created Sat Jan 5 15:24:42 EST 2008

file AKA If one reads about "Oscillations and Resonance in a Carbon Dioxide Laser" One finds that mechanical colisions between Nitrogen and the CO2 molecule there is an energy transfer that causes the CO2 molecule to vibrate and this thermal vibration the is released as photons when the excited CO2 collides with a helium molecule.
The atomic weight of CO2 44
The specific heat of CO2 .85 cal/g
CO2 does not change phase for any natural
atmospheric temperature and pressure.
The atomic weight of H20 18
The specific heat of H20 1 cal/g
H20 Latent heat of Fusion 80 cal/g
H20 Latent heat of Vaporization 540 cal/g

The mean molar mass of air is 28.97 g/mol. What is the weight of 1 cubic foot of air?

standard temperature and pressure (STP)

FINAL ANSWER: 1 cubic foot of air (STP) assuming average composition weighs approximately 0.0807 lbs.
1 pound = 453.59237 grams
1 cubic foot of air at standard temperature and pressure = 36.604904 grams 1 cubic foot is .02831685 cubic metters
1 cubic meter of air at standard temperature and pressure = 1292.8294 grams
1 cubic inch of air at standard temperature and pressure = 0.021183394 grams
How does one compare the amount of CO2 and H20. CO2 is expressed in ppm 1 gram of water per cubic foot is 27322 ppm.

How does CO2 at 385 PPM with H20 in PPM by the natural dew point defined for air.

There is a neat property that applies to any gas that a 22.4 liters of it at STP contains 6.02214199 x10^23 molecules of said gas.

28.32 liters of gas at STP is going to be 1.26414494 moles of air.

6.02214199 x10^23 times 1.26414494 is the number of molecules in 1 cubic foot of air.

7.6128603 x10^23 times is the number of molecules in 1 cubic foot of air.

0.004.4055905 x10^20 is the number of molecules in 1 cubic inch of air.

NTP - Normal Temperature and Pressure - is defined as air at 20oC (293.15 K, 68oF) and 1 atm ( 101.325 kN/m2, 101.325 kPa, 14.7 psia, 0 psig, 30 in Hg, 760 torr)

Saturated Water Vapor Pressure in mb es per degree C.
Bolton 1980 within 0.3% for -35C to 35 C =EXP(17.67*C10/(C10+243.5))*6.112 C10 is a temp C cell.
Goff, J. A., and S. Gratch (1946) Low-pressure properties of water from -160 to 212 °F

Open Office oocalc function expressing above equation.
p units hPA, T Units Kelvin A10 is cell holding temp in K.

PV=nRT Pressure * Volume = Moles * gas constant * Temp K

n/V = P/RT Moles / Volume = Pressure/( gas constant * Temp K )

units of gas constant R Pa m3 K-1 moles-1


moles are an avargardo number of molecules.

moist air = moles of dry air + moles of h20

PPM of h20 = moles of h20 / moles of dry air * 106

What volume contains 1 million molecules? 1.313566e-16 cubic feet.

What is the length of a side of that cube? The cube root of 1.313566e-16 is 0.000005083357257494382 feet is 1.549407292 microns or .06001 thousandths of an inch.

Human hair is reported to have diameters that vary from 17 to 181 microns.

So a cube with dimensions 1/10th to 1/100th the thickness of a hair has 336 or whatever ppm of CO2.

6.02214199 x10^23 times Carbon Dioxide (CO2): 0.0003792 moles = 2.2835962x10^20 CO2 molecules per cubic foot.

228,359,620,000,000,000,000 That's 228.35962 million billion molecules of CO2 per cubic foot.

132,152,560,000,000,000 or 132,152.56 billion molecules of CO2 per cubic in.

At 384 PPM CO2, For every molecule of C02 in the air there are about 2598 molecules of other gasses.
Oxygen: 20.99% 546
Nitrogen: 78.03% 2032
Carbon Dioxide: 0.03% 1
Hydrogen: 0.00005% .00000015
Argon: 0.93% 24
Neon: 0.0018%
Helium: 0.0005% 1.6
Krypton: 0.0001% .00333
Xenon: 0.000009% .0003
Water Vapor .25 to 3% 7.5 to 90

1 year = 31 556 926 seconds

Earth\ufffds radius (6.37 106 m) radius of Earth = 6 378 100 meters

The area of earth disc is equal to pr2 1.278004e+14 meters^2

Earth-Sun distance, 1.5x10^11 meters.

Energy reaches the surface of such a sphere at a rate of 1370 W/m^2.

Annual energy reaching earth in Joules.

A Watt is a joule per second.

1370 W/m^2 TIMES 31,556,926seconds/year TIMES 1.278004 X10^14 m^2 = 5.525197 X10e24 joules/year

in a gram of water there are 3.34x10^22 molecules of h20.

1 eV is approximately 1.602 × 10-19 joules

1 cubic meter = 35.3146667 cubic foot

Ideal gas law PV =nRT

From the ideal gas law key concepts to simplify understanding air or an uncontained volume are this.

In a given volume the pressure of a gas is a function of the number of molecules in that volume.

The number of molecules in a volume at a given pressure is a function of the temperature.

The weight of a given volume is a function of the sum of the masses of all molecules within.

The weight of a given volume is also it's density.

The density of a given volume is a function of sum of the masses of it's mix of different molecules.

E=hc/wavelength Planck's Constant and the Energy of a Photon Tuesday, January 8th, 2008 at 2:27 pm

Sir John Houghton on the Enhanced Greenhouse Effect By Steve McIntyre

Planck's Constant can also be expressed as approximately 6.626 × 10-34 joule·seconds or 4.135 × 10-15 eV·seconds.

Equations for black body radiation
q1.602 × 10-19 coulomb electronic charge
m09.108 × 10-31 kg electron rest mass
c2.998 × 108 m/s speed of light in vacuum
e08.85418 × 10-14 farad/cm
8.85418 × 10-12 farad/m
permitivity of free space
h6.626 × 10-27 erg·s
6.626 × 10-34 joule·s
Planck's constant
k1.380 × 10-16 erg/K
1.380 × 10-23 joule/K
Boltzmann's constant
s5.67 × 10-8 J/m2s K4 Stefan-Boltzmann constant
kT/q0.02586 Vthermal voltage at 300 K
l0 wavelength of 1eV photon1.24 mm

posts to blog, damn browser crashed a few times.

Dear Barton Paul Levenson 304.

I fully understand and do agree with the equations and your explanations of radiation physics. And they are a very simple explanation of, what I would call "a" driver of the long term average temperatures of the Earth. Now in a loose sense you use the term greenhouse effect. Or maybe you imply greenhouse effect is only the effect of radiation physics in the termperature of the Earth. Other effects are not considered part of the greenhouse effect. In this I don't fully comprehend the intention of your post.

From this one could the define CO2 greenhouse radiation effect as the effect of CO2 absent all other gasses. From this one can define CO2 it a 20% effect and H20 is a 80% effect. This is the only explanation I have found at And maybe I missed it, but all other links I have been given have not expanded on this explanation.

Now all of the above is true, but I comprehend or consider as meaningless and misleading in any search for what real or actual effect CO2 has at 380 or even 720 PPM. This 1 to 5 relationship ignores the reality of 10 to 50 fold more H20 molecules and that H20 is a total and partial absorber of far more wavelengths than CO2, and also H20 is a partial absorber of the far fewer CO2 wavelengths that are in the black body radiation spectrums of the earth's temperatures. I have spent much time looking for and when possible annotating images to emphasize what seems obvious to me.

Are all the equations of the models that compute CO2 driving temperature using the above weightings? Then I may know why the models predict manifestations that cannot be found.

The atmosphere is a moving, sometimes violently moving fluid, that is also why I also opine the equations that are really about static homogenized static fluids have little reality in suggesting some rules of actual reality.

A good representation of the simple average of all is this. This is how I consider and what I consider the greenhouse effect. What part is radiation physics and what part Newtonian physics. Can one separate them.

Dear Ray Ladbury RE: 305.

Thank you for that very thought provoking post. I will bold your comment for visual clarity. Do not know the accepted convention.

1)assertion that CO2 does not have sufficient heat capacity to warm Earth (heat capacity is irrelevant to the radiative physics involved) As I have come to understand radiative physics and said definition by convention or experts, your observation is true. And it is also quite obvious that CO2 must have some other property than radiative physics that causes it to drive global temperatures.

2)your assertion that heat loss of Earth an isolated system surrounded by vacuum is dominated by convection My assertion is that heat loss from the Earth comes from radiation. But the delay of the heat captured, the overall rate of cooling involves convection in transporting said heat to an altitude where it escapes by radiation. And if you read my posts, I think I have explained this several times. But as a picture is worth a thousand words. Nasa did a nice job creating an extremely simple view of the mind boggling complex Earth greenhouse effect. So I repeat the link.

3)You have taken data out of context e.g. using the 1998 El Nino as a peak of warmingand on and on. Worst of all, Tom, theres no evidence your learning curve has a positive slope. Until you make an effort to learn the real science so that you can talk apples with apples, you are wasting our time and yours.

I don't know what context I've taken any data out of. And I may have no idea what an apple is in your world. I can only guess what data you are referring. I am guessing this is the bad apple. If I have guessed correctly, could you explain why it is out of context. Well out of what context.

There is a context of a real world following the laws of physics. In that world this is how I view chart above.

What do I see when I see this chart and read the explanation in the article where I found it. The data graphed represents a total in some manner of the "temperature of the Earth" The temperature reflects the rms value of the heat energy of the Earth. Is my supposition correct? When the rms value of the heat energy of the Earth goes up, the global temperature goes up.

The context for that chart is this.

The key point or context is that clearly for the last decade there is not a build up of stored energy. And nobodies CO2 radiation physics predicts this.

Dear Jim Eager re; 312,

Terms like lower troposphere do have meaning, but I like using altitudes. Anyway I will use this chart as my definition of altitude zones. Mid troposphere is 5 Km Temperature is -20C and pressure is about 1/2 an atmosphere. I believe, I interpret that the laws of physics mean that CO2 will not trap any serious amount of heat. I can only offer these intuative arguments. All black body radiation goes in a random direction. But all that go up and are of a wavelength that can be adsorbed go further than those that go down. Air is less dense going up and thus extinction distance is further. All going down also must pass through lots more absorbing molecules. The cooling of a dry desert at night is in degrees per hour. The dryer less dense air at 5K would likely cool at even quicker rates as has no specific heat.

Now also, If what you say is true then one would see the heating of that area. And by the way, the IPCC in the last report published this figure showing exactly what you have described.

Now this is not gospel, but I don't see how one can reconcile CO2 heating the mid to upper troposphere. And there is a mystery -70C spot in the middle of the Gulf of Mexico that is a fountain of cold. Another interpretation of images I collected and studied. 2 weeks of GOES-East, Eastern North America IR(infra-red: 10.7 µm): Satelite a tcsh script was run for a two week period and collected the images updated on the half hour. 688 images were collected. This is a link to one image and there large areas of temperature above the clouds at far below the -20 reported as the 5KW temperature.

Dear Ray Ladbury RE: 309

I guess I don't know where to find the physics and math you are referring too. Is the absorption hole in a spectrum a clear indication of the idea of an extinction distance. That a wavelength is absorbed, the energy redistributed to surrounding molecules and even when they re-radiate their small amount of that wavelength it gets absorbed immediately over and over, With each re-radiation some goes to space and over time air cools as heat is escaping???

Ray in engineering there is an idea that when two things are in play and one is varying by orders of magnitude on numerous time scales and one is increasing by a fraction of a fraction, All thing being equal, a fraction of a fraction adds zero. Dear Ray Ladbury re: 318

It is nice to hear you know Spencer Weart personally, And your being so familiar, I understand why you do not provide a link to a page of Spencer that show his clear explanations so I can you will have to unlearn the incorrect interpretation you have amassed through lack of systematic study.

I must unlearn, if no heat energy can be found, it is still there waiting to raise the temperature. I gotta have faith. Dear Phil. Felton re: 320

As I read your comment, I smiled and asked, it the man hockey stick figure a cartoon. I have searched long and wide for cartoons that plot the absorption of CO2 and H20. Most are very cartoon like. They have no info really speaking to the metrology of how to quantify what is plotted.

Even NIST does not really do it. I do wonder why it is so hard. And I would be thankfull for any url pointers to accurate cartoons, of graphs or figures. Especially those the also list the complete math behind the figure, the assumptions etc. This is a composite of NIST plots of CO2 and H20. I do not see the non overlap you are claiming. Also if one takes the NIST to have some unit correlation. Yes I know it is not stated. Anyway, in that at and in the first hundred feet of atmosphere there are 10 to 50 molecules of H20 to CO2, A 5% H20 absorption is the same as a 50% to 100% CO2 absorption. The NIST chemistry WebBook allow plotting with different scaling and units. If you look at my raw directory the separate frames used to make my cartoon are there. They are files the begin with nist-

Then I use there black body calculator to create graphs of different temps. Then one matches the scaling and one can apply them together making what you call inaccurate cartoons

In engineering, the use of graphical or cartoon methods is quite normal and regulars. So what rule of mathematics says using graphical methods to join cartoons is not the same as doing a detailed line-by-line calculation

Dear Hank, thank you,

I did not know .CX was associated with Christmas Island. But a whois is more informative.

    DynDNS Hostmaster
    Dynamic Network Services, Inc.
    1230 Elm St.
    5th Floor
    Manchester, NH 03103

And [ 247 ] > host has address
and [ 248 ] > host domain name pointer

I have a dyndns account, but it was free for 5 domain as I recall. dyndns and several other services allow for a domain behind a dhcp gated router to have a constant URL.

And I would welcome any suggestions to references you can provide. What you show me, you show the world of your expertise and knowledge. Do you prefer paper or the internet as a library? And I have a photo gallery for all who enjoy a pig out on reading....

Dear Ray Ladbury RE 326

I have started looking at, I posted a reply just before this to BPL. The nature of how this forum loads in my browser is such I see the last posts before I see the time continuation of where I left off reading some previous time. So when I wrote the last post, I had not read 326. I confess, after spending time at wiki. to to

I do not really know what IR radiation is? smiling here... yes IR radiation is energy, how it's absorbed, I hope to learn.

I know what I think IR radiation is. But I am searching to find out if what I think is correct or hogwash.

Now I have spent time composing thsi reply, not reading the link you provided and the links it refers too. I now post this and start looking at the link provided. And thank you for that link.

By the way, I was at wiki attempting to make heads out of your earlier posts on molecular vibration. This is not a knock. Different folks speak with different jargon. I could only guess as what you were saying.

I wonder will this post be allowed. Is there any scientific honesty at this site?

Dear Barton Paul Levenson re 335:

What links do you proffer I have been given and not read and not understood. What links have you given that you claim I have not read and not understood.

Do you think it took no time to compose all the posts I have made on this forum.

Do you think it took no time to compile all the info on my open web directory and to link to specific figure located there. Do you think it took no time, not effort no understanding to edit and annotate and try to combine information so it makes more sense.

I have posted here with honest questions. My questions about things that don't add up. is there any point in saying more about you post???

Dear Ray Ladbury RE 326

I have now looked at, Overall it reveal little to nothing new to me. It says A new joint study by French and Russian scientists shows in detail how carbon dioxide molecules absorb and sometimes scatter light energy not only singly but also during inter-molecular collisions but reveal no netails. It does reference as this have now derived the first exact mathematical formulas that can be used to calculate how collisions between molecules modify the absorption spectra for those molecules (see figure at But looking at ...300.htm is a statement of what most may believe, but nothing about anything in formulas.

I do believe, but will not claim with certainty that I have read previously various pages at It general the pages seem not very definitive. I do have an undisciplined method of saving links I encounter in a file I also now more regularly use an open source program, the simple xpaint to annotate figures I download with the original link for future reference.

Now back to the discussion of absorption, There is a claim, or explanation and it does note a cite is needed. But this explanation uses an example where we have parallel traveling photons from the emission source.

in both the atomic and molecular cases, the excited states do not persist: after some random amount of time, the atoms and molecules revert back to their original, lower energy state. In atoms, the excited electron returns to a lower orbital, emitting a photon. In molecules, the vibrational or rotational mode decays, also emitting a photon.

When this decay occurs, the photon produced is not necessarily emitted in the same direction as the original photon. The most common angle of this has been shown to be about 45 degrees of the original photon[citation needed]. This applies to any situation where gases lie between a light source and an observer: the observer will see gaps in the spectrum of the light corresponding to the wavelengths of the photons which were absorbed. These gaps occur despite the re-emission of photons because the re-emitted photons are equally likely to travel in all directions, and it is statistically unlikely to travel along the original path to the observer. These gaps appear as black lines in an image of the spectrum.

But width of the earth emitting (let's says by hundreds of square miles) and the thinness of the atmosphere. (choose some altitude) has the IR wavelength being emitted at all angles with respect to an observer at some altitude.

If one sees absorption lines of a specific band at some altitude, the wiki 45 degree and re-emission explanation seems incorrect to me. It seems absorption with conversion to heat and then re-emission of full spectrum where same absorbed band but less energy gets re-absorbed and band shifted component of energy now or will recursively contain all energy in the original absorbed band.

That part of the energy that is not absorbed leaves the system. That energy that is absorbed remains and is constantly part of the heat within the earths system.

But I still have found no explanation of how C02 has any unique property the accounts the supposed change of some PPM.

Dear Ray Ladbury RE: 339,

I had not read 339 yet when I posted my reply #341. I don't know that I need mention that for others, but I need to note it to have the dialog make sense to me if I refer back to it in he future.

Your observations about the forum are valid. As to vibrational modes, I have read many different renditions of word descriptions to create a minds eye visualization of the interaction of photons with matter and in particular what absorption is like.

I have reveiewed many text books, The specifics of the vibration modes are interesting, but have not addressed a quantification of probabilities of what happens when those photons that are tuned to be adsorbed by a specific molecule or molecules in general do intercept. The state of wisdom is as the link you referenced in #326 The state of knowledge seems to be this.

and its ability to absorb and trap infrared radiation is thought to be instrumental in producing greenhouse effects. CO2 molecules one at a time can absorb light. But molecules can also absorb light when they collide with other molecules. This collision-induced absorption, occurring at wavelengths different from those for single molecules and accounting for about 10% of overall IR absorption, is insufficiently understood.

So if this belief of mine is correct, across there is an attempt to lower the "overall IR absorption, is insufficiently understood." I jumped in and asked what I judged to be questions that go to the center of ambiguity in understanding.

I have no wish to hijack a forum, But one can say my posts have. But I do provide links to web resources I control and from them who I am and where I live and how to contact me can be found, even by non rocket scientists. I am open to any suggestions on how to follow my curiosity on how it works.

So thank you again for taking the time to post responses to my concerns, questions and ramblings.

How many of those who post, can you look in the eye???? this is dated 04/06/99 so the eyes are older now.

PS as I posted the preview this time I checked an saw 342. So Re 342, I would not assume you would not understand an explanation of anything by someone who actually understood it. I find that rule is useful in general. I find I ofter understand better for having explained to others who did not understand. I have also witnessed arguments between folks saying the same thing.

As to the 10^10 of collision and usec atomic level heat conduction times, I would guess photon time of flight is sub picosecods. Does this suggest the more CO2 more heat faster transfered to air, Does this agree with the idea of a shorter adsorption distance. More molecules, sooner intercept. Does that imply a more concentrated initial heating near surface that means sooner of faster start of convection of warmer less dense air upward.

But H20 is still 10 to 50 times CO2 in molecule population.

# tom watson Says:

26 April 2008 at 1:49 PM

Previewed comment:

I was reviewing the forum. I found, I spent so much time addressing less than flatering replies to my posts and considering how to reply in way both informative and civil. that I missed other posts and posters that I believe I share very common state of thought.

I continue to post as I am still attempting to expand my understanding. It may be a waste my time if no one reads or no one replies, but my efforts of attempting to write down what I believe and explain it helps me better understand what I believe and often furthers my own understanding.

Dear Gene Hawkridge RE 27 and a general comment to all.

Your said \u201cThat is clearly not healthy are the nuts who conclude, based on a few years data, that global warming is fictional \u201d

My skeptism is that any link between a variation of PPM of C02 and an ability to drive climate anywhere near the current IPCC supposed levels has ever been explained beyond a supposition and nothing near proven or even likely. It is all suppositions, and theories.

I posted on this tread hoping those who freely volunteer the time to create such an extensive site and state

RealClimate is a commentary site on climate science by working climate scientists for the interested public and journalists. We aim to provide a quick response to developing stories and provide the context sometimes missing in mainstream commentary. The discussion here is restricted to scientific topics and will not get involved in any political or economic implications of the science.

would be a place where I could ask questions or explain why I am confused about C02 suppositions of massive impact.

I hoped that such learned and expert folks would be able to explain in laymans terms the nature of exactly how CO2 is supposed to drive temperature. But Laymans terms using some quantification that explains how mass in part per million has some effect in parts per ten or hundred or even a thousands.

I have extensive experience in using all manner of sensors and instruments to measure physical properties and then using various engineering math to process, create simple visualizations. Visualization that greatly assist any laymen in grasping the complexity in a real world system.

I attempt to express in an EE jargon.

In electronic systems there is signal and noise and a signal to noise ratio. How does the signal of ppm of CO2 drive the signal of Temperature when H20 is so much higher a signal in PPM, Multiplied by higher absorber of power of the spectrum of interest.

In the Earth system

The water signal has always been present, the water signal is orders of magnitude larger and varying in amplitude by orders of magnitude over the current small PPM increase signal of CO2.

Also heat by conduction and convection and radiation get to a place where it escapes via radiation. The massive for all time present signal of H20 also can also tranport via convection about 300 time the heat of CO2, O2, and N2, per unit mass. 02 and N2 make up 96 to 98%. Water makes up 1% to 3%. So does this mean that in a cubic foot of air that H20 by convection can transport 3 to 9 times the heat in its 1 to 3% as much as the entire 97 to 99% of the rest of the air that includes some PPM of CO2.

300 tims per unit mass.(specific heat, heat of fusion, heat of vaporization and only h20 is going through phase changes in atmospheric convection.)

I always attempt to parse what a skeptic is skeptical about. I don\u2019t get how one can add the H20 and CO2 signals and support the CO2 impact suppositions.

For my efforts and question, this is a summary of what has

The collective argument is that one must read more to understand and those who cannot are just of too limited an intellect to comprehend.

Dear Hank Roberts Re: 344.

I would suggest "photon time of flight is sub picoseconds" is good layman terminology for the technical "mean free path" I often use the best layman terminology I can think of, even if I did know the appropriate technical jargon. But such corrections are welcome as then all may learn appropriate technical jargon.

adsorption vs absorption is a db typo. My typing sucks. I also often put you instead of your and the where this and that should be. I omit the letter s often and may include it wrongly. That is a handicap I have.

But on adsorption vs absorption, I wonder if as I think constantly in pictures and mixed concepts, is the electric field of electrons in obit that is selective about which photons may enter functioning like a membrane. Does my many levels mental processing somehow impact what signal gets to what finger to execute a particular character.

I know my minds eye is beyond the speed of my thought to finger communications.

I can only say sorry for pain it causes. It is more work to listen to garbled speech. I have tried many schemes and still my mind in review does not catch all my garbles.

Dear Hank Roberts Re: 349

First, I literally draft on and off line simultaneously.

After creating a post, I cut and paste into the forum and preview. Often seeing the new preview format makes some of my error appear.

As to the word salad, I had no knowledge of the possible laser biomedical term uses. I also still consider my description a reasonable universal laymen terms visualization.

To me it is self explicit. But all have there own opinion that is, I say with a friendly smile, inferior to mine.

Dear Phil. Felton Re 350

I agree concentration is not the signal. I believe or I am not aware of any contradiction of the idea that CO2 and H20 absorb photon in any different way. The only difference is the wavelength of the particular photons absorbed. Also CO2 and H20 do have the ability to absorb photons of the same wavelength. I do not know how to express the metrics of what angles of orientation an interception of a particular wavelength photon must possess to assure absorption some other redirection or no interaction. I guess or proffer that for some wavelengths the width or \u201cscope of interception\u201d are larger and thus absorption is more likely.

From the properties as I have described above I proffer that the sum of number of absorbing targets weighted by it\u2019s \u201cscope of interception\u201d is proportional to the probability of absorbing a particular photon.

For a specific photon wavelength H2O and CO2 can be assigned a probability number from it\u2019s NIST or other transmission graph.

From this the possibility of absorption is the sum of the number of CO2 molecules times it\u2019s NIST probability This is also true for H20.

From this it seems to me that in the path of a photon the probability of meeting CO2 or H20 is a function of the number in PPM.

From this the probability of a being absorbed is a function of sum of probabilities for each for that path.

All photons will likely intercept 10, 20, 50, H20 (the variation of humidity) for every CO2 at 260 or 460 PPM

This addresses the CO2 only or mostly photons. This does not even consider that H20 can absorb a far greater percentage of all photon in the black body spectrum of earth temperatures.

The H20 signal is the sum of all it alone absorbs and all it absorbs that CO2 might absorb if it every sees it.

To me the amplitude of the signal is a function of the total population C02 + H20 vs the ppm population change of CO2.

Gain has been mentioned. I do not see in my understanding of what absorption is to introduce a gain function.

Now I do not claim I have a perfect or totally correct understanding of absorption. But I have not seen any convincing explanations that contradict or confirm with certainty I have the correct understanding.

MODTRAN\u2026 I am looking now, but a specific pointer through all the weeds of the internet would be helpful.

.. superimposed graphs of a known concentration of CO2 with an unknown (but high) concentration of H2O, secondly you plotted the graph over too large a range of cm-1 (no point in anything over 2000 cm-1)\u2026

Do you know the concentration of CO2 and H20? Even relative, high is not quantitative. And h20 at 2% or 20,000 PPM is high compared to CO2 386 PPM, but realistic.

I used the graphs that NIST makes available.

I also believe the the NIST graphs I used do take into account the black body radiation spectrum of earth\u2019s temperature.

I have collected all kinds of plots of absorption at

the following responses
by time line analysis
appear to has been censored by the moderators of

CENSORED by Dear raypierre, re 353 response

I read the Water vapor: Feedback or Forcing? I believe I comprehend it completely. I do not see how it explains any logical or rational scenario on how C02 has any more ability to absorb more than my posted proffer of explanations and reasoning. That page presents this is some math and it says this. It is not presented as any proof or with explanations that are other than obtuse. I am also pretty certain that in the text's you recommend there is any additional explanation information.

Why would one not assume that "Water vapor: Feedback or Forcing?" is not the very best shot of the best and brightest who contribute at in explaining in layman's terms how CO2 is so much more potent than H20 because of rule X or rule Y or whatever. No one can give a link to web page where a good explanation can be found.

As to your possible reference to something you may have authored. I have no idea of what book you are talking about. ISBN or title and author is often helpful.

If the mathematics exists and one understands the math. Then explaining in words should be no problem. One explains for CO2, for H20. How does one weight the contribution of each. Is their an example in common observations and/or precise measurements that support the rationale of the explanations.

As I am honestly interested in fining out the where the line between ignorance and understanding is located, Why would I want to give and why would anyone want me to give up?

As to going in circles, I attempt to try alternative explanations. Now the figures I use do show CO2 and H20 independently. I have a mind and it is a simulation computer also.

In recent history a simulation program was developed that can match the simulation of a mind in problem defined by space of 64 cell that contain 32 items of completely known properties. I am speaking of chess of course.

I have worked with simulations that assist a human mind. But the human mind makes the final decisions of life and death and that is good because the computer simulation mistakes what is really of interest most of the time. Global climate change and even modeling transmission is I believe far far more complex than the simulations I worked with. For my work on creating computers capable of the smarts to engage in a DOD simulators shoot out, I got this.

With that I will say codes do explicitly what the microcode of the processor is hard wired to do. Most programmers have no idea if the processor is really doing what they believe. I have also done work on the methods one would employ to have some quantitative proof that a program at the microcode level is in fact doing what a programmer intended.

CENSORED by Dear Phil. Felton Re 350 and MODTRAN.

Did google MODTRAN, got wiki OK... I figure find plots associated with MODTRAN. google images MODTRAN transmission plot,

Found there is a matlab routine, may be shareware, boo hoo, I have not figured out how to acquire a license.

All the interesting looking plots associated with MODTRAN point to Also found raypierre

I like red M&M's can I make head or tails out of red M&M's, I read a couple of Steve McIntyre found by plots associated with MODTRAN and they make sense. time to study some more.

# tom watson Says: DISAPPEARED OR CENSORED by

28 April 2008 at 8:41 AM

Previewed comment:

Dear Phil. Felton Re 354:

tom watson would call this some examples of your incorrect application of logic or set theory.

You take my sentence.

The only difference is the wavelength of the particular photons absorbed. Also CO2 and H20 do have the ability to absorb photons of the same wavelength.

You say \u201cNot true, linewidths and absorption cross-sections for example.\u201d

So you say there is not a single common absorption wavelength for both CO2 and H20. I\u2019m guessing you proffer that there is at some fine division a way to see the exclusion law you have proffered. Phil. Felton by implication says At some fine level the energy resonances of C02 and H20 are exclusive and unique to each. Are there instruments that can measure this effect, I don\u2019t know. Then one could further refine the total amount of energy CO2 could possibly absorb vs H20. And the number would refect the area under the curve of the graphs. And the numbers would not really change. Well maybe the total absorbed by both would be less as at some finer resolution some additional lines might be found that absorb niether CO2 or H20.

One can make comparisons of absorption percent for charts with different or unknown scales. And one can the rightly argue that it\u2019s hand waving. I will observe that definition a recursive model as the basis of supposition or future prediction is pure hand waving.

Now on where no data is presented on any molar concentration, I would appreciate if you would educate me and all who read with you wit on what error you see in my statements.

It is not possible that like in a chess match, my vision of the interaction of all pieces is further ahead of some others and I see in a chart more accurately the true meaning or implication or logic inductions. But explaining the fuzzy minds eye logic image in teams another can comprehend is not a strength of a 4 thumbed typist.

356. tom watson Says: Your comment is awaiting moderation.
Dear John Mashey Re 355

28 April 2008 at 9:08 AM

Previewed comment:

You must remember you only have the count of moderator approved replies. For the most part you count is accurate, but as of late it is falling behind.

To me what is of more interest in the classic for students of blogging behavior are the tone, and logic of the poster. Character is revealed in how the interaction flows. But for any truly interested, for my part I have stared keeping a complete record and now because of delays I have seen in my posts appearing, I am even documenting the last time of my post preview.

Currently for my posts a more uptodate record is found at

357: Your comment is awaiting moderation.

# tom watson Says:
28 April 2008 at 10:52 AM
Previewed comment:
Dear Phil. Felton Re 354:
Some thoughts. My search for truth

On your comments of my arguing with self proclaimed experts.

What do you or others claim you are experts in?

Let's look at your one of your arguments, that you proffer as an expert.

Phil. Felton Says: Figure 11 in this page of yours illustrates the error of your statements if you had the wit to see it!

Now in the context you chose, you are specifically saying that heating of the atmosphere or the rate of cooling that is manifested by property of temperature in let's say climate time frames is not affected by properties of H20 and CO2 but only by CO2.

I do not know what interpretations you see in that I don't have the wit to see. I find you argument meaningless.

That chart of transmittance of earth's radiation from polar regions is devoid of all number of the definitions of any reference or traceable measurement standards.

What you proffer as meaning from you expert eyes is illusion.

I have done real engineering and I have authored original solutions that were demonstrated to work and to my pleasure and amazement the worked better than I thought possible. From my failures on the road to successes or not I became an expert on how to find out where genuine truth lies and how to parse the shades of nuance. I am an expert devils advocate and if one can pass my tests of genuine, they can have high confidence they are in possession of genuine truth.

That is not say they don't already have some or most of it. But my challenges, my possible wacky ways of re-evaluation of conventional wisdom will make all far more expert.

358. tom watson Says: Your comment is awaiting moderation.
28 April 2008 at 3:31 PM

I am quite happy, smiling with mirth and amusement. the self proclaimed experts of have silently banned me and disallowed my posts. and they still allow all the others who post to essentially insult me and my intelligence. What a profound revelation or the integrity of expert mentors. Of course Martin Vaneer at least uses logic correctly. The revelation that those reading over my shoulder are too dumb to teach me anything they don\u2019t know is the BIG SECRET. I am good at finding a vacuum of knowledge An Amusing little secret.

Now this is the kind of story that may amuse the world.

And it all documented in real time by frame grab

The documentation of this text is all documented at Post editing and comment may be added as this joke unfolds.