Will CO2 absorb photon in all directions?

[Robittybob1]

Nop, I'm not interested in this "chapter" of the thread.
But I warn you, as many believed and believe they have discovered "perpetuum mobile", due to Coriolis effects.

Every now and then I think there is a great future in science for you Emil and then I read replies to me with such negativity, and you make me doubt it.

I don't think it is possible to discover anything new if you start by thinking it is all known already.

 

[Robittybob1]

There was one little clue to this puzzle on one website it said "a free electron can't interact with a photon, and it had something to do with momentum.
When I find the link I'll put it up again (it was a paper I have already referred to).

Relative to the electron, the photon has mostly energy, but not very
much momentum. We can see this on the diagram of energy and momentum
(Fig. 2.4).
Except for the uninteresting case in which E = 0, the energy momentum
curves for free electrons and photons do not intersect. That
is: there is no point on the curves where the energy and momentum of
an electron are equal to the energy and momentum of a photon. This
means that a free electron and a photon cannot interact with each
other. However, in a solid material the situation is different. Electrons
and photons can interact because the host material can supply
the momentum that is missing in the case of a free electron and a photon.
This is discussed in more detail in Section 2.7.

found at [PDF]
Electrons and Photons spie.org/samples/PM167.pdf

Google search terms "conservation of momentum" electron photon "free electron" finds it quick.

 

[Billy T]

To OnlyMe:

Your post 98 is almost 100% correct but following is a little miss leading:

"As the GHG levels increase more IR radiation is prevented from "escaping" or being radiated away from the earth."

Because the IR radiation must nearly equal the net ground level absorbed solar radiation I.e. solar flux less cloud and ground´s immediate reflections back into space of solar photons ("nearly" because there is a small amount of mainly forward scattering of sunlight and pass thru solar radiation by the transparent atmospheric limb of the earth plus the radiological heat release by isotopes decaying. Jupitor radiates significally more energy than it recieves from the sun as it is still cooling from its formation and shrinking that is releasing gravitational energy)

If Earth had more GHGs then the surface temperature would be higher and the IR spectrum radiated would be different but IR energy lost to space would be the same as now, not reduced as one might understand your sentence to be stating. The surface temperature of Venus, which is both closer to the sun and has very thick GHG atmosphere is so high that there could be "lead lakes" on the surface, but it too radiates back into space the absorbed solar flux.

Next paragraph is a paragraph from very good discussion of all this. I quote it as it speaks of the "apparent surface" which is about 5000 meter high in the atmosphere. Significantly below that level few photons with wavelenghts GHGs can absorbe escape the earth. It is sort of the uniform surface from which all out bound photons escape. Its temperature does not vary much with 24 hour cycle. Thus the GHG IR shines steadily into space from it.

"... How is it possible that the Earth exactly balances the incoming sunlight with the outgoing heat radiation? The answer is simple: the amount of heat radiation from Earth is precisely tied to the temperature of the atmosphere.* If the temperature of the apparent “surface” is too low and Earth radiates too little heat to keep the balance, Earth will warm up and radiate more heat into space. If the temperature of the apparent “surface” is too high and Earth radiates more heat than it receives, the planet will become colder and radiate less energy back to space. Overall, this “negative feedback” stabilizes the radiation balance despite all the variations of temperature from one place to another and within the vertical column of the atmosphere. It sets the temperature so that the incoming and outgoing energy is balanced. ..."

From: http://earthguide.ucsd.edu/virtualmuseum/climatechange1/02_1.shtml

* Note they do NOT say the temperature of the solid earth surface. That can and does vary greatly with the 24 hour cycle.

Which I recomend you read to refine your already good undersgtanding of all this.

BTW, I agree that local weather is much to complex to accurately model a day or more in advance. In fact the local weather tomorrow is just about as well predicted by: "Tomorrow´s weather will be a repeat that of today." as the weather experts can do but once you start to speak of longer terms and larger averages like the annual mean direction of the wind at 40 degrees N latitude in Eastern US, you can be sure it on average comes out of the west, do to the constant nature of annual Coreolis effects.

 

[Billy T]

... I don't think it is possible to discover anything new if you start by thinking it is all known already.

Not only that but more important in your case is that you will not discover anything new when you are vastly ignorant of what is already well known on the subject.

Newton is reported to have said: "if I have discovered anything new, seen further than others, it was because I was standing on the shoulders of giants."

You are not even standing on the shoulders of the typical college science student. Learn before you try to teach.

 

[Robittybob1]

Not only that but more important in your case is that you will not discover anything new when you are vastly ignorant of what is already well known on the subject.

Newton is reported to have said: "if I have discovered anything new, seen further than others, it was because I was standing on the shoulders of giants."

You are not even standing on the shoulders of the typical college science student. Learn before you try to teach.

Well if Newton was standing on the shoulders of giants, I'm standing on the Modern Earth.

We have the internet and resources far in excess of what Newton had. Look at Google and Wikipedia and the internet. The exchange of ideas is going to advance science at an amazing rate from now on.
Computer power, Google and Wikipedia these are three enormous giants.

 

[OnlyMe]

Newton is reported to have said: "if I have discovered anything new, seen further than others, it was because I was standing on the shoulders of giants."

I have heard that quote, used over and over, in much the same way you just did. In more than one account of the actual context of the quote, though it appeared in a letter to Robert Hooke, it is suggested that it was meant as an insult, to a rival (I cannot recal the name at present), who was short!

Somehow I think the rivalry was over who came up with calculus, first. Just can't right now remember the name.

Edit: It was likely directed at Hooke himself, who was short and had a long standing disagreement with Newton.

The calculus issue was completely separate and not connected to the insult.

 

[Robittybob1]

I have heard that quote, used over and over, in much the same way you just did. In more than one account of the actual context of the quote, though it appeared in a letter to Robert Hooke, it is suggested that it was meant as an insult, to a rival (I cannot recal the name at present), who was short!

Somehow I think the rivalry was over who came up with calculus, first. Just can't right now remember the name.

It felt a bit like an insult to me too.
I was never taught calculus. So I hope I can stand on someone's shoulders if I need that skill.

 

[OnlyMe]

It felt a bit like an insult to me too.
I was never taught calculus. So I hope I can stand on someone's shoulders if I need that skill.

I just edited that post. The insult was directed at Hooke over other arguments and had nothing to do with calculus.

 

[Billy T]

Well if Newton was standing on the shoulders of giants, I'm standing on the Modern Earth.
We have the internet and resources far in excess of what Newton had. Look at Google and Wikipedia and the internet. ...

Yes you have resources you could learn from far beyond Newton´s wildest dreams. Too bad you don´t adequately use them to know the winds have nothing to do with GHG absorption and are trying to replace well know understanding of the winds with GHG absorption nonsense. Again give up that silliness.

I explained how Corieolis drives the prevail winds in post 72 with a numerical example most high school students could understand. Here is is again in picutures. As noted in the light blue background text, I did reduce the set of three vertical circulation cells (Hadley, Ferrel & polar) to just one to keep the explaination simple

 

[Robittybob1]

Yes you have resources you could learn from far beyond Newton´s wildest dreams. Too bad you don´t adequately use them to know the winds have nothing to do with GHG absorption and replace well know understanding of the winds with GHG absorption nonsense.

I explained how Corieolis drives the prevail winds in post 72 with a numerical example maos high school student could understand. Here is is again in picutures. As noted in the yellow background text, I did reduce the set of vertical circulation cells to just one to keep it simple

Billy T - I have already stated I have no problem with the physics of the Coriolis effect. I have been saying it is the atmospheric movements on Venus and Jupiter in particular that exemplify what I was talking about.

Coriolis is the correct spelling.

 

[Billy T]

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. ...

This is false. I don´t want to think much about it but by far the dominate speed of the molecules is their thermal speed, not their rotation around the earth speed.

The Doppler effect of those thermal speeds selects those molecules which can absorb sunlight of each particular wave length,* but as sunlight is a continumium, all can absorb sunlight but few do. (Otherwise we on the surface could not see the sun as a circle with sharp edges.)

Earlier you were telling winds were related to GHG IR absorption, not sunlight. You seem to be switching horses now to sunlight momentum transfer. I guess you now understand your earlier POV is nonsense. This new POV is nonsense too as it can not explain why the prevailing winds in the tropics are retrograde and at higher latitudes are prograde. You need to stop making up and posting ideas which contradict many facts.

* the UV part of the sun light can be absorbed by molecules moving at any speed if it ionized the atom or molecule as then there is no definite energy match required for the transition between bound energy levels.

 

[Billy T]

Billy T - I have already stated I have no problem with the physics of the Coriolis effect. I have been saying it is the atmospheric movements on Venus and Jupiter in particular that exemplify what I was talking about. ...

That is your totally unsuported claim. It is false as Coriolis operates there too to make prevailing winds. I have already explained that when we can only see the atmosphere that is many miles from the surface, those high up gas masses feel little surface drag (the Venus case) Or when there is no surface (the Jupiter case) very high speed winds can be produced.

The Coriolis force make an acceleration that increase the high altitude wind velocity until the weak drag the distant surface produces a drag at that high altitude equals to the Coriolis force. I.e. there is no reason that the high altitude wind can not be much faster than the surface tangential speed.

You don´t really undertand that the Coliolis Force accelerates the gas mass until it is going fast enough to be balanced by the drag force. Think of a tiny force action steadly on a marble on a flat table. As the marble turns, its weight deforms it, making it lose energy at a rate proportional to it speed (sort of a drag force) When the energy added by the accerating force in a second is the same as the energy disipation rate, the marble has reached a stady state speed. That speed will be higher when the drag force is small, as is the case when the Coriolis accelerated high altitude gas is distant from the surface drag.

 

[Robittybob1]

This is false. I don´t want to think much about it but by far the dominate speed of the molecules is their thermal speed, not their rotation around the earth speed.

The Doppler effect of those thermal speeds selects those molecules which can absorb sunlight of each particular wave length,* but as sunlight is a continumium, all can absorb sunlight but few do. (Otherwise we on the surface could not see the sun as a circle with sharp edges.)

Earlier you were telling winds were related to GHG IR absorption, not sunlight. You seem to be switching horses now to sunlight momentum transfer. I guess you now understand your earlier POV is nonsense. This new POV is nonsense too as it can not explain why the prevailing winds in the tropics are retrograde and at higher latitudes are prograde. You need to stop making up and posting ideas which contradict many facts.

* the UV part of the sun light can be absorbed by molecules moving at any speed if it ionized the atom or molecule as then there is no definite energy match required for the transition between bound energy levels.

That's right Billy T you don't have to think about it long to realise that if the atmosphere on Jupiter is moving toward the Sun at 45,300 KM/hour on one side and going away from the Sun at the same speed on the other side and the temperature of the gas is similar on both sides, that the average relative motion of the gas molecules compared to the momentum of the incoming photons will be shifted. We are talking averages here and not the entire gambit of molecules (agreed some will still be going backwards even in the strongest winds but the majority will have motion in common with the wind, a windward vector. - Surely I'm right on this? - in fact if you can prove me wrong on this I will stop forthwith).

Note here I am talking as if in the case on Earth there was no wind, the air mass at the equator is still moving at 1000 km /hr toward and from the sun on the respective sides. OK that speed might be small compared to the velocity of the gas molecules but it still shifts the average by that amount.
But on Jupiter and Venus I believe there are winds over and above the equatorial rotation velocity. So that shifts the average even further.

 

[OnlyMe]

This is false. I don´t want to think much about it but by far the dominate speed of the molecules is their thermal speed, not their rotation around the earth speed.

In the above I assume you mean relative to the earth, assuming the earth at rest, and the thermal speeds must be the vibration or bouncing off of one another, associated with heat, no? (as in the kinetic motion associated with heat.)

Since the earth has a circumference of about 24,000 miles and rotates once every 24 hours, at velocity at sea level of about 1000 mph.., the velocity of the Earth's atmosphere exceeds that of the earth itself give or take, what a few hundred mph?

If you were referring to wind or movement associated with thermal convention, there is even a greater disparity, as it is this that represents the give or take, a few hundred mph.

There is always more than one way to look at any problem and absolutes are almost alway a mistake.
_________

As a complete side note, it seems that any time a discussion goes on for more than a relatively short exchange of information and ideas, a bit of hostile attitude creeps in, maybe just agitation or ....? I notice this also in myself. It is not generally constructive to "discussion".

 

[RealityCheck]

Hi guys!

Since we are talking of 'spinning' planets (at least in their earlier stages) has anyone done any calculations as to how much a spinning planet's FRAME DRAGGING EFFECT over time will add to prograde/retrograde velocities of the whole/layers/traveling-vortices of the planet's atmosphere? Just curious if this lens-thirring factor has been included in the weather-circulation modeling or not for the historical/longtermfuture data/projections etc. Any relevant/associated views/information very welcome. Thanks. Cheers!

.

 

[Robittybob1]

That is your totally unsuported claim. It is false as Coriolis operates there too to make prevailing winds. I have already explained that when we can only see the atmosphere that is many miles from the surface, those high up gas masses feel little surface drag (the Venus case) Or when there is no surface (the Jupiter case) very high speed winds can be produced.

The Coriolis force make an acceleration that increase the high altitude wind velocity until the weak drag the distant surface produces a drag at that high altitude equals to the Coriolis force. I.e. there is no reason that the high altitude wind can not be much faster than the surface tangential speed.

You don´t really undertand that the Coliolis Force accelerates the gas mass until it is going fast enough to be balanced by the drag force. Think of a tiny force action steadly on a marble on a flat table. As the marble turns, its weight deforms it, making it lose energy at a rate proportional to it speed (sort of a drag force) When the energy added by the accerating force in a second is the same as the energy disipation rate, the marble has reached a stady state speed. That speed will be higher when the drag force is small, as is the case when the Coriolis accelerated high altitude gas is distant from the surface drag.

I found what you had written here rather difficult to understand, but if you could answer this: Are you saying the coriolis effect is capable of creating prograde super rotating winds on it's own?
By that I mean a wind which when all the molecular motions are added (prograde and retrograde parts) the net effect is a circulation of the entire (global) air mass in a prograde direction.

 

[Robittybob1]

In the above I assume you mean relative to the earth, assuming the earth at rest, and the thermal speeds must be the vibration or bouncing off of one another, associated with heat, no? (as in the kinetic motion associated with heat.)

Since the earth has a circumference of about 24,000 miles and rotates once every 24 hours, at velocity at sea level of about 1000 mph.., the velocity of the Earth's atmosphere exceeds that of the earth itself give or take, what a few hundred mph?

If you were referring to wind or movement associated with thermal convention, there is even a greater disparity, as it is this that represents the give or take, a few hundred mph.

There is always more than one way to look at any problem and absolutes are almost alway a mistake.
_________

As a complete side note, it seems that any time a discussion goes on for more than a relatively short exchange of information and ideas, a bit of hostile attitude creeps in, maybe just agitation or ....? I notice this also in myself. It is not generally constructive to "discussion".

I think the Earth's atmosphere is thin enough not to add that much extra on due to the thinkness of it, but you would be right depending on how high you go, you would add on some speed.
(but nowhere near as much as you have suggested.)

 

[Robittybob1]

Hi guys!

Since we are talking of 'spinning' planets (at least in their earlier stages) has anyone done any calculations as to how much a spinning planet's FRAME DRAGGING EFFECT over time will add to prograde/retrograde velocities of the whole/layers/traveling-vortices of the planet's atmosphere? Just curious if this lens-thirring factor has been included in the weather-circulation modeling or not for the historical/longtermfuture data/projections etc. Any relevant/associated views/information very welcome. Thanks. Cheers!

.

We'll tackle that next, if we can ever make headway here.

 

[OnlyMe]

Hi guys!

Since we are talking of 'spinning' planets (at least in their earlier stages) has anyone done any calculations as to how much a spinning planet's FRAME DRAGGING EFFECT over time will add to prograde/retrograde velocities of the whole/layers/traveling-vortices of the planet's atmosphere? Just curious if this lens-thirring factor has been included in the weather-circulation modeling or not for the historical/longtermfuture data/projections etc. Any relevant/associated views/information very welcome. Thanks. Cheers!

.

Any frame-dragging has been part of the whole system long enough that the at osphere is not really a separate inertial system from the planet, though there are unique inertial dynamics at all levels of interaction, for the earth at least.

This is in part what we have winds that top out at a few hundred mph instead of 1000.

And yes ground level friction plays a role in the dynamics of both the atmosphere essential rotating with the planet and the localized and varied inertial interactions we experience as wind.

 

[OnlyMe]

I think the Earth's atmosphere is thin enough not to add that much extra on due to the thinkness of it, but you would be right depending on how high you go, you would add on some speed.
(but nowhere near as much as you have suggested.)

Unless the atmosphere where, as a whole rotating "with" the planet, as opposed to the atmosphere being at rest and the planet spinning inside it, there would be ground level winds of 1000 mph, as that is about haw fast the earth spins. Since the winds cap out a a few hundred mph, one must assume that the atmosphere generally rotates with the planet. Not in lock step, the coroilis force and associated wind patterns demonstrate that, but enough so that the 1000 mph spin of the earth is matched to within a few hundred mph give or take, by the wind patterns.