Typically this comes from someone who is not very familiar with
spectroscopy of small molecules, but has done organic/maybe analytical
chemistry and seen an IR spectrum. As Eric points out below, the band
that is most important is the 15 um bending band which sits near the
peak wavelength for emission from a 300 K blackbody (surface of the
earth). In addition people with such a level of experience usually
don't realize that the CO2 molecules efficiently transfer their energy
to the other molecules in the atmosphere by collision which heats the
atmosphere, and that collisions also maintain a constant population in
the vibrationally excited states of CO2. This equilibrium leads to
emission from the CO2 part of which warms the ground in turn.
On Jan 4, 8:32 pm, okc chemist <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I would expect more infrared to be absorbed by additional CO2, of
> course, although there are some wavelengths that allow almost 100%
> transmittance. There is also something called saturation, according to
> some. If I remember correctly, there is a huge IR absorbance band of
> the C=O bond at about 1,700 cm-1. Again, I am looking for proven
> facts, not opinion, mine, yours or anyone elses. Show me some
> reproducible data on IR that QUANTIFIES the effect, and your point is
> well taken. So can the Scientific Method verify anthropogenic global
> warming or not? I do not dispute there has been some warming, or that
> humans may have a role in it. Again, my opinion or my politics is
> meaningless. From a pure and unbiased scientific viewpoint, Where are
> the actual provable and reproducible scientific hard facts? We have
> agreed on one that has been confirmed: 1. There has been some warming
> of actual global temperatures in the past century or so. O.K. We have
> a fact. Now lets test it.
>
> On Jan 4, 3:57 pm, Eric Swanson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Again, you imply that the scientific method provides a "reasonable"
> > proof
> > of truth. Not quite as strong a requirement as you first requested.
>
> > Well there's lots of data regarding the spectroscopic characteristics
> > of
> > the atmosphere and the gases of which it is composed. Do you, as a
> > scientist, agree that increasing the atmospheric concentration of CO2
> > will change the optical transmission of infrared energy thru the
> > atmosphere?
> > What would you expect to be the result of those changes? Can you
> > describe
> > them without the use of a mathematical model?
>
> > okc chemist wrote:
> > > No, this "troll" would be satisfied if someone can make the case for
> > > A.G.W. using The Scientific Method. I would say the burden of proof
> > > exists with those who claim it exists, not those who do not.
> > > You have a problem with science being established the way science is
> > > supposed to be established? No stacked deck here. Just show me that
> > > your facts support the theory. It doesn't matter what you or I
> > > personally believe. No politics, no Real Climate and no anti-AGW
> > > sites. Not opinions, not consensus, these are not science. Pure facts
> > > that can reasonably prove a true scientific basis for A.G.W. Do I ask
> > > too much? Show a poor aging environmental chemist the great truths
> > > that you can reveal.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Global Change ("globalchange") newsgroup. Global Change is a public, moderated
venue for discussion of science, technology, economics and policy dimensions of
global environmental change.
Posts will be admitted to the list if and only if any moderator finds the
submission to be constructive and/or interesting, on topic, and not
gratuitously rude.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/globalchange
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
