Sentences with phrase «co2 radiation energy»

BPL (84) you say that most of the energy leaving the system via IR emission (from CO2 in your example) is sourced from insolation, which would mean that only a small portion of the escaping CO2 radiation energy originates from earth's IR.

... you say that most of the energy leaving the system via IR emission (from CO2 in your example) is sourced from insolation, which would mean that only a small portion of the escaping CO2 radiation energy originates from earth's IR.

Not exact matches

Water (H2O) plus carbon dioxide (CO2) plus light energy (solar radiation) produces carbohydrates plus oxygen.

Fluid dynamics, rejecting hypotheses, hot - spot, funding, scientific credibility, CO2 influence, energy flows, Kininmonth, convection, infrared radiation, amplification, unrealistic, endangerment finding, Carlin, UK Climate Change Act, Helm, electricity pricing, reliability, glyphosate, CO2 social costs, benefit, $ 0.00, USGCRP

They don't have to be scientists to understand that the higher energy waves of visible light from the Sun can penetrate through CO2, H2O, CH4, NOZ etal in the atmosphere, but the lower energy radiation of infra - red waves, from Earth's surface, have problems getting back out through these molecules, and a new energy balance has to be established in the form of rising temperature.

The CO2 molecule has a unique way to absorb energy at a particular frequency, but that energy gets transferred very quickly to its neighboring molecules, most of which have no way to emit radiation at that frequency.]

So to maintain energy balance the stratosphere must be losing energy via long wavelength radiation which means long wavelength emitters like CO2 must be radiating more than they are absorbing.

Vibrational modes in molecules with three or more atoms (H2O, CO2, O3, N2O, CH4, CFCs, HFCs...) include bending motions that are easier to excite and so will absorb and emit lower energy photons which co-incide with the infrared radiation that the Earth emits.

CO2 reduces the rate at which the atmosphere loses its energy to space via infrared radiation, which in turn reduces the flow of energy from the Earth's surface to the atmosphere.

(mostly by faster transport of radiation, which compensates for the CO2 slowdown, since tha amount of energy is fixed by what comes in from the sun) The failure to return to equilibrium means that the Laws Of Physics ie the Stefan - Boltzmann Law (SBL) is NOT allowed to function.

ie does a slightly lower density of air mean a slightly lower ground level temperature (temperature normally decreases with height at the lower air density), so that in reality adding CO2 and subtracting more O2 actually causes miniscule or trivial global COOLING, and the (unused) ability of the changed atmosphere to absorb radiation energy and transmit it to the rest of the air is overruled or limited by the ideal gas law?

Of course this is a global average but in principle I see no reason not to consider that some large percentage of the energy warming the tropical Pacific will be from «back radiation» (for which CO2 will be partly responsible) and thus not «direct from the sun.»

I think the central point is that of the scale of energy imbalance and the timescale for response: our addition of CO2 reduces outgoing thermal radiation, so incoming energy from the sun is greater than outgoing energy to space.

idlex asked:» Am I right in saying that CO2 has 4 energy levels that correspond to IR radiation absorption?

The molecules of CO2 become excited, and can lose this excitation energy via radiation of slightly longer wavelength IR in all directions, or by colliding with other molecules.

The general argument however is being discussed by rasmus in the context of planetary energy balance: the impact of additional CO2 is to reduce the outgoing longwave radiation term and force the system to accumulate excess energy; the imbalance is currently on the order of 1.45 * (10 ^ 22) Joules / year over the globe, and the temperature must rise allowing the outgoing radiation term to increase until it once again matches the absorbed incoming stellar flux.

What will the energy of the radiation emitted by a CO2 molecules in the atmosphere at NTP, and does it depend on the temperature of the air?

It does seem at first glance that a warm troposphere would warm the stratosphere, but the explanation that more of the earth - sourced infrared radiation is absorbed lower in the the troposphere by higher levels of CO2 makes sense if one thinks about the thermodynamic losses involved in the CO2 re-radiation processes; some of the earth - sourced infrared is transformed into kinetic energy and only a fraction is reradiated as more infrared radiation (if I'm understanding correctly).

Pekka Pirilä: Where the effect of increase in CO2 is important for the energy balance is in the upper troposphere, because a significant part of the radiation emitted upwards by CO2 of the upper troposphere goes trough the tropopause to stratosphere or through it to open space.

What I'm thinking is that the primary way that the energy captured by CO2 gets dissipated is not radiation, partly back to the surface, but primarily upwards convention as the kinetic transfer between gas molecules moves the heat rapidly throughout the atmosphere.

Where the effect of increase in CO2 is important for the energy balance is in the upper troposphere, because a significant part of the radiation emitted upwards by CO2 of the upper troposphere goes trough the tropopause to stratosphere or through it to open space.

What they found was a drop in Escaping Infra Red radiation at the PRECISE wavelength bands that greenhouse gases such as CO2 with H2O, CFC's, Ozone, Nitrous Oxides, & methane (CH4) absorb energy.

The latest modelling experiments take this into account, but it is easier to understand causes and effects in an equilibrium - response experiment.The first thing that happens when CO2 is doubled is that less energy in the form of radiation escapes to space.

But this pure IR energy blocking by CO2 versus compensating temperature rise for radiation equilibrium is unrealistic for the long - period and slow CO2 rises that are occurring.

The evolving radiation balance of the earth as seen in the satellite data shows that the energy added by the CO2 and feedbacks is more than sufficient to explain the observed warming surface temperatures.

Add to that the plausibility of some human - caused warming (CO2 does interact with photons of outgoing LW radiation, and all else being equal this should lead to some increase of energy within the lower atmosphere).

At face value it requires that no energy can be transfered via collisions, i.e. no thermal conductivity, no viscosity, no diffusion... Even for CO2, there is no mechanism for the transfer of energy from rotational / vibrational degrees of freedom to translational motion which has no coupling with a radiation field.

Bob, the mechanism is that CO2 converts 15 micron radiation into kinetic energy.

It may be pure coincidence that the two things are happening at the same time; but it is undisputed that CO2 absorbs the heat energy in infrared radiation and, as it warms up, becomes an emitter of infrared itself.

I can feel thermal radiation, I believe CO2 has a measured IR absorption spectrum, I believe a CO2 molecule is not a bottomless pit of energy that can be filled without ever spilling over, and this predictable spilling over is measured from spectrometers on satellites and the ground, therefore there is a CO2 greenhouse effect whose net effect on the climate is of some small and as yet imprecisely known size.

There more CO2 leads to a change in the altitude of the level whose energy balance is controlled by radiation without a significant convective component.

One last note, the energy budget framework can also be used to understand the consequences of geo - engineering scenarios that block incoming solar radiation to compensate the warming by CO2:

Alarmists are obsessed with the additional energy that they believe to come from back - radiation from manmade CO2 in the atmosphere.

If the upper troposphere cools only by radiation (with probably some convection across the tropopause), but the surface transfers energy to the upper troposphere via radiation, convection, and evapotranspiration, why would the concurrent CO2 - induced warming be uniform?

When heat energy gets released from Earth's surface, some of that radiation is trapped by greenhouse gases like CO2; the effect is what makes our planet comfy temperature-wise, but too much and you get global warming.

The no - feedback climate senstiivity of about 1 C for a doubling of CO2 is based on the assumption that this imbalance can only be countered by a change in the radiation component of how energy is transmitted through the atmopshere.

If an object (for example, an N2 molecule) is going to collide with a CO2 molecule and excite it with to an excited state that N2 molecule has to have translational energy equivalent to at least 15 um radiation and the impact must occur with exactly the right impact parameter for the reaction to occur.

Once energy from CO2 and H2O begins to leak into outer space, LTE is violated, temperatures * must * fall until a more global thermal equilibrium is established with incoming thermal radiation and convection.

Tom Vonk is correct when he says that the following statements are over-simplifications and need corrections (in caps): «CO2 absorbs AND EMITS the outgoing infrared energy and warms the atmosphere TO A HIGHER TEMPERATURE THAN IT WOULD HAVE WITHOUT CO2» — or — «CO2 traps part of the infrared radiation between ground and the upper part of the atmosphere» AND IS THE MAJOR SOURCE OF INFRARED RADIATION FROM THE UPPER ATMOSPHERE radiation between ground and the upper part of the atmosphere» AND IS THE MAJOR SOURCE OF INFRARED RADIATION FROM THE UPPER ATMOSPHERE RADIATION FROM THE UPPER ATMOSPHERE TO SPACE.

However, climate models forced with CO2 reveal that global energy accumulation is, instead, primarily caused by an increase in absorbed solar radiation (ASR).

If CO2 and H2O molecules now are cooled below the previous equilibrium point by having their radiation allowed to escape to outer space, then I believe these molecules must then tend to absorb more energy than yield energy with each interaction with the other components of the atmosphere until that atmosphere as a whole reaches a new thermal equilibrium where the net radiation going out and the net radiation coming in (primarily from the sun and the surrounding atmosphere) is the same.

What they found was a drop in outgoing radiation at the wavelength bands that greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide (CO2) and methane (CH4) absorb energy.

A consequence of the model you have proposed would seem to be that the «back radiation» due to CO2 interception of surface emitted (from solid or liquid continuum thermal radiation can consist only of the specific wavelengths that the CO2 absorbed in the first place; since you say no net energy is exchanged between the CO2 and the Atmosphere.

Increased concentrations of greenhouse gases, such as CO2, reduce the amount of outgoing longwave radiation (OLR) to space; thus, energy accumulates in the climate system, and the planet warms.

Also, the co2 must be in radiative equilibrium, giving off as much radiation energy as it receives.

With CO2 in the hohlraum at least some of the molecules, everyone seems to agree, spend a fraction of there time with energy from the radiation field bound up in internal excitations of one or more forms.

For instance a believable narrative about CO2 absorbing or emitting 15um radiation can be matched with thermal energy changes.

We know with absolute certainty that a doubling of CO2 can produce no more than half a degree C (actually the number is a lot closer to 0.3 °C) because the 14.77 micron band of the Earth's radiation is already so close to saturation that there is not enough energy left in this band to have any further significant effect regardless of how much the CO2 concentration increases.

CO2 molecules outnumber water molecules in the upper atmosphere, where water vapor is limited by the low saturation vapor pressure, and this is where radiation to space matters, so CO2 plays a big role in how much energy is radiated to space.

If Earth's mean energy imbalance today is +0.5 W / m2, CO2 must be reduced from the current level of 395 ppm (global - mean annual - mean in mid-2013) to about 360 ppm to increase Earth's heat radiation to space by 0.5 W / m2 and restore energy balance.