Welcome to
Science a GoGo's
Discussion Forums
Please keep your postings on-topic or they will be moved to a galaxy far, far away.
Your use of this forum indicates your agreement to our terms of use.
So that we remain spam-free, please note that all posts by new users are moderated.


The Forums
General Science Talk        Not-Quite-Science        Climate Change Discussion        Physics Forum        Science Fiction

Who's Online
0 registered (), 255 Guests and 4 Spiders online.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Latest Posts
Is there anybody out there?
by True
01/07/20 09:26 AM
Top Posters (30 Days)
True 1
Page 1 of 3 1 2 3 >
Topic Options
#56123 - 06/26/16 09:03 AM Follow the photon! Is this right?
samwik Offline
Megastar

Registered: 10/10/06
Posts: 1164
Loc: Colorado
I'm hoping to turn a fairly off-topic reply into an interesting and instructive lesson in physics.
So here is an attempted description for radiative heat transfer, istm, related to a question from greenhouse theory.

Originally Posted By: paul
OK , I read the highly informative and scientific article
on the "NEW SCIENTIST" web site that you posted the link to.

Quote:
we know that co2 is a greenhouse gas because it absorbs
and emits infrared radiation , basic physics tells us that
gasses with this property trap heat radiating from the earth...


basic physics tells us the following about the above MYTH !!!

lets reduce this process down to a earth that has only 1
co2 molecule in the atmosphere.

tell me at which time in the following basic physics processes
does the earth or the atmosphere warm due to the co2 molecule in the
atmosphere.

where t = time interval
and E = added energy
Earth = the earth
Atmos = the earths atmosphere

t=1
Earth E = 0
Atmos E = 0

sunlight passes by the co2 molecule on its trip to
the earths surface because its frequency is different
from the co2 molecule.

t=2
Earth E = 1
Atmos E = 0

the sunlight is absorbed by an object on the earth.
at this point for a fraction of a second there is a
tiny amount of heat transferred into the object on the
earth.


t=3
Earth E = .5
Atmos E = 0

a fraction of a second later the object then emits
infrared light (a photon of light)
at this point the object retains some of the heat energy
that it initially received from sunlight.
because the object released energy when it emitted the infrared light


t=4
Earth E = .5
Atmos E = .5

the infrared light that was emitted from the object
is then absorbed by the co2 molecule in the atmosphere.
at this point the co2 molecule becomes excited and undergoes
a frequency change ... and it cannot absorb another photon
until it emits a photon of the same energy that it absorbed.
for a tiny fraction of a second the co2 molecule moves around
in the atmosphere faster than it did before it became excited
by the infrared light that was emitted from the object on the earth.

t=5
Earth E = .5
Atmos E = 0

the co2 molecule then emits a photon with the exact energy
that it absorbed.

so far during this process the earth has gained .5 energy from the
visible light not the infrared light as the energy of the infrared light
is emitted by the object.

the co2 molecule has not gained any energy and the atmosphere has not
gained any energy.

so where in physics can it be claimed that co2 causes any warming?

the energy that is sent into the atmosphere (infrared) is not stored.

it is immediately released mostly back into space or towards the earth again.

now suppose the co2 molecule emits its infrared photon towards the earth
and the infrared photon is absorbed by the object on the earth.

t=6
Earth E = 1
Atmos E = 0

the infrared light is absorbed by the object on the earth.
and almost immediatly the object emits a infrared photon with the exact same energy.

t=7
Earth E = .5
Atmos E = 0

the photon of infrared light emitted from the object
is now traveling to the co2 molecule that is in the atmosphere.

--------------------------------------------------------------

this process can never change in a way that will cause
any additional energy (heat) to be stored on the earth or
in the atmosphere.

and it does not matter how many times the process is repeated.

and adding more co2 molecules to the atmosphere will deliver the same
results per each co2 molecule added.

note: where the belief , thoughts or claims that co2 causes any warming at all
is in question everything , all evidence , every claim and every word that exist above
the basic fundamental physical processes involved are muted debunked and totally
refuted by basic physics.

also:

if you desire to claim that the time interval between
t=4 and t=5 where the co2 molecule moves around in the
atmosphere faster and that an interaction with other
particles and/or molecules in the atmosphere causes some
degree of heat to build in the atmosphere then you will
need to explain where the energy that causes the heat comes
from ... because the co2 molecule must release a photon of
the same energy that it absorbed.

and as we you all know
" you cant get a free lunch "
" you cant pull yourself up by your bootstraps "
and
" you cannot create energy "

etc ... etc ... etc ...but your welcome to try if you like.


Paul, this is an interesting description, and I have some ‘physics’ questions,
such as how molecules “must release a photon of the same energy” …or how an “object retains some of the heat energy …because the object released energy when it emitted the infrared light,”
which I’d like to ask about later.

Now however, I'd like to question your two claims, just based on your understanding (regardless of its validity) as you’ve described it here.

So, working from your description quoted above (after the initial sunlight is absorbed by the ground)
the process seems to boil down to this:
...
t=3 (IR photon emitted by ground)
t=4 (IR photon absorbed by CO2)
t=5 (IR photon emitted by CO2) [by chance “…towards the earth again.”]
t=6 (IR photon emitted by ground) [after ground absorbs IR photon from t=5]
t=7 (IR photon absorbed by CO2) [IR photon from ground might again be absorbed by CO2]

…and as you say, “it does not matter how many times the process is repeated.”
So, for instance, t=8 (same as t=5) …and [t=7 essentially the same as t=4].

So, potentially, we have this IR photon bouncing back and forth between the ground and a CO2 molecule …potentially for hours on end
…before the IR photon might finally “miss” the CO2 molecule and head blissfully out into deep space. Right?
===

But....
Heading out into deep space, for the IR photon, is what we call cooling of—or losing heat from—the planet.

Before the IR photon leaves the planet, especially while it is bouncing around down in the lower troposphere,
it will still function as heat if/when it hits a body or a thermometer. Won’t it?

This is why I question your two claims that “it does not matter how many times the process is repeated. and adding more co2 molecules to the atmosphere” does not matter either.

Wouldn’t anyone expect that “adding more co2 molecules to the atmosphere” would provide more chances
for the IR photon to get intercepted, and bounce back and forth between ground and any other CO2 molecules,
before finally getting lucky enough to head out into deep space, thus finally helping to cool the planet?

The more time that IR photons spend bouncing-back-n-forth near the surface,
the more chance those IR photons have of being sensed or detected as extra heat.
Despite the numbers you’ve (seemingly randomly) assigned to your “Earth E & Atmos E” designators,
that 'extra heat' is what the greenhouse effect is, right?

~ confused
_________________________
Pyrolysis creates reduced carbon! ...Time for the next step in our evolutionary symbiosis with fire.

Top
.
#56124 - 06/26/16 04:20 PM Re: Follow the photon! Is this right? [Re: samwik]
Orac Offline
Megastar

Registered: 05/20/11
Posts: 2819
Loc: Currently Illinois, USA
I take it Paul doesn't believe in the greenhouse effect or global warming which doesn't surprise me as GOD is supposed to control things for him. I wouldn't waste my time trying to convince him it's pointless.

However as wrong and crazy as Paul may you can't fix Paul's issues up by making up your own equally bad answers, Samwik.

Let me give you the problem with your answer, yes the chance of the photon leaving Earth is increased but so is the chance of it being absorbed in the first place. If the probability of both processes is directly related to the atmospheric concentration then changing the concentration of C02 does nothing.

So for either heating or cooling to work in what you describe you require one of the processes to not change at the same rate. That is not how the greenhouse effect works.

In fact you can't bring any of the effect down to what is happening in a simple photon interaction. That is easy to prove because the ISS temperature in full sun is 149° C. That is the simple photon interaction of a body at the Earths distance from the sun. The sun side of the moon is similar temperature for exactly the same reason.

So the first problem both you and Paul need to discuss, is not what you talking about the stupid photon, but why isn't the sun side of Earth at 149° C.

Now we have the converse problem in the shadows. The ISS in the shadow of Earth and the dark side of the moon both drop to -184°C. So that's the second part of the problem why doesn't dark side of Earth (AKA night) drop to -184°C.

You can also easily calculate that if all the atmosphere was doing is averaging half the earth in light and half the dark side, the temperature of Earth would be -17°C. (the average of 149° C and -184°C).

Both start with that problem and leave the poor photon alone.


Edited by Orac (06/26/16 05:06 PM)
_________________________
I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.

Top
#56129 - 06/28/16 09:51 PM Re: Follow the photon! Is this right? [Re: Orac]
samwik Offline
Megastar

Registered: 10/10/06
Posts: 1164
Loc: Colorado
Originally Posted By: Orac
Both start with that problem and leave the poor photon alone.
Orac, you want to “leave the poor photon alone” and avoid “an interesting and instructive lesson in physics?”
This must be a first!

Hopefully we all know why the moon and ISS, with no atmosphere, don’t experience a greenhouse effect,
and how albedo does affect their temperature. But maybe that would be a good new topic to start.

Please though could you explain what “answer” you are talking about,
when you say “…the problem with your answer …yes the chance of the photon leaving Earth is increased….”

What, from any of those postulated scenarios or descriptions,
leads you to see “the chance of the photon leaving Earth is increased”?
Sure, if two competing processes are balanced, then there won’t be any net effect.
Where do you see that balance, or any “chance …increased,” occurring here?
===

I thought Paul described (as I mentioned, “regardless of its validity”), an IR photon leaving the planet (one process),
or that photon being returned to the planet—being delayed, before leaving the planet—(a second process).
But both processes would not be equally or “directly related to the atmospheric concentration …of CO2” as you suggest.
Wouldn’t it be more like an unequal, inverse relationship?

But please feel free to clarify the above, or postulate some other scenario, where we might “follow the photon,”
and see if we can learn more about physics. Already, I think, we know that
it is not an “individual photon” that we are metaphorically following; but rather,
it’s the energy represented at various times, however it might be distributed and flow,
and from whence it came and to where it may go.

~ wink
_________________________
Pyrolysis creates reduced carbon! ...Time for the next step in our evolutionary symbiosis with fire.

Top
#56130 - 06/29/16 01:56 PM Re: Follow the photon! Is this right? [Re: samwik]
paul Offline
Megastar

Registered: 03/21/06
Posts: 4136
Sam
Quote:

So, potentially, we have this IR photon bouncing back and forth between the ground and a CO2 molecule …potentially for hours on end
…before the IR photon might finally “miss” the CO2 molecule and head blissfully out into deep space. Right?


in the example process I posted I only used 1 co2 molecule and 1 photon to show that there
is zero energy gain that occurs in the atmosphere due to any interaction between the co2 molecule
and the photon.
I also show that by repeating the process there is no build up of energy
on the earths surface and that is what basic physics says about it ... Im simply repeating
what physics says will happen during photon absorbtion and emmition.

Quote:

Before the IR photon leaves the planet, especially while it is bouncing around down in the lower troposphere,
it will still function as heat if/when it hits a body or a thermometer. Won’t it?


think about a 1 dollar bill.
if you go to a store and buy something for 1 dollar then decide to get a refund
then you go to another store and do the same thing , and you repeat this over and
over and over ... you still have your 1 dollar even if you have went to a gazillion
stores and bought something and then gotten a refund as long as you get a refund from the last store that you visited.

and none of the gazillion stores have your dollar or any part of your dollar.

Quote:

Wouldn’t anyone expect that “adding more co2 molecules to the atmosphere” would provide more chances
for the IR photon to get intercepted, and bounce back and forth between ground and any other CO2 molecules,
before finally getting lucky enough to head out into deep space, thus finally helping to cool the planet?


thats the reason why I only used 1 photon and 1 co2 molecule.
if there is zero energy gain in the atmosphere with only 1 co2 molecule then
there is no way that adding more co2 molecules will show a gain either.

any energy gain that is possible in the atmosphere due to the 1 photon interaction
with the 1 co2 molecule should be seen in the 1 co2 molecule but it isnt seen.
and adding more photons or co2 molecules to complicate the issue will not add any
energy to the atmosphere nor will it add any energy to the earths surface
due to the infrared light bouncing back and forth between the earths surface
and the earths atmosphere.

from what I can tell the only energy that can be stored in this process is the energy
from sunlight that remains on the surface of the earth after the object emits the photon
of infrared light.

and that stored energy is due to energy from the ultra violet and visible light not energy from
the infrared light.

as for non co2 storage the below solar irradiance graph
shows that infrared radiation is stored in H20 mostly
in water vapor , clouds and in surface water etc ... the
graph does reference co2 absorbtion as tiny amounts.





but we dont want to complicate the issue because the focus is
on the possibilities of co2 being a molecule that is having
such a dramatic effect on our climate.

even though the co2 molecule possibly has the least
effect on the climate.

and of course co2 is the only molecule that taxes or fees or blocks can be sold or issued for profit in the carbon credit scam.

Quote:
Already, I think, we know that
it is not an “individual photon” that we are metaphorically following; but rather,
it’s the energy represented at various times, however it might be distributed and flow,
and from whence it came and to where it may go.


exactly!

but by following the photon we see where the energy
comes from and where the energy goes to.

and even if the energy flows to here or to there the
magnitude of the energy does not increase unless there
is some form of free energy developing in the process
somewhere.

so the title of the thread is correct.

_________________________
3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.

Top
#56131 - 06/29/16 03:27 PM Re: Follow the photon! Is this right? [Re: samwik]
Orac Offline
Megastar

Registered: 05/20/11
Posts: 2819
Loc: Currently Illinois, USA
Originally Posted By: samwik
Hopefully we all know why the moon and ISS, with no atmosphere, don’t experience a greenhouse effect,
and how albedo does affect their temperature. But maybe that would be a good new topic to start.

Great you have worked out the the atmosphere is what is different. Now you need to establish what it does.

So now you have introduced a new concept albedo, and yep we need that one. So what is the difference in temperature if I paint the ISS white or black? That is the easiest way to look at that effect.

There is another effect you both haven't explained which is how is it the temperatures don't go to the extremes we see on the moon or the ISS. Our day/night temperatures are tiny compared to the normal swing you would expect. This is actually important in understanding what is happening as well.

Originally Posted By: samwik
When you say “…the problem with your answer …yes the chance of the photon leaving Earth is increased….”

What, from any of those postulated scenarios or descriptions,
leads you to see “the chance of the photon leaving Earth is increased”?

It's called probability smile

You have a non zero chance that any photon emitted in a random direction will be towards space. The more you "bounce your photon" the more chances there are for that photon to leave.

Lets do this with a dice, any time I roll my dice if I throw a six the photon goes out to space.

You now have the photon, quote "bouncing around" so lets say it bounced 3 times. You now throw the dice 3 times and any of those 3 throws that lands on a six means the photon went bye bye to space. See what happens to your photon if you start bouncing them around.

You might want to be very careful with bouncing photons around if you understand the above smile

Originally Posted By: samwik
But both processes would not be equally or “directly related to the atmospheric concentration …of CO2” as you suggest. Wouldn’t it be more like an unequal, inverse relationship?

Neither of you have actually got close to understanding what is happening because you seem lost playing ping pong with a photon. Lets give you a hint the back radiation is not the same IR photon that left earth and got absorbed by the CO2 molecule .... it's not a ping pong process you two seem to have turned it into.

Hint: IR bands like 7u an 15u will be very high in the back radiation but you will find very little 10u.


Edited by Orac (06/29/16 04:32 PM)
_________________________
I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.

Top
#56132 - 06/29/16 04:32 PM Re: Follow the photon! Is this right? [Re: Orac]
paul Offline
Megastar

Registered: 03/21/06
Posts: 4136
Quote:
It's called probability


yes .. why dont you tell us what the probability will be
of a photon interacting with a co2 molecule in the atmosphere.

in fact give us a complete run down of the probability of the
processes involved but dont leave out the things of reality
such as the concentration of co2 , the inability of an excited
co2 molecule to absorb another photon of IR until it has emitted
an exact copy of the absorbed IR photon returning it to its previous energy level.

I believe we both would value your determination of the
probabilities involved and it will give you something to
do while sam and myself discuss the frivolous.

obviously you already know exactly how it should work.

so dont keep it a secret.
_________________________
3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.

Top
#56133 - 06/29/16 04:55 PM Re: Follow the photon! Is this right? [Re: paul]
Orac Offline
Megastar

Registered: 05/20/11
Posts: 2819
Loc: Currently Illinois, USA
For a religious nutcase that is about the most intelligent statement made on the subject by you ... it almost makes sense except the whole probability bit went right over your head. The probability wasn't important it was something for SAM and his ping pong match.

There is one big error in your statement which I will fix, the CO2 molecule doesn't have to re-emit the photon, it can kinetically run into something else and change energy that way.

Remember ye old classic GOD physics where little gas molecules ran around colliding into each other and changing there energy.

For the record even a CO2 laser with a perfect setup does not obey 100% re-emission they make a lot of ... wait for it ... HEAT as the kinetic gas molecules smash into the glass. Almost all large CO2 lasers require a cooling jacket to deal with it.

So the CO2 molecule in the atmosphere may or may not re-emit the photon that is a case of wait for it .... probability.

Anyhow I will leave you two with it, I really have no intention of getting into ye old GOD physics with you in another stupid pointless discussion.


Edited by Orac (06/29/16 05:12 PM)
_________________________
I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.

Top
#56134 - 06/29/16 05:31 PM Re: Follow the photon! Is this right? [Re: Orac]
paul Offline
Megastar

Registered: 03/21/06
Posts: 4136
Quote:
There is one big error in your statement which I will fix, the CO2 molecule doesn't have to re-emit the photon, it can kinetically run into something else and change energy that way.


we didnt have anything else up there for the co2 molecule to run into.

so it probably wouldnt run into anything that wasnt there and
it would eventually emit a photon.

I believe that is one of the things that sam wanted to discuss
later however so now I suppose that has been broken out
and you have already agreed to the kinetic transfer of energy
between molecules in the atmosphere.

still a kinetic energy transfer from one molecule to another
molecule only causes energy levels to change in the molecules
and does not cause heat to build up in the molecules or in the surrounding molecules in the atmosphere.

all of the transfered kinetic energy is used up in the energy
level changes.

else there is some form of energy being created or destroyed.

and the molecule that kinetic energy was transfered to will
immediately emit a photon of the same energy it received from
the kinetic energy transfer returning it to its previous energy level or it will collide with another molecule and once again a kinetic energy transfer will occur
etc ... etc ... etc ...

energy does not build up in the above process either.

so what we have in the example is that
the time interval where the re-emitted photon traveled
from the co2 molecule to the earths surface and was
absorbed by the object on the earth is removed and
replaced by the above process.

ie...
where before the introduction of another molecule into the example we had...

t=6
Earth E = 1
Atmos E = 0

we now have...

t=6
Earth E = .5
Atmos E = .5

as we started with 1 unit of energy in the 1 photon of
sunlight there is no change in the total energy.

in t=6 what has happened with the introduction of another
molecule for the co2 molecule to collide with and transfer
its energy into vs re-emitting a photon and sending the
photon back to the earths surface to warm the earths
surface has caused the energy of the earth to be reduced
or the earth to cool.

still theres no change in the total energy.

_________________________
3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.

Top
#56135 - 06/30/16 01:37 AM Re: Follow the photon! Is this right? [Re: paul]
Orac Offline
Megastar

Registered: 05/20/11
Posts: 2819
Loc: Currently Illinois, USA
According to the above a gas can't get hot or cold the energy remains the same ... the gas is just a conduit for photons to bounce thru, that is literally what it says smile

So Paul the atmosphere is just a conduit then why doesn't the Earth behave like the moon and the ISS and go from -180 to 300 degrees C? You keep ignoring the fact the Earth is behaving differently to those close space bodies, which Samwik claimed was because of an atmosphere.

Your above statement says the energy should just bounce thru the atmosphere so why is the Earth different?

This goes back to my original post to you both, first identify what the atmosphere is doing and stop playing with bouncing photons.

Samwik correctly identified one thing called Albedo for the ISS and Moon. The bit he missed is for Earth that is two directional incoming and outgoing. Earth is an emitter of IR radiation and the atmosphere has an Albedo for that as well as incoming radiation from the sun.

So a key difference between Earth and the Moon/ISS is earth has two Albedo (one in and one out) for the atmosphere, something often missed by layman. Albedo is an overall average reflection coefficient of an object, the object in our case is the atmosphere, and we have two different but linked sources being Sun and Earth IR.

An easy way to deal with that would be to break the spectrum into bands and discuss the albedo and effects to both the sources. You might also discuss things that may change the Albedo of either direction.

So there we have one difference the atmosphere makes. Can you think of any others which might explain why Earth is reacting different to the Moon and ISS?

I am giving you a big hint there that "GreenHouse effect" is not a singular thing smile

For my part I have no intention of discussing the bouncing photon laugh


Edited by Orac (06/30/16 04:11 AM)
_________________________
I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.

Top
#56141 - 06/30/16 11:45 AM Re: Follow the photon! Is this right? [Re: Orac]
paul Offline
Megastar

Registered: 03/21/06
Posts: 4136
orac

using the Moon and the ISS to attempt to describe the
earth is like comparing the earth to a large hollow tin can
and a solid ball of stone.

neither of which has its own internal heat like the earth does.

the ISS has to be supplied with heat and cooling.

and trying to heat the moon up by giving it an atmosphere
would be like trying to boil water for a cup of coffee
with a cigarette lighter outside in the wind during a
snowstorm at the north pole while standing on your head
and wondering why your doing this.


Quote:
According to the above a gas can't get hot or cold the energy remains the same


then explain how a gas gets hot or cold due to an interaction
between gas molecules.

if energy is conserved then how could any interaction
between gas molecules cause any heat without also having
caused a lower total energy in the gas molecules?

so if you know of a way to heat up or cool down gas
molecules by allowing them ( not forcing them ) to collide
with each other then I want to know how.

I have a propane cylinder that I recently filled and it
has a gazillion gas molecules in it and the gas molecules
in the container are all moving around inside the container
but when I touch the container its not hot its cold to the
touch.

you would think that I could heat my home with this container
of gas molecules without ever consuming any of the gas because
of all of the heat that is being ( CREATED ) due to the
gazillion collisions each nano second but thats not the case.

so why isnt the container heating up and heating up my house?

Quote:
the gas is just a conduit for photons to bounce thru, that is literally what it says


actually a photon never bounces , portions of photons are
always absorbed or reflected.

but I know what your saying.

and that is literally what photons are doing.

they are being absorbed and emitted , never causing a
gain or loss in total energy.

and if the absorption of a photon causes a collision with
other molecules and energy transfers occur between molecules
then there is still no gain or loss in the total energy.

_________________________
3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.

Top
#56143 - 06/30/16 02:23 PM Re: Follow the photon! Is this right? [Re: paul]
Orac Offline
Megastar

Registered: 05/20/11
Posts: 2819
Loc: Currently Illinois, USA
Originally Posted By: paul
I have a propane cylinder that I recently filled and it has a gazillion gas molecules in it and the gas molecules in the container are all moving around inside the container but when I touch the container its not hot its cold to the touch.

you would think that I could heat my home with this container
of gas molecules without ever consuming any of the gas because
of all of the heat that is being ( CREATED ) due to the
gazillion collisions each nano second but thats not the case.

so why isnt the container heating up and heating up my house?

ROFL I do love Paul physics ..... try looking at how refrigeration or reverse cycle air conditioning works .. even putting your hand on the container while filling would have been funny laugh

Anyhow I am done with this rubbish please resume discussion with Samwik. I am definitely not touching this much Paul physics and there is too much work to bother dealing with. Ignore factor warp 10 engaged.


Edited by Orac (06/30/16 02:42 PM)
_________________________
I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.

Top
#56144 - 06/30/16 02:51 PM Re: Follow the photon! Is this right? [Re: Orac]
samwik Offline
Megastar

Registered: 10/10/06
Posts: 1164
Loc: Colorado
Originally Posted By: Orac
...first identify what the atmosphere is doing and stop playing
with bouncing photons.
...
Samwik correctly identified one thing called Albedo for the ISS and Moon. The bit he missed is for Earth that is two directional incoming and outgoing.
...
For my part I have no intention of discussing the bouncing photon laugh
So much to say, to these insightful and remarkably coherent replies, yet so little time!

Thank you, Orac, for focusing on how the greenhouse-effect operates.
It is an important topic, which is why I’ve spent years posting information hoping to correct, or fill in, some of the many misguided misconceptions about the greenhouse effect that I often find being promoted, as if they were valid and complete, on the internet.

Back in late 2013, iirc, a report from NASA verified that CO2 has a cooling effect up in the stratosphere (which climate science already expected and predicted), and a few bloggers took that (perhaps as an excuse) to mean it wasn’t true that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. Anyway, some of that confused viewpoint, and rhetoric, turned up here at SAGG in 2014. With my old chemistry/biochemistry degrees, and having taken some university-level climate science classes fairly recently, in 2011 and 2014, I thought I should try helping where I could see obvious or common mistakes.
===

Several of these points, which you are trying to lead us to discover, have already been hashed out extensively.
For instance, you mention one point that I “…missed is for Earth that is two directional incoming and outgoing.”
There are many posts, such as those on Paul's thread, “Carbon Dioxide Trapping of Earth's Heat,” where I’ve endeavored to explain those specific points—the difference between the incoming and outgoing radiation—to Paul, regarding the greenhouse effect.

And ...I may have made some or many mistakes, or been unclear, myself in any of those posts where I try to explain the necessary details and/or nuances needed to fully understand, as Paul seeks to do—or thinks he has done—the true physical mechanisms that underlay the terminology and models used by the sciences.
....Or words to that effect. So please feel free to correct anything you might find.


I’ve also posted about, roughly, how as you said “IR bands like 7u an 15u will be very high in the back radiation but you will find very little 10u,”
when trying to explain to Paul about the difference between “atomic” absorption and “molecular” absorption of energy,
in Paul's thread, “NASA report verifies CO2 cools atmosphere.”
I’m fairly sure that this specific confusion, on Paul’s part, is why he thinks (erroneously)
that a molecule must always emit a photon of exactly the same energy as it absorbed.
===

In fact, that is why I thought this topic in the physics forum, where we try to follow a photon, would be helpful. It is clear from Paul’s post, quoted in the OP, as well as comments he’s made following up, that there are a few gap or oversimplifications or mix-ups, in his views related to radiative heat transfer, to say the least.

As I’ve repeated, even if Paul’s description is wrong, or “regardless of its validity” or lack of validity, I want to start with Paul’s description, and use his language,
to begin pinning down the misconceptions he operates under.
Then, with the fundamental root of the problem identified, my hope is to fill in the gaps, or correct the misunderstandings, so Paul can see
the science isn’t wrong or backwards, as he occasionally claims.
Originally Posted By: paul in August, 2014
bear with me , Im working on a anti green house effect.

global warmers want to count the heat each time it bounces back and fourth from the surface to the atmosphere , Im planning to counter that with run away cooling...

because its exactly backwards from what science says it will be , therefore it must be correct.

main line science makes a excellent backwards barometer.

It’s become apparent, in discussing the greenhouse effect with Paul on the climate-science forum, (as you may notice on this forum) that he doesn’t correctly or completely enough, understand the actual processes or mechanisms by which physical reality operates; and yet he uses his misconceptions as proof …to disprove the validity of the physical sciences needed to understand climate.

That is why I think it is still worth following a photon, even if we are starting out with a very unrealistic description. I expect to pick out certain points, which when corrected or fully explained or properly understood, will turn the hypothetical journey of a photon (or some energy) into a more realistic, as well as more fully informative and instructive, description.

For instance, the notion that, as Paul says,
"...at this point the object retains some of the heat energy
that it initially received from sunlight.
because the object released energy when it emitted the infrared light"
clearly indicate a confusion of some sort relating to how energy is absorbed, partitioned, or distributed.
That is also why his numbers, associated with the different steps, don't seem to make sense, istm, and need to be
questioned and more fully explained ...mañana.

~ wink
_________________________
Pyrolysis creates reduced carbon! ...Time for the next step in our evolutionary symbiosis with fire.

Top
#56145 - 06/30/16 11:28 PM Re: Follow the photon! Is this right? [Re: samwik]
paul Offline
Megastar

Registered: 03/21/06
Posts: 4136
Quote:
For instance, the notion that, as Paul says,
"...at this point the object retains some of the heat energy
that it initially received from sunlight.
because the object released energy when it emitted the infrared light"


oh I see it now , so the object (atom) that absorbed the photon
emitted a photon with the same energy.

yes , I was thinking along a broader base when I wrote that
part as in many photons that could
be absorbed or reflected by the object ... we should just
use a single atom on the earth instead of an entire object
... and we dont need an entire object anyway we only need a single atom to examine this because we only have 1 photon.

so you got me on that one.

this changes a lot though this means that when the atom on the earth emits the photon that is sent to the co2 molecule
the earth does not retain any of the energy.

because from what I understand when an atom absorbs a photon
it must emit a photon with the same energy in order to return
to its previous energy level.

so what we have now is

1 incoming photon from the sun.
1 atom on the earths surface.
1 co2 molecule in the atmosphere.

and thats all we have.

so

t=1
the photon is absorbed by the atom on the earth.

Earth E=1
Atmos E=0

t=2
the atom on the earth emits a IR photon.
Earth E=0
Atmos E=0

t=3
the co2 molecule absorbs the photon.
Earth E=0
Atmos E=1

t=4
the co2 molecule emits a IR photon
Earth E=0
Atmos E=0

t=5
the atom on the earth once again absorbs the photon.
Earth E=1
Atmos E=0

the process repeats and there is never any gain.

nothing stored.

unless the co2 molecule collides with another
molecule in the atmosphere.

in which case we have

t=6
the atom on the earth emits a IR photon.
Earth E=0
Atmos E=0

t=7
the c02 molecule absorbs the photon
Earth E=0
Atmos E=1

t=7
the c02 molecule collides with another molecule in the
atmosphere and a energy transfer occurs.
Earth E=0
Atmos E=1

if there are more co2 molecules in the atmosphere then
the odds of the co2 molecules colliding are greater
than if there are fewer co2 molecules in the atmosphere.

so lets let them collide with each other.
we add another co2 molecule.

time passes ............1 second

t=408
the c02 molecule collides with the other co2 molecule
400 times in 1 second (and thats being lenient)
and a energy transfer occurs each time.
Earth E=0
Atmos E=1

( only valid if a collision requires .0025 seconds)

Earth E=0
Atmos E=1

no change from t=7

and we had 2 co2 molecules !!

I understand the point of the greenhouse effect

in the above the energy stays in the atmosphere longer.

where it would normally have been sent away from the earth.

that makes sense , but that doesnt warm the planet.

note: unless there is energy being created and being
added as heat into the atmosphere by the co2 molecules
colliding then there is no added heat due to the collisions.

if that were possible then my propane tank would heat my
entire city.
because the gas in the tank is concentrated @ 1,000,000 ppm

we currently have 400 ppm in the atmosphere.

so lets say that the odds of a photon being absorbed by
a co2 molecule is 400 to 1,000,000

the same as saying the odds are 2500 to 1 that a photon will be absorbed by a co2 molecule.

and those odds are only valid if all of the co2 molecules are
spread out in a really super thin perfect sphere that surrounds the earth.

the odds increase as the sphere becomes thicker.

anyway.

what we need to examine now I suppose is this question.

will added co2 in the atmosphere cause or will it not cause
any warming of the earths surface?

so far all of the added energy is in the atmosphere.

also: would it stand to reason that having more particulate
matter in the atmosphere such as co2 would cause the earth
to recieve less sunlight?

I remember an experiment that shows that co2 traps heat.

here it is.



ooops wrong video...

well this one shows that air traps heat much better than co2

oh well that would be good evidence in the court when they
start prosecuting the climate deniers.


whats relevant about this video is that the bottle with the
co2 in it heats up much slower than the bottles with air
only in them ........ and that the bottle with
the co2 is cooling much faster and to a greater extent
than the bottles with only air in them.


but still this does not prove to me that co2 warms or cools
as the bottle disappears from view too many times in the
video.

can the climate deniers prosecute the climate believers?
given that we DO have evidence and they have had decades
and a few gazillion dollars yet they havent produced a
single tid bit of valid evidence to date that shows
any warming due to co2.

_________________________
3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.

Top
#56146 - 07/01/16 03:04 AM Re: Follow the photon! Is this right? [Re: paul]
samwik Offline
Megastar

Registered: 10/10/06
Posts: 1164
Loc: Colorado
Originally Posted By: paul
also: would it stand to reason that having more particulate
matter in the atmosphere such as co2 would cause the earth
to recieve less sunlight?
... cry Paul, in this one post of yours,
you've referred to CO2 as an atom, as a molecule, and finally as a particulate!
No, co2 won't "cause the earth to recieve less sunlight,"
because co2 is not a particulate.

CO2 is a molecule, so it will absorb a photon, rather than reflect or scatter a photon.
===


Originally Posted By: paul
I understand the point of the greenhouse effect
in the above the energy stays in the atmosphere longer.

where it would normally have been sent away from the earth.

that makes sense , but that doesnt warm the planet.
What?!? Why not?
Yes, it does warm the planet.
It is mostly the troposphere that is warmed when "the energy stays in the atmosphere longer,"
and some of that heat bounces back down to the surface of the planet. It is especially noticeable at night.

Your numbers don't add up. You have a total energy of one, in steps 1, 3, 5, and 7,
but total energy of zero for the even-numbered stages of your description.

I think your sequence needs more detail or nuance to show where the energy is going
...unless you want to be the one creating and destroying energy out of nowhere every other moment.


Originally Posted By: paul
note: unless there is energy being created and being
added as heat into the atmosphere by the co2 molecules
colliding then there is no added heat due to the collisions.

and those odds are only valid if all of the co2 molecules are
spread out in a really super thin perfect sphere that surrounds the earth.

the odds increase as the sphere becomes thicker.
...well I wasn't talking about heat transfer [not added (created?) heat] "due to the collisions"
...but I'm glad you can see how a sphere of co2 molecules could have an effect
...which would increase if the sphere got thicker.

...but if you're talking about "added heat due to the collisions" here, I hope you're not picturing collisions only occurring "horizontally" or side to side,
in that super-thin layer (up in the atmosphere?) somewhere.
I'm not sure why you think the sphere needs to be "super thin" and "perfect," but I suppose that is the simplest way to visualize or model the situation.

But whatever that layer is like, some of the extra heat bounces back down to the surface,
and it will warm anything on the surface of the planet,
or anywhere in between (the surface and your super-thin perfect sphere),
which absorbs that heat.



Originally Posted By: paul
what we need to examine now I suppose is this question.

will added co2 in the atmosphere cause or will it not cause
any warming of the earths surface?

so far all of the added energy is in the atmosphere.
...gee, I wonder if anybody has ever asked this question before. Maybe we could do some research and see if anybody has checked. confused

But please don't focus too much on the greenhouse effect. This is just about following a photon.

Originally Posted By: paul
...because from what I understand when an atom absorbs a photon
it must emit a photon with the same energy in order to return
to its previous energy level.
Okay, so here is a photon we can follow.

CO2 is a molecule, so when it absorbs a photon, it is not causing a single electron to jump up into a higher atomic orbital
...in the way you seem to be familiar with atoms doing.

It isn't the same process, which is why the photon re-emitted
from any molecule
doesn't need to be the same frequency as the original absorbed photon.

But I'd like to hear from an expert on the absorption of photons, by both atoms and molecules,
because I'm sure I've probably oversimplified too much too, or worse..... whistle

~
_________________________
Pyrolysis creates reduced carbon! ...Time for the next step in our evolutionary symbiosis with fire.

Top
#56147 - 07/01/16 04:29 AM Re: Follow the photon! Is this right? [Re: samwik]
Orac Offline
Megastar

Registered: 05/20/11
Posts: 2819
Loc: Currently Illinois, USA
I understood what you were trying to do Samwik, and I could at least follow your argument, I could just see the simplification wouldn't work as I think you have now worked out.

The problem is that "greenhouse effect" is not a simple thing to understand and indeed the greenhouse effect on earth as a planet doesn't even work the same way as the greenhouse after which it is named. I would argue the name of the effect should actually should be changed which would help layman. It took months of arguing to get wikipedia to actually accept the analogy was faulty and the article still contains some errors.

As the process is very complicated and then you get the next problem you correctly identified in this quote
Originally Posted By: samwik
It’s become apparent, in discussing the greenhouse effect with Paul on the climate-science forum, (as you may notice on this forum) that he doesn’t correctly or completely enough, understand the actual processes or mechanisms by which physical reality operates; and yet he uses his misconceptions as proof …to disprove the validity of the physical sciences needed to understand climate.

That is true of every layman discussion I have ever seen on the subject, it's just the how out of depth that varies.

As you probably guessed my background is hard sciences and I care little about the result and politics, what I care about is that people don't butcher the physics.

The problem with the photon story is that a photon in the range of 4-100um has the mean free path of about 25 meters here at around sea level. You guys didn't even discuss and I suggest even know what that means. It basically mans an IR photon emitted off the earth as such won't make it 25m before it is absorbed by the atmosphere. Do you see the problem with the bouncing photon you are trying to tell me its going to climb up thru a couple of km of atmosphere 25 meters at a time. That isn't remotely what happens.

The story is the same as a garden hose or an electron in a wire you can't follow the movement of an individual electron or molecule of water.

A related question we sometimes get asked is how fast does an electron move thru a wire. That we we can answer and it's called drift velocity and it has simple mathematics.
http://resources.schoolscience.co.uk/cda/16plus/copelech2pg3.html

It's funny Layman imagine electrons flying thru wires at some incredible speed the reality is like in the worked example 5 amps in 0.5mm area cross section wire the electron moves at a slow tenth of a mm per second. The same situation exists for H2O molecule in a hose.

The movement of the IR energy thru the atmosphere looks much more like the hose or wire situation and I can always tell peoples understanding of the physics in how they discuss it. One of my concerns with climate scientists is many don't themselves understand the movement of the energy.

For example the roll of Nitrogen (which makes up 78% of the atmosphere as N2) is important. It shares a resonant frequency with CO2 and the two can easily kinetically exchange energy. The N2 can not emit the energy as a photon (its a Homonuclear molecule) and it stays in the N2 a long time ... hint it might move a fair way in that time in the atmosphere before it bumps into another CO2 molecule and gives the energy back.

There are in fact hundreds of these pathways and they do not all change the same with changing CO2 levels.

The reason the Earth doesn't rapidly change between -180 and 300 deg C is also telling you the energy isn't just transparently moving thru the atmosphere. The atmosphere itself must be holding onto some of the energy so it has the thermal equivalent of inertia. That is also obvious in that the temperature profile thru the height of the atmosphere.

The lesson here is the free mean path of an IR photon in the atmosphere is small and the photon bounce story thru the atmosphere as some fully transparent media is fanciful.


Edited by Orac (07/01/16 04:46 AM)
_________________________
I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.

Top
#56148 - 07/01/16 05:03 AM Re: Follow the photon! Is this right? [Re: samwik]
Orac Offline
Megastar

Registered: 05/20/11
Posts: 2819
Loc: Currently Illinois, USA
Originally Posted By: samwik
It isn't the same process, which is why the photon re-emitted from any molecule
doesn't need to be the same frequency as the original absorbed photon.

But I'd like to hear from an expert on the absorption of photons, by both atoms and molecules,
because I'm sure I've probably oversimplified too much too, or worse..... whistle

Yes you have gone to far and are now completely wrong. Paul is partially right but mostly wrong because he is ignoring the elephant in the room.

The CO2 molecule absorbs the IR photon and it goes to another stable state. You can't have a fractional state it won't be stable so the energy has to come back out reverting the state of the CO2 to any other stable state. So you can't get any different emission unless some interaction occurs that leaves our CO2 molecule in a new stable state.

Paul simplifies that to the CO2 reverts back to its original state and gives the photon back. Yes that can and does occur but the elephant in the room he won't talk about is that is but one of a pile (probably hundreds) of other things that can and do happen as well.

As I discussed above CO2 has a resonant frequency in common with Nitrogen in N2 form. They can easily transfer the energy in a kinetic energy exchange and in fact we use that to help pump CO2 laser tubes.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide_laser
Quote:
The population inversion in the laser is achieved by the following sequence: electron impact excites vibrational motion of the nitrogen. Because nitrogen is a homonuclear molecule, it cannot lose this energy by photon emission, and its excited vibrational levels are therefore metastable and live for a long time. Collisional energy transfer between the nitrogen and the carbon dioxide molecule causes vibrational excitation of the carbon dioxide, with sufficient efficiency to lead to the desired population inversion necessary for laser operation. The nitrogen molecules are left in a lower excited state.

The process occurs both direction but you can push the process by using the N2 by injecting electrons to pump the process in a controlled way.

Nitrogen (N2) makes up 78% of the atmosphere so you may want to ask how far a CO2 molecule is going to be able to go before it runs into an N2 molecule .. hint free mean path.

That are hundreds of other possible transfers and even some chemical reactions that can happen with a CO2 molecule which is ionized by our IR photon, all of which Paul just ignores. All he does is go for the one that returns the original photon.

N2 reacts in this frequency range with many gases as does CO2 and given the percentage of N2 in the atmosphere you might look at the frequencies involved and guess that the atmosphere is basically a transparent window at 10um and understand why as the nitrogen essentially transports that frequency thru. Outside the 10um range this process and N2 is not important at all. However given the percentage of N2 you might guess that is the one of the frequencies that would be very hard to block escaping the Earth as the N2 will effectively always carry it. The tricky bit is N2 doesn't absorb photons at that frequency (same as it can't emit them) and the energy exchange must be kinetic ... so you can't pick the behaviour by looking at a photon transmission graph which often throws layman and the odd climate scientist (its a non albedo effect but requires a catalyst/mediator which is the role the CO2 and other gases play .. N2 by itself would not act as such).

The fun frequencies to look at for climate change are 7um where water is king and 15um where both water and especially CO2 play a role. What you call global warming is actually what is happening pretty much solely in those two frequency (wavelength) ranges.

The above makes the point you need to look at the process on a frequency by frequency basis there is no generic case and it certainly isn't a bouncing photon.


Edited by Orac (07/01/16 06:17 AM)
_________________________
I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.

Top
#56149 - 07/01/16 01:25 PM Re: Follow the photon! Is this right? [Re: samwik]
paul Offline
Megastar

Registered: 03/21/06
Posts: 4136
Sam

Quote:
you've referred to CO2 as an atom, as a molecule, and finally as a particulate!
No, co2 won't "cause the earth to recieve less sunlight,"
because co2 is not a particulate.


woops , I fudged that one , what I meant to say is would
the co2 in the atmosphere block the incoming sunlight.

and you say that co2 will not block the incoming sunlight.

in the below video a candle is being used to demonstrate that
co2 blocks IR light.

I have read that the only real difference between the light
from a candle and sunlight is the intensity of light.

now if co2 does not absorb incoming direct sunlight then please
tell me how the direct candle light in the below video
is being absorbed by the co2 in the tube.



at first in the above video there is nothing but air in the
tube and the IR camera is picking up the heat from the candle.

then when the co2 is introduced into the tube the image from
the IR camera somehow begins to dim and continues to dim until
there is no image of the candle being picked up by the IR
camera and displayed on the screen.

so according to the above video evidence co2 does in fact
block incoming direct sunlight.

this only shows that the IR light (infrared heat) is being blocked.

it does not say that all of the suns light is being blocked.

only the IR light (heat).

so from what I gather from this and the previous video is
that increased concentrations of co2 in the atmosphere
will cause the earth to cool.

Quote:
...but I'm glad you can see how a sphere of co2 molecules could have an effect
...which would increase if the sphere got thicker.


when I said thicker I was only referring to the volume of
space that the sphere occupied in other words the odds
would increase from 2500-1 to higher odds for instance
5000-1 making it less likely that a co2 molecule would
absorb a IR photon as it travels away from the earth.

making the sphere thicker would spread the co2 molecules
further apart from each other.

like taking a single sheet of notebook paper and vertically
distributing the atoms of that single sheet of paper inside
a area that has the same width and length but has a depth of
several miles.

while the sheet was intact the odds of tossing a photon
through the sheet of paper without having an interaction
between the photon and the sheet of paper would be zero.

yet when the atoms are vertically distributed the odds
increase greatly.

orac

I understand that there may be hundreds of interactions
that a photon traveling away from the earth can and most
likely will undergo but I could not use those interactions
in my simple example that sam and myself are discussing as
we were basically trying to figure out the interactions
between the single photon and the single co2 molecule.

but now that you have broke that out and placed it on
the table do you expect that even if the photon undergoes
the hundreds of interactions on its way to our single
co2 molecule in the atmosphere the single photon will
somehow no longer have the same frequency as it did when
it was first emitted by the object on the earth?

this may be where energy is being created or destroyed... laugh








_________________________
3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.

Top
#56151 - 07/01/16 02:26 PM Re: Follow the photon! Is this right? [Re: paul]
Orac Offline
Megastar

Registered: 05/20/11
Posts: 2819
Loc: Currently Illinois, USA
Paul I am not interested in discussing anything with you, it is simply too silly. Like your example of the video above ... stop and think .. lets give you why what you said is really really silly ... the camera above is AN INFRARED CAMERA it can't see normal visible light that is why the flame image looks funny on the screen.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermographic_camera

Get it the CO2 is absorbing the INFRARED light so the camera cant see the flame, nothing to do with visible light AKA sunlight .

Here is the hint if the CO2 absorbed VISIBLE LIGHT you wouldn't be able to see thru the cylinder ... DOH. You can still see the window in the background thru the cylinder when the flame image goes out. Here is the key frame image study it, the IR camera can't see thru the tube but you can see the window thru the tube AKA no visible light was harmed.

You can't see in the IR range which is why he needs the camera in the first place.

This is sort of why I can't deal with you I am sorry.



Edited by Orac (07/01/16 02:40 PM)
_________________________
I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.

Top
#56152 - 07/01/16 02:39 PM Re: Follow the photon! Is this right? [Re: Orac]
paul Offline
Megastar

Registered: 03/21/06
Posts: 4136
Quote:
Get it the CO2 is absorbing the INFRARED light so the camera cant see the flame


exactly!! thank you.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunlight#Composition_and_power

Quote:
The Sun also emits X-rays, ultraviolet, visible light, infrared, and even radio waves;


so the sun emits infrared light and from the video we see
that co2 blocks infrared light.





_________________________
3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.

Top
#56153 - 07/01/16 02:41 PM Re: Follow the photon! Is this right? [Re: paul]
Orac Offline
Megastar

Registered: 05/20/11
Posts: 2819
Loc: Currently Illinois, USA
Did you also notice that the IR didn't re-emit like you claim it should? It also didn't absorb a fixed amount and then get saturated ... so where is the IR going?

I will give you a hint if he turned the camera to the side of the vessel you would see something interesting and I gave you the answer for a laser tube.

Your experiment image is exactly what I told you would happen.


Edited by Orac (07/01/16 02:47 PM)
_________________________
I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.

Top
#56154 - 07/01/16 02:54 PM Re: Follow the photon! Is this right? [Re: paul]
Orac Offline
Megastar

Registered: 05/20/11
Posts: 2819
Loc: Currently Illinois, USA
Originally Posted By: paul
so the sun emits infrared light and from the video we see that co2 blocks infrared light.

ROFL .. only in Paul physics does the sun emit infrared light and it's significant smile
I am not touching this ... bye bye Paul.


Edited by Orac (07/01/16 02:56 PM)
_________________________
I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.

Top
#56155 - 07/01/16 02:58 PM Re: Follow the photon! Is this right? [Re: Orac]
samwik Offline
Megastar

Registered: 10/10/06
Posts: 1164
Loc: Colorado
Originally Posted By: Orac
Yes you have gone to far and are now completely wrong.
...
Paul simplifies that to the CO2 reverts back to its original state and gives the photon back. Yes that can and does occur but the elephant in the room he won't talk about is that is but one of a pile (probably hundreds) of other things that can and do happen as well.
All I said was...
“the photon re-emitted …doesn't need to be the same frequency as the original absorbed photon.”
That doesn’t preclude it could be the same frequency, but indicates that there are other likely options
…especially since correcting that error (of thinking it must be the same frequency) was the point of the comment.

How is that “completely wrong?” To me, it means the same as when you say, “the CO2 reverts back to its original state
and gives the [an equal] photon back. …that can and does occur but
…that is but one of a pile (probably hundreds) of other things that can and do happen as well.” -similarities emphasized--is that fair?

Or maybe you were saying my focus on noting the difference between atomic and molecular absorption was completely wrong
(since Paul had described what sounded more like atomic absorption/emission ... more like fluorescence or phosphorescence).

Well whichever was wrong, please feel free to say whatever, as I mentioned in my pm,
so long as it spurs you on into more of these “interesting and instructive” descriptions of yours.
My goal, from the OP, is realized; so thanks again!
~ smile

Originally Posted By: Orac
The fun frequencies to look at for climate change are 7um where water is king and 15um where both water and especially CO2 play a role. What you call global warming is actually what is happening pretty much solely in those two frequency (wavelength) ranges.
...yes!
I've tried to explain the "atmospheric window" to Paul on several occasions, such as
in his thread "Sex Climate Change and CO2 Trapping," but I didn't get very far.

~ wink
_________________________
Pyrolysis creates reduced carbon! ...Time for the next step in our evolutionary symbiosis with fire.

Top
#56156 - 07/01/16 02:58 PM Re: Follow the photon! Is this right? [Re: Orac]
paul Offline
Megastar

Registered: 03/21/06
Posts: 4136
Quote:
Did you also notice that the IR didn't re-emit like you claim it should? It also didn't absorb a fixed amount and then get saturated ... so where is the IR going?


exactly !!! thank you again orac.

the important thing that has relevance to this thread is that
the IR doesnt simply pass through the co2 to the camera.

the co2 absorbs the IR just like I said.
and Im glad you pointed out the fact that the energy of
the IR light from the candle spreads or scatters within
the tube of co2 molecules as the co2 molecules re emit
photons or are involved in collisions both of which would
remove the heat signature that the camera could pick up.

because the energy of a photon that is absorbed by a
co2 molecule is used up in the energy level change
and therefore is not seen as heat by the camera.

likewise the transfer of energy between co2 molecules
is used up by the molecules in energy level changes
and cannot be seen as heat by the camera.

so adding more co2 into the atmosphere would block
more of the IR light (heat) from the sun.







_________________________
3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.

Top
#56157 - 07/01/16 03:05 PM Re: Follow the photon! Is this right? [Re: samwik]
Orac Offline
Megastar

Registered: 05/20/11
Posts: 2819
Loc: Currently Illinois, USA
Originally Posted By: samwik
…that is but one of a pile (probably hundreds) of other things that can and do happen as well.” - similarities emphasized--is that fair?

Of those hundreds of other options very few involve emission of any photons at all most are chemical or kinetic exchanges.

There is no simple way for example to change a red laser beam to a green beam etc. I am not saying it's impossible, but you would go thru a very elaborate setup to match up atomic energies in a series of interactions but it's not something you are ever going to see in nature and as a scientist I would be hard pressed to do it in the lab. Essentially I would have to take x amount of red photons and join them in some process that released less than x photons in the higher energy color ... a very tall order.

So the re-emission of the same frequency is a possibility and hundreds of other choices most of which generally don't involve emission of a photon at all.


Edited by Orac (07/01/16 03:24 PM)
_________________________
I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.

Top
#56158 - 07/01/16 03:07 PM Re: Follow the photon! Is this right? [Re: paul]
Orac Offline
Megastar

Registered: 05/20/11
Posts: 2819
Loc: Currently Illinois, USA
Originally Posted By: paul
so adding more co2 into the atmosphere would block
more of the IR light (heat) from the sun.

Until I add nitrogen in with the CO2 and then no amount of CO2 will block the IR smile

Shame we can't ask the guy to show you that. That is the problem with reading to much into that experiment.

However a CO2 laser can't work unless the IR can leave the tube something your claim above says doesn't happen. You just made a CO2 laser tube impossible using your physics smile

As I said it's complex you can't use layman physics on this stuff.


Edited by Orac (07/01/16 03:22 PM)
_________________________
I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.

Top
#56159 - 07/01/16 03:24 PM Re: Follow the photon! Is this right? [Re: Orac]
samwik Offline
Megastar

Registered: 10/10/06
Posts: 1164
Loc: Colorado
Originally Posted By: Orac
I understood what you were trying to do Samwik, and I could at least follow your argument, I could just see the simplification wouldn't work as I think you have now worked out.

The problem is that "greenhouse effect" is not a simple thing to understand and indeed the greenhouse effect on earth as a planet doesn't even work the same way as the greenhouse after which it is named. I would argue the name of the effect should actually should be changed which would help layman. It took months of arguing to get wikipedia to actually accept the analogy was faulty and the article still contains some errors.

As the process is very complicated and then you get the next problem you correctly identified in this quote
Originally Posted By: samwik
It’s become apparent, in discussing the greenhouse effect with Paul on the climate-science forum, (as you may notice on this forum) that he doesn’t correctly or completely enough, understand the actual processes or mechanisms by which physical reality operates; and yet he uses his misconceptions as proof …to disprove the validity of the physical sciences needed to understand climate.

That is true of every layman discussion I have ever seen on the subject, it's just the how out of depth that varies.

As you probably guessed my background is hard sciences and I care little about the result and politics, what I care about is that people don't butcher the physics.

The problem with the photon story is that a photon in the range of 4-100um has the mean free path of about 25 meters here at around sea level. You guys didn't even discuss and I suggest even know what that means. It basically mans an IR photon emitted off the earth as such won't make it 25m before it is absorbed by the atmosphere. Do you see the problem with the bouncing photon you are trying to tell me its going to climb up thru a couple of km of atmosphere 25 meters at a time. That isn't remotely what happens.

The story is the same as a garden hose or an electron in a wire you can't follow the movement of an individual electron or molecule of water.

A related question we sometimes get asked is how fast does an electron move thru a wire. That we we can answer and it's called drift velocity and it has simple mathematics.
http://resources.schoolscience.co.uk/cda/16plus/copelech2pg3.html

It's funny Layman imagine electrons flying thru wires at some incredible speed the reality is like in the worked example 5 amps in 0.5mm area cross section wire the electron moves at a slow tenth of a mm per second. The same situation exists for H2O molecule in a hose.

The movement of the IR energy thru the atmosphere looks much more like the hose or wire situation and I can always tell peoples understanding of the physics in how they discuss it. One of my concerns with climate scientists is many don't themselves understand the movement of the energy.

For example the roll of Nitrogen (which makes up 78% of the atmosphere as N2) is important. It shares a resonant frequency with CO2 and the two can easily kinetically exchange energy. The N2 can not emit the energy as a photon (its a Homonuclear molecule) and it stays in the N2 a long time ... hint it might move a fair way in that time in the atmosphere before it bumps into another CO2 molecule and gives the energy back.

There are in fact hundreds of these pathways and they do not all change the same with changing CO2 levels.

The reason the Earth doesn't rapidly change between -180 and 300 deg C is also telling you the energy isn't just transparently moving thru the atmosphere. The atmosphere itself must be holding onto some of the energy so it has the thermal equivalent of inertia. That is also obvious in that the temperature profile thru the height of the atmosphere.

The lesson here is the free mean path of an IR photon in the atmosphere is small and the photon bounce story thru the atmosphere as some fully transparent media is fanciful.


...to recap.
Originally Posted By: Orac
...As you probably guessed my background is hard sciences and I care little about the result and politics, what I care about is that people don't butcher the physics.

The problem with the photon story is that a photon in the range of 4-100um has the mean free path of about 25 meters here at around sea level.

...and I can always tell peoples understanding of the physics in how they discuss it. One of my concerns with climate scientists is many don't themselves understand the movement of the energy.
...
There are in fact hundreds of these pathways and they do not all change the same with changing CO2 levels.
...

The atmosphere itself must be holding onto some of the energy so it has the thermal equivalent of inertia.

Orac! That was just beautiful ...and interesting and instructive!

Thank you for sharing a more detailed description of the many paths those long wave photons can follow, as they worm their way into and throughout the atmosphere, building that thermal inertia. cool

I imagine it is somewhat analogous to the way a photon can take many multiple millennia to travel from the core of the sun up through to the surface, to finally “escape” into deep space.
===

Some climate scientists probably do understand that stuff you describe better than others, depending on from which of the specialized disciplines they came into climate science. There are so many contributors, such as atmospheric physics, or glacial and/or cryosphere studies, or ocean dynamics, or soil/biosphere dynamics, or paleogeological studies, or even from the modelling/computer specialty, it makes sense that some would know different levels of detail than others.

I know my professor, Dr. Scott Denning at CSU, knows that stuff you just described so nicely, because he described those same things in class, in much the same way you did above here; but when he talks to general audiences, he conjures up fairly simplified or cartoonlike images of how a CO2 molecule can “store” heat.

I hope you’re not judging climate scientists by the sort of lowest common denominator type of shorthand speech that people can use in daily life, especially when they are speaking to a diverse or unknown audience.

Any scientist, who relates to people on the level that you seem to insist upon here, probably isn’t addressing too many diverse or unknown audiences. But some scientists have a talent for conveying fairly complex concepts in simple, easily relatable language. Of course an expert could easily point out flaws in their oversimplified description, but that isn’t the point if you’re trying to broadly reach the layman.

But you’re probably right that many climate science specialists don’t know the details of radiative heat transfer, and they just rely on the physics experts to assure them that yes, adding extra heat to the atmosphere, on a 24/7/365 basis, from pole to pole for decades or centuries on end, will make the global average temperature rise over time. For the purposes of their specialization, that is probably good enough.
===

And as Paul himself noted above, “…solar irradiance graph shows that infrared radiation is stored in H20 (mostly in water vapor , clouds and in surface water etc) ... the graph does reference co2 absorbtion as tiny amounts.”
So CO2 would probably only contribute a few degrees F to that total of roughly 60 degrees of greenhouse heating, which occurs here near the surface.

But remember also, for every degree of warming (from total greenhouse effect) we get
another
4% extra, new water vapor added on average to the atmosphere.
And since that extra water vapor is where the photon spends most of its time, it’ll be down here
near the surface even a little longer, as we metaphorically follow its path, before it can escape.
===

I’d like to ask a question, hoping to get more detail from your description of how “a photon in the range of 4-100um has the mean free path of about 25 meters here at around sea level” and the “hundreds of these pathways” that photons may follow. I am familiar with the mean free path and the many options or pathways….

But I don’t know if a photon tends to become longer in wavelength, with each “re-emission,” after being absorbed, in successive encounters along its mean free path, though I suspect so.
To be clear, I do know it’s not the “same” photon being “re-emitted” after being absorbed, but for the sake of this cartoonlike description, it is the “only” photon we’re following.

I expect that (after being absorbed and ‘re-emitted’) it would be of a somewhat longer wavelength over 80% of the time or maybe even 95% of the time, and only re-emitted at the same frequency less than 20% of the time and more likely less than 5% of the time.

I also wonder if the “re-emitted” photon could be of a somewhat shorter wavelength than the absorbed photon, on rare occasions (probably less than 1% of the time), if a newly energized CO2 molecule (with recently absorbed photon) were to be kinetically bumped with enough force at the right time and angle.

So, do these notions of mine, about how heat changes (usually getting longer) as it undergoes successive radiative transfer, have any meaning or validity or utility? Thanks for your time!
~ smile
_________________________
Pyrolysis creates reduced carbon! ...Time for the next step in our evolutionary symbiosis with fire.

Top
#56160 - 07/01/16 03:34 PM Re: Follow the photon! Is this right? [Re: Orac]
paul Offline
Megastar

Registered: 03/21/06
Posts: 4136
Quote:
Until I add nitrogen in with the CO2 and then no amount of CO2 will block the IR


could you explain that a little bit at least so that sam
and myself can understand the process?

also do you know of a web site where the concentrations
of co2 and the concentrations of nitrogen
in reference to altitude can be found?
_________________________
3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.

Top
#56161 - 07/01/16 04:03 PM Re: Follow the photon! Is this right? [Re: samwik]
paul Offline
Megastar

Registered: 03/21/06
Posts: 4136
Quote:
I expect that (after being absorbed and ‘re-emitted’) it would be of a somewhat longer wavelength over 80% of the time or maybe even 95% of the time, and only re-emitted at the same frequency less than 20% of the time and more likely less than 5% of the time.


if a co2 molecule emits a photon of a different frequency
then another co2 molecule cannot absorb that photon because
the frequency of the emitted photon would be different from the frequency of the co2 molecule.

the above cannot happen because all co2 energized molecules
that have absorbed a IR photon have the same frequency.

and in order for them to return to their previous energy level
through photon emission they must emit a photon of the same
frequency that they absorbed.

this is why a co2 molecule that has absorbed a IR photon
cannot absorb another photon of the same frequency.

thats the way I understand it.
hope that helps.

_________________________
3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.

Top
#56162 - 07/01/16 04:16 PM Re: Follow the photon! Is this right? [Re: Orac]
paul Offline
Megastar

Registered: 03/21/06
Posts: 4136
Quote:
ROFL .. only in Paul physics does the sun emit infrared light and it's significant
I am not touching this ... bye bye Paul.


I can assure you that its not just myself that knows that
the sun emits infrared light.

and this part of physics is not paul physics. laugh


_________________________
3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.

Top
#56163 - 07/01/16 04:34 PM Re: Follow the photon! Is this right? [Re: samwik]
Orac Offline
Megastar

Registered: 05/20/11
Posts: 2819
Loc: Currently Illinois, USA
Originally Posted By: samwik
But I don’t know if a photon tends to become longer in wavelength, with each “re-emission,” after being absorbed, in successive encounters along its mean free path, though I suspect so.
To be clear, I do know it’s not the “same” photon being “re-emitted” after being absorbed, but for the sake of this cartoonlike description, it is the “only” photon we’re following.

If it was always one way the temperature gradient vertically thru the atmosphere would be simple. The answer is the chemistry, pressure and conditions change vertically and so the pathways change. Some pathways don't go all the way to the top because conditions change. You also have other energies coming from the incoming radiation. So no that statement won't work and has no real meaning as an overall statement.

Originally Posted By: samwik
I expect that (after being absorbed and ‘re-emitted’) it would be of a somewhat longer wavelength over 80% of the time or maybe even 95% of the time, and only re-emitted at the same frequency less than 20% of the time and more likely less than 5% of the time.

That is a question for a climate scientist I have no real world data and no real guidance I could guess at.

Originally Posted By: samwik
I also wonder if the “re-emitted” photon could be of a somewhat shorter wavelength than the absorbed photon, on rare occasions (probably less than 1% of the time), if a newly energized CO2 molecule (with recently absorbed photon) were to be kinetically bumped with enough force at the right time and angle.

You are correct it can and does happen rarely and is called an anti-Stokes conversion. The red and blue graphs would be reversed in an anti-stokes.


You also missed a different option which is two photons get absorbed at exactly the same time to a molecule which is called photon up conversion.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photon_upconversion

These will be extremely rare in the atmosphere, I am not sure anyone has even measured. However in semiconductors using some QM we can make that process as high as 70%.

One of the more tricky ways you could geo-engineer climate is have a plastic meta material that basically uses those processes to take blocked IR heat pathways and push it into the 10um window.

That is one of my complaints about climate science they select solutions based around a green/eco/natural criteria not what is the cheapest way to solve the problem. I find Geo-engineering is not popular in green politics.

Originally Posted By: samwik
So, do these notions of mine, about how heat changes (usually getting longer) as it undergoes successive radiative transfer, have any meaning or validity or utility.

Yes all your ideas are all valid, how important or relevant they are to any given pathway will vary and I am not sure you can use them as a general rule.


Edited by Orac (07/01/16 04:39 PM)
_________________________
I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.

Top
#56164 - 07/01/16 04:59 PM Re: Follow the photon! Is this right? [Re: paul]
Orac Offline
Megastar

Registered: 05/20/11
Posts: 2819
Loc: Currently Illinois, USA
Originally Posted By: paul
I can assure you that its not just myself that knows that the sun emits infrared light.

Paul I used the word significant ... I am aware the sun emit IR but it does not emit in 10um (10000 nanometer) we are talking about with CO2 absorbing. On your graph above it ends at 2500 on the right so its 4 times that out of scale to the right.

Your comment was about the IR camera and experiment that camera is centred at 10um .. look at the link
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermography

Thermographic cameras usually detect radiation in the long-infrared range of the electromagnetic spectrum (roughly 9,000–14,000 nanometers or 9–14 µm)

So I am going to give you the sun emits IR ... but that has nothing to do with the video and experiment. You statement that the IR from the sun has a relationship to that video is WRONG, STUPID, DUMB, FOOLISH and any other term you care to add ... THE END.



Edited by Orac (07/01/16 05:01 PM)
_________________________
I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.

Top
#56165 - 07/01/16 05:00 PM Re: Follow the photon! Is this right? [Re: Orac]
paul Offline
Megastar

Registered: 03/21/06
Posts: 4136
Quote:
However a CO2 laser can't work unless the IR can leave the tube something your claim above says doesn't happen. You just made a CO2 laser tube impossible using your physics


the co2 laser does not utilize photon emission it utilizes
electron impacts to nitrogen

nitrogen cannot emit a photon so the excited nitrogen
transfers energy through collisions with co2 molecules
and the nitrogen is left in its lower energy state
then the nitrogen transitions to ground state through
collisions with cold helium atoms.

the result being a gas discharge.

according to this page.
no photon activity is mentioned taking place at all...


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide_laser

Quote:
The population inversion in the laser is achieved by the following sequence: electron impact excites vibrational motion of the nitrogen. Because nitrogen is a homonuclear molecule, it cannot lose this energy by photon emission, and its excited vibrational levels are therefore metastable and live for a long time. Collisional energy transfer between the nitrogen and the carbon dioxide molecule causes vibrational excitation of the carbon dioxide, with sufficient efficiency to lead to the desired population inversion necessary for laser operation. The nitrogen molecules are left in a lower excited state. Their transition to ground state takes place by collision with cold helium atoms. The resulting hot helium atoms must be cooled in order to sustain the ability to produce a population inversion in the carbon dioxide molecules. In sealed lasers, this takes place as the helium atoms strike the walls of the container. In flow-through lasers, a continuous stream of CO2 and nitrogen is excited by the plasma discharge and the hot gas mixture is exhausted from the resonator by pumps.
_________________________
3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.

Top
#56166 - 07/01/16 05:03 PM Re: Follow the photon! Is this right? [Re: paul]
Orac Offline
Megastar

Registered: 05/20/11
Posts: 2819
Loc: Currently Illinois, USA
So basically no photons leave a CO2 laser tube and it doesn't work .... right Paul laugh

The page doesn't photons because it assumes your IQ is higher than an imbecile and you realize the output beam is a stream of photons.

Sorry I don't do stupid discussion please talk to someone else who cares. Really I am done you are now on total ignore like Marosz you have reached that level of stupid.


Edited by Orac (07/01/16 05:17 PM)
_________________________
I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.

Top
#56167 - 07/01/16 05:35 PM Re: Follow the photon! Is this right? [Re: Orac]
paul Offline
Megastar

Registered: 03/21/06
Posts: 4136
then why does the page state the the co2 laser has a
gas discharge rather that saying it has a light discharge?

Im confused now if a gas discharge also means
a light discharge !!!

Quote:
The active laser medium (laser gain/amplification medium) is a gas discharge which is air-cooled (water-cooled in higher power applications). The filling gas within the discharge tube consists of around 10–20% carbon dioxide


if something is being discharged it means that is is
being put out.

if gas is being discharged then that means that gas is
being put out.

the filling gas within the discharge chamber also suggest that this is the chamber where gas is discharged.

Quote:
The filling gas within the discharge tube consists of around 10–20% carbon dioxide


_________________________
3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.

Top
#56168 - 07/01/16 05:48 PM Re: Follow the photon! Is this right? [Re: paul]
Orac Offline
Megastar

Registered: 05/20/11
Posts: 2819
Loc: Currently Illinois, USA
Ignoring .. ask someone who cares or you could try reading "Stimulated emission" smile


Edited by Orac (07/01/16 05:51 PM)
_________________________
I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.

Top
#56169 - 07/01/16 05:52 PM Re: Follow the photon! Is this right? [Re: Orac]
paul Offline
Megastar

Registered: 03/21/06
Posts: 4136
Quote:
Ignoring ..


then I would also be ignoring you especially if
you want to make comments that you dont care to
have examined for clarity nor do you want to provide
clarity of those comments for validity concerns.

I can simply say that I jumped over the moon ...

but providing any evidence would be difficult.
especially if there is no evidence to provide.



_________________________
3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.

Top
#56170 - 07/01/16 06:00 PM Re: Follow the photon! Is this right? [Re: paul]
Orac Offline
Megastar

Registered: 05/20/11
Posts: 2819
Loc: Currently Illinois, USA
Paul you are clearly playing stupid or as they say the clown.

Even the acronym for LASER is Light Amplification by Stimulated Emission of Radiation

It's a pretty dam obvious connection its how the process and device gets its name.

Your article didn't mention the words Light Amplification, Stimulated Emission or Radiation either ... wow pretty strange hey given how the name comes about.

Lets give you a laser without any electrons at all .. the good old Ruby laser the first laser ever built
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ruby_laser
The excitor there is light from a xenon flashtube ... no electrons or electricity in the laser at all.

So yeah lets just not talk because I am over the stupidity which would not even entertain a 12 year old.


Edited by Orac (07/01/16 06:48 PM)
_________________________
I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.

Top
#56171 - 07/01/16 07:34 PM Re: Follow the photon! Is this right? [Re: Orac]
paul Offline
Megastar

Registered: 03/21/06
Posts: 4136
I thought for a second while I was reading this reply of yours
that you were going to break down and admit that you were wrong.

fat chance huh?

Quote:
However a CO2 laser can't work unless the IR can leave the tube something your claim above says doesn't happen. You just made a CO2 laser tube impossible using your physics


Quote:
Until I add nitrogen in with the CO2 and then no amount of CO2 will block the IR


you used the above knowing that by adding nitrogen to the
picture the nitrogen would ALLOW you to erroneously use a
co2 laser to try and claim that I was wrong when I wrote this.


Quote:
so adding more co2 into the atmosphere would block
more of the IR light (heat) from the sun.


knowing full well that the nitrogen in the laser requires
stimulation by electrons...

there seems to be something in what you wrote below.
talking about the experiment or even the atmosphere
I presume.

Quote:
Until I add nitrogen in with the CO2 and then no amount of CO2 will block the IR


were you saying that the nitrogen would change its energy level
because the nitrogen would absorb IR through photon absorption
and that would cause the co2 to not block the IR?

do you have access to nitrogen that will absorb IR?

perhaps you also have access to oxygen that will absorb IR?

I may be wrong about the sunlight being blocked by the co2
I havent checked that yet but if I am I will admit it
dont worry I dont expect that you will admit your mistakes
after all its present in your tag line sort of like a
perpetual admission or warning to the readers.

but using a laser to dispute something as simple as
an interaction between sunlight and co2 is a little bit much
I think.

of course it didnt work your way and it really proved nothing
but it does bring your character out into view a little clearer.

_________________________
3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.

Top
#56172 - 07/01/16 10:30 PM Re: Follow the photon! Is this right? [Re: Orac]
samwik Offline
Megastar

Registered: 10/10/06
Posts: 1164
Loc: Colorado
Originally Posted By: paul
of course it didnt
...really proved nothing
but it does bring your character out into view a little clearer.
Paul, I think this “does bring [Orac’s] character out into view a little clearer,” as you say;
because, for someone who (I suspect) does not usually suffer fools so lightly,
it is obvious that Orac cares enough to spend more time on this than would most,
and that he is being especially patient with your (real, or feigned) conceptual dyslexia.
~ tired


Originally Posted By: Orac
...it can and does happen rarely and is called an anti-Stokes conversion. The red and blue graphs would be reversed in an anti-stokes.
...
You also missed a different option which is two photons get absorbed at exactly the same time to a molecule which is called photon up conversion.
Orac, Thank You Very Much!
Very interesting and instructive....
~ cool
_________________________
Pyrolysis creates reduced carbon! ...Time for the next step in our evolutionary symbiosis with fire.

Top
#56173 - 07/02/16 01:06 AM Re: Follow the photon! Is this right? [Re: Orac]
paul Offline
Megastar

Registered: 03/21/06
Posts: 4136
Quote:
Paul I used the word significant ... I am aware the sun emit IR but it does not emit in 10um (10000 nanometer) we are talking about with CO2 absorbing. On your graph above it ends at 2500 on the right so its 4 times that out of scale to the right.


co2 absorbs wavelengths of

2.7 microns
in this range of wavelengths there are apx 3um of wavelengths
that extend mostly from apx 1.8um to 2.7um

4.3 microns
in this range of wavelengths there are apx .7um of wavelengths
that extend mostly from apx 4.3um to 5um

15 microns

in this range of wavelengths there are apx 6 um of wavelengths
that extend mostly from apx 14um to 20 um

that is a grand total of 9.7um of wavelengths that can
absorb IR !!!

it took a while to find the above information.

but its not simply 10um

I must admit that sunlight really doesnt have much
incoming IR light that could be absorbed by co2.

here is an absorption graph that shows the wavelengths that
co2 molecules absorb.

[img]http://nov79.com/gbwm/atmo.html[/img]


http://nov79.com/gbwm/atmo.html

so I suppose that in order for a IR photon to be absorbed
by a co2 molecule after it is emitted from the earth would require that the emitted photon have a wavelength of one of
the three ranges of wavelengths 9.7um in total that can be absorbed by a co2 molecule.

2.7 microns
4.3 microns
15 microns

it doesnt look as if there is a serious threat because
there might not be a large number of objects on the earth
that would emit a photon of the required wavelengths.

so that at least comforts me in knowing that the requirements
are so narrow.

I suppose the next thing that I need to find out is the
percentage of emitted photons that are emitted in that really
narrow range of the 3 wavelength ranges.

but you guys have a nice time calling people names like the
real scientist that you obviously are. LOL

besides as a real scientist thats really the only tool that
you own anyway.

_________________________
3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.

Top
#56174 - 07/02/16 01:31 AM Re: Follow the photon! Is this right? [Re: samwik]
paul Offline
Megastar

Registered: 03/21/06
Posts: 4136
Sam

for someone who claims to have taken courses in climate science
or whatever climate classes you attended and are obviously involved in the politics of climate change you sure do rely on orac to participate more in your discussion threads than yourself.

I had the impression that you really wanted to discuss the
follow the photon example

and Im guessing that the discussion didnt quite go in the direction that you had assumed that it would go.

so instead of this becoming a discussion it turned into
a pat each other on the back session that kind of turned
my stomach as I watched it evolve into the normal type of
thread that a thread turns into when orac becomes involved
in a thread , mostly lies , and deceit , and name calling.

your brand of science I suppose.
_________________________
3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.

Top
#56175 - 07/02/16 04:24 AM Re: Follow the photon! Is this right? [Re: paul]
Orac Offline
Megastar

Registered: 05/20/11
Posts: 2819
Loc: Currently Illinois, USA
Originally Posted By: paul
2.7 microns
4.3 microns
15 microns

2.7um is 2700nm it is still off the page to the right from your graph which ends at 2500nm. It also has nothing to do with the IR camera and video which doesn't go anywhere up near that frequency. 4700nm and 15000nm are so far off the right you need to make the graph what 8 times wider.

Now go away ... you are playing the stupid fool troll and I am not playing this game.

Keep going and I will ask AR2 to treat you as Marosz. I am not asking you to believe anything, Marosz is allowed to believe his junk as well. If you do want to discuss things, then it at least needs to be intelligent or just post your own spam threads like Marosz does and I will ignore. I ignored your relativity threads on that basis and it created no issue, you got your say for whatever purpose you think it did.


Edited by Orac (07/02/16 04:47 AM)
_________________________
I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.

Top
#56176 - 07/02/16 12:47 PM Re: Follow the photon! Is this right? [Re: Orac]
paul Offline
Megastar

Registered: 03/21/06
Posts: 4136
Im not sure why you keep pointing that out orac.

are you saying that the solar radiation does not extend
beyond the graph?

or does the graph itself control the full range of
solar irradiation?

or is it that you are simply trying to deceive the
readers of this forum as usual.



Im pretty sure that the range of solar radiation must extend
well beyond 2500 nm ... get it?

it must extend into the three ranges that have a total
range of 9.7nm

2.7 microns
4.3 microns
15 microns

its just not pictured in the graph because its insignificant.
or because it would make the image too long.

perhaps you can comprehend that now that I have let you
in on the secret.

most all graphs that deal with climate change only use
a cherry picked range of data and you should know that
already.

but that would require the ability to retain data
in memory from instruction.

btw , I didnt make the above image myself its not the
one that I would have preferred to use , the one that
I wanted to use from the wiki solar irradiance page will
not display on this science forum.

but for some reason there is a co2 absorption that is
shown in the absorption bands at just beyond 2000 nm in the above graph and in the graph on the below wiki page.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_irradiance







_________________________
3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.

Top
#56177 - 07/02/16 02:43 PM Re: Follow the photon! Is this right? [Re: paul]
Orac Offline
Megastar

Registered: 05/20/11
Posts: 2819
Loc: Currently Illinois, USA
Your pretty sure ... Marosz is absolutely sure ... who to believe .. but Marosz draws better pictures and does experiments with plasticine and the green fan.

So hard to decide who to believe laugh

It seems important to you, so how about I just say I believe you Paul.

Now we are done .. Don't direct stuff at me please religious troll .. you have successfully reached Marosz stupid level and will now be treated as such.


Edited by Orac (07/02/16 04:34 PM)
_________________________
I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.

Top
#56178 - 07/02/16 05:28 PM Re: Follow the photon! Is this right? [Re: Orac]
paul Offline
Megastar

Registered: 03/21/06
Posts: 4136
Im amazed at the way you act as if marosz and myself are
somehow wrong about things its almost as if you believe that
by using your cherry picked BS you can somehow correct your
really large pile of wrongness through deception or manipulation
of extremely out of context post.


also: in almost every post in this thread that you have made
you say that you are done with it ... and your not going to
reply any more ... your ignoring me ... or some wording to
that extent.

being wrong seems to be entangled into your every thought
and mental processes this is one reason why I always check
what you write for validity.

as in the below that sam questioned

Quote:
But I don’t know if a photon tends to become longer in wavelength, with each “re-emission,” after being absorbed, in successive encounters along its mean free path, though I suspect so.
To be clear, I do know it’s not the “same” photon being “re-emitted” after being absorbed, but for the sake of this cartoonlike description, it is the “only” photon we’re following.

I expect that (after being absorbed and ‘re-emitted’) it would be of a somewhat longer wavelength over 80% of the time or maybe even 95% of the time, and only re-emitted at the same frequency less than 20% of the time and more likely less than 5% of the time.

I also wonder if the “re-emitted” photon could be of a somewhat shorter wavelength than the absorbed photon, on rare occasions (probably less than 1% of the time), if a newly energized CO2 molecule (with recently absorbed photon) were to be kinetically bumped with enough force at the right time and angle.



and he then asked

Quote:
So, do these notions of mine, about how heat changes (usually getting longer) as it undergoes successive radiative transfer, have any meaning or validity or utility? Thanks for your time!


and your reply

Quote:
Yes all your ideas are all valid, how important or relevant they are to any given pathway will vary and I am not sure you can use them as a general rule.


you just agreed that a range of 80% to 95% of
all photon emissions of a co2 molecule
will have a longer wavelength.

and you also agreed that only a range of 20% to 5% of
all photon emissions of a co2 molecule
will have the same wavelength as the absorbed photon.

thats really interesting since the infrared value of
carbon dioxide gas is either 667.38 or 2349.16

and its two frequencies are 667 cm-1 or 2350 cm-1

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide

Quote:
Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas, absorbing and emitting infrared radiation at its two infrared-active vibrational frequencies


this is revealing about both yours and samwiks character
and since samwik has taken classes in climate science or
whatever this fake science that you two are promoting
really shows the extremes that you two will go to in order
to prop up your BELIEFS because this garbage that you guys
are promoting certainly isnt science.


_________________________
3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.

Top
#56179 - 07/02/16 08:43 PM Re: Follow the photon! Is this right? [Re: Orac]
paul Offline
Megastar

Registered: 03/21/06
Posts: 4136
one other thing for now , orac

Quote:
So, do these notions of mine, about how heat changes (usually getting longer) as it undergoes successive radiative transfer, have any meaning or validity or utility.


even if a co2 molecule did emit a photon with a
longer or shorter wavelength than the photon that it absorbed.
the energy between the absorbed photon and the emitted
photon would not change.

so when sam is using the word (heat) in the above he is
trying to preach his BELIEF that co2 is causing warming
through manipulation as he then later tries to instill a notion
that other people who dont have the same BELIEF that he
does may be fools.

its true sam many people have been misguided using tactics
like you and orac have displayed here in this thread , but
that does not say that they are the fools.
_________________________
3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.

Top
#56180 - 07/02/16 09:06 PM Re: Follow the photon! Is this right? [Re: Orac]
paul Offline
Megastar

Registered: 03/21/06
Posts: 4136
Quote:
Keep going and I will ask AR2 to treat you as Marosz.


you keep posting false information and I will do the same

that also goes for samwik

this is supposed to be a science forum and BELIEF is not
a part of science.

so you guys can either use actual data that can be
supported by actual science or I will complain each and every time that you dont.

how about that?
_________________________
3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.

Top
#56181 - 07/03/16 12:49 AM Re: Follow the photon! Is this right? [Re: paul]
samwik Offline
Megastar

Registered: 10/10/06
Posts: 1164
Loc: Colorado
Originally Posted By: paul
Im amazed at the way you act...
...

this is revealing about both yours and samwiks character
and since samwik has taken classes in climate science or
whatever this fake science that you two are promoting
really shows the extremes that you two will go to in order
to prop up your BELIEFS because this garbage that you guys
are promoting certainly isnt science.
Gosh Paul, after all these years here at SAGG....
I’ve never known you to be so sensitive, or ever seen you so upset.





Have a cup of tea, and maybe later we can try following some "Stokes-shifted" photons.

~ cool
_________________________
Pyrolysis creates reduced carbon! ...Time for the next step in our evolutionary symbiosis with fire.

Top
#56182 - 07/03/16 02:57 AM Re: Follow the photon! Is this right? [Re: paul]
paul Offline
Megastar

Registered: 03/21/06
Posts: 4136
if any of the readers are still following this thread
I may have found a initial problem with the process
in the example.

that problem is that in order for the co2 molecule in the
atmosphere to absorbe an IR photon that has been emitted
by the object on the earth the photon to be absorbed
must have one of two specific frequencies.

and these two frequencies are 667 cm-1 (4.26um) or 2349 cm-1 (15um)

the next item I will attempt to find somewhere will be
what specific type of object or types of objects will be required
in order to have them emit an IR photon in those two
frequencies due to absorption of a photon of sunlight.

Im thinking that with only 2 possible frequencies of
transmitted IR from the object on the earth the odds
of an IR photon emission occurring in either of the two
frequencies would be
( 2 to the total number of frequencies in the IR range)

so it might be hard to find a object or objects that will
emit those two specific frequencies due to photon absorption
of sunlight but I will look tomorrow or monday and post it
if I find it.

_________________________
3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.

Top
#56183 - 07/03/16 08:54 AM Re: Follow the photon! Is this right? [Re: samwik]
Orac Offline
Megastar

Registered: 05/20/11
Posts: 2819
Loc: Currently Illinois, USA
Originally Posted By: samwik
Have a cup of tea, and maybe later we can try following some "Stokes-shifted" photons.

Start a new thread if you do, I like my stoke shifted coffee hot, might be interesting discussion and we can leave the religious fringe and THE OTHER READERS with this rubbish. laugh

I love the concept of other readers, must be like the ones on Marosz threads and the ones that commented on the relativity thread besides, Sam and I. Reality check is not a strong suit of these guys and even saying you believe them is not enough .... I think they want a full conversion smile


Edited by Orac (07/03/16 01:50 PM)
_________________________
I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.

Top
Page 1 of 3 1 2 3 >



Newest Members
debbieevans, bkhj, jackk, Johnmattison, RacerGT
865 Registered Users
Sponsor
Facebook

We're on Facebook
Join Our Group

Science a GoGo's Home Page | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Contact Us
Features | News | Books | Physics | Space | Climate Change | Health | Technology | Natural World

Copyright © 1998 - 2016 Science a GoGo and its licensors. All rights reserved.