Once Again, Skeptics do the Math that Warmists Won't Do....

[Toddsterpatriot]

absorption equals emission.

If we were a single gas planet this would have meaning. We are not. Now lets add those other gases and see what happens.. This is precisely where AGW goes wrong. People get all giddy that CO2 passes and emits in specific wavelengths, and it may well be able to absorb that same wavelength (again QM theroy) again but they always leave out the other gases and water vapor. How they affect CO2 is not what they expected.

Water vapor is expected to increase temperature but what we have found in empirical evidence is that it has no bearing whatsoever in accelerating warming but it does accelerate cooling.

People get all giddy that CO2 passes and emits in specific wavelengths, and it may well be able to absorb that same wavelength

Wait, your original claim was wrong?

 

[Billy_Bob]

absorption equals emission.

If we were a single gas planet this would have meaning. We are not. Now lets add those other gases and see what happens.. This is precisely where AGW goes wrong. People get all giddy that CO2 passes and emits in specific wavelengths, and it may well be able to absorb that same wavelength (again QM theroy) again but they always leave out the other gases and water vapor. How they affect CO2 is not what they expected.

Water vapor is expected to increase temperature but what we have found in empirical evidence is that it has no bearing whatsoever in accelerating warming but it does accelerate cooling.

People get all giddy that CO2 passes and emits in specific wavelengths, and it may well be able to absorb that same wavelength

Wait, your original claim was wrong?

It is possible to be wrong and still be right.. Again Quantum Mechanics is THEORY! In a single gas atmosphere it may possible to reabsorb but in a multiple gas atmosphere with water vapor, not so much..

I will give you an I was incorrect if it will make you feel better. My original point however, in our atmosphere, makes it virtually impossible to reabsorb due to other gases remains. There is loss through CO2 in amplitude. Where do those photos magically go?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

absorption equals emission.

If we were a single gas planet this would have meaning. We are not. Now lets add those other gases and see what happens.. This is precisely where AGW goes wrong. People get all giddy that CO2 passes and emits in specific wavelengths, and it may well be able to absorb that same wavelength (again QM theroy) again but they always leave out the other gases and water vapor. How they affect CO2 is not what they expected.

Water vapor is expected to increase temperature but what we have found in empirical evidence is that it has no bearing whatsoever in accelerating warming but it does accelerate cooling.

People get all giddy that CO2 passes and emits in specific wavelengths, and it may well be able to absorb that same wavelength

Wait, your original claim was wrong?

It is possible to be wrong and still be right.. Again Quantum Mechanics is THEORY! In a single gas atmosphere it may possible to reabsorb but in a multiple gas atmosphere with water vapor, not so much..

I will give you an I was incorrect if it will make you feel better. My original point however, in our atmosphere, makes it virtually impossible to reabsorb due to other gases remains. There is loss through CO2 in amplitude. Where do those photos magically go?

It is possible to be wrong and still be right.. Again Quantum Mechanics is THEORY!

Quantum Mechanics? I thought we were discussing emission and absorption?

In a single gas atmosphere it may possible to reabsorb but in a multiple gas atmosphere with water vapor, not so much..

Wait, CO2 can't reabsorb the energy emitted by another CO2, because other gasses are in the way?

I will give you an I was incorrect if it will make you feel better.

Who said anything about my feelings?
If you were correct, prove it.
If you were incorrect, admit it.
Leave my inconsequential feelings out of it.

My original point however, in our atmosphere, makes it virtually impossible to reabsorb due to other gases remains.

Prove it.

There is loss through CO2 in amplitude.

Huh? Loss of what? How?

Where do those photos magically go?

What photons?

 

[Billy_Bob]

It is possible to be wrong and still be right.. Again Quantum Mechanics is THEORY!

Quantum Mechanics? I thought we were discussing emission and absorption?

Emission and absorption happen through quantum level mechanics. We are talking how electrons react to excitement.

In a single gas atmosphere it may possible to reabsorb but in a multiple gas atmosphere with water vapor, not so much..

Wait, CO2 can't reabsorb the energy emitted by another CO2, because other gasses are in the way?

Yes! This is due to the properties of the other gases and the emittance of photons vibrating at frequencies which are not conducive to absorption by CO2. Were talking parts per million here leaving vast areas for other gases and water vapor. Do you think that all photons, at any frequency, can be absorbed by CO2?

I will give you an I was incorrect if it will make you feel better.

Who said anything about my feelings?
If you were correct, prove it.
If you were incorrect, admit it.
Leave my inconsequential feelings out of it.

My original point however, in our atmosphere, makes it virtually impossible to reabsorb due to other gases remains.

Prove it.

There is loss through CO2 in amplitude.

Huh? Loss of what? How?

Where do those photos magically go?

What photons?

Lest start with a cylinder of CO2 and argon gas at 400ppm CO2. Lets pass 100 watts of focused light through the cylinder 12" in diameter. How much energy is placed on the surface below if all 100 watts is directed in a 6 x 6 inch square area. there is a 12 inches between the source and the cylinder and 12 inches between the cylinder and the surface. Assume no resistance of the glass cylinder.

In a non-atmosphere condition, heat would register proportional to the surfaces ability to absorb the photons minus the black body emittance factor of the solid.

In the above described experiment, argon has no absorptive properties in the spectrum that CO2 does, so it is considered a zero factor. We will consider the bandwidth of 0.4um to 18.0um assuming the area around the cylinder is non-atmospheric. There is a measured loss of around 0.06 watts/square inch due to CO2. The emitted long wave IR from the cylinder, measured @ 12" is 0.00021 watts/sq inch.

The emitted photons are a far cry from the absorbed photon energy. when you calculate the inside of sphere in square inches we have lost roughly 55% of the incoming energy. Granted its only 0.03 watts/sq inch and the gas in the cylinder rose just 0.32 deg C in one hour. (6 cubic feet of gas in total @ 1000kpa)

This same experiment done with all atmospheric gasses (except CO2) and 40% humidity had some astonishing results. When it was redone with CO2 @ 400ppm and the results compared there was no determinable trace of CO2 involvement.

What was interesting to watch is how adding items to the cylinder changed the outputs. When we added water vapor to the Argon/CO2 cylinder the emitted output fell to near zero and the cylinder temp rise slowed. Conversely the time it took to cool off increased slightly. When CO2 was increased to 5000ppm we regained the cooling rate but never over came the heat up rate loss. We never saw an increase of the heat up process. We also saw very little pass through loss but this was just clear vapor. The simple addition of water vapor killed CO2's absorptive/emittance properties. My take is water vapor is a negative feed back for CO2.

There are over 300 experiments to do in this atmospheric area to determine what does what in our atmosphere. The only problem is its not just the atmosphere, its the oceans too.. The cylinder gives us a limited look at how the different gasses react together. I am far from done and there will be many nights in the lab coming.

This probably wont satisfy as proof but it is observed scientific evidence. Empirical evidence which just happens to match what we have seen in our atmosphere.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

It is possible to be wrong and still be right.. Again Quantum Mechanics is THEORY!

Quantum Mechanics? I thought we were discussing emission and absorption?

Emission and absorption happen through quantum level mechanics. We are talking how electrons react to excitement.

In a single gas atmosphere it may possible to reabsorb but in a multiple gas atmosphere with water vapor, not so much..

Wait, CO2 can't reabsorb the energy emitted by another CO2, because other gasses are in the way?

Yes! This is due to the properties of the other gases and the emittance of photons vibrating at frequencies which are not conducive to absorption by CO2. Were talking parts per million here leaving vast areas for other gases and water vapor. Do you think that all photons, at any frequency, can be absorbed by CO2?

I will give you an I was incorrect if it will make you feel better.

Who said anything about my feelings?
If you were correct, prove it.
If you were incorrect, admit it.
Leave my inconsequential feelings out of it.

My original point however, in our atmosphere, makes it virtually impossible to reabsorb due to other gases remains.

Prove it.

There is loss through CO2 in amplitude.

Huh? Loss of what? How?

Where do those photos magically go?

What photons?

Lest start with a cylinder of CO2 and argon gas at 400ppm CO2. Lets pass 100 watts of focused light through the cylinder 12" in diameter. How much energy is placed on the surface below if all 100 watts is directed in a 6 x 6 inch square area. there is a 12 inches between the source and the cylinder and 12 inches between the cylinder and the surface. Assume no resistance of the glass cylinder.

In a non-atmosphere condition, heat would register proportional to the surfaces ability to absorb the photons minus the black body emittance factor of the solid.

In the above described experiment, argon has no absorptive properties in the spectrum that CO2 does, so it is considered a zero factor. We will consider the bandwidth of 0.4um to 18.0um assuming the area around the cylinder is non-atmospheric. There is a measured loss of around 0.06 watts/square inch due to CO2. The emitted long wave IR from the cylinder, measured @ 12" is 0.00021 watts/sq inch.

The emitted photons are a far cry from the absorbed photon energy. when you calculate the inside of sphere in square inches we have lost roughly 55% of the incoming energy. Granted its only 0.03 watts/sq inch and the gas in the cylinder rose just 0.32 deg C in one hour. (6 cubic feet of gas in total @ 1000kpa)

This same experiment done with all atmospheric gasses (except CO2) and 40% humidity had some astonishing results. When it was redone with CO2 @ 400ppm and the results compared there was no determinable trace of CO2 involvement.

What was interesting to watch is how adding items to the cylinder changed the outputs. When we added water vapor to the Argon/CO2 cylinder the emitted output fell to near zero and the cylinder temp rise slowed. Conversely the time it took to cool off increased slightly. When CO2 was increased to 5000ppm we regained the cooling rate but never over came the heat up rate loss. We never saw an increase of the heat up process. We also saw very little pass through loss but this was just clear vapor. The simple addition of water vapor killed CO2's absorptive/emittance properties. My take is water vapor is a negative feed back for CO2.

There are over 300 experiments to do in this atmospheric area to determine what does what in our atmosphere. The only problem is its not just the atmosphere, its the oceans too.. The cylinder gives us a limited look at how the different gasses react together. I am far from done and there will be many nights in the lab coming.

This probably wont satisfy as proof but it is observed scientific evidence. Empirical evidence which just happens to match what we have seen in our atmosphere.

Emission and absorption happen through quantum level mechanics. We are talking how electrons react to excitement.

And your original claim was the photons emitted by CO2 could not excite the electrons of another CO2.
So, you're off that claim, right?
Any wavelength that CO2 can emit, can be absorbed by another CO2, correct?

This is due to the properties of the other gases and the emittance of photons vibrating at frequencies which are not conducive to absorption by CO2. Were talking parts per million here leaving vast areas for other gases and water vapor.

Claiming that it's unlikely the "CO2 photon" can find another CO2, is very different from your original claim.

Lest start with a cylinder of CO2 and argon gas

Huh?

What does that have to do with ...

"There is loss through CO2 in amplitude"

And ...
Where do those photons magically go?

 

[IanC]

absorption equals emission.

If we were a single gas planet this would have meaning. We are not. Now lets add those other gases and see what happens.. This is precisely where AGW goes wrong. People get all giddy that CO2 passes and emits in specific wavelengths, and it may well be able to absorb that same wavelength (again QM theroy) again but they always leave out the other gases and water vapor. How they affect CO2 is not what they expected.

Water vapor is expected to increase temperature but what we have found in empirical evidence is that it has no bearing whatsoever in accelerating warming but it does accelerate cooling.

you should be more careful in your statements. every time a skeptic spouts a falsehood the warmers say, "see? I told you so. the skeptics can't be trusted, they lie". saying that one CO2 molecule cannot absorb another CO2 molecule's emission is spectacularly wrong and that is what they will remember you for.

the general population is almost totally illiterate scientifically. the educated public is often worse because the little science they remember is often used inappropriately but they are certain that they 'know it'. CO2 theory alarmists have co-opted this second group. they sort of understand the whole CO2 absorbs and re-radiates in a random direction, half returns to the surface thing. some even apply the infinite series (1+1/2+1/4....=2) to get preposterous results. if you attack the things they 'know', you will lose them forever. if you show that there are complications and complexities further down the pathway you may make them think. but only if they trust you. lies and exaggerations wont do it because the paradigm is already in place.

 

[IanC]

It is possible to be wrong and still be right.. Again Quantum Mechanics is THEORY!

Quantum Mechanics? I thought we were discussing emission and absorption?

Emission and absorption happen through quantum level mechanics. We are talking how electrons react to excitement.

In a single gas atmosphere it may possible to reabsorb but in a multiple gas atmosphere with water vapor, not so much..

Wait, CO2 can't reabsorb the energy emitted by another CO2, because other gasses are in the way?

Yes! This is due to the properties of the other gases and the emittance of photons vibrating at frequencies which are not conducive to absorption by CO2. Were talking parts per million here leaving vast areas for other gases and water vapor. Do you think that all photons, at any frequency, can be absorbed by CO2?

I will give you an I was incorrect if it will make you feel better.

Who said anything about my feelings?
If you were correct, prove it.
If you were incorrect, admit it.
Leave my inconsequential feelings out of it.

My original point however, in our atmosphere, makes it virtually impossible to reabsorb due to other gases remains.

Prove it.

There is loss through CO2 in amplitude.

Huh? Loss of what? How?

Where do those photos magically go?

What photons?

Lest start with a cylinder of CO2 and argon gas at 400ppm CO2. Lets pass 100 watts of focused light through the cylinder 12" in diameter. How much energy is placed on the surface below if all 100 watts is directed in a 6 x 6 inch square area. there is a 12 inches between the source and the cylinder and 12 inches between the cylinder and the surface. Assume no resistance of the glass cylinder.

In a non-atmosphere condition, heat would register proportional to the surfaces ability to absorb the photons minus the black body emittance factor of the solid.

In the above described experiment, argon has no absorptive properties in the spectrum that CO2 does, so it is considered a zero factor. We will consider the bandwidth of 0.4um to 18.0um assuming the area around the cylinder is non-atmospheric. There is a measured loss of around 0.06 watts/square inch due to CO2. The emitted long wave IR from the cylinder, measured @ 12" is 0.00021 watts/sq inch.

The emitted photons are a far cry from the absorbed photon energy. when you calculate the inside of sphere in square inches we have lost roughly 55% of the incoming energy. Granted its only 0.03 watts/sq inch and the gas in the cylinder rose just 0.32 deg C in one hour. (6 cubic feet of gas in total @ 1000kpa)

This same experiment done with all atmospheric gasses (except CO2) and 40% humidity had some astonishing results. When it was redone with CO2 @ 400ppm and the results compared there was no determinable trace of CO2 involvement.

What was interesting to watch is how adding items to the cylinder changed the outputs. When we added water vapor to the Argon/CO2 cylinder the emitted output fell to near zero and the cylinder temp rise slowed. Conversely the time it took to cool off increased slightly. When CO2 was increased to 5000ppm we regained the cooling rate but never over came the heat up rate loss. We never saw an increase of the heat up process. We also saw very little pass through loss but this was just clear vapor. The simple addition of water vapor killed CO2's absorptive/emittance properties. My take is water vapor is a negative feed back for CO2.

There are over 300 experiments to do in this atmospheric area to determine what does what in our atmosphere. The only problem is its not just the atmosphere, its the oceans too.. The cylinder gives us a limited look at how the different gasses react together. I am far from done and there will be many nights in the lab coming.

This probably wont satisfy as proof but it is observed scientific evidence. Empirical evidence which just happens to match what we have seen in our atmosphere.

indeed, these are the type of experiments that need to be done. how much IR does CO2 absorb, and what wavelengths. how much of that absorbed IR is re-emitted, and at what wavelengths. how much absorbed IR is thermalized by molecular collisions to increase the temperature of the gas. all good questions which I am pretty sure have been answered in previously done experiments. the fact that they are not readily available to the public leads me to believe that they do not support catastrophic CO2 theory in an emphatic enough way, so the results just stay in the drawer.

 

[Old Rocks]

​

• 
  

• 
  

Home > Publishers > AIP Publishing > The Journal of Chemical Physics > Volume 91, Issue 4 > Article

Collisionally induced population transfer effect in infrared absorption spectra. II. The wing of the Ar‐broadened ν3 band of CO2
BUY: $28.00
RENT: $4.00​

• 
  
  
  • 
    J. Boissoles1, V. Menoux1, R. Le Doucen1, C. Boulet2 and D. Robert3
    
    
    VIEW AFFILIATIONS
    J. Chem. Phys. 91, 2163 (1989); http://dx.doi.org/10.1063/1.457024

• 
  
  
  • PREVIOUS ARTICLE​
  • TABLE OF CONTENTS​
  • NEXT ARTICLE ​

​

​

• 
  
  
  • Abstract​
  • Full Text​
  • References (19)​
  • Cited By​
  • Data & Media​
  • Metrics​
  • Related​

The absorption beyond the ν3‐band head of CO2 broadened by argon has been measured at room temperature. The absorption exhibits a strong sub‐Lorentzian behavior (several orders of magnitude) resulting from collisionally induced line interferences which transfer intensity from this wing region to the ν3‐band center. This wing absorption region implies detuning frequencies from resonances much larger than the reciprocal duration of collision. Consequently, finite duration of collisions in rotational energy transfersa n d initial correlations must be included in absorption calculation. A line‐by‐line coupling theory accounting for both these effects has been recently proposed [J. Chem. Phys. 8 9, 625 (1988)] and is applied here to a detailed study of the CO2–Ar collisional system. A convenient generalized detailed balance correction is introduced in this theory to overcome the limitation of the assumed resonant character of the energy transfer in the short time limit with respect to the thermal time ( βℏ)− 1. The calculated absorption is in quantitative agreement with experiment. The origin and the nature of the empirical correcting factor currently used in similar studies are clearly established on a firm physical basis.
© 1989 American Institute of Physics









​

• 
  
  • ​

​

 

[Old Rocks]

​

• 
  Export citations

Home > Publishers > AIP Publishing > The Journal of Chemical Physics > Volume 91, Issue 4 > Article

Collisionally induced population transfer effect in infrared absorption spectra. II. The wing of the Ar‐broadened ν3 band of CO2
BUY: $28.00
RENT: $4.00​

• 
  
  
  • 
    J. Boissoles1, V. Menoux1, R. Le Doucen1, C. Boulet2 and D. Robert3
    
    
    VIEW AFFILIATIONS
    J. Chem. Phys. 91, 2163 (1989); http://dx.doi.org/10.1063/1.457024

• 
  
  
  • PREVIOUS ARTICLE​
  • TABLE OF CONTENTS​
  • NEXT ARTICLE ​

​

​

• 
  
  
  • Abstract​
  • Full Text​
  • References (19)​
  • Cited By​
  • Data & Media​
  • Metrics​
  • Related​

The absorption beyond the ν3‐band head of CO2 broadened by argon has been measured at room temperature. The absorption exhibits a strong sub‐Lorentzian behavior (several orders of magnitude) resulting from collisionally induced line interferences which transfer intensity from this wing region to the ν3‐band center. This wing absorption region implies detuning frequencies from resonances much larger than the reciprocal duration of collision. Consequently, finite duration of collisions in rotational energy transfersa n d initial correlations must be included in absorption calculation. A line‐by‐line coupling theory accounting for both these effects has been recently proposed [J. Chem. Phys. 8 9, 625 (1988)] and is applied here to a detailed study of the CO2–Ar collisional system. A convenient generalized detailed balance correction is introduced in this theory to overcome the limitation of the assumed resonant character of the energy transfer in the short time limit with respect to the thermal time ( βℏ)− 1. The calculated absorption is in quantitative agreement with experiment. The origin and the nature of the empirical correcting factor currently used in similar studies are clearly established on a firm physical basis.
© 1989 American Institute of Physics


Ian, use google scholar and the appropriate wording, and you can find many articles on exacty that subject. No conspiracy, just lack of knowledge on the part of those that want to engage in conspiracy theories.








​

 

[IanC]

​

• 
  Export citations

Home > Publishers > AIP Publishing > The Journal of Chemical Physics > Volume 91, Issue 4 > Article

Collisionally induced population transfer effect in infrared absorption spectra. II. The wing of the Ar‐broadened ν3 band of CO2
BUY: $28.00
RENT: $4.00​

• 
  
  
  • 
    J. Boissoles1, V. Menoux1, R. Le Doucen1, C. Boulet2 and D. Robert3
    
    
    VIEW AFFILIATIONS
    J. Chem. Phys. 91, 2163 (1989); http://dx.doi.org/10.1063/1.457024

• 
  
  
  • PREVIOUS ARTICLE​
  • TABLE OF CONTENTS​
  • NEXT ARTICLE ​

​

• 
  
  
  • Abstract​
  • Full Text​
  • References (19)​
  • Cited By​
  • Data & Media​
  • Metrics​
  • Related​

The absorption beyond the ν3‐band head of CO2 broadened by argon has been measured at room temperature. The absorption exhibits a strong sub‐Lorentzian behavior (several orders of magnitude) resulting from collisionally induced line interferences which transfer intensity from this wing region to the ν3‐band center. This wing absorption region implies detuning frequencies from resonances much larger than the reciprocal duration of collision. Consequently, finite duration of collisions in rotational energy transfersa n d initial correlations must be included in absorption calculation. A line‐by‐line coupling theory accounting for both these effects has been recently proposed [J. Chem. Phys. 8 9, 625 (1988)] and is applied here to a detailed study of the CO2–Ar collisional system. A convenient generalized detailed balance correction is introduced in this theory to overcome the limitation of the assumed resonant character of the energy transfer in the short time limit with respect to the thermal time ( βℏ)− 1. The calculated absorption is in quantitative agreement with experiment. The origin and the nature of the empirical correcting factor currently used in similar studies are clearly established on a firm physical basis.
© 1989 American Institute of Physics


Ian, use google scholar and the appropriate wording, and you can find many articles on exacty that subject. No conspiracy, just lack of knowledge on the part of those that want to engage in conspiracy theories.








​

hahahahaha.... again with conspiracy theories.

did I not say the experiments had already been done? the example you supplied has been cited 60 times, many of them by co-authors, and in non climate fields.

what did YOU get out of the abstract? any simple range of what was emitted as IR and how much went into thermalization?

please.....google me up a climate related paper that uses the data and info out there to make the case for how much influence CO2 has for warming the atmosphere. and how much potential influence emitted CO2 IR has for warming the surface.

 

[Billy_Bob]

It is possible to be wrong and still be right.. Again Quantum Mechanics is THEORY!

Quantum Mechanics? I thought we were discussing emission and absorption?

Emission and absorption happen through quantum level mechanics. We are talking how electrons react to excitement.

In a single gas atmosphere it may possible to reabsorb but in a multiple gas atmosphere with water vapor, not so much..

Wait, CO2 can't reabsorb the energy emitted by another CO2, because other gasses are in the way?

Yes! This is due to the properties of the other gases and the emittance of photons vibrating at frequencies which are not conducive to absorption by CO2. Were talking parts per million here leaving vast areas for other gases and water vapor. Do you think that all photons, at any frequency, can be absorbed by CO2?

I will give you an I was incorrect if it will make you feel better.

Who said anything about my feelings?
If you were correct, prove it.
If you were incorrect, admit it.
Leave my inconsequential feelings out of it.

My original point however, in our atmosphere, makes it virtually impossible to reabsorb due to other gases remains.

Prove it.

There is loss through CO2 in amplitude.

Huh? Loss of what? How?

Where do those photos magically go?

What photons?

Lest start with a cylinder of CO2 and argon gas at 400ppm CO2. Lets pass 100 watts of focused light through the cylinder 12" in diameter. How much energy is placed on the surface below if all 100 watts is directed in a 6 x 6 inch square area. there is a 12 inches between the source and the cylinder and 12 inches between the cylinder and the surface. Assume no resistance of the glass cylinder.

In a non-atmosphere condition, heat would register proportional to the surfaces ability to absorb the photons minus the black body emittance factor of the solid.

In the above described experiment, argon has no absorptive properties in the spectrum that CO2 does, so it is considered a zero factor. We will consider the bandwidth of 0.4um to 18.0um assuming the area around the cylinder is non-atmospheric. There is a measured loss of around 0.06 watts/square inch due to CO2. The emitted long wave IR from the cylinder, measured @ 12" is 0.00021 watts/sq inch.

The emitted photons are a far cry from the absorbed photon energy. when you calculate the inside of sphere in square inches we have lost roughly 55% of the incoming energy. Granted its only 0.03 watts/sq inch and the gas in the cylinder rose just 0.32 deg C in one hour. (6 cubic feet of gas in total @ 1000kpa)

This same experiment done with all atmospheric gasses (except CO2) and 40% humidity had some astonishing results. When it was redone with CO2 @ 400ppm and the results compared there was no determinable trace of CO2 involvement.

What was interesting to watch is how adding items to the cylinder changed the outputs. When we added water vapor to the Argon/CO2 cylinder the emitted output fell to near zero and the cylinder temp rise slowed. Conversely the time it took to cool off increased slightly. When CO2 was increased to 5000ppm we regained the cooling rate but never over came the heat up rate loss. We never saw an increase of the heat up process. We also saw very little pass through loss but this was just clear vapor. The simple addition of water vapor killed CO2's absorptive/emittance properties. My take is water vapor is a negative feed back for CO2.

There are over 300 experiments to do in this atmospheric area to determine what does what in our atmosphere. The only problem is its not just the atmosphere, its the oceans too.. The cylinder gives us a limited look at how the different gasses react together. I am far from done and there will be many nights in the lab coming.

This probably wont satisfy as proof but it is observed scientific evidence. Empirical evidence which just happens to match what we have seen in our atmosphere.

indeed, these are the type of experiments that need to be done. how much IR does CO2 absorb, and what wavelengths. how much of that absorbed IR is re-emitted, and at what wavelengths. how much absorbed IR is thermalized by molecular collisions to increase the temperature of the gas. all good questions which I am pretty sure have been answered in previously done experiments. the fact that they are not readily available to the public leads me to believe that they do not support catastrophic CO2 theory in an emphatic enough way, so the results just stay in the drawer.

The thermal loss by just adding water vapor is what astounded me. Water is a much better conductor (trapping) of photons than CO2 and takes 100x the energy to warm 1gram of water. At just 40% humidity it rendered CO2's thermal properties null. When you consider that 80% of the earths surface is at 40% humidity or greater CO2 looses its ability to affect and warm the atmosphere to any determinable level and below the one to one ratio shown in its LOG function of diminishing return.

 

[Billy_Bob]

absorption equals emission.

If we were a single gas planet this would have meaning. We are not. Now lets add those other gases and see what happens.. This is precisely where AGW goes wrong. People get all giddy that CO2 passes and emits in specific wavelengths, and it may well be able to absorb that same wavelength (again QM theroy) again but they always leave out the other gases and water vapor. How they affect CO2 is not what they expected.

Water vapor is expected to increase temperature but what we have found in empirical evidence is that it has no bearing whatsoever in accelerating warming but it does accelerate cooling.

you should be more careful in your statements. every time a skeptic spouts a falsehood the warmers say, "see? I told you so. the skeptics can't be trusted, they lie". saying that one CO2 molecule cannot absorb another CO2 molecule's emission is spectacularly wrong and that is what they will remember you for.

the general population is almost totally illiterate scientifically. the educated public is often worse because the little science they remember is often used inappropriately but they are certain that they 'know it'. CO2 theory alarmists have co-opted this second group. they sort of understand the whole CO2 absorbs and re-radiates in a random direction, half returns to the surface thing. some even apply the infinite series (1+1/2+1/4....=2) to get preposterous results. if you attack the things they 'know', you will lose them forever. if you show that there are complications and complexities further down the pathway you may make them think. but only if they trust you. lies and exaggerations wont do it because the paradigm is already in place.

You are correct. I should have been more precise in my earlier statements.

 

[Billy_Bob]

​

Home > Publishers > AIP Publishing > The Journal of Chemical Physics > Volume 91, Issue 4 > Article

Collisionally induced population transfer effect in infrared absorption spectra. II. The wing of the Ar‐broadened ν3 band of CO2
BUY: $28.00
RENT: $4.00​

• 
  
  
  • 
    J. Boissoles1, V. Menoux1, R. Le Doucen1, C. Boulet2 and D. Robert3
    
    
    VIEW AFFILIATIONS
    J. Chem. Phys. 91, 2163 (1989); http://dx.doi.org/10.1063/1.457024

• 
  
  
  • PREVIOUS ARTICLE​
  • TABLE OF CONTENTS​
  • NEXT ARTICLE ​

​

• 
  
  
  • Abstract​
  • Full Text​
  • References (19)​
  • Cited By​
  • Data & Media​
  • Metrics​
  • Related​

The absorption beyond the ν3‐band head of CO2 broadened by argon has been measured at room temperature. The absorption exhibits a strong sub‐Lorentzian behavior (several orders of magnitude) resulting from collisionally induced line interferences which transfer intensity from this wing region to the ν3‐band center. This wing absorption region implies detuning frequencies from resonances much larger than the reciprocal duration of collision. Consequently, finite duration of collisions in rotational energy transfersa n d initial correlations must be included in absorption calculation. A line‐by‐line coupling theory accounting for both these effects has been recently proposed [J. Chem. Phys. 8 9, 625 (1988)] and is applied here to a detailed study of the CO2–Ar collisional system. A convenient generalized detailed balance correction is introduced in this theory to overcome the limitation of the assumed resonant character of the energy transfer in the short time limit with respect to the thermal time ( βℏ)− 1. The calculated absorption is in quantitative agreement with experiment. The origin and the nature of the empirical correcting factor currently used in similar studies are clearly established on a firm physical basis.
© 1989 American Institute of Physics









​

​

Too Funny...

Tell me what the loss is and what the effect on the atmosphere is.. This is a very broad brush for a paper and it tells me nothing about the atmospheric actions in earths atmosphere. Did you even read this paper?

 

[SSDD]

People get all giddy that CO2 passes and emits in specific wavelengths, and it may well be able to absorb that same wavelength

Wait, your original claim was wrong?

No, the claim was not wrong. CO2 emits at a slightly lower wavelength than at which it absorbs. No less than the US Energy Information Administration used to have this information on its own website till someone noticed that word was getting around at which time it was removed and erased to the point that even the way back machine couldn't retrieve it. This bit of information was posted before the US government got into the business of acquiring power via climate change.. There are still traces around...the same quote being repeated by multiple posters around the web. Here are a few instances.

RealClimate A Saturated Gassy Argument

U.S. Energy Information Administration EIA - Ap

“What happens after the GHG molecules absorb infrared radiation? The hot molecules release their energy, usually at lower energy (longer wavelength) radiation than the energy previously absorbed. The molecules cannot absorb energy emitted by other molecules of their own kind. Methane molecules, for example, cannot absorb radiation emitted by other methane molecules. This constraint limits how often GHG molecules can absorb emitted infrared radiation. Frequency of absorption also depends on how long the hot GHG molecules take to emit or otherwise release the excess energy.”

Recycling of Heat in the Atmosphere is Impossible A Note from Nasif S. Nahle - Jennifer Marohasy

#[/URL]
“…the energy of these quantum/waves cannot be reabsorbed by molecules of carbon dioxide.”

Critics, be cautious because professor Nahle is articulating and quantifying what is already known about so-called greenhouse gases. A US Department of Energy document says the same, although much more informally.

“What happens after the GHG molecules absorb infrared radiation? The hot molecules release their energy, usually at lower energy (longer wavelength) radiation than the energy previously absorbed. The molecules cannot absorb energy emitted by other molecules of their own kind.” U.S. Energy Information Administration EIA - Ap

So much for recycling…

THE HOCKEY SCHTICK Climate scientists discover magical unlimited power source The Greenhouse Effect

Nah, an honest eye reveals it clear enough: From 100 units of energy, 100 remain inside the box and 100 units escape. All you have to do is put a second box — transparent bottom, opaque top — on top of the first one. Then you can double the energy once again. And again and again and again.

The greenhouse premise, that 240 W/m² radiated to a two-sided “GHG layer” will generate 240 W/m² on both sides, 240 to add heat to the earth below and 240 that goes out to space. But no, such a layer has TWICE the surface area so it would radiate only 120 W/m² on either side. Climatologists forget what watts per SQUARE METER actually means.

Read Alan Siddons essay The Greenhouse Hustle
which focuses on that silly fallacy.

http://climaterealists.com/attachments/database/TheGreenhouseHustle.pdf

NASA’s Gavin Schmidt dispenses with the subterfuge and asserts it outright:

"The factor of two for A (the radiation emitted from the atmosphere) comes in because the atmosphere radiates both up and down."

RealClimate Learning from a simple model

In addition, you cannot weasel your way around this by trying to look at it as a time delayed process which is occurring almost instantaneously at the speed of light or nearly so. For CO2, for instance, Nasif Nahle estimates that the delay between absorption and emission is just a few milliseconds. Add to this a significant detail found in a US government report.

From Alternatives to Traditional Transportation Fuels (U.S. Department of Energy):

What happens after the GHG molecules absorb infrared radiation? The hot molecules release their energy, usually at lower energy (longer wavelength) radiation than the energy previously absorbed. The molecules cannot absorb energy emitted by other molecules of their own kind. Methane molecules, for example, cannot absorb radiation emitted by other methane molecules. This constraint limits how often GHG molecules can absorb emitted infrared radiation. Frequency of absorption also depends on how long the hot GHG molecules take to emit or otherwise release the excess energy.

U.S. Energy Information Administration EIA - Ap

For an in depth treatment of why the GHE violates the 1st law, read G&T.

Also read this simple analogy:

THE HOCKEY SCHTICK Why conventional Greenhouse Theory Violates the 1st Law of Thermodynamics

Believe what you want...there isn't much I can do about that, but the fact is that science has known that CO2 emits at a slightly lower wavelength than it absorbs for a good long time now but the climate change hoax has caused it to no longer admit to the fact.

 

[IanC]

you have brought up two paradoxes that have simple answers if you look at the whole, rather than just one part.

first up is the magical energy multiplier. while the infinite series { 1+1/2+1/4....} does equal 2, that is not what is happening. when you add the insulating factor, half of the original output is being diverted into raising the temperature of the energy source and the insulator. it is only once the heat sinks in those layers are filled that you get the full output once again. essentially you are changing the emitting source from the original surface to the insulators surface. once you stopped the original energy source the system would still radiate until the heat sinks were depleted. that is why the Earth's surface appears to radiate more energy than the solar input.

the other paradox is 'can CO2 absorb CO2 emission?'. yes, of course it can. individual molecular emission and absorption are exactly equal. is there other types of radiation given off by CO2 molecules? YES. blackbody radiation from molecular collisions has no constraints to be specific to CO2 bands.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

People get all giddy that CO2 passes and emits in specific wavelengths, and it may well be able to absorb that same wavelength

Wait, your original claim was wrong?

No, the claim was not wrong. CO2 emits at a slightly lower wavelength than at which it absorbs. No less than the US Energy Information Administration used to have this information on its own website till someone noticed that word was getting around at which time it was removed and erased to the point that even the way back machine couldn't retrieve it. This bit of information was posted before the US government got into the business of acquiring power via climate change.. There are still traces around...the same quote being repeated by multiple posters around the web. Here are a few instances.

RealClimate A Saturated Gassy Argument

U.S. Energy Information Administration EIA - Ap

“What happens after the GHG molecules absorb infrared radiation? The hot molecules release their energy, usually at lower energy (longer wavelength) radiation than the energy previously absorbed. The molecules cannot absorb energy emitted by other molecules of their own kind. Methane molecules, for example, cannot absorb radiation emitted by other methane molecules. This constraint limits how often GHG molecules can absorb emitted infrared radiation. Frequency of absorption also depends on how long the hot GHG molecules take to emit or otherwise release the excess energy.”

Recycling of Heat in the Atmosphere is Impossible A Note from Nasif S. Nahle - Jennifer Marohasy

#[/URL]
“…the energy of these quantum/waves cannot be reabsorbed by molecules of carbon dioxide.”

Critics, be cautious because professor Nahle is articulating and quantifying what is already known about so-called greenhouse gases. A US Department of Energy document says the same, although much more informally.

“What happens after the GHG molecules absorb infrared radiation? The hot molecules release their energy, usually at lower energy (longer wavelength) radiation than the energy previously absorbed. The molecules cannot absorb energy emitted by other molecules of their own kind.” U.S. Energy Information Administration EIA - Ap

So much for recycling…

THE HOCKEY SCHTICK Climate scientists discover magical unlimited power source The Greenhouse Effect

Nah, an honest eye reveals it clear enough: From 100 units of energy, 100 remain inside the box and 100 units escape. All you have to do is put a second box — transparent bottom, opaque top — on top of the first one. Then you can double the energy once again. And again and again and again.

The greenhouse premise, that 240 W/m² radiated to a two-sided “GHG layer” will generate 240 W/m² on both sides, 240 to add heat to the earth below and 240 that goes out to space. But no, such a layer has TWICE the surface area so it would radiate only 120 W/m² on either side. Climatologists forget what watts per SQUARE METER actually means.

Read Alan Siddons essay The Greenhouse Hustle
which focuses on that silly fallacy.

http://climaterealists.com/attachments/database/TheGreenhouseHustle.pdf

NASA’s Gavin Schmidt dispenses with the subterfuge and asserts it outright:

"The factor of two for A (the radiation emitted from the atmosphere) comes in because the atmosphere radiates both up and down."

RealClimate Learning from a simple model

In addition, you cannot weasel your way around this by trying to look at it as a time delayed process which is occurring almost instantaneously at the speed of light or nearly so. For CO2, for instance, Nasif Nahle estimates that the delay between absorption and emission is just a few milliseconds. Add to this a significant detail found in a US government report.

From Alternatives to Traditional Transportation Fuels (U.S. Department of Energy):

What happens after the GHG molecules absorb infrared radiation? The hot molecules release their energy, usually at lower energy (longer wavelength) radiation than the energy previously absorbed. The molecules cannot absorb energy emitted by other molecules of their own kind. Methane molecules, for example, cannot absorb radiation emitted by other methane molecules. This constraint limits how often GHG molecules can absorb emitted infrared radiation. Frequency of absorption also depends on how long the hot GHG molecules take to emit or otherwise release the excess energy.

U.S. Energy Information Administration EIA - Ap

For an in depth treatment of why the GHE violates the 1st law, read G&T.

Also read this simple analogy:

THE HOCKEY SCHTICK Why conventional Greenhouse Theory Violates the 1st Law of Thermodynamics

Believe what you want...there isn't much I can do about that, but the fact is that science has known that CO2 emits at a slightly lower wavelength than it absorbs for a good long time now but the climate change hoax has caused it to no longer admit to the fact.

No, the claim was not wrong. CO2 emits at a slightly lower wavelength than at which it absorbs.

Excellent! Now if you can show that CO2 cannot absorb any wavelength that CO2 emits, we'll be getting somewhere.

 

[SSDD]

People get all giddy that CO2 passes and emits in specific wavelengths, and it may well be able to absorb that same wavelength

Wait, your original claim was wrong?

No, the claim was not wrong. CO2 emits at a slightly lower wavelength than at which it absorbs. No less than the US Energy Information Administration used to have this information on its own website till someone noticed that word was getting around at which time it was removed and erased to the point that even the way back machine couldn't retrieve it. This bit of information was posted before the US government got into the business of acquiring power via climate change.. There are still traces around...the same quote being repeated by multiple posters around the web. Here are a few instances.

RealClimate A Saturated Gassy Argument

U.S. Energy Information Administration EIA - Ap

“What happens after the GHG molecules absorb infrared radiation? The hot molecules release their energy, usually at lower energy (longer wavelength) radiation than the energy previously absorbed. The molecules cannot absorb energy emitted by other molecules of their own kind. Methane molecules, for example, cannot absorb radiation emitted by other methane molecules. This constraint limits how often GHG molecules can absorb emitted infrared radiation. Frequency of absorption also depends on how long the hot GHG molecules take to emit or otherwise release the excess energy.”

Recycling of Heat in the Atmosphere is Impossible A Note from Nasif S. Nahle - Jennifer Marohasy

#[/URL]
“…the energy of these quantum/waves cannot be reabsorbed by molecules of carbon dioxide.”

Critics, be cautious because professor Nahle is articulating and quantifying what is already known about so-called greenhouse gases. A US Department of Energy document says the same, although much more informally.

“What happens after the GHG molecules absorb infrared radiation? The hot molecules release their energy, usually at lower energy (longer wavelength) radiation than the energy previously absorbed. The molecules cannot absorb energy emitted by other molecules of their own kind.” U.S. Energy Information Administration EIA - Ap

So much for recycling…

THE HOCKEY SCHTICK Climate scientists discover magical unlimited power source The Greenhouse Effect

Nah, an honest eye reveals it clear enough: From 100 units of energy, 100 remain inside the box and 100 units escape. All you have to do is put a second box — transparent bottom, opaque top — on top of the first one. Then you can double the energy once again. And again and again and again.

The greenhouse premise, that 240 W/m² radiated to a two-sided “GHG layer” will generate 240 W/m² on both sides, 240 to add heat to the earth below and 240 that goes out to space. But no, such a layer has TWICE the surface area so it would radiate only 120 W/m² on either side. Climatologists forget what watts per SQUARE METER actually means.

Read Alan Siddons essay The Greenhouse Hustle
which focuses on that silly fallacy.

http://climaterealists.com/attachments/database/TheGreenhouseHustle.pdf

NASA’s Gavin Schmidt dispenses with the subterfuge and asserts it outright:

"The factor of two for A (the radiation emitted from the atmosphere) comes in because the atmosphere radiates both up and down."

RealClimate Learning from a simple model

In addition, you cannot weasel your way around this by trying to look at it as a time delayed process which is occurring almost instantaneously at the speed of light or nearly so. For CO2, for instance, Nasif Nahle estimates that the delay between absorption and emission is just a few milliseconds. Add to this a significant detail found in a US government report.

From Alternatives to Traditional Transportation Fuels (U.S. Department of Energy):

What happens after the GHG molecules absorb infrared radiation? The hot molecules release their energy, usually at lower energy (longer wavelength) radiation than the energy previously absorbed. The molecules cannot absorb energy emitted by other molecules of their own kind. Methane molecules, for example, cannot absorb radiation emitted by other methane molecules. This constraint limits how often GHG molecules can absorb emitted infrared radiation. Frequency of absorption also depends on how long the hot GHG molecules take to emit or otherwise release the excess energy.

U.S. Energy Information Administration EIA - Ap

For an in depth treatment of why the GHE violates the 1st law, read G&T.

Also read this simple analogy:

THE HOCKEY SCHTICK Why conventional Greenhouse Theory Violates the 1st Law of Thermodynamics

Believe what you want...there isn't much I can do about that, but the fact is that science has known that CO2 emits at a slightly lower wavelength than it absorbs for a good long time now but the climate change hoax has caused it to no longer admit to the fact.

No, the claim was not wrong. CO2 emits at a slightly lower wavelength than at which it absorbs.

Excellent! Now if you can show that CO2 cannot absorb any wavelength that CO2 emits, we'll be getting somewhere.

Don't need to show you anything more than I have. Since that information from the EIC was pre AGW hoax...back when government scientists were actually in the business of doing science, I will take their word for it. You believe in whatever magic you choose. help yourself.....it won't lower my opinion of you.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

People get all giddy that CO2 passes and emits in specific wavelengths, and it may well be able to absorb that same wavelength

Wait, your original claim was wrong?

No, the claim was not wrong. CO2 emits at a slightly lower wavelength than at which it absorbs. No less than the US Energy Information Administration used to have this information on its own website till someone noticed that word was getting around at which time it was removed and erased to the point that even the way back machine couldn't retrieve it. This bit of information was posted before the US government got into the business of acquiring power via climate change.. There are still traces around...the same quote being repeated by multiple posters around the web. Here are a few instances.

RealClimate A Saturated Gassy Argument

U.S. Energy Information Administration EIA - Ap

“What happens after the GHG molecules absorb infrared radiation? The hot molecules release their energy, usually at lower energy (longer wavelength) radiation than the energy previously absorbed. The molecules cannot absorb energy emitted by other molecules of their own kind. Methane molecules, for example, cannot absorb radiation emitted by other methane molecules. This constraint limits how often GHG molecules can absorb emitted infrared radiation. Frequency of absorption also depends on how long the hot GHG molecules take to emit or otherwise release the excess energy.”

Recycling of Heat in the Atmosphere is Impossible A Note from Nasif S. Nahle - Jennifer Marohasy

#[/URL]
“…the energy of these quantum/waves cannot be reabsorbed by molecules of carbon dioxide.”

Critics, be cautious because professor Nahle is articulating and quantifying what is already known about so-called greenhouse gases. A US Department of Energy document says the same, although much more informally.

“What happens after the GHG molecules absorb infrared radiation? The hot molecules release their energy, usually at lower energy (longer wavelength) radiation than the energy previously absorbed. The molecules cannot absorb energy emitted by other molecules of their own kind.” U.S. Energy Information Administration EIA - Ap

So much for recycling…

THE HOCKEY SCHTICK Climate scientists discover magical unlimited power source The Greenhouse Effect

Nah, an honest eye reveals it clear enough: From 100 units of energy, 100 remain inside the box and 100 units escape. All you have to do is put a second box — transparent bottom, opaque top — on top of the first one. Then you can double the energy once again. And again and again and again.

The greenhouse premise, that 240 W/m² radiated to a two-sided “GHG layer” will generate 240 W/m² on both sides, 240 to add heat to the earth below and 240 that goes out to space. But no, such a layer has TWICE the surface area so it would radiate only 120 W/m² on either side. Climatologists forget what watts per SQUARE METER actually means.

Read Alan Siddons essay The Greenhouse Hustle
which focuses on that silly fallacy.

http://climaterealists.com/attachments/database/TheGreenhouseHustle.pdf

NASA’s Gavin Schmidt dispenses with the subterfuge and asserts it outright:

"The factor of two for A (the radiation emitted from the atmosphere) comes in because the atmosphere radiates both up and down."

RealClimate Learning from a simple model

In addition, you cannot weasel your way around this by trying to look at it as a time delayed process which is occurring almost instantaneously at the speed of light or nearly so. For CO2, for instance, Nasif Nahle estimates that the delay between absorption and emission is just a few milliseconds. Add to this a significant detail found in a US government report.

From Alternatives to Traditional Transportation Fuels (U.S. Department of Energy):

What happens after the GHG molecules absorb infrared radiation? The hot molecules release their energy, usually at lower energy (longer wavelength) radiation than the energy previously absorbed. The molecules cannot absorb energy emitted by other molecules of their own kind. Methane molecules, for example, cannot absorb radiation emitted by other methane molecules. This constraint limits how often GHG molecules can absorb emitted infrared radiation. Frequency of absorption also depends on how long the hot GHG molecules take to emit or otherwise release the excess energy.

U.S. Energy Information Administration EIA - Ap

For an in depth treatment of why the GHE violates the 1st law, read G&T.

Also read this simple analogy:

THE HOCKEY SCHTICK Why conventional Greenhouse Theory Violates the 1st Law of Thermodynamics

Believe what you want...there isn't much I can do about that, but the fact is that science has known that CO2 emits at a slightly lower wavelength than it absorbs for a good long time now but the climate change hoax has caused it to no longer admit to the fact.

No, the claim was not wrong. CO2 emits at a slightly lower wavelength than at which it absorbs.

Excellent! Now if you can show that CO2 cannot absorb any wavelength that CO2 emits, we'll be getting somewhere.

Don't need to show you anything more than I have. Since that information from the EIC was pre AGW hoax...back when government scientists were actually in the business of doing science, I will take their word for it. You believe in whatever magic you choose. help yourself.....it won't lower my opinion of you.

Don't need to show you anything more than I have.

I agree, your failure to prove your point does not mean you have to prove your point.

Since that information from the EIC was pre AGW hoax...back when government scientists were actually in the business of doing science, I will take their word for it.

Government published idiocy, with no proof, isn't correct just because it was (supposedly) published a while ago.

Come on, if info on emission and absorption frequencies are too difficult for you to find, you really shouldn't be debating any of these topics.

 

[SSDD]

Don't need to show you anything more than I have.

I agree, your failure to prove your point does not mean you have to prove your point.

My point stands supported...while you still can not provide a single observed, measured instance in all of time to support yours. You have lost and don't even know it.

Government published idiocy, with no proof, isn't correct just because it was (supposedly) published a while ago.

Sorry, what is being published now is idiocy designed to support a hoax. To bad you believe it.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Don't need to show you anything more than I have.

I agree, your failure to prove your point does not mean you have to prove your point.

My point stands supported...while you still can not provide a single observed, measured instance in all of time to support yours. You have lost and don't even know it.

Government published idiocy, with no proof, isn't correct just because it was (supposedly) published a while ago.

Sorry, what is being published now is idiocy designed to support a hoax. To bad you believe it.

My point stands supported...while you still can not provide a single observed, measured instance in all of time to support yours.

A single instance where absoption and emission spectra match? Are you sure?

I'll let you think about that for a while.