LWIR FAILS to Warm the Atmosphere by Empirical Experiment.

[SSDD]

There are lots of books on the nature of light without formulas so that people like you who don't understand physics can easily grasp it.

Nope...there are books on observations of the behavior of light with hypotheses and theories about what is going on in an attempt to explain the observations...

Again...failure to differentiate between reality and unreality.

Who gives a ꞰↃՈℲ about the nature of light, when it comes to computations of interactions of light in a gas.

Certainly not me...you made a stupid statement when you claimed that the nature of light was well known..it isn't...I just thought it might be fun to yank your chain over your stupid claim and watch you squirm and see how far you would drag your intellect through the sewer in an attempt to defend it. Now we know.

 

[SSDD]

Yes, it was quite quaint, but nevertheless a breakthrough for that time. The whole physics of heat absorption of GHGs has been modeled by today's scientists.

Gasses absorb radiation...and emit it...they do not absorb heat.

The heat of compression adds less than 1% to the total temperature change compared to air. That is easily calculated from the IGL. For you to think it's "your answer" without investigating it is your usual BS.

I suggest that you do a bit of investigation into the compressed air industry..whole classes of equipment are dedicated to capturing energy resulting from the heat of compression...a lot of work and expense to attempt to capture 1% don't you think?

Again....all bullshit from you all the time. In the text of the greenhouse in a bottle experiment that I provided for you...when the bottle was capped tight even plain old air warmed 16 degrees vs 7degrees when the bottle is vented...CO2 being more dense than air, warmed to 22 when capped tight, but didn't warm any more than garden variety air when the bottle was vented...

Even plain air saw more than 30% increase in temperature when the bottles were capped due to the heat of compression...considerably more than 1% wouldn't you say? Observed, measured, repeatable evidence.

IR does not warm the air....

 

[Wuwei]

There are lots of books on the nature of light without formulas so that people like you who don't understand physics can easily grasp it.

Nope...there are books on observations of the behavior of light with hypotheses and theories about what is going on in an attempt to explain the observations...

Again...failure to differentiate between reality and unreality.

Who gives a ꞰↃՈℲ about the nature of light, when it comes to computations of interactions of light in a gas.

Certainly not me...you made a stupid statement when you claimed that the nature of light was well known..it isn't...I just thought it might be fun to yank your chain over your stupid claim and watch you squirm and see how far you would drag your intellect through the sewer in an attempt to defend it. Now we know.

You are the one making stupid statements about the nature of light.

Part 1 Nature of light​

Haven't you heard the wave-nature and particle-nature of light?

The nature of light is all over the web, for example,

Most commonly observed phenomena with light can be explained by waves. But the photoelectric effect suggested a particle nature for light. Then electrons too were found to exhibit dual natures.​

Quantum Mechanics is the "strange" theory introduced in 1927 by Niels Bohr and Werner Heisenberg to describe the fundamental nature of basic particles: the atomic nucleus, electrons and light (photons, or electromagnetic waves).

Bell's inequality experiments look at the nature of light and realism.
Articles such as: BIG Bell Test Collaboration (May 2018). "Challenging local realism with human choices", Nature. 557 (7704)

Part 2 Behavior of light.​

The mathematics of Quantum ElectroDynamics says it all when it comes to practical applications and behavior.
----------------
That is the way scientists look at the nature and behavior of light. Nature of light does not lead to inventions or tell us the radiant behavior of gases.

It looks like you don't understand anything about neither the nature nor the behavior of light.

​

 

[Wuwei]

Gasses absorb radiation...and emit it...they do not absorb heat.

You are totally wrong.
The time from absorption to emission of CO2 is a few micro seconds.
The mean time between collisions with air molecules is a few nano seconds.
CO2 very rarely emits the energy it absorbs. It transfers it to kinetic energy.

I suggest that you do a bit of investigation into the compressed air industry..whole classes of equipment are dedicated to capturing energy resulting from the heat of compression...a lot of work and expense to attempt to capture 1% don't you think?

It obviously follows from the IGL don't you think?

Again....all bullshit from you all the time. In the text of the greenhouse in a bottle experiment that I provided for you...when the bottle was capped tight even plain old air warmed 16 degrees vs 7degrees when the bottle is vented...CO2 being more dense than air, warmed to 22 when capped tight, but didn't warm any more than garden variety air when the bottle was vented...

Even plain air saw more than 30% increase in temperature when the bottles were capped due to the heat of compression...considerably more than 1% wouldn't you say? Observed, measured, repeatable evidence.

Nope. Your "analysis" doesn't hold water. You absolutely don't understand the experiment. The heat of compression is negligible.

IR does not warm the air....

Oh yes it does. I challenged you with the physics behind it several times and you ducked and dodged the question.

 

[Billy_Bob]

The American Journal o f Science and Arts Vol XXII Nov 1856, Pgs 382 - 383

The American Journal of Science and Arts

A two page report in 1856 by Eunice Newton Foote demonstrated that CO2 absorbs heat. She measured the temperatures in two glass 4x30 inch cylinders with internal thermometers. She exposed them to sunlight, one filled with air and one with CO2. Foote speculated that if there had been a period when the atmosphere held more of the gas, the planet would have been warmer.

She noted the temperature rises in various gases under the same conditions:

On comparing the sun's heat in different gases, I found it to be in hydrogen gas, 104° ; in common air, 106°; in oxygen gas 108°; and in carbonic acid gas, 125°.​

You sir are a moron..

The experiment you cite was done in DOWN WELLING RADIATION of broad spectrum. Both Conduction and Convection were not accounted for and her glass cylinders warmed themselves due to its reactivity to energy in the 0.1-0.8um spectrum. What she observed was due to the glass and the convection and conduction within the cylinder. A mistake we chose to remove from the experiment.

LOL.. You guys are desperate. I had 2 Phd's try this paper already and we blew them out of the water with the failures a good scientist would see coming.

 

[Billy_Bob]

The time from absorption to emission of CO2 is a few micro seconds.
The mean time between collisions with air molecules is a few nano seconds.
CO2 very rarely emits the energy it absorbs. It transfers it to kinetic energy.

WE could quibble about the nano seconds between collisions and the shorter duration of energy residency inside the CO2 molecule but the simple fact remains that of the possible 8 reactions to energy that most molecular structures have, CO2 responds in only only 4 due to its make up. All four of these "vibrational modes" in CO2 do not result in warming. The four others, which do respond in water vapor, can because the energy resides much, much longer.

CO2 cannot warm due to passing LWIR. CO2 can only transmit its energy by collision or emittance to other molecules. CO2 can only warm by conduction.

The whole premise of our experiment was to show what LWIR actually does in our atmosphere. And what we found was almost entirely out of sync with alarmist modeling and hype.

 

[Crick]

This is your NASA space tube in which all the energy input simply vanishes into another dimension?

 

[SSDD]

There are lots of books on the nature of light without formulas so that people like you who don't understand physics can easily grasp it.

Nope...there are books on observations of the behavior of light with hypotheses and theories about what is going on in an attempt to explain the observations...

Again...failure to differentiate between reality and unreality.

Who gives a ꞰↃՈℲ about the nature of light, when it comes to computations of interactions of light in a gas.

Certainly not me...you made a stupid statement when you claimed that the nature of light was well known..it isn't...I just thought it might be fun to yank your chain over your stupid claim and watch you squirm and see how far you would drag your intellect through the sewer in an attempt to defend it. Now we know.

You are the one making stupid statements about the nature of light.

Part 1 Nature of light​

Haven't you heard the wave-nature and particle-nature of light?

The nature of light is all over the web, for example,

Most commonly observed phenomena with light can be explained by waves. But the photoelectric effect suggested a particle nature for light. Then electrons too were found to exhibit dual natures.​

Quantum Mechanics is the "strange" theory introduced in 1927 by Niels Bohr and Werner Heisenberg to describe the fundamental nature of basic particles: the atomic nucleus, electrons and light (photons, or electromagnetic waves).

Bell's inequality experiments look at the nature of light and realism.
Articles such as: BIG Bell Test Collaboration (May 2018). "Challenging local realism with human choices", Nature. 557 (7704)

Part 2 Behavior of light.​

The mathematics of Quantum ElectroDynamics says it all when it comes to practical applications and behavior.
----------------
That is the way scientists look at the nature and behavior of light. Nature of light does not lead to inventions or tell us the radiant behavior of gases.

It looks like you don't understand anything about neither the nature nor the behavior of light.

​

And that, boys and girls brings us to the end of story time today... Let me know when you have something real to say.

 

[SSDD]

You are totally wrong.

Alas, I am not...CO2 emits everything it absorbs till such time as it reaches its equilibrium temperature of about -80F

Nope. Your "analysis" doesn't hold water. You absolutely don't understand the experiment. The heat of compression is negligible.

So do explain why there was a 9 degree difference between the capped bottle of plain air and the vented bottle of plain air...The vent was the only difference between the two.

Oh yes it does. I challenged you with the physics behind it several times and you ducked and dodged the question.

Reality proves your model wrong...there are literally millions of hours of testing, development, and observation from the IR heating industry that prove your models wrong.

 

[SSDD]

This is your NASA space tube in which all the energy input simply vanishes into another dimension?

Appeal to absurdity? Well at least you are trying out new logical fallacies...

 

[Wuwei]

And that, boys and girls brings us to the end of story time today... Let me know when you have something real to say.

End of story. Good. You brought it up not me. I kept telling you the "nature of light" has nothing to do with the OP.

 

[Wuwei]

Reality proves your model wrong...there are literally millions of hours of testing, development, and observation from the IR heating industry that prove your models wrong.

Refer to the article I quoted by Emily Foote.
She noted the temperature rises in various gases under the same conditions, two non-vented cylinders. The values are final temperature in Fahrenheit:

On comparing the sun's heat in different gases, I found it to be in hydrogen gas, 104° ; in common air, 106°; in oxygen gas 108°; and in carbonic acid gas, 125°.
​

Why do you suppose the cylinder with CO2 heated up so much more than the other gases?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Reality proves your model wrong...there are literally millions of hours of testing, development, and observation from the IR heating industry that prove your models wrong.

Refer to the article I quoted by Emily Foote.
She noted the temperature rises in various gases under the same conditions, two non-vented cylinders. The values are final temperature in Fahrenheit:

On comparing the sun's heat in different gases, I found it to be in hydrogen gas, 104° ; in common air, 106°; in oxygen gas 108°; and in carbonic acid gas, 125°.
​

Why do you suppose the cylinder with CO2 heated up so much more than the other gases?

Isn't CO2 at 1 atm under more pressure than hydrogen, oxygen or air at 1 atm?

We'll probably never know. An unknowable mystery.

 

[Billy_Bob]

No, an individual molecule does not have a temperature.

BULL SHIT!

All matter has a temperature and all matter will emit energy at that temperature..

In your world energy has no temperature?

 

[Wuwei]

Isn't CO2 at 1 atm under more pressure than hydrogen, oxygen or air at 1 atm?

We'll probably never know. An unknowable mystery.

It all depends on if the sides of the container are sloped creating a pinching effect.

 

[Wuwei]

No, an individual molecule does not have a temperature.

BULL SHIT!

All matter has a temperature and all matter will emit energy at that temperature..

In your world energy has no temperature?

What is the temperature of a molecule going 100 miles per hour?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Isn't CO2 at 1 atm under more pressure than hydrogen, oxygen or air at 1 atm?

We'll probably never know. An unknowable mystery.

It all depends on if the sides of the container are sloped creating a pinching effect.

Or if it's in a vacuum at 0K.

 

[Wuwei]

The time from absorption to emission of CO2 is a few micro seconds.
The mean time between collisions with air molecules is a few nano seconds.
CO2 very rarely emits the energy it absorbs. It transfers it to kinetic energy.

WE could quibble about the nano seconds between collisions and the shorter duration of energy residency inside the CO2 molecule but the simple fact remains that of the possible 8 reactions to energy that most molecular structures have, CO2 responds in only only 4 due to its make up. All four of these "vibrational modes" in CO2 do not result in warming. The four others, which do respond in water vapor, can because the energy resides much, much longer.

CO2 cannot warm due to passing LWIR. CO2 can only transmit its energy by collision or emittance to other molecules. CO2 can only warm by conduction.

The whole premise of our experiment was to show what LWIR actually does in our atmosphere. And what we found was almost entirely out of sync with alarmist modeling and hype.

CO2 can only transmit its energy by collision or emittance to other molecules.​

That's pretty much what I said. When CO2 molecules transfer energy by random collisions they impart random kinetic energy to the molecules they hit. That is the definition of thermal energy. The air heats.

.

​

 

[IanC]

No, an individual molecule does not have a temperature.

BULL SHIT!

All matter has a temperature and all matter will emit energy at that temperature..

In your world energy has no temperature?

Hahahahaha. You need remedial science classes.

Go look up the definition of temperature.

Then look up the Planck curve of thermal emissions for two objects that are 10 or 20C different. The overlap in range is almost total. Only the proportions are slightly different with the warmer object producing more radiation at all of the wavelengths .

That is one of the reasons that SSDDs theory that temperature of the first object controls the emissions of the second object is so bizarre. There is the same radiation wavelengths coming off both objects!

 

[jc456]

You are totally wrong.

Alas, I am not...CO2 emits everything it absorbs till such time as it reaches its equilibrium temperature of about -80F

Nope. Your "analysis" doesn't hold water. You absolutely don't understand the experiment. The heat of compression is negligible.

So do explain why there was a 9 degree difference between the capped bottle of plain air and the vented bottle of plain air...The vent was the only difference between the two.

Oh yes it does. I challenged you with the physics behind it several times and you ducked and dodged the question.

Reality proves your model wrong...there are literally millions of hours of testing, development, and observation from the IR heating industry that prove your models wrong.

QUOTE="SSDD, post: 21448052, member: 40906"]So do explain why there was a 9 degree difference between the capped bottle of plain air and the vented bottle of plain air...The vent was the only difference between the two[/QUOTE]

The absorbed swir from the sun in the plastic, heated the bottle air! Just like seats in a car does the inside of a car with the windows up! Simple