No Evidence

[jc456]

so friend, do you have an experiment for:

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

No. Why, do I need one?

Why not? That’s supporting evidence. Isn’t that science?

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

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

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

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

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

No. Why, do I need one?

Why not? That’s supporting evidence. Isn’t that science?

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

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

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

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

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

 

[jc456]

Why not? That’s supporting evidence. Isn’t that science?

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

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

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

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

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

I'm asking for the evidence that an object radiating at -80 deg F will slow down the cooling of an object at 32 deg F.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

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

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

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

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

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

I'm asking for the evidence that an object radiating at -80 deg F will slow down the cooling of an object at 32 deg F.

Stefan–Boltzmann law - Wikipedia

 

[jc456]

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

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

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

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

I'm asking for the evidence that an object radiating at -80 deg F will slow down the cooling of an object at 32 deg F.

Stefan–Boltzmann law - Wikipedia

so no actual experiment. it's all you had to say.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

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

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

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

I'm asking for the evidence that an object radiating at -80 deg F will slow down the cooling of an object at 32 deg F.

Stefan–Boltzmann law - Wikipedia

so no actual experiment. it's all you had to say.

There have been tons of experiments to prove the accuracy of the Stefan-Boltzmann Law.
That's kind of how they do science.

That's why SSDD's idiocy is so humorous.

 

[Wuwei]

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

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

I'm asking for the evidence that an object radiating at -80 deg F will slow down the cooling of an object at 32 deg F.

Stefan–Boltzmann law - Wikipedia

so no actual experiment. it's all you had to say.

There have been tons of experiments to prove the accuracy of the Stefan-Boltzmann Law.
That's kind of how they do science.

That's why SSDD's idiocy is so humorous.

He want's an experiment that radiation at -80 F causes a 32 F object to cool more slowly, then maybe
next another experiment that radiation at -81 F causes a 32 F object to cool more slowly,
and another experiment that radiation at -82 F causes a 32 F object to cool more slowly,
and another experiment that radiation at -83 F causes a 32 F object to cool more slowly,
and another experiment that radiation at -84 F causes a 32 F object to cool more slowly,
and another experiment that radiation at -85 F causes a 32 F object to cool more slowly,
and another experiment that radiation at -86 F causes a 32 F object to cool more slowly,
and another experiment that radiation at -87 F causes a 32 F object to cool more slowly,
and another experiment that radiation at -88 F causes a 32 F object to cool more slowly,
etc.

In that way he won't need the Stefan-Boltzmann model at all. All he has to do is go look at a huge volume of books that have the experimental results for each radiating temperature and each receiving object temperature.
One might consider that idiotic, but at least it will shut some people up.

.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Only convection and conduction warms the atmosphere. The atmosphere is transparent to LWIR and does not warm it.

You have no concept of LWIR and its FREQUENCY. You folks post up the bandpass graph and you fail to understand that 99.4% of energy emitted from the ground is emitted in a LWIR band above 10um. Only water will react to it in our atmosphere and then only long enough to cool due to the evaporation process rendering it impotent (which is why there is no tropospheric hot spot).

Tell me, Do you think an object radiating at -80 F (12-16um frequency) can warm an Object that is 32 deg F? Trenbreth's cartoon is a fantasy derived from failed QED modeling. Less energetic (lower frequency) energy causes cooling in more energetic (higher frequency) molecules.

This is why I sit back and watch you folks go round and round about energy transfer that not one of you can prove and empirical observations say is not happening. Whom to believe, Your UN-provalbe mathematical constructs which fail empirical test or observations which disprove your theroy/hypothesis.?

Tell me, Do you think an object radiating at -80 F (12-16um frequency) can warm an Object that is 32 deg F?

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

The decay rate of the warmer object is unchanged until it reaches the thermal equilibrium of the cooler mass.

You want to try again?

The decay rate of the warmer object is unchanged

The warmer body loses heat at the same rate with a -80F object radiating toward it as it would if it were just radiating into the vacuum of space at -450F?

HE CAN BE TAUGHT!

Until equilibrium is reached the warm object will not slow its decay rate..

Billy Bob is a dolt.

An object radiates away energy at the rate defined by the SB equation. At all times. According to its temperature and emissivity.

Only the rate of change for temperature of the object is affected by the temperature of the environment.

ie. A room temperature object rapidly cools in a freezer, less rapidly in a fridge, no change on the countertop, and warms in the oven. In all locations the object is radiating the same amount of energy, until the temperature changes.

How does the temperature change? If more energy is being received from the environment than is being lost by radiation then heating takes place (oven). For the opposite, then cooling happens (fridge).

Bonus thought to ponder. What is the difference between an object and an environment?

delta (object) >> delta (environment).

"An object radiates away energy at the rate defined by the SB equation. At all times. According to its temperature and emissivity."


Your the dolt....

You even admit that the decay rate is unchanged by cooler objects around it... Man are you guys dense..

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Tell me, Do you think an object radiating at -80 F (12-16um frequency) can warm an Object that is 32 deg F?

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

The decay rate of the warmer object is unchanged until it reaches the thermal equilibrium of the cooler mass.

You want to try again?

The decay rate of the warmer object is unchanged

The warmer body loses heat at the same rate with a -80F object radiating toward it as it would if it were just radiating into the vacuum of space at -450F?

HE CAN BE TAUGHT!

Until equilibrium is reached the warm object will not slow its decay rate..

Billy Bob is a dolt.

An object radiates away energy at the rate defined by the SB equation. At all times. According to its temperature and emissivity.

Only the rate of change for temperature of the object is affected by the temperature of the environment.

ie. A room temperature object rapidly cools in a freezer, less rapidly in a fridge, no change on the countertop, and warms in the oven. In all locations the object is radiating the same amount of energy, until the temperature changes.

How does the temperature change? If more energy is being received from the environment than is being lost by radiation then heating takes place (oven). For the opposite, then cooling happens (fridge).

Bonus thought to ponder. What is the difference between an object and an environment?

delta (object) >> delta (environment).

"An object radiates away energy at the rate defined by the SB equation. At all times. According to its temperature and emissivity."


Your the dolt....

You even admit that the decay rate is unchanged by cooler objects around it... Man are you guys dense..

The rate of cooling is unchanged, whether you're radiating into the vacuum of space, or radiating into miles of atmosphere?

Are you sure?

 

[IanC]

OOTE="Billy_Bob, post: 21198408, member: 50952"]

Tell me, Do you think an object radiating at -80 F (12-16um frequency) can warm an Object that is 32 deg F?

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

The decay rate of the warmer object is unchanged until it reaches the thermal equilibrium of the cooler mass.

You want to try again?

The decay rate of the warmer object is unchanged

The warmer body loses heat at the same rate with a -80F object radiating toward it as it would if it were just radiating into the vacuum of space at -450F?

HE CAN BE TAUGHT!

Until equilibrium is reached the warm object will not slow its decay rate..

Billy Bob is a dolt.

An object radiates away energy at the rate defined by the SB equation. At all times. According to its temperature and emissivity.

Only the rate of change for temperature of the object is affected by the temperature of the environment.

ie. A room temperature object rapidly cools in a freezer, less rapidly in a fridge, no change on the countertop, and warms in the oven. In all locations the object is radiating the same amount of energy, until the temperature changes.

How does the temperature change? If more energy is being received from the environment than is being lost by radiation then heating takes place (oven). For the opposite, then cooling happens (fridge).

Bonus thought to ponder. What is the difference between an object and an environment?

delta (object) >> delta (environment).

"An object radiates away energy at the rate defined by the SB equation. At all times. According to its temperature and emissivity."


Your the dolt....

You even admit that the decay rate is unchanged by cooler objects around it... Man are you guys dense..[/QUOTE]

If two objects are at the same temperature, and have the same emissivity, then they radiate the same amount of energy per unit of surface (j). j times area equals (P)ower. Power times (s)econds equals the amount of total energy radiated away in a specific amount of time.

The objects will cool at different rates depending on the ratio of inner energy compared to outside radiating surface. ie. a small sphere cools more quickly than a large one. A brick more quickly than sphere. A piece of paper more quickly than a brick. etc.

The other influence on cooling (or warming) rates, is the amount of radiation that is being received from the environment. Any energy added by absorption lowers the cooling rate by radiation.

In my last comment I said an object will cool off most quickly in a freezer, then a fridge, no change at room temperature, and warming from an oven. That is because each of these environments adds a different amount of energy to the object.

One more thing to keep track of is change of temperature after every iteration of radiation input and output. Obviously an object radiates less as it cools, and vice versa.

 

[Wuwei]

The objects will cool at different rates depending on the ratio of inner energy compared to outside radiating surface. ie. a small sphere cools more quickly than a large one. A brick more quickly than sphere. A piece of paper more quickly than a brick. etc.

The objects will cool at different rates depending on the ratio of inner energy compared to outside radiating surface. ie. a small sphere cools more quickly than a large one. A brick more quickly than sphere. A piece of paper more quickly than a brick. etc.

The other influence on cooling (or warming) rates, is the amount of radiation that is being received from the environment. Any energy added by absorption lowers the cooling rate by radiation.

In my last comment I said an object will cool off most quickly in a freezer, then a fridge, no change at room temperature, and warming from an oven. That is because each of these environments adds a different amount of energy to the object.

One more thing to keep track of is change of temperature after every iteration of radiation input and output. Obviously an object radiates less as it cools, and vice versa.

Yes, and an also a sphere of aluminum cools more quickly than a sphere of lead of the same diameter. Experiments that keeps track of the cooling rate along with knowing the heat capacity and area of whatever is cooling is a pain in the butt. But that is exactly what Stefan had to go through in 1879 to formulate his law.

 

[SSDD]

The evidence he is asking has been given many times, but he denies the physics involved. You are arguing with a guy who said basic physics is fairy dust.

Sorry guy..not even close. Review the 3 statements I made in the OP and then just tell me which post contains any actual evidence that challenges any of the statements in the OP.

 

[SSDD]

The evidence he is asking has been given many times, but he denies the physics involved. You are arguing with a guy who said basic physics is fairy dust.

I know. Just another, in a long line of, fossil fuel bitches, doing what they're told like good little whores.

Actually, it hasn’t..but the fact that you think it has demonstrates how low your bar is with regard to enidence,

And do you think the issue is settled because X percent of the scientific community agrees. Do you have any idea how often nearly the whole scientific community has been wrong in the past?

And since the three statements in the OP haven’t been challenged, what sort of evidence do you think that “consensus”is based on?

 

[Wuwei]

Sorry guy..not even close. Review the 3 statements I made in the OP and then just tell me which post contains any actual evidence that challenges any of the statements in the OP.

You were given plenty of evidence on your second statement,

2. There is not a single piece of observed, measured evidence which establishes a coherent link between the absorption of infrared radiation by a gas and warming in the atmosphere.

Your "science" is about 150 years behind the times.
John Tyndall

Tyndall's experiments [around 1859] showed that molecules of water vapor, carbon dioxide, and ozone are the best absorbers of heat radiation, and that even in small quantities, these gases absorb much more strongly than the atmosphere itself. ​

Your position 2 is patently false. Why do you disagree with Tyndall and all the scientists after him? Why do you think absorption of IR by GHG's does not warm the atmosphere when it was observed and measured abut 150 years ago. Where do you think the 400 W/m² radiated from the earth goes?

If there is absorption, that means energy is transfered to GHGs. What form does that random energy take if not heat?

 

[SSDD]

Your "science" is about 150 years behind the times.

Actually, it is climate science that is way behind the times..as evidenced by the fact that you have to dig up quaint old 17th century science in a failed effort to show some actual evidence to support the hypothesis. Tell me, are there any other branches of modern science where the effort to show some actual evidence requires history books going back to the 17th century?


John Tyndall
Tyndall's experiments [around 1859] showed that molecules of water vapor, carbon dioxide, and ozone are the best absorbers of heat radiation, and that even in small quantities, these gases absorb much more strongly than the atmosphere itself.


Best is one of those relative terms. John Tyndall's experiments tested Co2 at ~70,000ppm ...that is seventy thousand ppm and he wrote that “carbonic acid proved to be one of the most feeble absorbers.” His findings led him to assert that the Earth’s hypothetical “greenhouse effect” was exclusively due to water vapor and water vapor alone. Is there anything you are able to be honest about?

isn't it ironic that you guys ironic push CO2 as the cause global warming and quote John Tyndall’s work in support of your thesis, when John Tyndall’s apparatus demonstrated carbon dioxide “to be one of the most feeble absorbers.”

here...from the The Bakerian Lecture: On the Absorption and Radiation of Heat by Gases and Vapours, and on the Physical Connexion of Radiation, Absorption, and Conduction by John Tyndall.

In the experiments of Dr. Frantz, carbonic acid appears as a feebler absorber than oxygen. According to my experiments, for small quantities the absorptive power of the former is about150 times that of the latter; and for atmospheric tensions, carbonic acid probably absorbs nearly 100 times as much as oxygen.

And that was only when he used a "carbonic oxide" flame...any thoughts on that?

And probably absorbs? That phrase fits perfectly in modern climate science, doesn't it? Probably, might, could...etc. And since O2 absorbs no IR, tell me, what is 100 tomes zero?.. And that was only when he used a "carbonic oxide" flame...any thoughts on that.

Then in the Quarterly Journal of Science volume 2, under the heading Physics and Sub heading Heat, regarding Tyndall and CO2, you will find where he wrote: "With ordinary sources of heat, carbonic acid is probably the most feeble absorbent among the compound gasses."

His reference to "ordinary heat" is a reference to his use of a carbonic oxide flame and the high reading he got as a result.

And all of that is solely on absorption...and doesn't even begin to establish a relationship, coherent or any other kind between absorption of IR by a gas and warming in the atmosphere. Again...your belief that it does shows how easily you are fooled. You read looking for confirmation of your beliefs rather than to learn...it results in just this sort of error of assumption.

Then there are the literally millions of hours of research, development and observation of both residential and commercial application of residential infrared heating systems demonstrating conclusively that infrared does not and can not heat the air.

Flameless catalytic infrared system, infrared dryer, conveyor dryer, column dryer, convection dryer

" Far infrared does not heat the air, therefore energy is transferred very efficiently to the organic matter."

Infrared Heating Systems in Grand Rapids | Westshore Mechanical

" infrared does not heat the air, but rather heats objects in the room, including personnel, whether they’re your families, employees, or clients"

http://irheatingstl.com

" Because far‐infrared does not heat the air, there are very significant energy savings over traditional systems."

And i could go on and on. So no..no observed measured data has been provided that establishes a coherent link between the absorption of IR by a gas and warming in the atmosphere. Your references to the quaint 17th century science does show how easy it is yo fool you.

Your position 2 is patently false. Why do you disagree with Tyndall and all the scientists after him? Why do you think absorption of IR by GHG's does not warm the atmosphere when it was observed and measured abut 150 years ago. Where do you think the 400 W/m² radiated from the earth goes?

I don't disagree with Tyndall..I agree that CO2 is a weak absorber of IR.. I never argued otherwise..And he says nothing about warming the atmosphere..he is just talking about absorption and doesn't speak to emission at all. Your apparent belief that I did goes to your penchant for making up positions for your opponents and then arguing against your fantasies.

The "assumption" that absorption and emission of IR results in warming is exactly that...an assumption with no observed measured evidence to support it.

If there is absorption, that means energy is transfered to GHGs. What form does that random energy take if not heat?

Again...that is an assumption with no observed measured evidence to support it and literally mountains of observed measured evidence from the radiant heating industry to call it into question.

 

[Wuwei]

Tell me, are there any other branches of modern science where the effort to show some actual evidence requires history books going back to the 17th century?

I referenced Tyndall simply to show how far behind the times you are. So you went to Tyndalls original work of 1890 and extracted text out of context, and didn't even understand that!!!!

If you bothered to try to understand what he was doing, start at page 395.

Heat a Mode of Motion

Middle of page 395
With a single exception, Tyndall used incandescent platinum wire with current from batteries. Second paragraph page 400 refers to “red-hot platinum” !!

From page 414 you quote a paragraph cutting out a most important part of his experiments. When you quote, “carbonic acid proved to be one of the most feeble absorbers.” Tyndall was referring to red-hot platinum!! Not long wave room temperature radiation. The red-hot platinum overwhelms any LW radiation.

Your quote from page 414, left out a crucial part of the quote. The “former researches” were red-hot platinum!! (see page 395 to page 409) Yes scientist all agree that short wave (red-hot) visible light has a feeble absorption in air.

Long wave room temperature emissions do not. But from the bottom of page 310 on he is referring to research to hot CO2 which emits LW radiation. Here is the entire paragraph with my bold facing:

For the rays emanating from the heated solids employed
in our former researches, carbonic acid proved to be one
of the most feeble absorbers ; but here, when the waves
sent into it emanate from molecules of its own substance,
its absorbent energy is enormous. The thirtieth of an
atmosphere of the gas cuts off half the entire radiation ;
while at a pressure of 4 inches, 65 per cent, of the radia-
tion is intercepted.​

Then when he talks about “molecules of its own substance” he said he was talking about radiation from hot CO2 being absorbed by CO2. Of course hot CO2 emits lots of LW radiation bands and, as he says, the “absorbent energy is enormous”!!

Then in the Quarterly Journal of Science volume 2, under the heading Physics and Sub heading Heat, regarding Tyndall and CO2, you will find where he wrote: "With ordinary sources of heat, carbonic acid is probably the most feeble absorbent among the compound gasses."

His reference to "ordinary heat" is a reference to his use of a carbonic oxide flame and the high reading he got as a result.

That is absolutely false!!!. You are flinging BS. In his paper he refers to "ordinary sources of heat" as a red-hot incandescent source. There is nothing ordinary about a carbonic oxide flame.

Far infrared does not heat the air

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

Commercial radiant heaters are a bit above room temperature and emit long wave IR, which has a very poor absorption in the air only in a smaller space such as bounded by a room because the distance for radiation to hit a wall is only about 3 meters in an average room.

The mean free path of LW radiation in the CO2 absorption band is 33 meters. That is 11 times longer! Beer's law says the absorption in a room is over 2000 times smaller than it would be in an atmosphere 33 meters above the surface. But the atmosphere goes on for thousands of meters.

Unless those who deal with radiant heaters have instruments that are calibrated to 1 part in 2000 accuracy, of course they will say the absorption in air is zero. It is negligible over only 3 meters.

 

[jc456]

Tell me, are there any other branches of modern science where the effort to show some actual evidence requires history books going back to the 17th century?

I referenced Tyndall simply to show how far behind the times you are. So you went to Tyndalls original work of 1890 and extracted text out of context, and didn't even understand that!!!!

If you bothered to try to understand what he was doing, start at page 395.

Heat a Mode of Motion

Middle of page 395
With a single exception, Tyndall used incandescent platinum wire with current from batteries. Second paragraph page 400 refers to “red-hot platinum” !!

From page 414 you quote a paragraph cutting out a most important part of his experiments. When you quote, “carbonic acid proved to be one of the most feeble absorbers.” Tyndall was referring to red-hot platinum!! Not long wave room temperature radiation. The red-hot platinum overwhelms any LW radiation.

Your quote from page 414, left out a crucial part of the quote. The “former researches” were red-hot platinum!! (see page 395 to page 409) Yes scientist all agree that short wave (red-hot) visible light has a feeble absorption in air.

Long wave room temperature emissions do not. But from the bottom of page 310 on he is referring to research to hot CO2 which emits LW radiation. Here is the entire paragraph with my bold facing:

For the rays emanating from the heated solids employed
in our former researches, carbonic acid proved to be one
of the most feeble absorbers ; but here, when the waves
sent into it emanate from molecules of its own substance,
its absorbent energy is enormous. The thirtieth of an
atmosphere of the gas cuts off half the entire radiation ;
while at a pressure of 4 inches, 65 per cent, of the radia-
tion is intercepted.​

Then when he talks about “molecules of its own substance” he said he was talking about radiation from hot CO2 being absorbed by CO2. Of course hot CO2 emits lots of LW radiation bands and, as he says, the “absorbent energy is enormous”!!

Then in the Quarterly Journal of Science volume 2, under the heading Physics and Sub heading Heat, regarding Tyndall and CO2, you will find where he wrote: "With ordinary sources of heat, carbonic acid is probably the most feeble absorbent among the compound gasses."

His reference to "ordinary heat" is a reference to his use of a carbonic oxide flame and the high reading he got as a result.

That is absolutely false!!!. You are flinging BS. In his paper he refers to "ordinary sources of heat" as a red-hot incandescent source. There is nothing ordinary about a carbonic oxide flame.

Far infrared does not heat the air

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

Commercial radiant heaters are a bit above room temperature and emit long wave IR, which has a very poor absorption in the air only in a smaller space such as bounded by a room because the distance for radiation to hit a wall is only about 3 meters in an average room.

The mean free path of LW radiation in the CO2 absorption band is 33 meters. That is 11 times longer! Beer's law says the absorption in a room is over 2000 times smaller than it would be in an atmosphere 33 meters above the surface. But the atmosphere goes on for thousands of meters.

Unless those who deal with radiant heaters have instruments that are calibrated to 1 part in 2000 accuracy, of course they will say the absorption in air is zero. It is negligible over only 3 meters.

Did Tyndall ever record any reading on how hot CO2 got then? Let’s see those results

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Tell me, are there any other branches of modern science where the effort to show some actual evidence requires history books going back to the 17th century?

I referenced Tyndall simply to show how far behind the times you are. So you went to Tyndalls original work of 1890 and extracted text out of context, and didn't even understand that!!!!

If you bothered to try to understand what he was doing, start at page 395.

Heat a Mode of Motion

Middle of page 395
With a single exception, Tyndall used incandescent platinum wire with current from batteries. Second paragraph page 400 refers to “red-hot platinum” !!

From page 414 you quote a paragraph cutting out a most important part of his experiments. When you quote, “carbonic acid proved to be one of the most feeble absorbers.” Tyndall was referring to red-hot platinum!! Not long wave room temperature radiation. The red-hot platinum overwhelms any LW radiation.

Your quote from page 414, left out a crucial part of the quote. The “former researches” were red-hot platinum!! (see page 395 to page 409) Yes scientist all agree that short wave (red-hot) visible light has a feeble absorption in air.

Long wave room temperature emissions do not. But from the bottom of page 310 on he is referring to research to hot CO2 which emits LW radiation. Here is the entire paragraph with my bold facing:

For the rays emanating from the heated solids employed
in our former researches, carbonic acid proved to be one
of the most feeble absorbers ; but here, when the waves
sent into it emanate from molecules of its own substance,
its absorbent energy is enormous. The thirtieth of an
atmosphere of the gas cuts off half the entire radiation ;
while at a pressure of 4 inches, 65 per cent, of the radia-
tion is intercepted.​

Then when he talks about “molecules of its own substance” he said he was talking about radiation from hot CO2 being absorbed by CO2. Of course hot CO2 emits lots of LW radiation bands and, as he says, the “absorbent energy is enormous”!!

Then in the Quarterly Journal of Science volume 2, under the heading Physics and Sub heading Heat, regarding Tyndall and CO2, you will find where he wrote: "With ordinary sources of heat, carbonic acid is probably the most feeble absorbent among the compound gasses."

His reference to "ordinary heat" is a reference to his use of a carbonic oxide flame and the high reading he got as a result.

That is absolutely false!!!. You are flinging BS. In his paper he refers to "ordinary sources of heat" as a red-hot incandescent source. There is nothing ordinary about a carbonic oxide flame.

Far infrared does not heat the air

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

Commercial radiant heaters are a bit above room temperature and emit long wave IR, which has a very poor absorption in the air only in a smaller space such as bounded by a room because the distance for radiation to hit a wall is only about 3 meters in an average room.

The mean free path of LW radiation in the CO2 absorption band is 33 meters. That is 11 times longer! Beer's law says the absorption in a room is over 2000 times smaller than it would be in an atmosphere 33 meters above the surface. But the atmosphere goes on for thousands of meters.

Unless those who deal with radiant heaters have instruments that are calibrated to 1 part in 2000 accuracy, of course they will say the absorption in air is zero. It is negligible over only 3 meters.

Did Tyndall ever record any reading on how hot CO2 got then? Let’s see those results

Did Tyndall ever record any reading on how hot CO2 got then?

Where? When?

 

[jc456]

Tell me, are there any other branches of modern science where the effort to show some actual evidence requires history books going back to the 17th century?

I referenced Tyndall simply to show how far behind the times you are. So you went to Tyndalls original work of 1890 and extracted text out of context, and didn't even understand that!!!!

If you bothered to try to understand what he was doing, start at page 395.

Heat a Mode of Motion

Middle of page 395
With a single exception, Tyndall used incandescent platinum wire with current from batteries. Second paragraph page 400 refers to “red-hot platinum” !!

From page 414 you quote a paragraph cutting out a most important part of his experiments. When you quote, “carbonic acid proved to be one of the most feeble absorbers.” Tyndall was referring to red-hot platinum!! Not long wave room temperature radiation. The red-hot platinum overwhelms any LW radiation.

Your quote from page 414, left out a crucial part of the quote. The “former researches” were red-hot platinum!! (see page 395 to page 409) Yes scientist all agree that short wave (red-hot) visible light has a feeble absorption in air.

Long wave room temperature emissions do not. But from the bottom of page 310 on he is referring to research to hot CO2 which emits LW radiation. Here is the entire paragraph with my bold facing:

For the rays emanating from the heated solids employed
in our former researches, carbonic acid proved to be one
of the most feeble absorbers ; but here, when the waves
sent into it emanate from molecules of its own substance,
its absorbent energy is enormous. The thirtieth of an
atmosphere of the gas cuts off half the entire radiation ;
while at a pressure of 4 inches, 65 per cent, of the radia-
tion is intercepted.​

Then when he talks about “molecules of its own substance” he said he was talking about radiation from hot CO2 being absorbed by CO2. Of course hot CO2 emits lots of LW radiation bands and, as he says, the “absorbent energy is enormous”!!

Then in the Quarterly Journal of Science volume 2, under the heading Physics and Sub heading Heat, regarding Tyndall and CO2, you will find where he wrote: "With ordinary sources of heat, carbonic acid is probably the most feeble absorbent among the compound gasses."

His reference to "ordinary heat" is a reference to his use of a carbonic oxide flame and the high reading he got as a result.

That is absolutely false!!!. You are flinging BS. In his paper he refers to "ordinary sources of heat" as a red-hot incandescent source. There is nothing ordinary about a carbonic oxide flame.

Far infrared does not heat the air

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

Commercial radiant heaters are a bit above room temperature and emit long wave IR, which has a very poor absorption in the air only in a smaller space such as bounded by a room because the distance for radiation to hit a wall is only about 3 meters in an average room.

The mean free path of LW radiation in the CO2 absorption band is 33 meters. That is 11 times longer! Beer's law says the absorption in a room is over 2000 times smaller than it would be in an atmosphere 33 meters above the surface. But the atmosphere goes on for thousands of meters.

Unless those who deal with radiant heaters have instruments that are calibrated to 1 part in 2000 accuracy, of course they will say the absorption in air is zero. It is negligible over only 3 meters.

Did Tyndall ever record any reading on how hot CO2 got then? Let’s see those results

Did Tyndall ever record any reading on how hot CO2 got then?

Where? When?

Exactly

 

[Billy_Bob]

Why not? That’s supporting evidence. Isn’t that science?

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

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

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

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

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

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