LWIR FAILS to Warm the Atmosphere by Empirical Experiment.

Billy_Bob

Platinum Member
Joined
Sep 4, 2014
Messages
22,007
Reaction score
6,198
Points
1,010
Location
Top Of The Great Divide
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..
 

Toddsterpatriot

Diamond Member
Joined
May 3, 2011
Messages
58,247
Reaction score
8,082
Points
2,030
Location
Chicago
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.
 

SSDD

Gold Member
Joined
Nov 6, 2012
Messages
16,806
Reaction score
1,893
Points
280
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...
 

CrusaderFrank

Diamond Member
Joined
May 20, 2009
Messages
111,595
Reaction score
22,455
Points
2,220
Location
Location, location
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...
Well, er, the planet Venus or something
 

Toddsterpatriot

Diamond Member
Joined
May 3, 2011
Messages
58,247
Reaction score
8,082
Points
2,030
Location
Chicago
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...
adding CO2 to the atmosphere increases its emissivity...increasing an object's emissivity increases its ability to radiatively cool itself.

Of course it does, emissivity equals absorptivity. DURR!

Kirchhoff's law states, in simpler language:

For an arbitrary body emitting and absorbing thermal radiation in thermodynamic equilibrium, the emissivity is equal to the absorptivity.

Kirchhoff's law of thermal radiation - Wikipedia
 

IanC

Gold Member
Joined
Sep 22, 2009
Messages
11,064
Reaction score
1,314
Points
245
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..
More bullshit and bafflegab from our resident Cliff Clavin.
 
OP
Billy_Bob

Billy_Bob

Platinum Member
Joined
Sep 4, 2014
Messages
22,007
Reaction score
6,198
Points
1,010
Location
Top Of The Great Divide
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...
There was lot more that we did in this testing and we found that CO2 levels really had very little to do with anything absent a secondary molecule to warm it. Many of the things we found stunned us. Now to see how others respond to the technical paper over the next few months after it is finished and submitted. This is the part that I for one dread the most... But it is science and we don't learn if we don't allow others to inspect it.
 
OP
Billy_Bob

Billy_Bob

Platinum Member
Joined
Sep 4, 2014
Messages
22,007
Reaction score
6,198
Points
1,010
Location
Top Of The Great Divide
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?
 
Last edited:

miketx

Diamond Member
Joined
Dec 25, 2015
Messages
77,966
Reaction score
14,373
Points
2,220
As stated many times, stains are incapable of accepting that which proves them wrong.
 

SSDD

Gold Member
Joined
Nov 6, 2012
Messages
16,806
Reaction score
1,893
Points
280
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...
adding CO2 to the atmosphere increases its emissivity...increasing an object's emissivity increases its ability to radiatively cool itself.

Of course it does, emissivity equals absorptivity. DURR!

Kirchhoff's law states, in simpler language:

For an arbitrary body emitting and absorbing thermal radiation in thermodynamic equilibrium, the emissivity is equal to the absorptivity.

Kirchhoff's law of thermal radiation - Wikipedia
Real world examples of achieving cooling by increasing emissivity. It isn't as if it is a secret.

How To Cool A Hot Hydraulic System
https://nvlpubs.nist.gov/nistpubs/nbstechnologic/nbstechnologicpaperT254.pdf
https://aip.scitation.org/doi/pdf/10.1063/1.4860839
 

SSDD

Gold Member
Joined
Nov 6, 2012
Messages
16,806
Reaction score
1,893
Points
280
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...
There was lot more that we did in this testing and we found that CO2 levels really had very little to do with anything absent a secondary molecule to warm it. Many of the things we found stunned us. Now to see how others respond to the technical paper over the next few months after it is finished and submitted. This is the part that I for one dread the most... But it is science and we don't learn if we don't allow others to inspect it.
Well, you know how people react when you challenge their faith and they have no empirical evidence to counter with.
 

IanC

Gold Member
Joined
Sep 22, 2009
Messages
11,064
Reaction score
1,314
Points
245
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)
 

SSDD

Gold Member
Joined
Nov 6, 2012
Messages
16,806
Reaction score
1,893
Points
280
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)
So say the unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable models...heard it all before...never saw any empirical evidence to back it up. IR does not warm the atmosphere and the idea of a radiative greenhouse effect in our gravity/pressure, conduction dominated atmosphere is laughable and the fact that so many people believe is testament to the failing educational systems...everywhere.
 
OP
Billy_Bob

Billy_Bob

Platinum Member
Joined
Sep 4, 2014
Messages
22,007
Reaction score
6,198
Points
1,010
Location
Top Of The Great Divide
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..
 

Toddsterpatriot

Diamond Member
Joined
May 3, 2011
Messages
58,247
Reaction score
8,082
Points
2,030
Location
Chicago
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?
 

Toddsterpatriot

Diamond Member
Joined
May 3, 2011
Messages
58,247
Reaction score
8,082
Points
2,030
Location
Chicago
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...
adding CO2 to the atmosphere increases its emissivity...increasing an object's emissivity increases its ability to radiatively cool itself.

Of course it does, emissivity equals absorptivity. DURR!

Kirchhoff's law states, in simpler language:

For an arbitrary body emitting and absorbing thermal radiation in thermodynamic equilibrium, the emissivity is equal to the absorptivity.

Kirchhoff's law of thermal radiation - Wikipedia
Real world examples of achieving cooling by increasing emissivity. It isn't as if it is a secret.

How To Cool A Hot Hydraulic System
https://nvlpubs.nist.gov/nistpubs/nbstechnologic/nbstechnologicpaperT254.pdf
https://aip.scitation.org/doi/pdf/10.1063/1.4860839
Real world examples of achieving cooling by increasing emissivity.

Thanks......what does this have to do with your confusion about CO2 in the atmosphere?
 

IanC

Gold Member
Joined
Sep 22, 2009
Messages
11,064
Reaction score
1,314
Points
245
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?
 

SSDD

Gold Member
Joined
Nov 6, 2012
Messages
16,806
Reaction score
1,893
Points
280
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.
 

IanC

Gold Member
Joined
Sep 22, 2009
Messages
11,064
Reaction score
1,314
Points
245
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.
 

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Top