1. Discuss politics - join our community by registering for free here! HOP - the political discussion forum

Can Infrared Radiation Warm the Atmosphere???

Discussion in 'Science & Technology' started by palerider, Jan 21, 2018.

  1. PLC1

    PLC1 Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2007
    Messages:
    10,307
    Likes Received:
    561
    Location:
    The Golden State

    About that long ago ice age:
    Besides a fainter sun, Gondwana was at the current South Pole. Lots of things have changed in the past 450 million years.
     
  2. palerider

    palerider Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2007
    Messages:
    4,599
    Likes Received:
    148
    Faint sun huh...did you even look at the graph? Here, have another look...

    What was the temperature at the point the ice age began? Looks like a global mean temperature of about 2oC to me. What is the global mean today? 14.5? So the faint sun heated the earth to about 6C warmer than it is today?

    So the temperature was 6C warmer than it is today..and CO2 was over 4000ppm..then an ice age began...with CO2 in excess of 4000ppm. Your faint sun suggestion doesn't explain that at all. Your claim is that dropping CO2 from 7oooppm to 45o0ppm triggered an ice age? Use your brain for just a second....is that possible? then there is the ice age that began 150 million years ago when atmospheric CO2 was in excess of 2000ppm...then there is the ice age which the earth is presently exiting when atmospheric CO2 was about 1000ppm....and you believe that the present 400ppm is causing warming? Again...can you use your brain for just a second? What magic do you suppose makes the present 400ppm cause warming while in the past, CO2 levels of 1oooppm, 2000ppm and even 4000ppm let ice ages happen?

    Is there any sewer you won't drag your intellect through in an attempt to defend your political position?

    [​IMG]


    One thing that hasn't changed is the fact that IR can not warm the air and there is no radiative greenhouse effect...
     
  3. Lagboltz

    Lagboltz Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 2, 2008
    Messages:
    1,971
    Likes Received:
    128
    Location:
    Hurricane alley
    Not facts. Fake science.
     
    PLC1 likes this.
  4. palerider

    palerider Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2007
    Messages:
    4,599
    Likes Received:
    148

    So show me a single piece of measured data which establishes a coherent relationship between the absorption IR by a gas and warming in the atmosphere.

    I have literally millions of hours of observation, measurement, residential, and industrial application which states, and demonstrates quite clearly that infrared radiation does not warm the air.

    Lets see your "facts" and the observation and measurement to support your belief that IR can warm the air. I am betting that you can't because I have looked and there is none. I am afraid that it is you who believes in fake science....science based on opinion and circular reasoning.

    Since you can not show any measured data which supports the claim that infrared can warm the air...exactly how do you rationally support the idea of a radiative greenhouse effect? Conduction is the main energy transport through the troposphere...radiation is a very small bit player...Claim a conductive greenhouse effect and at least you would have a foot to stand on...of course your conductive greenhouse effect wouldn't be politically viable as it would render CO2 and the other so called greenhouse gasses irrelevant...
     
  5. PLC1

    PLC1 Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2007
    Messages:
    10,307
    Likes Received:
    561
    Location:
    The Golden State
    Show how that is relevant and quit "dragging your intellect through the sewer in an attempt to defend your political position"
     
    Lagboltz likes this.
  6. Lagboltz

    Lagboltz Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 2, 2008
    Messages:
    1,971
    Likes Received:
    128
    Location:
    Hurricane alley
    Not directly. You already said how air is warmed in one of your verbose posts.

    Right IR doesn't directly warm the air. You earlier said LWIR excites CO2 to a higher energy vibrational state. You even had an animation of CO2 vibrating. You said that the CO2 transports it's vibration energy by conduction (collision) to air.

    That's it. Real simple physics. IR warms the air by an indirect process via CO2. If there were no CO2 or other GHG's, then, as you say, IR wouldn't warm the air.
     
    PLC1 likes this.
  7. palerider

    palerider Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2007
    Messages:
    4,599
    Likes Received:
    148
    You really don’t s the relavence of the fact that IR can’t warm the air to a supposed radiative greenhouse effect? Really?
     
  8. palerider

    palerider Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2007
    Messages:
    4,599
    Likes Received:
    148
    Right and it isn’t via radiation as claimed by climate science.

    Read again...you missed the entire point of Dr. Happper’s explanation...only 1 CO2 molecule per billion actually excites to a higher energy vibration...the rest lose the energy immediately via a collision with another molecule...usually O2 or N2....and the illustration was to demonstrate that even when CO2 does excite to a higher energy state, it loses that energy immediately via radiation...it doesn’t store, or trap any energy whatsoever as so many dupes believe.

    Further, in order for a CO2 molecule to heat the air around it by even one degree, it would have to achieve a temperature of 2500C

    On earth water vapor is the driver...and it drives conduction...the atmosphere is warmed via conduction, not radiation...as to your belief that the absence of greenhouse gasses would result in being cold, there are various planets scattered out there within our own solar system which prove your belief wrong...planets with atmospheres composed mainly of hydrogen and helium which get very little energy from the sun and yet, are in some cases, warmer than Venus.
     
  9. PLC1

    PLC1 Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2007
    Messages:
    10,307
    Likes Received:
    561
    Location:
    The Golden State
    The heat from the sun that provides Planet Earth with its warmth is in the form of radiation, not conduction.

    Yet, the atmosphere isn't frozen. How do you explain that?
     
    Lagboltz likes this.
  10. Lagboltz

    Lagboltz Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 2, 2008
    Messages:
    1,971
    Likes Received:
    128
    Location:
    Hurricane alley
    I agree with Happer and your statement above, but you missed one thing.
    Yes, CO2 doesn't store or trap most of the energy itself.
    Yes, the O2 and N2 are the molecules that are mostly heated.

    The point you should not have missed is that since it is the O2 and N2 that receive almost all the energy captured by excited CO2. It is that process that warms the atmosphere.

    That statement is total crap.
    First, a CO2 molecule by itself does not have a temperature.
    Second, CO2 will heat anything that is colder than it by conduction.

    Yes water vapor is the predominant GHG.
    Without any GHG's the earth would radiate all it's 400 W/m² warmth to outer space. What other planets are doing will not change that.
     
  11. palerider

    palerider Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2007
    Messages:
    4,599
    Likes Received:
    148
     
  12. Lagboltz

    Lagboltz Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 2, 2008
    Messages:
    1,971
    Likes Received:
    128
    Location:
    Hurricane alley
    That is exactly what I have been telling you. CO2 absorbs IR energy and quickly warms the air.
     
  13. palerider

    palerider Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2007
    Messages:
    4,599
    Likes Received:
    148
    But the air isn't warmed via radiation...which is an absolute prerequisite for the radiative greenhouse effect as described by climate science...again...you don't seem to realize that at long last you are describing the gravito thermal effect that I have favored all along...Once again...there is no radiative greenhouse effect because first, radiation does not warm the atmosphere...and second, the effects of conduction simply dwarf radiation in the troposphere...then there remains the fact that planets with no greenhouse gasses do not simply lose their radiation to space as you claimed in an attempt to preserve your belief in a non existent radiative greenhouse effect.

    CO2 is such a small component of the atmosphere that it is not statistically significant in the movement of energy to the upper troposphere...it can't be separated from the noise...Many times more energy is absorbed by air molecules simply coming into contact with the surface than CO2 loses via collision with other molecules...and conduction via air molecules touching the surface of the earth is not even a consideration in the radiative greenhouse model.

    Face it...there is no radiative greenhouse effect on earth...there is a gravito thermal atmospheric effect which is greater than was ever claimed by the radiative hypothesis, but the gravito thermal effect doesn't much care what the atmosphere is composed of as evidenced by planets which have high temperatures within their atmospheres but no greenhouse gasses to speak of. Reality speaks and it doesn't tell a story about a mythical radiative greenhouse effect.
     
  14. Lagboltz

    Lagboltz Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 2, 2008
    Messages:
    1,971
    Likes Received:
    128
    Location:
    Hurricane alley
    First you say this, ...most CO2 molecules that absorb energy lose it to another molecule via collision ... O2 and N2 receive most of the energy and do most of the transporting of energy resulting in warming of the air ....

    That's simply saying CO2 excited by IR transports it's energy through conduction to warm the air.

    Then you say
    How can we remain Best Friends Forever if you keep flip-floping?

    I know the game you are playing. You are trying to pretend that I believe the gravito thermal effect is. Shame on you. You should read more about it.
     
  15. palerider

    palerider Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2007
    Messages:
    4,599
    Likes Received:
    148
    no it isn't because most CO2 molecules lose the energy they absorb via collision before they ever reach an excited state..again...look to Dr Happer's statement...how long does it take a CO2 molecule to absorb energy, reach an excited state then emit the energy vs how long between collisions with other molecules in the air.

    You are not describing a radiative greenhouse effect...you are describing a gravito thermal effect..which, by the way, has been demonstrated in columns of air....observable, repeatable experiment..and it is due to conduction...not radiation...radiation is barely a bit player in the troposphere....and the radiative greenhouse effect hypothesis claims that radiation rules the troposphere...face it...you believe in magic.
     
Loading...
Similar Threads - Infrared Radiation Warm
  1. Little-Acorn
    Replies:
    15
    Views:
    899
  2. Little-Acorn
    Replies:
    6
    Views:
    2,059

Share This Page

  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice