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. palerider

    palerider Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2007
    Messages:
    4,599
    Likes Received:
    148
    I asked you a question....did you miss the question mark at the end of the statement? How do you suppose the equipartition theorem eliminates the possibility of a gravito thermal effect and makes a radiative greenhouse effect where radiation does not warm the air the only possible answer for why the earth is the temperature it is?

    Let me guess...you have no answer. You just learned a new word...equipartition..and felt like you just had to use it in a sentence.
     
  2. Lagboltz

    Lagboltz Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 2, 2008
    Messages:
    1,989
    Likes Received:
    134
    Location:
    Hurricane alley
    I already answered your question a while back. The equipartition principle means that there is always a large population of CO2 molecules excited in vibration modes, continually absorbing and losing energy. The major mode of IR energy transfer from the warm earth is radiation. That radiation warms the atmosphere; otherwise there is nowhere else the radiation can go.

    Conduction is a very poor means of energy transfer. The GT effect is fake science as far as energy transfer of the warmth of earth to space. It is a waste of your time.
     
  3. palerider

    palerider Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2007
    Messages:
    4,599
    Likes Received:
    148
    Sorry guy...there is never a "large" population of CO2 molecules in any state of excitement...CO2 is at most a trace gas in the atmosphere. Infrared radiation does not warm the atmosphere...the troposphere is warmed by conduction...no amount of writhing, gyrating, or misdirection is ever going to alter that fact.

    Which is precisely why the atmosphere is warmed...if there were no conduction and radiation ruled, then the IR emitted from the surface of the earth would be out into space at the speed of light. Look at the dark side of planets with no atmosphere if you want to see what the temperature looks like in a place where radiation is the primary means of energy transport. Radiation is a highly efficient means of moving energy and that results in very cold temperatures...not warmer.
     
  4. Lagboltz

    Lagboltz Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 2, 2008
    Messages:
    1,989
    Likes Received:
    134
    Location:
    Hurricane alley
  5. palerider

    palerider Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2007
    Messages:
    4,599
    Likes Received:
    148
    A blog? Billions upon billions upon billions upon billions upon billions of dollars flushed down the toilet by climate science so far and the best evidence you can provide for the existence of a radiative greenhouse effect is a blog?...and your blog supports me for the most part. Note the 2nd response....the author says... "Heat is a result of moving particles hitting each other or 'vibrating', which creates friction and generates thermal energy. The closer together these particles, the better a conductor the material is." which is the basis for a gravito thermal effect...gravity causes molecules to be more dense the further down in the atmosphere you travel...the more dense the molecules are, the more collisions you have...which is precisely the reason radiation plays such a small part in the transport of energy through the troposphere...


    A radiative greenhouse effect can not be demonstrated in any fashion in the laboratory as opposed to a gravito thermal effect which, has been demonstrated by repeatable experiment in the laboratory and is the basis for the standard atmosphere. Graeff has conclusively shown temperature gradients in static columns of air.
     
  6. Lagboltz

    Lagboltz Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 2, 2008
    Messages:
    1,989
    Likes Received:
    134
    Location:
    Hurricane alley
    Here are sites, which are not blogs, that say air is a poor conductor of heat.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermal_insulation
    https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/stay-warm-with-thermal-insulation/
    http://www.gcsescience.com/pen14-cavity-walls.htm
    https://www.encyclopedia.com/scienc...logy/technology-terms-and-concepts/insulation

    You can think the opposite as you want, but I am going to depend on air being a poor conductor of heat when I wear cloths, put soda in a styrofoam cooler, insulate the house with fiberglass, etc. They all depend on pockets of air for insulation.

    Graeff? Did he do an experiment with sun beating down on a surface of emisivity 0.96 at the bottom of his experiment? Was there water vapor and other GHGs in the air? Give me a reference to Graeff's original work.

    Since the earth is around 15 C, it radiates 391 W/m^2. What do you think happens to that radiation.
     
  7. palerider

    palerider Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2007
    Messages:
    4,599
    Likes Received:
    148
    The research is easy enough to find.. What happens to the radiation. It is conducted to the upper atmosphere where it is then radiated out into space. What did you think happened to it?
     
  8. Lagboltz

    Lagboltz Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 2, 2008
    Messages:
    1,989
    Likes Received:
    134
    Location:
    Hurricane alley
    I asked for the reference to Graeff's original paper. A web search is inunated with blog references to Graeff, but not his experimental setup in his original paper. Did you read it?

    That can't happen. The whole 391 W/m^2 can't be all radiated out because the earth would freeze. The solar input is much less than that output. So what do you think happens to most of the radiation?
     
  9. palerider

    palerider Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2007
    Messages:
    4,599
    Likes Received:
    148
    You neglect what an enormous energy sink the oceans are...and how much energy they radiate....and do you really believe that solar input is 391W/m^2> You really believe the flat earth that doesn't rotate and is 4 times further away from the earth than reality tells us?

    Here is a clue...those vast swathes of ocean at the equator are receiving nearly 900W/m^2 and even as high as 40 degrees north and south, the earth is receiving something like 652W/m2 during daylight hours....the reason climate models fail so badly is that they are based on bullshit...the averages in trenberths cartoon are laughable...almost as laughable as the people who believe them and use crap like that as a reference.
     
  10. Lagboltz

    Lagboltz Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 2, 2008
    Messages:
    1,989
    Likes Received:
    134
    Location:
    Hurricane alley
    Your value of 900W/m^2 at the equator doesn't represent the energy that hits all of the earth... Half the time that spot on the equator is in the dark. Also, the sun energy input drops toward the poles. If you average from south pole to north pole, the energy drops to another half.

    So your 900W/m^2 drops by 1/4 when you include the rotating earth and polar drop off. That means the sun's average input is 225 W/m^2 over a 24 hour period. The earth still continuously radiates about 391 W/m^2 over the same 24 hours.

    The surface of the earth radiates 391 W/m^2, but the IR radiation leaving the earth must be the same as the input, 225 W/m^2. Where do you think that excess energy goes?

    You have no explanation for that except it is laughable. Graeff's theory does not explain that. Do you have a link to Graeff's original paper?
     
  11. palerider

    palerider Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2007
    Messages:
    4,599
    Likes Received:
    148
    Right...and I suppose you think the ocean is not absorbing and retaining a great deal of that energy...I guess you think the model is correct in its assumption that the ocean is immediately emitting the incoming solar energy.

    Trenberths cartoon is bullshit...his energy budget is bullshit which is why the models based upon it have failed so miserably.
     
  12. Lagboltz

    Lagboltz Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 2, 2008
    Messages:
    1,989
    Likes Received:
    134
    Location:
    Hurricane alley
    If the ocean retains any of that 225 W/m^2 energy, the ocean will continually warm. If you think it doesn't warm or cool, then it must radiate as fast as it absorbs. It would be in equilibrium.

    Why do you keep bringing up Tenberth? This doesn't involve his imprecise cartoon. If the daily average energy that the earth surface absorbs from the sun is 225 W/m^2; and the 15 degree average temperature of the surface causes 391 W/m^2 to radiate, where do you think the excess earth radiation goes? I asked you this many times.
     
  13. palerider

    palerider Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2007
    Messages:
    4,599
    Likes Received:
    148
    Your assumptions on how much energy the earth receives and absorbs are flawed...that average is bullshit which is one of the reasons the climate models are such spectacular failures...you are working on assumptions that simply can not be verified. There is no "excess" radiation..the only place we get any appreciable amount of energy is from the sun or from the earth itself...what you are calling "excess" is in realty a failure of accounting...a lack of knowledge...it is what happens when a field of science is just beginning to scratch the surface of the knowledge available. It is just unfortunate that so many people believe that we know what we know and we know it all rather than accept the truth that at present we don't even know what we don't know yet.
     
  14. Lagboltz

    Lagboltz Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 2, 2008
    Messages:
    1,989
    Likes Received:
    134
    Location:
    Hurricane alley
    C'mon Palerider, my BFF, try to think more clearly. Your insults just don't work when it comes to science. You seem to be saying that your own number is bullshit.

    I'm using your number for the estimate of daily average sun radiation to the earth surface.
    I'm using the result of the Stefan-Boltzmann law for the daily average radiation away from the earth surface.

    Also try to remember that the sun energy is mostly short wave radiation, while the earth outputs only long wave radiation.

    Why do you think there is an excess radiation emanating from the earth surface compared to the lower input radiation emanating from the sun?
     
  15. palerider

    palerider Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2007
    Messages:
    4,599
    Likes Received:
    148
    As I said..there is no "excess" there is only a failure of accounting...and the first place you should look is the "averages" that you are assuming to be true. The second place you should look is the amount of energy that the ocean stores...the third place you might look is the million plus active volcanic vents on the ocean floor that science has just learned of...how much energy do you suppose a million vents releases into the oceans on a yearly basis?

    I repeat...there is no excess energy...there is only a failure of accounting. Let me guess, you believe CO2 is making energy.
     
Loading...
Similar Threads - Infrared Radiation Warm
  1. Little-Acorn
    Replies:
    15
    Views:
    971
  2. Little-Acorn
    Replies:
    6
    Views:
    2,164

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