LED Light Therapy
These are available with different fiber diameters TRT, TRT, TP and in different materials for use in a range of chemical solutions and environments, including industrial process applications TI Be advised that micronutrient doses and levels needed can vary per person, and there is such a thing as overconsumption, as everyone is unique, with a different biochemistry. Part 1 Quiz How can you rate your personal listening skills? February 25, at 1: Cooling processes tend to diminish any initial warming effect.
For instance, if the top of a square meter column of air rises, but the density of the air within it goes down, there is a way that can be done so that the total mass of the air in the column does not change, and so there would be no pressure change. If a photon emitted 9. The emission of a photon by a CO2 molecule can be done by two ways, correct me if I am wrong: CO2 is removing energy in this case, taking ke, converting it to a photon, and emitting it out to space.
In the first case the energy in the photon has to be the same when its emitted, so it is immaterial whether the photon is absorbed ad emitted by a hundred CO2 molecules arranged vertically, passing the photon up and out to space. As I wrote, there will be some pressure change due to increases in CO2, albeit small. Sure, because the per unit volume amount of CO2 over all the atmosphere is higher. Accordingly, the emissive layer that succeeds is closer to the edge where there is no CO2.
How does a photon, emitted by a CO2 molecule at say 9. It depends on the wavelength energy of the photon. Most simply escape directly to space. Only a few in the central 15 micron line are absorbed by CO2 molecules higher up. None of this changes the temperature of the emitting layer which is dominated by the thermal energy of the surrounding air molecules. Eventually radiation loss to space becomes large enough to stop convection.
That is the tropopause. I am not sure the about the source of confusion CC is experiencing. The top of atmosphere concept is elucidating for me. For IR wavelengths within the absorption and transmission bands, the atmosphere will attenuate the IR photons from the surface to space as a function of the concentration. CO2 is concentrated enough that the atmosphere would appear opaque. Looking from space the surface features of the earth would be obscured—the earth would look like a gaseous sphere.
This is the only energy that can escape from earth to space of that wavelength. As the concentration of the emitting gas increases, the TOA is extended higher in the atmosphere. Thermal equilibrium at that altitude is at a lower temperature so less IR is transmitted. I think this is the only correct way to think about the GHE. Using this simple model I was able to calculated the radiative forcing of CO2, and understand the IR spectrum as measured from space.
You migfht be interested in these posts. CO2 Greenhouse effect demystified. Convection and Latent heat drive the thermodynamics of heat loss from the surface and generate the lapse rate. Greenhouse gases just set the scale height of radiative cooling to space. Back radiation is a complete red herring which explains nothing. I think the co2 saturation story should be or could be the main scientific base to start a global campaing againts agw, if not too late.
I am not strong enough scientificly to detect technical flaw to this thread. Here in Québec our Prime Minister returned from Paris with totally new green policy, stopping any emerging oil exploration and full of new green taxing policy. I thing we can stop, or at least modify, the trend.
But we must start with soud scientific arguments like I founb here. Knut Angstrom was a relative of the great Angstrom, but not the same. There are two great links at:. Almost all scientific paper I read take for granted ipcc co2 radiative forcing, witch is suspected to be originating from a circular processus. The way i proceed is examine arguments thoses whose views differ from ipcc one and try to judge at merit.
Not an easy task, but quite interesting. Thank you for links reference. A good thing is to check out online courses, and textbooks. The reason why CO2 forcing only grows logarithmically with concentration is because the central absorption lines are already saturated.
These are spectra I calculated using this model. Yes, and, uh, so? Did not say central lines contributed any more. But, facts are, especially around per cm, there are lots and lots of lines. That was a detail I deferred in my comment.
And, if you will recall, only half of the warming is CO2. The other half is from knock-on effects from water vapor, due to greater carrying capacity of atmosphere. Reference to text cited earlier: I agree with you. This book is a masterpiece. I have it at home — but it is perhaps a bit heavy for your average punter.
Calculating CO2 forcing is not simple nor straightforward. But yes it has been done and the answer is known. Even then you have to make some assumptions such as a standard lapse rate.
Feedbacks are a second order effect whose effects are not known. What about the umbrella effect? What is the cooling effect? However, as you indicate there should be reduced sensitivity with increasing CO2, so the likely forcing should be less! Moreover, have you considered the reduction in incoming solar near IR.
Thanks for your consideration and …. And to the degree the basic model back of the envelope one, not GCMs fits the data, which it does pretty well, I call that a win. The wave number of corresponds to a wavelength of 15 microns. Where there is no absorption there is NO emmission. The heat of Venus and the climate on Venus may be understood if you consider the strength of the emr including gamma rays to be many times greater than earth because of its closeness to the sun.
Then look at the slowness of the orbit. On earth near the equator a 48 hour day might cause temperatures above the boiling of water. On venus with a much stronger emr, the day is times as long as ours. Some rocks actually boil. Because Venus is large enough to hold an atmosphere and half of the planet is not exposed to the sun, the enormous winds between hot and cold areas are created.
Gamma rays and Xrays are absorbed by solids. The gases are a side effect. What gases absorb is irrelevant. What have you learned about the fudge factor? Is it derived from the cirular argument expressed above? No it is not a circular argument -I got that wrong. I finally ended up writing my own radiative transfer code to derive the greenhouse effect.
I was then able to get about the same logarithmic result. Any doubts about Climate Change? It does not necessarily follow. You must specify the mechanism by which the level shifts higher in the atmosphere. Shifting it higher in the atmosphere requires energy. Moreover, it would be a positive feedback — increasing temperature, lofting the CO2 higher, increasing the temperature, and so on. Eventually, the CO2 would achieve escape velocity, and launch itself beyond Earthly influence. All that really says is that the density of air falls with height.
So if CO2 as a percentage of air rises from 0. This is still an argument lacking a mechanism. Density alone does not provide height. If you took the Sun away, the entire atmosphere would collapse into a solid mass at the surface — very dense, in relative terms, but with hardly any height at all.
You must have an energy source to sustain the particles at higher altitude. The diurnal bulge is quite sensitive to solar activity, with the center of mass extending further outward by hundreds of km when solar activity is high see figure 2. The extra energy from the Sun is what sustains the atmosphere at those higher altitudes. Clive — thank you for spelling out the crux of the AGM argument as I understand your explanation — a decrease in radiative energy loss with decreasing T as one goes higher in the atmosphere.
What about the decrease in absorption that occurs as the temperature drops because of a reduction in doppler broadening sharpening of the IR absorption band? However, I found an archived copy of it here: It seems that one has to do the calculation to get a good appreciation of how sensitive the IR absorption is to [CO2].
I got frustrated and so I made up my own simple model see appendix below. It is immediately clear from the solutions to the rate equations that the value of the reaction cross-section for IR absorption per molecule of CO2 is critical as one might expect.
It is clear that the absorption is not saturated in the wings of the absorption bands for increasingly smaller absorption cross-sections.
There will be a range of cross-section values that are important from the perspective of additional photon absorption for the levels of [CO2] that are relevant to the atmosphere I should determine that sometime. My problem is getting good, tabulated, cross-section data for the IR wavelengths of interest. Naturally, the IR absorption cross-section spectra will also vary with height in the atmosphere temperature and pressure dependence bur even values at STP will be useful for bounding the assessment problem.
Can anyone point me to a good source of easily accessible tabulated cross-section data? Appendix — The differential equations describing the steady-state passage and dissipation of photons in the atmosphere per cubic metre are: P0 and P1 are the numbers of photons that are free and bound respectively. Solution of these equations gives the number of free photons as a function of height. It is assumed that any photon that is free at km is lost to outer space.
I am not convinced about the black-body radiation argument: Being a failed physicist I would want to see some experimental data showing the effect of temperature on photon emission — does that exist?
This is the correct approach that you describe. The important ones on earth are the vibrational excitation quantum lines in the 15 micron band. I think the local thermodynamic equilibrium of the atmosphere is important because CO2 molecules can also be excited by collisions.
Here is my simple picture. The surface radiates as a black body at temperature Ts. Only triatomic molecules have vibrational quantum excitation modes in the Infrared. H2O has a rather broad wavelength spectra whereas CO2 has just 3 main bands, but on earth only the 15 micron band is significant. Gravity generates an exponential falloff of density with height.
By inhibiting the direct radiative heat loss from the surface to space, the atmosphere generates itself a lapse rate. This is because convection begins to move heat up through the lower atmosphere more efficiently than radiation. Only with a convective atmosphere under gravity can the greenhouse effect work. For each wavelength in the CO2 band there is an effective emission height where the mean-free path for IR photons is greater than all overlying layers.
IR photons from this level radiate directly to space. Likewise for O3, although Clouds complicate H2O. These actually get smeared out by pressure broadening. The central line cross-section is so high that it currently emits from the stratosphere where temperature increases with height. This means that this wavelength actually cools the planet with increasing CO2 levels. You can actually see this in Nimbus spectra. A simple excel spreadsheet model that approximates the GHE can be downloaded from this post.
You have helped a great deal, but I still have questions. As you stated, the absorption length for the current concentration of CO2 is around 25 meters. What happens to the thermalized energy?
I would guess convection and water vapor transport it upwards. I understand that radiation is the only way for all this energy to exit to space. Water vapor must be a major radiator. Any help tying this all together would be appreciated.
I think the trick is the following. This is because by far the easiest way to move heat upwards is through evaporation from the oceans and convection to where it can radiate freely.
That is why we have thunderstorms and weather due to Coriolis forces. Net radiative losses occur at high latitudes to offset net absorption in the equator. As CO2 increases the tropopause should get higher. However, as you rightly say water vapour is the ace card.
No-one really knows how clouds and H2O will play out. Clouds reduce albedo cooling the earth, whereas H2O water vapour enhances the greenhouse effect. My hunch is that water is the ultimate negative feedback because otherwise the oceans would have boiled away billions of years ago. The greenhouse effect works because the lapse rate usually makes the atmosphere cooler at any location than the radiation profile it is being exposed to.
This gradient continues to the tropospause where Clive rightly points out that the stratosphere temperature then increases with height, but only during the daytime. At night the lapse rate would continue cooler at higher elevation to space. I agree, however, that water transpiration, clouds and convection dominate the regulation of atmospheric temperature.
The areas where there is little water vapor, like at the poles, deserts and the tropopause, then CO2 can have an amplified role. There is still matching emission, but just from GHG in equilibrium with ambient, not matched to the particular absorption event. It says emissivity equals absorptivity. What is actually absorbed and emitted depends on incident intensity for absorption and temperature for emission.
That sounds like what I tried to articulate. The emission profile is identical to the absorption profile when there is a local thermal equilibrium. Temperature, of course, is a measure of mean molecular kinetic energy. This is a property of the gas as a whole, not of a molecule. The higher the gas pressure the more convection collisions will dominate over radiation to determine an instantaneous molecular state. Imagine a gas at K sealed within a perfectly insulated and infinitely thin balloon.
Now transport the ballon into outer space. If the gas is argon then it will remain at K for ever. However, if the gas contains. The Infrared Spectrum of Argon R. You are of course correct: A building with no windows and no CO2… Consider a building with modest insulation that is heated at a constant rate from inside. Assume that the building is insulated equally well everywhere resulting in a uniform temperature of the outer surface. In steady state there is a higher temperature inside the building compared to the fixed exterior temperature.
The temperature at the outer wall surface is higher than the exterior temperature. The temperature at the inner wall surface is lower than the interior room temperature. These temperature differences maintain an export of heat at the same rate at which the interior is heated.
A building with no windows but with CO2… If now the heat resistance CO2 of the walls is instantaneously increased, at first the outer surface temperature drops and the inner surface temperature rises, while the interior temperature is still unchanged. In this situation less heat escapes from the building than is released by the indoor heating system.
The imbalance leads to a slow ascent of the interior temperature that continues until the outer surface temperature returns to its original value. The initial cooling of the outer surface temperature is analogous to the quasi-instantaneous cooling that occurs in the upper half of the atmosphere.
The cooling is only transient and has no permanent component. A building with windows and no CO2… Assuming instead that there are parts of the building envelope that are more weakly insulated than the remainder, as is typically the case with thin glass windows.
The outer surface temperature in equilibrium is higher at the windows than it is at the walls. A larger fraction of the total energy escapes via the windows compared to how much they contribute to the total area of the building envelope.
The outer surface temperature of the wall is again diminished instantly. But once in the new equilibrium, even more energy escapes through the windows and less through the walls. The permanent cooling of the outer surface temperature of the walls is analogous to the cooling in the higher atmosphere.
An insulated building undergoing heating illustrates the blocking effect of CO2-induced mid to upper atmospheric cooling. The separation between walls and windows physically is analogous to the separation into opaque and transparent radiation bands spectrally, and energy transfer as heat conduction in the walls of a building is analogous to radiation in the atmosphere. An analogy for the blocking effect from … http: Clive, perhaps you have found another reference to the one you linked to in your Feb 4, explanation of radiative forcing If you cannot find another source with the same equation, and since the one you cited no longer exists, then what basis for the equation you cited can you use to substantiate its validity and foundation?
I have thus since then stored on my computer the actual authors, their university or research institutes, dates of information provided and the basis of references the authors use. Though more time consuming and tedious on my part I at least have my original source to refer to if data or basis is questioned or if I find future reason to question or compare it with other sources I find later.
You have a dead link on this page: All of that energy has to escape back out to space. The only place for it to escape is back out through the atmosphere.
Heat flow between the surface of the earth and the top of the atmosphere is related to the temperature difference between those points, and also dependent on the raidative resistance of the air layer between them.
The atmosphere has high radiative resistance due to greenhouse gasses. So the temperature inside the lower atmosphere has to rise to keep the heat flowing out through the top at the same rate it is coming in — creating a large temperature drop across the 10 miles of atmosphere. That results in a lapse rate of temperature, i. Without the atmosphere, the heat would simply escape by raidating directly to space, and the temperature of the surface would be lower. The outside of a panel of glass of a greenhouse is hot to touch and even hotter on the inside.
The atmosphere is not thin and solid like glass. It is thick, compressible and convective like gas. Climate is a long term average of many short term cyclical processes and that makes it hard to assign cause to effect. Doubling CO2 and basic physics — Climate Collections. Is there a source for the length of the free path for other re-radiating gases, for example H2O?
The number 25m is for CO2 near the surface, and is just an average value over the 15 micron emission. The CO2 molecule gets thermally excited into s of quantum vibrational modes. These then decay emitting a photon. Those moving upwards are absorbed by other CO2 molecules and the process is repeated until the air becomes so thin that for a given wavelength the photon escapes into space carrying energy.
This is the effective emission height for that wavelength. I calculated this here in this post: H2O is more complicated and there is a wide band of emission frequencies. It is a much more effective greenhouse gas, but most water vapour is in the lower atmosphere. There is also the complexity of evaporation latent heat , cloud formation etc. Water vapour also changes the lapse rate reducing CO2 greenhouse effect.
The full effects of H2O on the climate are still not fully understood! Hello Clive, thanks for your answer. The following paper finds a free path for a photon before absorption by CO2 at the surface of Because of the high density of water vapor at surface level, the free path for water vapor must be much shorter.
The world average is supposed to be 25 kg m2. Total precipitable water is for the whole atmospheric column. Because water vapor diminishes rapidly with altitude, there is a large difference in density of water vapor between the surface and higher in the atmosphere. I found some data here: Could you estimate what the free path for a photon at the surface would be before it is absorbed by water vapor for the above mentioned four cases: Where are you getting 25 meters from?
I really mean the mean free path of photons emitted by CO2 molecules — not their collision mean free path! The mean free path of such photons varies by orders of magnitude with each emission line. The only correct way is to treat each line separately. Looking at Beer-Lamberts law it looks like the average is 1. Clive, you may find this link very interesting… http: Raymond Pierrehumbert is the real expert. Hence, the hottest temperatures are found in the areas of the least amount of overall GHG concentration, and in areas of high humidity, day time highs are actually lower.
In essence, GHG actually take energy out of the system and store it during day time heating and return it to the system during night time cooling, decreasing the range of temperatures. This spreads temperature changes out over time and space. GHG works just like the ocean, but on shorter time scales, …. Both the ocean and GHGs move stored energy around, primarily toward the North Pole, and apparently less so towards the South Pole, given the lack of warming in Antarctica.
The overall impact of CO2 is limited by the total amount of energy available. The amount of IR in the CO2 spectrum is limited. Even if some of it is reradiated back to the surface, that radiation will be transformed to the overall spectrum of the surface, thus capping the actual amount of energy available for CO2 to absorb.
As you say, there is already more CO2 than is necessary to hold this energy, …. Ted, IMO, globally is a meaningless term with regards to climate.
Arctic Warming is due to a lot of things, influx of warm water, influx of warm air, cyclonic activity breaking up ice, blowing it out of the arctic to warmer latitudes, decreased ice allows more heat to escape from the water warming the air and less ice lowers albedo. A parallel effect of CO2 is global, global greening. When we look at global greening, we find that the entire globe is indeed greening. Thus, the CO2 fertilizing effect of CO2 is confirmed in the greening data.
In contrast, we are told that CO2 operates on temperature via radiation, and as such it would be expected that it would operate the same globally. Thus the warming is not global. This is a major issue, IMO opinion. The presentation of the mechanism of GHG Warming would according to physics, operate the same everywhere, implying the entire globe is warming.
This is accompanied by all kinds of carastrophy stories, dying penguins, drowning polar bears, species going extinct everywhere. But the fact is, the entire globe is not warming, just the average temperature is being driven up by arctic warming.
From a physics perspective, the equation will have to account for a large number of heat sinks that act as capacitors. The Sun shines, but the majority of that energy is not available for immediate outward radiation. The different heat storage mechanisms, oceans, GHG, biomass, kinetic energy, ice etc, breath on their own time frames, and in order to accurately model the energy flux, one has to be able to accurately determine if a sink is taking in energy or releasing it.
Some of those sinks are chaotic, and thus it is impossible to predict. CO2 is but a small participant in this system compare the overall heat capacity of all atmospheric CO2 to the other sinks, and ya have to wonder how anyone comes to the conclusion that CO2 is a major player. The heat-trapping nature of carbon dioxide and other gases was demonstrated in the midth century. Their ability to affect the transfer of infrared energy through the atmosphere is the scientific basis of many instruments flown by NASA.
There is no question that increased levels of greenhouse gases must cause the Earth to warm in response. Always one important word is forgotten: Cooling processes tend to diminish any initial warming effect. Ted, yes, greenhouse gases absorb and emit energy. However, the impact on global surface temperature is a different story. Further, as that energy is absorbed, it is transformed to the black body spectrum, thus converting the energy specific to CO2 into energy that is no longer within the CO2 range, no different from SW when it strikes the surface.
I agree with you on all those points. Obviously IR from the sky does not have a sustained effect on surface temperature on a short time scale like one minute or one hour, or maybe not even one day. The blaring question is at what time scale does GHG IR start showing up in the rise in average temperature? Somehow that heat put into the huge buffer of the atmosphere translates into global warming, possibly a small amount…over a very long time scale. But perhaps that small amount is capable of setting off all those other triggers that could result in rapid global warming and climate change.
To me, it is kind of like asking the question…how many times do you have stir the cream in the coffee until it finally mixes in? And overall global warming may indeed affect PDO, etc. Unlike oxygen or nitrogen, greenhouse gases absorb that heat and release it gradually over time, like bricks in a fireplace after the fire goes out.
My understanding is that if a CO2 molecule absorbs a photon of energy, At the tropopause, radiative energy release becomes dominant because of the much thinner atmosphere means fewer collisions and much longer average time before a collision occurs. How do excited Ñ2 and O2 molecules release energy? Do they emit photos of lower energy? If so do we measure the full energy efflux from the planet, or just concentrate on IR? Only a small amount of the energy from the sun is IR, the rest is more energetic radiation that gets absorbed by molecules and eventually by energy transfers is released as heat.
Does the planet radiate more microwave energy than in the past? What happened to the idea that most of the IR absorbed by C02 is re-emitted? I disagree that vibrating CO2 greatly warms the other gases. N2 and O2 have extremely low thermal conductivity. The atmosphere is truly warmed by conduction and convection at the surface of the earth. The surface is the only hot plate in town. The mixing then warms the atmosphere, which then self cools through the established lapse rate, resulting in the the coldest temperatures on earth literally occurring just 5 to 10 miles above our heads.
As anthropogenic CO2 increases, it increases the optical depth of the IR re-emission column, resulting in a gradual increase in global average temperature. Much of what you say is true. However, the million dollar question is — How does the lapse rate get maintained? In effect the atmosphere is a huge heat engine moving heat from the surface via convection and evaporation up to colder layers where it then radiates into space. Convection slows at night and during the polar winter it stops.
IR emission and absorption by CO2 molecules far below the emission height is unimportant compared to convection and thermal equilibrium through collisions. Each level in the atmosphere is in local thermodynamic equilibrium at the local temperature. Can this really be just a coincidence? It is almost as if convection and evaporation act to generate a lapse rate which maximizes radiation cooling by CO2 to space. If this conjecture is true in general, then any surface warming due to a doubling of CO2 levels would be offset somewhat by a change in the average environmental lapse rate to restore the radiation losses in the main CO2 band.
In this case the surface temperature would hardly change. But beneath each volume column of additionally mixed air there is a surface area of the earth that has warmed up to drive the mixing. The more surface area warmed, the greater the global average temperature. Thus doubling of CO2 increases the area of surface heating and mixing globally and thus the increase the global average surface temperature, as we have measured over the past years, and especially the last two decades.
The rise in the emission height is actually an indicator of the convection. Greater area and depth volume of the atmosphere is getting mixed.
They vary somewhat is their calculations of average collision time and average relaxation time, but the bottom line is always the same: Is that true assuming that I counted the right number of nines?
In other words, the very widely repeated description of GHG molecules absorbing infrared photons and then re-emitting them in random directions is only correct for about one absorbed photon in a billion. At a given level… CO2 absorbs IR and warms. CO2 warms N2 and O2 through collisions.
At the adjacent higher level… CO2 absorbs IR and warms. So you are correct in saying that it is not just CO2 that radiates IR in all directions and in very small amounts. All the gases do! But it is CO2 at each level that repeats the process of absorption, vibration and re-radiation.
The net effect is the same…the column in the sky emits IR back to the earth and warms it. The slowness of radiative decay does not change the net result. As always I am left wondering why CO2. Warming that has been observed on this planet has progressed with industrialisation, but CO2 is not the only thing that has changed and not the only potential driver of warming. At a theoretical level CO2 could be causing an effect, but like all bad experiments, we have more than one uncontrolled variable and we may be looking at the least important because we are unable to sort wheat from chaff.
Back radiation from high atmosphere: Less than half of this radiation heads earthwards since it is above the horizon. Most of it will be absorbed or reflected on its way down by greenhouse gases, particularly water. Surface effects consequential on industrialisation and population growth: Heat from Human industry. This heat is primarily produced in urban environments. It is generally emitted along with other emissions — smoke stacks, car exists, factory outlets… A fair degree of this heat become trapped in the smog and is back radiating well past sunset.
Clouds trap some of this energy and radiate it at night. This energy, carried in clouds, drifts from above the city taking heat to other places. There is therefore a dampened release of heat and this particularly elevates nocturnal temperature when normal temperature lows occur.
Buildings and roads both absorb substantial amounts of heat during the day and cool down at a slower rate than other parts of the environment. This then elevates night time temperatures, particularly in the period after sunset. In the majority of people on the planet lived in rural environments and metalled roads were few. The population, if I remember, was about 1bn, it is now 7. Roads are black, absorb considerable amount of heat and slowly release it at night.
City buildings do the same. This leads to a dampening of nocturnal cooling and the heat emitted is absorbed by and refleced back by clouds. Again this will work to raise temperature lows and hence average temperature. That is why I thought Clive analysis of Australian temperature was fascinating, since it shows that minimum temperature is higher. This is what you would expect it a heatsink was affecting night time temperatures.
So a CO2 molecule will raise the temperature vibrations of surrounding molecules and consequently cause a little connection. Of course in the upper atmosphere, collisions are rarer and emission may predominate there. But, poor little photon has a long way to go if it choose to head down.
It has to go through armies of greenhouse gases, particularly water if it has any chance of reaching the surface. In Scotland where I live I have noticed that the climate is milder then when I was a child. I have not noticed warmer summers, but winters are milder and night temperature are less cold.
Is this caused by CO2 or other factors associated with industrialisation, population growth and urbanisation? Or nothing to do with humans at all? Heat always flows from the surface upwards through the atmosphere to space. A simple picture is that doubling CO2 increases the height of the tropopause. The surface apparently warms a bit because the height of the lapse rate increases.
Studies have demonstrated clear evidence of an increase in tropopause height with a decrease in tropopause temperature and pressure since That does support the notion that the tropospheric mixing is extending the lapse rate higher, which infers a higher global avearge surface temperature.
There is obviously measurable IR coming from the sky. It is not just from CO2 as I explained earlier. It is IR emission from all gases in the optical depth of the whole atmospheric column. At the risk of using an analogy…which while helping to grasp a concept but at the same time ignores essential details, I suggest this.
The IR from the sky above a certain location is like a very long vertically standing flashlight loaded with batteries. We can detect the heat from the lamp at the surface. The upper batteries get progressively weaker but still contribute to the brightness of the flashlight lamp. Their contribution increases as the atmosphere warms and thickens and the tropopause rises and cools.
The upper batteries increase in charge as GHG is added or perhaps more weak batteries are added to the upper end of the flashlight tube. Besides, as I understand, the free path for a photon at the surface is some tenths of meters or even much less. As the density of the air at m has not diminished dramatically and the main absorbing gas H2O also is not absent, I wander how there could be such a long free path even to space for by CO2 radiated photons, already at m.
There is that which happens between photon and molecule and that which happens between molecule and molecule. Radiation coming from all directions and radiation being emitted in all directions. All this happens in microseconds and at best frequency. On average is energy taking longer to leave the planet as a consequence of greenhouse gases? Are these gases having a small insulating effect? There seems to be evidence that this happens, but if this is the case the shift to a new equilibrium for any concentration should be established immediately and if the effect is like insulation, there should be a diminishing return, so that a doubling of concentration does not double the insulation.
Atmospheric insulation is not like material insulation blanket, fiberglass, foam, etc. Whereas material insulation is of fixed thickness and air is trapped, the atmosphere has varying thickness in response to any kind of heating and is free to mix. Also, whereas material insulation is of fixed composition, atmospheric composition can be changed ie the addition of GHG. So it is not just adding GHG insulation that is increasing the greenhouse effect, warming and thickening of the atmosphere itself may be increasing the greenhouse effect…a positive feedback.
While you can measure IR radiation in any direction the flux downwards is IMHO irrelevant because the atmosphere cat any height if in thermodynamic equilibrium mainly the through M-B kinetics.
So the temperature is more dependent on thermal equilibrium than any heating effect from layers above. You may find this interesting on the R value for the atmosphere… https: Satellite measurements confirm less long wave radiation is escaping to space at carbon dioxide absorptive wavelengths. Surface measurements find more long wave radiation returning back to Earth at these same wavelengths.
The result of this energy imbalance is the accumulation of heat over the last 40 years. Apparently the downward flux is cumulative over long time and space scales. When a UV photon interacts with ozone, work is done and IR is emitted. How do we know that the heat coming down towards the earth is emitted by CO2 and not the result of some other process? A consequence of this is that there is increased penetration of high energy photos smashing into molecules and creating heat. I read a couple of papers on this some time ago and they had calculated that all the excess heat that we experience could be a consequence of this.
I think it is the overall process of UV photons splitting oxygen to form ozone which maintains the ozone layer. Thereafter Ozone acts both as a greenhouse gas to block upwelling IR photons and as a sun block to UV photons.
So it is a balance between GHE and albedo. The result seems to be that IR wins out — see a nimbus spectrum. Well, that is something to think about. A strengthening magnetic field is associated with a cooling of the Earth, while weakening is linked to warming… https: To balance the present incoming energy, the planet must radiate to space an amount of energy equivalent to the emission from a black body at K.
Since the surface of the planet is, on the average, at about K, it emits too much energy to maintain the energy balance. The observed emission spectrum shows that the IR-absorbing gases in the atmosphere reduce the temperatures at which emissions to space occur.
This lowers the effective emission temperature of the planet and maintains its energy balance. The planet can only do this by having an atmosphere that is compressible and in hydrostatic balance, resulting in the observed lapse rate of temperature.
The surface emits based on temperature. This entry was posted in Climate Change and tagged CO2. An alternative blog of Sanjeev Sabhlok Pingback: An alternative blog of Sanjeev Sabhlok Babelsguy says: May 20, at 2: Hi Clive, you can find a derivation of all necessary formulas from first priciples in every climate science primer.
August 29, at 1: March 18, at 8: May 21, at 8: August 15, at June 1, at May 17, at 3: This paper by Dietze http: My continuing study of the influence of CO2 seems increasingly to show something like 0.
May 20, at 7: Clive, I have reread the http: May 21, at 5: May 22, at 4: Here, for example, we have sunspots http: May 23, at 6: May 23, at 8: Therefore, feedbacks excluded a doubling of CO2 will add only. May 23, at 9: May 24, at 4: K anthropogenic component of the temp. Think of that 0. K as selvage for the heated debate about agw.
K is the total greenhouse effect 0. September 16, at 9: I was under the impression the moons average surface temperature was 0C. June 14, at June 14, at 7: That is the average effect. At high latitudes in winter it is much less. January 17, at 4: January 19, at 6: January 25, at 5: May 25, at 4: February 27, at February 27, at 9: March 1, at May 26, at 3: From your last post: Thanks for the timely and thoughtful reply, but, I have to disagree: Here are some refs.
May 26, at 4: Let me see if it works with a second try: June 1, at 3: What am I missing here? June 1, at 6: Although the human contribution to outgoing CO2 flux is small why-the-co2-increase-is-man-made-part-1 CO2 concentrations have been increasing slowly for 50 years as confirmed by measured in Maona Loa.
March 19, at 5: The statement is a bald lie. Think about it… You have a tank filling from two streams of water, stream A and stream B. March 19, at 6: May 7, at 1: May 7, at 2: January 7, at 3: Thanks again for your insight.
January 7, at 5: January 8, at 2: January 8, at 8: I got following result: January 8, at May 9, at 5: June 19, at August 27, at 9: May 9, at 8: I made this video that proves that catastrophic global warming will never happen, and that climate sensitivity is much lower than some claim: December 2, at 9: February 4, at 4: Thanks for what you have done Clive.
This is a short reply because I am in India right now. February 6, at 5: Hi Clive — Your analysis is very helpful. February 6, at 6: February 21, at February 25, at 2: February 25, at April 2, at Nice discussion — without the acrimony and diatribes of many others!
Just Google Harries spectrum John. April 3, at June 5, at What happens instead in that basic physical model is that: June 16, at 8: June 17, at 8: June 17, at 6: Sorry for being so uneducated, but sometime even a child can have a good idea. August 3, at 2: May 1, at 4: September 12, at 7: September 13, at 2: J B Micawber says: October 17, at November 23, at 1: March 10, at 9: March 10, at In this case, you should focus on listening to and caring about her suggestion, not pushing her to accept your own idea.
Apologize when you hurt someone. Make your apologies genuine. It will get easier as you have more experience, and the occasion for apology may lessen with time as well. Be mindful when having a conversation. Take care not to interject your own experience before others are finished talking about their experiences. Listen to what is said by others, and try to enjoy and grow from conversations, even if you do not get the opportunity to contribute.
You should have paid attention so well that you could repeat it back to them and be able to remember key phrases. It also helps if you're flexible when listening. Don't commit to a firm stance before a conversation. Instead, let yourself be convinced by another person's ideas or point of view. Take a genuine interest in others. Remember what your friends said the last time you talked. Follow up with questions or comments about what you talked about.
Try doing little things that show you care. For example, pick up the phone to see how the person might be feeling. This will show them that you care about what's troubling or interesting them. Show her that you do through your actions. This includes listening to her, but also going out of your way to value her opinions. Asking for her advice will make her feel valued. Do something for others. Take a break from thinking about yourself and do something for those who need your help.
Consider volunteering at a local charity or food shelter. Practice doing things without expecting anything in return. This will develop your sense of empathy and concern for others.
You need to stop using people or activities purely for your own gain. Support good self-esteem, or self-love. The line between self-love and self-absorption is not an easy one to define. Self-esteem prevents others from disrespecting you or hurting your feelings, but this doesn't mean that you can harm others to your benefit. Self-love is all about balance. If you have compassion for yourself as well as others, then you are not self-absorbed.
Pick the right words for your apology. Ensure the apology sounds sincere. How can I tell my friend that she is self-absorbed without hurting her? It will always hurt someone's ego. The only way is for them to learn through encountering the same behavior in someone else. You could give her a personality quiz and let the quiz tell her that she is self absorbed and what the signs of this are.
Not Helpful 8 Helpful What if I notice self-absorbed tendencies but don't feel as though I want to change because it's not severe. Is it okay to continue operating as I am? Sometimes it's necessary to focus on yourself. Unless they are having a negative effect on your work or personal relationships, it may not be necessary to change. Your own awareness of this is key, as it enables you to self-monitor and adjust as necessary. Not Helpful 3 Helpful How do I handle a family member who wants to know about others and then picks up the phone and gossips but never really helps or cares about the person going through a hard time?
Starve that relative of information. If she asks questions trying to poke and prod, give one-word answers and do not explain anything in detail. Not Helpful 2 Helpful How do I stop expecting a compliment?
I've performed music pieces on ukulele and piano for my family, and my father never compliments me. It's likely nothing personal. You likely have some unresolved issues with your father relating to needing his approval, and not just on your music. On one level, just play your music for yourself, whether or not anyone is listening, whether or not it makes anyone happy besides yourself. On a different level, you might want to talk to someone about the relationship you have with your father, and why his approval matters so much.
Not Helpful 3 Helpful 7. I recently realized I am self absorbed. Aside from reading the tips in the 2nd half of this article, what can I do and where do I find a support group?
Answer this question Flag as What's the difference between self-absorbed people and anxious people? Does it count as being self-centered if you're always afraid you've done something wrong and end up kind of making problems about yourself? I'm scared I'm doing that too often. Include your email address to get a message when this question is answered. Already answered Not a question Bad question Other.
Tips Read books about increasing self-esteem, managing anger, and being patient. Remember there are resources available. If people try to tell you that you're self-absorbed, don't just think they're being rude or jealous and shake them off.
You may be hurting their feelings, so please consider that they're just trying tell you to stop, not insulting you. When listening to someone's opinion or idea, try to sympathize and respect it. If it's not really right in your perspective, try to gently and delicately encourage them to about what's right and what's wrong.
Warnings Don't be surprised if people set up boundaries around you and choose to spend as little time in your presence as possible. This is a standard coping mechanism because non self-absorbed people know they cannot change you. Take their absence as a sign that your self-absorption has become too much for them.
Thank you for making this so thorough and easy to follow. I have been self absorbed my entire life and I didn't find out until now. This article introduced me to my problem and gives me advice on how to remedy it. Thank you so much. JC Jasmine Cummings Aug 22, We were talking about who we like and I said someone and she told me to describe what I want in a boy. When I described him, she said you should go out with that boy we were talking about.
I asked why and she said because he is self absorbed, too. That hurt me but I didn't want her to know. I knew something was off-putting interacting with others, but didn't know what I was doing wrong.
I do care about others, as well as wanting to be accepted. Now I can work on my social skills better educated.
KR Kiniki Ruiz Jul 20, Continually redirected the conversation to herself, was loud, obnoxious and controlling. My reaction, done with this friend. A Anonymous Aug 16, It really helped me to understand why the term "self absorbed" kept resurfacing between me and my friends.