Can Infrared Radiation Warm the Atmosphere???

[PLC1]

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

About that long ago ice age:

The first plants to colonize land didn't merely supply a dash of green to a drab landscape. They dramatically accelerated the natural breakdown of exposed rocks, according to a new study, drawing so much planet-warming carbon dioxide (CO2) from the atmosphere that they sent Earth's climate spiraling into a major ice age.

About 460 million years ago, the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere ranged somewhere between 14 and 22 times the current level, and the average global temperature was about 5°C higher than it is now. Climate models suggest that widespread glaciations couldn't take place at that time unless CO2 levels dropped to about eight times what they are at present, says Tim Lenton, an earth scientist at the University of Exeter in the United Kingdom. (At the time, the sun was as much as 6% fainter than it is now, Lenton says, so the planet-warming effect of greenhouse gases wasn't as strong.)

Besides a fainter sun, Gondwana was at the current South Pole. Lots of things have changed in the past 450 million years.

 

[palerider]

About that long ago ice age:

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?

Besides a fainter sun, Gondwana was at the current South Pole. Lots of things have changed in the past 450 million years.

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

 

[Lagboltz]

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

Not facts. Fake science.

 

[palerider]

Not facts. Fake science.

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...

 

[PLC1]

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...

Show how that is relevant and quit "dragging your intellect through the sewer in an attempt to defend your political position"

 

[Lagboltz]

infrared radiation does not warm the air

Not directly. You already said how air is warmed in one of your verbose posts.

...conduction is what warms the air and CO2 is just a bit player in that mode of energy transport.

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.

 

[palerider]

Show how that is relevant and quit "dragging your intellect through the sewer in an attempt to defend your political position"

You really don’t s the relavence of the fact that IR can’t warm the air to a supposed radiative greenhouse effect? Really?

 

[palerider]

Not directly. You already said how air is warmed in one of your verbose posts.

Right and it isn’t via radiation as claimed by climate science.

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.

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

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.

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.

 

[PLC1]

You really don’t s the relavence of the fact that IR can’t warm the air to a supposed radiative greenhouse effect? Really?

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]

...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.

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.

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

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.

On earth water vapor is the driver. ...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.

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.

 

[palerider]

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.[.quote]

Alas lagboltz...it is you who has missed the point...first the whole "excited" CO2 is a red herring...most CO2 molecules that absorb energy lose it to another molecule via collision before it reaches an excited state...but the larger point...is that the process you just described, where O2 and N2 receive most of the energy and do most of the transporting of energy resulting in warming of the air is not a description of a radiative greenhouse effect....it is the description of a gravito thermal effect..which is precisely what I have been saying all along...

And if you bothered to look at the actual science vs the models, you would see that there is no correlation between the rise of CO2 and the warming of the atmosphere...which, once again, as I have stated means that with a gravito thermal effect, what the atmosphere is composed of is mostly irrelevant...it is pressure, gravity, and solar input that determine temperature.

Second, CO2 will heat anything that is colder than it by conduction.

But not by radiation which a requisite in order to have a radiative greenhouse effect as described by climate science..

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.

And yet, the other planets with no greenhouse gasses have warm temperatures within their atmospheres...you think that is irrelevant? Why? Is earth some magic planet where the physical laws at work on other planets are somehow different somehow different than the physical laws we have here? Of course it is relevant because it demonstrates that greenhouse gasses are not what keep a planet warm...because there is no radiative greenhouse effect..there is a gravito thermal effect which you described above that has little concern over what gasses make up the atmosphere.

 

[Lagboltz]

...most CO2 molecules that absorb energy lose it to another molecule via collision before it reaches an excited state... ... O2 and N2 receive most of the energy and do most of the transporting of energy resulting in warming of the air ....

That is exactly what I have been telling you. CO2 absorbs IR energy and quickly warms the air.

 

[palerider]

That is exactly what I have been telling you. CO2 absorbs IR energy and quickly warms the air.

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.

 

[Lagboltz]

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

But the air isn't warmed via radiation.

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

.you don't seem to realize that at long last you are describing the gravito thermal effect that I have favored all along.

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.

 

[palerider]

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

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.