Quote:
Originally Posted by spot1234
Since you seem to be an expert on this, perhaps you can clarify something for me.
After the light has been absorbed by the gas; what happens to the energy if it doesn't warm it up?
|
spot1234
You know, your motto really says it all about your attitude to this discussion. ‘Evidence, we don’t need no stinking evidence.’
One of the many differences between you and me is that I am on here to discuss and, hopefully, learn. I have no doubt I am learning qute a bit by researching answers to the questions posed here. Unfortunately, you and a few others do not seem capable of answering many of the questions posed to you.
If you care to read what I have written on this thread, you will see that I -
A, never claimed to be an expert – but I am entitled to my opinion and to ask questions.
B, have always stated that I agree CO2 is a forcing agent and a so-called ‘greenhouse gas’.
My problem with the stance taken by you and other AGW alarmists is this:
You seem incapable of rationalizing the actual facts with the predicted targets of your precious models.
You claim to adhere to scientific principles yet ignore or at least deflect any factor or comment which might be (scientifically) against your argument.
To try my pathetic best to answer your question –
You used the term ‘light’ when you asked me the question. Did you really mean ‘light’ or longer-wave infra-red radiation? The sun does not greatly heat the atmosphere, because the sun must give off high frequency radiation in the area of visible light, which goes through the atmosphere. Something as hot as the sun cannot give off low frequency radiation, called infrared. This means that the sun's radiation heats the surface of the earth, and then the heat moves from the earth's surface into the atmosphere through conduction, convection, evaporation and infrared radiation. The infrared radiation can be absorbed by so-called greenhouse gasses.
Carbon dioxide absorbs infrared radiation (IR) in three narrow bands of frequencies, which are 2.7, 4.3 and 15 micrometres (µM). I would think this means that most of the heat-producing radiation escapes it.
I assume that the infra-red energy is either converted into increased molecular movement or re-radiated. This would suggest that there is potential to heat the immediate surroundings. However, in terms of scale, how much heat is actually gained in the atmosphere by CO2? What happens to the absorption quality of CO2 in the test area when the amount of CO2 is increased? Does the predicted warming of the immediate area (low level) mean there is a corresponding – or relative – cooling in other (higher level) parts? Most importantly – where is the hard evidence that increased CO2 has led to a warming of the environment as a whole? Has there actually been a drastic rise in global temperature? Has there been a drastic rise in global sea level? Why do the AGW brigade constantly sidestep these questions?
I have no doubt that your scientific knowledge is greater than mine, so why don’t you use it to prove me wrong by showing me the answers to the questions above?
Unlike you, I actually would prefer some evidence, stinking or otherwise…