Billy_Bob
Diamond Member
In all of Tyndall's experiments he found that CO2 never warmed as energy did not reside long enough to cause warming. He even wrote about that problem which debunks the GHG hypothesis...Tell me, are there any other branches of modern science where the effort to show some actual evidence requires history books going back to the 17th century?
I referenced Tyndall simply to show how far behind the times you are. So you went to Tyndalls original work of 1890 and extracted text out of context, and didn't even understand that!!!!
If you bothered to try to understand what he was doing, start at page 395.
Heat a Mode of Motion
Middle of page 395
With a single exception, Tyndall used incandescent platinum wire with current from batteries. Second paragraph page 400 refers to “red-hot platinum” !!
From page 414 you quote a paragraph cutting out a most important part of his experiments. When you quote, “carbonic acid proved to be one of the most feeble absorbers.” Tyndall was referring to red-hot platinum!! Not long wave room temperature radiation. The red-hot platinum overwhelms any LW radiation.
Your quote from page 414, left out a crucial part of the quote. The “former researches” were red-hot platinum!! (see page 395 to page 409) Yes scientist all agree that short wave (red-hot) visible light has a feeble absorption in air.
Long wave room temperature emissions do not. But from the bottom of page 310 on he is referring to research to hot CO2 which emits LW radiation. Here is the entire paragraph with my bold facing:
For the rays emanating from the heated solids employed
in our former researches, carbonic acid proved to be one
of the most feeble absorbers ; but here, when the waves
sent into it emanate from molecules of its own substance,
its absorbent energy is enormous. The thirtieth of an
atmosphere of the gas cuts off half the entire radiation ;
while at a pressure of 4 inches, 65 per cent, of the radia-
tion is intercepted.
Then when he talks about “molecules of its own substance” he said he was talking about radiation from hot CO2 being absorbed by CO2. Of course hot CO2 emits lots of LW radiation bands and, as he says, the “absorbent energy is enormous”!!
That is absolutely false!!!. You are flinging BS. In his paper he refers to "ordinary sources of heat" as a red-hot incandescent source. There is nothing ordinary about a carbonic oxide flame.Then in the Quarterly Journal of Science volume 2, under the heading Physics and Sub heading Heat, regarding Tyndall and CO2, you will find where he wrote: "With ordinary sources of heat, carbonic acid is probably the most feeble absorbent among the compound gasses."
His reference to "ordinary heat" is a reference to his use of a carbonic oxide flame and the high reading he got as a result.
As far as commercial IR heaters your comparison is a non-sequitur.Far infrared does not heat the air
Commercial radiant heaters are a bit above room temperature and emit long wave IR, which has a very poor absorption in the air only in a smaller space such as bounded by a room because the distance for radiation to hit a wall is only about 3 meters in an average room.
The mean free path of LW radiation in the CO2 absorption band is 33 meters. That is 11 times longer! Beer's law says the absorption in a room is over 2000 times smaller than it would be in an atmosphere 33 meters above the surface. But the atmosphere goes on for thousands of meters.
Unless those who deal with radiant heaters have instruments that are calibrated to 1 part in 2000 accuracy, of course they will say the absorption in air is zero. It is negligible over only 3 meters.
You folks are damn funny... The atmosphere is opaque to LWIR and only water vapor is capable of warming in it.. CO2's minute presence is incapable of warming water vapor in our atmosphere because convection and conduction over power its influence, as observed and recorded in Tyndall's work.