Remember me
▼ Content

How can scientists know Earth's greenhouse effect is not because of its atmospheric pressure?



Page 2 of 2<12
27-02-2016 15:18
One Punch Man
★☆☆☆☆
(116)
Surface Detail wrote:
The emissivity of a gas depends on its optical depth (typically in m atm) rather then just its concentration, so I suspect that you may have misinterpreted the graphs. Please could you give a link to where you found the 0.003 figure so I can check for myself. As I understand it, the optical depth of the CO2 in the Earth's atmosphere is sufficient to give an emissivity approaching 0.18. Also, does the IPCC figure include contributions from other GHGs or just CO2?

I have already given you the link above from Nasif Nahle giving a total emissivity for CO2 of 0.003 from experiments and those references are given at the end of the article. The optical depth does not come into it because the measurements were in a laboratory without other gases to interfere with the results. The optical depth would be a factor in our atmosphere because by my understanding even though CO2 is more or less homogeneuously spread throughout the atmosphere the amount of other gases absorbing radiation on CO2's wavebands such as H2O increases dramatically as you go deeper into the atmosphere. But having other gases in the atmosphere competing with radiation I can only imagine would decrease emissivity for CO2 as opposed to increasing it. Hence the laboratory observations I would think would provide us with a maximum emissivity for CO2 without interference from other atmospheric constituents, and that interference would only decrease the emissivity of CO2.
27-02-2016 15:29
One Punch Man
★☆☆☆☆
(116)
Surface Detail wrote:Also, does the IPCC figure include contributions from other GHGs or just CO2?

Somewhere, probably from Trenberth. The IPCC's equation gives 32 W/m2 for CO2 which contributes 21% to the assumed total planetary greenhouse. According to NASA the total greenhouse represents around 150 W/m2 of radiative forcing (Google NASA Taking Measure of the Greenhouse Effect) and of that forcing CO2 contributes around 20%, and they give percentages for other greenhouse gases. They give water vapour as 50% which seems amazing to me since water vapour composes on average 1% of the atmosphere (NASA Earth Fach Sheet) and absorbs radiation over a wider spectrum. I would think water vapour would contribute at least 96% to the greenhouse forcing relative to CO2.
Edited on 27-02-2016 15:46
28-02-2016 03:54
Ceist
★★★☆☆
(592)
One Punch Man wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Your earlier figure of 10,000 C at the surface of Jupiter was obviously complete bollocks.

By my understanding Jupiter may not have a surface but deep in its atmosphere temperatures can apparently reach 24,000K which was measured by the Galileo spacecraft in 1994.

Surface Detail wrote:And the sources for these figures are?

Here's one source: according to measurements by Hottel and Leckner CO2 has a maximum absorptivity/emissivity of 0.003.


No, neither Hottel or Leckner ever wrote anything as stupid as that. Where did you read that ridiculous claim? Certainly not in their research papers. Someone is obviously misrepresenting their research.

One Punch Man wrote:
When applying the radiative transfer equation for two bodies I got a radiation-enhancement of 0.45 W/m2 or 0.083K at the surface assuming the surface is 288K and the atmosphere is 255K which is close to Tai Hai Chen's estimate of 0.1K.


What "radiative transfer equation for two bodies"? How about you show us your 'equation' and 'application'.

One Punch Man wrote:
Nasif Nahle calculates a temperature increase of 0.3K with the same formula although he uses different temperatures for the surface and atmosphere: http://climaterealists.com/?id=8236 Claes Johnson calculates an increase "smaller than 0.5 W/m2" http://claesjohnson.blogspot.co.uk/2013_02_01_archive.html and so my figure of 0.45 W/m2 seems about right. Rounding it off to 0.5 W/m2, that equates to a temperature increase at the surface of 0.092K, which is more or less the same as Tai Hai Chen's estimate.


Mystery about your 'sources' is solved. Nasif Nahle and Claes Johnson? LOL!. They are Sky Dragon Slayer crackpots with no background or publications in earth/atmospheric sciences and just post their junk-science rubbish on blogs.

Nasif Nahle's field is apparently biology and herbal medicine -he has never published any research in earth/atmospheric sciences. Not only is he very confused about atmospheric physics and thermodynamics, he even gets confused by units of measure. His whole blather about CO2 emissivity is apparently based on incorrectly understanding a unit of measurement in a graph by Hottel.

Claes Johnson's field is apparently engineering/applied mathematics - he has also never published any research in earth/atmospheric sciences. He is also apparently confused by atmospheric physics and thermodynamics.

Hey, if you want to read some 'sciency looking' claims on crackpot junk-science Sky Dragon Slayer conspiracy blogs by people who don't have a freakin' clue what they are talking about, and you gullibly want to delude yourself into believing it's factual, go right ahead. But don't expect anyone to take you (or them) seriously.

Like many religiously/ideologically driven science deniers, you appear to avoid science textbooks and published research like the plague, and are attracted to junk-science claims on crank magnet blogs or just making up crap as you go.

You, Tai Hai Chen, Buildreps, Into the Night and IBdaMann are about as convincing as Young Earth Creationists and flat earthers trying to claim science supports your scientifically illiterate rantings.




Edited on 28-02-2016 04:00
28-02-2016 06:21
Ceist
★★★☆☆
(592)
One Punch Man wrote:The maximum emissivity of 0.003 at its current concentration is from Hottel and Leckner (you can Google their graphs) including the other scientists that Nasif Nahle references in his article. The total maximum might be 0.18 at super-high concentrations. Assuming an emissivity of 0.18 and applying the aforementioned radiative transfer equation and assuming a surface temperature of 288K and an atmospheric temperature of 255K that corresponds to a radiance of 21.5 W/m2 from CO2 whereas the IPCC assumes it to be 32 W/m2.


You're talking complete bollocks.

Your crackpot 'expert' Nasif is referencing sources from the 1950's to the 1970's about radiative heat transfer with high temperature gases in enclosed industrial furnaces, boilers and rocket combustion chambers etc. Not gases in the bulk of the earth's atmosphere.

Hottel, Lapp, Farag, Leckner etc didn't refer to CO2 in the earth's atmosphere at all.

One would think that even the Journal title of "Combustion and Flame" or the title of "Handbook of Infrared Radiation from Combustion Gases" might have given you a clue. But apparently not.

Nasif's fundamental mistake is that he erroneously calls a value of pressure.distance (atm.m) used in the charts by Hottel, Leckner, Lapp etc, a partial pressure (atm), then incorrectly applies that value. His figure of 0.003 is not only wrong because he is reading the charts incorrectly, it's wrong by several orders of magnitude. He's just playing with numbers and doesn't have a clue what he is doing.


How about reading some of the referenced sources instead of gullibly swallowing whatever some unpublished loon with no background in atmospheric sciences writes on an internet blog.

NONE of his references support his nonsense claims at ALL.

Ludvig et al (1973)
Handbook of Infrared Radiation from Combustion Gases. Technical Report SP-3080.NASA. 1973.
http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19730019075.pdf
"The treatment of radiant emission and absorption by combustion gases are discussed. Typical applications include: (1) rocket combustion chambers and exhausts, (2) turbojet engines and exhausts, and (3) industrial furnaces"

Leckner (1972)
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0010218072800841

Lapp (1960)- thesis
http://thesis.library.caltech.edu/2809/1/Lapp_m_1960.pdf
Includes the chart by Hottel.

Farag (1976)- thesis
https://dspace.mit.edu/handle/1721.1/42950

Nasif also refers to Michael Modest's textbook "Radiative Heat Transfer"
which shows the charts by Hottel and Leckner on these pages
https://books.google.com.au/books?id=J2KZq0e4lCIC&pg=PA364&lpg=PA364&dq=Hottel+and+Leckner&source=bl&ots=_zd1x9Q_hZ&sig=mpMie8OhtQ7XvADCxgPLNSZD4RM&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjm36PjsJnLAhXDG5QKHcWNBF8Q6AEIMzAD#v=onepage&q=Hottel%20and%20Leckner&f=false


Better yet, read some textbooks on Atmospheric Physics, Radiative Heat Transfer and Thermodynamics so you might have a better idea when internet loons are talking crap and won't get taken for a ride so easily.



Edited on 28-02-2016 06:26
28-02-2016 06:38
Ceist
★★★☆☆
(592)
Surface Detail wrote:
One Punch Man wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
That sounds incredible to me. At the core of the planet, possibly, but in the atmosphere? Do you have a reference for this?

In the core is what I meant.

It'd be easier if you'd say what you mean. "Deep in the atmosphere" is not the same as "in the core". And I don't see how Galileo (edit: the probe, of course!) could possibly have measured Jupiter's core temperature. Reference?

this one, page 14) give the emissivity of CO2 as tending towards a maximum of about 0.18 with increasing optical depth (for temperatures around 300 K). Where exactly did your 0.003 figure come from ?

The maximum emissivity of 0.003 at its current concentration is from Hottel and Leckner (you can Google their graphs) including the other scientists that Nasif Nahle references in his article. The total maximum might be 0.18 at super-high concentrations. Assuming an emissivity of 0.18 and applying the aforementioned radiative transfer equation and assuming a surface temperature of 288K and an atmospheric temperature of 255K that corresponds to a radiance of 21.5 W/m2 from CO2 whereas the IPCC assumes it to be 32 W/m2.

The emissivity of a gas depends on its optical depth (typically in m atm) rather then just its concentration, so I suspect that you may have misinterpreted the graphs. Please could you give a link to where you found the 0.003 figure so I can check for myself. As I understand it, the optical depth of the CO2 in the Earth's atmosphere is sufficient to give an emissivity approaching 0.18. Also, does the IPCC figure include contributions from other GHGs or just CO2?

OPM's 'source' is Nasif's unpublished blog pseudoscience waffle. OPM apparently thinks he is a 'scientist'. Nasif apparently thinks he is a 'scientist' too. He says so at the top of his blog article.


"Scientist, University Professor and Director of Scientific Research Division at Biology Cabinet Mexico"

http://www.biocab.org/Overlapping_Absorption_Bands.pdf

The "Biology Cabinet" is Nasif's personal blog. He is the "Director" of it. I don't know what University he believes he is a "University Professor" at. Perhaps he believes he has an imaginary PhD as well


Just another delusional loon ranting on the internet.



Edited on 28-02-2016 07:08
28-02-2016 17:37
One Punch Man
★☆☆☆☆
(116)
Here is the graph of the low absorptvitiy/emissivity of CO2 at varying temperatures and partial pressures if anyone else is interested; as Nasif Nahle points out in the article the older results from Hottel and Leckner have been corroborated by other researchers. L in the graph apparently represents the optical depth for CO2 and atm is the partial pressure; where 0.0004-atm equals an atmospheric concentration of 0.04%. The higher the temperature, the higher the absorptivity/emissivity.



The graph shows a maximum absorptivity/emissivity for CO2 of 0.01 at partial pressures of ~0.0006-atm. The temperatures are higher than what we would expect in the atmosphere but since the absorptivity/emissivity is dependent on the temperature and increases with temperature then the absorptivity/emissivity of CO2 one would think would be less than 0.01 at atmospheric temperatures. Hence the graph is unrealistically favourable. The graph above was taken from Claes Johnson's website.
28-02-2016 17:51
One Punch Man
★☆☆☆☆
(116)
What's that sweaking? I could have sworn I heard something.

Probably just another angry warmist who hates having their religion challenged.
28-02-2016 18:19
One Punch Man
★☆☆☆☆
(116)
Here is another graph comparing the absorptivity/emissivity of CO2 with water vapour (H2O).

29-02-2016 12:27
Ceist
★★★☆☆
(592)
One Punch Man wrote:
Here is the graph of the low absorptvitiy/emissivity of CO2 at varying temperatures and partial pressures if anyone else is interested; as Nasif Nahle points out in the article the older results from Hottel and Leckner have been corroborated by other researchers. L in the graph apparently represents the optical depth for CO2 and atm is the partial pressure; where 0.0004-atm equals an atmospheric concentration of 0.04%. The higher the temperature, the higher the absorptivity/emissivity.



The graph shows a maximum absorptivity/emissivity for CO2 of 0.01 at partial pressures of ~0.0006-atm. The temperatures are higher than what we would expect in the atmosphere but since the absorptivity/emissivity is dependent on the temperature and increases with temperature then the absorptivity/emissivity of CO2 one would think would be less than 0.01 at atmospheric temperatures. Hence the graph is unrealistically favourable. The graph above was taken from Claes Johnson's website.


You're talking complete bollocks yet again.

All of the references your Sky Dragon Slayer high-priest Nasif listed on his blogwaffle piece are very clear that the emissivity of a gas is a function of its temperature, partial pressure, path length, and total pressure, yet he seems to ignore the path length when selecting one of the Hottel curves.

The chart you posted uses atm m to define the curves. Each curve of emissivity versus temperature is associated with a mass path length, in atmosphere meters. That's really obvious. Ignoring the path length part of that measure and just selecting the 0.0006 curve apparently without even knowing what it is, is just stupid. To select the correct curve, you would have to multiply the partial pressure of CO2 by the path length in meters. Even at a path length of 1 km, the P CO2 value would be about 0.4 and the corresponding emissivity would be between 0.1 and 0.2, several orders of magnitude higher than Nasif erroneously claims.

Besides, the Hottel data was meant to be used for things like enclosed coal or gas fired boilers and furnaces, not gases in the atmosphere. I guess you didn't even bother to question why your high-priests Nasif and Claes completely ignored all the far more relevant research papers and textbooks on atmospheric heat transfer that show they are wrong? Or HITRAN? Is it because you don't have a clue so you gullibly swallow and regurgitate as gospel truth whatever someone with zero background in atmospheric sciences on a conspiracy blog posts if it's what you want to hear?

By the way, 500 R is equal to 277.8 K

Here's some relevant pages from a couple of textbooks on Heat Transfer re the Hottel / Leckner charts:

https://books.google.com.au/books?id=lLT-aKLTxkQC&pg=PA341&lpg=PA341&dq=(paL)+partial+pressure&source=bl&ots=7k2Tqnq85r&sig=QcPMtuOvXeacdhXdNEjUoB4gbi4&hl=en&ei=editTe2WN_GD0QGVxs3BCw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=(paL)%20partial%20pressure&f=false

https://books.google.com.au/books?id=b2238B-AsqcC&pg=PA713&lpg=PA713&dq=multiply+the+partial+pressure+of+CO2+by+the+path+length+in+meters&source=bl&ots=-DR476ios6&sig=rVHEYpFxJG4fhb5CgSUpAsp7VMI&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjB2fqV25zLAhXMoZQKHb2ODQwQ6AEIKDAD#v=onepage&q=multiply%20the%20partial%20pressure%20of%20CO2%20by%20the%20path%20length%20in%20meters&f=false

and a brief primer on atmospheric greenhouse gases for you:
http://forecast.uchicago.edu/chapter4.pdf



Edited on 29-02-2016 12:55
29-02-2016 12:41
Ceist
★★★☆☆
(592)
One Punch Man wrote:
What's that sweaking? I could have sworn I heard something.

Probably just another angry warmist who hates having their religion challenged.

Sweaking? Are you just making up new words now too? Or did you find it on one of your favourite conspiracy blogs?

Perhaps what you heard was everyone laughing their arses off at you seriously believing that really flawed unpublished blog pseudoscience waffle by Sky Dragon Slayers who can't even get the basics right, is any sort of 'challenge' to science.

Even most of the so- called 'skeptic' blogs think Nasif Nahle and Claes Johnson and the rest of that little bunch of Principia Scientific International loons are just too embarrassing and ridiculous.

But, good for you for spreading the hilarity and laughter around.


For your next entertaining post, are you going to present G & T's paper as if it's gospel truth?



Edited on 29-02-2016 12:57
29-02-2016 13:05
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4578)
Ceist wrote: Perhaps what you heard was everyone laughing their arses off at you...

Still pretending you speak for countless, untold others.

Ceist, I don't know if you realize this but every time you bash someone (which is all you really know how to do) you are announcing that you are impotent to attack the message so you resort to attacking the messengers.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
29-02-2016 13:29
Ceist
★★★☆☆
(592)
A "tone troll" post from IBAwesome who rarely posts anything other than insults, scientist bashing, and evidence-free pseudoscience and conspiracy waffle.

How Awesome!



29-02-2016 14:00
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4578)
Ceist wrote: A "tone troll" post from IBAwesome who rarely posts anything other than insults, scientist bashing, and evidence-free pseudoscience and conspiracy waffle.
How Awesome!

Impotent, so attack the messengers.

There might be a pill for that, but tell your doctor about any erections lasting more than four hours.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
29-02-2016 14:20
Ceist
★★★☆☆
(592)
I think it's so sweet that IBAwesome and Into the Dark team up to give each other a helpful hand with their emission issues. The ones they have when they go to bed at night and fantasize about showing the world what brilliant geniuses they are when they, humble laymen with no background at all in physics, prove all the textbooks and all the physicists in the world are stupid and have got it all wrong, and they are right.

Maybe they can reach out and give Punch Drunk Man a helpful hand too. He doesn't seem to know if he's coming or going with his emissions, but he obviously shares the same fantasy.



Edited on 29-02-2016 14:26
29-02-2016 16:34
One Punch Man
★☆☆☆☆
(116)
Ceist wrote:To select the correct curve, you would have to multiply the partial pressure of CO2 by the path length in meters. Even at a path length of 1 km, the PCO2 value would be about 0.4 and the corresponding emissivity would be between 0.1 and 0.2, several orders of magnitude higher than Nasif erroneously claims.

Multiplying partial pressure of 0.0006 atm-m by the path the length to find the true emissivity I think is nonsense. A pCO2 of 0.4 corresponds to an atmospheric CO2 concentration of = (40%/100)*1 atm = 0.4 atm (i.e. 40%). The emissivity is 0.1-0.2 on the graph is because of the very high partial pressure. According to your calculation, the emissivity of CO2 should increase as you got deeper into the sample, which seems nonsense to me. The emissivity of CO2 will not increase as you go further into the sample because 1) CO2 is said to be essentially homogenously spread throughout the atmosphere and has a constant partial pressure and 2) the path length is the length of a sample that light passes through and as you go deeper into the sample there will be less photons available on CO2 absorption wavelengths and so emissivity should decrease. I think I will stick with Nasif Nahle and Claes Johnson and you can stick with your emissivity of 0.1-0.2. Even so, by the Stefan-Boltzmann law the "back-radiation" from an emissivity of 0.15 would be (σ (288^4-255^4)/(1/0.7+1/0.15) = 18.5 W/m2 whereas the IPCC's logarithmic equation (based on HITRAN) predicts Ln*5.35(400/1) = 32 W/m2 corresponding to an emissivity of 0.3. Thanks for refuting the IPCC for us Ceist. I hope that Surface Detail and the entire duplicitous secret brotherhood of CAGW-alarmists get to read this. I think it might just give them all some insight into the real reasons for us CAGW-sceptics being unable even to make sense of, let alone accept the self-contradictory pseudoscientific gobbledegook and jingoistic claptrap that they have been preaching relentlessly to date.
Edited on 29-02-2016 16:51
29-02-2016 16:37
One Punch Man
★☆☆☆☆
(116)
Re-worded that.
Edited on 29-02-2016 16:43
29-02-2016 16:40
Ceist
★★★☆☆
(592)
*hands Punch Drunk Man IBAwesome's box of tissues for his emission issues*



Edited on 29-02-2016 16:42
29-02-2016 16:48
One Punch Man
★☆☆☆☆
(116)
Ceist wrote:
*hands Punch Drunk Man IBAwesome's box of tissues for his emission issues*

*hands Ceist the following book and smiles sympathetically*
29-02-2016 17:01
Ceist
★★★☆☆
(592)
*Ceist passes back Punch Drunk Man's well worn personal copy after noticing curiously that most of the pages appear to have been violently ripped out*



Edited on 29-02-2016 17:02
Page 2 of 2<12





Join the debate How can scientists know Earth's greenhouse effect is not because of its atmospheric pressure?:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
Bill Nye greenhouse gas experiment fail.1515-09-2019 20:45
Revealing the 160 year systematic error behind greenhouse theory with Raman Spectroscopy215-09-2019 18:46
Greenhouse Gases Do NOT Violate The Stefan-Boltzmann Law64813-09-2019 05:55
Is CO2 much of a Greenhouse gas at all?10813-09-2019 05:54
The most honest climate scientist among the most dishonest climate scientists203-09-2019 04:38
▲ 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