Would not extra atmospheric carbon dioxide increase the efficiency of
the Hadley, Ferrel, and Polar cells in cooling the earth's surface by
causing the upper troposphere to radiate better?

To be more specific, say the tradewinds blow across the heated ocean.
Evaporation occurs, cooling the ocean. A thunderstorm, front, or
cyclone happens, precipation occurs, the air is heated, and rises. In
the upper troposphere it cools, before descending to complete the
cycle. However it can only cool because it contains carbon dioxide, as
oxygen, nitrogen, if they do not absorb, neither shall they emit
radiation. This presumes that water vapor is insignificant at these
elevated altitudes. If the CO2 is increased by a large fraction, then
the radiation should be similarly enhanced.

Obviously I am out on my own with this analysis. I'm curious why it's
wrong though.

writes:

Would not extra atmospheric carbon dioxide increase the efficiency of
the Hadley, Ferrel, and Polar cells in cooling the earth's surface by
causing the upper troposphere to radiate better?

Yes, increasing CO2 leads to an increase in radiative efficiency. Thus
the effects of CO2 vis-a-vis warming vs. cooling depend on the relative
importance of the two effects at any particular point in the atmosphere.


To be more specific, say the tradewinds blow across the heated ocean.
Evaporation occurs, cooling the ocean. A thunderstorm, front, or
cyclone happens, precipation occurs, the air is heated, and rises. In
the upper troposphere it cools, before descending to complete the
cycle. However it can only cool because it contains carbon dioxide, as
oxygen, nitrogen, if they do not absorb, neither shall they emit
radiation. This presumes that water vapor is insignificant at these
elevated altitudes. If the CO2 is increased by a large fraction, then
the radiation should be similarly enhanced.

Obviously I am out on my own with this analysis. I'm curious why it's
wrong though.

Clouds are important radiators, and must be included. The models that
are used to look at the overall effects generally show that:

- there will be surface warming (CO2 absorption effect)
- there will be stratospheric cooling (CO2 emission effect)
- there will be relatively little change around the tropopause
- there will (not universally) be greater vertical temperature
gradients in the troposphere. (Least likely in the tropics, where very
strong convection is common).

...so what is wrong with your analysis is that the increases radiative
efficiency of a CO2-enriched atmosphere only shows up as cooling in the
stratosphere, not in the troposphere.

In article .com, writes:
Would not extra atmospheric carbon dioxide increase the efficiency of
the Hadley, Ferrel, and Polar cells in cooling the earth's surface by
causing the upper troposphere to radiate better?

To be more specific, say the tradewinds blow across the heated ocean.
Evaporation occurs, cooling the ocean. A thunderstorm, front, or
cyclone happens, precipation occurs, the air is heated, and rises. In
the upper troposphere it cools, before descending to complete the
cycle. However it can only cool because it contains carbon dioxide, as
oxygen, nitrogen, if they do not absorb, neither shall they emit
radiation. This presumes that water vapor is insignificant at these
elevated altitudes. If the CO2 is increased by a large fraction, then
the radiation should be similarly enhanced.

Obviously I am out on my own with this analysis. I'm curious why it's
wrong though.


There are no physical law demanding that material has to absorb radiation
in order to emit. It has to emit if it is absorbing.

CO2 transfer energy to N2 and O2 by molecular collisions.



Øyvind Seland

On Feb 26, 10:29 pm, (Øyvind Seland) wrote:
In article .com, writes:
Would not extra atmospheric carbon dioxide increase the efficiency of
the Hadley, Ferrel, and Polar cells in cooling the earth's surface by
causing the upper troposphere to radiate better?

To be more specific, say the tradewinds blow across the heated ocean.
Evaporation occurs, cooling the ocean. A thunderstorm, front, or
cyclone happens, precipation occurs, the air is heated, and rises. In
the upper troposphere it cools, before descending to complete the
cycle. However it can only cool because it contains carbon dioxide, as
oxygen, nitrogen, if they do not absorb, neither shall they emit
radiation. This presumes that water vapor is insignificant at these
elevated altitudes. If the CO2 is increased by a large fraction, then
the radiation should be similarly enhanced.

Obviously I am out on my own with this analysis. I'm curious why it's
wrong though.

There are no physical law demanding that material has to absorb radiation
in order to emit. It has to emit if it is absorbing.

CO2 transfer energy to N2 and O2 by molecular collisions.

Øyvind Seland

So how do the N2 and O2 lose that energy? By colliding with CO2 [and
clouds according to the second poster] which radiate it. If a layer of
gas is to lose energy by radiation, it needs a radiator, no?

Quote from my uni textbook, "Principles of heat transfer", by Frank
Keith, 3ed, section 5-8 Radiation properties of gases and vapors
" Elementary gases such as O2, N2, H2, and dry air have a symmetric
molecular structure and neither emit nor absorb radiation unless they
are heated to extremely high temperatures at which they become ionized
plasmas and at which electronic energy transformations occur. On the
other hand, gases which have polar molecular forms with an electronic
moment such as a dipole or quadrupole absorb and emit radiation in
limited spectral ranges called bands. In practice, the most important
of these gases are H2O, CO2, CO, SO2, NH3, and the hydrocarbons."

This suggest to me that O2 and N2 cannot emit radiation, so must
collide with CO2, H2O, or a cloud to lose energy.
Cheers,
Peter Garrone

In article .com, writes:
On Feb 26, 10:29 pm, (=D8yvind Seland) wrote:
In article .com, pgarr=
writes:
Would not extra atmospheric carbon dioxide increase the efficiency of
the Hadley, Ferrel, and Polar cells in cooling the earth's surface by
causing the upper troposphere to radiate better?

To be more specific, say the tradewinds blow across the heated ocean.
Evaporation occurs, cooling the ocean. A thunderstorm, front, or
cyclone happens, precipation occurs, the air is heated, and rises. In
the upper troposphere it cools, before descending to complete the
cycle. However it can only cool because it contains carbon dioxide, as
oxygen, nitrogen, if they do not absorb, neither shall they emit
radiation. This presumes that water vapor is insignificant at these
elevated alti
CO2 transfer energy to N2 and O2 by molecular collisions.

So how do the N2 and O2 lose that energy? By colliding with CO2 [and
clouds according to the second poster] which radiate it. If a layer of
gas is to lose energy by radiation, it needs a radiator, no?


This suggest to me that O2 and N2 cannot emit radiation, so must
collide with CO2, H2O, or a cloud to lose energy.


That sounds more precise that my thoughts on the topic yes.

As the second poster also commented the amount of CO2 increases
further up in the atmosphere, and absorbs more efficient higher up



Øyvind Seland

"Rodney Blackall" wrote
...
In article .com,
wrote:

Quote from my uni textbook, "Principles of heat transfer", by Frank
Keith, 3ed, section 5-8 Radiation properties of gases and vapors
" Elementary gases such as O2, N2, H2, and dry air have a symmetric
molecular structure and neither emit nor absorb radiation unless they
are heated to extremely high temperatures at which they become ionized
plasmas and at which electronic energy transformations occur. On the
other hand, gases which have polar molecular forms with an electronic
moment such as a dipole or quadrupole absorb and emit radiation in
limited spectral ranges called bands. In practice, the most important
of these gases are H2O, CO2, CO, SO2, NH3, and the hydrocarbons."

This suggest to me that O2 and N2 cannot emit radiation, so must
collide with CO2, H2O, or a cloud to lose energy.

Your reference book is inaccurate!
O2 absorbs UV radiation (how else do you get to O3?) A "black body" must
be
at a very high temperature to radiate much UV, but that is a very
different
matter.

I have some questions.
"Black body" has the graph intensity vs. wave lenght with one hump. Solid
body has many humps. H2O, CO2, CO, SO2, NH3, and the hydrocarbons have a few
seperate humps in the place of the bands. O2 and N2 have zero intensity in
normal temperature. Is it right? (O3 appears in lightning)

Surely all polyatomic molecules must be able to absorb/radiate long wave
radiation just to change vibration modes?

Rodney has asked about energy. If F. Keith is right when "must collide
with CO2, H2O, or a cloud to lose energy" is also true. It is interesting
but has it any practical meaning?

The atmosphere moves heat around mainly by convection - the classical gas
laws will then tell you ALMOST all you need to know about the temperature
and pressure of a body of air.

The classical gas laws do not take into account any radiations. Heat
transfer is only by collisions. Thermos = no radiation no conevection, no
heat transfer.

Computer models of the atmosphere work now work extremely well ignoring
CO2, CH4, SO2 etc so long as the time scale
does not exceed about a week.

I understand that H2O is not ignored.

I am here because here is SO2. It seams to me that the big effort in
lowering SO2 content is a big error. What do you think?
S*

"Rodney Blackall" wrote
...
In article , Szczepan Bia³ek
wrote:


I have some questions. "Black body" has the graph intensity vs. wave
length with one hump.

Correct, and the hump moves towards shorter wavelengths as the body gets
hotter.

Solid body has many humps.

You mean it has a spectrum. This will depend upon it's composition BUT the
important, and characteristic, peaks will come from vaporized material
(e.g.
heating a block of salt will give a single "black body hump" but put some
in
a flame then you get the characteristic twin yellow peaks of sodium ions.)

H2O, CO2, CO, SO2, NH3, and the hydrocarbons have a few seperate humps in
the place of the bands. O2 and N2 have zero intensity in normal
temperature. Is it right?

The smearing of sharp peaks into broader bands is due to the increased
number of "degrees of freedom" of the molecule, each of which adds /
subtracts a bit from the main peaks. [Degree of Freedom is best looked up
in
science encyclopaedia but basically its the number of ways a molecule can
spin, twist and vibrate. The more complicated the molecule the more
degrees.]

"O2 and N2 have zero intensity in normal temperature. Is it right?" With
dry, clean air no absorption no emmision. Emmison means dissipation of
light. Is it right?


(O3 appears in lightning)

Yes, but the amount of lightning in the stratosphere / ozonosphere is very
limited (see "sprites" and "rocket lightning") Most is created by a
complex
series of reactions starting with "UVA" dissociating O2 into 2xO.


Surely all polyatomic molecules must be able to absorb/radiate long
wave radiation just to change vibration modes?

Rodney has asked about energy. If F. Keith is right when "must collide
with CO2, H2O, or a cloud to lose energy" is also true. It is interesting
but has it any practical meaning?

But what happens if a "hot" O2 molecule bumps into a "cool" one?

Average energy will be the same. Air is transparent. Rodney wants to know if
energy can escape from dry, clean air by radiation. Me too.

The atmosphere moves heat around mainly by convection - the classical
gas laws will then tell you ALMOST all you need to know about the
temperature and pressure of a body of air.

The classical gas laws do not take into account any radiations. Heat
transfer is only by collisions. Thermos = no radiation no convection, no
heat transfer.

The word you are looking for is "adiabatic".

Rodney and I (I hope) are talking about model as follows:. Inside of a
transparent body is a black body. At day thy black body absorb energy from
light . At night the black body loss energy by radiation. Is O2 and N2 like
the black body, or not?

Computer models of the atmosphere work now work extremely well ignoring
CO2, CH4, SO2 etc so long as the time scale does not exceed about a
week.

I understand that H2O is not ignored.

Emphatically not! The latent heat of H2O is critical, especially in the
tropics. Ignoring it reduces the pressure forecasting range to about 24 hr
or less and weather forecasting range to less than an hour.

I am here because here is SO2. It seams to me that the big effort in
lowering SO2 content is a big error. What do you think?

To some extent more SO2=more cloud=acid rain.
More cloud=increased "greenhouse" warming; more cloud=increased albedo and
cooling!!
It aint simple! Much depends on cloud droplet size and whether or not the
cloud freezes and into what shaped ice-crystals.

I hope that puts simplistic cosmic ray theory into some context or other.

My suggestions about SO2 is rather intuitive. Have you seen it:
" On Mon, 26 Feb 2007 09:55:09 +0100, "Szczepan Bialek"
wrote:


"Bob Brown" . wrote ...
Climatologist suggest Sulpher-Dioxide into troposphere to SOLVE Global
Warming?

It was said on some documentary about GW. He said something about
pumping [sending up rockets all the time] millions of metric tons of
Sulpher-Dioxide into the troposphere to sort of limit the sun from
heating the earth as much. This guy was old, maybe in his 70s, and was
a climatologist.

Is this a hair brain idea or would it WORK?

Recently human beings have big succes in lowering SO2 contents in air.
SO2
is friendly for us, for plants and is the main source of nuclei for
clouds..
It is the last time to stop this lowering.
S*


i like to burn stuff. im a fire bug.

CO2 and SO2 should be in natural proportion in global sense. In some
locations where emission both of them is too high, removing of SO2 from the
smoke is justificated. But this sulfur should be next burned in locations
where it is not harmfull (to restore natural proportion).
S*"

S*

"Rodney Blackall" wrote
...
In article ,
Szczepan Bialek wrote:

[Snip]

"O2 and N2 have zero intensity in normal temperature. Is it right?" With
dry, clean air no absorption no emmision. Emisson means dissipation of
light. Is it right?

Emission = loss of energy (the loss may or may not be in the visible part
of
the spectrum).

I have found by searching in google:
http://www.igf.fuw.edu.pl/~kmark/Wyklad2.pdf
It is in Polish but drawings are described in English. Please see at page 6.
There are the "active" gases. O2 (as you have said) is active. N2 is absent
there. Now I know that such knowledge exist.

[Snip]

My suggestions about SO2 is rather intuitive.

CO2 and SO2 should be in natural proportion in global sense. In some
locations where emission both of them is too high, removing of SO2 from
the smoke is justificated. But this sulfur should be next burned in
locations where it is not harmfull (to restore natural proportion).

Putting SO2 into the troposphere tends to give more condensation nuclei
for
cloud formation (which may, or may not be a good thing). It produces "acid
rain" which is generally NOT good for the environment (it erodes limestone
and upsets aquatic life).

Putting SO2 into the stratosphere would lead to a higher albedo and
overall
cooling (as after big volcanic eruptions).

SO2 gradually converts to H2SO4 which is the active stage. H2SO4 occurs in
droplets which SCATTER radiation by an amount which depends on the size of
the droplet compared to the wavelength of the radiation. (See why global
climate modelling is NOT back of the envelope trivia?)

I have also found: http://www.igf.fuw.edu.pl/~kmark/Wyklad11.pdf
Please look at page 11 Sulfur lead to cooling but knowledge about this was
LOW. Now is also low. You should disscus it on Your meeting. "Acid rain is
generally NOT good for the environment" but only for neighburhood of
chimneys. SO2 is good for plants and for this reason we should everywhere
build small artiffical volcano.
S*

"Szczepan Bia³ek"

SO2 is good for plants and for this reason we should everywhere
build small artiffical volcanoes.

Here is an example of the work on this subject:
http://dissertations.ub.rug.nl/facul...e/2005/l.yang/

In general plants need fertalization. If in Sweden's lake no limestone they
should add it. It is so obvious like this that we must transfer back the
salt from the oceans. If rains wash up samething we must supplement it.
S*

"Rodney Blackall"

Putting SO2 into the troposphere tends to give more condensation nuclei
for
cloud formation (which may, or may not be a good thing). It produces "acid
rain" which is generally NOT good for the environment (it erodes limestone
and upsets aquatic life).

Eliminating SO2 from the troposphere can lead to:
"The number of women diagnosed with lung disease in the United States is on
the rise. The percentage of women dying from lung disease in this country is
also increasing".
It is also intuitive. I have remembered steam engines. They exhaust the
mixture of the smoke from coal with steam. It had nice smell. Nice means
healthy. Is this aspect ivestigated?
S*