How LWIR warms the atmosphere

[jc456]

You're back to this again, after earlier admitting IR warms the greenhouse gas components of air,

So you are a liar also...not surprising...IR does not warm air...nor does it warm so called greenhouse gasses with the exception of water vapor...

while the majority of air is transparent to IR. If gases absorb IR they must be warmed.

Flawed assumption...but feel free to show some observed, measured evidence that supports the claim that absorption and emission equals warming.

whileHere is a link to the empirical evidence greenhouse gases absorb IR

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/235210289_Infrared_Absorption_by_CH4_H2O_and_CO2

Guess you are easily fooled...nothing there establishes a coherent link between the absorption of IR by a gas and warming in the atmosphere...absorption and emission don't equal warming...and the time between collisions of so called greenhouse gas molecules and N2 or O2, or some other component of "air" is so small, generally speaking, the so called greenhouse gas molecule loses its absorbed energy via collision before it even has time to emit said radiation...

Still waiting for you to tell me how many predictive failures a hypothesis gets in real science before it is scrapped and work begins on a hypothesis that can more accurately reflect reality. Any idea?

Cot in the air warms it. Remember this experiment?

The American Journal o f Science and Arts Vol XXII Nov 1856, Pgs 382 - 383

The American Journal of Science and Arts

A two page report in 1856 by Eunice Newton Foote demonstrated that CO2 absorbs heat. She measured the temperatures in two glass 4x30 inch cylinders with internal thermometers. She exposed them to sunlight, one filled with air and one with CO2. Foote speculated that if there had been a period when the atmosphere held more of the gas, the planet would have been warmer.

She noted the temperature rises in various gases under the same conditions:

On comparing the sun's heat in different gases, I found it to be in hydrogen gas, 104° ; in common air, 106°; in oxygen gas 108°; and in carbonic acid gas, 125°.​

Got yourself another example of the heat of compression...third paragraph....she states that the action increases with the density of the air...heat of compression...you are so easily fooled that it is just laughable...what a dupe...

What is funny...really funny is that you have to keep going back to that quaint 19th century science to find anything that supports your claims...it is hilarious to watch you thrash about looking for something....anything that seems to support your beliefs...

Heat of compression? How do you get heat of compression without heat? It is the heat that creates compression. In short the cylinder of CO2 absorbs heat. The cylinder with air doesn't absorb as much heat even though it also has heat of compression.

.

Heat creates compression?

Are you sure?

CrusaderFrank, can't make this shit up.

 

[Wuwei]

The walls are warmed by radiation...that energy is then conducted into the gas...sorry guy...if you have a closed container holding the gas, then the heat is due to the heat of compression...IR can't warm the gas inside...

That can't be true. One side by side test Eunice did was damp air vs dry air. The container with the damp air got hotter faster. If the walls were warming the gas, both would come to the same temperature. The H2O vapor was capturing the IR.

With a closed system all cylinders would have an increased pressure. The differences in temperature of the air vs CO2 was 20 F.
PV = nRT. Since V, n, and R are constant, The difference in pressure of the air and CO2 cylinders is only 3.6%. They both increase pressure but not by much difference. So the heat of compression is expected but trivial.

The main point is that the CO2 cylinder got 20 F hotter than the air cylinder. The major difference is that one had a GHG. It is the raised temperature that shows the CO2 absorbed more heat.

You say the heat is due to compression. The truth is the compression is due to the heat.

.

 

[SSDD]

That can't be true. One side by side test Eunice did was damp air vs dry air. The container with the damp air got hotter faster. If the walls were warming the gas, both would come to the same temperature. The H2O vapor was capturing the IR.

You don't think damp air is more dense than dry air? Really... The fact that the damp air warmed more is proof of of heat of compression...this is really over your head...isn't it?

Try just reading a bit about the heat of compression...any definition will state quite clearly that the heat of compression is heat induced by the compression of a gas...

Two containers of gas...both identical except for one being vented, and the other being sealed tight...the sealed container will heat more, and more quickly than the container that is vented...heat of compression at work...damp air..dry air...damp air will heat more than dry air because it is more dense...heat of compression at work...

 

[Wuwei]

That can't be true. One side by side test Eunice did was damp air vs dry air. The container with the damp air got hotter faster. If the walls were warming the gas, both would come to the same temperature. The H2O vapor was capturing the IR.

You don't think damp air is more dense than dry air? Really... The fact that the damp air warmed more is proof of of heat of compression...this is really over your head...isn't it?

Try just reading a bit about the heat of compression...any definition will state quite clearly that the heat of compression is heat induced by the compression of a gas...

Two containers of gas...both identical except for one being vented, and the other being sealed tight...the sealed container will heat more, and more quickly than the container that is vented...heat of compression at work...damp air..dry air...damp air will heat more than dry air because it is more dense...heat of compression at work...

The cause of temperature rise is not heat of compression. There is no active compression in the experiment. The volume is constant. The absorption of heat is what would cause a higher pressure. It follows directly from the IGL.

That proves that energy from the sun is responsible for the heat rise, and the pressure rise. (Pressure rise was not measured, but comes from the IGL.)

Damp air more dense? H20 is less dense than N2 and O2. The fact that damp air warmed more is because H2O is a strong GHG. Besides that, saturated vapor only amounts to 3 or 4%. Yes, it feels dense on a hot day, but that's because it won't relieve sweat.

.

 

[jc456]

That can't be true. One side by side test Eunice did was damp air vs dry air. The container with the damp air got hotter faster. If the walls were warming the gas, both would come to the same temperature. The H2O vapor was capturing the IR.

You don't think damp air is more dense than dry air? Really... The fact that the damp air warmed more is proof of of heat of compression...this is really over your head...isn't it?

Try just reading a bit about the heat of compression...any definition will state quite clearly that the heat of compression is heat induced by the compression of a gas...

Two containers of gas...both identical except for one being vented, and the other being sealed tight...the sealed container will heat more, and more quickly than the container that is vented...heat of compression at work...damp air..dry air...damp air will heat more than dry air because it is more dense...heat of compression at work...

The cause of temperature rise is not heat of compression. There is no active compression in the experiment. The volume is constant. The absorption of heat is what would cause a higher pressure. It follows directly from the IGL.

That proves that energy from the sun is responsible for the heat rise, and the pressure rise. (Pressure rise was not measured, but comes from the IGL.)

Damp air more dense? H20 is less dense than N2 and O2. The fact that damp air warmed more is because H2O is a strong GHG. Besides that, saturated vapor only amounts to 3 or 4%. Yes, it feels dense on a hot day, but that's because it won't relieve sweat.

.

why won't it relieve sweat?

 

[Billy_Bob]

Another they thread started by an alarmist that started out real slow and will soon fizzle out altogether and be buried 10 pages deep in a couple of months. It's like progressive radio.....ePiC exercise in fAiL.

It's crazy...the infrared heating industry has proved pretty convincingly that long wave infrared simply does not warm the air...it has been known for a very long time..there is a wealth of observation, and experimental evidence that prove it...and yet, they believe that it does, because they are told that the must believe...they are idiots...one and all.

the infrared heating industry has proved pretty convincingly that long wave infrared simply does not warm the air...

Really? How long is the wave that doesn't warm the air? Link?

Tell me Todd... what is the bandwidth power of 2.6um-100um energy passing through our atmosphere? now tell me how much of that spectrum power is heating the atmosphere without water vapor? Do you know? How much mass does this 4.1% of total spectrum affect?

You see Todd the mass of affected gas, without water vapor, has no ability to warm the atmosphere because it does not have the energy vs mass to do so.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Another they thread started by an alarmist that started out real slow and will soon fizzle out altogether and be buried 10 pages deep in a couple of months. It's like progressive radio.....ePiC exercise in fAiL.

It's crazy...the infrared heating industry has proved pretty convincingly that long wave infrared simply does not warm the air...it has been known for a very long time..there is a wealth of observation, and experimental evidence that prove it...and yet, they believe that it does, because they are told that the must believe...they are idiots...one and all.

the infrared heating industry has proved pretty convincingly that long wave infrared simply does not warm the air...

Really? How long is the wave that doesn't warm the air? Link?

Tell me Todd... what is the bandwidth power of 2.6um-100um energy passing through our atmosphere? now tell me how much of that spectrum power is heating the atmosphere without water vapor? Do you know? How much mass does this 4.1% of total spectrum affect?

You see Todd the mass of affected gas, without water vapor, has no ability to warm the atmosphere because it does not have the energy vs mass to do so.

the mass of affected gas, without water vapor, has no ability to warm the atmosphere because it does not have the energy vs mass to do so.

Energy versus mass?
You have a link discussing this further?

 

[Crick]

Yes. Yes. A link discussing CO2's inability to warm the atmosphere. Billy, have you discussed this with your advisor? Perhaps he or she could give us their opinion on this matter. This seems rather important. And you'd think it would've been noticed by now.