|Hold on. O2 and N2 do NOT absorb IR?25-09-2016 01:54|
|Tai Hai Chen★★★★☆
|Atoms absorb light. Atoms get excited when hit by light and transform light energy into heat energy. Molecules are made of atoms bounded together by chemical binding energy. So why wouldn't O2 and N2 absorb IR like CO2 and H2O do?|
If 1 oxygen atom absorbs so so amount of light, then O2 should absorb double that amount. If 1 nitrogen atom absorbs so so amount of light, then N2 should absorb double that amount.
I don't believe O2 and N2 do not absorb light. That sounds ludicrous to me.
Edited on 25-09-2016 02:06
|Yeah, deal with it. "But it is preposterous!" applies just as well to relativity. That's argument from ridiculousness. That's not science.|
Besides, you're wrong. Molecules are more than the sum of their parts. You don't seem like you're ever taken a Chem class, or you'd know that NaCl doesn't act the way Na and Cl do on their own.
Absorbed energy is stored as rotational, translational, etc. energy. This is quantum stuff. You might not know it. Kindly don't call my statements ludicrous; they are based on sound science. Your statements are easily disproved with absorption and emission spectra.
|* POST 2000|
Posted at 2:31 a.m., for added pointless fixation.
|Convection Is a Thing☆☆☆☆☆
|N2 and O2 do absorb and emit IR, mostly at 2360cm-1 and 1580cm-1 respectively. This cannot be observed by IR spectroscopy, only Raman spectroscopy, thus the 19th century papers erroneously concluded that 98% of the gases in the atmosphere are not IR active, which we now know to contradict to laws of QM. |
Molecules do not resemble their atomic building blocks in any way. QM also explains why physical matter behaves the way it does as atoms and molecules - it's all about frequencies of vibration.
Edited on 22-01-2019 19:07
Convection Is a Thing wrote:
While O2 does absorb in the IR, it is only in the extremely low area just above microwave radiation. Most of the absorbed energy in O2 is in the UV. N2 in Earth's atmosphere doesn't absorb in the IR but only in the IR.
You have to remember that these absorption bands are strongly effected by the heat of the atmosphere. You can read papers showing IR absorption but they only are applicable to O2 in the atmosphere's of Titan etc. where they are getting down towards absolute zero and most molecules will absorb any energy. Once these bands are filled by the energy available on Earth the reactions of molecutes are totally different.
|Into the Night★★★★★
Wake wrote:Convection Is a Thing wrote:
N2 doesn't absorb in the IR but only in the IR???
Wake wrote:Absorption bands are not affected by temperature. There is no 'heat' of the atmosphere. Heat is not temperature. It is not stored anywhere.
Wake wrote:Titan is nowhere close to absolute zero, Wake. The lowest observed temperature on Titan is -290 deg F. Absolute zero is -459.67 deg F. The absorption spectrum of a molecule is unaffected by temperature. That said, no molecule will absorb a photon with less energy than the molecule already has.
The absorption spectrum stays the same, Wake. It is unaffected by temperature.
The Parrot Killer
Convection Is a Thing wrote:
Near as I can tell, those 2360cm-1 and 1580cm-1 values refer to something called "raman shift," and are not actual absorbed wavenumber values.
This raman shift number has to do with the amount of shift a monochromatic beam illuminating a sample may undergo. Usually called a scattering, not an absorption or emission. Monochromatic, not an incandescent source like our Sun.
A subtle effect, useful in analytic work apparently. Really difficult to observe in nature, seems like. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raman_spectroscopy
still learning wrote:Convection Is a Thing wrote:
That's what I suspect about most of the 'science' used by the IPCC. Everything looks a bit different in a isolated, controlled environment (jar) in a laboratory, but completely different outside in the wild. It seems like they focus on the lab results, as if it's going to be precisely the same, and ignore that the atmosphere is made up of many other things, much larger area, and other forces at work. The energy source (sun) isn't a steady, tightly focused beam, but constantly varies in intensity, and the CO2 has some competition, and it spread around much too thin, to have an significant influence over anything, much less on a global catastrophic scale.
I'm pretty sure than when the IPCC and the governments start talking serious about price, and how to pay-to-save, the science will quickly separate from the fiction. Richer folks have no problem spending other people's money, but better not dare reach for even a penny of their's.
|Burning fossil fuel reduce O2 and increase CO2 and CO2 is a cooling gas so why||4||20-06-2019 06:30|
|What makes IPCC thinks CO2 is better than O2 at trapping heat?||0||28-04-2019 15:40|
|What makes IPCC thinks N2, O2, O3 are not as good at capturing and retaining heat than CO2 can?||2||18-04-2019 20:57|
|Considering O2, N2, O3 absorb more than 99% of incoming shortwave radiation, which is far more powerful||1||18-04-2019 19:31|
|The first few (3 or 4) ppm CO2 absorb 99 percent of whatever IR CO2 absorbs, CO2 is certainly not logarit||3||31-03-2019 17:58|