LWIR FAILS to Warm the Atmosphere by Empirical Experiment.

[SSDD]

One more attempt at explaining how GHGs warm the atmosphere.

Elastic collisions result in both objects recoiling with the same amount of kinetic energy as they entered with.

Inelastic collisions have a different amount of kinetic energy because some amount of potential energy has been stored or released as a result of the collision.

Near the surface CO2 absorbs more energy than it emits. That energy is transformed into kinetic speed (temperature) by collision. Warming.

Near the top of the atmosphere CO2 emits radiation to space using energy that it got from collisions which resulted in vibrational states. Cooling

There is more 15 micron radiation produced at the 15C surface than at the -50C TOA. That energy is stored in the atmosphere until it finds a different path out.

Or transfers that energy to the oceans.

The oceans determine the temperature of the atmosphere...not the other way around...it is that sort of belief that has made a dupe of you.

 

[IanC]

One more attempt at explaining how GHGs warm the atmosphere.

Elastic collisions result in both objects recoiling with the same amount of kinetic energy as they entered with.

Inelastic collisions have a different amount of kinetic energy because some amount of potential energy has been stored or released as a result of the collision.

Near the surface CO2 absorbs more energy than it emits. That energy is transformed into kinetic speed (temperature) by collision. Warming.

Near the top of the atmosphere CO2 emits radiation to space using energy that it got from collisions which resulted in vibrational states. Cooling

There is more 15 micron radiation produced at the 15C surface than at the -50C TOA. That energy is stored in the atmosphere until it finds a different path out.

Pure fantasy without the first piece of observed, measured evidence to support it.

Which part do you consider fantasy?

You seem to approve of many mechanisms of physics when it is useful for your narrative, only to scorn them when they are shown to disagree with your narrative.

Do you disagree that molecular collisions can add or remove vibrational states in GHGs? And that the energy comes from (goes to) the stored kinetic energy of the atmosphere?

OR do you disagree that warm surface produces more GHG specific radiation than the cold atmosphere produces up high where the radiation can finally escape?

You never seem to actually explain your position.

 

[IanC]

One more attempt at explaining how GHGs warm the atmosphere.

Elastic collisions result in both objects recoiling with the same amount of kinetic energy as they entered with.

Inelastic collisions have a different amount of kinetic energy because some amount of potential energy has been stored or released as a result of the collision.

Near the surface CO2 absorbs more energy than it emits. That energy is transformed into kinetic speed (temperature) by collision. Warming.

Near the top of the atmosphere CO2 emits radiation to space using energy that it got from collisions which resulted in vibrational states. Cooling

There is more 15 micron radiation produced at the 15C surface than at the -50C TOA. That energy is stored in the atmosphere until it finds a different path out.

Or transfers that energy to the oceans.

Thermal infrared does not transfer energy into the oceans. The Sun warms the oceans with visible and UV. Downwelling atmospheric thermal radiation only replace some of what is generated at the surface.

Conduction from the atmosphere to the surface also happens at night because the surface is close to a blackbody radiator and cools more quickly than the atmosphere which only has weak GHG radiation from high up to shed heat to space.

 

[Billy_Bob]

The non-GHG atmosphere has no absorption bands. It is transparent to LWIR. Get it?

Again, where does 24 hours worth of 396W/m^2 go to in this experiment of yours?

You moron... Transparent; means it has no way to interact with the energy. IT MEANS THAT IT CAN NOT STOP IT.... Nice to see you agree with what we found empirically! Are you done running around in circles?

Opaque is the opposite to transparent. Why did you say your experiment was opaque to LWIR if you meant the opposite ?

CO2 is highly reactive to 15 micron thermal radiation, and the mean free path is only two metres near the surface at STP. In other words, opaque.

Opaque means energy interacts but has little or no result.

Transparent means that the energy does not react at all and it is incapable of slowing or stopping it.

A trace gas being highly reactive to energy that can not warm does nothing to warm our atmosphere... That was the whole premise of our experiment. You people look at only what you want to see and ignore the rest.. Its amazing to me how you ignore the facts.. Increased water vapor is the only way CO2 can increase the temperature because the water absorbs the energy and warms. Collision with the warmer water is what warms CO2. However, as CO2 increases so does the emisitivty of the column which we clearly saw as the column rate of warming reduced as the ppm increased.

As we introduced water vapor into the tube we only found a pass loss of about 1.2w/m^2 @ 50% humidity which decreased to 0.7W/m^2 as we approached 800ppm. Everything we have been told about CO2 and its effect by alarmists is wrong.

The technical paper is going to cause major waves... Count on it..

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

The non-GHG atmosphere has no absorption bands. It is transparent to LWIR. Get it?

Again, where does 24 hours worth of 396W/m^2 go to in this experiment of yours?

You moron... Transparent; means it has no way to interact with the energy. IT MEANS THAT IT CAN NOT STOP IT.... Nice to see you agree with what we found empirically! Are you done running around in circles?

Opaque is the opposite to transparent. Why did you say your experiment was opaque to LWIR if you meant the opposite ?

CO2 is highly reactive to 15 micron thermal radiation, and the mean free path is only two metres near the surface at STP. In other words, opaque.

Opaque means energy interacts but has little or no result.

Transparent means that the energy does not react at all and it is incapable of slowing or stopping it.

A trace gas being highly reactive to energy that can not warm does nothing to warm our atmosphere... That was the whole premise of our experiment. You people look at only what you want to see and ignore the rest.. Its amazing to me how you ignore the facts.. Increased water vapor is the only way CO2 can increase the temperature because the water absorbs the energy and warms. Collision with the warmer water is what warms CO2. However, as CO2 increases so does the emisitivty of the column which we clearly saw as the column rate of warming reduced as the ppm increased.

As we introduced water vapor into the tube we only found a pass loss of about 1.2w/m^2 @ 50% humidity which decreased to 0.7W/m^2 as we approached 800ppm. Everything we have been told about CO2 and its effect by alarmists is wrong.

The technical paper is going to cause major waves... Count on it..

Opaque means energy interacts but has little or no result.

That's funny. So it's not absorbed, it doesn't pass through...……..it must bounce around.
Like the inside of a laser.
When you opened the tube, did it burn a hole through the wall?

The technical paper is going to cause major waves...

Major waves of laughter......count on it.

 

[SSDD]

One more attempt at explaining how GHGs warm the atmosphere.

Elastic collisions result in both objects recoiling with the same amount of kinetic energy as they entered with.

Inelastic collisions have a different amount of kinetic energy because some amount of potential energy has been stored or released as a result of the collision.

Near the surface CO2 absorbs more energy than it emits. That energy is transformed into kinetic speed (temperature) by collision. Warming.

Near the top of the atmosphere CO2 emits radiation to space using energy that it got from collisions which resulted in vibrational states. Cooling

There is more 15 micron radiation produced at the 15C surface than at the -50C TOA. That energy is stored in the atmosphere until it finds a different path out.

Pure fantasy without the first piece of observed, measured evidence to support it.

Which part do you consider fantasy?

You seem to approve of many mechanisms of physics when it is useful for your narrative, only to scorn them when they are shown to disagree with your narrative.

Do you disagree that molecular collisions can add or remove vibrational states in GHGs? And that the energy comes from (goes to) the stored kinetic energy of the atmosphere?

OR do you disagree that warm surface produces more GHG specific radiation than the cold atmosphere produces up high where the radiation can finally escape?

You never seem to actually explain your position.

I scorn misuse of physical laws and mechanisms...and assumptions loosely based upon them like applying the SB law to a gas, or using variations on the SB equations which allow one to violate the assumption that the temperature of T is always greater than or equal to Tc...or the assumption that absorption and emission equals warming..and on and on and on without the first piece of observed, measured evidence to support the claims that are made by such shoddy science.

 

[SSDD]

The non-GHG atmosphere has no absorption bands. It is transparent to LWIR. Get it?

Again, where does 24 hours worth of 396W/m^2 go to in this experiment of yours?

You moron... Transparent; means it has no way to interact with the energy. IT MEANS THAT IT CAN NOT STOP IT.... Nice to see you agree with what we found empirically! Are you done running around in circles?

Opaque is the opposite to transparent. Why did you say your experiment was opaque to LWIR if you meant the opposite ?

CO2 is highly reactive to 15 micron thermal radiation, and the mean free path is only two metres near the surface at STP. In other words, opaque.

Opaque means energy interacts but has little or no result.

Transparent means that the energy does not react at all and it is incapable of slowing or stopping it.

A trace gas being highly reactive to energy that can not warm does nothing to warm our atmosphere... That was the whole premise of our experiment. You people look at only what you want to see and ignore the rest.. Its amazing to me how you ignore the facts.. Increased water vapor is the only way CO2 can increase the temperature because the water absorbs the energy and warms. Collision with the warmer water is what warms CO2. However, as CO2 increases so does the emisitivty of the column which we clearly saw as the column rate of warming reduced as the ppm increased.

As we introduced water vapor into the tube we only found a pass loss of about 1.2w/m^2 @ 50% humidity which decreased to 0.7W/m^2 as we approached 800ppm. Everything we have been told about CO2 and its effect by alarmists is wrong.

The technical paper is going to cause major waves... Count on it..

True that...they are perfectly willing to disregard decades and a million hours of research, testing, and observation in commercial and residential installations which demonstrate pretty conclusively that IR does not warm air. Any thing that challenges their belief is immediately disregarded.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Conduction from the atmosphere to the surface also happens at night because the surface is close to a blackbody radiator and cools more quickly than the atmosphere which only has weak GHG radiation from high up to shed heat to space.

Incorrect;

The thermal LWIR never warms the ocean. The boundary layer (skin) is evaporating so fast that cooling of the upper layer of the ocean is seen just below the skin of the oceans surface. LWIR can not warm the ocean. Sorry but empirical evidence proves you wrong, again.

 

[SSDD]

Conduction from the atmosphere to the surface also happens at night because the surface is close to a blackbody radiator and cools more quickly than the atmosphere which only has weak GHG radiation from high up to shed heat to space.

Incorrect;

The thermal LWIR never warms the ocean. The boundary layer (skin) is evaporating so fast that cooling of the upper layer of the ocean is seen just below the skin of the oceans surface. LWIR can not warm the ocean. Sorry but empirical evidence proves you wrong, again.

Amazing how they disregard observed, measured evidence in favor of their failed models. If they had the physics right, the CIMP models would be spot on...they are their flawed understanding of physics incarnate and they fail to produce anything like reality...time after time after time...even with constant adjustment they continue to fail.

 

[Billy_Bob]

I'm with Todd here. Here is everything I could find you saying about this tube.

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.

As for the tube, it was made of ceramics which was non-LWIR reactive. So it did not warm with the amount of LWIR we were directing through it. IT was our attempt at keeping the only thing which could warm was the atmosphere in the tube. Ceramics, when warmed, take very little convective energy to warm or cool so they will not adversely affect the outcome of the experiments. Insulating was made much easier as well.

The design of the structure, to do testing, was such that LWIR did not warm it. This was by design to stop convective and conductive interference allowing us to see exactly how the atmosphere reacts.

It exited the tube without causing warming.. We measured the output of the tube to determine how much was being passed through the coulomb. essentially its like putting a spotlight at one end of a tunnel, then watching the light exit the tunnel onto a wall (receptor pad) at the other end.

I know of no transparent or even translucent ceramics. Detectors, by design, would be completely opaque. Where did the energy go?

Tell us something. Could you show us the relationship between CO2 levels and the amount of LWIR received at the end of the tube? For example, with CO2 at 10%, what were the received levels at the far end of the tube from the moment your energized your LW source till you considered the run complete.

Why don't you talk to NASA they developed the ceramics for use on space craft.

Did space craft ceramics make heat disappear? Or just your ceramics?

Heat shields are pretty darn good items that do not react to LWIR..

 

[jc456]

Tell me moron, Will the energy in the electrical system in your home burn it down without a catalyst which is capable of enabling/using the energy?

Are you really that stupid? Cut one of the two hot wires on your 120V power and see how well your lights work. You claim to be pushing energy into a system from which it cannot escape. Where the fuck did it go fool?

Cut one of the two hot wires? There aren’t two hot wires you fking idiot. One is neutral and one is hot. And only hot lights a bulb when neutral is present and flow is to neutral. Hly fk

BTW, All one has to do is unplug the light. What happens to an open outlet? Does the wire produce energy even though the one lead is hot? Or does something need to draw that energy? A load? Maybe?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I'm with Todd here. Here is everything I could find you saying about this tube.

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.

As for the tube, it was made of ceramics which was non-LWIR reactive. So it did not warm with the amount of LWIR we were directing through it. IT was our attempt at keeping the only thing which could warm was the atmosphere in the tube. Ceramics, when warmed, take very little convective energy to warm or cool so they will not adversely affect the outcome of the experiments. Insulating was made much easier as well.

The design of the structure, to do testing, was such that LWIR did not warm it. This was by design to stop convective and conductive interference allowing us to see exactly how the atmosphere reacts.

It exited the tube without causing warming.. We measured the output of the tube to determine how much was being passed through the coulomb. essentially its like putting a spotlight at one end of a tunnel, then watching the light exit the tunnel onto a wall (receptor pad) at the other end.

I know of no transparent or even translucent ceramics. Detectors, by design, would be completely opaque. Where did the energy go?

Tell us something. Could you show us the relationship between CO2 levels and the amount of LWIR received at the end of the tube? For example, with CO2 at 10%, what were the received levels at the far end of the tube from the moment your energized your LW source till you considered the run complete.

Why don't you talk to NASA they developed the ceramics for use on space craft.

Did space craft ceramics make heat disappear? Or just your ceramics?

Heat shields are pretty darn good items that do not react to LWIR..

Heat shields are pretty darn good items that do not react to LWIR..

Do they also make it disappear, like your magic tube?

 

[Crick]

I haven't the faintest fuck of an idea what you're talking about with "react to LWIR". There are three things it could do: reflect, absorb or transmit and will usually do some combination of the three. There is no "no reaction" option. Your material is completely opaque to visible light making it extremely unlikely that it is transparent to LW.

Every material used on the shuttle emitted (and thus absorbed) LWIR. There is absolutely no reason an ablative or non-ablative heat shield material should be designed to not absorb LWIR and several significant reasons indicating it should. Where have you gotten the idea that a heat shield wouldn't "react" with LWIR?

Instead of playing these stupid games, why don't you tell us precisely what your tube was made of. If you don't know, man up and tell us so.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I haven't the faintest fuck of an idea what you're talking about with "react to LWIR". There are three things it could do: reflect, absorb or transmit and will usually do some combination of the three. There is no "no reaction" option. Your material is completely opaque to visible light making it extremely unlikely that it is transparent to LW.

Every material used on the shuttle emitted (and thus absorbed) LWIR. There is absolutely no reason an ablative or non-ablative heat shield material should be designed to not absorb LWIR and several significant reasons indicating it should. Where have you gotten the idea that a heat shield wouldn't "react" with LWIR?

Instead of playing these stupid games, why don't you tell us precisely what your tube was made of. If you don't know, man up and tell us so.

He won't spill the beans.

He's saving the good stuff for his Nobel Prize acceptance speech.

 

[Wuwei]

I haven't the faintest fuck of an idea what you're talking about with "react to LWIR". There are three things it could do: reflect, absorb or transmit and will usually do some combination of the three. There is no "no reaction" option. Your material is completely opaque to visible light making it extremely unlikely that it is transparent to LW.

Every material used on the shuttle emitted (and thus absorbed) LWIR. There is absolutely no reason an ablative or non-ablative heat shield material should be designed to not absorb LWIR and several significant reasons indicating it should. Where have you gotten the idea that a heat shield wouldn't "react" with LWIR?

Instead of playing these stupid games, why don't you tell us precisely what your tube was made of. If you don't know, man up and tell us so.

Billy is a troll. If he was serious, he would give us a blueprint or drawing or a photograph of his experiment and preliminary data. He seems to be playing the people in this thread that think he is nuts. He just want's attention to waste our time.

 

[Crick]

I suspect he has some involvement or familiarity with an experiment being conducted by students where he takes his meteorology courses. When he first appeared - or at least when I first ran into him, it seemed he was a retired police officer who was taking some classes in meteorology. That transmogrified itself into his being (and I quote) "an atmospheric physicist". That has been difficult to get past. I simply wish he'd be more honest.

 

[Wuwei]

I suspect he has some involvement or familiarity with an experiment being conducted by students where he takes his meteorology courses. When he first appeared - or at least when I first ran into him, it seemed he was a retired police officer who was taking some classes in meteorology. That transmogrified itself into his being (and I quote) "an atmospheric physicist". That has been difficult to get past. I simply wish he'd be more honest.

Yes, being dishonest sometimes equivalent to lying. But in his case he very often states something ludicrous without knowing or even caring what the facts might be. When he does that it seems like he has zero self-respect.

 

[SSDD]

You girls enjoying your little circle jerk? Do you find comfort in your catty conversation?

 

[Billy_Bob]

I haven't the faintest fuck of an idea what you're talking about with "react to LWIR". There are three things it could do: reflect, absorb or transmit and will usually do some combination of the three. There is no "no reaction" option. Your material is completely opaque to visible light making it extremely unlikely that it is transparent to LW.

Every material used on the shuttle emitted (and thus absorbed) LWIR. There is absolutely no reason an ablative or non-ablative heat shield material should be designed to not absorb LWIR and several significant reasons indicating it should. Where have you gotten the idea that a heat shield wouldn't "react" with LWIR?

Instead of playing these stupid games, why don't you tell us precisely what your tube was made of. If you don't know, man up and tell us so.

You have no concept of REACTIVITY...

You don't even have a basic grasp of the concept or scientific principal for energy movement.. Crick, Give it up Your an Idiot..

 

[Billy_Bob]

I suspect he has some involvement or familiarity with an experiment being conducted by students where he takes his meteorology courses. When he first appeared - or at least when I first ran into him, it seemed he was a retired police officer who was taking some classes in meteorology. That transmogrified itself into his being (and I quote) "an atmospheric physicist". That has been difficult to get past. I simply wish he'd be more honest.

Yes, being dishonest sometimes equivalent to lying. But in his case he very often states something ludicrous without knowing or even caring what the facts might be. When he does that it seems like he has zero self-respect.

You and Crick do that quite a bit...

Honesty is something I never find in an alarmist...