Can Infrared Radiation Warm the Atmosphere???

[Lagboltz]

So what you are saying is that observation, and actual measurement supports my position and unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable models are all you have in support of yours.. Yeah..that is what I have been saying all along.

Are you still saying you don't believe in quantum mechanics?

And again...IR does not, will not, and can not warm the air...millions of hours of observation and industrial application prove this to be true.

You say IR does not warm the air? But you also said in capitol letters that it does:

IF THE CO2 MOLECULE IN AIR ABSORBS A RESONANT PHOTON, IT IS MUCH MORE LIKELY ( ON THE ORDER OF A BILLION TIMES MORE LIKELY) TO HEAT THE SURROUNDING AIR MOLECULES WITH THE ENERGY IT ACQUIRED FROM THE ABSORBED PHOTON, THAN TO RERADIATE

 

[PLC1]

Sorry but radiation from the cooler atmosphere does not warm the earth, except in rare instances of temperature inversion where the air is warmer than the earth. But if you believe it happens, then by all means show me a measurement of energy returning to the surface of the earth made with an instrument that is not cooled to a temperature lower than that of the atmosphere....

Of course you won't be able to because energy does not move from cool to warm. Interesting, isn't it that we have no problem measuring energy leaving the surface with instruments that are not cooled and yet, the energy you claim returns to the surface can't be measured unless the instrument is cooled to around -80 degrees which is about the radiating temperature of CO2. ..you were aware of that weren't you? No? The primary radiating frequency of CO2 is 15 microns which is equivalent to about -80 degrees...you believe that a molecule radiating at -80 degrees is warming anything above -80 degrees?

And again...radiation is barely a bit player in the movement of energy from the surface of the earth to the top of the troposphere...The energy absorbed by CO2 is almost always lost via collision with other molecules...it is conduction that warms the air...not infrared radiation...again, look to the literally millions of hours of observation and industrial use that demonstrates conclusively that IR does not warm the air.

Water vapor is able to hold on to some energy as a result of its ability to change phases at atmospheric temperatures and pressures...a water molecule will absorb energy in the process of changing phases, for example, from liquid to vapor. That energy is held until such time as it changes phases again..say to ice when it has reached the upper atmosphere...at the time it changes phases from vapor to ice, it releases exactly as much energy as it required to change from liquid to vapor. ..being in the upper atmosphere, that energy is then radiated on out to space.




Of course it is true...IR does not warm the air...again, feel free to provide a single measurement that establishes a coherent relationship between the absorption of IR by a gas and warming in the atmosphere. Like that single piece of observed, measured data that supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability that I am always asking for, you won't be able to produce this one either...because there is no coherent relationship between the absorption of IR by a gas and warming in the atmosphere.

Of course heat does not move from a cooler object to a warmer one, and radiation doesn't warm the air, only objects. Therefore, the air inside a car left out in the sun won't be any warmer inside than the temperature of the ambient air outside.

Right?

 

[palerider]

Are you still saying you don't believe in quantum mechanics?

I believe that QM as it is known today, like all science, will bear little resemblance to QM in 150 or 200 years...at present, it is mostly just filler....stories we tell ourselves about things that we are a long way from understanding...as we gain the ability to actually look, and see what is going on, the stories will change and gradually be replaced with observable, measurable truth.

You say IR does not warm the air? But you also said in capitol letters that it does:

Unfortunate that you would be confused by such elementary science...the statement in question is talking about conduction...energy lost by the CO2 molecule via collision with another molecule...usually O2 or N2...conduction is not radiation...as I said, IR does not warm the air...if you want to warm air, you look to conduction...

And again...if conduction is doing the warming, then the radiative greenhouse effect described by climate science, where IR warms the air is, in reality, the steaming pile of bullshit I have always said that it was. Radiation is a very minor bit player in the movement of energy through the troposphere..it doesn't play a real role till you get to the upper atmosphere where energy is radiated into space.

 

[palerider]

Of course heat does not move from a cooler object to a warmer one, and radiation doesn't warm the air, only objects. Therefore, the air inside a car left out in the sun won't be any warmer inside than the temperature of the ambient air outside.

This really is all way over your head...isn't it. I suggest that you go to some kiddie site at perhaps an elementary school level and learn a bit about the difference between radiation, conduction, and convection....and perhaps greenhouses...

Greenhouses...and the insides of vehicles warm, not because they trap radiation, but because they block conduction, and convection to the outside...IR is not warming the air...it is being warmed via conduction.

You don't seem to have even a tenuous grasp on the basics...

And once again..there are literally millions of hours of observation, measurement, and commercial application that prove beyond any doubt that IR does not warm the air...why do you think they use IR to keep food warm on racks in restaurants...Answer: because the IR only warms the food..it doesn't heat the air. What do you think it would be like in a restaurant where they used forced hot air (heated by conduction by the way) to keep food cool...it would be like a furnace inside, because that is literally how they would be keeping the food warm...by turning a furnace on it...IR lamps warm the food, but don't warm the air..

This isn't complicated, and is an observed, measured, quantified, repeatable, proven fact. Sorry that you wasted all that time...and will certainly continue to waste time believing in a radiative greenhouse effect which is a physical impossibility.

 

[Lagboltz]

I believe that QM as it is known today, like all science, will bear little resemblance to QM in 150 or 200 years...at present, it is mostly just filler....stories we tell ourselves about things that we are a long way from understanding...as we gain the ability to actually look, and see what is going on, the stories will change and gradually be replaced with observable, measurable truth.

That doesn't answer the question. Let me reword: Do you believe QM as it is known today accurately applies to radiation physics as we know it today?

You say IR does not warm the air? But you also said in capitol letters that it does:

You still didn't answer the question, do you think IR hitting a CO2 molecule causes the air to warm or not?

 

[PLC1]

This really is all way over your head...isn't it. I suggest that you go to some kiddie site at perhaps an elementary school level and learn a bit about the difference between radiation, conduction, and convection....and perhaps greenhouses...

Greenhouses...and the insides of vehicles warm, not because they trap radiation, but because they block conduction, and convection to the outside...IR is not warming the air...it is being warmed via conduction.

You don't seem to have even a tenuous grasp on the basics...

And once again..there are literally millions of hours of observation, measurement, and commercial application that prove beyond any doubt that IR does not warm the air...why do you think they use IR to keep food warm on racks in restaurants...Answer: because the IR only warms the food..it doesn't heat the air. What do you think it would be like in a restaurant where they used forced hot air (heated by conduction by the way) to keep food cool...it would be like a furnace inside, because that is literally how they would be keeping the food warm...by turning a furnace on it...IR lamps warm the food, but don't warm the air..

This isn't complicated, and is an observed, measured, quantified, repeatable, proven fact. Sorry that you wasted all that time...and will certainly continue to waste time believing in a radiative greenhouse effect which is a physical impossibility.

More bullshit and insults.

Suggest you take your own advice and consult a basic textbook about what happens to light when it passes through a denser medium, and about why a car left in the sun is hotter inside than the ambient temperature.

You're trying to refute a scientific theory with a flawed understanding of basic science.

 

[palerider]

That doesn't answer the question. Let me reword: Do you believe QM as it is known today accurately applies to radiation physics as we know it today?

Of course not...at this point, there is not even an agreement within the physics community what the interpretation of the theory even means, or on its very foundations.

You still didn't answer the question, do you think IR hitting a CO2 molecule causes the air to warm or not?

No matter how much you twist and writhe, and try to torture reality into being something that it isn't, you are not going to make radiation out of conduction....and without radiation, you have no radiative greenhouse effect.

 

[palerider]

More bullshit and insults.

Suggest you take your own advice and consult a basic textbook about what happens to light when it passes through a denser medium, and about why a car left in the sun is hotter inside than the ambient temperature.

You're trying to refute a scientific theory with a flawed understanding of basic science.

Sorry guy, but alas it is you who has the flawed understanding...clearly you believe that infrared radiation can warm the air...it can not...infrared can only warm objects...air is warmed via conduction and convection...

Here....from the US Patent office...an infrared heater...note that they do not say that the air is heated by radiation...if they did, the patent would be rejected as infrared radiation can not warm the air...they explicitly state that the air is warmed by conduction while the walls are warmed by radiation.

• Space heater and enclosure
  Patent number: 6327427
  Abstract: An electric space heater uses the heat generated by quartz-halogen lamps to heat air which may be supplied to heat a local space. The heater conducts air through a heater enclosure in which the lamps are installed. The air path is parallel to the longitudinal axis of the lamps. The air is warmed by conduction from the surface of the lamps and from heated walls surrounding the lamps and which form the air flow path. The walls are heated by radiation from the lamps. The flow path for the heated air and the placement of the heated walls substantially isolate the outer portion of the heater enclosure from the heat generated by the lamps to maintain the temperature of the outer surface of the space heater at or near ambient temperature. The walls also confine the light generated by the lamps to the interior of the space heater. The air flow through the space heater is assisted by an electric fan.
  Type: Grant
  Filed: June 16, 2000
  Date of Patent: December 4, 2001
  Assignee: MHE Corp.
  Inventor: William W. Burkett
  
  
  Here...from the World Meteorological Organization technical notes.
• 
  
  https://library.wmo.int/opac/doc_num.php?explnum_id=3447
  

The processes involve solar radiation which is reflected by the surface or scat- tered upwards or downwards from clouds or absorbed within the clouds, heating them up. Heat is transmitted into the soil or transferred by conduction to the air in contact with the ground where, through mixing, it is transferred to higher levels. Long-wave radiation is transmitted from the surface and is absorbed by clouds or escapes to space. In the cloud, long-wave radiation at the cloud temperature is retransmitted upwards to space or back down to the surface.

For more complex surfaces, other mechanisms must also be modelled. Solar radiation is absorbed by leaves and, through conduction, warms the air.

From the ground, moisture is extracted through the root system and, through evapotranspiration, moistens the air.

They do make an error however in their suggestion that long wave from the ground absorbed by clouds could be returned to the earth...energy doesn't move from cool to warm...short wave radiation coming in from the sun can certainly warm the water in clouds to a temperature greater than that of the surface of the earth in which case that energy could move to the surface. If you have ever flown near a dense cloud on a clear day, you can literally feel the heat coming off it in waves.

The bottom line is that infrared radiation can not warm the air..therefore there is no radiative greenhouse effect as described by climate science...

 

[PLC1]

Sorry guy, but alas it is you who has the flawed understanding...clearly you believe that infrared radiation can warm the air...it can not...infrared can only warm objects...air is warmed via conduction and convection...

Here....from the US Patent office...an infrared heater...note that they do not say that the air is heated by radiation...if they did, the patent would be rejected as infrared radiation can not warm the air...they explicitly state that the air is warmed by conduction while the walls are warmed by radiation.

• Space heater and enclosure
  Patent number: 6327427
  Abstract: An electric space heater uses the heat generated by quartz-halogen lamps to heat air which may be supplied to heat a local space. The heater conducts air through a heater enclosure in which the lamps are installed. The air path is parallel to the longitudinal axis of the lamps. The air is warmed by conduction from the surface of the lamps and from heated walls surrounding the lamps and which form the air flow path. The walls are heated by radiation from the lamps. The flow path for the heated air and the placement of the heated walls substantially isolate the outer portion of the heater enclosure from the heat generated by the lamps to maintain the temperature of the outer surface of the space heater at or near ambient temperature. The walls also confine the light generated by the lamps to the interior of the space heater. The air flow through the space heater is assisted by an electric fan.
  Type: Grant
  Filed: June 16, 2000
  Date of Patent: December 4, 2001
  Assignee: MHE Corp.
  Inventor: William W. Burkett
  
  
  Here...from the World Meteorological Organization technical notes.
• 
  
  https://library.wmo.int/opac/doc_num.php?explnum_id=3447

The processes involve solar radiation which is reflected by the surface or scat- tered upwards or downwards from clouds or absorbed within the clouds, heating them up. Heat is transmitted into the soil or transferred by conduction to the air in contact with the ground where, through mixing, it is transferred to higher levels. Long-wave radiation is transmitted from the surface and is absorbed by clouds or escapes to space. In the cloud, long-wave radiation at the cloud temperature is retransmitted upwards to space or back down to the surface.

For more complex surfaces, other mechanisms must also be modelled. Solar radiation is absorbed by leaves and, through conduction, warms the air.

From the ground, moisture is extracted through the root system and, through evapotranspiration, moistens the air.

They do make an error however in their suggestion that long wave from the ground absorbed by clouds could be returned to the earth...energy doesn't move from cool to warm...short wave radiation coming in from the sun can certainly warm the water in clouds to a temperature greater than that of the surface of the earth in which case that energy could move to the surface. If you have ever flown near a dense cloud on a clear day, you can literally feel the heat coming off it in waves.

The bottom line is that infrared radiation can not warm the air..therefore there is no radiative greenhouse effect as described by climate science...

The Earth is still an object.
and the less radiant energy that escapes into space, the warmer the object will be.

Without greenhouse gasses, we'd have a ball of ice.

 

[palerider]

The Earth is still an object.
and the less radiant energy that escapes into space, the warmer the object will be.

When climate scientists measure the temperature, do you think they are sticking their thermometers into the ground?...or are they measuring the temperature of the air? The greenhouse effect is based on the claimed ability of CO2 to "trap" infrared radiation...to keep it from leaving the atmosphere and in doing so, warm the air...thus the predicted tropospheric hot spot that was supposed to be the smoking gun proving man made climate change.

Without greenhouse gasses, we'd have a ball of ice.

No...without an atmosphere we would be very cold on the dark side and very hot on the daylight side. Look at uranus...it is supposedly the coldest spot in the solar system...little solar radiation reaches it and almost none reaches the depths of its atmosphere being 30 times further away from the sun than we are...and yet, at the base of the troposphere on that planet, the temperature is 33 degrees Kelvin warmer than it is here...and guess what, no greenhouse gasses to speak of..and certainly no greenhouse effect. It is the atmosphere itself that is responsible for the temperature here. Its composition has little effect other than altering the atmospheric pressure...which, combined with the sun is the real driver of global temperatures.

There are a couple of other planets in the solar system that have no greenhouse gasses and are considerably warmer than the earth in the depths of their atmospheres. You simply believe what you are told without question and disregard the literal planets full of evidence that proves that what you have been told is wrong...imagine, planets within our own solar system that have no greenhouse gasses but have temperatures that are warmer than us here...go deep enough in the atmosphere of jupiter and saturn and you find temperatures even hotter than those found on venus...pressure is the key...not greenhouse gasses because infrared radiation can not warm the air...and again, it is the temperature of the air that is being measured...

And further, you don't seem to grasp the implications of the fact that IR can't warm the atmosphere...Convection is a very slow means of transporting energy in comparison with radiation which moves energy at the speed of light. Add more so called greenhouse gasses to the atmosphere (with the exception of water vapor) and you have a greater percentage of the atmosphere which is capable of transporting energy out of the atmosphere at the speed of light.

Now think just a second....if you can move more energy out of the at the speed of light vs the cumbersome process of conduction, what happens to the temperature? Adding greenhouse gasses to the atmosphere increases its emissivity. Do you know the result of increasing emissivity? By increasing the emissivity of an object, you improve its ability to shed heat...by increasing the emissivity of an object, you give it the ability to cool itself more efficiently.

Look back in earth history at the instances where ice ages began with atmospheric CO2 in excess of 1000ppm...once an ice age began with atmospheric CO2 around 7000ppm. How does that jibe with your belief that without greenhouse gasses we would be a ball of ice?

 

[PLC1]

When climate scientists measure the temperature, do you think they are sticking their thermometers into the ground?...or are they measuring the temperature of the air? The greenhouse effect is based on the claimed ability of CO2 to "trap" infrared radiation...to keep it from leaving the atmosphere and in doing so, warm the air...thus the predicted tropospheric hot spot that was supposed to be the smoking gun proving man made climate change.



No...without an atmosphere we would be very cold on the dark side and very hot on the daylight side. Look at uranus...it is supposedly the coldest spot in the solar system...little solar radiation reaches it and almost none reaches the depths of its atmosphere being 30 times further away from the sun than we are...and yet, at the base of the troposphere on that planet, the temperature is 33 degrees Kelvin warmer than it is here...and guess what, no greenhouse gasses to speak of..and certainly no greenhouse effect. It is the atmosphere itself that is responsible for the temperature here. Its composition has little effect other than altering the atmospheric pressure...which, combined with the sun is the real driver of global temperatures.

There are a couple of other planets in the solar system that have no greenhouse gasses and are considerably warmer than the earth in the depths of their atmospheres. You simply believe what you are told without question and disregard the literal planets full of evidence that proves that what you have been told is wrong...imagine, planets within our own solar system that have no greenhouse gasses but have temperatures that are warmer than us here...go deep enough in the atmosphere of jupiter and saturn and you find temperatures even hotter than those found on venus...pressure is the key...not greenhouse gasses because infrared radiation can not warm the air...and again, it is the temperature of the air that is being measured...

And further, you don't seem to grasp the implications of the fact that IR can't warm the atmosphere...Convection is a very slow means of transporting energy in comparison with radiation which moves energy at the speed of light. Add more so called greenhouse gasses to the atmosphere (with the exception of water vapor) and you have a greater percentage of the atmosphere which is capable of transporting energy out of the atmosphere at the speed of light.

Now think just a second....if you can move more energy out of the at the speed of light vs the cumbersome process of conduction, what happens to the temperature? Adding greenhouse gasses to the atmosphere increases its emissivity. Do you know the result of increasing emissivity? By increasing the emissivity of an object, you improve its ability to shed heat...by increasing the emissivity of an object, you give it the ability to cool itself more efficiently.

Look back in earth history at the instances where ice ages began with atmospheric CO2 in excess of 1000ppm...once an ice age began with atmospheric CO2 around 7000ppm. How does that jibe with your belief that without greenhouse gasses we would be a ball of ice?

Your statement that an ice age began with atmospheric CO2 around 7000ppm does support my belief that you're spouting nonsense. The history of warming and cooling of the Earth coincide with the rise and decline of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere: greater concentrations have brought warmer climate, and lesser concentrations have brought cooler climate.

 

[Lagboltz]

.at this point, there is not even an agreement within the physics community what the interpretation of the theory even means, or on its very foundations.

OK, so you don't believe QM.

No matter how much you twist and writhe, and try to torture reality into being something that it isn't, you are not going to make radiation out of conduction....and without radiation, you have no radiative greenhouse effect.

I don't know what's bothering you so much, but these are your words:
[CO2] IS MUCH MORE LIKELY TO HEAT THE SURROUNDING AIR MOLECULES WITH THE ENERGY IT ACQUIRED FROM THE ABSORBED PHOTON.
So I assume that you believe your own words.

 

[palerider]

Your statement that an ice age began with atmospheric CO2 around 7000ppm does support my belief that you're spouting nonsense. The history of warming and cooling of the Earth coincide with the rise and decline of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere: greater concentrations have brought warmer climate, and lesser concentrations have brought cooler climate.

You really did just drink the kool aid and never ask a single question didn't you? Have you never bothered to look at the big picture...even once? Have you never bothered to see what the earth's climate has been like through its history? Here...have a look. It isn't as if the climate history of the earth is some big well kept secret...it is all out there for anyone with enough critical thinking skills to ask a couple of questions.

Notice about 450 million years ago the earth descended into a deep ice age and atmospheric CO2 was in the neighborhood of 5000ppm...then again at about 15o million years ago, an ice age began with atmospheric CO2 at about 2500ppm....then the ice age that we are currently climbing out of began with atmospheric CO2 at about 1000ppm...

I was in error when I said that an ice age began at 7000ppm...it was actually closer to 5000ppm...still more than 12 times greater than the present....if you look through history, you will see that there is little correlation between CO2 and temperature other than that changes in atmospheric CO2 concentrations follow temperature changes...they don't lead them.

http://sciencenordic.com/what-makes-climate-change-part-two

 

[palerider]

OK, so you don't believe QM.

Why exactly should one believe when the scientific community can't even agree on the interpretation of the theory?

I don't know what's bothering you so much, but these are your words:
[CO2] IS MUCH MORE LIKELY TO HEAT THE SURROUNDING AIR MOLECULES WITH THE ENERGY IT ACQUIRED FROM THE ABSORBED PHOTON.
So I assume that you believe your own words.

And the inherent dishonesty continues...first, those aren't my words and second, I had figured that you were bright enough to grasp that he is talking about CO2 losing the energy it absorbed via collision with other molecules...ie conduction...not radiation...if the CO2 molecule radiates the energy it absorbed, there would still be no warming of the air...infared radiation does not and can not warm the air...conduction is what warms the air and CO2 is just a bit player in that mode of energy transport...water vapor completely overwhelms it. Radiative gasses enhance the atmosphere's ability to shed heat...they increase the emissivity of the atmosphere...they result in cooling, not warming.

 

[Lagboltz]

infared radiation does not and can not warm the air...conduction is what warms the air and CO2 is just a bit player in that mode of energy transport.

Exactly. That's what I have been getting at.
And yes CO2 is a bit player in the sense that water vapor is about 0.25% of the air mass.
2500 ppm H2O
400 ppm CO2
So CO2 is 1/6 the mass of H2O vapor - or 1/14 if you use the molar amount.
1/14 of the effect of water vapor is not trivial though.