Politics Climate Change Paradox (cont in part 2)

[Snake_Baker]

Hmmmmm, this CO2 thing isn't traveling that well.

~14,000 years ago.
CO2 levels 250ppm
Sea levels 32 metres higher.

 

[Fadge]

First post in 6 weeks.

This thread, like the Climate Change movement, is done.

 

[Snake_Baker]

First post in 6 weeks.

This thread, like the Climate Change movement, is done.

Let's not lose sight of the issue that the environment in important, but this CO2 thing is dying on the vine.

It's historical significance belongs to group behavioral psychology. So many people were emphatic about things they did not fundamentally understand, simply because it formed a part of their socio-political identity. You can see how political tyrants have historically come to power so often. The mob is still the most dangerous element of the human condition.

 

[JackOutback]

Snakey sticks his head above the parapet the same day it was announced last month was the hottest September on record, beating the previous record all the way back in 2019. Always the king of the self-own.

 

[Total Power]

Hmmmmm, this CO2 thing isn't traveling that well.

~14,000 years ago.
CO2 levels 250ppm
Sea levels 32 metres higher.



View attachment 980554

You changed colors from yellow to pink? why?

Also do you realise you owned yourself AGAIN? lol i bet you dont.

 

[Deliverance]

First post in 6 weeks.

This thread, like the Climate Change movement, is done.

Only from troglodytes like Trump and Morrison. EU dedicated 550 billion to a green recovery. Whereas our "budget" will need revamping in 6 months time.

 

[Ghost Patrol]

Hmmmmm, this CO2 thing isn't traveling that well.

~14,000 years ago.
CO2 levels 250ppm
Sea levels 32 metres higher.



View attachment 980554

F*cking RSL data.

Whats next, the CWA?

 

[Total Power]

Only from troglodytes like Trump and Morrison. EU dedicated 550 billion to a green recovery. Whereas our "budget" will need revamping in 6 months time.

Because a climate thread on an aussie rules website is representative of actual global events lol.


Some people......

 

[Fadge]

And what a great example of behavioural psychology we've seen.

Six weeks of nothing, and all of a sudden with the most subtle of prompts, we have five of our favourite posters jump out from under their rocks to provide reassurance to one another and more importantly to themselves.

They will now sleep peacefully tonight.

 

[Deliverance]

Admittedly, I have been missing the chance to give big smackdowns in here. Its too easy as always.

 

[The Passenger]

And what a great example of behavioural psychology we've seen.

Six weeks of nothing, and all of a sudden with the most subtle of prompts, we have five of our favourite posters jump out from under their rocks to provide reassurance to one another and more importantly to themselves.

 

[Kram]

This feels like the coldest start to an October in ages.

 

[Snake_Baker]

And what a great example of behavioural psychology we've seen.

Six weeks of nothing, and all of a sudden with the most subtle of prompts, we have five of our favourite posters jump out from under their rocks to provide reassurance to one another and more importantly to themselves.

They will now sleep peacefully tonight.

None of them comprehends the basic molecular physics which underlies the premise.

All they have to go on is implied legitimacy, backed up by zero.

 

[Total Power]

None of them comprehends the basic molecular physics which underlies the premise.

All they have to go on is implied legitimacy, backed up by zero.

Because what you posted was after the 'peak' ice age (some 20,000 years ago) where sea level was 120m lower than what it was today. Are we coming off an ice age now? This is why RSL is not a very good indicator for the point you are trying to make. Temperature changed some 10C per decade, so impact was of course a lot more severe.

The impact NOW will also be totally different due to populated coastal areas compared to thousands of years ago. Although sea-level rise is less than what happened 15,000 years ago, it's still accelerating at a rapid pace since the Industrial revoluton in the US some 110 odd years ago.

And even if you are correct (which you aren't) CO2 still was responsible for the temp. Rise.

Global warming preceded by increasing carbon dioxide concentrations during the last deglaciation - Nature

A reconstruction of global surface temperature is used to show that deglacial temperature is correlated with and generally lags carbon dioxide concentration, a result that contributes to the explanation of the temperature change that occurred at the end of the most recent ice age.

www.nature.com

What Thawed the Last Ice Age?

The relatively pleasant global climate of the past 10,000 years is largely thanks to higher levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide

www.scientificamerican.com

You are either a troll or not very good at science. If you are going to analyze data, do it objectively , not select what suits like the usual fake news you post. Make sure you pick and choose your science too and oh bring the yellow marker back on, it's not national breast cancer awareness day.

 

[Total Power]

View attachment 980708

View attachment 980709

View attachment 980711

No need to reply to Fudey, he provides all the lulz everytime he posts. Every.Damn.Time.

 

[Fadge]

... and oh bring the yellow marker back on, it's not national breast cancer awareness day.

And now he resorts to making light of breast cancer.

Total Fraud has hit a new low.

 

[Fadge]

This feels like the coldest start to an October in ages.

You've got to remember that weather =/= climate (except when it supports the agenda of the alarmist).

 

[Snake_Baker]

You've got to remember that weather =/= climate (except when it supports the agenda of the alarmist).

Total Emissivity of the Earth and Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide: A Note from Nasif S. Nahle

March 25, 2011 By Nasif S. Nahle

Introduction

Central to the theory of Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) is the assumption that the Earth and every one of its subsystems behaviors as if they were blackbodies, that is their “emissivity” potential is calculated as 1.0. [1]

But this is an erroneous assumption because the Earth and its subsystems are not blackbodies, but gray-bodies. The Earth and all of its subsystems are gray-bodies because they do not absorb the whole load of radiant energy that they receive from the Sun and they do not emit the whole load of radiant energy that they absorb. [8] [9] [10]

Furthermore the role of carbon dioxide is misunderstood. According to AGW hypothesis, carbon dioxide is the second most significant driver of the Earth’s temperature, behind the water vapor, which is considered the most important driver of the Earth’s climate. [2] Other authors of AGW discharge absolutely the role of water vapor and focus their arguments on the carbon dioxide. [3]

What is the total emissivity of carbon dioxide? I will consider this question with reference to the science of radiative heat transfer.

Total Emissivity of the Carbon Dioxide – The Partial Pressures Method

In 1954, Hoyt C. Hottel undertook an experiment for determining the total emissivity of the carbon dioxide and the water vapor [6]. He found that the total emissivity was linked to the temperature of the gas and its partial pressure. As the temperature increased above 277 K, the total emissivity of the carbon dioxide decreased, and as the partial pressure (p) of the carbon dioxide increased, its total emissivity also increased.

Hottel found also that the total emissivity of the carbon dioxide in a saturated state was very low (Ɛcd = 0.23 at 1.524 atm-m and Tcd = 1,116 °C). [6]As Hottel diminished the partial pressure of the carbon dioxide, its total emissivity also decreased in such form that, below a partial pressure of 0.006096 atm-m and a temperature of 33 °C, the total emissivity of the carbon dioxide was not quantifiable because it was almost zero. [6] [7] [8] After Hottel’s experiment, in 1972, Bo Leckner made the same experiment and corrected and error on the graphs plotted by Hottel. However, Leckner’s results placed the carbon dioxide in a lower stand than that found by Hottel. [6] [7]

The missing part, however, remained at the real partial pressure of the carbon dioxide in the Earth’s atmosphere and instantaneous temperatures. Contemporary authors, like Michael Modest, and Donald Pitts and Leighton Sissom made use of the following formula to know the total emissivity of the carbon dioxide considering the whole emissive spectrum, at any instantaneous tropospheric temperature and altitude [6] [7] [8]:

Ɛcd = [1 – (((a-1 * 1 –PE)/(a + b – (1 + PE)) * e (-c (Log10 ((paL)m / paL)^2))] * (Ɛcd)0 [8]

Introducing 7700 meters as the average altitude of the troposphere and the real partial pressure of the atmospheric carbon dioxide (0.00038 atm-m), the resulting total emissivity of the carbon dioxide is 0.0017 (0.002, rounding up the number).

Evidently, the carbon dioxide is not a blackbody, but a very inefficient emitter (a gray-body). For comparison, Acetylene has a total emissivity that is 485 times higher than the total emissivity of the carbon dioxide.

After getting this outstanding result, I proceeded to test my results by means of another methodology that is also based on experimental and observational data. The algorithm is outlined in the following section.

Total Emissivity of CO2 – Mean Free Path Length and Crossing Time Lapse of Quantum/Waves Method

The mean free path length is the distance traversed by quantum/waves through a given medium before it collides with a particle with gravitational mass. The crossing time lapse is the time spent by the quantum/waves on crossing a determined medium; in this case, the atmosphere is such medium.

As the carbon dioxide is an absorber of longwave IR, we will consider only the quantum/waves emitted by the surface towards the outer space.
The mean free path length of quantum/waves emitted by the surface, traversing the Earth’s troposphere, is l = 47 m, and the crossing time is t = 0.0042 s (4.2 milliseconds). [9] [10]

Considering l = 47 m to know the crossing time lapse of quantum/waves through the troposphere, I obtained the crossing time lapse t = 0.0042 s. By introducing t into the following equation, we obtain the real total emissivity of the atmospheric carbon dioxide:
Ɛcd = [1-(e (t * (- 1/s))] / √π [9] [10]

Ɛcd = [1-(e (0.0042 s * (1/s))] / √ 3.141592… = 0.0024

Therefore, the total emissivity of the atmospheric carbon dioxide obtained by considering the mean free path length and the crossing time lapse for the quantum/waves emitted from the surface coincides with the value obtained from the partial pressures method:

Ɛcd 1 = 0.0017 = 0.0017
Ɛcd 2 = 0.0024 = 0.0024

The difference is 0.0007, which is trivial in this kind of assessment.

Conclusions

In the introduction I asked: What is the total emissivity of carbon dioxide?

In this note I have calculated the real total emissivity of the atmospheric carbon dioxide at its current partial pressure and instantaneous temperature to be 0.002.

Clearly carbon dioxide is not a nearly blackbody system as suggested by the IPCC and does not have an emissivity of 1.0. Quite the opposite, given its total absorptivity, which is the same than its total emissivity, the carbon dioxide is a quite inefficient – on absorbing and emitting radiation – making it a gray-body.

Accepting that carbon dioxide is not a black body and that the potential of the carbon dioxide to absorb and emit radiant energy is negligible, I conclude that the AGW hypothesis is based on unreal magnitudes, unreal processes and unreal physics.

Acknowledgements

This blog post was inspired by Chapter 12 of the book ‘Slaying the Sky Dragon.

“This first catechism will be referred to in a later figure as the ‘Cold Earth Fallacy’, and it is based on the erroneous assumption that the earth’s surface and all the other entities involved in its radiative losses to free space all have unit emissivity. The second catechism has already been discussed: the contention that Venus’ high surface temperature is caused by the ‘greenhouse effect’ of its CO2 atmosphere.”


References


[1.] Hertzberg, Martin. Slaying the Sky Dragon-Death of the Greenhouse Gas Theory. 2011. Chapter 12. Page 163.

[2.] http://www.bom.gov.au/info/GreenhouseEffectAndClimateChange.pdf (Page 6).

[3.] http://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm

[4.] http://www.zypcoatings.com/ProductPages/BlackBody.htm

[5.] http://www.ib.cnea.gov.ar/~experim2/Cosas/omega/emisivity.htm

[6.] Hottel, H. C. Radiant Heat Transmission-3rd Edition. 1954. McGraw-Hill, NY.

[7.] Leckner, B. The Spectral and Total Emissivity of Water Vapor and Carbon Dioxide. Combustion and Flame. Volume 17; Issue 1; August 1971, Pages 37-44.

[8.] Modest, Michael F. Radiative Heat Transfer-Second Edition. 2003. Elsevier Science, USA and Academic Press, UK.

[9.] Lang, Kenneth. 2006. Astrophysical Formulae. Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg. Vol. 1. Sections 1.11 and 1.12.

[10.] Maoz, Dan. Astrophysics in a Nutshell. 2007. Princeton University Press. Pp. 36-41

[11.] Dr. Hertzberg is an internationally recognized expert on combustion, flames, explosions, and fire research with over 100 publications in those areas. He established and supervised the explosion testing laboratory at the U. S. Bureau of Mines facility in Pittsburgh (now NIOSH). Test equipment developed in that laboratory have been widely replicated and incorporated into ASTM standards. Published test results from that laboratory are used for the hazard evaluation of industrial dusts and gases. While with the Federal Government he served as a consultant for several Government Agencies (MSHA, DOE, NAS) and professional groups (such as EPRI). He is the author of two US patents: 1) Submicron Particulate Detectors, and 2) Multichannel Infrared Pyrometers. http://www.explosionexpert.com/pages/1/index.htm

 

[Snake_Baker]

I'm looking forward to seeing some mathematics rebuking this.

Of course, all I will get is the usual ad hom drivel, some baseless, implied faux intellectualism, and probably a few Trumps etc, tossed in for good measure from the resident cabbages.

 

[Snake_Baker]

F*cking RSL data.

Whats next, the CWA?

Indeed, who cares for rising sea levels?

Not me.

 

[Total Power]

Total Emissivity of the Earth and Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide: A Note from Nasif S. Nahle

March 25, 2011 By Nasif S. Nahle

Introduction

Central to the theory of Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) is the assumption that the Earth and every one of its subsystems behaviors as if they were blackbodies, that is their “emissivity” potential is calculated as 1.0. [1]

But this is an erroneous assumption because the Earth and its subsystems are not blackbodies, but gray-bodies. The Earth and all of its subsystems are gray-bodies because they do not absorb the whole load of radiant energy that they receive from the Sun and they do not emit the whole load of radiant energy that they absorb. [8] [9] [10]

Furthermore the role of carbon dioxide is misunderstood. According to AGW hypothesis, carbon dioxide is the second most significant driver of the Earth’s temperature, behind the water vapor, which is considered the most important driver of the Earth’s climate. [2] Other authors of AGW discharge absolutely the role of water vapor and focus their arguments on the carbon dioxide. [3]

What is the total emissivity of carbon dioxide? I will consider this question with reference to the science of radiative heat transfer.

Total Emissivity of the Carbon Dioxide – The Partial Pressures Method

In 1954, Hoyt C. Hottel undertook an experiment for determining the total emissivity of the carbon dioxide and the water vapor [6]. He found that the total emissivity was linked to the temperature of the gas and its partial pressure. As the temperature increased above 277 K, the total emissivity of the carbon dioxide decreased, and as the partial pressure (p) of the carbon dioxide increased, its total emissivity also increased.

Hottel found also that the total emissivity of the carbon dioxide in a saturated state was very low (Ɛcd = 0.23 at 1.524 atm-m and Tcd = 1,116 °C). [6]As Hottel diminished the partial pressure of the carbon dioxide, its total emissivity also decreased in such form that, below a partial pressure of 0.006096 atm-m and a temperature of 33 °C, the total emissivity of the carbon dioxide was not quantifiable because it was almost zero. [6] [7] [8] After Hottel’s experiment, in 1972, Bo Leckner made the same experiment and corrected and error on the graphs plotted by Hottel. However, Leckner’s results placed the carbon dioxide in a lower stand than that found by Hottel. [6] [7]

The missing part, however, remained at the real partial pressure of the carbon dioxide in the Earth’s atmosphere and instantaneous temperatures. Contemporary authors, like Michael Modest, and Donald Pitts and Leighton Sissom made use of the following formula to know the total emissivity of the carbon dioxide considering the whole emissive spectrum, at any instantaneous tropospheric temperature and altitude [6] [7] [8]:

Ɛcd = [1 – (((a-1 * 1 –PE)/(a + b – (1 + PE)) * e (-c (Log10 ((paL)m / paL)^2))] * (Ɛcd)0 [8]

Introducing 7700 meters as the average altitude of the troposphere and the real partial pressure of the atmospheric carbon dioxide (0.00038 atm-m), the resulting total emissivity of the carbon dioxide is 0.0017 (0.002, rounding up the number).

Evidently, the carbon dioxide is not a blackbody, but a very inefficient emitter (a gray-body). For comparison, Acetylene has a total emissivity that is 485 times higher than the total emissivity of the carbon dioxide.

After getting this outstanding result, I proceeded to test my results by means of another methodology that is also based on experimental and observational data. The algorithm is outlined in the following section.

Total Emissivity of CO2 – Mean Free Path Length and Crossing Time Lapse of Quantum/Waves Method

The mean free path length is the distance traversed by quantum/waves through a given medium before it collides with a particle with gravitational mass. The crossing time lapse is the time spent by the quantum/waves on crossing a determined medium; in this case, the atmosphere is such medium.

As the carbon dioxide is an absorber of longwave IR, we will consider only the quantum/waves emitted by the surface towards the outer space.
The mean free path length of quantum/waves emitted by the surface, traversing the Earth’s troposphere, is l = 47 m, and the crossing time is t = 0.0042 s (4.2 milliseconds). [9] [10]

Considering l = 47 m to know the crossing time lapse of quantum/waves through the troposphere, I obtained the crossing time lapse t = 0.0042 s. By introducing t into the following equation, we obtain the real total emissivity of the atmospheric carbon dioxide:
Ɛcd = [1-(e (t * (- 1/s))] / √π [9] [10]

Ɛcd = [1-(e (0.0042 s * (1/s))] / √ 3.141592… = 0.0024

Therefore, the total emissivity of the atmospheric carbon dioxide obtained by considering the mean free path length and the crossing time lapse for the quantum/waves emitted from the surface coincides with the value obtained from the partial pressures method:

Ɛcd 1 = 0.0017 = 0.0017
Ɛcd 2 = 0.0024 = 0.0024

The difference is 0.0007, which is trivial in this kind of assessment.

Conclusions

In the introduction I asked: What is the total emissivity of carbon dioxide?

In this note I have calculated the real total emissivity of the atmospheric carbon dioxide at its current partial pressure and instantaneous temperature to be 0.002.

Clearly carbon dioxide is not a nearly blackbody system as suggested by the IPCC and does not have an emissivity of 1.0. Quite the opposite, given its total absorptivity, which is the same than its total emissivity, the carbon dioxide is a quite inefficient – on absorbing and emitting radiation – making it a gray-body.

Accepting that carbon dioxide is not a black body and that the potential of the carbon dioxide to absorb and emit radiant energy is negligible, I conclude that the AGW hypothesis is based on unreal magnitudes, unreal processes and unreal physics.

Acknowledgements

This blog post was inspired by Chapter 12 of the book ‘Slaying the Sky Dragon.

“This first catechism will be referred to in a later figure as the ‘Cold Earth Fallacy’, and it is based on the erroneous assumption that the earth’s surface and all the other entities involved in its radiative losses to free space all have unit emissivity. The second catechism has already been discussed: the contention that Venus’ high surface temperature is caused by the ‘greenhouse effect’ of its CO2 atmosphere.”


References


[1.] Hertzberg, Martin. Slaying the Sky Dragon-Death of the Greenhouse Gas Theory. 2011. Chapter 12. Page 163.

[2.] http://www.bom.gov.au/info/GreenhouseEffectAndClimateChange.pdf (Page 6).

[3.] http://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm

[4.] http://www.zypcoatings.com/ProductPages/BlackBody.htm

[5.] http://www.ib.cnea.gov.ar/~experim2/Cosas/omega/emisivity.htm

[6.] Hottel, H. C. Radiant Heat Transmission-3rd Edition. 1954. McGraw-Hill, NY.

[7.] Leckner, B. The Spectral and Total Emissivity of Water Vapor and Carbon Dioxide. Combustion and Flame. Volume 17; Issue 1; August 1971, Pages 37-44.

[8.] Modest, Michael F. Radiative Heat Transfer-Second Edition. 2003. Elsevier Science, USA and Academic Press, UK.

[9.] Lang, Kenneth. 2006. Astrophysical Formulae. Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg. Vol. 1. Sections 1.11 and 1.12.

[10.] Maoz, Dan. Astrophysics in a Nutshell. 2007. Princeton University Press. Pp. 36-41

[11.] Dr. Hertzberg is an internationally recognized expert on combustion, flames, explosions, and fire research with over 100 publications in those areas. He established and supervised the explosion testing laboratory at the U. S. Bureau of Mines facility in Pittsburgh (now NIOSH). Test equipment developed in that laboratory have been widely replicated and incorporated into ASTM standards. Published test results from that laboratory are used for the hazard evaluation of industrial dusts and gases. While with the Federal Government he served as a consultant for several Government Agencies (MSHA, DOE, NAS) and professional groups (such as EPRI). He is the author of two US patents: 1) Submicron Particulate Detectors, and 2) Multichannel Infrared Pyrometers. http://www.explosionexpert.com/pages/1/index.htm

Nasif Nahale, another Heartland pony, he has 'demonstrated' atmospheric CO2 is actually cooling the planet. How many 'scientists' do you think will agree with him? outside the usual ones i mean.

As usual, you are on fire.

 

[Total Power]

I'm looking forward to seeing some mathematics rebuking this.

Of course, all I will get is the usual ad hom drivel, some baseless, implied faux intellectualism, and probably a few Trumps etc, tossed in for good measure from the resident cabbages.

You are not looking forward to anything, outside your strawman arguments and patting yourself on the back claiming ' i am so intelligent' . Why do you think the sea level rose so fast after the ice age?

 

[Total Power]

Total Emissivity of the Earth and Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide: A Note from Nasif S. Nahle

March 25, 2011 By Nasif S. Nahle

Introduction

Central to the theory of Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) is the assumption that the Earth and every one of its subsystems behaviors as if they were blackbodies, that is their “emissivity” potential is calculated as 1.0. [1]

But this is an erroneous assumption because the Earth and its subsystems are not blackbodies, but gray-bodies. The Earth and all of its subsystems are gray-bodies because they do not absorb the whole load of radiant energy that they receive from the Sun and they do not emit the whole load of radiant energy that they absorb. [8] [9] [10]

Furthermore the role of carbon dioxide is misunderstood. According to AGW hypothesis, carbon dioxide is the second most significant driver of the Earth’s temperature, behind the water vapor, which is considered the most important driver of the Earth’s climate. [2] Other authors of AGW discharge absolutely the role of water vapor and focus their arguments on the carbon dioxide. [3]

What is the total emissivity of carbon dioxide? I will consider this question with reference to the science of radiative heat transfer.

Total Emissivity of the Carbon Dioxide – The Partial Pressures Method

In 1954, Hoyt C. Hottel undertook an experiment for determining the total emissivity of the carbon dioxide and the water vapor [6]. He found that the total emissivity was linked to the temperature of the gas and its partial pressure. As the temperature increased above 277 K, the total emissivity of the carbon dioxide decreased, and as the partial pressure (p) of the carbon dioxide increased, its total emissivity also increased.

Hottel found also that the total emissivity of the carbon dioxide in a saturated state was very low (Ɛcd = 0.23 at 1.524 atm-m and Tcd = 1,116 °C). [6]As Hottel diminished the partial pressure of the carbon dioxide, its total emissivity also decreased in such form that, below a partial pressure of 0.006096 atm-m and a temperature of 33 °C, the total emissivity of the carbon dioxide was not quantifiable because it was almost zero. [6] [7] [8] After Hottel’s experiment, in 1972, Bo Leckner made the same experiment and corrected and error on the graphs plotted by Hottel. However, Leckner’s results placed the carbon dioxide in a lower stand than that found by Hottel. [6] [7]

The missing part, however, remained at the real partial pressure of the carbon dioxide in the Earth’s atmosphere and instantaneous temperatures. Contemporary authors, like Michael Modest, and Donald Pitts and Leighton Sissom made use of the following formula to know the total emissivity of the carbon dioxide considering the whole emissive spectrum, at any instantaneous tropospheric temperature and altitude [6] [7] [8]:

Ɛcd = [1 – (((a-1 * 1 –PE)/(a + b – (1 + PE)) * e (-c (Log10 ((paL)m / paL)^2))] * (Ɛcd)0 [8]

Introducing 7700 meters as the average altitude of the troposphere and the real partial pressure of the atmospheric carbon dioxide (0.00038 atm-m), the resulting total emissivity of the carbon dioxide is 0.0017 (0.002, rounding up the number).

Evidently, the carbon dioxide is not a blackbody, but a very inefficient emitter (a gray-body). For comparison, Acetylene has a total emissivity that is 485 times higher than the total emissivity of the carbon dioxide.

After getting this outstanding result, I proceeded to test my results by means of another methodology that is also based on experimental and observational data. The algorithm is outlined in the following section.

Total Emissivity of CO2 – Mean Free Path Length and Crossing Time Lapse of Quantum/Waves Method

The mean free path length is the distance traversed by quantum/waves through a given medium before it collides with a particle with gravitational mass. The crossing time lapse is the time spent by the quantum/waves on crossing a determined medium; in this case, the atmosphere is such medium.

As the carbon dioxide is an absorber of longwave IR, we will consider only the quantum/waves emitted by the surface towards the outer space.
The mean free path length of quantum/waves emitted by the surface, traversing the Earth’s troposphere, is l = 47 m, and the crossing time is t = 0.0042 s (4.2 milliseconds). [9] [10]

Considering l = 47 m to know the crossing time lapse of quantum/waves through the troposphere, I obtained the crossing time lapse t = 0.0042 s. By introducing t into the following equation, we obtain the real total emissivity of the atmospheric carbon dioxide:
Ɛcd = [1-(e (t * (- 1/s))] / √π [9] [10]

Ɛcd = [1-(e (0.0042 s * (1/s))] / √ 3.141592… = 0.0024

Therefore, the total emissivity of the atmospheric carbon dioxide obtained by considering the mean free path length and the crossing time lapse for the quantum/waves emitted from the surface coincides with the value obtained from the partial pressures method:

Ɛcd 1 = 0.0017 = 0.0017
Ɛcd 2 = 0.0024 = 0.0024

The difference is 0.0007, which is trivial in this kind of assessment.

Conclusions

In the introduction I asked: What is the total emissivity of carbon dioxide?

In this note I have calculated the real total emissivity of the atmospheric carbon dioxide at its current partial pressure and instantaneous temperature to be 0.002.

Clearly carbon dioxide is not a nearly blackbody system as suggested by the IPCC and does not have an emissivity of 1.0. Quite the opposite, given its total absorptivity, which is the same than its total emissivity, the carbon dioxide is a quite inefficient – on absorbing and emitting radiation – making it a gray-body.

Accepting that carbon dioxide is not a black body and that the potential of the carbon dioxide to absorb and emit radiant energy is negligible, I conclude that the AGW hypothesis is based on unreal magnitudes, unreal processes and unreal physics.

Acknowledgements

This blog post was inspired by Chapter 12 of the book ‘Slaying the Sky Dragon.

“This first catechism will be referred to in a later figure as the ‘Cold Earth Fallacy’, and it is based on the erroneous assumption that the earth’s surface and all the other entities involved in its radiative losses to free space all have unit emissivity. The second catechism has already been discussed: the contention that Venus’ high surface temperature is caused by the ‘greenhouse effect’ of its CO2 atmosphere.”


References


[1.] Hertzberg, Martin. Slaying the Sky Dragon-Death of the Greenhouse Gas Theory. 2011. Chapter 12. Page 163.

[2.] http://www.bom.gov.au/info/GreenhouseEffectAndClimateChange.pdf (Page 6).

[3.] http://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm

[4.] http://www.zypcoatings.com/ProductPages/BlackBody.htm

[5.] http://www.ib.cnea.gov.ar/~experim2/Cosas/omega/emisivity.htm

[6.] Hottel, H. C. Radiant Heat Transmission-3rd Edition. 1954. McGraw-Hill, NY.

[7.] Leckner, B. The Spectral and Total Emissivity of Water Vapor and Carbon Dioxide. Combustion and Flame. Volume 17; Issue 1; August 1971, Pages 37-44.

[8.] Modest, Michael F. Radiative Heat Transfer-Second Edition. 2003. Elsevier Science, USA and Academic Press, UK.

[9.] Lang, Kenneth. 2006. Astrophysical Formulae. Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg. Vol. 1. Sections 1.11 and 1.12.

[10.] Maoz, Dan. Astrophysics in a Nutshell. 2007. Princeton University Press. Pp. 36-41

[11.] Dr. Hertzberg is an internationally recognized expert on combustion, flames, explosions, and fire research with over 100 publications in those areas. He established and supervised the explosion testing laboratory at the U. S. Bureau of Mines facility in Pittsburgh (now NIOSH). Test equipment developed in that laboratory have been widely replicated and incorporated into ASTM standards. Published test results from that laboratory are used for the hazard evaluation of industrial dusts and gases. While with the Federal Government he served as a consultant for several Government Agencies (MSHA, DOE, NAS) and professional groups (such as EPRI). He is the author of two US patents: 1) Submicron Particulate Detectors, and 2) Multichannel Infrared Pyrometers. http://www.explosionexpert.com/pages/1/index.htm

Some citations from you 'scientist' in question.

Death is defined in the Quran as the irreversible separation of the ruh (soul) from the body, and this separation is associated with biological disintegration ( Table 1). The onset of disintegration is confirmed by the loss of thermodynamic entropy in biological systems (Nahle 2009).


Nasif Nahle's field is apparently biology and herbal medicine -he has never published any research in earth/atmospheric sciences. Not only is he very confused about atmospheric physics and thermodynamics, he even gets confused by units of measure. His whole blather about CO2 emissivity is apparently based on incorrectly understanding a unit of measurement in a graph by Hottel.The fact you quoted another blog post and wtf is explosionexpert? is it something that happens to your body everytime you read a post by another descredited non scientist?

As usual, keep up the good work of making a fool out of yourself..

 

[Snake_Baker]

Ad hom & empty echoes from the faux intellectuals, as predicted.

 

[Total Power]

Quality reply, but expected! so what exactly are his credentials and publications? Nasif's unpublished blog pseudoscience waffle, anyone with half a brain can see this. Even most of the so- called 'skeptic' blogs think Nasif Nahle and Claes Johnson and the rest of that little bunch of Principia Scientific International loons are just too embarrassing and ridiculous. Outside of you of course, you are a speical kind of a mor@n