No Radiative Greenhouse Effect. Infrared Doesn't Warm the Air

[SSDD]

I just had an interesting read about the ability of infrared Radiation (IR) to warm the atmosphere (or air in general)...seems that there are literally millions of hours of experimentation and commercial application that demonstrate conclusively that no such thing is, has, or ever will happen.

The article started with the early observations of the supposed authors of modern day climate catastrophe. John Tyndal, for example, did extensive laboratory testing on the absorption of infrared radiation by various gasses bestowing upon them the ability to "block" the transmission of IR radiation which he called calorific rays. He tested gasses at concentrations of 80,000ppm. Regarding CO2 or "carbonic gas" he observed:

“Carbonic acid gas is one of the feeblest of absorbers of the radiant heat emitted by solid sources. It is, for example, extremely transparent to the rays emitted by the heated copper plate already referred to.”

His observations of CO2 at atmospheric concentrations were that CO2 had no effect on the temperature of air and it didn't matter how much IR you passed through it.

“Through air . . . the waves of ether pass without absorption, and these gases are not sensibly changed in temperature by the most powerful calorific rays.”

Then Svante Arrhenius, ignoring those findings hypothesized that the addition of CO2 to the atmosphere could actually heat the ground using the Stefan-Boltzman law..

To test Arrhenius' hypothesis (keep in mind that it was only a hypothesis) a Swedish physicist named Knut Angstrom (ever hear of him?) set up experiments and published a paper titled "On the Importance of Water Vapor and CO2 in the Absorption of the Atmosphere"

Angstrom's experiment involved filling tubes with the amount of CO2 that would be present in a column of air that reached to the top of the atmosphere. He then ran infrared radiation through the CO2. At first, he doubled the amount of CO2 in the tubes, then he cut the amount in half and repeated the test. He observed virtually zero temperature change between these different amounts of CO2.

Now here is where we come to the millions of hours of observation and commercial application which bear out Angstrom's findings that infrared radiation does not heat the air. Enter engineers and physicists involved in the commercial application of radiant heating.

Here are some of the observations and findings that have come out of that industry.

“Infrared energy travels at the speed of light without heating the air it passes through, the amount of infrared radiation absorbed by carbon dioxide, water vapor and other particles in the air typically is negligible.” …..

“Infrared heating technology by definition does not heat up the air, instead it targets the objects leaving the Oxygen and humidity intact.” …

“These infrared rays pass through the air in the room and start heating any object they hit. These rays, however, do not heat the air of the room or area, making it more comfortable for you.”

So...repeatable, replicable, experimental data by a true top shelf physicist and decades of application data that demonstrates conclusively that infrared radiation does not heat the air. Lets step back to the 19th century just a second and refer to John Tyndal again...regarding his experiments..

“By this mode of experiment it was proved that the self-same molecular arrangement which renders a gas a powerful absorber, renders it in the same degree a powerful radiator—that the atom or molecule which is competent to intercept the calorific waves is in the same degree, competent to generate them. Thus, while the atoms of elementary gases proved themselves unable to emit any sensible amount of radiant heat, the molecules of compound gases were shown to be capable of powerfully disturbing the surrounding ether.”

It doesn't take much looking through the infrared heating industry literature to see that they state explicitly that their product only warms objects...not the air. That is one of their selling points..being that no energy is wasted heating the air in a room which is an inefficient means of keeping warm.

How infrared panels work

"Infrared heaters, on the other hand, do not warm the air but instead use direct heat, warming the walls as well as all bodies and objects within a room."

Give the Gift of Infrared Comfort to the Hobbyist in Your Family - Mast Heating & Cooling

"The infrared works on the same principle as any other form of radiant heat. The infrared waves warm objects, which in turn give off heat to the surrounding air. It does not warm the air directly."


Infrared heater - Wikipedia

"Because far infrared technology does not heat the air of the room directly, it is important to maximize the exposure of available surfaces"


Radient Heat Explained

"The speed of the heat rays is 186,000 miles per second. These rays do not heat the air directly. The infrared heat rays strike an object such as a person, a building, a table, or the ground and are absorbed by that object, increasing its temperature. The increased temperature of the object will heat air in contact with the object by convection, i.e., by the intimate contact of a thin layer of air to the heated object."


Why Radiant Infrared Tube Heaters in High Bay Aircraft Hangers and Warehouses

"More importantly, by not having to heat the air in order to warm people and objects, heating costs are dramatically reduced."


You Asked: Are Infrared Saunas Healthy?

"Infrared saunas, by contrast, do not heat the air around you. Using electromagnetic radiation, infrared lamps warm your body directly. That may sound freaky or even unsafe, but neonatal beds for newborns have long utilized infrared heating elements to ensure babies are kept warm without being stifled."

http://ag.udel.edu/rec/poultryextension/proceedings2005/Radiant Tube Heaters_ Valco.pdf

"The tube when heated emits infrared rays. These rays travel through the air without heating the air. When these rays strike an object, they agitate the molecules of the object, generating heat. The air is then warmed by conduction and convection from the heated surfaces. "

And on and on and on it goes. Millions of hours of observed evidence that infrared radiation does not warm the air but instead warms solid objects.

The radiative greenhouse effect as described by climate science claims that infrared leaving the surface of the earth is absorbed by so called greenhouse gasses and this absorption causes the air to become warmer..and the more so called greenhouse gasses there are in the air, the warmer it will be.

In a word....bullshit. Infrared does not warm the air...infrared may be absorbed by so called greenhouse gasses, but it is then emitted and moves on to cooler pastures...hard, observed, measured, quantified, repeatable evidence that there is no radiative greenhouse effect.

 

[Billy_Bob]

The mass in the room warms and the air is warmed by conduction and convection across the warmed objects surface..

Simple physics that a whole bunch of folks round here cant get a grasp on...


I had to laugh at one of them saying his radiator in the room was IR.. The conduction across the surface of the heater is what warmed the air as the IR simply affected objects at distance. Funny how this concept is so easily confused..

 

[flacaltenn]

I just had an interesting read about the ability of infrared Radiation (IR) to warm the atmosphere (or air in general)...seems that there are literally millions of hours of experimentation and commercial application that demonstrate conclusively that no such thing is, has, or ever will happen.

The article started with the early observations of the supposed authors of modern day climate catastrophe. John Tyndal, for example, did extensive laboratory testing on the absorption of infrared radiation by various gasses bestowing upon them the ability to "block" the transmission of IR radiation which he called calorific rays. He tested gasses at concentrations of 80,000ppm. Regarding CO2 or "carbonic gas" he observed:

“Carbonic acid gas is one of the feeblest of absorbers of the radiant heat emitted by solid sources. It is, for example, extremely transparent to the rays emitted by the heated copper plate already referred to.”

His observations of CO2 at atmospheric concentrations were that CO2 had no effect on the temperature of air and it didn't matter how much IR you passed through it.

“Through air . . . the waves of ether pass without absorption, and these gases are not sensibly changed in temperature by the most powerful calorific rays.”

Then Svante Arrhenius, ignoring those findings hypothesized that the addition of CO2 to the atmosphere could actually heat the ground using the Stefan-Boltzman law..

To test Arrhenius' hypothesis (keep in mind that it was only a hypothesis) a Swedish physicist named Knut Angstrom (ever hear of him?) set up experiments and published a paper titled "On the Importance of Water Vapor and CO2 in the Absorption of the Atmosphere"

Angstrom's experiment involved filling tubes with the amount of CO2 that would be present in a column of air that reached to the top of the atmosphere. He then ran infrared radiation through the CO2. At first, he doubled the amount of CO2 in the tubes, then he cut the amount in half and repeated the test. He observed virtually zero temperature change between these different amounts of CO2.

Now here is where we come to the millions of hours of observation and commercial application which bear out Angstrom's findings that infrared radiation does not heat the air. Enter engineers and physicists involved in the commercial application of radiant heating.

Here are some of the observations and findings that have come out of that industry.

“Infrared energy travels at the speed of light without heating the air it passes through, the amount of infrared radiation absorbed by carbon dioxide, water vapor and other particles in the air typically is negligible.” …..

“Infrared heating technology by definition does not heat up the air, instead it targets the objects leaving the Oxygen and humidity intact.” …

“These infrared rays pass through the air in the room and start heating any object they hit. These rays, however, do not heat the air of the room or area, making it more comfortable for you.”

So...repeatable, replicable, experimental data by a true top shelf physicist and decades of application data that demonstrates conclusively that infrared radiation does not heat the air. Lets step back to the 19th century just a second and refer to John Tyndal again...regarding his experiments..

“By this mode of experiment it was proved that the self-same molecular arrangement which renders a gas a powerful absorber, renders it in the same degree a powerful radiator—that the atom or molecule which is competent to intercept the calorific waves is in the same degree, competent to generate them. Thus, while the atoms of elementary gases proved themselves unable to emit any sensible amount of radiant heat, the molecules of compound gases were shown to be capable of powerfully disturbing the surrounding ether.”

It doesn't take much looking through the infrared heating industry literature to see that they state explicitly that their product only warms objects...not the air. That is one of their selling points..being that no energy is wasted heating the air in a room which is an inefficient means of keeping warm.

How infrared panels work

"Infrared heaters, on the other hand, do not warm the air but instead use direct heat, warming the walls as well as all bodies and objects within a room."

Give the Gift of Infrared Comfort to the Hobbyist in Your Family - Mast Heating & Cooling

"The infrared works on the same principle as any other form of radiant heat. The infrared waves warm objects, which in turn give off heat to the surrounding air. It does not warm the air directly."


Infrared heater - Wikipedia

"Because far infrared technology does not heat the air of the room directly, it is important to maximize the exposure of available surfaces"


Radient Heat Explained

"The speed of the heat rays is 186,000 miles per second. These rays do not heat the air directly. The infrared heat rays strike an object such as a person, a building, a table, or the ground and are absorbed by that object, increasing its temperature. The increased temperature of the object will heat air in contact with the object by convection, i.e., by the intimate contact of a thin layer of air to the heated object."


Why Radiant Infrared Tube Heaters in High Bay Aircraft Hangers and Warehouses

"More importantly, by not having to heat the air in order to warm people and objects, heating costs are dramatically reduced."


You Asked: Are Infrared Saunas Healthy?

"Infrared saunas, by contrast, do not heat the air around you. Using electromagnetic radiation, infrared lamps warm your body directly. That may sound freaky or even unsafe, but neonatal beds for newborns have long utilized infrared heating elements to ensure babies are kept warm without being stifled."

http://ag.udel.edu/rec/poultryextension/proceedings2005/Radiant Tube Heaters_ Valco.pdf

"The tube when heated emits infrared rays. These rays travel through the air without heating the air. When these rays strike an object, they agitate the molecules of the object, generating heat. The air is then warmed by conduction and convection from the heated surfaces. "

And on and on and on it goes. Millions of hours of observed evidence that infrared radiation does not warm the air but instead warms solid objects.

The radiative greenhouse effect as described by climate science claims that infrared leaving the surface of the earth is absorbed by so called greenhouse gasses and this absorption causes the air to become warmer..and the more so called greenhouse gasses there are in the air, the warmer it will be.

In a word....bullshit. Infrared does not warm the air...infrared may be absorbed by so called greenhouse gasses, but it is then emitted and moves on to cooler pastures...hard, observed, measured, quantified, repeatable evidence that there is no radiative greenhouse effect.

Billy Bob nailed this. You are so desperate to disprove GHouse Warming theory that you overlook the most trivial physics issues to make the case.

Since IR radiation is LINE OF SIGHT and generates no heat outside of that geometric cone -- it's a LOUSY "space heater". Any HVAC technician could explain that to you. You cannot HEAT a volume of air by putting a stream of light through it. At least NOT in terms of conduction and convection potential. Doesn't mean that SOME HEATING is not occurring. But because the area EXPOSED to gas collisions with the light beam, it's not gonna be effective in raising the room temperature as a whole.

In the atmosphere, there is NOT an isolated "geometric cone" of IR propagating. The entire EARTH is a black body radiator. And the GreenHouse gases dont "heat the atmosphere" in that case either. They RETARD the escape of heat to the cold cosmos.. Much like a desert cloud cover will keep the ground warm longer. It WILL lose heat to the sky -- but at a much slower rate than if NO cloud cover was present.

This is the result of a different geometric exchange between the atmos and the ground. It's a full planar battlefield between the upwelling IR from the Earths surface being lost to space and the downdwelling back radiation of IR from the GH gases. The Earth ALWAYS loses heat to the sky in that exchange. But the RATE of loss is LESS the thicker and more concentrated the GH gases become..

In that GH case, it's NOT just a single IR cone of propagation. It's the entire projected surface of the planet involved in the exchange.

 

[Billy_Bob]

But the RATE of loss is LESS the thicker and more concentrated the GH gases become..

I disagree here.. The primary issue here is the gas makeup.

If I replaced a portion of the atmosphere with increased CO2 the band pass and lowering of residency time would actually cool the planet faster. The only gas of consequence, for the earth, is water vapor.

In a desert with low water vapor, temps range 100 -120 degrees. In a desert with moderate water vapor (40%) the temp only ranges 65-85 degrees.

One of the primary tenets of AGW is the Hot Spot, which could only manifest itself IF there was a energy loop in the upper troposphere. No evidence has ever been seen of this theoretical region.

There are only two reasons this would not manifest itself. 1. CO2 is not capable of creating the loop or 2. Convection and Conduction are releasing the heat.

Throwing a blanket over you will slow heat release. But the make up of the blanket will either release heat faster or slower. Water holds energy for longer periods of time and warms itself in the process. CO2 immediately expends its energy, never warming. Absent anything to absorb the energy emitted and warm, it will cool rapidly.

 

[Billy_Bob]

This is the result of a different geometric exchange between the atmos and the ground. It's a full planar battlefield between the upwelling IR from the Earths surface being lost to space and the downdwelling back radiation of IR from the GH gases. The Earth ALWAYS loses heat to the sky in that exchange. But the RATE of loss is LESS the thicker and more concentrated the GH gases become..

Let me give you an example of why MASS may be the main player but make up is very important.

Lets take out water vapor and replace it with CO2.. CO2's heat retention factor is 0.14. Water vapors retention factor is 6.90. These are derived in pure atmospheres of Argon and CO2 or water vapor and a LWIR pass of 2000w from the surface to 10m. The time it takes for the energy to move from surface to top of chamber. In the chamber containing water vapor the time it took to escape was much longer than the chamber with CO2. The water vapor chamber temp rose 6.3 deg F. (@ 5m) and the CO2 chamber rose 0.2 deg F (@5m)

Water vapor holds energy roughly 680 times longer than CO2.

The atmosphere will cool much faster if the blanket has a free path that can not warm. Its the rate of escape just like it does above our deserts.

 

[SSDD]

But the RATE of loss is LESS the thicker and more concentrated the GH gases become..

I disagree here.. The primary issue here is the gas makeup.

If I replaced a portion of the atmosphere with increased CO2 the band pass and lowering of residency time would actually cool the planet faster. The only gas of consequence, for the earth, is water vapor.

In a desert with low water vapor, temps range 100 -120 degrees. In a desert with moderate water vapor (40%) the temp only ranges 65-85 degrees.

One of the primary tenets of AGW is the Hot Spot, which could only manifest itself IF there was a energy loop in the upper troposphere. No evidence has ever been seen of this theoretical region.

There are only two reasons this would not manifest itself. 1. CO2 is not capable of creating the loop or 2. Convection and Conduction are releasing the heat.

Throwing a blanket over you will slow heat release. But the make up of the blanket will either release heat faster or slower. Water holds energy for longer periods of time and warms itself in the process. CO2 immediately expends its energy, never warming. Absent anything to absorb the energy emitted and warm, it will cool rapidly.

True enough....then there is the fact that the CO2 concentration within homes is far greater than it is out in the atmosphere...if it were possible for the presence of CO2 to allow IR to warm the air, it would be present and obvious inside. And the IR coming out of a heating element is far more intense than that radiating from the surface of the earth.

The fact is that IR can't warm the air...so I want to know how a radiative greenhouse effect works if IR can not warm the air.

 

[SSDD]

Billy Bob nailed this. You are so desperate to disprove GHouse Warming theory that you overlook the most trivial physics issues to make the case.

I am afraid it is quite the opposite...you guys are so desperate to hold on to the radiative greenhouse hypothesis, that you are willing to drag your intellect through the sewer in an effort to save it.

But because the area EXPOSED to gas collisions with the light beam, it's not gonna be effective in raising the room temperature as a whole.

If you actually look through the industry literature on the topic, they very often refer to IR not warming the atmosphere either...On cold clear days, you feel the heat from the sun and feel warm even though the atmosphere remains cold...then there is the fact that the CO2 content of the air inside a home is FAR greater than the CO2 content outside...and the fact that the IR radiating from an infrared heater is far more intense than the IR radiating from the surface of the earth...IF IR could warm the air, then it would be evident inside...it isn't. IR doesn't warm the atmosphere...and it doesn't impede the escape of IR from the atmosphere...again, the amount of CO2 inside a home is far greater than it is outside and if the CO2 were impending the IR from the heating unit in any way, the air would be warming...it doesn't happen...and outside, there is no tropospheric hot spot..

In addition, if there were a configuration for a heater, or element that would allow the radiation to warm both the air inside the home and the objects inside, without the addition of fans to move the air across the heating elements, don't you think they would have done it? After all, that would be a better heater.

So again, how does a radiative greenhouse effect work if IR does not warm the atmosphere? The answer is quite easy...there is no radiative greenhouse effect.

 

[flacaltenn]

If you actually look through the industry literature on the topic, they very often refer to IR not warming the atmosphere either.

That's because all your references ASSUME that the reader will know that limited volume TRAVERSED by the IR rays will not contribute SIGNIFICANT heating compared to the heat effect that is literally FOCUSED on the objects to be warmed. So maybe it's sloppy not to explain all that. But it's not germane to the FOCUSED heating they want to discuss.

For instance. Similar article. 1st one I found about IR focused heating. If you READ CAREFULLY -- this "omission" is completely addressed. Drop it. This proves nuttin...

Article is about analyzing advantages of IR heating for agricultural plots.

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1365-2745.2011.01799.x/full

A technique that has been gaining ground in climate manipulation studies is the use of IR lamps (Aronson & McNulty 2009). Harte et al. (1995) were presumably the first to use such overhead heaters. In their field experiment, which started in 1991, Harte et al. suspended commercially available IR lamps above montane meadow plots. The lamps emitted a constant flux, which warmed vegetation and soil year-round. Later, Nijs et al. (1996) improved this technique by adding a modulator of the IR flux, which made it possible to accurately uphold a constant difference between the surface temperatures of warmed and control plots. Without such modulation, fluctuations in wind speed, which bring cooler ambient air to the warmed plots, enhance surface temperature variability together with increasing the mean. One of the benefits of using IR heaters is that this approach does not require enclosing the plants, so wind speed and light are hardly influenced. Furthermore, the warming is direct: the IR lamps heat the canopy surface without having to overcome a boundary layer resistance, which makes the technique very responsive (Nijs et al. 1996; Kimball et al. 2008), although this does imply that the air is only warmed indirectly and generally to a lesser extent than the surface. Finally, the whole canopy and the soil are warmed (Kimball 2005), which makes it a highly inclusive technique

These folks were more RIGOROUS and careful to quantify exactly what "air gets warmed"....

 

[flacaltenn]

But the RATE of loss is LESS the thicker and more concentrated the GH gases become..

I disagree here.. The primary issue here is the gas makeup.

If I replaced a portion of the atmosphere with increased CO2 the band pass and lowering of residency time would actually cool the planet faster. The only gas of consequence, for the earth, is water vapor.

In a desert with low water vapor, temps range 100 -120 degrees. In a desert with moderate water vapor (40%) the temp only ranges 65-85 degrees.

One of the primary tenets of AGW is the Hot Spot, which could only manifest itself IF there was a energy loop in the upper troposphere. No evidence has ever been seen of this theoretical region.

There are only two reasons this would not manifest itself. 1. CO2 is not capable of creating the loop or 2. Convection and Conduction are releasing the heat.

Throwing a blanket over you will slow heat release. But the make up of the blanket will either release heat faster or slower. Water holds energy for longer periods of time and warms itself in the process. CO2 immediately expends its energy, never warming. Absent anything to absorb the energy emitted and warm, it will cool rapidly.

The Earth will ALWAYS lose more heat in the absence of solar radiation. That's called nightime. A thicker and more concentrated GH Gas layer IMPEDES that loss rate. Due to the backradiation factor that exists 24 hours of the day and night. This is not a "blanket" but is insulation in the sense that it "feeds back" an IR photon flux that REDUCES the net loss to the sky..

NONE of this is applicable to the assertion that IR cannot "heat air". It does. It's just that the examples that SSDD gave are SLOPPY in describing the advanced of "focused" IR commercial heaters. The greenhouse is NOT a "focused" IR source. It's geometry COMPLETELY covers the interface between surface and sky and is subject to the "diffusion" of photon energy from the gas layer itself..

And the EMPHASIS of all these commercial products is to heat a selected cone of surface area. NOT to warm the enclosed space that the heaters are in. They do not have a frigid sky problem to overcome. So they are not concerned with overall surface loss rates or whether the ENTIRE VOLUME of air in that enclosure gets warm.. .

We should focus on helping SSDD understand the basic physics and not get off on various related GW effects or theories.

 

[edthecynic]

I just had an interesting read about the ability of infrared Radiation (IR) to warm the atmosphere (or air in general)...seems that there are literally millions of hours of experimentation and commercial application that demonstrate conclusively that no such thing is, has, or ever will happen.

The article started with the early observations of the supposed authors of modern day climate catastrophe. John Tyndal, for example, did extensive laboratory testing on the absorption of infrared radiation by various gasses bestowing upon them the ability to "block" the transmission of IR radiation which he called calorific rays. He tested gasses at concentrations of 80,000ppm. Regarding CO2 or "carbonic gas" he observed:

“Carbonic acid gas is one of the feeblest of absorbers of the radiant heat emitted by solid sources. It is, for example, extremely transparent to the rays emitted by the heated copper plate already referred to.”

His observations of CO2 at atmospheric concentrations were that CO2 had no effect on the temperature of air and it didn't matter how much IR you passed through it.

“Through air . . . the waves of ether pass without absorption, and these gases are not sensibly changed in temperature by the most powerful calorific rays.”

Then Svante Arrhenius, ignoring those findings hypothesized that the addition of CO2 to the atmosphere could actually heat the ground using the Stefan-Boltzman law..

To test Arrhenius' hypothesis (keep in mind that it was only a hypothesis) a Swedish physicist named Knut Angstrom (ever hear of him?) set up experiments and published a paper titled "On the Importance of Water Vapor and CO2 in the Absorption of the Atmosphere"

Angstrom's experiment involved filling tubes with the amount of CO2 that would be present in a column of air that reached to the top of the atmosphere. He then ran infrared radiation through the CO2. At first, he doubled the amount of CO2 in the tubes, then he cut the amount in half and repeated the test. He observed virtually zero temperature change between these different amounts of CO2.

Now here is where we come to the millions of hours of observation and commercial application which bear out Angstrom's findings that infrared radiation does not heat the air. Enter engineers and physicists involved in the commercial application of radiant heating.

Here are some of the observations and findings that have come out of that industry.

“Infrared energy travels at the speed of light without heating the air it passes through, the amount of infrared radiation absorbed by carbon dioxide, water vapor and other particles in the air typically is negligible.” …..

“Infrared heating technology by definition does not heat up the air, instead it targets the objects leaving the Oxygen and humidity intact.” …

“These infrared rays pass through the air in the room and start heating any object they hit. These rays, however, do not heat the air of the room or area, making it more comfortable for you.”

So...repeatable, replicable, experimental data by a true top shelf physicist and decades of application data that demonstrates conclusively that infrared radiation does not heat the air. Lets step back to the 19th century just a second and refer to John Tyndal again...regarding his experiments..

“By this mode of experiment it was proved that the self-same molecular arrangement which renders a gas a powerful absorber, renders it in the same degree a powerful radiator—that the atom or molecule which is competent to intercept the calorific waves is in the same degree, competent to generate them. Thus, while the atoms of elementary gases proved themselves unable to emit any sensible amount of radiant heat, the molecules of compound gases were shown to be capable of powerfully disturbing the surrounding ether.”

It doesn't take much looking through the infrared heating industry literature to see that they state explicitly that their product only warms objects...not the air. That is one of their selling points..being that no energy is wasted heating the air in a room which is an inefficient means of keeping warm.

How infrared panels work

"Infrared heaters, on the other hand, do not warm the air but instead use direct heat, warming the walls as well as all bodies and objects within a room."

Give the Gift of Infrared Comfort to the Hobbyist in Your Family - Mast Heating & Cooling

"The infrared works on the same principle as any other form of radiant heat. The infrared waves warm objects, which in turn give off heat to the surrounding air. It does not warm the air directly."


Infrared heater - Wikipedia

"Because far infrared technology does not heat the air of the room directly, it is important to maximize the exposure of available surfaces"


Radient Heat Explained

"The speed of the heat rays is 186,000 miles per second. These rays do not heat the air directly. The infrared heat rays strike an object such as a person, a building, a table, or the ground and are absorbed by that object, increasing its temperature. The increased temperature of the object will heat air in contact with the object by convection, i.e., by the intimate contact of a thin layer of air to the heated object."


Why Radiant Infrared Tube Heaters in High Bay Aircraft Hangers and Warehouses

"More importantly, by not having to heat the air in order to warm people and objects, heating costs are dramatically reduced."


You Asked: Are Infrared Saunas Healthy?

"Infrared saunas, by contrast, do not heat the air around you. Using electromagnetic radiation, infrared lamps warm your body directly. That may sound freaky or even unsafe, but neonatal beds for newborns have long utilized infrared heating elements to ensure babies are kept warm without being stifled."

http://ag.udel.edu/rec/poultryextension/proceedings2005/Radiant Tube Heaters_ Valco.pdf

"The tube when heated emits infrared rays. These rays travel through the air without heating the air. When these rays strike an object, they agitate the molecules of the object, generating heat. The air is then warmed by conduction and convection from the heated surfaces. "

And on and on and on it goes. Millions of hours of observed evidence that infrared radiation does not warm the air but instead warms solid objects.

The radiative greenhouse effect as described by climate science claims that infrared leaving the surface of the earth is absorbed by so called greenhouse gasses and this absorption causes the air to become warmer..and the more so called greenhouse gasses there are in the air, the warmer it will be.

In a word....bullshit. Infrared does not warm the air...infrared may be absorbed by so called greenhouse gasses, but it is then emitted and moves on to cooler pastures...hard, observed, measured, quantified, repeatable evidence that there is no radiative greenhouse effect.

Flake News

 

[SSDD]

If you actually look through the industry literature on the topic, they very often refer to IR not warming the atmosphere either.

That's because all your references ASSUME that the reader will know that limited volume TRAVERSED by the IR rays will not contribute SIGNIFICANT heating compared to the heat effect that is literally FOCUSED on the objects to be warmed. So maybe it's sloppy not to explain all that. But it's not germane to the FOCUSED heating they want to discuss.

For instance. Similar article. 1st one I found about IR focused heating. If you READ CAREFULLY -- this "omission" is completely addressed. Drop it. This proves nuttin...

Article is about analyzing advantages of IR heating for agricultural plots.

An alternative approach for infrared heater control in warming and extreme event experiments in terrestrial ecosystems

A technique that has been gaining ground in climate manipulation studies is the use of IR lamps (Aronson & McNulty 2009). Harte et al. (1995) were presumably the first to use such overhead heaters. In their field experiment, which started in 1991, Harte et al. suspended commercially available IR lamps above montane meadow plots. The lamps emitted a constant flux, which warmed vegetation and soil year-round. Later, Nijs et al. (1996) improved this technique by adding a modulator of the IR flux, which made it possible to accurately uphold a constant difference between the surface temperatures of warmed and control plots. Without such modulation, fluctuations in wind speed, which bring cooler ambient air to the warmed plots, enhance surface temperature variability together with increasing the mean. One of the benefits of using IR heaters is that this approach does not require enclosing the plants, so wind speed and light are hardly influenced. Furthermore, the warming is direct: the IR lamps heat the canopy surface without having to overcome a boundary layer resistance, which makes the technique very responsive (Nijs et al. 1996; Kimball et al. 2008), although this does imply that the air is only warmed indirectly and generally to a lesser extent than the surface. Finally, the whole canopy and the soil are warmed (Kimball 2005), which makes it a highly inclusive technique

These folks were more RIGOROUS and careful to quantify exactly what "air gets warmed"....

Sounds like they are acknowledging that it isn't IR that is heating the air but conduction from the solid surfaces that are being warmed by IR. Which solid surfaces in the atmosphere do you think are being warmed by outgoing IR passing through the atmosphere?

 

[SSDD]

The Earth will ALWAYS lose more heat in the absence of solar radiation. That's called nightime. A thicker and more concentrated GH Gas layer IMPEDES that loss rate. Due to the backradiation factor that exists 24 hours of the day and night. This is not a "blanket" but is insulation in the sense that it "feeds back" an IR photon flux that REDUCES the net loss to the sky..

there is not a single piece of observed, measured data which establishes a coherent relationship between the absorption of IR by a gas and warming in the atmosphere.

We should focus on helping SSDD understand the basic physics and not get off on various related GW effects or theories.

The basic physics are terribly flawed...the climate models are the basic physics incarnate and they fail terribly...because? They are terribly flawed.

 

[SSDD]

I just had an interesting read about the ability of infrared Radiation (IR) to warm the atmosphere (or air in general)...seems that there are literally millions of hours of experimentation and commercial application that demonstrate conclusively that no such thing is, has, or ever will happen.

The article started with the early observations of the supposed authors of modern day climate catastrophe. John Tyndal, for example, did extensive laboratory testing on the absorption of infrared radiation by various gasses bestowing upon them the ability to "block" the transmission of IR radiation which he called calorific rays. He tested gasses at concentrations of 80,000ppm. Regarding CO2 or "carbonic gas" he observed:

“Carbonic acid gas is one of the feeblest of absorbers of the radiant heat emitted by solid sources. It is, for example, extremely transparent to the rays emitted by the heated copper plate already referred to.”

His observations of CO2 at atmospheric concentrations were that CO2 had no effect on the temperature of air and it didn't matter how much IR you passed through it.

“Through air . . . the waves of ether pass without absorption, and these gases are not sensibly changed in temperature by the most powerful calorific rays.”

Then Svante Arrhenius, ignoring those findings hypothesized that the addition of CO2 to the atmosphere could actually heat the ground using the Stefan-Boltzman law..

To test Arrhenius' hypothesis (keep in mind that it was only a hypothesis) a Swedish physicist named Knut Angstrom (ever hear of him?) set up experiments and published a paper titled "On the Importance of Water Vapor and CO2 in the Absorption of the Atmosphere"

Angstrom's experiment involved filling tubes with the amount of CO2 that would be present in a column of air that reached to the top of the atmosphere. He then ran infrared radiation through the CO2. At first, he doubled the amount of CO2 in the tubes, then he cut the amount in half and repeated the test. He observed virtually zero temperature change between these different amounts of CO2.

Now here is where we come to the millions of hours of observation and commercial application which bear out Angstrom's findings that infrared radiation does not heat the air. Enter engineers and physicists involved in the commercial application of radiant heating.

Here are some of the observations and findings that have come out of that industry.

“Infrared energy travels at the speed of light without heating the air it passes through, the amount of infrared radiation absorbed by carbon dioxide, water vapor and other particles in the air typically is negligible.” …..

“Infrared heating technology by definition does not heat up the air, instead it targets the objects leaving the Oxygen and humidity intact.” …

“These infrared rays pass through the air in the room and start heating any object they hit. These rays, however, do not heat the air of the room or area, making it more comfortable for you.”

So...repeatable, replicable, experimental data by a true top shelf physicist and decades of application data that demonstrates conclusively that infrared radiation does not heat the air. Lets step back to the 19th century just a second and refer to John Tyndal again...regarding his experiments..

“By this mode of experiment it was proved that the self-same molecular arrangement which renders a gas a powerful absorber, renders it in the same degree a powerful radiator—that the atom or molecule which is competent to intercept the calorific waves is in the same degree, competent to generate them. Thus, while the atoms of elementary gases proved themselves unable to emit any sensible amount of radiant heat, the molecules of compound gases were shown to be capable of powerfully disturbing the surrounding ether.”

It doesn't take much looking through the infrared heating industry literature to see that they state explicitly that their product only warms objects...not the air. That is one of their selling points..being that no energy is wasted heating the air in a room which is an inefficient means of keeping warm.

How infrared panels work

"Infrared heaters, on the other hand, do not warm the air but instead use direct heat, warming the walls as well as all bodies and objects within a room."

Give the Gift of Infrared Comfort to the Hobbyist in Your Family - Mast Heating & Cooling

"The infrared works on the same principle as any other form of radiant heat. The infrared waves warm objects, which in turn give off heat to the surrounding air. It does not warm the air directly."


Infrared heater - Wikipedia

"Because far infrared technology does not heat the air of the room directly, it is important to maximize the exposure of available surfaces"


Radient Heat Explained

"The speed of the heat rays is 186,000 miles per second. These rays do not heat the air directly. The infrared heat rays strike an object such as a person, a building, a table, or the ground and are absorbed by that object, increasing its temperature. The increased temperature of the object will heat air in contact with the object by convection, i.e., by the intimate contact of a thin layer of air to the heated object."


Why Radiant Infrared Tube Heaters in High Bay Aircraft Hangers and Warehouses

"More importantly, by not having to heat the air in order to warm people and objects, heating costs are dramatically reduced."


You Asked: Are Infrared Saunas Healthy?

"Infrared saunas, by contrast, do not heat the air around you. Using electromagnetic radiation, infrared lamps warm your body directly. That may sound freaky or even unsafe, but neonatal beds for newborns have long utilized infrared heating elements to ensure babies are kept warm without being stifled."

http://ag.udel.edu/rec/poultryextension/proceedings2005/Radiant Tube Heaters_ Valco.pdf

"The tube when heated emits infrared rays. These rays travel through the air without heating the air. When these rays strike an object, they agitate the molecules of the object, generating heat. The air is then warmed by conduction and convection from the heated surfaces. "

And on and on and on it goes. Millions of hours of observed evidence that infrared radiation does not warm the air but instead warms solid objects.

The radiative greenhouse effect as described by climate science claims that infrared leaving the surface of the earth is absorbed by so called greenhouse gasses and this absorption causes the air to become warmer..and the more so called greenhouse gasses there are in the air, the warmer it will be.

In a word....bullshit. Infrared does not warm the air...infrared may be absorbed by so called greenhouse gasses, but it is then emitted and moves on to cooler pastures...hard, observed, measured, quantified, repeatable evidence that there is no radiative greenhouse effect.

Flake News

No actual discussion was ever expected from warmers...you didn't dissapoint

 

[Billy_Bob]

But the RATE of loss is LESS the thicker and more concentrated the GH gases become..

I disagree here.. The primary issue here is the gas makeup.

If I replaced a portion of the atmosphere with increased CO2 the band pass and lowering of residency time would actually cool the planet faster. The only gas of consequence, for the earth, is water vapor.

In a desert with low water vapor, temps range 100 -120 degrees. In a desert with moderate water vapor (40%) the temp only ranges 65-85 degrees.

One of the primary tenets of AGW is the Hot Spot, which could only manifest itself IF there was a energy loop in the upper troposphere. No evidence has ever been seen of this theoretical region.

There are only two reasons this would not manifest itself. 1. CO2 is not capable of creating the loop or 2. Convection and Conduction are releasing the heat.

Throwing a blanket over you will slow heat release. But the make up of the blanket will either release heat faster or slower. Water holds energy for longer periods of time and warms itself in the process. CO2 immediately expends its energy, never warming. Absent anything to absorb the energy emitted and warm, it will cool rapidly.

True enough....then there is the fact that the CO2 concentration within homes is far greater than it is out in the atmosphere...if it were possible for the presence of CO2 to allow IR to warm the air, it would be present and obvious inside. And the IR coming out of a heating element is far more intense than that radiating from the surface of the earth.

The fact is that IR can't warm the air...so I want to know how a radiative greenhouse effect works if IR can not warm the air.

Replacing equal volumes of water vapor with CO2 should, theoretically, make the loss equal, but it is not. CO2 quickly absorbs the energy and immediately releases it. As this molecule can not warm without collision, the passage of IR through it has little or no effect.

They say the emitted energy in a direction towards the earth warms the surface, the problem here is the PHASE and POWER of that energy is equivalent to -80.0 deg F. This allows me to say it is a bit of a streach to say the ground can be warmed by this energy level.

All we have left is water vapor, conduction and convection. Just as in a desert, the lack of water vapor will allow rapid warming and rapid cooling allowing wide temperature swings. When water vapor is present those swings reduce by 30-40%. This observation suggests that some of the down-welling radiation from the sun is indeed absorbed in our atmosphere and that the release of up-welling radiation is inhibited by it.

In the lab, what we do not find is a slowing of release when only CO2 is involved, thus the low retention number and very little direct warming of the columb. Water vapor is quite
different. Water vapor actually warmed in the columb with just LWIR due to the length of time the energy was retained in the molecules. Thus we know that the heat is being retained in water vapor.

When we used Argon, CO2 @400ppm, and water vapor at 40% the rate of release increased over that of just water vapor and Argon alone, indicating that CO2 was not reacting as a positive catalyst, it was acting negatively. As we increased the CO2 ppm to over 5,000ppm the rate of release increased and the temperature mid columb decreased. A stunning result, and wholly unexpected.

What we are left with is clouds and water vapor. In winter, under cloud cover and little wind, the earth will remain warm as the air mass under it is contained and the roll of the atmosphere by convection is what keeps the heat at ground level. You find as you get colder the humidity drops to below 10% (at around 0 deg F all you have is crystals and very little active water vapor).

What we have found clearly tells us that the Paleo-record, which shows no connection between temperature and CO2 levels, is reasonable and correct. It is clear it is water vapor that has kept the earths temp in that 12 deg C range for Eons.

Is there a green house affect? Yes.. It is water-vapor within the air which warms it through collision and kinetic energy transfer(conduction). Air movement and conduction is what slows the heat release or increases its speed of convection to space...

It is the amount of affect that is at issue. The debate is far from settled as new science is being done every day.

 

[flacaltenn]

If you actually look through the industry literature on the topic, they very often refer to IR not warming the atmosphere either.

That's because all your references ASSUME that the reader will know that limited volume TRAVERSED by the IR rays will not contribute SIGNIFICANT heating compared to the heat effect that is literally FOCUSED on the objects to be warmed. So maybe it's sloppy not to explain all that. But it's not germane to the FOCUSED heating they want to discuss.

For instance. Similar article. 1st one I found about IR focused heating. If you READ CAREFULLY -- this "omission" is completely addressed. Drop it. This proves nuttin...

Article is about analyzing advantages of IR heating for agricultural plots.

An alternative approach for infrared heater control in warming and extreme event experiments in terrestrial ecosystems

A technique that has been gaining ground in climate manipulation studies is the use of IR lamps (Aronson & McNulty 2009). Harte et al. (1995) were presumably the first to use such overhead heaters. In their field experiment, which started in 1991, Harte et al. suspended commercially available IR lamps above montane meadow plots. The lamps emitted a constant flux, which warmed vegetation and soil year-round. Later, Nijs et al. (1996) improved this technique by adding a modulator of the IR flux, which made it possible to accurately uphold a constant difference between the surface temperatures of warmed and control plots. Without such modulation, fluctuations in wind speed, which bring cooler ambient air to the warmed plots, enhance surface temperature variability together with increasing the mean. One of the benefits of using IR heaters is that this approach does not require enclosing the plants, so wind speed and light are hardly influenced. Furthermore, the warming is direct: the IR lamps heat the canopy surface without having to overcome a boundary layer resistance, which makes the technique very responsive (Nijs et al. 1996; Kimball et al. 2008), although this does imply that the air is only warmed indirectly and generally to a lesser extent than the surface. Finally, the whole canopy and the soil are warmed (Kimball 2005), which makes it a highly inclusive technique

These folks were more RIGOROUS and careful to quantify exactly what "air gets warmed"....

Sounds like they are acknowledging that it isn't IR that is heating the air but conduction from the solid surfaces that are being warmed by IR. Which solid surfaces in the atmosphere do you think are being warmed by outgoing IR passing through the atmosphere?

No.. They were ultra careful to specify that they are NOT saying the IR doesn't directly warm the air. Read it again. .......... "this does NOT imply that air is only warmed indirectly".. Meaning that IT DOES. And ..... "(does NOT imply) ..... generally to a lesser extent than the surface"..

THAT -- is more a rigorous SCIENTIFIC treatment of the situation than a fucking MARKETING document for a commercial heat lamp..

 

[Billy_Bob]

If you actually look through the industry literature on the topic, they very often refer to IR not warming the atmosphere either.

That's because all your references ASSUME that the reader will know that limited volume TRAVERSED by the IR rays will not contribute SIGNIFICANT heating compared to the heat effect that is literally FOCUSED on the objects to be warmed. So maybe it's sloppy not to explain all that. But it's not germane to the FOCUSED heating they want to discuss.

For instance. Similar article. 1st one I found about IR focused heating. If you READ CAREFULLY -- this "omission" is completely addressed. Drop it. This proves nuttin...

Article is about analyzing advantages of IR heating for agricultural plots.

An alternative approach for infrared heater control in warming and extreme event experiments in terrestrial ecosystems

A technique that has been gaining ground in climate manipulation studies is the use of IR lamps (Aronson & McNulty 2009). Harte et al. (1995) were presumably the first to use such overhead heaters. In their field experiment, which started in 1991, Harte et al. suspended commercially available IR lamps above montane meadow plots. The lamps emitted a constant flux, which warmed vegetation and soil year-round. Later, Nijs et al. (1996) improved this technique by adding a modulator of the IR flux, which made it possible to accurately uphold a constant difference between the surface temperatures of warmed and control plots. Without such modulation, fluctuations in wind speed, which bring cooler ambient air to the warmed plots, enhance surface temperature variability together with increasing the mean. One of the benefits of using IR heaters is that this approach does not require enclosing the plants, so wind speed and light are hardly influenced. Furthermore, the warming is direct: the IR lamps heat the canopy surface without having to overcome a boundary layer resistance, which makes the technique very responsive (Nijs et al. 1996; Kimball et al. 2008), although this does imply that the air is only warmed indirectly and generally to a lesser extent than the surface. Finally, the whole canopy and the soil are warmed (Kimball 2005), which makes it a highly inclusive technique

These folks were more RIGOROUS and careful to quantify exactly what "air gets warmed"....

Sounds like they are acknowledging that it isn't IR that is heating the air but conduction from the solid surfaces that are being warmed by IR. Which solid surfaces in the atmosphere do you think are being warmed by outgoing IR passing through the atmosphere?

No.. They were ultra careful to specify that they are NOT saying the IR doesn't directly warm the air. Read it again. .......... "this does NOT imply that air is only warmed indirectly".. Meaning that IT DOES. And ..... "(does NOT imply) ..... generally to a lesser extent than the surface"..

THAT -- is more a rigorous SCIENTIFIC treatment of the situation than a fucking MARKETING document for a commercial heat lamp..

The individual gases have areas of resonance where they are affected by IR. The warming is very minuscule. Outside of a gases area(s) of resonance there is no effect of pass through IR.

 

[flacaltenn]

If you actually look through the industry literature on the topic, they very often refer to IR not warming the atmosphere either.

That's because all your references ASSUME that the reader will know that limited volume TRAVERSED by the IR rays will not contribute SIGNIFICANT heating compared to the heat effect that is literally FOCUSED on the objects to be warmed. So maybe it's sloppy not to explain all that. But it's not germane to the FOCUSED heating they want to discuss.

For instance. Similar article. 1st one I found about IR focused heating. If you READ CAREFULLY -- this "omission" is completely addressed. Drop it. This proves nuttin...

Article is about analyzing advantages of IR heating for agricultural plots.

An alternative approach for infrared heater control in warming and extreme event experiments in terrestrial ecosystems

A technique that has been gaining ground in climate manipulation studies is the use of IR lamps (Aronson & McNulty 2009). Harte et al. (1995) were presumably the first to use such overhead heaters. In their field experiment, which started in 1991, Harte et al. suspended commercially available IR lamps above montane meadow plots. The lamps emitted a constant flux, which warmed vegetation and soil year-round. Later, Nijs et al. (1996) improved this technique by adding a modulator of the IR flux, which made it possible to accurately uphold a constant difference between the surface temperatures of warmed and control plots. Without such modulation, fluctuations in wind speed, which bring cooler ambient air to the warmed plots, enhance surface temperature variability together with increasing the mean. One of the benefits of using IR heaters is that this approach does not require enclosing the plants, so wind speed and light are hardly influenced. Furthermore, the warming is direct: the IR lamps heat the canopy surface without having to overcome a boundary layer resistance, which makes the technique very responsive (Nijs et al. 1996; Kimball et al. 2008), although this does imply that the air is only warmed indirectly and generally to a lesser extent than the surface. Finally, the whole canopy and the soil are warmed (Kimball 2005), which makes it a highly inclusive technique

These folks were more RIGOROUS and careful to quantify exactly what "air gets warmed"....

Sounds like they are acknowledging that it isn't IR that is heating the air but conduction from the solid surfaces that are being warmed by IR. Which solid surfaces in the atmosphere do you think are being warmed by outgoing IR passing through the atmosphere?

Let's cut this party REAL short.. Since I've done dozens of pages with you on this misunderstanding of Physics that you have. Here's a recent textbook on "Heat Transfer" from MIT.. Read the 1st couple pages from Chapter 10.5 and I'll have a quiz for you when you're done... CLEARLY the 1st 3 paragraphs blows your denial about about air interacting with IR photons right out of the water..

 

[flacaltenn]

If you actually look through the industry literature on the topic, they very often refer to IR not warming the atmosphere either.

That's because all your references ASSUME that the reader will know that limited volume TRAVERSED by the IR rays will not contribute SIGNIFICANT heating compared to the heat effect that is literally FOCUSED on the objects to be warmed. So maybe it's sloppy not to explain all that. But it's not germane to the FOCUSED heating they want to discuss.

For instance. Similar article. 1st one I found about IR focused heating. If you READ CAREFULLY -- this "omission" is completely addressed. Drop it. This proves nuttin...

Article is about analyzing advantages of IR heating for agricultural plots.

An alternative approach for infrared heater control in warming and extreme event experiments in terrestrial ecosystems

A technique that has been gaining ground in climate manipulation studies is the use of IR lamps (Aronson & McNulty 2009). Harte et al. (1995) were presumably the first to use such overhead heaters. In their field experiment, which started in 1991, Harte et al. suspended commercially available IR lamps above montane meadow plots. The lamps emitted a constant flux, which warmed vegetation and soil year-round. Later, Nijs et al. (1996) improved this technique by adding a modulator of the IR flux, which made it possible to accurately uphold a constant difference between the surface temperatures of warmed and control plots. Without such modulation, fluctuations in wind speed, which bring cooler ambient air to the warmed plots, enhance surface temperature variability together with increasing the mean. One of the benefits of using IR heaters is that this approach does not require enclosing the plants, so wind speed and light are hardly influenced. Furthermore, the warming is direct: the IR lamps heat the canopy surface without having to overcome a boundary layer resistance, which makes the technique very responsive (Nijs et al. 1996; Kimball et al. 2008), although this does imply that the air is only warmed indirectly and generally to a lesser extent than the surface. Finally, the whole canopy and the soil are warmed (Kimball 2005), which makes it a highly inclusive technique

These folks were more RIGOROUS and careful to quantify exactly what "air gets warmed"....

Sounds like they are acknowledging that it isn't IR that is heating the air but conduction from the solid surfaces that are being warmed by IR. Which solid surfaces in the atmosphere do you think are being warmed by outgoing IR passing through the atmosphere?

No.. They were ultra careful to specify that they are NOT saying the IR doesn't directly warm the air. Read it again. .......... "this does NOT imply that air is only warmed indirectly".. Meaning that IT DOES. And ..... "(does NOT imply) ..... generally to a lesser extent than the surface"..

THAT -- is more a rigorous SCIENTIFIC treatment of the situation than a fucking MARKETING document for a commercial heat lamp..

The individual gases have areas of resonance where they are affected by IR. The warming is very minuscule. Outside of a gases area(s) of resonance there is no effect of pass through IR.

It's only negligible if the radiation path geometry is limited.. As in the case of a focused beam IR heater for instance. It's NOT negligible for an IR emitter the size of a fucking planet -- in direct line of sight with a relatively thick OCEAN of gas....

 

[Billy_Bob]

If you actually look through the industry literature on the topic, they very often refer to IR not warming the atmosphere either.

That's because all your references ASSUME that the reader will know that limited volume TRAVERSED by the IR rays will not contribute SIGNIFICANT heating compared to the heat effect that is literally FOCUSED on the objects to be warmed. So maybe it's sloppy not to explain all that. But it's not germane to the FOCUSED heating they want to discuss.

For instance. Similar article. 1st one I found about IR focused heating. If you READ CAREFULLY -- this "omission" is completely addressed. Drop it. This proves nuttin...

Article is about analyzing advantages of IR heating for agricultural plots.

An alternative approach for infrared heater control in warming and extreme event experiments in terrestrial ecosystems

A technique that has been gaining ground in climate manipulation studies is the use of IR lamps (Aronson & McNulty 2009). Harte et al. (1995) were presumably the first to use such overhead heaters. In their field experiment, which started in 1991, Harte et al. suspended commercially available IR lamps above montane meadow plots. The lamps emitted a constant flux, which warmed vegetation and soil year-round. Later, Nijs et al. (1996) improved this technique by adding a modulator of the IR flux, which made it possible to accurately uphold a constant difference between the surface temperatures of warmed and control plots. Without such modulation, fluctuations in wind speed, which bring cooler ambient air to the warmed plots, enhance surface temperature variability together with increasing the mean. One of the benefits of using IR heaters is that this approach does not require enclosing the plants, so wind speed and light are hardly influenced. Furthermore, the warming is direct: the IR lamps heat the canopy surface without having to overcome a boundary layer resistance, which makes the technique very responsive (Nijs et al. 1996; Kimball et al. 2008), although this does imply that the air is only warmed indirectly and generally to a lesser extent than the surface. Finally, the whole canopy and the soil are warmed (Kimball 2005), which makes it a highly inclusive technique

These folks were more RIGOROUS and careful to quantify exactly what "air gets warmed"....

Sounds like they are acknowledging that it isn't IR that is heating the air but conduction from the solid surfaces that are being warmed by IR. Which solid surfaces in the atmosphere do you think are being warmed by outgoing IR passing through the atmosphere?

No.. They were ultra careful to specify that they are NOT saying the IR doesn't directly warm the air. Read it again. .......... "this does NOT imply that air is only warmed indirectly".. Meaning that IT DOES. And ..... "(does NOT imply) ..... generally to a lesser extent than the surface"..

THAT -- is more a rigorous SCIENTIFIC treatment of the situation than a fucking MARKETING document for a commercial heat lamp..

The individual gases have areas of resonance where they are affected by IR. The warming is very minuscule. Outside of a gases area(s) of resonance there is no effect of pass through IR.

It's only negligible if the radiation path geometry is limited.. As in the case of a focused beam IR heater for instance. It's NOT negligible for an IR emitter the size of a fucking planet -- in direct line of sight with a relatively thick OCEAN of gas....

Its not the beam that is focused, its the gas ability to react to the beam. A black body, such as the earth, emits broadly (3.5um to over 70um). The gases, not so much.

lets take a look at your ocean and how little is actually affected by LWIR.

Every one of the areas that are grey, in this graph, are the gases area(s) of resonance. Areas where IR will interact with the specific gas at a specific wavelength. The only gas with the mass and resonance to react within the atmosphere is water vapor.

CO2 was supposed to "enhance" the effect of water vapor but empirical experment evidence suggests otherwise.

 

[flacaltenn]

That's because all your references ASSUME that the reader will know that limited volume TRAVERSED by the IR rays will not contribute SIGNIFICANT heating compared to the heat effect that is literally FOCUSED on the objects to be warmed. So maybe it's sloppy not to explain all that. But it's not germane to the FOCUSED heating they want to discuss.

For instance. Similar article. 1st one I found about IR focused heating. If you READ CAREFULLY -- this "omission" is completely addressed. Drop it. This proves nuttin...

Article is about analyzing advantages of IR heating for agricultural plots.

An alternative approach for infrared heater control in warming and extreme event experiments in terrestrial ecosystems

A technique that has been gaining ground in climate manipulation studies is the use of IR lamps (Aronson & McNulty 2009). Harte et al. (1995) were presumably the first to use such overhead heaters. In their field experiment, which started in 1991, Harte et al. suspended commercially available IR lamps above montane meadow plots. The lamps emitted a constant flux, which warmed vegetation and soil year-round. Later, Nijs et al. (1996) improved this technique by adding a modulator of the IR flux, which made it possible to accurately uphold a constant difference between the surface temperatures of warmed and control plots. Without such modulation, fluctuations in wind speed, which bring cooler ambient air to the warmed plots, enhance surface temperature variability together with increasing the mean. One of the benefits of using IR heaters is that this approach does not require enclosing the plants, so wind speed and light are hardly influenced. Furthermore, the warming is direct: the IR lamps heat the canopy surface without having to overcome a boundary layer resistance, which makes the technique very responsive (Nijs et al. 1996; Kimball et al. 2008), although this does imply that the air is only warmed indirectly and generally to a lesser extent than the surface. Finally, the whole canopy and the soil are warmed (Kimball 2005), which makes it a highly inclusive technique

These folks were more RIGOROUS and careful to quantify exactly what "air gets warmed"....

Sounds like they are acknowledging that it isn't IR that is heating the air but conduction from the solid surfaces that are being warmed by IR. Which solid surfaces in the atmosphere do you think are being warmed by outgoing IR passing through the atmosphere?

No.. They were ultra careful to specify that they are NOT saying the IR doesn't directly warm the air. Read it again. .......... "this does NOT imply that air is only warmed indirectly".. Meaning that IT DOES. And ..... "(does NOT imply) ..... generally to a lesser extent than the surface"..

THAT -- is more a rigorous SCIENTIFIC treatment of the situation than a fucking MARKETING document for a commercial heat lamp..

The individual gases have areas of resonance where they are affected by IR. The warming is very minuscule. Outside of a gases area(s) of resonance there is no effect of pass through IR.

It's only negligible if the radiation path geometry is limited.. As in the case of a focused beam IR heater for instance. It's NOT negligible for an IR emitter the size of a fucking planet -- in direct line of sight with a relatively thick OCEAN of gas....

Its not the beam that is focused, its the gas ability to react to the beam. A black body, such as the earth, emits broadly (3.5um to over 70um). The gases, not so much.

lets take a look at your ocean and how little is actually affected by LWIR.

View attachment 173482

Every one of the areas that are grey, in this graph, are the gases area(s) of resonance. Areas where IR will interact with the specific gas at a specific wavelength. The only gas with the mass and resonance to react within the atmosphere is water vapor.

CO2 was supposed to "enhance" the effect of water vapor but empirical experment evidence suggests otherwise.

Not the best or most accurate chart. If you get a better one there is a sufficient overlap between solar spectrum and the bands of CO2. In that chart -- it doesn't even show that CO2 absorbs primarily in 3 narrow bands.