Questions.....RE: The Greenhouse Effect

[SSDD]

Look. There are reams of well documented data, "made with an instrument at ambient temperature which establishes a coherent relationship between the absorption of IR by a gas and warming in the atmosphere." It'll be the first thing that comes up in a google search.

Sorry, but there aren't....but if you believe you can provide even one such measurement, then by all means, lets see it. Don't worry about not being able to find it though if you go look because as I already said...no such data exist.

And as long as there's any kind of evidence that even implies climate change could wipe out 2/3 of humanity, there's NOTHING you're going to tell me that will prevent me from burning tires in my back yard to help that along.

There isn't even a single shred of observed, measured data that supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability...much less actual data that implies that climate change could wipe out 2/3 of humanity.

I applaud your tire burning, but if you believe climate science and their claims are based on any sort of real observed, measured data, you have been woefully misinformed.

 

[Wuwei]

" The author himself admits that he failed to predict what you think he predicted. You are putting words into the authors mouth that he did not make."

Don't worry about it loser...I never expected you to provide his statement in context...you were just shooting off your mouth without a clue...you didn't want to be wrong yet again so you just said the first thing that came into that little mind of yours.

I already gave you the context. it was in a different thread. If you had given me the claim that I asked, you wouldn't have had to go through all that bitter vitriol.

I will repeat it here. Author's quotes are bold faced:

However his conclusion is quite limited according to his statement,

while qualitatively similar, Equations (10a) [the author's curve fit] and (13) [Poisson formula] are quantitatively rather different. . . .[they] describe qualitatively very similar responses in quantitatively vastly different systems.
His results, (equation 10a) could neither be analytically deduced from known physical laws nor accurately simulated in a small-scale experiment.
That is to say it is unreproducable, and unphysical.

 

[LOki]

Look. There are reams of well documented data, "made with an instrument at ambient temperature which establishes a coherent relationship between the absorption of IR by a gas and warming in the atmosphere." It'll be the first thing that comes up in a google search.

Sorry, but there aren't....but if you believe you can provide even one such measurement, then by all means, lets see it. Don't worry about not being able to find it though if you go look because as I already said...no such data exist.

And as long as there's any kind of evidence that even implies climate change could wipe out 2/3 of humanity, there's NOTHING you're going to tell me that will prevent me from burning tires in my back yard to help that along.

There isn't even a single shred of observed, measured data that supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability...much less actual data that implies that climate change could wipe out 2/3 of humanity.

I applaud your tire burning, but if you believe climate science and their claims are based on any sort of real observed, measured data, you have been woefully misinformed.

You're just making "inconclusive" the enemy of "worth taking seriously", and "absolute certainty" the enemy of "reasonable likelihood".

The fact that the global climate changes is just indisputable fact--climate change is real, and one measurement of that change is that lately temperatures are rising. Denying that human activity has an effect on global climate demonstrates a pathological ignorance that biological activity is part of the climate equation, human activity exists as an element of global biological activity, and what the term "climate" means.

I'm not here to refute or support any contention that any such change is "significant" or "worrisome" or "a bad thing" or "demands immediate action."

If your underlying thrust is that "there isn't even a single shred of observed, measured data that supports the" curtailment of natural, human, and/or political rights to achieve some remedy for alleged social "injustices," or appeasement of whatever superstitious contrivance of "the greater good" or obligation to some fatuous "social contract," then we're squarely on the same page. Because, that's all batshit-crazy talk.

What's not bat-shit crazy the assertion that the vast majority of humanity is just garbage that has nothing better to do than fill this planet with more garbage. And since human beings are not an endangered species, I have no problem with humanity experiencing the Malthusian crisis it obviously deserves.

If your retort is just going to be, "Well there's no data that conclusively proves that human activity causes global warming," I'm just going to counter with, "That's because we're just not trying hard enough. THROW MORE TIRES ON THE FIRE!"



​

 

[SSDD]

You're just making "inconclusive" the enemy of "worth taking seriously", and "absolute certainty" the enemy of "reasonable likelihood".

The fact that the global climate changes is just indisputable fact--climate change is real, and one measurement of that change is that lately temperatures are rising.

Of course the climate changes...it always has, and always will...the change in the climate we have seen, however, is well within the bounds of natural variability...there is no reason to suppose that we have anything to do with it.

Denying that human activity has an effect on global climate demonstrates a pathological ignorance that biological activity is part of the climate equation, human activity exists as an element of global biological activity, and what the term "climate" means.

So now we are picking fly specks out of the pepper? The climate change debate isn't about the fact that we are biological creatures...it is about our industry. Even your argument fails however, as there is no actual evidence that establishes a coherent relationship between the absorption of IR by a gas and warming in the atmosphere.

The whole man made climate change position rests on the claim that infrared radiation emitting from the surface of the earth is absorbed by CO2 and other so called greenhouse gasses causing warming. This claim is without substance. In fact, there are literally millions of hours of experiment and observation that state explicitly that infrared radiation passing through the air does not warm the air.

What's not bat-shit crazy the assertion that the vast majority of humanity is just garbage that has nothing better to do than fill this planet with more garbage. And since human beings are not an endangered species, I have no problem with humanity experiencing the Malthusian crisis it obviously deserves.

Pollution is an entirely different subject than climate change...and a problem which we are responsible for, and a problem which we can certainly do something about. I favor draconian, bankrupting penalties for industrial polluters...I favor prison sentences for polluters so extreme that only a top shelf idiot would ever even attempt illegal dumping.

The problem is that climate change wackos have managed to conflate pollution with climate change and as a result, nothing is being done about the real problem of pollution because climate change is sucking all the air out of the room and all the treasure out of the coffers.

The bottom line is that, again, there are literally millions of hours of observation, and experiment that prove the basic claim made by climate science regarding CO2 and its effect on the global climate are bullshit.​

 

[LOki]

You're just making "inconclusive" the enemy of "worth taking seriously", and "absolute certainty" the enemy of "reasonable likelihood".

The fact that the global climate changes is just indisputable fact--climate change is real, and one measurement of that change is that lately temperatures are rising.

Of course the climate changes...it always has, and always will...the change in the climate we have seen, however, is well within the bounds of natural variability...there is no reason to suppose that we have anything to do with it.

Except the indisputale fact of reality that biological activity is part of the climate equation, and human activity exists as an element of global biological activity.

There is that.

I'm not here to argue about the primacy of human activity affecting global climate, but denying that human activity has ANYTHING to do with climate change demonstrates a pathological ignorance that biological activity is part of the climate equation, human activity exists as an element of global biological activity, and what the term "climate" means.

Denying that human activity has an effect on global climate demonstrates a pathological ignorance that biological activity is part of the climate equation, human activity exists as an element of global biological activity, and what the term "climate" means.

So now we are picking fly specks out of the pepper? The climate change debate isn't about the fact that we are biological creatures...it is about our industry.

"Industry" is one of the activities these human (biological) creatures engage in that obviously has an impact on climate.

I'm not one of those people that believe that the behaviors that humans engage in naturally, in accordance with their nature, are somehow not "natural."

Don't fall into that trap.

Even your argument fails however, as there is no actual evidence that establishes a coherent relationship between the absorption of IR by a gas and warming in the atmosphere.

It is an indisputable, and well established fact of reality that the atmosphere is comprised of gasses, and that IR causes gasses to warm.

Seriously. That's literally high-school science class. Go outside and take the air temperature. Is it above 0 degrees Kelvin? If so, how do you explain that temperature reading if IR did not contribute the kinetic energy (that you measured as temperature) to the atmosphere?

The whole man made climate change position rests on the claim that infrared radiation emitting from the surface of the earth is absorbed by CO2 and other so called greenhouse gasses causing warming. This claim is without substance.

Except that it's not. Unless you're just hanging your hat on the pedantic point that the sun is the ultimate source of the heat (IR radiation) that is necessary for any kind of warming to happen.

In fact, there are literally millions of hours of experiment and observation that state explicitly that infrared radiation passing through the air does not warm the air.

Riiiiiiiight. Yet the IR emittred from every radiator in every building on the planet warms the room it's in... and the IR radiating from the surfaces in those rooms eventually warms the actual air in those rooms.

Funny how your "literally millions of hours of experiment and observation" fail to note those obvious facts of reality.

I mean, if what you're saying is not just pure bullshit, then all air temperature readings ever taken under any conditions are all entirely bullshit.

What's not bat-shit crazy the assertion that the vast majority of humanity is just garbage that has nothing better to do than fill this planet with more garbage. And since human beings are not an endangered species, I have no problem with humanity experiencing the Malthusian crisis it obviously deserves.

Pollution is an entirely different subject than climate change...

No it's not. Pollution obviously affects climate. Denying this is just a denial of what the term "climate" means.

...and a problem which we are responsible for, and a problem which we can certainly do something about. I favor draconian, bankrupting penalties for industrial polluters...I favor prison sentences for polluters so extreme that only a top shelf idiot would ever even attempt illegal dumping.

Well, at least you've finally come around to admitting that human activity affects the climate.

The problem is that climate change wackos have managed to conflate pollution with climate change and as a result, nothing is being done about the real problem of pollution because climate change is sucking all the air out of the room and all the treasure out of the coffers.

If you're saying that there are more pressing pollution problems than CO2 pollution, then I'm happy to agree.

The bottom line is that, again, there are literally millions of hours of observation, and experiment that prove the basic claim made by climate science regarding CO2 and its effect on the global climate are bullshit.

Except the fact that no such observation and experiment that offers such proof actually exists. Otherwise you're spot on.

But I understand your scepticism, and encourage it. I have a strategy that you can implement that would prove once and for all--to both global warming alarmists AND sceptics such as yourself. It's an experiment that you and every global warming alarmists and sceptic can perform together (to assure each other there's no funny business going on).

All you have to do is buy up as many tires as possible, and all the gasoline, petro-diesel, natural gas, and plastic you can find... and set them on fire.

You'll have to get all your people and their oppenents together on this, and you may have to do this every day for a couple of years. But, if you carefully record the temperatures around the globe every day, I think the objective data generated would inform conclusions that both sides of the issue could agree upon.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

You're just making "inconclusive" the enemy of "worth taking seriously", and "absolute certainty" the enemy of "reasonable likelihood".

The fact that the global climate changes is just indisputable fact--climate change is real, and one measurement of that change is that lately temperatures are rising.

Of course the climate changes...it always has, and always will...the change in the climate we have seen, however, is well within the bounds of natural variability...there is no reason to suppose that we have anything to do with it.

Except the indisputale fact of reality that biological activity is part of the climate equation, and human activity exists as an element of global biological activity.

There is that.

I'm not here to argue about the primacy of human activity affecting global climate, but denying that human activity has ANYTHING to do with climate change demonstrates a pathological ignorance that biological activity is part of the climate equation, human activity exists as an element of global biological activity, and what the term "climate" means.

Denying that human activity has an effect on global climate demonstrates a pathological ignorance that biological activity is part of the climate equation, human activity exists as an element of global biological activity, and what the term "climate" means.

So now we are picking fly specks out of the pepper? The climate change debate isn't about the fact that we are biological creatures...it is about our industry.

"Industry" is one of the activities these human (biological) creatures engage in that obviously has an impact on climate.

I'm not one of those people that believe that the behaviors that humans engage in naturally, in accordance with their nature, are somehow not "natural."

Don't fall into that trap.

Even your argument fails however, as there is no actual evidence that establishes a coherent relationship between the absorption of IR by a gas and warming in the atmosphere.

It is an indisputable, and well established fact of reality that the atmosphere is comprised of gasses, and that IR causes gasses to warm.

Seriously. That's literally high-school science class. Go outside and take the air temperature. Is it above 0 degrees Kelvin? If so, how do you explain that temperature reading if IR did not contribute the kinetic energy (that you measured as temperature) to the atmosphere?

The whole man made climate change position rests on the claim that infrared radiation emitting from the surface of the earth is absorbed by CO2 and other so called greenhouse gasses causing warming. This claim is without substance.

Except that it's not. Unless you're just hanging your hat on the pedantic point that the sun is the ultimate source of the heat (IR radiation) that is necessary for any kind of warming to happen.

In fact, there are literally millions of hours of experiment and observation that state explicitly that infrared radiation passing through the air does not warm the air.

Riiiiiiiight. Yet the IR emittred from every radiator in every building on the planet warms the room it's in... and the IR radiating from the surfaces in those rooms eventually warms the actual air in those rooms.

Funny how your "literally millions of hours of experiment and observation" fail to note those obvious facts of reality.

I mean, if what you're saying is not just pure bullshit, then all air temperature readings ever taken under any conditions are all entirely bullshit.

What's not bat-shit crazy the assertion that the vast majority of humanity is just garbage that has nothing better to do than fill this planet with more garbage. And since human beings are not an endangered species, I have no problem with humanity experiencing the Malthusian crisis it obviously deserves.

Pollution is an entirely different subject than climate change...

No it's not. Pollution obviously affects climate. Denying this is just a denial of what the term "climate" means.

...and a problem which we are responsible for, and a problem which we can certainly do something about. I favor draconian, bankrupting penalties for industrial polluters...I favor prison sentences for polluters so extreme that only a top shelf idiot would ever even attempt illegal dumping.

Well, at least you've finally come around to admitting that human activity affects the climate.

The problem is that climate change wackos have managed to conflate pollution with climate change and as a result, nothing is being done about the real problem of pollution because climate change is sucking all the air out of the room and all the treasure out of the coffers.

If you're saying that there are more pressing pollution problems than CO2 pollution, then I'm happy to agree.

The bottom line is that, again, there are literally millions of hours of observation, and experiment that prove the basic claim made by climate science regarding CO2 and its effect on the global climate are bullshit.

Except the fact that no such observation and experiment that offers such proof actually exists. Otherwise you're spot on.

But I understand your scepticism, and encourage it. I have a strategy that you can implement that would prove once and for all--to both global warming alarmists AND sceptics such as yourself. It's an experiment that you and every global warming alarmists and sceptic can perform together (to assure each other there's no funny business going on).

All you have to do is buy up as many tires as possible, and all the gasoline, petro-diesel, natural gas, and plastic you can find... and set them on fire.

You'll have to get all your people and their oppenents together on this, and you may have to do this every day for a couple of years. But, if you carefully record the temperatures around the globe every day, I think the objective data generated would inform conclusions that both sides of the issue could agree upon.

Riiiiiiiight. Yet the IR emittred from every radiator in every building on the planet warms the room it's in... and the IR radiating from the surfaces in those rooms eventually warms the actual air in those rooms.

He'll say that there has never been a measurement with instruments at ambient temperature to back up your claim.

 

[LOki]

He'll say that there has never been a measurement with instruments at ambient temperature to back up your claim.

That could only happen if he's entirely ignorant of the existence of thermometers, and practically every temperature measurement ever made with a thermometer.

 

[cnm]

My point with that example is that entropy increased in both cases. In the first case it was totally wasted, in the second case it was partially harnessed to produce work that could increase order somewhere else. There is less of an entropy increase in the second case.

I think I disagree. I think you're saying there's a free lunch.

 

[Dale Smith]

There can be no benchmark for what the "global temperature" is until the stratospheric aerosol injection spraying program that has been going on in earnest since 1997. Strontium, barium and aluminum nano particulates have been sprayed on us as if we were bugs. People have got to wake the fuck up and start looking up and realizing that shit like the pics I am posting are not natural by any sense of the imagination....shit is getting real. These spraying programs are fucking up the biosphere and soon there will be no way to grow food. Most of you have no clue about how the grocery stores work now as opposed to thirty years ago....I do. A disruption of the shipping of food to the grocery stores would cause a panic of monumental proportions and very few realize as to how fragile this system is........

 

[SSDD]

Except the indisputale fact of reality that biological activity is part of the climate equation, and human activity exists as an element of global biological activity.

Briefly describe how you believe biological activity is an "indisputable" factor in the global climate equation.

I'm not here to argue about the primacy of human activity affecting global climate, but denying that human activity has ANYTHING to do with climate change demonstrates a pathological ignorance that biological activity is part of the climate equation, human activity exists as an element of global biological activity, and what the term "climate" means.

Since you thought it important enough to state twice, I suppose I will ask twice...as briefly as you can, describe how you believe biological activity is an indisputable part of the global cliamte equation. How might biological activity alter the global climate?

It is an indisputable, and well established fact of reality that the atmosphere is comprised of gasses, and that IR causes gasses to warm.

Yeah..you keep saying indisputable this, and indisputable that but no one...not you, not anyone on this board, nor none of the top shelf physicists I have asked about this seems to be able to provide any actual data that establishes a coherent relationship between the absorption of infrared radiation by a gas and warming in the atmosphere.

I will agree that it is indisputable that many people, in fact, most people believe that absorption of infrared by a gas leads to warming in the atmosphere..but since there is no actual observed, measured data that establishes that relationship, where does the "indisputable" element of your argument come from?

Riiiiiiiight. Yet the IR emittred from every radiator in every building on the planet warms the room it's in... and the IR radiating from the surfaces in those rooms eventually warms the actual air in those rooms.

Funny how your "literally millions of hours of experiment and observation" fail to note those obvious facts of reality.

I mean, if what you're saying is not just pure bullshit, then all air temperature readings ever taken under any conditions are all entirely bullshit.

You hang a lot on assumption and readily accept things as indisputable when they simply aren't true.

I just had an interesting read about the ability of IR to warm the atmosphere (or air in general)...seems that there are literally millions of hours of experimentation 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 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.”

I am not going to make any assumptions on your level of education so for either your benefit, or the benefit of those who read that statement and may not grasp its significance let me explain. What Tyndall is saying...and which has been proven over the centuries since he said it...is that molecules that are good absorbers of infrared radiation are also good emitters of that same radiation. In short, when you add a so called greenhouse gas to the atmosphere, you not only increase its ability to absorb infrared radiation, you also increase its ability to emit that radiation.

In short, adding so called greenhouse gasses to the atmosphere increases the emissivity of the atmosphere. When you increase the emissivity of an object, you enhance its ability to radiatively cool itself. The claim that by adding so called greenhouse gasses to the atmosphere, thereby increasing its emissivity and ability to radiatively cool itself you will cause the atmosphere to warm is ludicrous on its face...and the only reason people believe such nonsense is the abject failure of the educational system.

Imagine...believing that by enhancing an object's ability to cool itself you can cause it tto become warmer.

No it's not. Pollution obviously affects climate. Denying this is just a denial of what the term "climate" means.

So once again, as briefly as possible, describe how you believe pollution affects the global climate.

Well, at least you've finally come around to admitting that human activity affects the climate.

No...I have stated that pollution is a serious problem that we can deal with. I am still waiting for you to describe what effect you believe that pollution has on the global climate.

By the way...CO2 is not pollution.

Except the fact that no such observation and experiment that offers such proof actually exists. Otherwise you're spot on.

Provided above...so yes, it does exist...infrared radiation warms solid objects...not the air...I suppose you never considered that the thermometer you hold up in the room heated by infrared radiation is a solid object and would certainly be warmed by the infrared radiation coming from the radiator...but the fact that the thermometer was warmed by the radiation does not mean that the air was warmed. Have you ever wondered why they add fans to infrared heaters? They blow air across the hot surface of the element to add convective heating to the equation and then move that warmed air around the room. The fan has no effect whatsoever on the radiative heating.

The fact that IR has no ability to warm the air has been known for at least a hundred years but it is conveniently ignored, as so much other science is ignored for the sake of a political agenda.

And this brings me right back to my statement that not a single piece of data exists that establishes a coherent relationship between the absorption of IR by a gas and warming in the atmosphere....of course no such data exists, but volumes of data exists that show pretty conclusively that IR, in fact, has no ability to warm the air.

You'll have to get all your people and their oppenents together on this, and you may have to do this every day for a couple of years. But, if you carefully record the temperatures around the globe every day, I think the objective data generated would inform conclusions that both sides of the issue could agree upon.

Soot, which would be the only result of burning tires would produce that could alter the climate if enough were burned is not the issue...and not the reason climate science is asking that trillions of dollars worth of production be lost down a black hole. CO2, the magic gas is the reason behind the politics of climate change...and the reason, if the belief in the magic continues, that your cost of living will skyrocket. As with all political ideas emanating from the left, the very people who can least afford to be hurt by the monetary consequences of their ideas are the people who are hurt the most.

 

[SSDD]

He'll say that there has never been a measurement with instruments at ambient temperature to back up your claim.

That could only happen if he's entirely ignorant of the existence of thermometers, and practically every temperature measurement ever made with a thermometer.

Ignorance abounds here...but alas, it isn't coming from me. You believe that holding up a solid object and having it warmed by infrared radiation somehow proves that the air has been warmed when repeatable experiment, and a hundred years of observation demonstrate that IR does not warm the air.

As I have pointed out repeatedly to folks like toddster, ian, wuwei, and now yourself, it is easy to be fooled by instrumentation...the instruments are just fine, but all to often, the understanding of what they are measuring is terribly flawed. Holding up a thermometer in front of an object that emits radiation that can only warm solid objects and assuming that because the thermometer was warmed the air was also warmed is a top shelf, prime example of being fooled by instrumentation. You see a temperature increase and assume that the thermometer is measuring the temperature of the air when in fact, it is measuring infrared radiation which is having no discernible effect on the air.

Before you start declaring things as indisputable, you should perhaps, do a bit of fact checking. It is indisputable that infrared radiation will warm a thermometer...it is, on the other hand, highly disputable, and provably false that infrared radiation will warm the air.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Except the indisputale fact of reality that biological activity is part of the climate equation, and human activity exists as an element of global biological activity.

Briefly describe how you believe biological activity is an "indisputable" factor in the global climate equation.

I'm not here to argue about the primacy of human activity affecting global climate, but denying that human activity has ANYTHING to do with climate change demonstrates a pathological ignorance that biological activity is part of the climate equation, human activity exists as an element of global biological activity, and what the term "climate" means.

Since you thought it important enough to state twice, I suppose I will ask twice...as briefly as you can, describe how you believe biological activity is an indisputable part of the global cliamte equation. How might biological activity alter the global climate?

It is an indisputable, and well established fact of reality that the atmosphere is comprised of gasses, and that IR causes gasses to warm.

Yeah..you keep saying indisputable this, and indisputable that but no one...not you, not anyone on this board, nor none of the top shelf physicists I have asked about this seems to be able to provide any actual data that establishes a coherent relationship between the absorption of infrared radiation by a gas and warming in the atmosphere.

I will agree that it is indisputable that many people, in fact, most people believe that absorption of infrared by a gas leads to warming in the atmosphere..but since there is no actual observed, measured data that establishes that relationship, where does the "indisputable" element of your argument come from?

Riiiiiiiight. Yet the IR emittred from every radiator in every building on the planet warms the room it's in... and the IR radiating from the surfaces in those rooms eventually warms the actual air in those rooms.

Funny how your "literally millions of hours of experiment and observation" fail to note those obvious facts of reality.

I mean, if what you're saying is not just pure bullshit, then all air temperature readings ever taken under any conditions are all entirely bullshit.

You hang a lot on assumption and readily accept things as indisputable when they simply aren't true.

I just had an interesting read about the ability of IR to warm the atmosphere (or air in general)...seems that there are literally millions of hours of experimentation 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 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.”

I am not going to make any assumptions on your level of education so for either your benefit, or the benefit of those who read that statement and may not grasp its significance let me explain. What Tyndall is saying...and which has been proven over the centuries since he said it...is that molecules that are good absorbers of infrared radiation are also good emitters of that same radiation. In short, when you add a so called greenhouse gas to the atmosphere, you not only increase its ability to absorb infrared radiation, you also increase its ability to emit that radiation.

In short, adding so called greenhouse gasses to the atmosphere increases the emissivity of the atmosphere. When you increase the emissivity of an object, you enhance its ability to radiatively cool itself. The claim that by adding so called greenhouse gasses to the atmosphere, thereby increasing its emissivity and ability to radiatively cool itself you will cause the atmosphere to warm is ludicrous on its face...and the only reason people believe such nonsense is the abject failure of the educational system.

Imagine...believing that by enhancing an object's ability to cool itself you can cause it tto become warmer.

No it's not. Pollution obviously affects climate. Denying this is just a denial of what the term "climate" means.

So once again, as briefly as possible, describe how you believe pollution affects the global climate.

Well, at least you've finally come around to admitting that human activity affects the climate.

No...I have stated that pollution is a serious problem that we can deal with. I am still waiting for you to describe what effect you believe that pollution has on the global climate.

By the way...CO2 is not pollution.

Except the fact that no such observation and experiment that offers such proof actually exists. Otherwise you're spot on.

Provided above...so yes, it does exist...infrared radiation warms solid objects...not the air...I suppose you never considered that the thermometer you hold up in the room heated by infrared radiation is a solid object and would certainly be warmed by the infrared radiation coming from the radiator...but the fact that the thermometer was warmed by the radiation does not mean that the air was warmed.

The fact that IR has no ability to warm the air has been known for at least a hundred years but it is conveniently ignored, as so much other science is ignored for the sake of a political agenda.

And this brings me right back to my statement that not a single piece of data exists that establishes a coherent relationship between the absorption of IR by a gas and warming in the atmosphere....of course no such data exists, but volumes of data exists that show pretty conclusively that IR, in fact, has no ability to warm the air.

You'll have to get all your people and their oppenents together on this, and you may have to do this every day for a couple of years. But, if you carefully record the temperatures around the globe every day, I think the objective data generated would inform conclusions that both sides of the issue could agree upon.

Soot, which would be the only result of burning tires would produce that could alter the climate if enough were burned is not the issue...and not the reason climate science is asking that trillions of dollars worth of production be lost down a black hole. CO2, the magic gas is the reason behind the politics of climate change...and the reason, if the belief in the magic continues, that your cost of living will skyrocket. As with all political ideas emanating from the left, the very people who can least afford to be hurt by the monetary consequences of their ideas are the people who are hurt the most.

Bravo!

Thanks for the Tyndall quote

 

[IanC]

He'll say that there has never been a measurement with instruments at ambient temperature to back up your claim.

That could only happen if he's entirely ignorant of the existence of thermometers, and practically every temperature measurement ever made with a thermometer.

Ignorance abounds here...but alas, it isn't coming from me. You believe that holding up a solid object and having it warmed by infrared radiation somehow proves that the air has been warmed when repeatable experiment, and a hundred years of observation demonstrate that IR does not warm the air.

As I have pointed out repeatedly to folks like toddster, ian, wuwei, and now yourself, it is easy to be fooled by instrumentation...the instruments are just fine, but all to often, the understanding of what they are measuring is terribly flawed. Holding up a thermometer in front of an object that emits radiation that can only warm solid objects and assuming that because the thermometer was warmed the air was also warmed is a top shelf, prime example of being fooled by instrumentation. You see a temperature increase and assume that the thermometer is measuring the temperature of the air when in fact, it is measuring infrared radiation which is having no discernible effect on the air.

Before you start declaring things as indisputable, you should perhaps, do a bit of fact checking. It is indisputable that infrared radiation will warm a thermometer...it is, on the other hand, highly disputable, and provably false that infrared radiation will warm the air.

Energy can neither be created nor destroyed, but it can change form.

15 micron radiation is emitted by the surface and it is absorbed by the CO2 in the atmosphere. More goes in at the bottom than leaves at the top, by measurement.

The difference is the amount of energy that must be accounted for. Is it in a different form? Most assuredly. Energy is stored in the atmosphere as potential or kinetic forms. The 15 micron energy that was absorbed from the surface is still there until it takes a pathway out.

Energy can only leave the planet by radiation. So how does the extra 15 micron energy leave as radiation?

The atmosphere controls the surface temperature by being in equilibrium with the surface. Adding energy to the atmosphere also adds energy to the surface via this equilibrium. More energy means a higher temperature, which in turn means more surface radiation. Not all surface radiation is captured by the atmosphere, some escapes freely to space. The captured 15 micron surface energy is recycled back to the surface via several energy transformations from potential to kinetic to radiation, where it leaves as freely escaping radiation through the Atmospheric Window.

The energy to warm the surface is the same energy that was not lost to space because it was captured and stored in the atmosphere.

This is a highly simplified explanation. The energy inputs and outputs balance. What allows the recycling of energy to happen? The increase of entropy as high quality sunlight is transformed into low quality IR.

 

[SSDD]

15 micron radiation is emitted by the surface and it is absorbed by the CO2 in the atmosphere. More goes in at the bottom than leaves at the top, by measurement.

No...more doesn't go in at the bottom than leaves by the top...again...fooled by instrumentation. As was pointed out, there are literally millions of hours of observation that show demonstrably that IR does not heat the air...can not heat the air..You skip right on past the evidence as if it were not even on the page...you deny vast and overwhelming evidence that this is true in favor of your fiction...good for you.

 

[IanC]

15 micron radiation is emitted by the surface and it is absorbed by the CO2 in the atmosphere. More goes in at the bottom than leaves at the top, by measurement.

No...more doesn't go in at the bottom than leaves by the top...again...fooled by instrumentation. As was pointed out, there are literally millions of hours of observation that show demonstrably that IR does not heat the air...can not heat the air..You skip right on past the evidence as if it were not even on the page...you deny vast and overwhelming evidence that this is true in favor of your fiction...good for you.

Are you arguing the amount of 15 micron radiation emitted by the surface? Or the amount of 15 micron radiation leaving the top of the atmosphere? Both are measured amounts.

The difference is the amount of energy that we have to account for. It cannot just disappear. Where does it go? Be specific.

 

[SSDD]

15 micron radiation is emitted by the surface and it is absorbed by the CO2 in the atmosphere. More goes in at the bottom than leaves at the top, by measurement.

No...more doesn't go in at the bottom than leaves by the top...again...fooled by instrumentation. As was pointed out, there are literally millions of hours of observation that show demonstrably that IR does not heat the air...can not heat the air..You skip right on past the evidence as if it were not even on the page...you deny vast and overwhelming evidence that this is true in favor of your fiction...good for you.

Are you arguing the amount of 15 micron radiation emitted by the surface? Or the amount of 15 micron radiation leaving the top of the atmosphere? Both are measured amounts.

The difference is the amount of energy that we have to account for. It cannot just disappear. Where does it go? Be specific.

Ian it doesn't matter whether CO2 absorbs the 145 micron radiation or not...if it does then it is either immediately emitted or passed on via collision..the bottom line is that IR radiation can not, does not, and will not warm the air...the evidence is overwhelming no matter what your models say...when that much evidence says that it doesn't happen, the only rational thing to do is discount the model because clearly, it is wrong.

And talking about energy moving through the atmosphere as if we have a handle on how energy moves through the atmosphere is just one more example of you not being able to differentiate between what is real and what is not...What is real is that we are just barely scratching the surface as to how energy moves through the system...the fact that you can't account for it is irrelevant...IR does not heat the air.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

15 micron radiation is emitted by the surface and it is absorbed by the CO2 in the atmosphere. More goes in at the bottom than leaves at the top, by measurement.

No...more doesn't go in at the bottom than leaves by the top...again...fooled by instrumentation. As was pointed out, there are literally millions of hours of observation that show demonstrably that IR does not heat the air...can not heat the air..You skip right on past the evidence as if it were not even on the page...you deny vast and overwhelming evidence that this is true in favor of your fiction...good for you.

Are you arguing the amount of 15 micron radiation emitted by the surface? Or the amount of 15 micron radiation leaving the top of the atmosphere? Both are measured amounts.

The difference is the amount of energy that we have to account for. It cannot just disappear. Where does it go? Be specific.

Ian it doesn't matter whether CO2 absorbs the 145 micron radiation or not...if it does then it is either immediately emitted or passed on via collision..the bottom line is that IR radiation can not, does not, and will not warm the air...the evidence is overwhelming no matter what your models say...when that much evidence says that it doesn't happen, the only rational thing to do is discount the model because clearly, it is wrong.

And talking about energy moving through the atmosphere as if we have a handle on how energy moves through the atmosphere is just one more example of you not being able to differentiate between what is real and what is not...What is real is that we are just barely scratching the surface as to how energy moves through the system...the fact that you can't account for it is irrelevant...IR does not heat the air.

.if it does then it is either immediately emitted or passed on via collision..the bottom line is that IR radiation can not, does not, and will not warm the air..

Ummmm....if it's passed on via collision, that warms the air.
Do you even read what you type before you hit post?

 

[IanC]

...if it does then it is either immediately emitted or passed on via collision..

If it reemits the photon that photon is either captured by another nearby CO2 molecule, or possibly it makes its way back to the surface. Either way it cannot escape to space.

You must account for it somehow. It doesn't just disappear.

 

[Wuwei]

“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.”

Your quote from an 1872 report from the Smithsonian Inst. has a sentence that immediately follows your quote:
There are, however, certain rays, comparatively few in number, emitted by the copper, to which the carbonic acid is impervious; and could we obtain a source of heat emitting such rays only, we should find carbonic acid more opaque than any other gas to the radiation from that source.

It is well known that N2 and O2 do not absorb IR, but "carbonic acid" was said to be impervious and more opaque than any other gas to certain rays. (most likely the 15 micron band etc.)

As IanC says, it just doesn't disappear if it's opaque. You better look up the first law of thermodynamics.

 

[SSDD]

...if it does then it is either immediately emitted or passed on via collision..

If it reemits the photon that photon is either captured by another nearby CO2 molecule, or possibly it makes its way back to the surface. Either way it cannot escape to space.

You must account for it somehow. It doesn't just disappear.

If it is absorbed by another molecule then again it is reemitted...in either case, infrared can not warm the air...as I have said to you over and over, the very idea of adding a substance that increases the emissivity of a thing causing it to warm is one of the stupidest claims ever made by science...IR does not, can not, will not warm the air...mountains of empirical evidence bear this out and yet, because the empirical evidence doesn't jibe with your belief, you disregard it as if it didn't exist.