Posted by: graemebird | December 9, 2009

A Better World Is Still The Greatest Innovator In The Field Of Climate Science / Greenhouse Gas Versus WARMING GAS: Towards A Truer Paradigm.

From Dr Marohasy’s Blog:

What you would need for a powerful warming-gas (note I don’t say “greenhouse gas” since this is a bollocks concept) is a gas that

1. absorbs a broad stretch of the VERY LOWER BAND of infra-red coming up from the ground.

2. Does not, unlike CO2, absorb those higher, infra-red regions that will disproportionately be coming in from the sun.

3. That is, like CO2, heavier than air. The heavier, the more effective.

Think about a short-stop in baseball. But the short-stop we want is a heavy fellow. He catches the ball and maybe he’s lifted right out past the diamond because he’s rolling with the catch. We want him then to head straight back to home base banging into all the other fielders on the way and giving them energy. Still catching more balls as he does so.

CO2 doesn’t fit the bill at our air pressure level. We know that because CO2 mixes well up to 100 kilometres. Which means its two upper absorption regions are keeping the CO2 this well mixed. Probably at night CO2 helps a bit. During the day its likely cooling us down at our air pressure. That may sound strange to you but thats because you are getting about with a dud paradigm.

We want a warming gas to be heavy so that it captures the radiation, and perhaps is driven up, but is still warmer than the molecules around it (and still catching more radiation) as it is coming down to where we are. So that a typical molecule will be adding warmth to the other molecules while its sinking. But at our air pressure CO2 appears to be unsuited to the task. Or it would not mix in such an effective way right up to 100 kilometres above the earth.

Now take Ozone. Even heavier than CO2. Supposing we could keep its powerfully effective low-frequency long-wave-length absorption spectrum. But suppose we could strip Ozone of its ability to absorb UV.

Now we would have a powerfully effective warming agent I would suggest. It would catch the radiation on the way up in the night-time, but its heavy so it would still be catching the radiation while sinking, and sinking next to molecules cooler than it. Therefore warming those molecules.

But Ozone is no good warmer-gas unless perhaps you live on the snow-caps of the highest mountains. Since Ozone, or at least the average Ozone molecule, never gets to fall where we are. If it sunk into the troposphere in the night-time it would catch that heat from the ground and wind up back to its natural home, and as soon as the dawn breaks its got this two-way absorption sending it typically to the upper stratosphere as heavy as what it is.

Its the differential absorption ability that keeps the homosphere (not Oxford street) so well mixed.

Lets stop talking about “greenhouse gasses” because thats all nonsense. We’ve got to go with the better paradigm.

But just a note as to how things might change if we had the same composition of air but a much higher air pressure. Then extra CO2 might really warm things in a serious way. Because the short-stop keeps catching the balls but he’s not pushed back very far. Or should I say “up very high”. The homosphere is perhaps more compressed. Compression is the key here and for any number of reasons.

I hope this will help the scales fall from some of your eyes.

A note on water vapour. It can hardly be considered in the same way as what I’m talking about above. Because it goes through a phase-change. This bring a whole new list of complications. But it is a warming gas at night-time in just the way I’ve described. Because it will sink, be manifesting its latent energy as the dew comes, and that latent energy will be warming those air molecules around the microscopic liquid water that is descending. It will be a warmer at night for the fact that it falls while it is yet warmer than those molecules around it.

Advertisements

Responses

  1. “And guess what?! Graeme M Bird has met th unattractive jc and tells one and all he is… short, fat, and ugly, i.e. the purest case of projection in the history of psychoanalytic theory. LOL!”

    Philomena is having people on here or getting mixed up. Cambria has let us down in the last couple of years. But he’s a fairly smooth-looking character. He’s about 52. Maybe about 5 foot 11. If not a little taller. In reasonable shape. Comes across as a sort of mummified Joe-90.

    I think she could be talking about Birdlab when I thought Birdlab was Don Haroldo. And I think she may have got mixed up because she thinks Birdlab is an alter ego of Cambria.

  2. Birdie:

    Stop spreading stories about me being fat (ugly is okay). That shit is really below the belt, bird.

    It’s okay for you to be saying this about us mere mortals, Horatio.

    Knock it off.

  3. I told you what happened Cambria. Philomena must have got confused between my description of you and my description of Birdlab, when I thought Birdlab was Don Haroldo. I cleared this matter up as soon as I saw what she said.

    She didn’t get this idea from anything I’ve said to her off-air. She got it from conflating you and Birdlab. Which is easy to do on account of its hard to imagine two different people being that idiotic.

    Don’t you be lying about me Cambria. Even if its you lying about me lying about you.

  4. Ha Ha. But notice how put out you got at the (wrong) notion that I described you inaccurately to the most awesome Philomena. Ha ha. Really hurt your male pride just the thought of it.

    But the fact is she had you conflated with Birdlab. And why not? Thats how far your posting performance has fallen in the last couple of years.

  5. “Phil, because you believe “few things are more inspiring” than mass murder, would you say Bird is more or less inspiring than Nidal “Noddy” Hasan? And if Bird isn’t as inspiring as Noddy, would it help if he shot some people? Help him out. What will it take for him to get to the duct tape at second base?”

    Ha Ha. Even CL wants to know.

  6. Bird:
    You once thought birdlab was Johnz and now you think he’s someone else.

    COULD BE JOHNZ. DO YOU HAPPEN TO KNOW BIRDLAB IS NOT JOHNZ? STUPID PEOPLE TEND TO SOUND THE SAME. GENIUS IS MORE IDIOSYNCRATIC.

  7. I’m guessing Birdlab is Nabakov

    YES THATS A POSSIBILITY. NABAKOV WAS ALSO A LONELY MAN. A VERY LONELY MAN. A LONELY LONELY MAN. AND, IF I MAY BE SO BOLD, A VERY STUPID MAN.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Categories

%d bloggers like this: