LWIR FAILS to Warm the Atmosphere by Empirical Experiment.

[Toddsterpatriot]

The reason we found that nothing in the cylinder warmed, with specific LWIR, in the specific band of 12-16um, was because the mass passing through, could not affect the atmospheric gases or cause them to warm.

The empirical experiment proved that LWIR is incapable of warming our atmosphere without water vapor.

You're seeing a whole team of psychiatrists, aren't you?

 

[Billy_Bob]

The reason we found that nothing in the cylinder warmed, with specific LWIR, in the specific band of 12-16um, was because the mass passing through, could not affect the atmospheric gases or cause them to warm.

The empirical experiment proved that LWIR is incapable of warming our atmosphere without water vapor.

You're seeing a whole team of psychiatrists, aren't you?

You're channeling Circk now..

Come on Todd. Post up how a Photon, which is a particle (mass) within a field/wave is capable of warming matter that is warmer than the radiating temperature of the particle.

This ought to be good for one hell of a laugh...

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

The reason we found that nothing in the cylinder warmed, with specific LWIR, in the specific band of 12-16um, was because the mass passing through, could not affect the atmospheric gases or cause them to warm.

The empirical experiment proved that LWIR is incapable of warming our atmosphere without water vapor.

You're seeing a whole team of psychiatrists, aren't you?

You're channeling Circk now..

Come on Todd. Post up how a Photon, which is a particle (mass) within a field/wave is capable of warming matter that is warmer than the radiating temperature of the particle.

This ought to be good for one hell of a laugh...

Post up how a Photon, which is a particle (mass)

You said they had mass and were magnetic (and could be warmed up).
Prove it.

is capable of warming matter that is warmer than the radiating temperature of the particle.

Are you saying a photon is allowed to hit matter warmer than the matter that emitted it?

Be careful, SSDD will kick you out of his club.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Well, it appears my experiment was not the first and many knew that it could not warm the atmosphere..

Crick posted up what he thought was a crowning paper only when I read through it, it did not say what Crick thought..

1. Near UV energy was used... Significantly above black body temperature +90 deg C.. Your trying to tell us that near UV (in the IR spectrum) warms CO2 for a brief second.. LOL It should, as it is in the down-welling band from the sun and not the upwelling band from the earth.

2. Wattages used are the equivalent of 1356w/m^2, 10 times that of what the earth receives on its surface. Another logic fail...

3. Pure CO2 was used.. 100% atmosphere of CO2...

Funnier still is standard atmosphere shows no warming in their tube even with these exaggerated powers and bands...

Crick just proved my experiment correct and he is totally ignorant of it. Priceless.. Even in their own experiments using the standard atmosphere, at ground level, it shows no ability for LWIR to warm anything with in it.

http://www.physics.upenn.edu/~pcn/Ms/18PhysTeacher.pdf

Beyond being funny is the problem now that they knew it did not yet went on with the Global Warming scam... This means it is intentional fraud and deception on the alarmists part...

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Well, it appears my experiment was not the first and many knew that it could not warm the atmosphere..

Crick posted up what he thought was a crowning paper only when I read through it, it did not say what Crick thought..

1. Near UV energy was used... Significantly above black body temperature +90 deg C.. Your trying to tell us that near UV (in the IR spectrum) warms CO2 for a brief second.. LOL It should, as it is in the down-welling band from the sun and not the upwelling band from the earth.

2. Wattages used are the equivalent of 1356w/m^2, 10 times that of what the earth receives on its surface. Another logic fail...

3. Pure CO2 was used.. 100% atmosphere of CO2...

Funnier still is standard atmosphere shows no warming in their tube even with these exaggerated powers and bands...

Crick just proved my experiment correct and he is totally ignorant of it. Priceless.. Even in their own experiments using the standard atmosphere, at ground level, it shows no ability for LWIR to warm anything with in it.

http://www.physics.upenn.edu/~pcn/Ms/18PhysTeacher.pdf

Beyond being funny is the problem now that they knew it did not yet went on with the Global Warming scam... This means it is intentional fraud and deception on the alarmists part...

When is your "magic, energy destroying tube" research getting published?

 

[Crick]

The caption to that picture says "The tubes were exposed to infrared light for two minutes". UV light was not used.

Then Billy Boy says "Near UV energy was used... Significantly above black body temperature +90 deg C.. Your trying to tell us that near UV (in the IR spectrum) warms CO2 for a brief second"

Billy, ultraviolet and infrared do not have a boundary betwixt 'em. Visible light fills the spectrum between them. There is no near-IR UV or near-UV IR. There is no UV in the IR spectrum. This is another for my Billy Boy Quotes collection.

Billy, don't EVER assume that anyone in mainstream science is already aware of what you think you know about physics.

The demonstration I posted there was just that. It quite obviously was not an attempt to recreate terrestrial conditions. Again, this is presented to contend with the demonstrably false claim that CO2 will not warm from exposure to IR radiation.

 

[IanC]

1. Near UV energy was used... Significantly above black body temperature +90 deg C.. Your trying to tell us that near UV (in the IR spectrum) warms CO2 for a brief second.. LOL It should, as it is in the down-welling band from the sun and not the upwelling band from the earth.

How do you come up with this nonsense?

 

[IanC]

Significantly above black body temperature +90 deg C.

What wavelength is that temperature associated with?

 

[Crick]

Just a skosh under 5 microns I'd say

 

[IanC]

What say you BillyBoob? I don't get the same answer as Crick but then we never did figure out what yo meant by the temperature of a frequency. Because you ran away. Are you still running?

 

[IanC]

1. Near UV energy was used... Significantly above black body temperature +90 deg C.. Your trying to tell us that near UV (in the IR spectrum) warms CO2 for a brief second..

How come you never explain your words of wisdom any more? Surely you want to educate us to the TRUTH.

You have been on the board scads of times but there seems to be a lot of threads that you are ignoring.

 

[Crick]

I'd like to know where he finds UV in the IR spectrum.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I'd like to know where he finds UV in the IR spectrum.

Maybe his magic, energy destroying tube turns IR into UV?

 

[SSDD]

Nope. How I interpreted the paper last time and now are the same. The paper was meaningless. He only had NASA values of P, V and T and showed that they followed the IGL. Nothing new there.

The key word being interpreted...the paper needed no interpretation...all the information necessary was there...refer to the last time you lost on this point...

 

[SSDD]

The caption to that picture says "The tubes were exposed to infrared light for two minutes". UV light was not used.

Then Billy Boy says "Near UV energy was used... Significantly above black body temperature +90 deg C.. Your trying to tell us that near UV (in the IR spectrum) warms CO2 for a brief second"

Billy, ultraviolet and infrared do not have a boundary betwixt 'em. Visible light fills the spectrum between them. There is no near-IR UV or near-UV IR. There is no UV in the IR spectrum. This is another for my Billy Boy Quotes collection.

Billy, don't EVER assume that anyone in mainstream science is already aware of what you think you know about physics.

The demonstration I posted there was just that. It quite obviously was not an attempt to recreate terrestrial conditions. Again, this is presented to contend with the demonstrably false claim that CO2 will not warm from exposure to IR radiation.

I believe he meant to say near IR as opposed to far IR which is where CO2 absorbs...

 

[Billy_Bob]

What say you BillyBoob? I don't get the same answer as Crick but then we never did figure out what yo meant by the temperature of a frequency. Because you ran away. Are you still running?

Tell Me, when a black body emits a photon, what is the radiated temperature of that particle?

Before you call people names you really should have science and understanding of the particle within the wave. The frequency is directly related to the power (energy in joules) the particle holds.. A warmer body radiates at a smaller wave and holds greater energy.

 

[Billy_Bob]

The caption to that picture says "The tubes were exposed to infrared light for two minutes". UV light was not used.

Then Billy Boy says "Near UV energy was used... Significantly above black body temperature +90 deg C.. Your trying to tell us that near UV (in the IR spectrum) warms CO2 for a brief second"

Billy, ultraviolet and infrared do not have a boundary betwixt 'em. Visible light fills the spectrum between them. There is no near-IR UV or near-UV IR. There is no UV in the IR spectrum. This is another for my Billy Boy Quotes collection.

Billy, don't EVER assume that anyone in mainstream science is already aware of what you think you know about physics.

The demonstration I posted there was just that. It quite obviously was not an attempt to recreate terrestrial conditions. Again, this is presented to contend with the demonstrably false claim that CO2 will not warm from exposure to IR radiation.

I believe he meant to say near IR as opposed to far IR which is where CO2 absorbs...

Correct;

That is the area where solar down-welling energy and up-welling black body overlap.

 

[Wuwei]

Nope. How I interpreted the paper last time and now are the same. The paper was meaningless. He only had NASA values of P, V and T and showed that they followed the IGL. Nothing new there.

The key word being interpreted...the paper needed no interpretation...all the information necessary was there...refer to the last time you lost on this point...

Right. The key word is interpreted, and you interpreted the paper to mean something useful.

"all the information necessary was there" ??? Like his all encompassing phrase, "baked in"? That was a laugh. You lost the point again as usual. Is that going to be your new meme? Any science you can't prove, nor understand is "baked in".


.

 

[IanC]

What say you BillyBoob? I don't get the same answer as Crick but then we never did figure out what yo meant by the temperature of a frequency. Because you ran away. Are you still running?

Tell Me, when a black body emits a photon, what is the radiated temperature of that particle?

Before you call people names you really should have science and understanding of the particle within the wave. The frequency is directly related to the power (energy in joules) the particle holds.. A warmer body radiates at a smaller wave and holds greater energy.

Okay...

The energy carried by a photon is directly proportional to its frequency. Agreed, I never said it wasn't.

Photons as particles within a wave. I believe photons are probability waves that condense into an actual value when 'put to the test' by matter. We may not be as far apart as I think, as long as you drop the photons have mass thing.

But photons emitted by a blackbody are not limited to a single frequency, they are a wide range. Increasing the temperature widens the range by adding higher energy frequencies but all the lower ones remain. Any single photon from an object will give you a minimum high temperature possible but not the actual temperature.