Can Infrared Radiation Warm the Atmosphere???

[Lagboltz]

What do you see is the difference between these two statements?

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

... most CO2 molecules lose the energy they absorb via collision ...

(Hint: conduction is collision in this case.)

 

[palerider]

What do you see is the difference between these two statements?

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

... most CO2 molecules lose the energy they absorb via collision ...

(Hint: conduction is collision in this case.)

Take a look around the internet among the primary "official" climate science outlets at the various descriptions of the mechanism of a radiative greenhouse effect...then do a quick search within those descriptions for the word conduction. Not there...because conduction doesn't play a part within the radiative greenhouse effect.

Radiation is a far more efficient means of moving energy out of the atmosphere than conduction...if we had more so called greenhouse gasses, there would be less energy lost via collision with non radiative gasses and the result would be that energy would be more efficiently transported out of the atmosphere...which is precisely what one would expect to happen by raising the emissivity of the atmosphere...which is precisely what the addition of so called greenhouse gasses to the atmosphere does...it raises the emissivity.

Now describe any other instance in all of the known universe where you might expect an object to get warmer by raising its emissivity.

 

[Lagboltz]

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.

Now that's ridiculous. How can CO2 lose energy it absorbs before it absorbs the energy. That is not what Happer said. Read Happer again. What he is saying, and I agree, is that When CO2 is excited to a vibration state by IR it is much more likely to lose the vibration energy by collision with air than to re-emit IR.

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.

I am not describing a gravito thermal effect! We are talking about radiation! Radiation has no major role in the GT effect. You said that yourself. Radiation has a big role when there is external energy such as the warming the earth which in turn radiates. The GT effect ignores radiation.

There is one thing you are forgetting. Even though CO2 looses it's absorbed energy quickly, there is a tremendous number of CO2 molecules in an excited vibration state induced by collisions with the air, and not just by IR. Those CO2 molecules are also radiating a tremendous amount of IR into the mix.

 

[Lagboltz]

Take a look around the internet among the primary "official" climate science outlets at the various descriptions of the mechanism of a radiative greenhouse effect...then do a quick search within those descriptions for the word conduction. Not there...because conduction doesn't play a part within the radiative greenhouse effect.

Radiation is a far more efficient means of moving energy out of the atmosphere than conduction...if we had more so called greenhouse gasses, there would be less energy lost via collision with non radiative gasses and the result would be that energy would be more efficiently transported out of the atmosphere...which is precisely what one would expect to happen by raising the emissivity of the atmosphere...which is precisely what the addition of so called greenhouse gasses to the atmosphere does...it raises the emissivity.

Now describe any other instance in all of the known universe where you might expect an object to get warmer by raising its emissivity.

Conduction plays a part in the greenhouse effect when excited CO2 transfers it's energy to air by collision.

Yes, radiation is a more efficient at moving energy in the atmosphere.

More GHG means more molecules to transfer energy by collisions.

Every object in the universe will get warmer, or lose heat less rapidly by raising it's emisivity if it's being bombarded with radiation. That is happening in earth's atmosphere. If the surround is very cold, then yes, the object will cool more quickly.

 

[palerider]

I am not describing a gravito thermal effect! We are talking about radiation! Radiation has no major role in the GT effect. You said that yourself. Radiation has a big role when there is external energy such as the warming the earth which in turn radiates. The GT effect ignores radiation.

Of course you are describing a gravito thermal effect...Conduction is the major means of transport for energy through the troposphere...the radiative greenhouse effect hypothesis supposes that radiation is the main means of energy transport...

Again...look at the description of the radiative greenhouse effect from mainstream science and search for any mention of conduction...then go look up the gravito thermal effect and you will see conduction and its part of the effect being discussed in practically every instance.

There is one thing you are forgetting. Even though CO2 looses it's absorbed energy quickly, there is a tremendous number of CO2 molecules in an excited vibration state induced by collisions with the air, and not just by IR. Those CO2 molecules are also radiating a tremendous amount of IR into the mix.

No...again, only 1 in a billion CO2 molecules that absorb a bit of IR actually radiate it...the amount of radiation produced by CO2 is minuscule...certainly no where near enough to have any significant effect on global temperatures...which is why when you look at CO2 vs temperature, you find no coherent relationship...and you certainly find no real evidence that CO2 has any effect whatsoever on global temperatures...plenty of smoke and mirrors...no actual observed, measured data.

 

[palerider]

Conduction plays a part in the greenhouse effect when excited CO2 transfers it's energy to air by collision.

Funny, mainstream climate science doesn't mention that fact when talking about the radiative greenhouse effect...in fact, I only found one mention of conduction in a description of the radiative greenhouse effect and it suggested that conduction was a very minor bit player and had little to do with transporting energy to the top of the troposphere. They claim that radiation rules...As I have said...the very idea of a radiative greenhouse effect in a troposphere so completely dominated by conduction and convection is stupid on its face...and yet, if you offer up enough money, you can get scientists to claim that it is so.

More GHG means more molecules to transfer energy by collisions.

No...more GHG would result in GHG molecules colliding more often resulting in more energy being moved via radiation from one of the molecules involved in the collision. More GHG's would increase the emissivity of the atmosphere...and what happens to an object when you increase its emissivity?

 

[Lagboltz]

This is what you fail to get, and it totally warps all your understanding in this thread. There is a huge population of excited GHGs, not so much because of radiation absorption, but because air is continually colliding with GHGs, which continually excites them to vibration modes, along with kinetic and spin modes.

This huge population of excited GHG molecules are quickly and continually losing energy by radiation or collisions and quickly being re-excited by radiation or collisions. This creates billions times more radiation than you think. Furthermore Happer said that an excited CO2, is much more likely to heat the surrounding air molecules with the energy it acquired from the absorbed photon. That keeps the surface warm. This makes your gravito effect a uninteresting model found only in blogs of die-hards.

 

[palerider]

This is what you fail to get, and it totally warps all your understanding in this thread. There is a huge population of excited GHGs, not so much because of radiation absorption, but because air is continually colliding with GHGs, which continually excites them to vibration modes, along with kinetic and spin modes.

No...CO2 molecules are only excited by very narrow bands of energy...not just any old energy that they come into contact with...

This huge population of excited GHG molecules are quickly and continually losing energy by radiation or collisions and quickly being re-excited by radiation or collisions.

Nice story..but entirely untrue...and the "huge population" is N2 molecules, O2 molecules, and H2O molecules...CO2 is a barely there minority...400 parts per million...almost non existent.

This creates billions times more radiation than you think.

Nice story...complete bullshit...but a nice story.

Furthermore Happer said that an excited CO2, is much more likely to heat the surrounding air molecules with the energy it acquired from the absorbed photon. That keeps the surface warm. This makes your gravito effect a uninteresting model found only in blogs of die-hards.

Via convection...not radiation...convection is the modus operandi of a gravito thermal effect...not a radiative greenhouse effect.

As to being in the realm of die hards...look to the history of science..all of accepted science was once in the realm of die hards till the evidence became so overwhelming that the consensus was wrong that a paradigm change had to happen...the greenhouse hypothesis is, and always has been bullshit...not a single piece of observed, measured evidence supports it...it is all models all the time.

It is funny watching you come around to describing energy movement within the troposphere in terms of a gravito thermal atmospheric effect and all the while claiming that it is a radiative green house effect even though radiation is just a minor bit player in the troposphere...

 

[Lagboltz]

H.G. Frankfurt defines bullshit as stating a falsehood without knowing or caring what the facts actually are.

Your whole post is bullshit. Read up on the equipartition principle to see why you are wrong from the first paragraph on.

 

[palerider]

H.G. Frankfurt defines bullshit as stating a falsehood without knowing or caring what the facts actually are.

Your whole post is bullshit. Read up on the equipartition principle to see why you are wrong from the first paragraph on.

Yet another unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable model..how completely unsurprising...anything to support the dogma.

 

[Lagboltz]

Yet another unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable model..how completely unsurprising...anything to support the dogma.

Another total bullshit post.

You should read more about the equipartion principle. It was first proposed in 1843. It has been observed, and measured, and agrees with experiment. For you to say it's unobservable, etc. is total bullshit.

 

[palerider]

Another total bullshit post.

You should read more about the equipartion principle. It was first proposed in 1843. It has been observed, and measured, and agrees with experiment. For you to say it's unobservable, etc. is total bullshit.

For all your high opinion of yourself, you don't seem to think very much...the equipartition "theory" simply tells us that energy within the atmosphere is going to take the easiest path out...and radiation is not that path till you reach an altitude above the troposphere.

Maybe you would like to explain how you think the equipartition theory alters the fact that conduction is the main means of energy transport to the top of the troposphere...and how you believe it means that there must be a radiative greenhouse effect in a troposphere dominated by conduction.

 

[Lagboltz]

How can you be my BFF if you keep stating falsehoods without knowing or caring what the facts actually are.

Equipartition says nothing about the "easiest path".

Everyone knows that air is a very poor thermal conductor. That is why materials that trap air (Styrofoam and cloth) are good insulators.

 

[palerider]

Take a second and think about what you just said...

And of course the words "easiest path" are not to be found in the theory...but the reality is there none the less. Still waiting for you to explain how any of this might eliminate the possibility of a gravito thermal effect and make a radiative greenhouse effect (in which radiation does not warm the air) the only possible answer?...snicker snicker snicker.

 

[Lagboltz]

The GT effect is a waste of your time. We already went through that over a year ago. It is a bogus blog argument for people who don't understand or care about science.