Atmospheric Emission: Climate Change, CO2 & Quantum Chemistry

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on the role of atmospheric CO2 in climate change, specifically addressing its ability to re-emit radiation and its comparative impact to water vapor. A quantum chemist argues that there is no credible research supporting CO2's significant interaction with infrared radiation due to atomic distance and that water vapor has a more substantial greenhouse effect. The conversation highlights the need for reliance on scientific literature over non-credible sources for accurate information regarding climate science.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of quantum chemistry principles
  • Familiarity with infrared radiation and its interaction with gases
  • Knowledge of greenhouse gas effects, particularly CO2 and water vapor
  • Ability to interpret scientific literature and research methodologies
NEXT STEPS
  • Research the role of CO2 in atmospheric radiation using peer-reviewed studies
  • Explore the greenhouse effect of water vapor compared to CO2 in climate models
  • Learn about the mechanisms of infrared radiation absorption and emission in gases
  • Investigate the scientific consensus on climate change and greenhouse gas contributions
USEFUL FOR

This discussion is beneficial for climate scientists, quantum chemists, environmental researchers, and anyone interested in the scientific basis of climate change and greenhouse gas interactions.

atlstroke
Messages
8
Reaction score
0
A friend is a quantum chemist. He is in agreement that climate change is bad (he feels the primary problems with CO2 is ocean acidification).

Anyway he states there is no credible research showing that atmospheric CO2 re-emits radiation to the planet. His belief is that the intersection of IR flux and distance between CO2 atoms does not allow for significant interaction. He also is of the opinion that the increased energy transferred to the CO2 would heat the atmosphere more at the upper levels which is not the case.

So I have read some information online and I get the impression that the measurement of incoming radiation has too much long wavelength radiation to be accounted for by solar radiation without emission from CO2. Any comment on this ?

He is also of the opinion that the concentration of water in the air has a far greater greenhouse effect and overwhelms any produced by CO2.

Can anyone point me to information that would be informative to someone who calculates orbital structures for a living? Cant denie I would like to win the argument, but its also good to have solid reasoning behind your beliefs.

Thanks
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Currently, global warming is a banned topic at this site. This thread is closed.

That said, your friend should read the scientific literature rather than goofy web sites.
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

Undergrad Effective Emission Height Calculation?
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
Historic CO2 levels, climate change
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
Is Cosmic Ray Influence on Cloud Cover and Climate Overlooked?
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
4K
Consequences of global climate change
  • · Replies 28 ·
Replies
28
Views
4K
Graduate Negative carbon emissions to fight ocean acidification?
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
News Can You Sue a Company for CO2 Emissions?
  • · Replies 43 ·
2
Replies
43
Views
6K
Irreversible Climate Change Already?
  • · Replies 34 ·
2
Replies
34
Views
9K
Strong negative feedback in Climate
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
6K
Is CO2 the main driver of climate change over the past 420 million years?
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
8K
Other Physics professor denies climate change
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K