The atmosphere is physically inseperable from the condensed-matter surface. What does this imply? But before we answer this new question, I would like to explain another relevant issue..
The basis for the GH hypothesis is H2O and CO2 in the atmosphere can absorb substantially infrared radiation originated from the surface,
6.Although the taken for granted surface radiation has been recently challenged as I will discuss next time, the myth of CO2 saturation effect remains to be explained in relation to quantum mechanics and CO2 energy levels associated with its bending and rotation.
7.By definition, saturation effect in spectroscopy refers to the rate of an external resonant excitation between two energy levels of an atom of a molecule becomes close to the rate of relaxation.
8.For CO2 molecules in the atmosphere, the relaxation process can be achieved either by spontaneous emission or molecular thermodization. Why do they have to relax? Because they absorb infrared radiation, as a result, CO2 molecules are in so-called excited state.
9.When relaxed molecules are in thermal equilibrium with is environment, the population distribution in their energy diagrams obeys the Boltzmann law, as shown in this diagram. As you can see, the population in a lower level is more than that in a higher level.
10.When CO2 absorbs infrared absorption, the population difference is reduced slightly. But, if the radiation intensity is too high, the population difference between the two energy level would be zero. No more absorption will occur, no matter how high the CO2 concentration is. This is called saturation.
11.Nevertheless, the infrared radiation in the atmosphere can never be as strong as to cause saturation effect. Therefore, it is incorrect to use the term “CO2 saturation” in discussing the greenhouse effect.
12.Litereally, “there are nowhere near CO2 saturation.” Who said that? Oh, Zhong and Haight wrote so in 2013. It implies the global warming due to increasing CO2 will continue for ever. But wait a moment, this is just part of the story.
13.It must be made clear that the real issue here is scarcity, rather than over-supply in infrared radiation. Sounds like economy in a society? Yes, it would be helpful for you to understand this issue by analogy.
14.To be specific, as the CO2 concentration increases, there would be eventually a shortage of infrared radiation near the centre of the CO2 absorption band at 15 micron. As a result, the natural channels and their proportions of the infrared absorption by each CO2 molecules would be disrupted, just as the gas pipe between Russia and Germany was cutoff.
15.So far, many people, including Prof Happer, have argued that although there is apparent scarcity near the center, called Q band, the side bands on each sides, called P and R, respectively, would be capable of absorbing infrared radiation. So, business would be as usual without Russian gas supply.
16.That is why the logarithmic formula has been used to calculate radiative forcing, which apparently will increase forever. That is why I have been drawing people’s attention to the same mistake some high-profile climate change deniers also made.
17.To understand this mistake, let’s have a close look of the energy diagram of CO2 and related transitions that are responsible for detected CO2 absorption peak centered at 15 micron.
18.For sake of simplicity, I will use the simplified diagram on the right that describe the three sharp peaks in the CO2 absorption band, namely the central peak at 667 cm-1, and a pair of satellite peaks at 618 and 721 cm-1, respectively.
19.Notice, the two side transitions are dependent on the central absorption between the two lower energy levels, which determines the characteristic profile of the CO2 absorption spectrum when there is no scarcity in infrared radiation near 15 micron.
20.When the supply of infrared radiation for the central peak transition is down, however, the whole spontaneous transitions in additional CO2 molecules will be disrupted. So far, the calculated side bands absorption based on HITRAN and RTE just keeps logarithmic increasing with the CO2 concentration, but it is not true. Why?
21.It is simple. The transition probabilities for the remote banks are at least 1,000 or 10,000 times smaller than that for the central peak, how could one expect by making the current CO2 concentration in the atmosphere double, triple, quadruple, or septuple, octuple, make any detectable difference in the CO2 infrared absorption? I am serious.
22.As I mentioned before, many climate researchers often used a mixed-scale to illustrate CO2 absorption to scare people. In particular, they use a linear scale for the Planck function while use a logarithmic scale for the CO2 absorption. This is terribly misleading, and physically wrong.
2
