20 pounds of CO2.


AGW denier liar whiners don't admit to that much, playing dumb (or are dumb). Including the CO2 produced transporting fuel supplies to gas stations, 28 pounds of CO2 are produced per gallon of fuel burned in your own tank.
Often AGW denier liar whiners remove the transport factor, so they can make internal combustion engines appear better against electric motors. Electric motors are so efficient, that it doesn't matter how AGW denier liar whiners twist the facts. Electric motors rule. Electric motors dominate where electricity is generated by hydro, wind or solar.
04-02-2017 16:58
bfoster
☆☆☆☆☆
(10)
Many thanks to all who have responded to my inquiries and thoughts! Not unexpectedly I have one more tangent of inquiry. I remember that in the aftermath of the 9-11 attack on the Twin Towers there appeared an interesting report. It was reported, that during the grounding of air traffic for a small time period the temperature of the planet was observed to cool slightly. Unless that report was fake news, it perhaps deserves to be revisited. If CO2 is indeed heavier than air, should it not remain at the lowest levels of our atmosphere? If this premise be true it raises the question of how is it accumulating in the upper atmosphere? I know very little about the various strata of our atmosphere, but I do know that most of the air traffic is occurring at altitudes of 30,000 feet, and in a zone we call, the jet stream. It was thought at the time of the referenced report that the effect had something to do with the contrails from planes being absent for a time. Now for one more amateur attempt at analysis, please bear with me. Could it be that the relatively new advance of jet traffic at such high altitudes has created a situation whereby the CO2 emissions, being injected into the jet streams are necessarily suspended at those levels, since there must be extremely energetic mixing of the air via the super high velocities of the winds present, and even ever present? I am fearless enough to postulate, that it is doubtful that the heavier than air CO2 would be able to separate from such an energetic condition, and return to the ground levels of the atmosphere. Unfortunately, should this turn out to be the actual case there would be a morass of socioeconomic upheavals, and political harangue! Have some fun with these conjectures, folks.Thanks to all, again.
04-02-2017 17:03
litesong
★★★★★
(2297)
"tipped the leaky plunger" puffed: total energy output for all human activity is trivial in comparison with the energy levels of the natural world.

"tipped the leaky plunger" fails to honor the "balance of nature" (balance of energy & emissions), that has ruled Earth for 10,000 years, 'cept for minor ups, downs (again, balancing).
Building up man-made infra-red energy absorbing non-phase change GHGs ALWAYS delay transfer of biosphere energies to outer space.
04-02-2017 20:00
Tim the plumber
★★★★☆
(1295)
bfoster wrote:
Many thanks to all who have responded to my inquiries and thoughts! Not unexpectedly I have one more tangent of inquiry. I remember that in the aftermath of the 9-11 attack on the Twin Towers there appeared an interesting report. It was reported, that during the grounding of air traffic for a small time period the temperature of the planet was observed to cool slightly. Unless that report was fake news, it perhaps deserves to be revisited. If CO2 is indeed heavier than air, should it not remain at the lowest levels of our atmosphere? If this premise be true it raises the question of how is it accumulating in the upper atmosphere? I know very little about the various strata of our atmosphere, but I do know that most of the air traffic is occurring at altitudes of 30,000 feet, and in a zone we call, the jet stream. It was thought at the time of the referenced report that the effect had something to do with the contrails from planes being absent for a time. Now for one more amateur attempt at analysis, please bear with me. Could it be that the relatively new advance of jet traffic at such high altitudes has created a situation whereby the CO2 emissions, being injected into the jet streams are necessarily suspended at those levels, since there must be extremely energetic mixing of the air via the super high velocities of the winds present, and even ever present? I am fearless enough to postulate, that it is doubtful that the heavier than air CO2 would be able to separate from such an energetic condition, and return to the ground levels of the atmosphere. Unfortunately, should this turn out to be the actual case there would be a morass of socioeconomic upheavals, and political harangue! Have some fun with these conjectures, folks.Thanks to all, again.


The CO2 in the air will happily mix with all the other gases. It is only heavier when it is in a more pure form and whilst you are measuring it in parts per million it will not significantly change the density of air.
04-02-2017 20:58
still learning
★★☆☆☆
(244)
bfoster wrote:
......If CO2 is indeed heavier than air, should it not remain at the lowest levels of our atmosphere? If this premise be true it raises the question of how is it accumulating in the upper atmosphere?.....


So why don't gasses with heaver molecules separate out from lighter molecules?

Diffusion. Molecules are in constant motion at any temperature above absolute zero, more motion at higher temperatures. Gas molecules aren't stuck to each other as in solids so they end up moving about randomly. Run into one another, bounce off Will eventually mix thoroughly just by diffusion. Eventually.

Advection, winds, turbulence, the mass flow of gasses also mix things up.

See http://colinb-sciencebuzz.blogspot.com/2010/01/if-co2-is-so-heavy-why-doesnt-it-sink.html

Part of the content at that above link brings back an 11th grade memory, 1956-1957, we did the bromine-in-a-jar thing in chemistry class.
04-02-2017 23:40
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
still learning wrote:
bfoster wrote:
......If CO2 is indeed heavier than air, should it not remain at the lowest levels of our atmosphere? If this premise be true it raises the question of how is it accumulating in the upper atmosphere?.....


So why don't gasses with heaver molecules separate out from lighter molecules?

Diffusion. Molecules are in constant motion at any temperature above absolute zero, more motion at higher temperatures. Gas molecules aren't stuck to each other as in solids so they end up moving about randomly. Run into one another, bounce off Will eventually mix thoroughly just by diffusion. Eventually.

Advection, winds, turbulence, the mass flow of gasses also mix things up.

See http://colinb-sciencebuzz.blogspot.com/2010/01/if-co2-is-so-heavy-why-doesnt-it-sink.html

Part of the content at that above link brings back an 11th grade memory, 1956-1957, we did the bromine-in-a-jar thing in chemistry class.


Heavier molecules do separate to some extent. There is far greater percentage of CO2 lower to the ground than in the upper atmosphere. Despite a great deal of thermal mixing (wind) the CO2 generated by commercial aircraft at high altitude quite rapidly ends up in the lower atmosphere.
05-02-2017 00:25
bfoster
☆☆☆☆☆
(10)
Thanks to the many responders to my initial posting, and all subsequent responses, the entire picture of what actually happens is much clearer. If the heat trapping blanket of CO2, present at the highest altitudes is truly the culprit, it follows that we must need to stop feeding it. It should be fairly obvious that the horrific volume of high altitude air traffic, with it's correspondingly high depositing of CO2 at those altitudes, is certainly a factor for the global warming problem. Thanks to one of my respondents, I believe it safe to say, that the CO2 at that altitude must persist in it's PPM concentration far longer than at ground levels. Advection, wind, turbulence, et cetera. Now comes the meanest of all obstacles! The very hint of a need to retool present jet planes, such that they may operate by burning a mixture of hydrogen and oxygen, will bring on a furious clamor. There will be fears of explosions, thanks to the Hindenburg disaster, yet the needed technology for such a revamping of our air flight system is in order! It has been many years now, since a small group of auto mechanics solved the problem. There will be an outcry for the safety requirements for the transporting of hydrogen in an airplane. Tanks can provide a safe containment if they are constructed using the double hull manner as is used in Navy ships. Having saved the best for last, since burning hydrogen with oxygen yields nothing but water, what do we have to lose by trying out this potentially ideal alternative?? Thanks again to all who have followed, and put up with me!
05-02-2017 00:25
bfoster
☆☆☆☆☆
(10)
Thanks to the many responders to my initial posting, and all subsequent responses, the entire picture of what actually happens is much clearer. If the heat trapping blanket of CO2, present at the highest altitudes is truly the culprit, it follows that we must need to stop feeding it. It should be fairly obvious that the horrific volume of high altitude air traffic, with it's correspondingly high depositing of CO2 at those altitudes, is certainly a factor for the global warming problem. Thanks to one of my respondents, I believe it safe to say, that the CO2 at that altitude must persist in it's PPM concentration far longer than at ground levels. Advection, wind, turbulence, et cetera. Now comes the meanest of all obstacles! The very hint of a need to retool present jet planes, such that they may operate by burning a mixture of hydrogen and oxygen, will bring on a furious clamor. There will be fears of explosions, thanks to the Hindenburg disaster, yet the needed technology for such a revamping of our air flight system is in order! It has been many years now, since a small group of auto mechanics solved the problem. There will be an outcry for the safety requirements for the transporting of hydrogen in an airplane. Tanks can provide a safe containment if they are constructed using the double hull manner as is used in Navy ships. Having saved the best for last, since burning hydrogen with oxygen yields nothing but water, what do we have to lose by trying out this potentially ideal alternative?? Thanks again to all who have followed, and put up with me!
05-02-2017 01:46
still learning
★★☆☆☆
(244)
Wake wrote:
....There is far greater percentage of CO2 lower to the ground than in the upper atmosphere....


Could you provide a reference supporting that "far greater percentage"?

From what I've looked at there isn't much change with altitude.

See perhaps http://ps.uci.edu/~rowlandblake/publications/177.pdf
It's a 2003 paper, so i'd expect the actual ppm numbers to be higher now, but the altitudinal variation seems to be less than 8 parts per million wherever measured. Less than 2%. The measurements were made up to 43000 feet.
05-02-2017 02:12
still learning
★★☆☆☆
(244)
[quote]bfoster wrote:
..... It should be fairly obvious that the horrific volume of high altitude air traffic, with it's correspondingly high depositing of CO2 at those altitudes, is certainly a factor for the global warming problem..... /quote]

About 27% of fossil fuel CO2 emissions are transportation related. About 8% of that is aircraft related. See https://climate.dot.gov/about/transportations-role/overview.html

So air traffic is definitely a contributor to atmospheric CO2. Switching to hydrogen fuel would be possible. I expect the problems having to do with bulkiness and safety could be solved. Hydrogen is expensive though. Takes a lot of energy to extract hydrogen from water. Somewhat less to extract it from methane. However you obtain the hydrogen, it ends up being more expensive than conventional fuels. As long as there's no penalty for using conventional hydrocarbon fuels, they will be used.
05-02-2017 03:16
still learning
★★☆☆☆
(244)
Wake wrote:

....Pick up any freshman's chemistry book and look up the difference between CO2 and O2 from which CO2 is generated. Surprise - O2 has a higher latent heat content. So more O2 = more heat held in the atmosphere and more CO2 the less heat is held.

Also look up the emission spectra of the Sun. Then look up the emission spectra of the Earth. Then look up the absorption spectra of CO2 - surprise - CO2 is below the Sun and above the Earth. You can't hold any energy that you can't find.

The "greenhouse gas" of the Earth is water which is 100 times more that CO2 and 400 times more than the quantity of CO2 that they claim is dirty, evil, mean, rotten and nasty. CO2 has tiny absorption lines where very little energy resides. Water has EXTREMELY wide absorption lines over almost the entire spectrum.


"Pick up any freshman chemistry textbook....O2 has a higher latent heat content....more heat held."

My copy of Pauling's General Chemistry doesn't seem to have anything about the latent heat of oxygen or carbon dioxide. Maybe you could point out an example.
Not sure what latent heat of oxygen or CO2 has to do with anything under discussion here. By "latent heat" folks usually mean what is sometimes called heat of fusion or heat of vaporization. Heat having to do with a phase change, not a direct temperature change. No phase change of either oxygen or CO2 in the atmosphere of Earth. Mars maybe. Water certainly involved with phase change though. Evaporation/condensation/freezing/melting. Water's latent heat definitely a factor in moving heat around in the atmosphere.
Maybe you meant "specific heat," related to the amount of heat it takes to heat a given mass of substance a given temperature change. According to my old (39th edition) CRC Handbook of Chemistry and Physics, CO2's specific heat is 0.1989 calories per gram at +15C and oxygen is 0.2178 cal/g at +15C. Pretty close.
None of this latent heat or specific stuff of O2 or CO2 has anything to do with climate change though. Near as I can tell.

"Look up the emission spectra...."
Regarding spectra of CO2, it absorbs right in the middle of Earth's radiation curve. See figure 2.9 here http://www-users.math.umn.edu/~mcGehee/Seminars/ClimateChange/presentations/2013-1Spring/20130212ThermalIRandCarbonDioxideintheAtmosphere.pdf

Regarding water vapor, it is a more important greenhouse gas than CO2.
No idea what you mean with the "100 times" and 400 times" stuff.
Please clarify.
Water vapor isn't really a problem though. It doesn't accumulate in the atmosphere the way CO2 does. Get too much water vapor and it rains or snows or something. It does amplify the effect of CO2 some though in that warmer air can hold more water vapor than cooler air before saturating.
Then there are clouds. Complicated effects on climate.
Edited on 05-02-2017 03:25
05-02-2017 04:00
bfoster
☆☆☆☆☆
(10)
I'm beginning to think that the entire question of CO2 emissions is still in doubt. If it can not be agreed upon concerning the PPM'S of CO2 extant between 430000 feet and the amount at sea level, how can we attribute global warming to such a theory? A requirement that must exist for syllogistic thinking to arrive at the right conclusion is, that the underlying premises be facts. With this form of confusion in place we are doing no more than drawing straws. Could we possibly be chasing the wild goose? If the entire theory can be so easily set adrift with renunciation of the supposed facts, we may well be back to step ONE!! How about this ? Let us consider whether or not the earth's crust is wearing thin, which would allow for the massive energies within it's core to be a little closer to the surface. I have no idea whether this might be true, or not. But, should it be a fact it could easily be seen as a factor capable of producing some of the recurring events we are seeing. We have storms of greater strength, greater frequency, and greater consequence. We have more frequent seismic events and those events happen in diverse places. We may, or may not, be experiencing an uptick in the number of volcanic events. I have been told many times by my respondents, that the earth, itself, is a great contributor to the overall energy picture! At this juncture one can hardly know, if we might be victims of a great conspiracy to hide the real facts. This is extremely doubtful, but at present, and in the absence of real facts, not entirely beyond imagining! For now I must stay where I am, and consider if it might not be worthwhile to experiment with the feasibility of using H and O2 for jet fuel. Feel Like I'm following the Yellow Brick Road!
05-02-2017 04:54
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
bfoster wrote:
I'm beginning to think that the entire question of CO2 emissions is still in doubt. If it can not be agreed upon concerning the PPM'S of CO2 extant between 430000 feet and the amount at sea level, how can we attribute global warming to such a theory?

We know how the composition of the atmosphere varies with height because it has been measured. It is not in doubt. If someone claims differently, but has no basis for their claim, we don't dismiss our measurements, we dismiss the claimant as a fool.
05-02-2017 07:06
still learning
★★☆☆☆
(244)
bfoster wrote:
..... If it can not be agreed upon concerning the PPM'S of CO2 extant between 430000 feet and the amount at sea level........
.....For now I must stay where I am, and consider if it might not be worthwhile to experiment with the feasibility of using H and O2 for jet fuel. Feel Like I'm following the Yellow Brick Road!


I provided a link to a peer-reviewed journal article.

The article refers to actual measurements. One of the notions of peer-reviewed journal articles is that you could, in principle anyway, repeat the work reported on and verify (or refute) the results. Enough detail is supposed to be provided in the article and in the footnotes/references/supplemental information so that you could repeat the work. In practice the work may not be repeatable. Can't look at a supernova a second time. In this case, can't exactly reproduce the results of several years ago since CO2 has been added to the atmosphere.

You've seen disagreement on CO2 changes with altitude on this forum. Check other sources. I expect NASA and/or NOAA have measurements that you could get hold of.

Regarding using hydrogen as jet fuel, should physically work. Hope you can get it to work financially.
05-02-2017 17:59
bfoster
☆☆☆☆☆
(10)
There appears to be so much in dispute, regarding the actual cause of the apparent climate change , that the arena of debate on the subject resembles the argument between Westinghouse and Tesla regarding AC or DC. At the present time, the only real fact that we can count on is, that we are seeing drastic changes in weather patterns. The entire phenomenon is likely to be the result of many factors combining and causing the disruption we see. The list of all of the factors is probably huge; blooming of algae growth in the oceans, pollution of the oceans allowing that growth to occur, et cetera. Some have even suggested the out of control population explosion. All we really know is that there must be a cause, or causes, which are responsible for; super tornadoes, super hurricanes, collapsing of polar vortices, and so on! Perhaps we could take the little shrimp off the treadmill for a while, and devote some funds for the study of truly important issues. Perhaps president Trump might donate his salary to the cause.
05-02-2017 18:26
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
still learning wrote:
Wake wrote:

....Pick up any freshman's chemistry book and look up the difference between CO2 and O2 from which CO2 is generated. Surprise - O2 has a higher latent heat content. So more O2 = more heat held in the atmosphere and more CO2 the less heat is held.

Also look up the emission spectra of the Sun. Then look up the emission spectra of the Earth. Then look up the absorption spectra of CO2 - surprise - CO2 is below the Sun and above the Earth. You can't hold any energy that you can't find.

The "greenhouse gas" of the Earth is water which is 100 times more that CO2 and 400 times more than the quantity of CO2 that they claim is dirty, evil, mean, rotten and nasty. CO2 has tiny absorption lines where very little energy resides. Water has EXTREMELY wide absorption lines over almost the entire spectrum.


"Pick up any freshman chemistry textbook....O2 has a higher latent heat content....more heat held."

My copy of Pauling's General Chemistry doesn't seem to have anything about the latent heat of oxygen or carbon dioxide. Maybe you could point out an example.
Not sure what latent heat of oxygen or CO2 has to do with anything under discussion here. By "latent heat" folks usually mean what is sometimes called heat of fusion or heat of vaporization. Heat having to do with a phase change, not a direct temperature change. No phase change of either oxygen or CO2 in the atmosphere of Earth. Mars maybe. Water certainly involved with phase change though. Evaporation/condensation/freezing/melting. Water's latent heat definitely a factor in moving heat around in the atmosphere.
Maybe you meant "specific heat," related to the amount of heat it takes to heat a given mass of substance a given temperature change. According to my old (39th edition) CRC Handbook of Chemistry and Physics, CO2's specific heat is 0.1989 calories per gram at +15C and oxygen is 0.2178 cal/g at +15C. Pretty close.
None of this latent heat or specific stuff of O2 or CO2 has anything to do with climate change though. Near as I can tell.

"Look up the emission spectra...."
Regarding spectra of CO2, it absorbs right in the middle of Earth's radiation curve. See figure 2.9 here http://www-users.math.umn.edu/~mcGehee/Seminars/ClimateChange/presentations/2013-1Spring/20130212ThermalIRandCarbonDioxideintheAtmosphere.pdf

Regarding water vapor, it is a more important greenhouse gas than CO2.
No idea what you mean with the "100 times" and 400 times" stuff.
Please clarify.
Water vapor isn't really a problem though. It doesn't accumulate in the atmosphere the way CO2 does. Get too much water vapor and it rains or snows or something. It does amplify the effect of CO2 some though in that warmer air can hold more water vapor than cooler air before saturating.
Then there are clouds. Complicated effects on climate.


If the latent heat content isn't quoted for most common gases in the latest books all I can say is that the mighty have fallen pretty low.

The latent heat content of a gas is the maximum heat (vibratory energy) that a molecule can hold at a 1:1 energy in vs energy out basis.

In the chart supplied with the article you referenced you can see that virtually all of the Sun's emissions are absorbed into water. This means not JUST the 4% average of water and water vapor in the atmosphere but all of the 70% of the Earth that is covered in water.

Near the extreme bottom there are a couple of narrow spectral lines that are CO2 absorption lines. The chart demonstrates that there is very little energy in that region. Below that is where the Earth's emission begins so CO2 misses almost all of that energy as well. Is there any spectral lines within the Earth's emission band? Yes but at the far upper end where little energy is available.

There are three primary absorption lines of CO2: A very weak one at 4,000 mm, a strong one around 2,300 and a weak one about 700 mm.

Looking at:

http://physics.nist.gov/PhysRefData/Handbook/Tables/oxygentable2.htm

You can see that not only is there a higher latent heat content of O2 as you noted but there is overlap in the absorption spectra.

Therefore O2 is a more powerful "greenhouse gas" that the CO2 which replaces it.

The story is illustrated and little better by:

https://objectivistindividualist.blogspot.com/2013/02/infrared-absorbing-gases-and-earths.html

Quite frankly I first read spectra and latent heat in a high school textbook in the 50's. In a public school. In Oakland.
05-02-2017 18:40
spot
★★★★☆
(1065)
I have no idea how you have confused yourself so badly, or are you just trolling us for some unfunny postmodern joke? However experimental evidence disproves you.
05-02-2017 20:06
Tim the plumber
★★★★☆
(1295)
Wake wrote:
still learning wrote:
Wake wrote:

....Pick up any freshman's chemistry book and look up the difference between CO2 and O2 from which CO2 is generated. Surprise - O2 has a higher latent heat content. So more O2 = more heat held in the atmosphere and more CO2 the less heat is held.

Also look up the emission spectra of the Sun. Then look up the emission spectra of the Earth. Then look up the absorption spectra of CO2 - surprise - CO2 is below the Sun and above the Earth. You can't hold any energy that you can't find.

The "greenhouse gas" of the Earth is water which is 100 times more that CO2 and 400 times more than the quantity of CO2 that they claim is dirty, evil, mean, rotten and nasty. CO2 has tiny absorption lines where very little energy resides. Water has EXTREMELY wide absorption lines over almost the entire spectrum.


"Pick up any freshman chemistry textbook....O2 has a higher latent heat content....more heat held."

My copy of Pauling's General Chemistry doesn't seem to have anything about the latent heat of oxygen or carbon dioxide. Maybe you could point out an example.
Not sure what latent heat of oxygen or CO2 has to do with anything under discussion here. By "latent heat" folks usually mean what is sometimes called heat of fusion or heat of vaporization. Heat having to do with a phase change, not a direct temperature change. No phase change of either oxygen or CO2 in the atmosphere of Earth. Mars maybe. Water certainly involved with phase change though. Evaporation/condensation/freezing/melting. Water's latent heat definitely a factor in moving heat around in the atmosphere.
Maybe you meant "specific heat," related to the amount of heat it takes to heat a given mass of substance a given temperature change. According to my old (39th edition) CRC Handbook of Chemistry and Physics, CO2's specific heat is 0.1989 calories per gram at +15C and oxygen is 0.2178 cal/g at +15C. Pretty close.
None of this latent heat or specific stuff of O2 or CO2 has anything to do with climate change though. Near as I can tell.

"Look up the emission spectra...."
Regarding spectra of CO2, it absorbs right in the middle of Earth's radiation curve. See figure 2.9 here http://www-users.math.umn.edu/~mcGehee/Seminars/ClimateChange/presentations/2013-1Spring/20130212ThermalIRandCarbonDioxideintheAtmosphere.pdf

Regarding water vapor, it is a more important greenhouse gas than CO2.
No idea what you mean with the "100 times" and 400 times" stuff.
Please clarify.
Water vapor isn't really a problem though. It doesn't accumulate in the atmosphere the way CO2 does. Get too much water vapor and it rains or snows or something. It does amplify the effect of CO2 some though in that warmer air can hold more water vapor than cooler air before saturating.
Then there are clouds. Complicated effects on climate.


If the latent heat content isn't quoted for most common gases in the latest books all I can say is that the mighty have fallen pretty low.

The latent heat content of a gas is the maximum heat (vibratory energy) that a molecule can hold at a 1:1 energy in vs energy out basis.

In the chart supplied with the article you referenced you can see that virtually all of the Sun's emissions are absorbed into water. This means not JUST the 4% average of water and water vapor in the atmosphere but all of the 70% of the Earth that is covered in water.

Near the extreme bottom there are a couple of narrow spectral lines that are CO2 absorption lines. The chart demonstrates that there is very little energy in that region. Below that is where the Earth's emission begins so CO2 misses almost all of that energy as well. Is there any spectral lines within the Earth's emission band? Yes but at the far upper end where little energy is available.

There are three primary absorption lines of CO2: A very weak one at 4,000 mm, a strong one around 2,300 and a weak one about 700 mm.

Looking at:

http://physics.nist.gov/PhysRefData/Handbook/Tables/oxygentable2.htm

You can see that not only is there a higher latent heat content of O2 as you noted but there is overlap in the absorption spectra.

Therefore O2 is a more powerful "greenhouse gas" that the CO2 which replaces it.

The story is illustrated and little better by:

https://objectivistindividualist.blogspot.com/2013/02/infrared-absorbing-gases-and-earths.html

Quite frankly I first read spectra and latent heat in a high school textbook in the 50's. In a public school. In Oakland.


What has latent heat capacity got to do with the IR absorption and re-emission thing?

I ask because I don't know. This is the first I have heard about the heat cpacity of the atmosphere being any significant factor.
05-02-2017 23:27
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
Tim the plumber wrote:
Wake wrote:
still learning wrote:
Wake wrote:

....Pick up any freshman's chemistry book and look up the difference between CO2 and O2 from which CO2 is generated. Surprise - O2 has a higher latent heat content. So more O2 = more heat held in the atmosphere and more CO2 the less heat is held.

Also look up the emission spectra of the Sun. Then look up the emission spectra of the Earth. Then look up the absorption spectra of CO2 - surprise - CO2 is below the Sun and above the Earth. You can't hold any energy that you can't find.

The "greenhouse gas" of the Earth is water which is 100 times more that CO2 and 400 times more than the quantity of CO2 that they claim is dirty, evil, mean, rotten and nasty. CO2 has tiny absorption lines where very little energy resides. Water has EXTREMELY wide absorption lines over almost the entire spectrum.


"Pick up any freshman chemistry textbook....O2 has a higher latent heat content....more heat held."

My copy of Pauling's General Chemistry doesn't seem to have anything about the latent heat of oxygen or carbon dioxide. Maybe you could point out an example.
Not sure what latent heat of oxygen or CO2 has to do with anything under discussion here. By "latent heat" folks usually mean what is sometimes called heat of fusion or heat of vaporization. Heat having to do with a phase change, not a direct temperature change. No phase change of either oxygen or CO2 in the atmosphere of Earth. Mars maybe. Water certainly involved with phase change though. Evaporation/condensation/freezing/melting. Water's latent heat definitely a factor in moving heat around in the atmosphere.
Maybe you meant "specific heat," related to the amount of heat it takes to heat a given mass of substance a given temperature change. According to my old (39th edition) CRC Handbook of Chemistry and Physics, CO2's specific heat is 0.1989 calories per gram at +15C and oxygen is 0.2178 cal/g at +15C. Pretty close.
None of this latent heat or specific stuff of O2 or CO2 has anything to do with climate change though. Near as I can tell.

"Look up the emission spectra...."
Regarding spectra of CO2, it absorbs right in the middle of Earth's radiation curve. See figure 2.9 here http://www-users.math.umn.edu/~mcGehee/Seminars/ClimateChange/presentations/2013-1Spring/20130212ThermalIRandCarbonDioxideintheAtmosphere.pdf

Regarding water vapor, it is a more important greenhouse gas than CO2.
No idea what you mean with the "100 times" and 400 times" stuff.
Please clarify.
Water vapor isn't really a problem though. It doesn't accumulate in the atmosphere the way CO2 does. Get too much water vapor and it rains or snows or something. It does amplify the effect of CO2 some though in that warmer air can hold more water vapor than cooler air before saturating.
Then there are clouds. Complicated effects on climate.


If the latent heat content isn't quoted for most common gases in the latest books all I can say is that the mighty have fallen pretty low.

The latent heat content of a gas is the maximum heat (vibratory energy) that a molecule can hold at a 1:1 energy in vs energy out basis.

In the chart supplied with the article you referenced you can see that virtually all of the Sun's emissions are absorbed into water. This means not JUST the 4% average of water and water vapor in the atmosphere but all of the 70% of the Earth that is covered in water.

Near the extreme bottom there are a couple of narrow spectral lines that are CO2 absorption lines. The chart demonstrates that there is very little energy in that region. Below that is where the Earth's emission begins so CO2 misses almost all of that energy as well. Is there any spectral lines within the Earth's emission band? Yes but at the far upper end where little energy is available.

There are three primary absorption lines of CO2: A very weak one at 4,000 mm, a strong one around 2,300 and a weak one about 700 mm.

Looking at:

http://physics.nist.gov/PhysRefData/Handbook/Tables/oxygentable2.htm

You can see that not only is there a higher latent heat content of O2 as you noted but there is overlap in the absorption spectra.

Therefore O2 is a more powerful "greenhouse gas" that the CO2 which replaces it.

The story is illustrated and little better by:

https://objectivistindividualist.blogspot.com/2013/02/infrared-absorbing-gases-and-earths.html

Quite frankly I first read spectra and latent heat in a high school textbook in the 50's. In a public school. In Oakland.


What has latent heat capacity got to do with the IR absorption and re-emission thing?

I ask because I don't know. This is the first I have heard about the heat cpacity of the atmosphere being any significant factor.

I don't think there is any such thing as the "latent heat content/capacity" of oxygen or carbon dioxide.

There is such a thing as "latent heat of vaporization" but since we're not dealing with phase changes between liquid and gaseous CO2 and O2, it's hard to see what this would have to do with global warming.

It's possible that Wake actually means "specific heat capacity", but that too has nothing to do with global warming. The specific heat capacity of the gases in the atmosphere determines how much thermal inertia they have, but makes no difference to the warming effect.

The greenhouse effect is, of course, a consequence of the radiative properties of gases, in particular, the ability of poly-atomic gaseous molecules to absorb IR. It has nothing to do with their latent heats of vaporization or specific heat capacities.
06-02-2017 18:14
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
Surface Detail wrote: I don't think there is any such thing as the "latent heat content/capacity" of oxygen or carbon dioxide.

There is such a thing as "latent heat of vaporization" but since we're not dealing with phase changes between liquid and gaseous CO2 and O2, it's hard to see what this would have to do with global warming.

It's possible that Wake actually means "specific heat capacity", but that too has nothing to do with global warming. The specific heat capacity of the gases in the atmosphere determines how much thermal inertia they have, but makes no difference to the warming effect.

The greenhouse effect is, of course, a consequence of the radiative properties of gases, in particular, the ability of poly-atomic gaseous molecules to absorb IR. It has nothing to do with their latent heats of vaporization or specific heat capacities.


I guess it's just to strenuous an exercise to bend your fingers:

http://catalog.conveyorspneumatic.com/Asset/FLS%20Specific%20Heat%20Capacities%20of%20Gases.pdf
Page 1 of 212>





Join the debate excessive heat creation factor:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
Max Planck and Pierre Prevost on Net Thermal Radiation and Net Heat115-09-2019 06:44
How does radiation heat CO2615-08-2019 05:38
Creation1810-08-2019 04:32
Holding in heat1704-06-2019 19:08
Climate change is a major factor in flooding – but it's not the only one030-04-2019 06:03
▲ 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