Why Water will not allow LWIR energy beyond the skin layer...

[TheTechnologist]

You're a fucking retard.

.
Chemical process - Wikipedia
https://en.m.wikipedia.org › wiki › Chem...
In a scientific sense, a chemical process is a method or means of somehow changing one or more chemicals or chemical compounds. Such a chemical process can occur by itself or be caused by an outside force, and involves a chemical reaction of some sort.

.
a usually irreversible chemical reaction involving the rearrangement of the atoms of one or more substances and a change in their chemical properties or composition, resulting in the formation of at least one new substance: The formation of rust on iron is a chemical change.
Chemical change | Define Chemical change at Dictionary.com

Latent heat of phase change does have an overlap between chemistry and physics but it is a long stretch to call it a chemical change or chemical process. As per usual you mangle your description of anything scientific. I have stopped trying to give you the benefit of the doubt, and I am going to respond to what you say, rather than what you might potentially mean.

IR is immediately absorbed by water, it has an effect, period.

Thank goodness that water is NOT such a good absorber of visible light or UV, otherwise the ocean surface would boil in daytime and freeze at night.

Downwelling atmospheric IR does not heat the ocean surface except in the unusual circumstances of nighttime inversions. At all other times it reduces the amount of heat being lost to the atmosphere or outer space. Why are you incapable of grasping that simple concept?

Conduction and Convection push the heat higher in the atmosphere away from the surface. This is why the surface temps do not rise in high levels of CO2. With the heat removed from the surface there can be no downward (radiative or conductive) warming of the oceans.

Again your premise fails the basic laws of thermodynamics.

I am confused by what you're trying to claim.

Are you trying to say that the Oceans do not warm-up because of Solar IR radiation?

Are you saying that in an Infrared picture of the Earth the Oceans are not black?

Are you saying that the Empirical data does not show that the Oceans have in fact WARMED?

 

[TheTechnologist]

Here's how dark the Earth is as you get closer to 20um

https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/FalseColor/images/ir3ir6_goe_2014049.jpg

 

[CrusaderFrank]

So how did all that "excess heat" get trapped -- like a rat!! in the oceans?

 

[IanC]

You're a fucking retard.

.
Chemical process - Wikipedia
https://en.m.wikipedia.org › wiki › Chem...
In a scientific sense, a chemical process is a method or means of somehow changing one or more chemicals or chemical compounds. Such a chemical process can occur by itself or be caused by an outside force, and involves a chemical reaction of some sort.

.
a usually irreversible chemical reaction involving the rearrangement of the atoms of one or more substances and a change in their chemical properties or composition, resulting in the formation of at least one new substance: The formation of rust on iron is a chemical change.
Chemical change | Define Chemical change at Dictionary.com

Latent heat of phase change does have an overlap between chemistry and physics but it is a long stretch to call it a chemical change or chemical process. As per usual you mangle your description of anything scientific. I have stopped trying to give you the benefit of the doubt, and I am going to respond to what you say, rather than what you might potentially mean.

IR is immediately absorbed by water, it has an effect, period.

Thank goodness that water is NOT such a good absorber of visible light or UV, otherwise the ocean surface would boil in daytime and freeze at night.

Downwelling atmospheric IR does not heat the ocean surface except in the unusual circumstances of nighttime inversions. At all other times it reduces the amount of heat being lost to the atmosphere or outer space. Why are you incapable of grasping that simple concept?

Conduction and Convection push the heat higher in the atmosphere away from the surface. This is why the surface temps do not rise in high levels of CO2. With the heat removed from the surface there can be no downward (radiative or conductive) warming of the oceans.

Again your premise fails the basic laws of thermodynamics.

Honestly, I don't know how to make it any simpler for you to understand. It is up to you to visualize the different pathways.

Start with no atmosphere. The high and low temperatures are extreme. The average temperature is lower than the average solar input would suggest. WHY?

Then a 100% Nitrogen atmosphere. Only conduction to warm the atmosphere. The daily extremes are lessened. WHY? The average temperature is getting closer to what the average solar input would suggest. WHY?

Add some CO2. What happens to the temperature profile of the atmosphere? I say it gets warmer at the bottom and cooler at the top. And the average atmospheric temperature goes up. WHY? A warmer atmosphere at the bottom also means a warmer surface. WHY?

Adding water just adds a huge amount of complexity. If you don't understand what was happening in the first three cases you will be totally confused.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

So how did all that "excess heat" get trapped -- like a rat!! in the oceans?

Good grief you are one lazy little bastard! Here:

LMGTFY

 

[CrusaderFrank]

So how did all that "excess heat" get trapped -- like a rat!! in the oceans?

Good grief you are one lazy little bastard! Here:

LMGTFY

you could have just said, "I don't know"

 

[TheTechnologist]

So how did all that "excess heat" get trapped -- like a rat!! in the oceans?

Your question is not well phrased.

Are you asking how does heat get into the oceans?

The answer is that water can store a lot of heat energy.

 

[Billy_Bob]

You're a fucking retard.

.
Chemical process - Wikipedia
https://en.m.wikipedia.org › wiki › Chem...
In a scientific sense, a chemical process is a method or means of somehow changing one or more chemicals or chemical compounds. Such a chemical process can occur by itself or be caused by an outside force, and involves a chemical reaction of some sort.

.
a usually irreversible chemical reaction involving the rearrangement of the atoms of one or more substances and a change in their chemical properties or composition, resulting in the formation of at least one new substance: The formation of rust on iron is a chemical change.
Chemical change | Define Chemical change at Dictionary.com

Latent heat of phase change does have an overlap between chemistry and physics but it is a long stretch to call it a chemical change or chemical process. As per usual you mangle your description of anything scientific. I have stopped trying to give you the benefit of the doubt, and I am going to respond to what you say, rather than what you might potentially mean.

IR is immediately absorbed by water, it has an effect, period.

Thank goodness that water is NOT such a good absorber of visible light or UV, otherwise the ocean surface would boil in daytime and freeze at night.

Downwelling atmospheric IR does not heat the ocean surface except in the unusual circumstances of nighttime inversions. At all other times it reduces the amount of heat being lost to the atmosphere or outer space. Why are you incapable of grasping that simple concept?

Conduction and Convection push the heat higher in the atmosphere away from the surface. This is why the surface temps do not rise in high levels of CO2. With the heat removed from the surface there can be no downward (radiative or conductive) warming of the oceans.

Again your premise fails the basic laws of thermodynamics.

I am confused by what you're trying to claim.

Are you trying to say that the Oceans do not warm-up because of Solar IR radiation?

Are you saying that in an Infrared picture of the Earth the Oceans are not black?

Are you saying that the Empirical data does not show that the Oceans have in fact WARMED?

LOL

Your ignorance is stunning...

The simple matter is LWIR can not warm the oceans.. There isn't enough energy in the EME at 16-20um to do anything to the mass of the oceans. The fact it can not get past the first ten microns where a phase change is constantly occurring tells the tale.

 

[Billy_Bob]

You're a fucking retard.

.
Chemical process - Wikipedia
https://en.m.wikipedia.org › wiki › Chem...
In a scientific sense, a chemical process is a method or means of somehow changing one or more chemicals or chemical compounds. Such a chemical process can occur by itself or be caused by an outside force, and involves a chemical reaction of some sort.

.
a usually irreversible chemical reaction involving the rearrangement of the atoms of one or more substances and a change in their chemical properties or composition, resulting in the formation of at least one new substance: The formation of rust on iron is a chemical change.
Chemical change | Define Chemical change at Dictionary.com

Latent heat of phase change does have an overlap between chemistry and physics but it is a long stretch to call it a chemical change or chemical process. As per usual you mangle your description of anything scientific. I have stopped trying to give you the benefit of the doubt, and I am going to respond to what you say, rather than what you might potentially mean.

IR is immediately absorbed by water, it has an effect, period.

Thank goodness that water is NOT such a good absorber of visible light or UV, otherwise the ocean surface would boil in daytime and freeze at night.

Downwelling atmospheric IR does not heat the ocean surface except in the unusual circumstances of nighttime inversions. At all other times it reduces the amount of heat being lost to the atmosphere or outer space. Why are you incapable of grasping that simple concept?

Conduction and Convection push the heat higher in the atmosphere away from the surface. This is why the surface temps do not rise in high levels of CO2. With the heat removed from the surface there can be no downward (radiative or conductive) warming of the oceans.

Again your premise fails the basic laws of thermodynamics.

Honestly, I don't know how to make it any simpler for you to understand. It is up to you to visualize the different pathways.

Start with no atmosphere. The high and low temperatures are extreme. The average temperature is lower than the average solar input would suggest. WHY?

Then a 100% Nitrogen atmosphere. Only conduction to warm the atmosphere. The daily extremes are lessened. WHY? The average temperature is getting closer to what the average solar input would suggest. WHY?

Add some CO2. What happens to the temperature profile of the atmosphere? I say it gets warmer at the bottom and cooler at the top. And the average atmospheric temperature goes up. WHY? A warmer atmosphere at the bottom also means a warmer surface. WHY?

Adding water just adds a huge amount of complexity. If you don't understand what was happening in the first three cases you will be totally confused.

CO2 can not hold heat by itself. therefore a nitrogen/CO2 atmosphere can not warm at concentrations below 100,000ppm.

Best do the math Ian, on the gases abilities..

 

[IanC]

You're a fucking retard.

.
Chemical process - Wikipedia
https://en.m.wikipedia.org › wiki › Chem...
In a scientific sense, a chemical process is a method or means of somehow changing one or more chemicals or chemical compounds. Such a chemical process can occur by itself or be caused by an outside force, and involves a chemical reaction of some sort.

.
a usually irreversible chemical reaction involving the rearrangement of the atoms of one or more substances and a change in their chemical properties or composition, resulting in the formation of at least one new substance: The formation of rust on iron is a chemical change.
Chemical change | Define Chemical change at Dictionary.com

Latent heat of phase change does have an overlap between chemistry and physics but it is a long stretch to call it a chemical change or chemical process. As per usual you mangle your description of anything scientific. I have stopped trying to give you the benefit of the doubt, and I am going to respond to what you say, rather than what you might potentially mean.

IR is immediately absorbed by water, it has an effect, period.

Thank goodness that water is NOT such a good absorber of visible light or UV, otherwise the ocean surface would boil in daytime and freeze at night.

Downwelling atmospheric IR does not heat the ocean surface except in the unusual circumstances of nighttime inversions. At all other times it reduces the amount of heat being lost to the atmosphere or outer space. Why are you incapable of grasping that simple concept?

Conduction and Convection push the heat higher in the atmosphere away from the surface. This is why the surface temps do not rise in high levels of CO2. With the heat removed from the surface there can be no downward (radiative or conductive) warming of the oceans.

Again your premise fails the basic laws of thermodynamics.

Honestly, I don't know how to make it any simpler for you to understand. It is up to you to visualize the different pathways.

Start with no atmosphere. The high and low temperatures are extreme. The average temperature is lower than the average solar input would suggest. WHY?

Then a 100% Nitrogen atmosphere. Only conduction to warm the atmosphere. The daily extremes are lessened. WHY? The average temperature is getting closer to what the average solar input would suggest. WHY?

Add some CO2. What happens to the temperature profile of the atmosphere? I say it gets warmer at the bottom and cooler at the top. And the average atmospheric temperature goes up. WHY? A warmer atmosphere at the bottom also means a warmer surface. WHY?

Adding water just adds a huge amount of complexity. If you don't understand what was happening in the first three cases you will be totally confused.

CO2 can not hold heat by itself. therefore a nitrogen/CO2 atmosphere can not warm at concentrations below 100,000ppm.

Best do the math Ian, on the gases abilities..

Explain how a 100% nitrogen atmosphere warms the surface first. Then we can move on to adding CO2. And why you think 100,000 ppm is a special number.

 

[Billy_Bob]

You're a fucking retard.

.
Chemical process - Wikipedia
https://en.m.wikipedia.org › wiki › Chem...
In a scientific sense, a chemical process is a method or means of somehow changing one or more chemicals or chemical compounds. Such a chemical process can occur by itself or be caused by an outside force, and involves a chemical reaction of some sort.

.
a usually irreversible chemical reaction involving the rearrangement of the atoms of one or more substances and a change in their chemical properties or composition, resulting in the formation of at least one new substance: The formation of rust on iron is a chemical change.
Chemical change | Define Chemical change at Dictionary.com

Latent heat of phase change does have an overlap between chemistry and physics but it is a long stretch to call it a chemical change or chemical process. As per usual you mangle your description of anything scientific. I have stopped trying to give you the benefit of the doubt, and I am going to respond to what you say, rather than what you might potentially mean.

IR is immediately absorbed by water, it has an effect, period.

Thank goodness that water is NOT such a good absorber of visible light or UV, otherwise the ocean surface would boil in daytime and freeze at night.

Downwelling atmospheric IR does not heat the ocean surface except in the unusual circumstances of nighttime inversions. At all other times it reduces the amount of heat being lost to the atmosphere or outer space. Why are you incapable of grasping that simple concept?

Conduction and Convection push the heat higher in the atmosphere away from the surface. This is why the surface temps do not rise in high levels of CO2. With the heat removed from the surface there can be no downward (radiative or conductive) warming of the oceans.

Again your premise fails the basic laws of thermodynamics.

Honestly, I don't know how to make it any simpler for you to understand. It is up to you to visualize the different pathways.

Start with no atmosphere. The high and low temperatures are extreme. The average temperature is lower than the average solar input would suggest. WHY?

Then a 100% Nitrogen atmosphere. Only conduction to warm the atmosphere. The daily extremes are lessened. WHY? The average temperature is getting closer to what the average solar input would suggest. WHY?

Add some CO2. What happens to the temperature profile of the atmosphere? I say it gets warmer at the bottom and cooler at the top. And the average atmospheric temperature goes up. WHY? A warmer atmosphere at the bottom also means a warmer surface. WHY?

Adding water just adds a huge amount of complexity. If you don't understand what was happening in the first three cases you will be totally confused.

CO2 can not hold heat by itself. therefore a nitrogen/CO2 atmosphere can not warm at concentrations below 100,000ppm.

Best do the math Ian, on the gases abilities..

Explain how a 100% nitrogen atmosphere warms the surface first. Then we can move on to adding CO2. And why you think 100,000 ppm is a special number.

Down-welling radiation does it not the nitrogen. And IF you were cognizant of atmospheric mass you would know why that 100,000 number is important.

 

[IanC]

You're a fucking retard.

Latent heat of phase change does have an overlap between chemistry and physics but it is a long stretch to call it a chemical change or chemical process. As per usual you mangle your description of anything scientific. I have stopped trying to give you the benefit of the doubt, and I am going to respond to what you say, rather than what you might potentially mean.

IR is immediately absorbed by water, it has an effect, period.

Thank goodness that water is NOT such a good absorber of visible light or UV, otherwise the ocean surface would boil in daytime and freeze at night.

Downwelling atmospheric IR does not heat the ocean surface except in the unusual circumstances of nighttime inversions. At all other times it reduces the amount of heat being lost to the atmosphere or outer space. Why are you incapable of grasping that simple concept?

Conduction and Convection push the heat higher in the atmosphere away from the surface. This is why the surface temps do not rise in high levels of CO2. With the heat removed from the surface there can be no downward (radiative or conductive) warming of the oceans.

Again your premise fails the basic laws of thermodynamics.

Honestly, I don't know how to make it any simpler for you to understand. It is up to you to visualize the different pathways.

Start with no atmosphere. The high and low temperatures are extreme. The average temperature is lower than the average solar input would suggest. WHY?

Then a 100% Nitrogen atmosphere. Only conduction to warm the atmosphere. The daily extremes are lessened. WHY? The average temperature is getting closer to what the average solar input would suggest. WHY?

Add some CO2. What happens to the temperature profile of the atmosphere? I say it gets warmer at the bottom and cooler at the top. And the average atmospheric temperature goes up. WHY? A warmer atmosphere at the bottom also means a warmer surface. WHY?

Adding water just adds a huge amount of complexity. If you don't understand what was happening in the first three cases you will be totally confused.

CO2 can not hold heat by itself. therefore a nitrogen/CO2 atmosphere can not warm at concentrations below 100,000ppm.

Best do the math Ian, on the gases abilities..

Explain how a 100% nitrogen atmosphere warms the surface first. Then we can move on to adding CO2. And why you think 100,000 ppm is a special number.

Down-welling radiation does it not the nitrogen. And IF you were cognizant of atmospheric mass you would know why that 100,000 number is important.

Look, I am just trying to get you to think.

Does a non-GHG atmosphere increase the average surface temperature of a planet? If your answer is yes, then give the reasons why. It doesn't have to be nitrogen, I only used that gas because our atmosphere is already 80% N2.

Down-welling radiation? Are you talking about solar insolation? Why not just say sunlight if that's what you mean. Down-welling radiation is term typically associated with radiation produced in the atmosphere and directed towards the surface. Was that really what you meant?

What is so special about 10%? AKA 100,000 ppm. I know nothing of any particular relevance for that number. Explain what you mean.

 

[IanC]

You're a fucking retard.

Latent heat of phase change does have an overlap between chemistry and physics but it is a long stretch to call it a chemical change or chemical process. As per usual you mangle your description of anything scientific. I have stopped trying to give you the benefit of the doubt, and I am going to respond to what you say, rather than what you might potentially mean.

IR is immediately absorbed by water, it has an effect, period.

Thank goodness that water is NOT such a good absorber of visible light or UV, otherwise the ocean surface would boil in daytime and freeze at night.

Downwelling atmospheric IR does not heat the ocean surface except in the unusual circumstances of nighttime inversions. At all other times it reduces the amount of heat being lost to the atmosphere or outer space. Why are you incapable of grasping that simple concept?

Conduction and Convection push the heat higher in the atmosphere away from the surface. This is why the surface temps do not rise in high levels of CO2. With the heat removed from the surface there can be no downward (radiative or conductive) warming of the oceans.

Again your premise fails the basic laws of thermodynamics.

Honestly, I don't know how to make it any simpler for you to understand. It is up to you to visualize the different pathways.

Start with no atmosphere. The high and low temperatures are extreme. The average temperature is lower than the average solar input would suggest. WHY?

Then a 100% Nitrogen atmosphere. Only conduction to warm the atmosphere. The daily extremes are lessened. WHY? The average temperature is getting closer to what the average solar input would suggest. WHY?

Add some CO2. What happens to the temperature profile of the atmosphere? I say it gets warmer at the bottom and cooler at the top. And the average atmospheric temperature goes up. WHY? A warmer atmosphere at the bottom also means a warmer surface. WHY?

Adding water just adds a huge amount of complexity. If you don't understand what was happening in the first three cases you will be totally confused.

CO2 can not hold heat by itself. therefore a nitrogen/CO2 atmosphere can not warm at concentrations below 100,000ppm.

Best do the math Ian, on the gases abilities..

Explain how a 100% nitrogen atmosphere warms the surface first. Then we can move on to adding CO2. And why you think 100,000 ppm is a special number.

Down-welling radiation does it not the nitrogen. And IF you were cognizant of atmospheric mass you would know why that 100,000 number is important.

How does a 100% Nitrogen atmosphere cause the average surface temperature to be warmer than without an atmosphere? The answer is not downwelling radiation.

 

[IanC]

Conduction and Convection push the heat higher in the atmosphere away from the surface. This is why the surface temps do not rise in high levels of CO2. With the heat removed from the surface there can be no downward (radiative or conductive) warming of the oceans.

Again your premise fails the basic laws of thermodynamics.

Honestly, I don't know how to make it any simpler for you to understand. It is up to you to visualize the different pathways.

Start with no atmosphere. The high and low temperatures are extreme. The average temperature is lower than the average solar input would suggest. WHY?

Then a 100% Nitrogen atmosphere. Only conduction to warm the atmosphere. The daily extremes are lessened. WHY? The average temperature is getting closer to what the average solar input would suggest. WHY?

Add some CO2. What happens to the temperature profile of the atmosphere? I say it gets warmer at the bottom and cooler at the top. And the average atmospheric temperature goes up. WHY? A warmer atmosphere at the bottom also means a warmer surface. WHY?

Adding water just adds a huge amount of complexity. If you don't understand what was happening in the first three cases you will be totally confused.

CO2 can not hold heat by itself. therefore a nitrogen/CO2 atmosphere can not warm at concentrations below 100,000ppm.

Best do the math Ian, on the gases abilities..

Explain how a 100% nitrogen atmosphere warms the surface first. Then we can move on to adding CO2. And why you think 100,000 ppm is a special number.

Down-welling radiation does it not the nitrogen. And IF you were cognizant of atmospheric mass you would know why that 100,000 number is important.

How does a 100% Nitrogen atmosphere cause the average surface temperature to be warmer than without an atmosphere? The answer is not downwelling radiation.

Still waiting

 

[Billy_Bob]

Honestly, I don't know how to make it any simpler for you to understand. It is up to you to visualize the different pathways.

Start with no atmosphere. The high and low temperatures are extreme. The average temperature is lower than the average solar input would suggest. WHY?

Then a 100% Nitrogen atmosphere. Only conduction to warm the atmosphere. The daily extremes are lessened. WHY? The average temperature is getting closer to what the average solar input would suggest. WHY?

Add some CO2. What happens to the temperature profile of the atmosphere? I say it gets warmer at the bottom and cooler at the top. And the average atmospheric temperature goes up. WHY? A warmer atmosphere at the bottom also means a warmer surface. WHY?

Adding water just adds a huge amount of complexity. If you don't understand what was happening in the first three cases you will be totally confused.

CO2 can not hold heat by itself. therefore a nitrogen/CO2 atmosphere can not warm at concentrations below 100,000ppm.

Best do the math Ian, on the gases abilities..

Explain how a 100% nitrogen atmosphere warms the surface first. Then we can move on to adding CO2. And why you think 100,000 ppm is a special number.

Down-welling radiation does it not the nitrogen. And IF you were cognizant of atmospheric mass you would know why that 100,000 number is important.

How does a 100% Nitrogen atmosphere cause the average surface temperature to be warmer than without an atmosphere? The answer is not downwelling radiation.

Still waiting

I wonder if you know what the mass of the atmosphere is and how it slows the release of heat... it is MASS...

 

[IanC]

CO2 can not hold heat by itself. therefore a nitrogen/CO2 atmosphere can not warm at concentrations below 100,000ppm.

Best do the math Ian, on the gases abilities..

Explain how a 100% nitrogen atmosphere warms the surface first. Then we can move on to adding CO2. And why you think 100,000 ppm is a special number.

Down-welling radiation does it not the nitrogen. And IF you were cognizant of atmospheric mass you would know why that 100,000 number is important.

How does a 100% Nitrogen atmosphere cause the average surface temperature to be warmer than without an atmosphere? The answer is not downwelling radiation.

Still waiting

I wonder if you know what the mass of the atmosphere is and how it slows the release of heat... it is MASS...

That is a good start. Could you flesh out a few of the details? I am particularly interested in hearing about how 10% is a special number.

 

[IanC]

Honestly, I don't know how to make it any simpler for you to understand. It is up to you to visualize the different pathways.

Start with no atmosphere. The high and low temperatures are extreme. The average temperature is lower than the average solar input would suggest. WHY?

Then a 100% Nitrogen atmosphere. Only conduction to warm the atmosphere. The daily extremes are lessened. WHY? The average temperature is getting closer to what the average solar input would suggest. WHY?

Add some CO2. What happens to the temperature profile of the atmosphere? I say it gets warmer at the bottom and cooler at the top. And the average atmospheric temperature goes up. WHY? A warmer atmosphere at the bottom also means a warmer surface. WHY?

Adding water just adds a huge amount of complexity. If you don't understand what was happening in the first three cases you will be totally confused.

CO2 can not hold heat by itself. therefore a nitrogen/CO2 atmosphere can not warm at concentrations below 100,000ppm.

Best do the math Ian, on the gases abilities..

Explain how a 100% nitrogen atmosphere warms the surface first. Then we can move on to adding CO2. And why you think 100,000 ppm is a special number.

Down-welling radiation does it not the nitrogen. And IF you were cognizant of atmospheric mass you would know why that 100,000 number is important.

How does a 100% Nitrogen atmosphere cause the average surface temperature to be warmer than without an atmosphere? The answer is not downwelling radiation.

Still waiting

Still waiting BILLYBOB. How does a 100% nitrogen atmosphere warm the surface? There is practically no radiation being produced so that is not the answer.

You then changed your answer to the 'mass'. I actually agree with you, sort of. Explain how the mass does it.

If you have the guts to reply, be prepared to have your past comments thrown back in your face from the last time this topic was discussed.

 

[IanC]

Billyboob is not only chickenshit but stupid as well.

 

[IanC]

And SSDD, feel free to step up to the plate and defend your sycophant.

 

[SSDD]

I have no sycophants...us reality based folks don't need them to blow sunshine up our asses...plain old observed reality supports our arguments....ask yourself why window manufacturers use a gas that is non radiative to insulate your house...why not fill the windows with CO2...its magical properties would render your HVAC obsolete no matter what the season..