When is CO2 long range IR wavelengths maxed out in the atmosphere

[serendipity]

At what concentration point does atmospheric carbon dioxide 'max out' in terms of trapping thermal energy? Is there a point where a raise in levels would make no real difference?

Log into Facebook

Log into Facebook to start sharing and connecting with your friends, family, and people you know.

www.facebook.com

 

[serendipity]

View: https://youtu.be/kc-u6wbz9Dc?si=lF_5-L0-svxIr1Lv

 

[serendipity]

Carbon dioxide (CO2) absorbs and re-emits infrared (IR) radiation, which is a key factor in the greenhouse effect and climate change. This absorption occurs because the vibrational modes of the CO2 molecule can be excited by the energy of infrared photons, causing the molecule to vibrate and re-emit the energy, some of which returns to Earth's surface as heat.

Here's a more detailed explanation:

Infrared Absorption:
CO2 molecules, unlike the major atmospheric gases like nitrogen and oxygen, have a molecular structure that allows them to absorb infrared radiation. Specifically, the bonds within the CO2 molecule can vibrate in ways that match the energy of infrared photons, leading to absorption.

Re-emission:
When a CO2 molecule absorbs infrared radiation, it becomes energized and starts to vibrate more intensely. This energized state is unstable, and the molecule will eventually release the absorbed energy by emitting infrared radiation in random directions.

Greenhouse Effect:
Because CO2 molecules re-emit the absorbed infrared radiation in all directions, some of it is directed back towards the Earth's surface, contributing to the warming of the planet. This process is a major component of the greenhouse effect, which helps maintain a habitable temperature on Earth.
Wavelength Specificity:
CO2 doesn't absorb all infrared wavelengths equally. It has specific absorption bands where it is most effective at absorbing infrared radiation. For instance, it strongly absorbs radiation around 15 micrometers.

Impact on Climate:
Because CO2 is a relatively long-lived greenhouse gas, its increasing concentration in the atmosphere due to human activities is a significant factor in the observed warming trend. While other factors also play a role, the increased absorption and re-emission of infrared radiation by CO2 is a crucial part of understanding climate change.

 

[serendipity]

42K views · 1.1K reactions | 🌍 More CO₂ = more warming? Not anymore! The atmosphere’s warming effect from CO₂ is maxed out — adding more doesn’t change the game. Linnea breaks it down with a window tape analogy you’ll never forget 👇 #ClimateCheck #C

🌍 More CO₂ = more warming? Not anymore! The atmosphere’s warming effect from CO₂ is maxed out — adding more doesn’t change the game. Linnea breaks it down with a window tape analogy you’ll never...

www.facebook.com

 

[gfm7175]

At what concentration point does atmospheric carbon dioxide 'max out' in terms of trapping thermal energy? Is there a point where a raise in levels would make no real difference?

Log into Facebook

Log into Facebook to start sharing and connecting with your friends, family, and people you know.

www.facebook.com

There is no concentration point; CO2 does not trap thermal energy. It is not possible to trap thermal energy. (There is no such thing as a perfect insulator).

 

[gfm7175]

Carbon dioxide (CO2) absorbs and re-emits infrared (IR) radiation, which is a key factor in the greenhouse effect and climate change. This absorption occurs because the vibrational modes of the CO2 molecule can be excited by the energy of infrared photons, causing the molecule to vibrate and re-emit the energy, some of which returns to Earth's surface as heat.

ChatGPT, Grok, et al. are wrong. There is no such thing as "re-emits infrared (IR) radiation". Photons, upon absorption, are completely and utterly DESTROYED. There is no such thing as "greenhouse effect"; the described mechanism for it violates physics.

IOW, the entirely of "climate change" "science" (a physics-denying religion) is complete and utter BULLSHIT that's being peddled to the gullible masses in order to siphon more money and power from the plebs (and to the elites who gain from it).

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

Carbon dioxide (CO2) absorbs and re-emits infrared (IR) radiation, which is a key factor in the greenhouse effect and climate change. This absorption occurs because the vibrational modes of the CO2 molecule can be excited by the energy of infrared photons, causing the molecule to vibrate and re-emit the energy, some of which returns to Earth's surface as heat.

Here's a more detailed explanation:

Infrared Absorption:
CO2 molecules, unlike the major atmospheric gases like nitrogen and oxygen, have a molecular structure that allows them to absorb infrared radiation. Specifically, the bonds within the CO2 molecule can vibrate in ways that match the energy of infrared photons, leading to absorption.

Re-emission:
When a CO2 molecule absorbs infrared radiation, it becomes energized and starts to vibrate more intensely. This energized state is unstable, and the molecule will eventually release the absorbed energy by emitting infrared radiation in random directions.

Greenhouse Effect:
Because CO2 molecules re-emit the absorbed infrared radiation in all directions, some of it is directed back towards the Earth's surface, contributing to the warming of the planet. This process is a major component of the greenhouse effect, which helps maintain a habitable temperature on Earth.
Wavelength Specificity:
CO2 doesn't absorb all infrared wavelengths equally. It has specific absorption bands where it is most effective at absorbing infrared radiation. For instance, it strongly absorbs radiation around 15 micrometers.

Impact on Climate:
Because CO2 is a relatively long-lived greenhouse gas, its increasing concentration in the atmosphere due to human activities is a significant factor in the observed warming trend. While other factors also play a role, the increased absorption and re-emission of infrared radiation by CO2 is a crucial part of understanding climate change.

There is one thing missing in the explanation. When a molecule vibrates more intensely it registers as an increase in temperature. The capture of energy in the atmosphere heats up the atmosphere. This increase in atmospheric temperature is part of the earth's warming.

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

ChatGPT, Grok, et al. are wrong. There is no such thing as "re-emits infrared (IR) radiation". Photons, upon absorption, are completely and utterly DESTROYED. There is no such thing as "greenhouse effect"; the described mechanism for it violates physics.

IOW, the entirely of "climate change" "science" (a physics-denying religion) is complete and utter BULLSHIT that's being peddled to the gullible masses in order to siphon more money and power from the plebs (and to the elites who gain from it).

ROFLMAO.
You are always good for a laugh. I love your claim that molecules can't emit infrared radiation. It's funny because there is this big thing in the sky every day that emits radiation from molecules.

 

[Trumpet]

View: https://youtu.be/kc-u6wbz9Dc?si=lF_5-L0-svxIr1Lv

OMG, more pseudo science.

 

[Trumpet]

There is no concentration point; CO2 does not trap thermal energy. It is not possible to trap thermal energy. (There is no such thing as a perfect insulator).

What is your expertise that qualifies you to say this?????????

 

[gfm7175]

ROFLMAO.
You are always good for a laugh. I love your claim that molecules can't emit infrared radiation. It's funny because there is this big thing in the sky every day that emits radiation from molecules.

RMFLMAO.
You are always good for a laugh. I love your claim that the words emit and re-emit are identical to each other. It's funny because there is a blatantly obvious prefix in front of the word emit that changes the definition of the word.

 

[gfm7175]

What is your expertise that qualifies you to say this?????????

Basic physics.

 

[Trumpet]

Basic physics.

You are a riot.

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

RMFLMAO.
You are always good for a laugh. I love your claim that the words emit and re-emit are identical to each other. It's funny because there is a blatantly obvious prefix in front of the word emit that changes the definition of the word.

It absorbs a photon and then later emits a photon. That you wanted to argue that it doesn't re-emit a photon shows you are relying on semantics instead of physics.

 

[archives]

At what concentration point does atmospheric carbon dioxide 'max out' in terms of trapping thermal energy? Is there a point where a raise in levels would make no real difference?

Log into Facebook

Log into Facebook to start sharing and connecting with your friends, family, and people you know.

www.facebook.com

You do know what the Heartland Institute is correct? And who funds them?

And it is always humorous how the Flat Earthers upend some obscure individual, I’ve seen everything from weatherman to contrarians, and yes, Linnea Lueken is obscure, and then echo their “findings” as game changers in the Climate change debate. It is all a weak attempt to establish a false paradigm, as if the other overwhelming majority of scientists are lying and conspiratorially hiding data

And no, I don’t want to waste my time debating particulars I’d have to research to argue, I’ll just go with NASA, if they can do what they do and have done over the last sixty years I’ll go with their opinion over “Linnea Lueken’s”

Climate Change - NASA Science

NASA is a global leader in studying Earth’s changing climate.

science.nasa.gov

Evidence - NASA Science

Earth's climate has changed throughout history. Just in the last 800,000 years, there have been eight cycles of ice ages and warmer periods, with the end of

science.nasa.gov

Effects - NASA Science

Global climate change is not a future problem. Changes to Earth’s climate driven by increased human emissions of heat-trapping greenhouse gases are already

science.nasa.gov

Causes - NASA Science

Scientists attribute the global warming trend observed since the mid-20th century to the human expansion of the "greenhouse effect"1 — warming that results

science.nasa.gov

Scientific Consensus - NASA Science

It’s important to remember that scientists always focus on the evidence, not on opinions. Scientific evidence continues to show that human activities

science.nasa.gov

Extreme Weather - NASA Science

As Earth’s climate changes, it is impacting extreme weather across the planet. Record-breaking heat waves on land and in the ocean, drenching rains, severe

science.nasa.gov

Carbon Dioxide Concentration | NASA Global Climate Change

Vital Signs of the Planet: Global Climate Change and Global Warming. Current news and data streams about global warming and climate change from NASA.

climate.nasa.gov

 

[gfm7175]

It absorbs a photon

Yes.

and then later emits a [different] photon.

FTFY. --- Precisely.

That you wanted to argue that it doesn't re-emit a photon

Precisely. See above. There was no "re-emit" involved. One photon was absorbed (and destroyed) and then another entirely new photon was emitted.

shows you are relying on semantics instead of physics.

No, it shows that you don't understand the English language (in addition to your lack of physics knowledge).

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

Yes.

FTFY. --- Precisely.

Precisely. See above. There was no "re-emit" involved. One photon was absorbed (and destroyed) and then another entirely new photon was emitted.

No, it shows that you don't understand the English language (in addition to your lack of physics knowledge).

How do you know it isn't the same photon? The "new photon" could simply be the old photon recreated. In fact there is no way to tell if the photons are the same because physics doesn't allow you to compare them.

 

[gfm7175]

How do you know it isn't the same photon?

Because B ≠ A.

The "new photon" could simply be the old photon recreated.

A recreated photon is NOT the original photon, even if it were indistinguishably similar to the original photon. Replicas are NOT originals, Richard...

In fact there is no way to tell if the photons are the same because physics doesn't allow you to compare them.

Hmmmm, let's see what Google's AI overview has to say about this....

"Yes, photons are generally considered to be destroyed upon absorption. When a photon is absorbed, its energy is transferred to the absorbing particle (like an electron), and the photon ceases to exist as a distinct entity. The energy of the photon is then used to excite the particle, change its energy level, or cause some other interaction."

Hmmmmm, "destroyed upon absorption"...... interesting.... that sounds exactly like what I just got done claiming happens to photons upon absorption......

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

Because B ≠ A.

Denial of physics. You have not tested the photons to see if they are the same. Shroedinger.

A recreated photon is NOT the original photon, even if it were indistinguishably similar to the original photon. Replicas are NOT originals, Richard...

Recreated? I see you are now saying it isn't created but only recreated?

Hmmmm, let's see what Google's AI overview has to say about this....

"Yes, photons are generally considered to be destroyed upon absorption. When a photon is absorbed, its energy is transferred to the absorbing particle (like an electron), and the photon ceases to exist as a distinct entity. The energy of the photon is then used to excite the particle, change its energy level, or cause some other interaction."

Hmmmmm, "destroyed upon absorption"...... interesting.... that sounds exactly like what I just got done claiming happens to photons upon absorption......

Google's AI is not a valid source for answers on physics since it is nothing more than a LLM.

 

[gfm7175]

Denial of physics. You have not tested the photons to see if they are the same. Shroedinger.

Denial of logic. It's impossible to test a photon that has already been destroyed.

Recreated? I see you are now saying it isn't created but only recreated?

YOU are the one who introduced that word and made that claim, Richard... Try to keep up.

Google's AI is not a valid source for answers on physics since it is nothing more than a LLM.

Never said that it was, Richard. I just figured that I'd purposely use a leftist-approved source to avoid having a leftist complain about the source. I see that it, once again, didn't work. @Damocles is quite familiar with this phenomena.