Support the Arctic Sea Ice Forum and Blog

Author Topic: "Smart" and "Stupid" Questions - Feel Free To Ask  (Read 1031999 times)

DrTskoul

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1455
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 210
  • Likes Given: 60
Re: "Smart" and "Stupid" Questions - Feel Free To Ask
« Reply #850 on: March 01, 2017, 01:52:46 PM »
Tealight, the first rule of the computer generation has been KISS (Keep It Simple, Stupid) for the reason that complexity breeds confusion, etc. We don't need to feed Trolls anything they can use to "justify" their attempts to say the goal-posts have been moved.

ppm CO2 as a standard is measured at one place, at altitude and could be affected by volcanic fumes (if the wind blows the wrong way?) or Asian economic activity. The standard is used as a measure of the balance between production and consumption, it cannot tell whether the ocean changes pH - but it does reflect changes in photosynthesis throughout the year! It will be measured in dried air to keep one variable out, produces a clear, simple number (especially when there are 0's in it!) and researchers can relate their discoveries in other fields to it.

In short, measured ppm CO2 is a simple, reliable, trusted, useful, visual tool, with known limitations.

What known limitations? All that it matters for most physical phenomena ( adsorption, diffusion, reaction rates, pickup by the oceans  etc.) depend on concentration. That is the origin of the measure. And it is the simplest result of a sampling analysis. I don't know what's your beef.

Shared Humanity

  • Guest
Re: "Smart" and "Stupid" Questions - Feel Free To Ask
« Reply #851 on: March 01, 2017, 03:31:41 PM »
.


In short, measured ppm CO2 is a simple, reliable, trusted, useful, visual tool, with known limitations.

All measures have limitations but they are still useful so long as the yardstick used doesn't change. We have these debates all of the time regarding SIE, SIA and volume. The simple fact is that each are valid, have history to track against, and say what they say about the condition of the Arctic ice. The same goes for CO2.

Tealight

  • Frazil ice
  • Posts: 490
    • View Profile
    • CryosphereComputing
  • Liked: 176
  • Likes Given: 17
Re: "Smart" and "Stupid" Questions - Feel Free To Ask
« Reply #852 on: March 01, 2017, 06:38:31 PM »
I think for photosynthesis or toxicity to humans ppm is a good unit, but for climate analysis it doesn't mean anything without an atmospheric mass/pressure.

I am sure the ppm of CO2 are in volume. The local concentration of CO2 dictates its absorbance and emissivity of IR. You cannot do any calculations or modeling based on the integral amount above your head. And it would vary based on the local pressure.

CO2 concentration alone is a useless unit to do calculations of absorbance and emissivity. 10 CO2 molecules per cm3 at 100% CO2 concentration absorb far less infrared radiation then 50 molecules at 10% CO2 concentration. If another other gas is released into the atmosphere it decreases the CO2 concentration, but the amount of CO2 and its warming effects stay the same.

If you feel funny then you can just release a few trillion tons of whatever gas into the atmosphere and the CO2 concentration will fall by definition to pre-industrial levels. It doesn't stop global warming, but it's enough to fulfill the goals of some lawmakers to bring the CO2 concentration down.

FredBear

  • Frazil ice
  • Posts: 441
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 67
  • Likes Given: 42
Re: "Smart" and "Stupid" Questions - Feel Free To Ask
« Reply #853 on: March 02, 2017, 12:10:19 PM »
I think for photosynthesis or toxicity to humans ppm is a good unit, but for climate analysis it doesn't mean anything without an atmospheric mass/pressure.

I am sure the ppm of CO2 are in volume. The local concentration of CO2 dictates its absorbance and emissivity of IR. You cannot do any calculations or modeling based on the integral amount above your head. And it would vary based on the local pressure.

CO2 concentration alone is a useless unit to do calculations of absorbance and emissivity. 10 CO2 molecules per cm3 at 100% CO2 concentration absorb far less infrared radiation then 50 molecules at 10% CO2 concentration. If another other gas is released into the atmosphere it decreases the CO2 concentration, but the amount of CO2 and its warming effects stay the same.

If you feel funny then you can just release a few trillion tons of whatever gas into the atmosphere and the CO2 concentration will fall by definition to pre-industrial levels. It doesn't stop global warming, but it's enough to fulfill the goals of some lawmakers to bring the CO2 concentration down.
"CO2 concentration alone is a useless unit to do calculations of absorbance and emissivity" - but not many of us can even start on that.
CO2 is the changing part of the atmosphere so it is useful to keep measuring the changes as ppm. Oxygen is also consumed by burning fossil fuels but the changes are a tiny percentage. If the atmosphere warms it will have the capacity to hold more water vapour which will increase IR absorbance (but this will vary much more in time & place than a "permanent" gas) - a much more important part of the picture.
"If you feel funny you can just release   .    .   ." - this is not what scientists say is the cure. There are no(?) common gases which would compensate for increased CO2 apart from SO2 at high altitudes to create H2SO4 smog - and no-one wants that falling on their heads.
Anyone with concern knows that the source of the problem is burning fossil fuels, the differences are that the urgency of reduction depends on the perceived magnitude and effects on society of any changes (in environment or economics).
There are much cleverer people around than me, sorry I cannot agree with you that ppm CO2 is not a good measurement to make.

Jim Williams

  • Frazil ice
  • Posts: 398
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: "Smart" and "Stupid" Questions - Feel Free To Ask
« Reply #854 on: March 02, 2017, 12:52:19 PM »
Anyone with concern knows that the source of the problem is burning fossil fuels, the differences are that the urgency of reduction depends on the perceived magnitude and effects on society of any changes (in environment or economics).

I might point out that some of us think the models are completely bogus, and that the changes we are seeing now are due to the Industrial Revolution a couple hundred years ago.  We might not see much value in bothering to try to reduce CO2 anymore, and are here just to watch the show.

shmengie

  • New ice
  • Posts: 46
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: "Smart" and "Stupid" Questions - Feel Free To Ask
« Reply #855 on: March 02, 2017, 02:12:36 PM »
I've been trying to simplify AGW, for my own personal understandings and that I may hopefully better communicate with others.

Tealight's CO₂ atmospheric mass conversion, while it confuses me to a degree, touches on a stupid question thats been bouncing around in my head.

CO₂ was removed from the atmosphere over millions of years by (now) fossilized plants and/or critters through photosynthesis.  That process must have reduced the total weight (and pressure) of the atmosphere.

Now we humans find deposits of oil, gas, coal etc.  Humans are releasing as much CO₂, back into the atmosphere, damn near as quickly as possible (or so it seems).

I look at CO₂ PPM readings as essentially, a net weight gain of mass, to the atmosphere.  Along with more atmospheric mass comes more insulation and thus AGW.
Professor Trump, who'd thought it was that complicated?

Tigertown

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1678
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 24
  • Likes Given: 20
Re: "Smart" and "Stupid" Questions - Feel Free To Ask
« Reply #856 on: March 02, 2017, 03:09:54 PM »
From what I know, CO2 initiates warming because of it's ability to absorb longwave radiation or heat and direct a large percentage downward, whereas before it could escape into space. Other processes add to the problem, but it begins with this.
"....and the appointed time came for God to bring to ruin those ruining the earth." Revelation 11:18.

binntho

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 2193
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 878
  • Likes Given: 235
Re: "Smart" and "Stupid" Questions - Feel Free To Ask
« Reply #857 on: March 02, 2017, 03:13:32 PM »
I guess there is some gain in mass, although it's not very significant - an increase in 100 ppm is 0,01 %.

Most of the atmosphere is made up of N2 (78%),  O2 (21%) and Ar (0,9%) - these gases do not cause any real greenhouse effect. As I understand it, the greenhouse effect is caused by molecules that contain different elements - CO2, H2O, CH4 etc. It's the chemical bond between different elements that enable theses molecules to absorb infrared radiation much more strongly than the other molecules/atoms in the atmosphere. The absorbed energy is then radiated out, and the bit that goes downward causes the greenhouse effect.
because a thing is eloquently expressed it should not be taken to be as necessarily true
St. Augustine, Confessions V, 6

gerontocrat

  • Multi-year ice
  • Posts: 20384
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 5289
  • Likes Given: 69
Re: "Smart" and "Stupid" Questions - Feel Free To Ask
« Reply #858 on: March 02, 2017, 03:32:21 PM »
My stupid question is -
Where can I find the accuracy of Jaxa / NSIDC  measurements of extent, area, volume etc. e.g. 90% confidence interval.
"Para a Causa do Povo a Luta Continua!"
"And that's all I'm going to say about that". Forrest Gump
"Damn, I wanted to see what happened next" (Epitaph)

Jim Williams

  • Frazil ice
  • Posts: 398
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: "Smart" and "Stupid" Questions - Feel Free To Ask
« Reply #859 on: March 02, 2017, 03:35:02 PM »
I guess there is some gain in mass, although it's not very significant - an increase in 100 ppm is 0,01 %.

Most of the atmosphere is made up of N2 (78%),  O2 (21%) and Ar (0,9%) - these gases do not cause any real greenhouse effect. As I understand it, the greenhouse effect is caused by molecules that contain different elements - CO2, H2O, CH4 etc. It's the chemical bond between different elements that enable theses molecules to absorb infrared radiation much more strongly than the other molecules/atoms in the atmosphere. The absorbed energy is then radiated out, and the bit that goes downward causes the greenhouse effect.

I'd never heard of nor considered the notion of longwave radiation being because the molecules were composed of differing elements.  My first thought is that seems plausible, but I'd kinda like to have some sort of backup to that statement before I simply accept it.

DrTskoul

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1455
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 210
  • Likes Given: 60
Re: "Smart" and "Stupid" Questions - Feel Free To Ask
« Reply #860 on: March 02, 2017, 03:56:55 PM »
I guess there is some gain in mass, although it's not very significant - an increase in 100 ppm is 0,01 %.

Most of the atmosphere is made up of N2 (78%),  O2 (21%) and Ar (0,9%) - these gases do not cause any real greenhouse effect. As I understand it, the greenhouse effect is caused by molecules that contain different elements - CO2, H2O, CH4 etc. It's the chemical bond between different elements that enable theses molecules to absorb infrared radiation much more strongly than the other molecules/atoms in the atmosphere. The absorbed energy is then radiated out, and the bit that goes downward causes the greenhouse effect.

I'd never heard of nor considered the notion of longwave radiation being because the molecules were composed of differing elements.  My first thought is that seems plausible, but I'd kinda like to have some sort of backup to that statement before I simply accept it.

Some basic science:

Visualizing Atmospheric Radiation

Atmospheric Radiation and the “Greenhouse” Effect

Search in that website.  It has many more to explore.

ppm, weight, density, mass, number of molecules, moles, cubic centimeters, all semantics, all can be used indistinguishably. Don't waste your time with semantics.




Jim Williams

  • Frazil ice
  • Posts: 398
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: "Smart" and "Stupid" Questions - Feel Free To Ask
« Reply #861 on: March 02, 2017, 06:30:32 PM »
I guess there is some gain in mass, although it's not very significant - an increase in 100 ppm is 0,01 %.

Most of the atmosphere is made up of N2 (78%),  O2 (21%) and Ar (0,9%) - these gases do not cause any real greenhouse effect. As I understand it, the greenhouse effect is caused by molecules that contain different elements - CO2, H2O, CH4 etc. It's the chemical bond between different elements that enable theses molecules to absorb infrared radiation much more strongly than the other molecules/atoms in the atmosphere. The absorbed energy is then radiated out, and the bit that goes downward causes the greenhouse effect.

I'd never heard of nor considered the notion of longwave radiation being because the molecules were composed of differing elements.  My first thought is that seems plausible, but I'd kinda like to have some sort of backup to that statement before I simply accept it.

Some basic science:

Visualizing Atmospheric Radiation

Atmospheric Radiation and the “Greenhouse” Effect

Search in that website.  It has many more to explore.

ppm, weight, density, mass, number of molecules, moles, cubic centimeters, all semantics, all can be used indistinguishably. Don't waste your time with semantics.
This might be of interest to others, but as a reply to what I asked about it was the total uselessness of TMI (Too Much Information).  Do you have an explanation handy which devotes itself to how having different elements in a molecule might cause re-emission of longwave radiation without me having to dig about in irrelevant crap?

Hate to be an ass about this....but I think I'm going to be an ass...answer the question usefully or don't try to answer it.

Tor Bejnar

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 4606
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 879
  • Likes Given: 826
Re: "Smart" and "Stupid" Questions - Feel Free To Ask
« Reply #862 on: March 02, 2017, 07:12:59 PM »
It isn't multiple types of atoms in a molecule, but multiple (3+) atoms, period, in a molecule (e.g., O3 absorbs IR):
Quote
In order for molecular vibrations to absorb IR energy, the vibrational motions must change the dipole moment of the molecule. All molecules with three or more atoms meet this criterion and are IR absorbers. While the Earth’s (dry) atmosphere is predominantly composed of non-IR absorbers, N2 (78%), O2 (21%), and Ar (~0.9%), the 0.1% of remaining trace gases contains many species that absorb IR. The absorptions by CO2, CH4, N2O, and O3 are shown in the schematic diagram in the sidebar below.
from
What are the properties of a greenhouse gas? - ACS Climate Science Toolkit | Greenhouse Gases
Arctic ice is healthy for children and other living things because "we cannot negotiate with the melting point of ice"

DrTskoul

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1455
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 210
  • Likes Given: 60
Re: "Smart" and "Stupid" Questions - Feel Free To Ask
« Reply #863 on: March 02, 2017, 07:16:42 PM »
I guess there is some gain in mass, although it's not very significant - an increase in 100 ppm is 0,01 %.

Most of the atmosphere is made up of N2 (78%),  O2 (21%) and Ar (0,9%) - these gases do not cause any real greenhouse effect. As I understand it, the greenhouse effect is caused by molecules that contain different elements - CO2, H2O, CH4 etc. It's the chemical bond between different elements that enable theses molecules to absorb infrared radiation much more strongly than the other molecules/atoms in the atmosphere. The absorbed energy is then radiated out, and the bit that goes downward causes the greenhouse effect.

I'd never heard of nor considered the notion of longwave radiation being because the molecules were composed of differing elements.  My first thought is that seems plausible, but I'd kinda like to have some sort of backup to that statement before I simply accept it.

Some basic science:

Visualizing Atmospheric Radiation

Atmospheric Radiation and the “Greenhouse” Effect

Search in that website.  It has many more to explore.

ppm, weight, density, mass, number of molecules, moles, cubic centimeters, all semantics, all can be used indistinguishably. Don't waste your time with semantics.
This might be of interest to others, but as a reply to what I asked about it was the total uselessness of TMI (Too Much Information).  Do you have an explanation handy which devotes itself to how having different elements in a molecule might cause re-emission of longwave radiation without me having to dig about in irrelevant crap?

Hate to be an ass about this....but I think I'm going to be an ass...answer the question usefully or don't try to answer it.

The absorption/emission of IR depends on the vibration and rotation of bonds and molecules. In its simplest form you can assume a spring ( bond ) connecting two sphere ( atoms ). The spring constant  depends on the strength of the bond ( e.g methane hydrogen single or double bond) and the frequency of vibration dep nds on the mass of the spheres.  If you replace Hydrogen in H2 with oxygen you get a spring/mass system that vibrates more slowly. In order to bring the vibrational frequency to where IR is you get H2O, CO2, CH4 and others. Basically compared to oxygen or nitrogen molecules you need either heavier elements, weaker bonds or more bonds.


Jim Williams

  • Frazil ice
  • Posts: 398
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: "Smart" and "Stupid" Questions - Feel Free To Ask
« Reply #864 on: March 02, 2017, 07:28:11 PM »
I guess there is some gain in mass, although it's not very significant - an increase in 100 ppm is 0,01 %.

Most of the atmosphere is made up of N2 (78%),  O2 (21%) and Ar (0,9%) - these gases do not cause any real greenhouse effect. As I understand it, the greenhouse effect is caused by molecules that contain different elements - CO2, H2O, CH4 etc. It's the chemical bond between different elements that enable theses molecules to absorb infrared radiation much more strongly than the other molecules/atoms in the atmosphere. The absorbed energy is then radiated out, and the bit that goes downward causes the greenhouse effect.

I'd never heard of nor considered the notion of longwave radiation being because the molecules were composed of differing elements.  My first thought is that seems plausible, but I'd kinda like to have some sort of backup to that statement before I simply accept it.

Some basic science:

Visualizing Atmospheric Radiation

Atmospheric Radiation and the “Greenhouse” Effect

Search in that website.  It has many more to explore.

ppm, weight, density, mass, number of molecules, moles, cubic centimeters, all semantics, all can be used indistinguishably. Don't waste your time with semantics.
This might be of interest to others, but as a reply to what I asked about it was the total uselessness of TMI (Too Much Information).  Do you have an explanation handy which devotes itself to how having different elements in a molecule might cause re-emission of longwave radiation without me having to dig about in irrelevant crap?

Hate to be an ass about this....but I think I'm going to be an ass...answer the question usefully or don't try to answer it.

The absorption/emission of IR depends on the vibration and rotation of bonds and molecules. In its simplest form you can assume a spring ( bond ) connecting two sphere ( atoms ). The spring constant  depends on the strength of the bond ( e.g methane hydrogen single or double bond) and the frequency of vibration dep nds on the mass of the spheres.  If you replace Hydrogen in H2 with oxygen you get a spring/mass system that vibrates more slowly. In order to bring the vibrational frequency to where IR is you get H2O, CO2, CH4 and others. Basically compared to oxygen or nitrogen molecules you need either heavier elements, weaker bonds or more bonds.

OK....how does this obvious then translate into the simple statement "molecules with different elements retransmit more IR"?

I certainly buy into the statement that "different molecules absorb and retransmit photons with different energies."   But the interesting part of the statement was that compounds with different elements re-transmit more IR than those which are composed of the same element.  I think there might be a "fact" there, but I don't know it.

Tor Bejnar

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 4606
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 879
  • Likes Given: 826
Re: "Smart" and "Stupid" Questions - Feel Free To Ask
« Reply #865 on: March 02, 2017, 08:10:37 PM »
From NASA: Climate Roles of H2O, CH4 and CO
Quote
Carbon Monoxide

Carbon monoxide (CO) is only a very weak direct greenhouse gas, but has important indirect effects on global warming. Carbon monoxide is an ozone precursor, and also reacts with the hydroxyl (OH) radicals in the atmosphere, reducing their abundance. As OH radicals reduce the lifetimes of many strong greenhouse gases (such as methane), CO indirectly increases the global warming potential of these gases.
So mixed-element molecules with only 2 atoms can also be a greenhouse gas.  I recall reading somewhere GHGs have a certain type of asymmetry ("the vibrational motions must change the dipole moment of the molecule").

Note (previous post) that O3 is a single-element molecule that is a greenhouse gas.


Arctic ice is healthy for children and other living things because "we cannot negotiate with the melting point of ice"

DrTskoul

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1455
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 210
  • Likes Given: 60
Re: "Smart" and "Stupid" Questions - Feel Free To Ask
« Reply #866 on: March 02, 2017, 08:15:14 PM »
it is a fact in the same sense that during night there is no sunlight.

Simple diatomic molecules have only one vibration mode and it happens that most of them do not have a strong IR spectrum.


Tigertown

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1678
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 24
  • Likes Given: 20
Re: "Smart" and "Stupid" Questions - Feel Free To Ask
« Reply #867 on: March 02, 2017, 08:17:10 PM »
DrTskoul
Quote
The absorption/emission of IR depends on the vibration and rotation of bonds and molecules. In its simplest form you can assume a spring ( bond ) connecting two sphere ( atoms ). The spring constant  depends on the strength of the bond ( e.g methane hydrogen single or double bond) and the frequency of vibration depends on the mass of the spheres.  If you replace Hydrogen in H2 with oxygen you get a spring/mass system that vibrates more slowly. In order to bring the vibrational frequency to where IR is you get H2O, CO2, CH4 and others. Basically compared to oxygen or nitrogen molecules you need either heavier elements, weaker bonds or more bonds.
                                                 Thank You. That makes sense.
"....and the appointed time came for God to bring to ruin those ruining the earth." Revelation 11:18.

johnm33

  • Guest
Re: "Smart" and "Stupid" Questions - Feel Free To Ask
« Reply #868 on: March 02, 2017, 08:49:33 PM »
A few years ago I was contempating how best to add mass to a building project for heat storage, despite everything I thought I knew it turned out that wood was better than concrete even on an equal volume basis. It's the hydrogen bonds that do it, waters even better but not much use structurally. I vaguely remember something about carbon being the next atom on the scale in this regard.

DrTskoul

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1455
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 210
  • Likes Given: 60
Re: "Smart" and "Stupid" Questions - Feel Free To Ask
« Reply #869 on: March 02, 2017, 09:47:48 PM »
A few years ago I was contempating how best to add mass to a building project for heat storage, despite everything I thought I knew it turned out that wood was better than concrete even on an equal volume basis. It's the hydrogen bonds that do it, waters even better but not much use structurally. I vaguely remember something about carbon being the next atom on the scale in this regard.

On a mass basis the heat capacity of water is the highest. For building materials timber has around 1200 J/kg/oC. Concrete is at 30% less.

Chuck Yokota

  • New ice
  • Posts: 83
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: "Smart" and "Stupid" Questions - Feel Free To Ask
« Reply #870 on: March 03, 2017, 05:33:31 AM »
With multiple bonds in a molecule, there exist more modes of vibration. In addition to the amount of spring energy in a single bond, the springs could be both stretching at the same time, or one could be stretching while the other is contracting, or the springs could be bending, changing the angle between the bonds. The many more modes of vibration produce many more energy levels for the molecule, with energy differences that fall into the range of IR photons.

binntho

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 2193
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 878
  • Likes Given: 235
Re: "Smart" and "Stupid" Questions - Feel Free To Ask
« Reply #871 on: March 03, 2017, 07:09:59 AM »
I guess there is some gain in mass, although it's not very significant - an increase in 100 ppm is 0,01 %.

Most of the atmosphere is made up of N2 (78%),  O2 (21%) and Ar (0,9%) - these gases do not cause any real greenhouse effect. As I understand it, the greenhouse effect is caused by molecules that contain different elements - CO2, H2O, CH4 etc. It's the chemical bond between different elements that enable theses molecules to absorb infrared radiation much more strongly than the other molecules/atoms in the atmosphere. The absorbed energy is then radiated out, and the bit that goes downward causes the greenhouse effect.

I'd never heard of nor considered the notion of longwave radiation being because the molecules were composed of differing elements.  My first thought is that seems plausible, but I'd kinda like to have some sort of backup to that statement before I simply accept it.

Some basic science:

Visualizing Atmospheric Radiation

Atmospheric Radiation and the “Greenhouse” Effect

Search in that website.  It has many more to explore.

ppm, weight, density, mass, number of molecules, moles, cubic centimeters, all semantics, all can be used indistinguishably. Don't waste your time with semantics.
This might be of interest to others, but as a reply to what I asked about it was the total uselessness of TMI (Too Much Information).  Do you have an explanation handy which devotes itself to how having different elements in a molecule might cause re-emission of longwave radiation without me having to dig about in irrelevant crap?

Hate to be an ass about this....but I think I'm going to be an ass...answer the question usefully or don't try to answer it.

The absorption/emission of IR depends on the vibration and rotation of bonds and molecules. In its simplest form you can assume a spring ( bond ) connecting two sphere ( atoms ). The spring constant  depends on the strength of the bond ( e.g methane hydrogen single or double bond) and the frequency of vibration dep nds on the mass of the spheres.  If you replace Hydrogen in H2 with oxygen you get a spring/mass system that vibrates more slowly. In order to bring the vibrational frequency to where IR is you get H2O, CO2, CH4 and others. Basically compared to oxygen or nitrogen molecules you need either heavier elements, weaker bonds or more bonds.
Thanks for an excellent explanation of my feeble attempt! It was actually my daughter that pointed this out to me a few years back, she was studying chemistry at the time and claimed it was taught as a basic fact in her course. Whether I understood it correctly, or have presented it correctly, is another thing entirely.

But her explanation was along the same lines as DrTskouls, and the simplest way to explain it is "molecules consisting of different elements make strong greenhouse gases". With my more limited knowledge of chemistry and physics, I at once understood the concept as being logical, but that's all I can claim!
because a thing is eloquently expressed it should not be taken to be as necessarily true
St. Augustine, Confessions V, 6

Tigertown

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1678
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 24
  • Likes Given: 20
Re: "Smart" and "Stupid" Questions - Feel Free To Ask
« Reply #872 on: March 03, 2017, 07:25:26 AM »
It took every bit of my will power not to quote that, just to see what it would look like with one more quote in it.  ;)
"....and the appointed time came for God to bring to ruin those ruining the earth." Revelation 11:18.

binntho

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 2193
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 878
  • Likes Given: 235
Re: "Smart" and "Stupid" Questions - Feel Free To Ask
« Reply #873 on: March 03, 2017, 08:15:50 AM »
It took every bit of my will power not to quote that, just to see what it would look like with one more quote in it.  ;)
Fractal quoting ...
because a thing is eloquently expressed it should not be taken to be as necessarily true
St. Augustine, Confessions V, 6

DrTskoul

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1455
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 210
  • Likes Given: 60
Re: "Smart" and "Stupid" Questions - Feel Free To Ask
« Reply #874 on: March 03, 2017, 09:30:39 AM »
It might lead to another dimension  :P

Peter Ellis

  • Grease ice
  • Posts: 619
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 33
  • Likes Given: 14
Re: "Smart" and "Stupid" Questions - Feel Free To Ask
« Reply #875 on: March 03, 2017, 11:01:15 AM »
OK....how does this obvious then translate into the simple statement "molecules with different elements retransmit more IR"?

It's more the other way round.  All molecules with more than 3 atoms fit the bill.  However, it's very rare to have 3-atom molecules without them including 2 or more elements: ozone is the only gaseous exception I can think of.  Most elements have monoatomic or diatomic molecular forms (if the element has a molecular form at all rather than being crystalline or metallic).

Jim Williams

  • Frazil ice
  • Posts: 398
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: "Smart" and "Stupid" Questions - Feel Free To Ask
« Reply #876 on: March 03, 2017, 02:22:47 PM »
I guess there is some gain in mass, although it's not very significant - an increase in 100 ppm is 0,01 %.

Most of the atmosphere is made up of N2 (78%),  O2 (21%) and Ar (0,9%) - these gases do not cause any real greenhouse effect. As I understand it, the greenhouse effect is caused by molecules that contain different elements - CO2, H2O, CH4 etc. It's the chemical bond between different elements that enable theses molecules to absorb infrared radiation much more strongly than the other molecules/atoms in the atmosphere. The absorbed energy is then radiated out, and the bit that goes downward causes the greenhouse effect.

I'd never heard of nor considered the notion of longwave radiation being because the molecules were composed of differing elements.  My first thought is that seems plausible, but I'd kinda like to have some sort of backup to that statement before I simply accept it.

Some basic science:

Visualizing Atmospheric Radiation

Atmospheric Radiation and the “Greenhouse” Effect

Search in that website.  It has many more to explore.

ppm, weight, density, mass, number of molecules, moles, cubic centimeters, all semantics, all can be used indistinguishably. Don't waste your time with semantics.
This might be of interest to others, but as a reply to what I asked about it was the total uselessness of TMI (Too Much Information).  Do you have an explanation handy which devotes itself to how having different elements in a molecule might cause re-emission of longwave radiation without me having to dig about in irrelevant crap?

Hate to be an ass about this....but I think I'm going to be an ass...answer the question usefully or don't try to answer it.

The absorption/emission of IR depends on the vibration and rotation of bonds and molecules. In its simplest form you can assume a spring ( bond ) connecting two sphere ( atoms ). The spring constant  depends on the strength of the bond ( e.g methane hydrogen single or double bond) and the frequency of vibration dep nds on the mass of the spheres.  If you replace Hydrogen in H2 with oxygen you get a spring/mass system that vibrates more slowly. In order to bring the vibrational frequency to where IR is you get H2O, CO2, CH4 and others. Basically compared to oxygen or nitrogen molecules you need either heavier elements, weaker bonds or more bonds.
Thanks for an excellent explanation of my feeble attempt! It was actually my daughter that pointed this out to me a few years back, she was studying chemistry at the time and claimed it was taught as a basic fact in her course. Whether I understood it correctly, or have presented it correctly, is another thing entirely.

But her explanation was along the same lines as DrTskouls, and the simplest way to explain it is "molecules consisting of different elements make strong greenhouse gases". With my more limited knowledge of chemistry and physics, I at once understood the concept as being logical, but that's all I can claim!

I can see why someone who's taken Chemistry within the last 10 years or so would be more likely to know this than somone who took Chemistry 40 some years ago.

(And yes I did quote it all....deliberately...why?)

Pmt111500

  • Guest
Re: "Smart" and "Stupid" Questions - Feel Free To Ask
« Reply #877 on: March 03, 2017, 02:51:01 PM »
I guess there is some gain in mass, although it's not very significant - an increase in 100 ppm is 0,01 %.

Most of the atmosphere is made up of N2 (78%),  O2 (21%) and Ar (0,9%) - these gases do not cause any real greenhouse effect. As I understand it, the greenhouse effect is caused by molecules that contain different elements - CO2, H2O, CH4 etc. It's the chemical bond between different elements that enable theses molecules to absorb infrared radiation much more strongly than the other molecules/atoms in the atmosphere. The absorbed energy is then radiated out, and the bit that goes downward causes the greenhouse effect.

I'd never heard of nor considered the notion of longwave radiation being because the molecules were composed of differing elements.  My first thought is that seems plausible, but I'd kinda like to have some sort of backup to that statement before I simply accept it.

Some basic science:

Visualizing Atmospheric Radiation

Atmospheric Radiation and the “Greenhouse” Effect

Search in that website.  It has many more to explore.

ppm, weight, density, mass, number of molecules, moles, cubic centimeters, all semantics, all can be used indistinguishably. Don't waste your time with semantics.
This might be of interest to others, but as a reply to what I asked about it was the total uselessness of TMI (Too Much Information).  Do you have an explanation handy which devotes itself to how having different elements in a molecule might cause re-emission of longwave radiation without me having to dig about in irrelevant crap?

Hate to be an ass about this....but I think I'm going to be an ass...answer the question usefully or don't try to answer it.

The absorption/emission of IR depends on the vibration and rotation of bonds and molecules. In its simplest form you can assume a spring ( bond ) connecting two sphere ( atoms ). The spring constant  depends on the strength of the bond ( e.g methane hydrogen single or double bond) and the frequency of vibration dep nds on the mass of the spheres.  If you replace Hydrogen in H2 with oxygen you get a spring/mass system that vibrates more slowly. In order to bring the vibrational frequency to where IR is you get H2O, CO2, CH4 and others. Basically compared to oxygen or nitrogen molecules you need either heavier elements, weaker bonds or more bonds.
Thanks for an excellent explanation of my feeble attempt! It was actually my daughter that pointed this out to me a few years back, she was studying chemistry at the time and claimed it was taught as a basic fact in her course. Whether I understood it correctly, or have presented it correctly, is another thing entirely.

But her explanation was along the same lines as DrTskouls, and the simplest way to explain it is "molecules consisting of different elements make strong greenhouse gases". With my more limited knowledge of chemistry and physics, I at once understood the concept as being logical, but that's all I can claim!

I can see why someone who's taken Chemistry within the last 10 years or so would be more likely to know this than somone who took Chemistry 40 some years ago.

(And yes I did quote it all....deliberately...why?)
So that someone could start to speculate how to build a molecule model set with springs? This is not a trivial problem, as you'd need quite a lot of springs of variable strenghts and lengths. Imagine f.e. acetylene where the prospective model builder would have to tension three springs between two balls and the joy of children as it unloads the tension. Probably the set would though include plenty easy-to-swallow parts so it wouldn't be for young children and the elder ones would already have their toy cars, dolls and such... ... No this is not going to sell.

Jim Williams

  • Frazil ice
  • Posts: 398
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: "Smart" and "Stupid" Questions - Feel Free To Ask
« Reply #878 on: March 03, 2017, 04:58:54 PM »
BTW:

...
If you replace Hydrogen in H2 with oxygen you get a spring/mass system that vibrates more slowly. In order to bring the vibrational frequency to where IR is you get H2O, CO2, CH4 and others. Basically compared to oxygen or nitrogen molecules you need either heavier elements, weaker bonds or more bonds.

The first two sentences are the motivation, and the last sentence was the answer.

shmengie

  • New ice
  • Posts: 46
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: "Smart" and "Stupid" Questions - Feel Free To Ask
« Reply #879 on: March 03, 2017, 06:20:27 PM »
gt - Gigaton(s)

1990's - 770 gt natural CO₂, 23 gt CO₂ human released...  Its roughly related to the weight of the raw fossils burnt as how much is forced into the atmosphere.

C₄H₈ (𐄸) has spring at higher temp than water.  When methane (et al.) interact with O₂ in the atmosphere the results are warter and CO₂.   Contained hydro-carbons become additional atmosphere at exhaust point, of what ever human activity, thrives on it.

That spring is part of the pressure of the atmosphere.  Combustion engines turn some of the spring into torque, in planes, trains, car, boats, electric power generation...  Human activity is presently addicted pressure and additional atmosphere inflation activities.

How much energy does it require to conovert CO₂ & water, to hydro-carbons & O₂? 

Plant seeds and water w/the sun do it at surface temps.  We need more artificial processes, because the climate is changing faster than the plants can adapt?
« Last Edit: March 04, 2017, 01:06:51 AM by shmengie »
Professor Trump, who'd thought it was that complicated?

D-K Effect

  • New ice
  • Posts: 2
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: "Smart" and "Stupid" Questions - Feel Free To Ask
« Reply #880 on: March 04, 2017, 07:30:16 PM »
This morning this came across my Twitterwx feed,(RT'd by Joe Bastardi...yeah I know, there's your problem) with no pushback as of yet:
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">103% Increase In Multi-Year Sea Ice Since 2008 <a href="https://t.co/qLSroMctQB">https://t.co/qLSroMctQB</a> <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/Eco?src=hash">#Eco</a> <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/Green?src=hash">#Green</a> <a href="https://t.co/hP58XVNRim">pic.twitter.com/hP58XVNRim</a></p>&mdash; The Anti Al Gore (@AGW_IS_A_HOAX) <a href="https://twitter.com/AGW_IS_A_HOAX/status/838002865117396994">March 4, 2017</a></blockquote>
<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

Seems counterintuitive given what we know has happened to volume.

Any ideas where this "data" comes from.

Neven

  • Administrator
  • First-year ice
  • Posts: 9472
    • View Profile
    • Arctic Sea Ice Blog
  • Liked: 1333
  • Likes Given: 617
Re: "Smart" and "Stupid" Questions - Feel Free To Ask
« Reply #881 on: March 04, 2017, 08:26:11 PM »
Welcome, D-K Effect (your profile has been released).

My guess is that this piece of disinformation was concocted by Steve Goddard, which means that with 99.9% probability you can dismiss it out of hand.
The enemy is within
Don't confuse me with him

E. Smith

D-K Effect

  • New ice
  • Posts: 2
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: "Smart" and "Stupid" Questions - Feel Free To Ask
« Reply #882 on: March 04, 2017, 08:58:22 PM »
Thanks Neven. That's pretty much what I figured, it saddens me that he can spew this stuff without anyone calling him on it.

Neven

  • Administrator
  • First-year ice
  • Posts: 9472
    • View Profile
    • Arctic Sea Ice Blog
  • Liked: 1333
  • Likes Given: 617
Re: "Smart" and "Stupid" Questions - Feel Free To Ask
« Reply #883 on: March 04, 2017, 09:28:35 PM »
I think it's best to ignore it as much as possible. Let him argue with Arctic sea ice and Mother Nature.
The enemy is within
Don't confuse me with him

E. Smith

Martin Gisser

  • Guest
Re: "Smart" and "Stupid" Questions - Feel Free To Ask
« Reply #884 on: March 04, 2017, 09:55:06 PM »
Thanks Neven. That's pretty much what I figured, it saddens me that he can spew this stuff without anyone calling him on it.
Calling him out would not help, but instead backfire: For most of Homo S "Sapiens" truth is a purely social construct. So, being called out by the "rival" other-group would confirm that he is "right", i.e. rightfully belongs to his group, as proven by his intellectual sacrifice.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sacrifice_of_the_intellect

Methinks ridicule, satire, contempt for his ideas would be more effective. Avoid any hint you take the bullshit or the bullshitter seriously. Very Serious People don't like looking ridiculous. That's all you can do: Help make the bullshit socially unacceptable. You might lose friends on this Quixotic crusade, but there's no other way to save the Planet from the stupid and deluded.

https://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/02/12/very-serious-question/
« Last Edit: March 04, 2017, 10:04:10 PM by Martin Gisser »

shmengie

  • New ice
  • Posts: 46
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: "Smart" and "Stupid" Questions - Feel Free To Ask
« Reply #885 on: March 09, 2017, 02:13:35 AM »
via Nullschool.net
The n. polar vortex looks split in three @ 10hPa

Has anyone plotted the frequency it changes on, oh maybe, a weekly index?
Professor Trump, who'd thought it was that complicated?

Pmt111500

  • Guest
Re: "Smart" and "Stupid" Questions - Feel Free To Ask
« Reply #886 on: March 09, 2017, 05:25:16 AM »
via Nullschool.net
The n. polar vortex looks split in three @ 10hPa

Has anyone plotted the frequency it changes on, oh maybe, a weekly index?

Ah, the polar night has ended in high stratosphere. The same sort of configuration is not unusual during the change of seasons, but this is a pretty and a clear example. Stratospheric final (hopefully not forever) warming of this spring, please someone correct if that's not it.

Tigertown

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1678
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 24
  • Likes Given: 20
Re: "Smart" and "Stupid" Questions - Feel Free To Ask
« Reply #887 on: March 09, 2017, 05:42:16 AM »
It started splitting late in Feb., and yes it has been the expectation that this is the SFW for the season.
"....and the appointed time came for God to bring to ruin those ruining the earth." Revelation 11:18.

gerontocrat

  • Multi-year ice
  • Posts: 20384
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 5289
  • Likes Given: 69
Re: "Smart" and "Stupid" Questions - Feel Free To Ask
« Reply #888 on: March 09, 2017, 12:59:44 PM »
It started splitting late in Feb., and yes it has been the expectation that this is the SFW for the season.

Presumably the SFW is a physical change to the stratosphere. Does that change extend to mid-latitudes ? (e.g. 50 degrees N.) And does that change include the appearance of the sky ?

I ask because for many years at around this time I look at the sky and one day I say "that's not a winter sky any more".  Am I simply being a silly old fool ?
"Para a Causa do Povo a Luta Continua!"
"And that's all I'm going to say about that". Forrest Gump
"Damn, I wanted to see what happened next" (Epitaph)

lambertland

  • New ice
  • Posts: 4
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: "Smart" and "Stupid" Questions - Feel Free To Ask
« Reply #889 on: March 10, 2017, 03:54:38 PM »
[Mod: Your comment has been approved. Welcome to the Arctic Sea ice Forum!]

Hi;

There is a swirl pattern in the sea ice to the east of Zachariae Isstrøm / Nioghalvfjerdsfjorden / North East Greenland on 2016 October 5 shown below:

https://worldview.earthdata.nasa.gov/?p=arctic&l=VIIRS_SNPP_CorrectedReflectance_TrueColor(hidden),MODIS_Aqua_CorrectedReflectance_TrueColor(hidden),MODIS_Terra_CorrectedReflectance_TrueColor,Reference_Labels(hidden),Reference_Features(hidden),Coastlines&t=2016-10-05&z=3&v=234630.99825409323,-1975932.9367040219,1105030.9982540933,-255612.93670402185&r=-90.0000

(East is Top).  My question: is the current flow that is causing this pattern north to south or south to north? (left to right or right to left).  Or is it wind?

Thanks
« Last Edit: March 10, 2017, 04:05:47 PM by lambertland »

jdallen

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 3410
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 650
  • Likes Given: 244
Re: "Smart" and "Stupid" Questions - Feel Free To Ask
« Reply #890 on: March 10, 2017, 05:41:53 PM »
[Mod: Your comment has been approved. Welcome to the Arctic Sea ice Forum!]

Hi;

There is a swirl pattern in the sea ice to the east of Zachariae Isstrøm / Nioghalvfjerdsfjorden / North East Greenland on 2016 October 5 shown below:

https://worldview.earthdata.nasa.gov/?p=arctic&l=VIIRS_SNPP_CorrectedReflectance_TrueColor(hidden),MODIS_Aqua_CorrectedReflectance_TrueColor(hidden),MODIS_Terra_CorrectedReflectance_TrueColor,Reference_Labels(hidden),Reference_Features(hidden),Coastlines&t=2016-10-05&z=3&v=234630.99825409323,-1975932.9367040219,1105030.9982540933,-255612.93670402185&r=-90.0000

(East is Top).  My question: is the current flow that is causing this pattern north to south or south to north? (left to right or right to left).  Or is it wind?

Thanks
Welcome lambertland;

Most likely wind is the primary driver, but current pulls the ice down along the Greenland coast.

You see feathering of the ice like that frequently in melt zones, as the pack breaks up and broken pieces become more vulnerable to getting pushed around by changes in surface movement and wind.
This space for Rent.

Darvince

  • Frazil ice
  • Posts: 318
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 31
  • Likes Given: 7
Re: "Smart" and "Stupid" Questions - Feel Free To Ask
« Reply #891 on: March 11, 2017, 09:51:20 AM »
Those small swirls are from the general chaoticness of ocean currents. If wind was the driver, then it would fan out in lines like you can see in the Bering Sea more recently here:

http://go.nasa.gov/2muI1CC

zizek

  • Guest
Re: "Smart" and "Stupid" Questions - Feel Free To Ask
« Reply #892 on: March 11, 2017, 03:58:28 PM »
Does anybody have the NOAA Arctic report card downloaded and could upload it somewhere? The site appears to be down :(

Pmt111500

  • Guest
Re: "Smart" and "Stupid" Questions - Feel Free To Ask
« Reply #893 on: March 11, 2017, 08:16:05 PM »
Does anybody have the NOAA Arctic report card downloaded and could upload it somewhere? The site appears to be down :(
Might have it on computer, but not going to dig it up right away... Meanwhile ifls has made sort of a summary... Could be Pruitts (equally crazy) minions have been busy demolishing it from the government site proving once again they do not believe in science. Totally incompetent lot, they are.
Link to ifls summary on report card 2016:
http://www.iflscience.com/environment/2016s-arctic-report-card-temperatures-went-crazy/
« Last Edit: March 11, 2017, 09:05:15 PM by Pmt111500 »

Andre

  • New ice
  • Posts: 59
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 3
Re: "Smart" and "Stupid" Questions - Feel Free To Ask
« Reply #894 on: March 12, 2017, 05:16:19 AM »
Does anybody have the NOAA Arctic report card downloaded and could upload it somewhere? The site appears to be down :(

Site is back up. See file attached to post.

Pmt111500

  • Guest
Re: "Smart" and "Stupid" Questions - Feel Free To Ask
« Reply #895 on: March 12, 2017, 06:16:23 AM »
Does anybody have the NOAA Arctic report card downloaded and could upload it somewhere? The site appears to be down :(

Site is back up. See file attached to post.

Sorry, I don't have the report card. It's possible I've renamed it to something else.

Andre

  • New ice
  • Posts: 59
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 3
Re: "Smart" and "Stupid" Questions - Feel Free To Ask
« Reply #896 on: March 12, 2017, 07:08:20 AM »
Does anybody have the NOAA Arctic report card downloaded and could upload it somewhere? The site appears to be down :(

Site is back up. See file attached to post.

Sorry, I don't have the report card. It's possible I've renamed it to something else.

I don't think you meant to quote my post, since I actually uploaded the report card as a PDF along with my post.  ;)

johnm33

  • Guest
Re: "Smart" and "Stupid" Questions - Feel Free To Ask
« Reply #897 on: March 12, 2017, 11:26:28 PM »
Just supposing the ice was so smashed as to be practically liquid, and that every tide that flowed in from the north atlantic displaced ice or water from the upper layer of the arctic,[through CAA Nares, + Fram] how long would it take to flush the ice/top 2m.?

magnamentis

  • Guest
Re: "Smart" and "Stupid" Questions - Feel Free To Ask
« Reply #898 on: March 13, 2017, 05:36:48 PM »
Just supposing the ice was so smashed as to be practically liquid, and that every tide that flowed in from the north atlantic displaced ice or water from the upper layer of the arctic,[through CAA Nares, + Fram] how long would it take to flush the ice/top 2m.?

i think no-one can tell because it depends on too many unpredictable variables but then, i'm totally sure, that we shall be able to witness this happening and not so far out and we shall know.

it's not an english saying but it goes about like: it's happening while we're asking when it will happen :-) bad translation perhaps but should be comprehensible at least :-)

Darvince

  • Frazil ice
  • Posts: 318
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 31
  • Likes Given: 7
Re: "Smart" and "Stupid" Questions - Feel Free To Ask
« Reply #899 on: March 13, 2017, 08:36:03 PM »
The simple answer is that the question is bad, because the halocline can only disappear when there is no ice, or a current appears where previously one didn't exist. Extreme storms may mix the upper 60 meters or so, but the salt increase of new forming ice will happen until no new ice forms, and the salt dilution of melting ice will happen until there is no ice to melt all year round, i.e. winter ice free Arctic Ocean as well.

Now, unless a massive current appears which flushes across the Arctic Ocean via input from the Atlantic Ocean, and I don't have any numbers on sverdrups or how many sverdrups go through all the ocean's currents each year, but to me that would seem to me quite impossible and so there will be winter sea ice for a long time.

Here are several maps depicting how deep the mixed layer (that is, the surface layer with identical characteristics throughout its entire depth) is throughout the year:
http://s1.postimg.org/f1qylntkv/Mixed_Layer_Depth.gif

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c7/Mixed_layer_depth.png

In the second one, the months are January and July. You can see that melting ice, most visible in the Antarctic, as well as summer heating, decreases the depth of the mixed layer.

Now, there is also the fact that we have sea ice, however thin, formed in the region between FJL and Svalbard, which according to HYCOM is over 34ppt saltiness. The main thing to note about the link is that the salinity rises in winter as brine leaks out of FYI forming and falls in summer as the FYI melts back into the Ocean. This will continue even after the first ice-free Arctic Ocean happens, as ice does not need ice to grow back on the scale of weather. This can be seen in the Baltic Sea, many northern rivers and lakes, and the Sea of Okhotsk.

https://www7320.nrlssc.navy.mil/hycomARC/navo/arcticsss_nowcast_anim365d.gif