But what has any of this got to do with Boyles law? Increasing our atmospheric volume and pressure by the tiny amount that is created by the tiny amount of man made C02 release is going to result in a very small temperature increase that is a one off event rather than a forcing event that continually adds to the earths heat content.
There is a bit more to it than Boyle's law. Quite a bit. Essentially increasing the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere raises the altitude of the radiative "skin" which is held at about 253K by the last energy gap in CO2. If you raise the altitude of the boundary condition, Boyle's law and a bunch of other thermodynamic and physical properties of gas will ensure that the temperature at ground level will rise. Suffice it to say, if you raise the concentration of CO2 and the temperature at ground level does *not* rise, then you have a whole new set of problems to explain why not.
The truth will set you free. But first, it will piss you off. --Gloria Steinem AREPS™
There is a bit more to it than Boyle's law. Quite a bit. Essentially increasing the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere raises the altitude of the radiative "skin" which is held at about 253K by the last energy gap in CO2. If you raise the altitude of the boundary condition, Boyle's law and a bunch of other thermodynamic and physical properties of gas will ensure that the temperature at ground level will rise. Suffice it to say, if you raise the concentration of CO2 and the temperature at ground level does *not* rise, then you have a whole new set of problems to explain why not.
In climate changing terms, what you are describing has nothing to do with Boyles law.
All you are describing is the ability of absorbing/emitting gases to raise the earths average temperature where the average temperature of the surface that would have been present without an absorbing/emitting atmosphere to cool the atmosphere and warm the surface, is now in the atmosphere between the surface and space as the "effective temperature" Ie the theoretical temperature present at the surface is now theoretically present at altitude in the atmosphere as a layer of equal temperature, and then increasing C02 raises this "effective temperature" higher in the atmosphere.
Hard to dispute any of that. However by what method do we quantify that effect? So far we have some facts some theories models assumptions and some guesses
In climate changing terms, what you are describing has nothing to do with Boyles law.
All you are describing is the ability of absorbing/emitting gases to raise the earths average temperature where the average temperature of the surface that would have been present without an absorbing/emitting atmosphere to cool the atmosphere and warm the surface, is now in the atmosphere between the surface and space as the "effective temperature" Ie the theoretical temperature present at the surface is now theoretically present at altitude in the atmosphere as a layer of equal temperature, and then increasing C02 raises this "effective temperature" higher in the atmosphere.
It has everything to do with Boyle's law. Combined with Charles' law it says that where you have a pressure gradient in a gas and the ability for convection to happen, then you will have a temperature gradient.
Quote:
Hard to dispute any of that. However by what method do we quantify that effect? So far we have some facts some theories models assumptions and some guesses
I am not trying to quantify it. I'm just pointing out that raising the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere and, cetibus paribus, *not* getting a surface temperature increase would be a very surprising result.
If you had read my earlier posts, you would see that I am of the opinion that this effect is not the whole story in the global warming saga. There are other mechanisms at play.
The truth will set you free. But first, it will piss you off. --Gloria Steinem AREPS™
It has everything to do with Boyle's law. Combined with Charles' law it says that where you have a pressure gradient in a gas and the ability for convection to happen, then you will have a temperature gradient.
I am not trying to quantify it. I'm just pointing out that raising the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere and, cetibus paribus, *not* getting a surface temperature increase would be a very surprising result.
If you had read my earlier posts, you would see that I am of the opinion that this effect is not the whole story in the global warming saga. There are other mechanisms at play.
Boyles law and charles law have nothing to do with the radiation skin effect you were describing that is the means whereby C02 can cause the earth to be warmer than if C02 were not present
Without absorber emitters in the atmosphere the temperature would typically rise with altitude rather than typically fall with altitude. By day it would be very hot at the surface and by night very cold at the surface and then at the ground atmosphere interface there would be violent storms but further away from the surface it would be fantastically hot with no obvious mechanism to direct super heated air back to the cooler surface by day or by night.
Currently the atmosphere is not typically a hotter than surface mass that can heat the surface but rather the atmosphere is a colder mass which acts like an insulator acts, to slow down the passage of solar heating that has reached the earth, that then must return back to space thru the atmosphere.
In one version of earth the non-temperature variables of Boyles law and Charles law would be essentially the same as in the other earth that has an absorbing emitting atmosphere, but the temperatures on earth would be very different
Without absorber emitters in the atmosphere the temperature would typically rise with altitude rather than typically fall with altitude.
OK. So I am dealing with someone who has no understanding of the physics involved. This statement is complete and utter rubbish.
If there were no absorber/emitters in the atmosphere, the air temperature would be 0K and there would be not an atmosphere. At any level of absorption of IR energy, you have a temperature and pressure gradient with higher temperatures and pressures at the surface and lower temperatures at altitude.
Maybe now you will propose a strawman assuming the absence of gravity?
The truth will set you free. But first, it will piss you off. --Gloria Steinem AREPS™
OK. So I am dealing with someone who has no understanding of the physics involved. This statement is complete and utter rubbish.
If there were no absorber/emitters in the atmosphere, the air temperature would be 0K and there would be not an atmosphere. At any level of absorption of IR energy, you have a temperature and pressure gradient with higher temperatures and pressures at the surface and lower temperatures at altitude.
Maybe now you will propose a strawman assuming the absence of gravity?
The earths surface temperature that would be present without absorber emitters is about -18C. As you know, the atmosphere could not be frozen solid at such a high temperature.
Therefore it would be tremendously hot by day and tremendously cold by day and the heated atmosphere would have a very poor ability to reach down to be cooled by the surface because hot air rises and so the atmosphere would rise to fantastic temperatures at altitude.
The temperature you quoted earlier as the radiative skin temperature is just the average surface temperature of the earth as it would be without absorber emitters in the atmosphere. The atmosphere could not be frozen solid at such a high temperature
Without absorber/emitters, the atmosphere would have no energy coupling, and hence would be at a temperature of 0K.
Of course, the situation is impossible, but you were the one who suggested an impossible situation. The fact is, all gases absorb and emit radiation. For another fact, our atmosphere absorbs in the IR frequencies, so the energy gets to the earth's surface before it is absorbed. For another fact, gravity ensures that there is a pressure gradient and gas laws including Charles' law and Boyle's law ensure that there is also a temperature gradient. The radiative skin provides a boundary condition of constant temperature. Raise the altitude of that skin and you raise the temperature at the surface. That part is simple geometry.
Now if you want to get into a discussion which strokes your confirmation bias, have a look at the difference in the steepness of the temperature gradient between the moist and dry adiabats. Given that raising the temperature at the surface raises the partial pressure of water vapour, I think there should be a negative feedback effect in there yet I have never seen a treatment of that in the literature. Doesn't mean it hasn't been dealt with. I just haven't seen it.
The truth will set you free. But first, it will piss you off. --Gloria Steinem AREPS™
Without absorber/emitters, the atmosphere would have no energy coupling, and hence would be at a temperature of 0K.
Of course, the situation is impossible, but you were the one who suggested an impossible situation. The fact is, all gases absorb and emit radiation. For another fact, our atmosphere absorbs in the IR frequencies, so the energy gets to the earth's surface before it is absorbed. For another fact, gravity ensures that there is a pressure gradient and gas laws including Charles' law and Boyle's law ensure that there is also a temperature gradient. The radiative skin provides a boundary condition of constant temperature. Raise the altitude of that skin and you raise the temperature at the surface. That part is simple geometry.
Now if you want to get into a discussion which strokes your confirmation bias, have a look at the difference in the steepness of the temperature gradient between the moist and dry adiabats. Given that raising the temperature at the surface raises the partial pressure of water vapour, I think there should be a negative feedback effect in there yet I have never seen a treatment of that in the literature. Doesn't mean it hasn't been dealt with. I just haven't seen it.
Why do you believe the earths atmosphere is going to be colder than the surrounding warmer Outer Space at 4 Kelvin, to be at absolute zero, while the warmer surface is being heated by the almighty power of the Sun?
Wiki says the temperature of the surface would be 5 degrees C but reflectivity of the earth which is not a perfect black body gives a temperature of about -18C
I agree Wiki is not the best reference, but it is commonly understood the earth is about 33C warmer than it would be without an absorbing and emitting atmosphere.
Without an atmosphere, the Earth would be heated by a 5500C source, but the earth can only radiate all of this energy at a much lower temperature than 5,500C, therefore the Earth warms significantly until it can radiate all the heat coming from the 5,500C source according to Stefan-Boltzmanns simple temperature radiation emission rate relationship.
Clearly the atmosphere is in contact with the surface and will be warmed by that contact.
Why do you believe the earths atmosphere is going to be colder than the surrounding warmer Outer Space at 4 Kelvin, to be at absolute zero, while the warmer surface is being heated by the almighty power of the Sun?
Because gases absorb energy mainly by absorbing photons.
Cogitate on this item from the wiki for a while.
Quote:
The absorbed energy warms the surface. Simple presentations of the greenhouse effect, such as the idealized greenhouse model, show this heat being lost as thermal radiation. The reality is more complex: the atmosphere near the surface is largely opaque to thermal radiation (with important exceptions for "window" bands), and most heat loss from the surface is by sensible heat and latent heat transport. Radiative energy losses become increasingly important higher in the atmosphere largely because of the decreasing concentration of water vapor, an important greenhouse gas. It is more realistic to think of the greenhouse effect as applying to a "surface" in the mid-troposphere, which is effectively coupled to the surface by a lapse rate.
That "surface" is an effective constant-temperature boundary condition. If you increase the altitude of that surface, you raise the temperature at the earth's surface through the lapse-rate coupling. Increasing the vapour pressure of the various greenhouse gases raises the altitude of this surface.
The truth will set you free. But first, it will piss you off. --Gloria Steinem AREPS™
Because gases absorb energy mainly by absorbing photons.
Cogitate on this item from the wiki for a while.
That "surface" is an effective constant-temperature boundary condition. If you increase the altitude of that surface, you raise the temperature at the earth's surface through the lapse-rate coupling. Increasing the vapour pressure of the various greenhouse gases raises the altitude of this surface.
1. It is against the laws of physics to have an absolute zero mass in contact with a higher temperature mass where there is no active process cooling the cold mass faster than it can be heated by the warmer mass.
Whatever you come up with, you have to begin by conceding the atmosphere cannot be colder than outerspace. By what method was it cooled??
2. Gases are not mainly heated by absorption. Conduction is not a process of absorption but rather is a process of energy transfer.
A low temperature source such as a hot water filled radiator has a relatively poor ability to emit radiation and act as a space heater of air only via radiation emission, compared to its better ability to warm the air via conduction and radiation to the surroundings.
According to a trade link a chromium plated radiator is 20% less efficient than a painted radiator where the varieties of painted finish hardly make any difference at all compared to the more significant shiny bare metal of the unchromed radiator. Ie black is not much better than white. However it is well known that very highly reflective polished metals have a very low emissivity.
Australian Property Forum is an economics and finance forum dedicated to discussion of Australian and global real estate markets and macroeconomics, including house prices, housing affordability, and the likelihood of a property crash. Is there an Australian housing bubble? Will house prices crash, boom or stagnate? Is the Australian property market a pyramid scheme or Ponzi scheme? Can house prices really rise forever? These are the questions we address on Australian Property Forum, the premier real estate site for property bears, bulls, investors, and speculators. Members may also discuss matters related to finance, modern monetary theory (MMT), debt deflation, cryptocurrencies like Bitcoin Ethereum and Ripple, property investing, landlords, tenants, debt consolidation, reverse home equity loans, the housing shortage, negative gearing, capital gains tax, land tax and macro prudential regulation.
Forum Rules:
The main forum may be used to discuss property, politics, economics and finance, precious metals, crypto currency, debt management, generational divides, climate change, sustainability, alternative energy, environmental topics, human rights or social justice issues, and other topics on a case by case basis. Topics unsuitable for the main forum may be discussed in the lounge. You agree you won't use this forum to post material that is illegal, private, defamatory, pornographic, excessively abusive or profane, threatening, or invasive of another forum member's privacy. Don't post NSFW content. Racist or ethnic slurs and homophobic comments aren't tolerated. Accusing forum members of serious crimes is not permitted. Accusations, attacks, abuse or threats, litigious or otherwise, directed against the forum or forum administrators aren't tolerated and will result in immediate suspension of your account for a number of days depending on the severity of the attack. No spamming or advertising in the main forum. Spamming includes repeating the same message over and over again within a short period of time. Don't post ALL CAPS thread titles. The Advertising and Promotion Subforum may be used to promote your Australian property related business or service. Active members of the forum who contribute regularly to main forum discussions may also include a link to their product or service in their signature block. Members are limited to one actively posting account each. A secondary account may be used solely for the purpose of maintaining a blog as long as that account no longer posts in threads. Any member who believes another member has violated these rules may report the offending post using the report button.
Australian Property Forum complies with ASIC Regulatory Guide 162 regarding Internet Discussion Sites. Australian Property Forum is not a provider of financial advice. Australian Property Forum does not in any way endorse the views and opinions of its members, nor does it vouch for for the accuracy or authenticity of their posts. It is not permitted for any Australian Property Forum member to post in the role of a licensed financial advisor or to post as the representative of a financial advisor. It is not permitted for Australian Property Forum members to ask for or offer specific buy, sell or hold recommendations on particular stocks, as a response to a request of this nature may be considered the provision of financial advice.
Views expressed on this forum are not representative of the forum owners. The forum owners are not liable or responsible for comments posted. Information posted does not constitute financial or legal advice. The forum owners accept no liability for information posted, nor for consequences of actions taken on the basis of that information. By visiting or using this forum, members and guests agree to be bound by the Zetaboards Terms of Use.
This site may contain copyright material (i.e. attributed snippets from online news reports), the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. Such content is posted to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democratic, scientific, and social justice issues. This constitutes 'fair use' of such copyright material as provided for in section 107 of US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed for research and educational purposes only. If you wish to use this material for purposes that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. Such material is credited to the true owner or licensee. We will remove from the forum any such material upon the request of the owners of the copyright of said material, as we claim no credit for such material.
Privacy Policy: Australian Property Forum uses third party advertising companies to serve ads when you visit our site. These third party advertising companies may collect and use information about your visits to Australian Property Forum as well as other web sites in order to provide advertisements about goods and services of interest to you. If you would like more information about this practice and to know your choices about not having this information used by these companies, click here: Google Advertising Privacy FAQ
Australian Property Forum is hosted by Zetaboards. Please refer also to the Zetaboards Privacy Policy
