1. Discuss politics - join our community by registering for free here! HOP - the political discussion forum

Can Infrared Radiation Warm the Atmosphere???

Discussion in 'Science & Technology' started by palerider, Jan 21, 2018.

  1. palerider

    palerider Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2007
    Messages:
    4,599
    Likes Received:
    148
    The cornerstone of the greenhouse effect as described by climate science is that infrared radiation emitted from the surface of the earth is absorbed by CO2 and other so called greenhouse gasses and causes the atmosphere to heat up...and the more CO2 we add, the more the atmosphere will heat up.

    I just had an interesting read about the ability of IR to warm the atmosphere (or air in general)...seems that there are literally millions of hours of observation and experimentation that demonstrate conclusively that no such thing is, has, or ever will happen.

    The article started with the early observations of the supposed authors of modern day climate catastrophe. John Tyndal, for example, did extensive laboratory testing on the absorption of infrared radiation by various gasses bestowing upon them the ability to "block" the transmission of IR radiation which he called calorific rays. He tested gasses at concentrations of 80,000ppm. Regarding CO2 or "carbonic gas" he observed:

    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.

    His observations of CO2 at atmospheric concentrations were that CO2 had no effect on the temperature of air and it didn't matter how much IR you passed through it.

    Through air . . . the waves of ether pass without absorption, and these gases are not sensibly changed in temperature by the most powerful calorific rays.”

    Then Svante Arrhenius, ignoring those findings hypothesized that the addition of CO2 to the atmosphere could actually heat the ground using the Stefan-Boltzman law..

    To test Arrhenius' hypothesis (keep in mind that it was only a hypothesis) a Swedish physicist named Knut Angstrom (ever hear of him?) set up experiments and published a paper titled "On the Importance of Water Vapor and CO2 in the Absorption of the Atmosphere"

    Angstrom's experiment involved filling tubes with the amount of CO2 that would be present in a column of air that reached to the top of the atmosphere. He then ran infrared radiation through the CO2. At first, he doubled the amount of CO2 in the tubes, then he cut the amount in half and repeated the test. He observed virtually zero temperature change between these different amounts of CO2.

    Now here is where we come to the millions of hours of observation which bear out Angstrom's findings that infrared radiation does not heat the air. Enter engineers and physicists involved in the commercial application of radiant heating.

    Here are some of the observations and findings that have come out of that industry.

    “Infrared energy travels at the speed of light without heating the air it passes through, the amount of infrared radiation absorbed by carbon dioxide, water vapor and other particles in the air typically is negligible.” …..

    “Infrared heating technology by definition does not heat up the air, instead it targets the objects leaving the Oxygen and humidity intact.” …

    “These infrared rays pass through the air in the room and start heating any object they hit. These rays, however, do not heat the air of the room or area, making it more comfortable for you.”
    So...repeatable, replicable, experimental data by a true top shelf physicist and decades of application data that demonstrates conclusively that infrared radiation does not heat the air. Lets step back to the 19th century just a second and refer to John Tyndal again...regarding his experiments..

    “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. Thus, while the atoms of elementary gases proved themselves unable to emit any sensible amount of radiant heat, the molecules of compound gases were shown to be capable of powerfully disturbing the surrounding ether.”

    I am not going to make any assumptions on the level of education of anyone who reads that statement so allow me to explain, because it is important. What Tyndall is saying...and which has been proven over the centuries since he said it...is that molecules that are good absorbers of infrared radiation are also good emitters of that same radiation. In short, when you add a so called greenhouse gas to the atmosphere, you not only increase its ability to absorb infrared radiation, you also increase its ability to emit that radiation.

    In short, adding so called greenhouse gasses to the atmosphere increases the emissivity of the atmosphere. When you increase the emissivity of an object, you enhance its ability to radiatively cool itself. The claim that by adding so called greenhouse gasses to the atmosphere, thereby increasing its emissivity and therefore its ability to radiatively cool itself you will cause the atmosphere to warm is ludicrous on its face...and the only reason people believe such nonsense is the abject failure of the educational system.

    Imagine...believing that by enhancing an object's ability to cool itself you can cause it tto become warmer.
     
  2. dogtowner

    dogtowner Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2009
    Messages:
    17,638
    Likes Received:
    1,434
    Location:
    Sec 9 Row J Seat 1 @ VCU home games
    Real science to the rescue...
     
  3. palerider

    palerider Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2007
    Messages:
    4,599
    Likes Received:
    148
    Unfortunately most people today are to poorly educated to recognize real science...
     
  4. dogtowner

    dogtowner Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2009
    Messages:
    17,638
    Likes Received:
    1,434
    Location:
    Sec 9 Row J Seat 1 @ VCU home games
    Fake science is scarier and REQUIRES government to abscond with other people's money.
     
  5. PLC1

    PLC1 Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2007
    Messages:
    10,484
    Likes Received:
    572
    Location:
    The Golden State
    So, uou
    So, you're back to trying to disprove a scientific theory on an internet forum by cherry picking data and insulting anyone who might think you're spouting nonsense.

    Last time, you disappeared soon after asserting that the pines and firs that have died due to unprecedented drought in California are not native to the area but were planted by loggers.

    The time before that, you disappeared soon after asserting that carbon dioxide is not a greenhouse gas.

    Sorry, but you're simply not credible. NASA is credible. NOAA is credible. CERN is credible. You are not.
     
    Lagboltz likes this.
  6. Lagboltz

    Lagboltz Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 2, 2008
    Messages:
    1,989
    Likes Received:
    134
    Location:
    Hurricane alley
    Hey Pale, my BFF is back. Do you still believe that the energy between two filaments of light bulbs cancels out? It would leave a dark streak between the bulbs you know. I haven't seen that yet. Have you?
     
  7. palerider

    palerider Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2007
    Messages:
    4,599
    Likes Received:
    148
    How large would that streak be considering that it would happen on an atomic boundary? Would it be visible with any instrument or optics that we have at our disposal? The fact is that energy does not move spontaneously from cool to warm?
     
  8. palerider

    palerider Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2007
    Messages:
    4,599
    Likes Received:
    148
    No actual argument...didn't think so. Logical fallacy seems to be the best you can do. And I don't disappear...I become bored with the same old baseless claims from the same old dupes who can't argue their position. As to the trees, I don't believe I said that and making up an argument to rail against would be typical of you...look back through the geological record and see how far back those pine trees go and compare it to the cliamte of the area.

    And as to CO2 being a greenhouse gas, I said that there is no radiative greenhouse effect as described by climate science, so the term greenhouse gas is a misnomer...greenhouses have glass walls that warm the interior via blocking conduction and convection with the outside..CO2 does no such thing...

    And since infrared does not warm the air, the basis of the greenhouse hypothesis is terribly flawed.
     
  9. PLC1

    PLC1 Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2007
    Messages:
    10,484
    Likes Received:
    572
    Location:
    The Golden State
    Bringing up what you've posted in the past is not a logical fallacy
     
  10. Lagboltz

    Lagboltz Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 2, 2008
    Messages:
    1,989
    Likes Received:
    134
    Location:
    Hurricane alley
    You tell me. Your the one who invented that fake science.
     
  11. palerider

    palerider Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2007
    Messages:
    4,599
    Likes Received:
    148
    So bring up some quotes from me stating what you claim I said....or admit that you just made it up..
     
  12. palerider

    palerider Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2007
    Messages:
    4,599
    Likes Received:
    148
    No...I didn't make up anything...the so called dark streak is all yours... it is the best explanation you could imagine when confronted with the fact that the 2nd law says that energy can not move spontaneously from cool to warm.. That is what you visualize, not me.
     
  13. PLC1

    PLC1 Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2007
    Messages:
    10,484
    Likes Received:
    572
    Location:
    The Golden State
    You've made up so much BS about climate change that you can't even remember what you've posted. Here's one of the statements I referenced:


    Me:
    .

    Your absurd response:
    found on page 3 here:
     
  14. Lagboltz

    Lagboltz Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 2, 2008
    Messages:
    1,989
    Likes Received:
    134
    Location:
    Hurricane alley
    Nope. You you said there would be no light between filaments. That was your best explanation for your fake science.
     
  15. palerider

    palerider Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2007
    Messages:
    4,599
    Likes Received:
    148

    Again...that is just the best explanation you could come up with ...I said that energy does not move spontaneously from cool to warm...that is it..the rest is all you.
     
    dogtowner likes this.
Loading...
Similar Threads - Infrared Radiation Warm
  1. Little-Acorn
    Replies:
    15
    Views:
    957
  2. Little-Acorn
    Replies:
    6
    Views:
    2,149

Share This Page

  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice