Questions.....RE: The Greenhouse Effect

[SSDD]

“Carbonic acid gas is one of the feeblest of absorbers of the radiant heat emitted by solid sources. It is, for example, extremely transparent to the rays emitted by the heated copper plate already referred to.”

Your quote from an 1872 report from the Smithsonian Inst. has a sentence that immediately follows your quote:
There are, however, certain rays, comparatively few in number, emitted by the copper, to which the carbonic acid is impervious; and could we obtain a source of heat emitting such rays only, we should find carbonic acid more opaque than any other gas to the radiation from that source.

It is well known that N2 and O2 do not absorb IR, but "carbonic acid" was said to be impervious and more opaque than any other gas to certain rays. (most likely the 15 micron band etc.)

All he is saying is that CO2 absorbs certain wavelengths...but then emits them..Predictably, you failed to grasp the point of the most important statement there even though it was explained...adding absorbers to the air also means adding emitters to the air..adding CO2 to the air increases its emissivity...increasing emissivity makes it more able to cool itself...increasing the emissivity of a thing does not make it warmer..

Do you never tire of being wrong?

 

[Wuwei]

“Carbonic acid gas is one of the feeblest of absorbers of the radiant heat emitted by solid sources. It is, for example, extremely transparent to the rays emitted by the heated copper plate already referred to.”

Your quote from an 1872 report from the Smithsonian Inst. has a sentence that immediately follows your quote:
There are, however, certain rays, comparatively few in number, emitted by the copper, to which the carbonic acid is impervious; and could we obtain a source of heat emitting such rays only, we should find carbonic acid more opaque than any other gas to the radiation from that source.

It is well known that N2 and O2 do not absorb IR, but "carbonic acid" was said to be impervious and more opaque than any other gas to certain rays. (most likely the 15 micron band etc.)

All he is saying is that CO2 absorbs certain wavelengths...but then emits them..Predictably, you failed to grasp the point of the most important statement there even though it was explained...adding absorbers to the air also means adding emitters to the air..adding CO2 to the air increases its emissivity...increasing emissivity makes it more able to cool itself...increasing the emissivity of a thing does not make it warmer..

Do you never tire of being wrong?

SSDD: "All he is saying is that CO2 absorbs certain wavelengths...but then emits them."
Please quote where he says CO2 then emits them. He didn't say that.

You forgot to respond where you think the energy goes when he says that carbonic acid is extremely opaque.

 

[IanC]

...if it does then it is either immediately emitted or passed on via collision..

If it reemits the photon that photon is either captured by another nearby CO2 molecule, or possibly it makes its way back to the surface. Either way it cannot escape to space.

You must account for it somehow. It doesn't just disappear.

If it is absorbed by another molecule then again it is reemitted...in either case, infrared can not warm the air...as I have said to you over and over, the very idea of adding a substance that increases the emissivity of a thing causing it to warm is one of the stupidest claims ever made by science...IR does not, can not, will not warm the air...mountains of empirical evidence bear this out and yet, because the empirical evidence doesn't jibe with your belief, you disregard it as if it didn't exist.

You keep making nonsensical claims, without explaining them. And then declare some sort of victory.

You infer that increased emmisivity will cause a substance to cool. Could be true or could be false. It depends on the local conditions.

For CO2 near the surface it is false. The surface is warmer and produces more 15 micron radiation than the CO2 can at it's lower temperature. Use your S-B equation for this wavelength.

At greater height, and a much cooler temperature, the 15 micron radiation can escape to space. The conditions have changed. Now the stored energy in the atmosphere is being transformed into 15 micron radiation and lost to space, causing cooling.

Your blanket statement is incomplete and leads to a contradiction. We are more concerned with the surface/air boundary conditions where your statement is false. You have 'proven' nothing other than your context free binary thinking is often incorrect.

 

[SSDD]

SSDD: "All he is saying is that CO2 absorbs certain wavelengths...but then emits them."
Please quote where he says CO2 then emits them. He didn't say that.

I keep thinking that you have bottomed out on the stupid meter...but you just keep dropping don't you...he said that they emit quite clearly.

“By this mode of experiment it was proved that the self-same molecular arrangement which renders a gas a powerful absorber, renders it in the same degree a powerful radiator—that the atom or molecule which is competent to intercept the calorific waves is in the same degree, competent to generate them....."

How much more clear can a statement be?

You forgot to respond where you think the energy goes when he says that carbonic acid is extremely opaque.

No..I didn't forget.. I thought that you might be bright enough to understand the statements...guess I was wrong...by opaque, he means that the molecules absorb in certain bands...but then goes on to describe that if a molecule is an efficient absorber, it is also an efficient emitter....geez guy, this is very basic stuff...

Let me guess....you thought that CO2 absorbed energy and held on to it....

 

[SSDD]

You infer that increased emmisivity will cause a substance to cool. Could be true or could be false. It depends on the local conditions.

OK ian...describe a situation where you increase the emissivity of an object and that increased emissivity results in it becoming warmer.

and what we are concerned with ian, is whether or not infrared radiation can warm the air...it can't...and that being an observed, measured fact, renders your belief that adding CO2 to the atmosphere results in warming moot.

 

[Wuwei]

SSDD: "All he is saying is that CO2 absorbs certain wavelengths...but then emits them."
Please quote where he says CO2 then emits them. He didn't say that.

I keep thinking that you have bottomed out on the stupid meter...but you just keep dropping don't you...he said that they emit quite clearly.

“By this mode of experiment it was proved that the self-same molecular arrangement which renders a gas a powerful absorber, renders it in the same degree a powerful radiator—that the atom or molecule which is competent to intercept the calorific waves is in the same degree, competent to generate them....."

How much more clear can a statement be?

You forgot to respond where you think the energy goes when he says that carbonic acid is extremely opaque.

No..I didn't forget.. I thought that you might be bright enough to understand the statements...guess I was wrong...by opaque, he means that the molecules absorb in certain bands...but then goes on to describe that if a molecule is an efficient absorber, it is also an efficient emitter....geez guy, this is very basic stuff...

Let me guess....you thought that CO2 absorbed energy and held on to it....

You're right Tyndall didn't know about Equipartition Theory. Of course CO2 can't hang on to the energy. There is a high likelihood that the CO2 will lose it's energy by a collision with air molecules which will absorb CO2 vibration energy.

 

[SSDD]

You're right Tyndall didn't know about Equipartition Theory. Of course CO2 can't hang on to the energy. There is a high likelihood that the CO2 will lose it's energy by a collision with air molecules which will absorb CO2 vibration energy.

CO2 can not hold on to energy at atmospheric temperatures...you would have to cool it to either its liquid or solid form in order for it to be able to actually store energy. Once again, there are observed, measured, quantified, REPEATABLE experiments and literally millions of hours of industry testing, and observation, and commercial application that PROVE that infrared radiation does not warm the air it is passing through.

That being said, all conversation about the ability of CO2 or any other so called greenhouse gas to warm the atmosphere is nothing more than a pointless discussion of a fictitious effect which does not happen in reality...ie magic.

 

[Wuwei]

You're right Tyndall didn't know about Equipartition Theory. Of course CO2 can't hang on to the energy. There is a high likelihood that the CO2 will lose it's energy by a collision with air molecules which will absorb CO2 vibration energy.

CO2 can not hold on to energy at atmospheric temperatures...you would have to cool it to either its liquid or solid form in order for it to be able to actually store energy. Once again, there are observed, measured, quantified, REPEATABLE experiments and literally millions of hours of industry testing, and observation, and commercial application that PROVE that infrared radiation does not warm the air it is passing through.

That being said, all conversation about the ability of CO2 or any other so called greenhouse gas to warm the atmosphere is nothing more than a pointless discussion of a fictitious effect which does not happen in reality...ie magic.

Your promoting science of the mid 1800's. They didn't even know matter was composed of atoms back then. What they and you don't understand is that CO2 in an excited vibrational state is highly likely to dispose of that energy through collisions with N2 and O2 - air. Thus much of the CO2 doesn't even emit the energy it picks up from IR, it is directly transfered to air without IR emission. It warms up the air. If you doubt that you will have to come up with your own model that tells where the IR absorbed energy of CO2 does go.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

You're right Tyndall didn't know about Equipartition Theory. Of course CO2 can't hang on to the energy. There is a high likelihood that the CO2 will lose it's energy by a collision with air molecules which will absorb CO2 vibration energy.

CO2 can not hold on to energy at atmospheric temperatures...you would have to cool it to either its liquid or solid form in order for it to be able to actually store energy. Once again, there are observed, measured, quantified, REPEATABLE experiments and literally millions of hours of industry testing, and observation, and commercial application that PROVE that infrared radiation does not warm the air it is passing through.

That being said, all conversation about the ability of CO2 or any other so called greenhouse gas to warm the atmosphere is nothing more than a pointless discussion of a fictitious effect which does not happen in reality...ie magic.

Your promoting science of the mid 1800's. They didn't even know matter was composed of atoms back then. What they and you don't understand is that CO2 in an excited vibrational state is highly likely to dispose of that energy through collisions with N2 and O2 - air. Thus much of the CO2 doesn't even emit the energy it picks up from IR, it is directly transfered to air without IR emission. It warms up the air. If you doubt that you will have to come up with your own model that tells where the IR absorbed energy of CO2 does go.

It was my understanding from IPCC 5, that the oceans "trapped" 90% of the excess heat. Can you please elaborate on both the mechanism that makes the transfer possible and the amount of energy it would take for the atmosphere to heat the ocean by say 1C?

 

[Wuwei]

It was my understanding from IPCC 5, that the oceans "trapped" 90% of the excess heat. Can you please elaborate on both the mechanism that makes the transfer possible and the amount of energy it would take for the atmosphere to heat the ocean by say 1C?

The sun shines into the ocean.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

It was my understanding from IPCC 5, that the oceans "trapped" 90% of the excess heat. Can you please elaborate on both the mechanism that makes the transfer possible and the amount of energy it would take for the atmosphere to heat the ocean by say 1C?

The sun shines into the ocean.

That's fucking hilarious! Tell us again about "Settled science" and 97% Consensus

 

[SSDD]

You're right Tyndall didn't know about Equipartition Theory. Of course CO2 can't hang on to the energy. There is a high likelihood that the CO2 will lose it's energy by a collision with air molecules which will absorb CO2 vibration energy.

CO2 can not hold on to energy at atmospheric temperatures...you would have to cool it to either its liquid or solid form in order for it to be able to actually store energy. Once again, there are observed, measured, quantified, REPEATABLE experiments and literally millions of hours of industry testing, and observation, and commercial application that PROVE that infrared radiation does not warm the air it is passing through.

That being said, all conversation about the ability of CO2 or any other so called greenhouse gas to warm the atmosphere is nothing more than a pointless discussion of a fictitious effect which does not happen in reality...ie magic.

Your promoting science of the mid 1800's. They didn't even know matter was composed of atoms back then. What they and you don't understand is that CO2 in an excited vibrational state is highly likely to dispose of that energy through collisions with N2 and O2 - air. Thus much of the CO2 doesn't even emit the energy it picks up from IR, it is directly transfered to air without IR emission. It warms up the air. If you doubt that you will have to come up with your own model that tells where the IR absorbed energy of CO2 does go.

And let me guess...you don't believe that the engineers and physicists involved in the radiant heat industry today are qualified to say that infrared from their devices does not warm the air? Engineers who are far better educated in the hard sciences than any climate scientist...engineers who are paid to know what is going on in the real world and how their systems effect other systems? Is that what you are saying bucky?

 

[SSDD]

It was my understanding from IPCC 5, that the oceans "trapped" 90% of the excess heat. Can you please elaborate on both the mechanism that makes the transfer possible and the amount of energy it would take for the atmosphere to heat the ocean by say 1C?

The sun shines into the ocean.

Exactly the sort of brilliant (not) reply one would expect from you.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

You're right Tyndall didn't know about Equipartition Theory. Of course CO2 can't hang on to the energy. There is a high likelihood that the CO2 will lose it's energy by a collision with air molecules which will absorb CO2 vibration energy.

CO2 can not hold on to energy at atmospheric temperatures...you would have to cool it to either its liquid or solid form in order for it to be able to actually store energy. Once again, there are observed, measured, quantified, REPEATABLE experiments and literally millions of hours of industry testing, and observation, and commercial application that PROVE that infrared radiation does not warm the air it is passing through.

That being said, all conversation about the ability of CO2 or any other so called greenhouse gas to warm the atmosphere is nothing more than a pointless discussion of a fictitious effect which does not happen in reality...ie magic.

Your promoting science of the mid 1800's. They didn't even know matter was composed of atoms back then. What they and you don't understand is that CO2 in an excited vibrational state is highly likely to dispose of that energy through collisions with N2 and O2 - air. Thus much of the CO2 doesn't even emit the energy it picks up from IR, it is directly transfered to air without IR emission. It warms up the air. If you doubt that you will have to come up with your own model that tells where the IR absorbed energy of CO2 does go.

And let me guess...you don't believe that the engineers and physicists involved in the radiant heat industry today are qualified to say that infrared from their devices does not warm the air? Engineers who are far better educated in the hard sciences than any climate scientist...engineers who are paid to know what is going on in the real world and how their systems effect other systems? Is that what you are saying bucky?

you don't believe that the engineers and physicists involved in the radiant heat industry today are qualified to say that infrared from their devices does not warm the air?

That's weird, my radiant heat warms the air in my home.
My thermostat agrees.
Or am I being fooled by instrumentation?

 

[Wuwei]

And let me guess...you don't believe that the engineers and physicists involved in the radiant heat industry today are qualified to say that infrared from their devices does not warm the air? Engineers who are far better educated in the hard sciences than any climate scientist...engineers who are paid to know what is going on in the real world and how their systems effect other systems? Is that what you are saying bucky?

This is what you don't get, bucky.

The radiant heater in my house glows red hot - the visible range; around 1000 degrees. The amount of 15 micron IR is very small for that heater compared with the visible red and near IR. Simply look at the Boltzmann distribution for 1000 degrees you will see that it gets vanishingly small at around 15 microns. Only a vanishingly small amount of the heaters energy is absorbed by the CO2 in air. The Engineers are correct for red hot heaters. That heat will hit walls and warm the air by conduction or convection.

In discussing climate, the earth average is 15 C. That's where CO2 absorbs 15 micron radiation and is opaque as Tyndall found out. Engineers never said anything about earth temperatures.

You are conflating two different areas of heat transfer - emission at red hot temperatures with emission at ambient earth temperatures.

 

[IanC]

It was my understanding from IPCC 5, that the oceans "trapped" 90% of the excess heat. Can you please elaborate on both the mechanism that makes the transfer possible and the amount of energy it would take for the atmosphere to heat the ocean by say 1C?

The sun shines into the ocean.

Incomplete. The Sun directly warms the ocean. A warmer atmosphere impairs the ocean's ability to shed energy.

So is it the Sun which hasn't changed, or the atmosphere which has changed, that 'heats' the ocean?




... obviously it is the high quality energy from the Sun. Low quality IR can't 'do' much of anything, except be a placeholder in an energy budget.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

You're right Tyndall didn't know about Equipartition Theory. Of course CO2 can't hang on to the energy. There is a high likelihood that the CO2 will lose it's energy by a collision with air molecules which will absorb CO2 vibration energy.

CO2 can not hold on to energy at atmospheric temperatures...you would have to cool it to either its liquid or solid form in order for it to be able to actually store energy. Once again, there are observed, measured, quantified, REPEATABLE experiments and literally millions of hours of industry testing, and observation, and commercial application that PROVE that infrared radiation does not warm the air it is passing through.

That being said, all conversation about the ability of CO2 or any other so called greenhouse gas to warm the atmosphere is nothing more than a pointless discussion of a fictitious effect which does not happen in reality...ie magic.

Your promoting science of the mid 1800's. They didn't even know matter was composed of atoms back then. What they and you don't understand is that CO2 in an excited vibrational state is highly likely to dispose of that energy through collisions with N2 and O2 - air. Thus much of the CO2 doesn't even emit the energy it picks up from IR, it is directly transfered to air without IR emission. It warms up the air. If you doubt that you will have to come up with your own model that tells where the IR absorbed energy of CO2 does go.

And let me guess...you don't believe that the engineers and physicists involved in the radiant heat industry today are qualified to say that infrared from their devices does not warm the air? Engineers who are far better educated in the hard sciences than any climate scientist...engineers who are paid to know what is going on in the real world and how their systems effect other systems? Is that what you are saying bucky?

you don't believe that the engineers and physicists involved in the radiant heat industry today are qualified to say that infrared from their devices does not warm the air?

That's weird, my radiant heat warms the air in my home.
My thermostat agrees.
Or am I being fooled by instrumentation?

So that's why window manufacturer have double glazed CO2 windows.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

It was my understanding from IPCC 5, that the oceans "trapped" 90% of the excess heat. Can you please elaborate on both the mechanism that makes the transfer possible and the amount of energy it would take for the atmosphere to heat the ocean by say 1C?

The sun shines into the ocean.

Incomplete. The Sun directly warms the ocean. A warmer atmosphere impairs the ocean's ability to shed energy.

So is it the Sun which hasn't changed, or the atmosphere which has changed, that 'heats' the ocean?




... obviously it is the high quality energy from the Sun. Low quality IR can't 'do' much of anything, except be a placeholder in an energy budget.

So you're saying we're getting higher quality energy from the Sun and that's the heat that trapped in the ocean.

"This new learning amazes me"

 

[Wuwei]

It was my understanding from IPCC 5, that the oceans "trapped" 90% of the excess heat. Can you please elaborate on both the mechanism that makes the transfer possible and the amount of energy it would take for the atmosphere to heat the ocean by say 1C?

The sun shines into the ocean.

Incomplete. The Sun directly warms the ocean. A warmer atmosphere impairs the ocean's ability to shed energy.

So is it the Sun which hasn't changed, or the atmosphere which has changed, that 'heats' the ocean?




... obviously it is the high quality energy from the Sun. Low quality IR can't 'do' much of anything, except be a placeholder in an energy budget.

I agree. Frank was only interested in a protracted argument. I decided to only answer his question on the mechanism that makes the transfer possible in a snide remark.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

It was my understanding from IPCC 5, that the oceans "trapped" 90% of the excess heat. Can you please elaborate on both the mechanism that makes the transfer possible and the amount of energy it would take for the atmosphere to heat the ocean by say 1C?

The sun shines into the ocean.

Incomplete. The Sun directly warms the ocean. A warmer atmosphere impairs the ocean's ability to shed energy.

So is it the Sun which hasn't changed, or the atmosphere which has changed, that 'heats' the ocean?




... obviously it is the high quality energy from the Sun. Low quality IR can't 'do' much of anything, except be a placeholder in an energy budget.

I agree. Frank was only interested in a protracted argument. I decided to only answer his question on the mechanism that makes the transfer possible in a snide remark.

You didn't have an answer. You can stop pretending.

You can't possibly explain how "excess heat" moves from the atmosphere to get trapped in the ocean.

Do you agree that we're getting "higher quality" energy from the Sun. Did we finally get through to customer service and tell them, "Stop sending us this low quality crap!!"