2011-02-05 15:47:11Forensic Assist Request #2
John Hartz
John Hartz
john.hartz@hotmail...
98.122.68.19

Here's another post from the unsinkable Jack Enright. Which denier myth is it? Possible source?

"1. Co2 is a linear molecule, only stretches and compresses, no rotation like water, no quantum leap to a higher energy state just emission, loss of energy. Co2 not much impedance to infrared mostly saturated by water vapor and clouds. very little effect by Co2, grossly exaggerated.

2. emission by small Co2 molecules not to be compared to radiation from planet, most energy is scattered, convected by winds, saturated by clouds, lost to space. every collision results in a loss of energy, entropy. doppler effect comes in with co2 moving toward or away from source (planet) so sides of bandwidth are slightly increased for more absorption,very slight effect.

3. the presence of water vapor will affect the saturation of CO2 with infrared depending on temperature and pressure. In desert areas with low water vapor pressure, CO2 will saturate more infrared than over the Ocean with high vapor pressure of water. It is not a greenhouse effect because there is considerable convection currents in the atmosphere.

4. the drop can be explained by a lack of clouds due to a time period of high sunspot activity. But this same signature is nearly identical for Mars for the same period. Mars has 9 times the conc of CO2 , adjusted for thin atmos. Clouds make up the climate of Earth. IPCC totally neglects the most important factor. feedbacks are stressed but can not be accurately measured.

5. 15 micron is wider than the 3-4 micron band, and 50% of the 15 micron band makes for most of CO2 absorption of infrared, this only accounts for 3% of the infrared radiation from Earth, considering IPCC does not input water vapor accurately. Layering of atmosphere does not increase saturation of infrared by Co2, convection moves gases, heat escapes into outerspace by path of least resistance, upward with less and less pressure.

2011-02-05 19:18:19
Paul D

chillcast@googlemail...
82.18.130.183

Enright: "Co2 is a linear molecule, only stretches and compresses, no rotation like water"

Erm, I think that is bollocks, but those with a physics background may know better??

http://webphysics.davidson.edu/alumni/jimn/co2/pages/co2theory.htm

Water responds to microwave radiation and rotates. CO2 also rotates but I don't know what frequency radiation it responds to.
The article in the link suggests it is similar to diatomic molecules, so it wouldn't be the same as water.

 

2011-02-05 19:24:43How to answer physics technobabble
John Cook

john@skepticalscience...
123.211.149.21
Rather than get bogged down in molecular physics, the is a very simple, straightforward answer to this kind of argument. Direct observations find an increased greenhouse effect from CO2. Multiple lines of evidence are provided at http://www.skepticalscience.com/empirical-evidence-for-co2-enhanced-greenhouse-effect.htm

So measurements made out in the real world find CO2 is causing warming. Nature has spoken.

2011-02-05 19:38:21
Paul D

chillcast@googlemail...
82.18.130.183
His No. 2 comment is just a string of disparate ideas that has no consistency. I don't really know what he is trying to say there other than a string of different disconnected reasons why there isn't a problem. It's like he has a big idea he is thinking of and squeezed it into a paragraph.
2011-02-05 19:48:20
Paul D

chillcast@googlemail...
82.18.130.183

He seems to want to give the impression that he knows his physics.

I suggest tackling him on two fronts.

1. Point out flaws in his science (not all, just a few, because like skeptics, you only have to nibble around the sides!).
This casts doubts on the rest of his knowledge.

2. Then do what John has suggested and use the multiple lines of evidence approach.

This does two things, it highlights his errors to the public and it refocuses their thoughts on mainstream science.

2011-02-05 22:19:22
nealjking

nealjking@gmail...
84.151.44.10

On molecules: The whole "issue" of stretching vs. rotations is a waste of time:

- The spectrum of CO2 as well as other of H20 and other relevant molecules is well known, both by standard modeling and by direct measurements. This would be like arguing that cars cannot work because the gas tanks would have to be too big: The answer is, "We see the cars driving around already. Try again."

2011-02-06 03:49:59Skyhunter #1
John Hartz
John Hartz
john.hartz@hotmail...
98.122.68.19

Here's the first part of Skyhunter's detailed response Enright's smorgasbord. (I had posted a general response referencing, SkS's "How do we know more CO2 is causing warming?” )

BTW, is one of you posting as Shyhunter?


1.Co2 is a linear molecule, only stretches and compresses,

CO2 is a linear molecule, however it is triatomic. Stretching and compressing are the only quantum vibrations of diatomic molecules, which are linear. The stretching and compressing are considered one vibrations since one does not occur without rebounding the other direction.

CO2 has three quantum vibrational modes, symmetric stretch, asymmetric stretch, and bending.

http://www.windows2universe.org/physical_science/chemistry/molecules_vibrate.html&edu=high

no quantum leap to a higher energy state just emission, loss of energy.

That statement is contradictory. When a molecule of CO2 emits a photon it drops to a lower quantum state. If it can come down, then it must be able to go up. In other words, it cannot emit unless it can first absorb it.

every collision results in a loss of energy, I am assuming you mean by loss of energy, you mean transferred to another molecule. Not necessarily, if the other molecule is more energetic, IE warmer, then the CO2 molecule will gain energy not lose it.

The relaxation time for a CO2 molecule, after it absorbs a photon in the 15 micron wavelength is about 10 seconds. The time between collisions at atmospheric pressure is 0.27 nanoseconds. In other words, a CO2 molecule will collide with other molecules an average 370,000 times before it emits the absorbed energy.

doppler effect comes in with co2 moving toward or away from source (planet) so dth are slightly increased for more absorption,very slight effect.

Sorry but the slight movements of gas within the atmosphere can not broaden the absorption lines. The broadening at the wings is from pressure and temperature. I am quite certain you cannot provide a scientific source to support that notion.

2011-02-06 03:52:05Skyhunter #2
John Hartz
John Hartz
john.hartz@hotmail...
98.122.68.19
3. the presence of water vapor will affect the saturation of CO2 with infrared depending on temperature and pressure.

I think you are misusing the term saturation. Do you mean that WV will effect the absorption by CO2?

If so you are correct, depending on temperature and pressure. The Earth's surface temperature is ~289K, so peak emission is in the 10 micron frequency. Nothing absorbs at that frequency, it is an open window into space. Add more CO2 and you begin to close the window. By adding CO2 both temperature and pressure increase, broadening the lines of absorption, and moving the peak emission to shorter wavelengths.

In desert areas with low water vapor pressure, CO2 will saturate more infrared than over the Ocean with high vapor pressure of water.

Again I assume you don't mean saturate but absorb. If this is so then your statement is correct. In the absence of WV, CO2 will absorb more IR energy, because more will be available. Remember that the warmer the air, the more water vapor it holds.

2011-02-06 03:54:31Skyhunter #3
John Hartz
John Hartz
john.hartz@hotmail...
98.122.68.19

4. the drop can be explained by a lack of clouds due to a time period of high sunspot activity. But this same signature is nearly identical for Mars for the same period

Since mars does not have clouds, I would suspect that there is something else happening, since you say the phenomenon is observed on both planets. Without more to go on I can't even speculate.

Could you provide a link to the source of the data that shows this correlation?

5. 15 micron is wider than the 3-4 micron band, and 50% of the 15 micron band makes for most of CO2 absorption of infrared, this only accounts for 3% of the infrared radiation from Earth, considering IPCC does not input water vapor accurately. Layering of atmosphere does not increase saturation of infrared by Co2, convection moves gases, heat escapes into outerspace by path of least resistance, upward with less and less pressure.

The 15 micron band is also closer to Earth's peak emission. The higher layers of the atmosphere emit at cooler temperatures, shifting the peak emission curve to the longer wavelengths.

The IPCC uses the same spectroscopic databases as every other science institute in the world. What ever gave you the idea that they don't?

My hope here is that I can impart enough basic physics that you will finally understand the flaws in your logic.

2011-02-06 17:51:11CO2 rotation
Ari Jokimäki

arijmaki@yahoo...
91.154.104.236

Here is a laboratory study on CO2 rotation (Herzberg & Herzberg, 1953):

http://www.opticsinfobase.org/abstract.cfm?URI=josa-43-11-1037

Here is another one (Miller & Watts, 1984):

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0009-2614(84)80051-2