Can CO2 Heat the Atmosphere
17 October 2015
This is a thought experiment. The idea is to make a simple test of the plausibility or even possibility of the claim of the catastrophic man-made or anthropogenic global warming (AGW) hypothesis that the increase from about 300 ppm (parts per million) of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere over the last 120 years or so has caused a surface temperature increase of 1°C or 1K.
Now I know that this is a concept very much ignored by the advocates of catastrophic man-made global warming, but I am going to assume that the Law of Conservation of Energy, which they have not explicitly refuted, still holds. I have a high level of confidence in this law of physics.
Let us start out with the simplifying assumption that every air molecule has the same heat capacity at constant pressure. This means that the same amount of heat is required to raise the temperature of each kind of molecule by 1K. We will discuss the correction for this below. I will also make the simplifying assumption that the carbon dioxide molecules are heated fully to the necessary temperature and then dumped into the air whose temperature is raised by 1 K upon reaching equilibrium. The limitations on this assumption will also be examined later.
If the addition of 100 molecules of CO2 to the prior 300 molecules/ 1 million air molecules has caused all air molecules near the surface of the Earth to have a 1K temperature increase, then given Conservation of Energy, each of the CO2 molecules has to gain an additional temperature of Ta which is transferred by collisions to all the other gas molecules until they are all at an equilibrium temperature 1K higher than the air had previously been. Ta is given by:
1,000,000 (1K) = 400 Ta
Ta = 2500 K,
because of the proportional relationship of heat, a form of energy, to the temperature of the gas molecules.
Now let us allow for the fact that the heat capacities per mole at constant pressure of the molecules in air are not equal. We want the values per mole because that gives them for equal numbers of molecules, while the per gram values of heat capacity do not. We have for each gas heat capacity values of:
N2, 29.12 J/K mol.
O2, 29.38 J/K mol.
Ar, 20.79 J/K mol.
H2O, 28.03 J/K mol.
CO2, 36.94 J/K mol.
Air, 29.07 J/K mol.
We discover now that a 1 K increase in the temperature of a molecule of CO2 gives it more additional energy than the average air molecule needs to raise its temperature by 1K. So, the temperature per CO2 molecule that we calculated above will not need to be quite so large. The required temperature Ta will only be:
Ta = (2500 K) / (36.94 / 29.07)
Ta = 1967 K
Now, recall that this is only the additional temperature of each CO2 molecule required to cause a 1K temperature increase spread evenly over every air molecule in equilibrium at the Earth’s surface.
The same infra-red absorbing properties claimed to give CO2 molecules this amazing power, would also be acting in an atmosphere with a mere 100 ppm of CO2.
In fact, each additional 100 ppm of CO2 has a diminishing effect on heating other gases according to the proposed mechanism for such heating.
The mean free path length for each infra-red absorption event by a molecule of CO2 becomes exponentially shorter and shorter as more CO2 molecules are added.
The size of the effect for additional molecules becomes less and less. Consequently, the first 100 ppm of CO2 molecules would heat the air by more than 1K given that 400 ppm of CO2 molecules heat it by 1K upon the increase in concentration from 300 ppm to 400 ppm.
Note that this means that the first 100 ppm of molecules of CO2 would have to achieve a temperature more than four times 1976 K or 7868 K.
The further increase in the temperature upon going from 100 ppm to 200 ppm would also be greater than that for going from 300 ppm to 400 ppm, as would be the temperature increase on going from 200 ppm to 300 ppm.
Each concentration increase of 100 ppm would cause a smaller temperature increase than the previous one did. But upon arriving at 200 ppm concentration of carbon dioxide, there are half as many molecules of it as one has upon arriving at 400 ppm of CO2, so each molecule has to be twice as hot.
Upon arriving at 300 ppm from 200 ppm, each molecule has to be 4/3rds as hot as it did at 400 ppm. So let us put together the effect that the wonder molecule of CO2 has had on heating the Earth's surface temperature to date, we calculate the additional minimal temperature each CO2 molecule must have to be to be consistent with the catastrophic AGW claim: 0 to 100 ppm:
Ta > 4(1976 K) = 7868 K 100 to 200 ppm:
Ta > 2(1976 K) = 3952 K 200 to 300 ppm:
Ta > (4/3)(1976 K) = 2635 K 300 to 400 ppm:
Ta = 1976 K
We can now calculate the cumulative effect of CO2 molecules given that we have very conservative lower limit values for the heating of the atmosphere provided by CO2 molecules above.
The heating due to the miracle molecule at lower concentrations has not gone away. The energy being dumped into the atmosphere is still there, though it is now shared by a larger number of CO2 molecules. Let Tt be the cumulative necessary temperature of our present 400 ppm of carbon dioxide to provide this total base of energy.
Invoking Energy Conservation once again, we must conservatively have:
400 Tt > 100 (7868 K) + 200 (3952 K) + 300 (2635 K) + 400 (1976 K)
Tt > 7895 K
Consequently, the temperature required per CO2 molecule to be transferred to all air molecules by collisions to establish an equilibrium temperature based on the claims of the advocates of the catastrophic AGW hypothesis is substantially greater than 7895 K.
This required temperature per CO2 molecule is then substantially greater than 7895 K or 7622°C. The sun is the source of this energy and its surface temperature is only 5778K or 5505°C. A cooler body cannot heat another body to a temperature greater than its own temperature. The highest temperature anything could be raised to on Earth by solar radiation is further diminished by the distance of the Earth from the sun and the fact that radiation emitted by the Earth is mostly directed at temperatures in space of about 4K.
There is, of course, another problem. The carbon dioxide molecules would cease to be molecules long before they could reach these hypothetical temperatures.
The very collisions that spread the heat from the infra-red active molecules to nitrogen and oxygen molecules would be so energetic that carbon dioxide molecules upon collision would be ionized and destroyed. The unfortunate molecules struck so violently would be ionized.
You cannot imagine how bad the ozone problem would be as a result of the ionization of the oxygen molecules in the air! If the claimed CO2 heating effect were even a small fraction of what is being claimed, then there might be a large fraction of carbon dioxide, water, and methane molecules flying about in the air at velocities much greater than those of the Maxwell-Boltzmann velocity distribution.
However, that distribution is a fairly accurate description of actual air molecule velocity distributions and it has been tested for many decades. So why do we see no substantial such violation of the Maxwell-Boltzmann equation for the velocity of gas molecules? It might be due to a combination of a minimal temperature increase in the molecule for each absorption event and a rapid collision rate preventing the accumulation of energy from more than one such absorption event in the molecule. Almost every time a carbon dioxide molecule absorbs an infra-red photon emitted by the Earth's surface, that molecule might commonly have several collisions with other air molecules, losing that absorbed energy.
There is very good reason to believe this is the case that the energy gained by one absorption event is quickly lost in large part by collisions with other molecules. Only occasionally does the absorbed infra-red energy get re-emitted as an infra-red photon before it has a collision.
So most infra-red active gas molecules are in equilibrium or nearly so with the other gases in the air surrounding them. In other words, the number of absorption events is actually rather small for a given molecule and it does not build up very great amounts of energy to transfer to the non-infra-red active gas molecules of the air.
This is a thought experiment. The idea is to make a simple test of the plausibility or even possibility of the claim of the catastrophic man-made or anthropogenic global warming (AGW) hypothesis that the increase from about 300 ppm (parts per million) of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere over the last 120 years or so has caused a surface temperature increase of 1°C or 1K.
Now I know that this is a concept very much ignored by the advocates of catastrophic man-made global warming, but I am going to assume that the Law of Conservation of Energy, which they have not explicitly refuted, still holds. I have a high level of confidence in this law of physics.
Let us start out with the simplifying assumption that every air molecule has the same heat capacity at constant pressure. This means that the same amount of heat is required to raise the temperature of each kind of molecule by 1K. We will discuss the correction for this below. I will also make the simplifying assumption that the carbon dioxide molecules are heated fully to the necessary temperature and then dumped into the air whose temperature is raised by 1 K upon reaching equilibrium. The limitations on this assumption will also be examined later.
If the addition of 100 molecules of CO2 to the prior 300 molecules/ 1 million air molecules has caused all air molecules near the surface of the Earth to have a 1K temperature increase, then given Conservation of Energy, each of the CO2 molecules has to gain an additional temperature of Ta which is transferred by collisions to all the other gas molecules until they are all at an equilibrium temperature 1K higher than the air had previously been. Ta is given by:
1,000,000 (1K) = 400 Ta
Ta = 2500 K,
because of the proportional relationship of heat, a form of energy, to the temperature of the gas molecules.
Now let us allow for the fact that the heat capacities per mole at constant pressure of the molecules in air are not equal. We want the values per mole because that gives them for equal numbers of molecules, while the per gram values of heat capacity do not. We have for each gas heat capacity values of:
N2, 29.12 J/K mol.
O2, 29.38 J/K mol.
Ar, 20.79 J/K mol.
H2O, 28.03 J/K mol.
CO2, 36.94 J/K mol.
Air, 29.07 J/K mol.
We discover now that a 1 K increase in the temperature of a molecule of CO2 gives it more additional energy than the average air molecule needs to raise its temperature by 1K. So, the temperature per CO2 molecule that we calculated above will not need to be quite so large.
The required temperature Ta will only be:
Ta = (2500 K) / (36.94 / 29.07)
Ta = 1967 K
Now, recall that this is only the additional temperature of each CO2 molecule required to cause a 1K temperature increase spread evenly over every air molecule in equilibrium at the Earth’s surface. The same infra-red absorbing properties claimed to give CO2 molecules this amazing power, would also be acting in an atmosphere with a mere 100 ppm of CO2. In fact, each additional 100 ppm of CO2 has a diminishing effect on heating other gases according to the proposed mechanism for such heating.
The mean free path length for each infra-red absorption event by a molecule of CO2 becomes exponentially shorter and shorter as more CO2 molecules are added.
The size of the effect for additional molecules becomes less and less. Consequently, the first 100 ppm of CO2 molecules would heat the air by more than 1K given that 400 ppm of CO2 molecules heat it by 1K upon the increase in concentration from 300 ppm to 400 ppm. Note that this means that the first 100 ppm of molecules of CO2 would have to achieve a temperature more than four times 1976 K or 7868 K.
The further increase in the temperature upon going from 100 ppm to 200 ppm would also be greater than that for going from 300 ppm to 400 ppm, as would be the temperature increase on going from 200 ppm to 300 ppm. Each concentration increase of 100 ppm would cause a smaller temperature increase than the previous one did.
But upon arriving at 200 ppm concentration of carbon dioxide, there are half as many molecules of it as one has upon arriving at 400 ppm of CO2, so each molecule has to be twice as hot.
Upon arriving at 300 ppm from 200 ppm, each molecule has to be 4/3rds as hot as it did at 400 ppm. So let us put together the effect that the wonder molecule of CO2 has had on heating the Earth's surface temperature to date, we calculate the additional minimal temperature each CO2 molecule must have to be to be consistent with the catastrophic AGW claim: 0 to 100 ppm:
Ta > 4(1976 K) = 7868 K 100 to 200 ppm:
Ta > 2(1976 K) = 3952 K 200 to 300 ppm:
Ta > (4/3)(1976 K) = 2635 K 300 to 400 ppm:
Ta = 1976 K
We can now calculate the cumulative effect of CO2 molecules given that we have very conservative lower limit values for the heating of the atmosphere provided by CO2 molecules above. The heating due to the miracle molecule at lower concentrations has not gone away.
The energy being dumped into the atmosphere is still there, though it is now shared by a larger number of CO2 molecules. Let Tt be the cumulative necessary temperature of our present 400 ppm of carbon dioxide to provide this total base of energy. Invoking Energy Conservation once again, we must conservatively have:
400 Tt > 100 (7868 K) + 200 (3952 K) + 300 (2635 K) + 400 (1976 K)
Tt > 7895 K
Consequently, the temperature required per CO2 molecule to be transferred to all air molecules by collisions to establish an equilibrium temperature based on the claims of the advocates of the catastrophic AGW hypothesis is substantially greater than 7895 K.
This required temperature per CO2 molecule is then substantially greater than 7895 K or 7622°C.
The sun is the source of this energy and its surface temperature is only 5778K or 5505°C. A cooler body cannot heat another body to a temperature greater than its own temperature.
The highest temperature anything could be raised to on Earth by solar radiation is further diminished by the distance of the Earth from the sun and the fact that radiation emitted by the Earth is mostly directed at temperatures in space of about 4K.
There is, of course, another problem. The carbon dioxide molecules would cease to be molecules long before they could reach these hypothetical temperatures. The very collisions that spread the heat from the infra-red active molecules to nitrogen and oxygen molecules would be so energetic that carbon dioxide molecules upon collision would be ionized and destroyed. The unfortunate molecules struck so violently would be ionized.
You cannot imagine how bad the ozone problem would be as a result of the ionization of the oxygen molecules in the air! If the claimed CO2 heating effect were even a small fraction of what is being claimed, then there might be a large fraction of carbon dioxide, water, and methane molecules flying about in the air at velocities much greater than those of the Maxwell-Boltzmann velocity distribution.
However, that distribution is a fairly accurate description of actual air molecule velocity distributions and it has been tested for many decades. So why do we see no substantial such violation of the Maxwell-Boltzmann equation for the velocity of gas molecules? It might be due to a combination of a minimal temperature increase in the molecule for each absorption event and a rapid collision rate preventing the accumulation of energy from more than one such absorption event in the molecule.
Almost every time a carbon dioxide molecule absorbs an infra-red photon emitted by the Earth's surface, that molecule might commonly have several collisions with other air molecules, losing that absorbed energy.
Only occasionally does the absorbed infra-red energy get re-emitted as an infra-red photon before it has a collision. So most infra-red active gas molecules are in equilibrium or nearly so with the other gases in the air surrounding them. In other words, the number of absorption events is actually rather small for a given molecule and it does not build up very great amounts of energy to transfer to the non-infra-red active gas molecules of the air.
We should revisit occasionally what the proper role of government is. As the constitution was a good sense of direction, we need a core set of principles to add in order to deal with the future.
So many want to engineer society, remove risk, assist certain groups, rather than let individuals thrive and raise communities. Why?
Is Democracy where we all "get it good and hard" or is it the best means to a free society?
Should we roll with the special interests, or make the government achieve its proper role, what is that role, and how to do this?
When do deficits and governments become too large?
Government is becoming more elitist while trying to sell corrections to problems it created, what makes this possible?
This could also be inserted into the field above, or erased
Currently as a society, we are having a most difficult time discussing political issues. What is driving this? And why a rebirth in political culture would be a good thing.
Are "markets" dead as some would conjecture? Or is free enterprise what got us here?
At the heart of economics there are several possible economic schools of thought, the essence of these schools of thought and how they relate to our lives.
