Will CO2 absorb photon in all directions?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Yes - little atmosphere and the sunlight strikes the ground rather than being absorbed directly in the atmosphere. So you get weather patterns similar to the Earth.
No mention of a net super rotation.
 
Billy T said:
No heat and temperature relate to the DISTRIBUTION OF RANDOM VELOCITIES of a large number of particles, atoms or molecules. A single atom that radiates emits energy, not heat.
Click to expand...

The point was that a single photon represents a potential heat.... When and if it interacts with another atom.

Most of what you are saying is very basic stuff. I started out with a question because the way a previous statement of yours sounded, you were treating a group of electrons as a single E-field, to use your term. I just wanted clarification, on what you had meant. You already clarified yourself with a lot of other very basic stuff....

I was "obviously" nit picking your statement that heat was only involved with groups of molecules by, pointing out that there are atoms that are their own molecules.

It is not like I don't have some understanding of the issues. Though at times I do have trouble understanding the intent of someone else's posts. And my intent is likely, at times, equally difficult to figure out.

The issue that Robittybob1 raised is more complex than you have been treating it. I don't believe that any one model clearly describes what is really happening. And the truth be told we are dealing with models, successful in thier own right, still they remain models..., our best descriptions of what appears to be happening.
 
Robittybob1 said:
Facts that are needed will be:
1. mass of the molecule of CO2 and its components.
CO2 in kg = 7.31 * 10^-26
O2 in kg = 5.326 * 10^-26
carbon atom in kg = 1.994474834e-26

2. Bond strengths between C-O in the carbon dioxide.

C=O bond strength is 187 kcals/mol (2 x 93.5)

3. Wavelengths of the IR absorbed by CO2

Mass of CO2 in Kg, mass of the component Carbon atom and the two oxygen atoms. (These masses may come into the analysis of the vibrations.)
:)
Click to expand...
The mass of the Oxygen atom seems to have different valuse on the web

Thinking about what I said and checking it up again could the real answer be (for a single atom) 1.338097 X 10^-26 kg

Why another site would say "O2 in kg = 5.326 * 10^-26" beats me.

So the oxygen molecules are heavier than the central carbon atom but not by as much as I originally thought. Please excuse my error and i hope I've got it right this time.
 
Last edited:
Robittybob1 said:
Looking at the planet with strongest wind Neptune:
Very strong fast winds high up so the net effect is at a guess prograde too! Westward, or westerly is prograde.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neptune
Click to expand...

Wind direction gets confusing so don't shoot me if I have got some of it wrong.
Easterly to me means coming from the East.
But "to the East or Eastward" is blowing to the East or what I would call a Westerly.
A lot of sites look down on the Solar System and its angular velocity is anticlockwise, with the planets also spinning anticlockwise on their axis.
But no one says the winds blows anticlockwise for that would confuse us with the anticyclonic weather paterns.

But to top this off they often can't see the surface of a planet or if it even has one, so they can't tell how fast it spins on its axis. Hence they don't know if the wind is prograde or retrograde. That was news to me!
 
Last edited:
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/272/5263/842.abstract

Galileo Doppler Measurements of the Deep Zonal Winds at Jupiter


David H. Atkinson, James B. Pollack*, Alvin Seiff+ Author Affiliations

D. H. Atkinson, University of Idaho, Moscow, ID 83844, USA.
J. B. Pollack, NASA Ames Research Center, Moffett Field, CA 94035, USA.
A. Seiff, San Jose State University Foundation, NASA Ames Research Center, Moffett Field, CA 94035, USA.
↵* Deceased
Abstract
Changes in the speed of the Galileo probe caused by zonal winds created a small but measurable Doppler effect in the probe relay carrier frequency. Analysis of the probe relay link frequency allows direct measurements of the speed of Jupiter's zonal winds beneath the cloud tops. The deep winds were prograde and strong, reaching a sustained 190 to 200 meters per second at an altitude marked by a pressure of 24 bars. The depth and strength of the zonal winds severely constrain dynamic modeling of the deeper layers and begin to rule out many shallow weather theories.
 
Robittybob1 said:
The winds would only move as fast as the dynamo and that's about the same speed as the Earth is turning now.

What would be interesting would be to show it is the other way around, the winds and their static charges generating the current that drives the dynamo. But that would be a long shot. :)
Click to expand...

I should have been clearer on the electromagnetic/magnetohydrodynamic aspects/phenomena that may arise.

In other words, it is not a direct mechanical-to-mechanical coupling/exchange of momentum/energy of rotation. If conductive/superconductive phenomena arises, the gas/plasma layers may be accelerated faster than the mechanical motion of the 'dynamo' body rotates. Then there is also the question of IF there is also 'superfluidic' properties due to the high pressures, then the 'resistance' to super-rotation is reduced because of low 'friction' between the layers. Acting to enhance any 'feedback' effects/accelerations betwen central dynamo and atmospheric layers affected/coupled 'electromechanically' to it.

But like I said. I have not followed up on this and don't know what would obtain in the actual situations under the pressure on such planets. It could all be a non-starter. Anyway, I like your threads/posts....they are full of interesting topics/conversations and lateral thinking opportunities/motivation. Kudos!

G'night. :)

.
 
RealityCheck said:
I should have been clearer on the electromagnetic/magnetohydrodynamic aspects/phenomena that may arise.

In other words, it is not a direct mechanical-to-mechanical coupling/exchange of momentum/energy of rotation. If conductive/superconductive phenomena arises, the gas/plasma layers may be accelerated faster than the mechanical motion of the 'dynamo' body rotates. Then there is also the question of IF there is also 'superfluidic' properties due to the high pressures, then the 'resistance' to super-rotation is reduced because of low 'friction' between the layers. Acting to enhance any 'feedback' effects/accelerations betwen central dynamo and atmospheric layers affected/coupled 'electromechanically' to it.

But like I said. I have not followed up on this and don't know what would obtain in the actual situations under the pressure on such planets. It could all be a non-starter. Anyway, I like your threads/posts....they are full of interesting topics/conversations and lateral thinking opportunities/motivation. Kudos!

G'night. :)

.
Click to expand...
There are plenty of situations I have not studied, even the magnetic field of the earth and the way it deflects the Solar Wind is yet a mystery to me. But the topic I am discussing has been on my mind for many years so I would like to focus on the situation on Venus, Jupiter and Earth (marginally) with their super rotating winds and their atmospheres high in GHG.
Are they connected? For if it appears they are it doesn't seem impossible to design an experiment to prove/disprove it. :)
 
Can it really be the little portion of momentum contained in the photon that stops an interaction with a gas molecule that has an opposite momentum vector.
In objects with physical mass one lot of momentum cancels out the opposite vector portion, but does that happen with a mass less photon.
There is reason to believe it doesn't as exemplified by the 3 planets with GHG atmospheres, all with prograde (super) rotating atmospheres. With the usual concern being just heating of the atmosphere this effect may have been overlooked. Who knows but we are going to find out. :)
 
Robittybob1 said:
Hi Billy T - All what you've said applies directly to the Earth, which is a place I don't consider as a "planet covered by GHG"....From what I understand the winds on these two planets are rotating faster than the planet by far. Something the coreolis effect can't account for.
Click to expand...
Although not a true force, the effect of the Coreolis effect acts like a force. I.e. It constantly is accerating the atmospheric mass. Eventually a relatively constant speed is achieved as this force is balanced by drag force, maninly at the surface.

If that planet has a thick atmosphere the higher layers can have this equlibrium between drag of the distant surface and the Coreolis force occur at higher than surface rotation speed. I don´t know if this is the case, but you say the wind (at highest layers, you should add as we cannot see the deeper near surface layers) are faster than surface rotation.

But let me ask you why / how the absorption by GHG of radially outbound IR knows to make a wind to the east instead of to the west (or conversely to the west instead of the East)? I.e. how does absorbing out bound radiation make a clockwise (or counter clockwise) torque on the atmosphere?

Here is part of your qoute in post 78 about pluto or neptune:
"The general pattern of winds showed prograde rotation at high latitudes vs. retrograde rotation at lower latitudes."

This is exactly the same as on Earth, for reasons I explained with the Coreolis effect. I.e. In the Earth´s tropics the average wind at the surface is from the East and towards the west (retrograde) an at higher latitude, in both hemispheres it is prograde. All directly explained by Coreolis effect, but I am waiting for you to tell why / how absorption of radially out bound IR makes a torque on the atmosphere either to the east or to the west AND why this effect of the IR absorption near the equator is reverse of near the poles.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Robittybob1 said:
The mass of the Oxygen atom seems to have different valuse on the web

Thinking about what I said and checking it up again could the real answer be (for a single atom) 1.338097 X 10^-26 kg

Why another site would say "O2 in kg = 5.326 * 10^-26" beats me.

So the oxygen molecules are heavier than the central carbon atom but not by as much as I originally thought. Please excuse my error and i hope I've got it right this time.
Click to expand...
Maybe this helps.

1 atomic mass unit = 1.66053886 × 10-27 kilograms
 
Coriolis Effect:
Corioliskraftanimation.gif


Energy Transport



Three-Cell Model of Global Circulation / Coriolis Effect

 
Emil said:
Coriolis Effect:

Energy Transport
Click to expand...
Emil - When you look at the diagram titled "Three-Cell Model of Global Circulation / Coriolis Effect" do you immediately consider in your mind what the direction of rotation is?
In the Equatorial regions the prevailing wind is Easterly. So what that means to me is that energy already in the kinetic motion of the Earth is being transferred to the atmosphere. The air is being decelerated and being dragged along with the Earth. (Wind in contact with the land slows it, but since it is going slower than the Earth's rotation the slowing with respect to the surface is a speeding up WRT the Sun. Where the air is finally moving along with the Earth's rotation that is the region of the "Doldrums".

So from the Coreolis effect alone you don't get atmospheric acceleration to a velocity faster than the Earth's rotation. Nothing like as on Venus where instead of equatorial easterlies there are westerlies blowing at 600 km/hr in the same direction as the planet is spinning.
 
Billy T said:
.....

But let me ask you why / how the absorption by GHG of radially outbound IR knows to make a wind to the east instead of to the west (or conversely to the west instead of the East)? I.e. how does absorbing out bound radiation make a clockwise (or counter clockwise) torque on the atmosphere? ...
Click to expand...

The same question was asked twice... "waiting" may have something to do with the time differences, I'm in New Zealand OK. Got to sleep sometime.

I'm sure I have already admitted that when the incident sunlight strikes the earth or planet surface the directional effect is lost. For the infrared radiation would be in all possible directions.
The effect I describe is where the planet's atmosphere is so thick (with GHGs too as well as physical thickness) the IR absorption reactions are all occurring in the atmosphere under the influence of the incident unidirectional sunlight.
 
Last edited:
Robittybob1 said:
... The effect I describe is where the planet's atmosphere is so thick (with GHGs too as well as physical thickness) the IR absorption reactions are all occurring in the atmosphere under the influence of the incident unidirectional sunlight.
Click to expand...
Yes, both the sunlinght incident and the IR leaving have not preferred "twist" on the plantes atmosphere, so again, How do you think either makes the prograde winds? (and again note that the facts are that in the zones with most intense solar heating the winds are retrograde. Thus you need to explain this too if rejecting the well accepted theory that does explain it based on Coreolis effects.)

Summary: your postualated IR absorption has no mechanism to make any twist on atmoshphere and is contradicted by fact both prograde (in higher latitudes) and retrograde (near the equator) winds dominate. Give it up.
 
Billy T said:
Yes, both the sunlinght incident and the IR leaving have not preferred "twist" on the plantes atmosphere, so again, How do you think either makes the prograde winds? (and again note that the facts are that in the zones with most intense solar heating the winds are retrograde. Thus you need to explain this too if rejecting the well accepted theory that does explain it based on Coreolis effects.)

Summary: your postualated IR absorption has no mechanism to make any twist on atmoshphere and is contradicted by fact both prograde (in higher latitudes) and retrograde (near the equator) winds dominate. Give it up.
Click to expand...
With the planet's axial spin or "rotation" there is a side which is going toward the Sun and a side which is going away. So according to the principle of conservation of momentum on the side going away from the Sun both the incident radiation and the gas molecules have on average greater number of same vector interactions which allows the absorption to occur.
On the side going toward the sun the momentum transfer can't occur for the vectors are largely in the opposite directions.
As the wind generated by this effect intensifies the effect also intensifies (positive feedback) so there is an ever increasing wind generation which ultimately is only tempered by the transfer of energy and momentum to the planet's angular momentum and kinetic energy.
So I still stand on the principle of conservation of momentum and energy . Both of which originate in the Sun and arrive in the incident sunlight.

The examples of planets you refer to where the winds are not prograde, seem to be on planets with an atmosphere lacking in GHGs and being far away from the sun. So I don't have solutions to all the planets winds but Venus, Jupiter and to some extent the Earth are planets where the prograde winds are powered by the sun through the GHG effect.

Because this has not been proven as yet even though we have 3 good examples of the effect on neighbouring planets, I am proposing to do an experiement to prove or disprove it.
Experimental designs are sought so if you can think of an idea to test it please mention it. :)
 
Billy T said:
Yes, both the sunlinght incident and the IR leaving have not preferred "twist" on the plantes atmosphere, so again, How do you think either makes the prograde winds? (and again note that the facts are that in the zones with most intense solar heating the winds are retrograde. Thus you need to explain this too if rejecting the well accepted theory that does explain it based on Coreolis effects.)

Summary: your postualated IR absorption has no mechanism to make any twist on atmoshphere and is contradicted by fact both prograde (in higher latitudes) and retrograde (near the equator) winds dominate. Give it up.
Click to expand...

During the daylight hours, sun light passes through the atmosphere heating the earth. This occurs with EM radiation across a broad spectrum, not just the IR band.

During the night most of the heat radiated away from the earth is in the IR band. The GHG content of the atmosphere affects how much of that IR radiation is absorbed and/or reflected back toward the earth. As the GHG levels increase more IR radiation is prevented from "escaping" or being radiated away from the earth.

During the day there is more energy across a broader EM spectrum that arrives, than is radiated away during the night. Heat builds up... On balance a build up of GHG alters this balance toward a rising global temperature.

How that affects wind patterns, is far more complex and I am unsure anyone has any real long term understanding of that. For proof just start keeping track of the wether news and how accurate it often seems not to be.

I just listen to a discussion or interview about global warming and one of the unknowns that was mentioned was how even the current conditions are or will alter the El Niño effect. The point I was trying to make here is that even in an interview with a scientist actively working on global warming, how the global temperature affects winds and El Niños, is largely unknown.

The models we do have are not really very good on the larger scale or time frame. When a storm path is predicted, how many variations do they present. I don't believe any of our current models explain any of the wind and weather patterns well enough to warrant, you final statement above and the "give it up", conclusion.

Keep in mind that Robittybob1 started this thread and continued it almost as a sole contributor to his exploration of the question. Some of the discussion seems to have been useful and constructive, and some.., not so much.
 
Thanks for your encouragement Only Me. I don't mind the questions that Billy T is throwing at me, for any idea has to be able to withstand the criticism.
Even when he said "give it up" I just treated that as part of a good old debate. I hope it wasn't a threat, like "give it up or I'll close you down".

If Billy T was to focus on Venus and its winds, for they are the ones to explain, he may get the mechanism behind it and he may yet agree with me.

It will need a defining test experiment I'm sure of that.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top