No Evidence

[Billy_Bob]

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”!!

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.

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.

Far infrared does not heat the air

As far as commercial IR heaters your comparison is a non-sequitur.

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.

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...

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.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I need to support a law that's been "on the books" for over 130 years? Why?

science? I mean, isn't science proving a theory?

What theory do you feel I need to prove? Why?

Tell me, Do you think an object radiating at -80 F (12-16um frequency) can cause an Object that is 32 deg F to cool more slowly than if the -80F object weren't there?

That's not a theory, that's a question. Are you trying to help another poster with his answer?

Answer the damn question... Your avoiding it like the plague..

What question?

 

[Crick]

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”!!

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.

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.

Far infrared does not heat the air

As far as commercial IR heaters your comparison is a non-sequitur.

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.

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...

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.

Going to sources like Tyndall is a clear indication of pseudo science. And you have to tell us, if the atmosphere is opaque to LWIR, where does its energy go?

 

[skookerasbil]

Still no evidence.

Just science fakery babble.

 

[Crick]

BillyBoy, if the atmosphere is opaque to LWIR, where does the LWIR's energy go to? Kind of a basic question. Got an answer?

 

[SSDD]

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.​

​

You moron...when he is talking about waves sent from molecules of its own substance, he is talking about using a carbonic oxide flame...hence the reference to molecules of its own substance. With ordinary LW, it is a feeble absorber as evidenced by its very narrow absorption and emission spectrum.

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.

Guess you have never been in a warehouse or aircraft hanger that is heated with IR. Once again, observation proves you wrong.

Aircraft hangar heaters

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.

Developmental engineers? You don't think they are using the best instruments money can buy? Ever hear an engineer talk about the instruments he uses? They will go on for hours if you let them...ask me how I know...And unlike climate scientists, they know precisely what their instruments are measuring and how they achieve those measurements. You think a company is going to invest millions into a system without complete performance specs?

So again...no actual observed, measured evidence to challenge the statements in the OP. ..and plenty of observed, measured, repeatable evidence to challenge your beliefs. your models aren't observed, measured anything...they are hypotheses with no empirical evidence to back them up...but they are good enough to fool you.

 

[Wuwei]

BillyBoy, if the atmosphere is opaque to LWIR, where does the LWIR's energy go to? Kind of a basic question. Got an answer?

Yes, to be more exact, the earth is radiating 396 W/m² from it's surface but only 239 W/m² makes it to outer space.
The difference is 157 W/m² of radiation energy that has to go somewhere. Of course there are a lot of other energy flows going on in the atmosphere, but that 157 radiation still has to be accounted for.

 

[SSDD]

BillyBoy, if the atmosphere is opaque to LWIR, where does the LWIR's energy go to? Kind of a basic question. Got an answer?

And the answer is....we don't know...we know next to jack about how energy moves through the system...we do know that CO2 is to feeble an absorber and emitter to warm anything above -80 degrees F. Think I am wrong...then lets see the observed, measured evidence...whats that skidmak? don't have any?...just models?

say it for me skidmark...lets hear it...baaahhh.

 

[SSDD]

BillyBoy, if the atmosphere is opaque to LWIR, where does the LWIR's energy go to? Kind of a basic question. Got an answer?

Yes, to be more exact, the earth is radiating 396 W/m² from it's surface but only 239 W/m² makes it to outer space.
The difference is 157 W/m² of radiation energy that has to go somewhere. Of course there are a lot of other energy flows going on in the atmosphere, but that 157 radiation still has to be accounted for.

That would be according to a model.. When will you grasp that models aren't real and averages on a global scale don't tell you anything...they only serve to fool you.

 

[skookerasbil]

Computer models are ghey. Not evidence. Fakery. Not science.

Western governments laugh at what alarmists call evidence when it comes to energy policy. Doy. They throw a bone to the green meatballs at a press conference, go in a back room, fire up a stogie with a scotch and laugh their balls off.

 

[Wuwei]

You moron...when he is talking about waves sent from molecules of its own substance, he is talking about using a carbonic oxide flame...hence the reference to molecules of its own substance. With ordinary LW, it is a feeble absorber as evidenced by its very narrow absorption and emission spectrum.

Molecules of it's own substance means long-wave IR in the case of CO2.

Guess you have never been in a warehouse or aircraft hanger that is heated with IR. Once again, observation proves you wrong.
Aircraft hangar heaters

Look further into your own reference at this link:
Types of Infrared Heaters
There are pictures of the heaters they are referring to. All of them are glowing red-hot. They are called infrared heaters because they are near-infrared. Tyndall already said red-hot sources are feeble absorbers.
The topic concerning earth atmospherics is about heat from far-infrared. LW IR, not red-hot near-infrared.

Developmental engineers? You don't think they are using the best instruments money can buy? Ever hear an engineer talk about the instruments he uses? They will go on for hours if you let them...ask me how I know...And unlike climate scientists, they know precisely what their instruments are measuring and how they achieve those measurements. You think a company is going to invest millions into a system without complete performance specs?

Believe me, your gut feeling about thermal engineering doesn't cut it.

 

[Wuwei]

BillyBoy, if the atmosphere is opaque to LWIR, where does the LWIR's energy go to? Kind of a basic question. Got an answer?

Yes, to be more exact, the earth is radiating 396 W/m² from it's surface but only 239 W/m² makes it to outer space.
The difference is 157 W/m² of radiation energy that has to go somewhere. Of course there are a lot of other energy flows going on in the atmosphere, but that 157 radiation still has to be accounted for.

That would be according to a model.. When will you grasp that models aren't real and averages on a global scale don't tell you anything...they only serve to fool you.

Models? The radiation of IR to space was observed and measured by satellites countless times.

The radiation from the earth surface comes directly from the SB equation. You have mentioned that many times.

 

[Crick]

.we do know that CO2 is to feeble an absorber and emitter to warm anything above -80 degrees F. Think I am wrong...then lets see the observed, measured evidence...whats that skidmak? don't have any?...just models?

What's the temperature on the surface of Venus Shit for Brains?

 

[SSDD]

Molecules of it's own substance means long-wave IR in the case of CO2.

You just get stupider and stupider...are you now claiming that Tyndall thought long wave IR is a molecule? Really?

They are called infrared heaters because they are near-infrared. Tyndall already said red-hot sources are feeble absorbers.

Sorry guy...wrong again..

The Hangar - Far Infraed Heating | Perfect Sense Energy

" The Hangar is a climbing centre in Liverpool. The space was very difficult to heat due to the height and volume of the area and all heat sources previously tried were highly inefficient and energy intensive. Following a technical survey, it was recommended that Far Infrared Heating should be utilised to provide sufficient heat in an energy efficient way."

Cost Comparison - nexgen

Do some shopping...if you want to heat a hangar...an outdoor area, or a warehouse, far infrared is the way to go.

Believe me, your gut feeling about thermal engineering doesn't cut it.

neither does what you believe regarding energy transfer...still not a single piece of observed, measured data which establishes a coherent relationship between the absorption of IR by a gas and warming in the atmosphere...like I said in the OP.

 

[SSDD]

.we do know that CO2 is to feeble an absorber and emitter to warm anything above -80 degrees F. Think I am wrong...then lets see the observed, measured evidence...whats that skidmak? don't have any?...just models?

What's the temperature on the surface of Venus Shit for Brains?

What is the atmospheric pressure there skidmark?...What does the molar version of the ideal gas law predict the temperature will be there? What does the greenhouse hypothesis predict the temperature will be?

stupid of you to start talking about other planets when you know that the greenhouse hypothesis only works here and then only if you apply an ad hoc fudge factor...

bleat some more for me skidmark....bleat...baaahhhh

 

[Wuwei]

You just get stupider and stupider...are you now claiming that Tyndall thought long wave IR is a molecule? Really?

Nope. A troll strawman.

Sorry guy...wrong again..

The Hangar - Far Infraed Heating | Perfect Sense Energy

" The Hangar is a climbing centre in Liverpool. The space was very difficult to heat due to the height and volume of the area and all heat sources previously tried were highly inefficient and energy intensive. Following a technical survey, it was recommended that Far Infrared Heating should be utilised to provide sufficient heat in an energy efficient way."

Cost Comparison - nexgen

Do some shopping...if you want to heat a hangar...an outdoor area, or a warehouse, far infrared is the way to go.

You forgot what I already told you.
The mean free path of LW radiation in the CO2 absorption band is 33 meters. I agree that CO2 absorption in air is small in a room or hanger because of the short distance. A very large percentage of IR energy from a heater will warm people. When you think of the IR absorption from the surface of the earth to the top of the troposphere, it is around 17,000 meters so absorption is no longer trivial. Your heating engineers are correct for practical engineering purposes in limited size rooms. That is by no means "proof" that the absorption of IR in air with GHGs is flat out zero. And by no means does that negate the fact that GHGs cause the air to warm.

 

[Billy_Bob]

BillyBoy, if the atmosphere is opaque to LWIR, where does the LWIR's energy go to? Kind of a basic question. Got an answer?

Space you silly boy!

 

[Billy_Bob]

You just get stupider and stupider...are you now claiming that Tyndall thought long wave IR is a molecule? Really?

Nope. A troll strawman.

Sorry guy...wrong again..

The Hangar - Far Infraed Heating | Perfect Sense Energy

" The Hangar is a climbing centre in Liverpool. The space was very difficult to heat due to the height and volume of the area and all heat sources previously tried were highly inefficient and energy intensive. Following a technical survey, it was recommended that Far Infrared Heating should be utilised to provide sufficient heat in an energy efficient way."

Cost Comparison - nexgen

Do some shopping...if you want to heat a hangar...an outdoor area, or a warehouse, far infrared is the way to go.

You forgot what I already told you.
The mean free path of LW radiation in the CO2 absorption band is 33 meters. I agree that CO2 absorption in air is small in a room or hanger because of the short distance. A very large percentage of IR energy from a heater will warm people. When you think of the IR absorption from the surface of the earth to the top of the troposphere, it is around 17,000 meters so absorption is no longer trivial. Your heating engineers are correct for practical engineering purposes in limited size rooms. That is by no means "proof" that the absorption of IR in air with GHGs is flat out zero. And by no means does that negate the fact that GHGs cause the air to warm.

Here are the IPCC model outputs...
Figure 9.1 - AR4 WGI Chapter 9: Understanding and Attributing Climate Change

Here is reality...

Source

If the atmosphere were warming in accordance with your hypothesis there must be a hot spot. There is not! SO either the hypothesis is wrong or observations are wrong... The observations have been confirmed so your hypothesis is in error..

 

[Billy_Bob]

Lets put an end to the AGW hot spot theroy.. And CAGW...

The answer is very simple..

According to the AGW Global Circulation Models LWIR is back feed into the atmosphere. Even the laws of energy conservation say that the energy must be passed or heat molecules where it resides. The problem is, nothing in the atmosphere is warming by empirically observed evidence. This means the energy is being passed.

The absence of the tropospheric hot spot proves the energy is not residing in our atmosphere. It is therefore being passed to space.

So much for your Green House theroy... /dead

 

[SSDD]

Nope. A troll strawman.

you said...and i quote: "Molecules of it's own substance means long-wave IR in the case of CO2."

If that sentence is not saying that long wave IR is a molecule, then what does it say?

The mean free path of LW radiation in the CO2 absorption band is 33 meters. I agree that CO2 absorption in air is small in a room or hanger because of the short distance. A very large percentage of IR energy from a heater will warm people. When you think of the IR absorption from the surface of the earth to the top of the troposphere, it is around 17,000 meters so absorption is no longer trivial. Your heating engineers are correct for practical engineering purposes in limited size rooms. That is by no means "proof" that the absorption of IR in air with GHGs is flat out zero. And by no means does that negate the fact that GHGs cause the air to warm.

So we are back to unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable models and my statements in the OP remain unchallenged. if the physics you describe were correct then there would be a pronounced tropospheric hot spot...there isn't...predictive failure. in real science what happens to a hypothesis that has even one predictive failure? Answer the question.

observation does not jibe with your models....therefore, they are wrong.