LWIR FAILS to Warm the Atmosphere by Empirical Experiment.

[SSDD]

How many times have I said that the climate sensitivity to CO2was zero OR LESS?And i have pointed out to the local cultists over and over that adding CO2 to the atmosphere increases its emissivity...increasing an object's emissivity increases its ability to radiatively cool itself. Some how they believe that increasing emissivity leads to warming...

Basically a lie.

Once there is enough CO2 in the atmosphere to absorb to extinction the surface emission of CO2 reactive IR wavelengths then the CO2 concentration has no further effect on the emissivity. (Quantum effects from widening the wings from increased pressure are ignored as it is atmospheric effect not CO2 specific)

Holy Crap the amount of BS..

CO2 in our atmosphere is energy saturated.. This means that energy from the earth is escaping at the base rate unimpeded..

"energy saturated"? Is that another example of your bafflegab?

CO2 absorbs all surface generated radiation in the CO2 reactive bands. None escapes to space.

The CO2 reactive radiation that does escape to space is emitted by CO2 in the atmosphere, at a rate determined by the temperature of the air when it was created.

There is supporting evidence for this every time a satellite measures outgoing radiation from the top of the atmosphere. The bands of radiation that are not absorbed by air show a brightness that reflects the temperature of the surface, the bands that are absorbed reflect the temperature at which the air is thin enough to allow the radiation to escape rather than be reabsorbed again.

Do I really have to repost a graph yet again that shows surface radiation escaping freely in the atmospheric window with various 'chunks' missing because of absorption due to greenhouse gases?

Convection is the primary mover of energy in the troposphere by a wide margin over radiation...radiation is a bit player in the troposphere and all your radiative greenhouse effect pseudoscience is nothing more than a steaming pile.

How much energy does the earth/atmosphere lose by convection and conduction? Zero, zilch, nada.

Are you under the impression that non greenhouse gasses can't radiate energy they have acquired via collision? If so, get yourself another impression. Aren't you always saying that everything radiates? Does that not include non greenhouse gasses? Let me guess...you are so wrapped up in your radiative greenhouse effect and magic gasses that you never even considered the fact that N2, O2, H etc also radiate energy.

 

[Billy_Bob]

How much energy does the earth/atmosphere lose by convection and conduction? Zero, zilch, nada.

Tell me, What happens to energy in the Troposphere and how is it moved? Conduction and Convection... Only when it reaches the tropopause, above cloud boundary, does it become radiative only. At that point there is so little atmosphere and water vapor that it can not be stopped.

While the earth does lose all of its energy by radiative means, the primary mechanisms to get that energy to the point where it is released are conduction and convection.

Your summary is both disingenuous and deceptive..

 

[Billy_Bob]

CO2 absorbs all surface generated radiation in the CO2 reactive bands. None escapes to space.

Your bull shit is so extreme that I am busting a gut laughing at you... ALL of the energy escapes to space... Please show, by empirical evidence, how you stopped CO2 molecules from radiating towards space... I'll Wait..

 

[Billy_Bob]

LWIR FAILS to Warm the Atmosphere by Empirical Experiment.

I wrote about this experiment about 2 years ago here and now that we have done the experiment 10 times and obtained the same results each time, its time to write about it. A technical paper is in process but here are the basics...

A 30 meter long tube was filled with atmospheric value gases. The tube was constructed such that the tube itself was not reactive to LWIR and was insulated to stop energy loss to the room. The ends were opaque and thermo-couplers (accurate to 0.001 Deg C +/-0.003) were positioned throught the length of the tube.They were shielded from LWIR to make sure there were no erroneous readings obtained.

We started with just 396W/m^2 narrow band LWIR (6um-75um) introduction at one end of the tube and measured the opposing end with a receptor. The tube was set for <10% humidity and the temperature and output monitored. After 24 hours the tube had not warmed at all proving that the atmosphere is incapable of warming without another catalyst. We increased water vapor in 10% increments and repeated the test. Only after we reached 50% humidity did the tube warm and then only by 0.013 Deg C over 24 hours.

When you consider the earths average humidity level is just 35-38% you can see that the majority of the planet is incapable of warming due to LWIR. To add to this, when the Humidity was low it passed 100% of its energy. When we introduced higher levels of CO2 (2000ppm) to the tube at 50% humidity, the energy pass increased and warming decreased. The exact opposite of what is expected in the AGW models...

I expect there will be a whole lot of people who do not understand why what we saw was in line with physics and properties of the gases and I really could care less. 2 years of experiments and reproducing it over and over again speaks for itself...

Increasing emissitivty of the atmosphere allows bandpass. The exact opposite of the AGW hypothesis.. Warming was only seen in high humidity, which is not present in over 80% of the globe.. We even tried to over power the gases by increasing the power of the LWIR to that of total sun output of 1356W/m^2 (@TOA) and found no warming over 24 hours @ <10% humidity.

This experiment raises other questions as well which strike right at the heart of the AGW deception..

You pumped in energy, the tube was perfectly insulated and it didn't warm?
Can't wait for this one to be replicated.

Directed and focused energy.. Its really not that hard to do this..

One of the interesting things we found was less than 1% is reflected or redirected towards the emitter... Why?

Directed and focused energy.. Its really not that hard to do this..

Not difficult?
You put energy into an insulated tube.
The energy isn't absorbed by either the gas or the tube itself, as shown by an unchanging temperature.
Difficult? Sounds impossible.

Are you sure your IR power source was plugged in?

Many times I have tried to explain that you might have energy in a system but without a medium which is capable of reacting to it, it does nothing... Think of it like the 120Vac you have in your home. The energy is there, it is present, but it does nothing until it has a medium to react with. The Atmosphere is no different.

As for the tube, it was made of ceramics which was non-LWIR reactive. So it did not warm with the amount of LWIR we were directing through it. IT was our attempt at keeping the only thing which could warm was the atmosphere in the tube. Ceramics, when warmed, take very little convective energy to warm or cool so they will not adversely affect the outcome of the experiments. Insulating was made much easier as well.

We took a lot of time to think this experiment through...

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

LWIR FAILS to Warm the Atmosphere by Empirical Experiment.

I wrote about this experiment about 2 years ago here and now that we have done the experiment 10 times and obtained the same results each time, its time to write about it. A technical paper is in process but here are the basics...

A 30 meter long tube was filled with atmospheric value gases. The tube was constructed such that the tube itself was not reactive to LWIR and was insulated to stop energy loss to the room. The ends were opaque and thermo-couplers (accurate to 0.001 Deg C +/-0.003) were positioned throught the length of the tube.They were shielded from LWIR to make sure there were no erroneous readings obtained.

We started with just 396W/m^2 narrow band LWIR (6um-75um) introduction at one end of the tube and measured the opposing end with a receptor. The tube was set for <10% humidity and the temperature and output monitored. After 24 hours the tube had not warmed at all proving that the atmosphere is incapable of warming without another catalyst. We increased water vapor in 10% increments and repeated the test. Only after we reached 50% humidity did the tube warm and then only by 0.013 Deg C over 24 hours.

When you consider the earths average humidity level is just 35-38% you can see that the majority of the planet is incapable of warming due to LWIR. To add to this, when the Humidity was low it passed 100% of its energy. When we introduced higher levels of CO2 (2000ppm) to the tube at 50% humidity, the energy pass increased and warming decreased. The exact opposite of what is expected in the AGW models...

I expect there will be a whole lot of people who do not understand why what we saw was in line with physics and properties of the gases and I really could care less. 2 years of experiments and reproducing it over and over again speaks for itself...

Increasing emissitivty of the atmosphere allows bandpass. The exact opposite of the AGW hypothesis.. Warming was only seen in high humidity, which is not present in over 80% of the globe.. We even tried to over power the gases by increasing the power of the LWIR to that of total sun output of 1356W/m^2 (@TOA) and found no warming over 24 hours @ <10% humidity.

This experiment raises other questions as well which strike right at the heart of the AGW deception..

You pumped in energy, the tube was perfectly insulated and it didn't warm?
Can't wait for this one to be replicated.

Directed and focused energy.. Its really not that hard to do this..

One of the interesting things we found was less than 1% is reflected or redirected towards the emitter... Why?

Directed and focused energy.. Its really not that hard to do this..

Not difficult?
You put energy into an insulated tube.
The energy isn't absorbed by either the gas or the tube itself, as shown by an unchanging temperature.
Difficult? Sounds impossible.

Are you sure your IR power source was plugged in?

Many times I have tried to explain that you might have energy in a system but without a medium which is capable of reacting to it, it does nothing... Think of it like the 120Vac you have in your home. The energy is there, it is present, but it does nothing until it has a medium to react with. The Atmosphere is no different.

As for the tube, it was made of ceramics which was non-LWIR reactive. So it did not warm with the amount of LWIR we were directing through it. IT was our attempt at keeping the only thing which could warm was the atmosphere in the tube. Ceramics, when warmed, take very little convective energy to warm or cool so they will not adversely affect the outcome of the experiments. Insulating was made much easier as well.

We took a lot of time to think this experiment through...

Many times I have tried to explain that you might have energy in a system but without a medium which is capable of reacting to it, it does nothing..

You claimed you pumped energy into a tube, "396W/m^2 narrow band LWIR (6um-75um) introduction at one end of the tube and measured the opposing end with a receptor". Also, "The tube was constructed such that the tube itself was not reactive to LWIR and was insulated to stop energy loss to the room"

So, if the energy didn't warm the gas, or the tube, did it disappear?
Did it build up, like a laser, until you opened the tube?
Energy cannot be created or destroyed, how did you destroy it?

The ends were opaque

Was the middle of the tube transparent to narrow band LWIR?

 

[Crick]

Todd, don't question Billy. He's a physicist for god's sake.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Todd, don't question Billy. He's a physicist for god's sake.

Have you seen his, "cooler photons can cool warmer matter" claim?

 

[mamooth]

After 24 hours the tube had not warmed

IT'S A MIRACLE! CONSERVATION OF ENERGY IS DISPROVED!

To summarize: The experiment pumped IR energy into a sealed tube, and the tube failed to warm at all, thus rather brazenly violating conservation of energy. Back in the real world, you'd expect the tube to warm pretty much the same no matter what gas mixture was inside, as the IR energy pumped into has to go somewhere.

At least that seems to be the description. It is kind of vague. It says the ends of the tube are opaque, but the sides are "non reactive" to IR, whatever that means.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

After 24 hours the tube had not warmed

IT'S A MIRACLE! CONSERVATION OF ENERGY IS DISPROVED!

To summarize: The experiment pumped IR energy into a sealed tube, and the tube failed to warm at all, thus rather brazenly violating conservation of energy. Back in the real world, you'd expect the tube to warm pretty much the same no matter what gas mixture was inside, as the IR energy pumped into has to go somewhere.

At least that seems to be the description. It is kind of vague. It says the ends of the tube are opaque, but the sides are "non reactive" to IR, whatever that means.

Imagine the awesome air conditioners you could create with this wonder tube...……...

 

[IanC]

Basically a lie.

Once there is enough CO2 in the atmosphere to absorb to extinction the surface emission of CO2 reactive IR wavelengths then the CO2 concentration has no further effect on the emissivity. (Quantum effects from widening the wings from increased pressure are ignored as it is atmospheric effect not CO2 specific)

Holy Crap the amount of BS..

CO2 in our atmosphere is energy saturated.. This means that energy from the earth is escaping at the base rate unimpeded..

"energy saturated"? Is that another example of your bafflegab?

CO2 absorbs all surface generated radiation in the CO2 reactive bands. None escapes to space.

The CO2 reactive radiation that does escape to space is emitted by CO2 in the atmosphere, at a rate determined by the temperature of the air when it was created.

There is supporting evidence for this every time a satellite measures outgoing radiation from the top of the atmosphere. The bands of radiation that are not absorbed by air show a brightness that reflects the temperature of the surface, the bands that are absorbed reflect the temperature at which the air is thin enough to allow the radiation to escape rather than be reabsorbed again.

Do I really have to repost a graph yet again that shows surface radiation escaping freely in the atmospheric window with various 'chunks' missing because of absorption due to greenhouse gases?

Convection is the primary mover of energy in the troposphere by a wide margin over radiation...radiation is a bit player in the troposphere and all your radiative greenhouse effect pseudoscience is nothing more than a steaming pile.

How much energy does the earth/atmosphere lose by convection and conduction? Zero, zilch, nada.

Are you under the impression that non greenhouse gasses can't radiate energy they have acquired via collision? If so, get yourself another impression. Aren't you always saying that everything radiates? Does that not include non greenhouse gasses? Let me guess...you are so wrapped up in your radiative greenhouse effect and magic gasses that you never even considered the fact that N2, O2, H etc also radiate energy.

Oxygen and Nitrogen are very poor absorbers and emitters of thermal IR. The absorption of near IR, visible and UV radiation does not lead to re-emission because the atmosphere is too cold to provide the necessary energy.

 

[IanC]

CO2 absorbs all surface generated radiation in the CO2 reactive bands. None escapes to space.

Your bull shit is so extreme that I am busting a gut laughing at you... ALL of the energy escapes to space... Please show, by empirical evidence, how you stopped CO2 molecules from radiating towards space... I'll Wait..

The altitude at which CO2 reactive radiation escapes to space is both very cold and very sparse.

The amount of energy emitted to space by CO2 molecules is only a fraction of the energy absorbed from the surface in the first few metres of atmosphere.

 

[IanC]

How much energy does the earth/atmosphere lose by convection and conduction? Zero, zilch, nada.

Tell me, What happens to energy in the Troposphere and how is it moved? Conduction and Convection... Only when it reaches the tropopause, above cloud boundary, does it become radiative only. At that point there is so little atmosphere and water vapor that it can not be stopped.

While the earth does lose all of its energy by radiative means, the primary mechanisms to get that energy to the point where it is released are conduction and convection.

Your summary is both disingenuous and deceptive..

I have written hundreds of posts describing energy movement in the atmosphere. Perhaps you should present a concise explanation why you think the missing energy between (absorbed from the surface) minus (emitted from the atmosphere) doesn't make a difference.

 

[Crick]

Billy Boy? Do you have an answer for the man?

 

[Billy_Bob]

LOL

We just finished 2 years of empirically observed experiments and I don't give a shit about your political, bull shit, model derived, fiction positions.. When we are finished with the technical paper I'm sure you will all have your hay-day and voo-doo dances...

The experiment was designed to determine if the gases in our atmosphere were capable of warming, without a secondary catalyst, with the introduction of LWIR. We proved it does not. Without water vapor our atmosphere passed all LWIR and we did not see warming until we were over 44 - 48% humidity.

The design of the structure, to do testing, was such that LWIR did not warm it. This was by design to stop convective and conductive interference allowing us to see exactly how the atmosphere reacts. Pressures were reduced to see how it changed at altitude as well.

Until you all do the science and disprove what was found you have nothing! Of course nothing is what you all have had all along.. What we found challenges the holy book of AGW.

 

[Billy_Bob]

The amount of energy emitted to space by CO2 molecules is only a fraction of the energy absorbed from the surface in the first few metres of atmosphere.

There is insufficient CO2 to interact with the energy load. So are you giving your CO2 molecules a stop sign to keep the LWIR from emitting to or through other molecules and space?

One of the main reasons we did this experiment was the earths deserts. The only places on earth that can have 110-120 degree F swings in 24 hours. The only thing that is lacking in these regions from most of the planet is water vapor. During the day there is little to block the energy from the earth, at night there is very little to keep it warm.

 

[SSDD]

Holy Crap the amount of BS..

CO2 in our atmosphere is energy saturated.. This means that energy from the earth is escaping at the base rate unimpeded..

"energy saturated"? Is that another example of your bafflegab?

CO2 absorbs all surface generated radiation in the CO2 reactive bands. None escapes to space.

The CO2 reactive radiation that does escape to space is emitted by CO2 in the atmosphere, at a rate determined by the temperature of the air when it was created.

There is supporting evidence for this every time a satellite measures outgoing radiation from the top of the atmosphere. The bands of radiation that are not absorbed by air show a brightness that reflects the temperature of the surface, the bands that are absorbed reflect the temperature at which the air is thin enough to allow the radiation to escape rather than be reabsorbed again.

Do I really have to repost a graph yet again that shows surface radiation escaping freely in the atmospheric window with various 'chunks' missing because of absorption due to greenhouse gases?

Convection is the primary mover of energy in the troposphere by a wide margin over radiation...radiation is a bit player in the troposphere and all your radiative greenhouse effect pseudoscience is nothing more than a steaming pile.

How much energy does the earth/atmosphere lose by convection and conduction? Zero, zilch, nada.

Are you under the impression that non greenhouse gasses can't radiate energy they have acquired via collision? If so, get yourself another impression. Aren't you always saying that everything radiates? Does that not include non greenhouse gasses? Let me guess...you are so wrapped up in your radiative greenhouse effect and magic gasses that you never even considered the fact that N2, O2, H etc also radiate energy.

Oxygen and Nitrogen are very poor absorbers and emitters of thermal IR. The absorption of near IR, visible and UV radiation does not lead to re-emission because the atmosphere is too cold to provide the necessary energy.

And, yet, they move the vast bulk of energy through the troposphere...radiation is a bit player at best in the troposphere.

 

[SSDD]

How much energy does the earth/atmosphere lose by convection and conduction? Zero, zilch, nada.

Tell me, What happens to energy in the Troposphere and how is it moved? Conduction and Convection... Only when it reaches the tropopause, above cloud boundary, does it become radiative only. At that point there is so little atmosphere and water vapor that it can not be stopped.

While the earth does lose all of its energy by radiative means, the primary mechanisms to get that energy to the point where it is released are conduction and convection.

Your summary is both disingenuous and deceptive..

I have written hundreds of posts describing energy movement in the atmosphere. Perhaps you should present a concise explanation why you think the missing energy between (absorbed from the surface) minus (emitted from the atmosphere) doesn't make a difference.

Yes....you have spent a lot of words pushing that bit of pseudoscientific fiction. TYhe fact is that we know very little about how energy moves through the system.

 

[Crick]

We know precisely how it enters and leaves the Earth's atmosphere and in what amounts. The Earth is being heated by trapped radiation. That is an EMPIRICAL fact.

 

[Crick]

LOL

We just finished 2 years of empirically observed experiments and I don't give a shit about your political, bull shit, model derived, fiction positions.. When we are finished with the technical paper I'm sure you will all have your hay-day and voo-doo dances...

The experiment was designed to determine if the gases in our atmosphere were capable of warming, without a secondary catalyst, with the introduction of LWIR. We proved it does not. Without water vapor our atmosphere passed all LWIR and we did not see warming until we were over 44 - 48% humidity.

The design of the structure, to do testing, was such that LWIR did not warm it. This was by design to stop convective and conductive interference allowing us to see exactly how the atmosphere reacts. Pressures were reduced to see how it changed at altitude as well.

Until you all do the science and disprove what was found you have nothing! Of course nothing is what you all have had all along.. What we found challenges the holy book of AGW.

I love the way you think YOU are the first person to do science. And did I miss your explanation as to where the energy DID go? Your claim that you pumped energy into a closed system without raising its energy content tells us that you are either lying or utterly incompetent or both.

 

[SSDD]

We know precisely how it enters and leaves the Earth's atmosphere and in what amounts. The Earth is being heated by trapped radiation. That is an EMPIRICAL fact.

Really? Let's see the observed measured evidence.