Final Statement On Ghg's And Gw, Irrefutable.

In my previous post, I tried to show that more carbon dioxide added to the Earth’s atmosphere would have no heating effect as in the Enhanced Greenhouse Gas Effect we hear so much about. Perhaps my message got lost in the maths in the post, so I should like to add a few words in further explanation.

I do not believe in the Enhanced GHG effect. I do not think that extra carbon dioxide will have any effect on the Earth’s temperature.

I do believe, however, that some other effect, not yet identified, could be causing global warming.

Firstly, I should like to refer Spencer Weart’s article on the Real Climate site entitled “A Saturated Gassy Argument”, SGA.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archi...ument/#more-455

This work implicitly seems to accept that carbon dioxide and water vapour can absorb 100% of the infrared radiation from the surface of the Earth. Most of this energy is radiated back to the surface. See Kiehl and Trenberth
http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/abstracts/files/kevin1997_1.html
This is the natural GHG effect, and occurs at relatively low altitudes. No argument. For the purpose of easy discussion, let us consider the atmosphere to consist of three regions, lower and upper troposphere, and high altitude as in SGA.

The infrared which is not radiated back to the surface heats the troposphere by increasing the kinetic energy of the molecules by inter-molecular collisions.

Heat energy also leaves the surface as sensible heat, convection and latent heat, which rises to the upper troposphere where it too provides warming. Kiehl and Trenberth show that sufficient energy is provided to this region by these means for the necessary 165 Wm^-2 to escape to space in order to enable energy balance for the Earth’s system. ( Together with 30 Wm^-2 from the clouds and 40 Wm^-2 through the “window”. ) I suggest that the available energy is converted into the necessary photon form by inter-molecular collisions with CO2 in the upper troposphere and at high altitudes.

Some of the photons about to escape into space at high altitudes will be absorbed by CO2 molecules even at this height, as stated in the SGA, but it is at this point that my ideas diverge from the SGA.

The excited CO2 molecules will decay again to a lower rotational level, either spontaneously or by collision, so emitting photons. Some of these emitted photons will escape to space as required, and some will return to the atmosphere, but the temperature will be adjusted by the overall feedback system so that energy balance will be maintained.

It is important to understand that only a small proportion of the total atmospheric CO2 is involved in this process. The relevant actions are occurring at high altitudes “where the air is very thin”, after all, not throughout the whole atmosphere. This proportion is dependent on the temperature of that region. The number of CO2 molecules involved will be set at this temperature to provide the required number of outgoing photons to get energy balance.

If now, more CO2 is added, more photons will join in the process and escape to space, so tending to reduce the temperature, and upsetting the balance. Correction is provided by the emitting region moving to still higher altitudes, ( in line with the SGA ), where the temperature is lower, and so the emission rate is reduced, as required.

Note that the number of CO2 molecules involved must be constant, so that when more CO2 is added, the proportion involved is reduced accordingly. This is shown mathematically by the equation kb = b1 in my previous post.

I suggest that final escape to space occurs at higher and colder altitudes because the proportion of CO2 molecules participating must be less, not greater, when more CO2 is added, in order for equilibrium. The total number of CO2 molecules participating has to stay constant.

The problem with the SGA is that it stops too soon for the flaw to be seen. The crux of the SGA is where it refers to extra CO2 molecules absorbing photons at high altitudes. It neglects to say anything about the next, inevitable process, which is the following decay, with the “centralised energy packet” within the excited molecule distributing its energy into the various states available to it, in line with the Second Law of Thermodynamics. Must not forget that!

So, no extra global warming from added CO2.

what accounts for their escape from the earth's atmosphere?

To Neil Farbstein

Please refer to my other post above.

AEB

Still assuming constants that don't exist I see.

To Corvidae

Please read my posts again, but give your full attention next time.

Or perhaps you don't believe in Mathematics?

AEB