OK... so why CO2 trails temperature?

[SSDD]

What climate scientists publish may be your concern, but I was answering your post 228 where you said:

So what science says regarding climate change is not your concern..and why? Because you know f'ing well that the radiative greenhouse hypothesis discounts conduction entirely and if you acknowledge that, you will being going against your faith.

I am saying radiation does warm the air. I gave you seven points in the process where step 3 acknowledges conduction.

You say all sorts of things...almost none of which are backed up by any sort of evidence...your argument is about as credible as that of a TV evangelist...you say what you believe and you use your belief as evidence to support that belief...circular reasoning of the worst sort... What you claim is irrelevant...can you, or can you not show me a mainstream description of the radiative greenhouse effect which states that conduction is the main mode of energy transfer in the troposphere? We both know the answer is no...because only a top shelf idiot would attempt to support a radiative greenhouse hypothesis with the fact that conduction is the main mode of energy transport in the troposphere.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Still having trouble with quotes I see.

Measurements of greenhouse re-radiation have been made from the surface (ie, at the bottom of the troposphere looking up). I just posted links to an article about a study and that study. Let's see if they're still in my clipboard.

First direct observation of carbon dioxide's increasing greenhouse effect

and

Observational determination of surface radiative forcing by CO₂ from 2000 to 2010

There you go.

And, skidmark, if you bother to look, you will note that there is no mention of what sort of instrumentation was used...if you dig deeper, you will find that the measurements, if they are of a discrete frequency of radiation, were made with instruments cooled to a temperature lower than that of the atmosphere...once more...you are being fooled by instrumentation..all that is being measured is energy moving from the warmer sky to the cooler instrument.

And, again, the dominant mode of heat transfer in the troposphere is NOT conduction, it is forced convection; ie, the movement of air masses

Sorry crick...not true...the air molecules being moved around on air currents are still conducting energy....what you are claiming is that if you heat a pot of water and then pick up the pot of water and take it to another room, the main mode of heat transfer is you picking up the water and carrying it to another room. Air currents are merely moving around the energy transfer work horses as they go about conducting energy.

all that is being measured is energy moving from the warmer sky to the cooler instrument.

Of course, because the sky knows it can't emit downward until the instrument is cooled.
Smart emitters magically measure the temperature of surrounding matter.....magically!

 

[Wuwei]

What climate scientists publish may be your concern, but I was answering your post 228 where you said:

So what science says regarding climate change is not your concern..and why? Because you know f'ing well that the radiative greenhouse hypothesis discounts conduction entirely and if you acknowledge that, you will being going against your faith.

I am saying radiation does warm the air. I gave you seven points in the process where step 3 acknowledges conduction.

You say all sorts of things...almost none of which are backed up by any sort of evidence...your argument is about as credible as that of a TV evangelist...you say what you believe and you use your belief as evidence to support that belief...circular reasoning of the worst sort... What you claim is irrelevant...can you, or can you not show me a mainstream description of the radiative greenhouse effect which states that conduction is the main mode of energy transfer in the troposphere? We both know the answer is no...because only a top shelf idiot would attempt to support a radiative greenhouse hypothesis with the fact that conduction is the main mode of energy transport in the troposphere.

It is commonly known that air is a very poor conductor of heat.

 

[Crick]

Still having trouble with quotes I see.

Measurements of greenhouse re-radiation have been made from the surface (ie, at the bottom of the troposphere looking up). I just posted links to an article about a study and that study. Let's see if they're still in my clipboard.

First direct observation of carbon dioxide's increasing greenhouse effect

and

Observational determination of surface radiative forcing by CO₂ from 2000 to 2010

There you go.

And, skidmark, if you bother to look, you will note that there is no mention of what sort of instrumentation was used...if you dig deeper, you will find that the measurements, if they are of a discrete frequency of radiation, were made with instruments cooled to a temperature lower than that of the atmosphere...once more...you are being fooled by instrumentation..all that is being measured is energy moving from the warmer sky to the cooler instrument.

And, again, the dominant mode of heat transfer in the troposphere is NOT conduction, it is forced convection; ie, the movement of air masses

Sorry crick...not true...the air molecules being moved around on air currents are still conducting energy....what you are claiming is that if you heat a pot of water and then pick up the pot of water and take it to another room, the main mode of heat transfer is you picking up the water and carrying it to another room. Air currents are merely moving around the energy transfer work horses as they go about conducting energy.

Why does the energy moving from the sky to the instrument show a spectrum that matches the absorption/transmission spectra of the atmosphere's constituents?

And

If I take a boiling pot of water from the kitchen to the living room, the primary means of heat transfer has been the relocation of that water. That you seem to think that doesn't constitute heat transfer shows that you've never had a class in thermodynamics or heat transfer.

 

[SSDD]

Why does the energy moving from the sky to the instrument show a spectrum that matches the absorption/transmission spectra of the atmosphere's constituents?

The more interesting question skidmark, is why does the instrument have to be colder than the atmosphere in order to see the spectrum? Answer that question and you answer the other.

If I take a boiling pot of water from the kitchen to the living room, the primary means of heat transfer has been the relocation of that water. That you seem to think that doesn't constitute heat transfer shows that you've never had a class in thermodynamics or heat transfer.

What an idiot you are...you think carrying the water to another room altered mode of energy transfer from the water to its surroundings? The topic is energy transfer...not toting hot things from room to room.

 

[SSDD]

It is commonly known that air is a very poor conductor of heat.

That being the case, why then, do you believe in a radiative greenhouse effect?

 

[Crick]

Eh? Care to explain why you think poor conduction would effect a radiative effect?

 

[Wuwei]

Right. You have to explain that.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Why does the energy moving from the sky to the instrument show a spectrum that matches the absorption/transmission spectra of the atmosphere's constituents?

The more interesting question skidmark, is why does the instrument have to be colder than the atmosphere in order to see the spectrum? Answer that question and you answer the other.

If I take a boiling pot of water from the kitchen to the living room, the primary means of heat transfer has been the relocation of that water. That you seem to think that doesn't constitute heat transfer shows that you've never had a class in thermodynamics or heat transfer.

What an idiot you are...you think carrying the water to another room altered mode of energy transfer from the water to its surroundings? The topic is energy transfer...not toting hot things from room to room.

The more interesting question skidmark, is why does the instrument have to be colder than the atmosphere in order to see the spectrum?

Because smart photons only travel toward space, until they "sense" an instrument being cooled. Magic!!!

 

[SSDD]

I am done explaining to you wack jobs...show me the observed, measured evidence to support your beliefs...or don't and continue to live in model land...the observed, measured evidence supports my position and when the rubber meets the road, that is what matters. Model all you like...it isn't real.

 

[Wuwei]

I am done explaining to you wack jobs...show me the observed, measured evidence to support your beliefs...or don't and continue to live in model land...the observed, measured evidence supports my position and when the rubber meets the road, that is what matters. Model all you like...it isn't real.

You are “done” explaining? You didn't even start explaining. So you are “done” before you start? What it looks like is that you have no explanation for your own statement -- why would one believe in radiative greenhouse effect if air is a poor conductor of heat.

Since air is a poor conductor, then the only thing left to give warmth to the air near earth is radiation. It's that simple.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I am done explaining to you wack jobs...show me the observed, measured evidence to support your beliefs...or don't and continue to live in model land...the observed, measured evidence supports my position and when the rubber meets the road, that is what matters. Model all you like...it isn't real.

Still no back up for your one-way claims? Weird.

 

[SSDD]

You are “done” explaining? You didn't even start explaining. So you are “done” before you start? What it looks like is that you have no explanation for your own statement -- why would one believe in radiative greenhouse effect if air is a poor conductor of heat.

Since air is a poor conductor, then the only thing left to give warmth to the air near earth is radiation. It's that simple.

Clearly, this whole topic confuses you to no end...little wonder you believe you see the emperor's clothes. A good conductor, by definition moves heat rapidly...the more rapidly a medium moves heat, the faster it cools....if air were a great conductor, it would be very cold here...add gases to the air that are good conductors, and you increase the ability of the air to cool itself...

And since radiation can not warm the air...your whole premise is bullshit. Once more...try to read for comprehension...

“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.

Literally millions of hours of observation, measurement, and industrial application prove conclusively that your faith is misplaced...radiation does not warm the air...

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

You are “done” explaining? You didn't even start explaining. So you are “done” before you start? What it looks like is that you have no explanation for your own statement -- why would one believe in radiative greenhouse effect if air is a poor conductor of heat.

Since air is a poor conductor, then the only thing left to give warmth to the air near earth is radiation. It's that simple.

Clearly, this whole topic confuses you to no end...little wonder you believe you see the emperor's clothes. A good conductor, by definition moves heat rapidly...the more rapidly a medium moves heat, the faster it cools....if air were a great conductor, it would be very cold here...add gases to the air that are good conductors, and you increase the ability of the air to cool itself...

And since radiation can not warm the air...your whole premise is bullshit. Once more...try to read for comprehension...

“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.

Literally millions of hours of observation, measurement, and industrial application prove conclusively that your faith is misplaced...radiation does not warm the air...

if air were a great conductor, it would be very cold here...add gases to the air that are good conductors, and you increase the ability of the air to cool itself...

Ummm.....which gases are we adding that are good conductors? Link?

“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.” …..​

Basic Information About Infrared (Radiant) Heating

Your "scientific source" is a company that sells infrared heaters? WTF?
Do you suspect the "negligible amount" they're referencing is influenced by the
short path between the heater and the walls of the ******* house they're heating?

And not the entire depth of the Earth's atmosphere? Damn.......you're unique alright.

"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."

What good does heating the walls do? Your heater heats the walls, but the walls aren't "allowed"
to radiate at the people in the room, because radiation only flows one way. Hotter to cooler.

The money you just spent on your infrared heater was wasted, the heat is trapped in your walls.
It won't heat the people and you've just shown it can't heat the air.

​

 

[SSDD]

if air were a great conductor, it would be very cold here...add gases to the air that are good conductors, and you increase the ability of the air to cool itself...

Ummm.....which gases are we adding that are good conductors? Link?

Not very quick on the uptake are you? Any gas that absorbs and emits radiation is a better conductor than a gas that does not...radiation being a far more efficient means of moving energy than conduction.

Your "scientific source" is a company that sells infrared heaters? WTF?

You think climate scientists know more about the movement of energy than environmental engineers? really?
​

Do you suspect the "negligible amount" they're referencing is influenced by the
short path between the heater and the walls of the ******* house they're heating?

Nope....a longer path is not going to change anything...

What good does heating the walls do? Your heater heats the walls, but the walls aren't "allowed"
to radiate at the people in the room, because radiation only flows one way. Hotter to cooler.

The radiation from the heater warms the people and objects in the room...not the air...then the walls and objects in the room conduct energy to the air...you really don't get this at all do you? That is because you are operating on intuition....This whole topic is counterintuitive to someone who started off with a whole wheelbarrow full of misconceptions about energy movement in the first place. It is far more efficient, and economical to only heat the people in the room than to try and heat all the air space in the room.

The money you just spent on your infrared heater was wasted, the heat is trapped in your walls.
It won't heat the people and you've just shown it can't heat the air.

Again....you are only showing how much you don't know on the topic....do you really think the engineers who design spaces and recommend radiant heating don't know what they are doing? You are so wrapped up in your misconceptions about radiation that you completely ignore the only means of actually warming air...conduction. Heaters that warm air do it by conduction and they waste a good deal of energy...it is very inefficient to try to warm air and then pump it into a room...right off the bat it starts to move towards the top of the room. Try and use your brain for just a second...which is more cost effective? Continuously trying to heat all the air in a room or only heating the people in the room?​

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

if air were a great conductor, it would be very cold here...add gases to the air that are good conductors, and you increase the ability of the air to cool itself...

Ummm.....which gases are we adding that are good conductors? Link?

Not very quick on the uptake are you? Any gas that absorbs and emits radiation is a better conductor than a gas that does not...radiation being a far more efficient means of moving energy than conduction.

Your "scientific source" is a company that sells infrared heaters? WTF?

You think climate scientists know more about the movement of energy than environmental engineers? really?
​

Do you suspect the "negligible amount" they're referencing is influenced by the
short path between the heater and the walls of the ******* house they're heating?

Nope....a longer path is not going to change anything...

What good does heating the walls do? Your heater heats the walls, but the walls aren't "allowed"
to radiate at the people in the room, because radiation only flows one way. Hotter to cooler.

The radiation from the heater warms the people and objects in the room...not the air...then the walls and objects in the room conduct energy to the air...you really don't get this at all do you? That is because you are operating on intuition....This whole topic is counterintuitive to someone who started off with a whole wheelbarrow full of misconceptions about energy movement in the first place. It is far more efficient, and economical to only heat the people in the room than to try and heat all the air space in the room.

The money you just spent on your infrared heater was wasted, the heat is trapped in your walls.
It won't heat the people and you've just shown it can't heat the air.

Again....you are only showing how much you don't know on the topic....do you really think the engineers who design spaces and recommend radiant heating don't know what they are doing? You are so wrapped up in your misconceptions about radiation that you completely ignore the only means of actually warming air...conduction. Heaters that warm air do it by conduction and they waste a good deal of energy...it is very inefficient to try to warm air and then pump it into a room...right off the bat it starts to move towards the top of the room. Try and use your brain for just a second...which is more cost effective? Continuously trying to heat all the air in a room or only heating the people in the room?​

Not very quick on the uptake are you?

Not very quick to answer, are you? Which gases are we adding that are good conductors?

Any gas that absorbs and emits radiation is a better conductor than a gas that does not...

So you meant to say.....

add gases to the air that are good radiators, and you increase the ability of the air to cool itself...

Or are you just so confused you don't know what you're saying?

You think climate scientists know more about the movement of energy than environmental engineers?

Nope. I think engineers talking about absorption over 20 feet in your house are not talking about absorption over 20 miles in the atmosphere. Get a source that says ....

"the amount of infrared radiation absorbed by carbon dioxide, water vapor and other particles in the air from the surface to the TOA typically is negligible.”

and I'll be interested.

Nope....a longer path is not going to change anything...

Hilarious!!

The radiation from the heater warms the people and objects in the room...not the air...then the walls and objects in the room conduct energy to the air..

Do the walls and objects also radiate?

 

[Wuwei]

Clearly, this whole topic confuses you to no end...little wonder you believe you see the emperor's clothes. A good conductor, by definition moves heat rapidly...the more rapidly a medium moves heat, the faster it cools....if air were a great conductor, it would be very cold here..

Your ad hominem does not help your cause.

Todd answered your most ignorant points. He also asked,
"Which gases are we adding that are good conductors?"

Here are thermal conductivities of common gases in the air given in units of W/(m K)

Thermal Conductivity of common Materials and Gases

CO2 (gas) 0.0146 W/(m K)
Oxygen (gas) 0.024
Nitrogen (gas) 0.024
Water, vapor 0.0267
Methane (gas) 0.030
Argon (gas) 0.016​

add gases to the air that are good conductors, and you increase the ability of the air to cool itself

Notice that CO2 is a worse conductor of heat than all the other common gases in the atmosphere. So Todds question still stands. What gas are you talking about?

A second misunderstanding you have is related to all your references to domestic heating engineers. There is a great deal of difference in IR spectrum from the 60 F earth, and from a 1000 F heater. The GHGs only absorb the very long IR wave radiation prevalent from the earth. The radiation from the shorter wave IR from a heater swamps measurement of that absorbed by the air. An engineer would rightly say there is no absorption in the air, a physicist would say it is unmeasurably small, or negligible.

I hope this clarifies the physics for you.

 

[Sunsettommy]

This thread has long left the argument about CO2 trailing temperature change into a thread that is a mirror copy of THIS THREAD.

Maybe it is time to close this thread?

 

[Wuwei]

This thread has long left the argument about CO2 trailing temperature change into a thread that is a mirror copy of THIS THREAD.

Maybe it is time to close this thread?

No. It is not time to close any thread. You probably haven't been following the physics arguments of each thread carefully. The threads are not mirror copies.

This thread is focused on the nature of energy transfer in air and is an argument that air is a very poor conductor.

The thread you cited focuses on the nature of the net exchange of radiation between objects at different temperatures.

They are quite different subject matters.

 

[Sunsettommy]

This thread has long left the argument about CO2 trailing temperature change into a thread that is a mirror copy of THIS THREAD.

Maybe it is time to close this thread?

No. It is not time to close any thread. You probably haven't been following the physics arguments of each thread carefully. The threads are not mirror copies.

This thread is focused on the nature of energy transfer in air and is an argument that air is a very poor conductor.

The thread you cited focuses on the nature of the net exchange of radiation between objects at different temperatures.

They are quite different subject matters.

The TITLE of this thread is:

OK... so why CO2 trails temperature?