Remember me
▼ Content

Demonstrating IR CO2 reaction



Page 1 of 3123>
Demonstrating IR CO2 reaction25-12-2019 17:14
Harry CProfile picture★☆☆☆☆
(140)
As I've stated repeatedly here, I'm looking for information about the claim that CO2 does what is stated in AGW theory. In my search, I came across this demonstration in support of the CO2 reaction with IR.
https://www.physics.upenn.edu/~pcn/Ms/18PhysTeacher.pdf

It appears to support but does not explain the reaction. For anyone interested, please tell me why this does not support the premise of the heating effect of CO2. What are we seeing?

Please remember I'm searching and non-scientific. Please don't challenge me about it because I'm asking objectively.


You learn something new every day if you are lucky!
25-12-2019 17:57
James___
★★★★★
(2801)
Harry C wrote:
As I've stated repeatedly here, I'm looking for information about the claim that CO2 does what is stated in AGW theory. In my search, I came across this demonstration in support of the CO2 reaction with IR.
https://www.physics.upenn.edu/~pcn/Ms/18PhysTeacher.pdf

It appears to support but does not explain the reaction. For anyone interested, please tell me why this does not support the premise of the heating effect of CO2. What are we seeing?

Please remember I'm searching and non-scientific. Please don't challenge me about it because I'm asking objectively.



Why don't they just have a 1m^3 cube (or taller to prevent air circulation) with no top outside? Since CO2 displaces both oxygen and nitrogen, the CO2 levels inside the cube can be increased.
Does inside the cube become warmer as CO2 levels are increased? And what if mostly CO2 was placed in such a cube/column? How would its temperature compare to the air around the cube?
That would basically end all arguments/discussion but hasn't been done.
For what you are asking, what I posted would be the simplest test to determine the heating potential of CO2 in our atmosphere.
25-12-2019 20:10
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(12745)
Harry C wrote:
As I've stated repeatedly here, I'm looking for information about the claim that CO2 does what is stated in AGW theory. In my search, I came across this demonstration in support of the CO2 reaction with IR.
https://www.physics.upenn.edu/~pcn/Ms/18PhysTeacher.pdf

It appears to support but does not explain the reaction. For anyone interested, please tell me why this does not support the premise of the heating effect of CO2. What are we seeing?

What you are seeing is the same party trick performed a thousand times. It shows that CO2 does absorb infrared light and convert it to thermal energy.

The trick part is that you can somehow heat the Earth by using Earth's own emitted IR this way. You can't.

CO2 absorption of infrared light emitted from Earth's surface is just another way for the surface to heat the atmosphere. The surface is cooled by this action.

You can't create energy out of nothing.
Harry C wrote:
Please remember I'm searching and non-scientific. Please don't challenge me about it because I'm asking objectively.

This is the objective answer. You can't create energy out of nothing. It's a party trick, leaving out this inconvenient little point. In the trick the fact that the surface is cooled by emitting IR is ignored.


The Parrot Killer
25-12-2019 20:11
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(12745)
James___ wrote:
Harry C wrote:
As I've stated repeatedly here, I'm looking for information about the claim that CO2 does what is stated in AGW theory. In my search, I came across this demonstration in support of the CO2 reaction with IR.
https://www.physics.upenn.edu/~pcn/Ms/18PhysTeacher.pdf

It appears to support but does not explain the reaction. For anyone interested, please tell me why this does not support the premise of the heating effect of CO2. What are we seeing?

Please remember I'm searching and non-scientific. Please don't challenge me about it because I'm asking objectively.



Why don't they just have a 1m^3 cube (or taller to prevent air circulation) with no top outside? Since CO2 displaces both oxygen and nitrogen, the CO2 levels inside the cube can be increased.
Does inside the cube become warmer as CO2 levels are increased? And what if mostly CO2 was placed in such a cube/column? How would its temperature compare to the air around the cube?
That would basically end all arguments/discussion but hasn't been done.
For what you are asking, what I posted would be the simplest test to determine the heating potential of CO2 in our atmosphere.

Irrelevant. You fell for the same party trick again, James.


The Parrot Killer
25-12-2019 21:00
James___
★★★★★
(2801)
Into the Night wrote:
James___ wrote:
Harry C wrote:
As I've stated repeatedly here, I'm looking for information about the claim that CO2 does what is stated in AGW theory. In my search, I came across this demonstration in support of the CO2 reaction with IR.
https://www.physics.upenn.edu/~pcn/Ms/18PhysTeacher.pdf

It appears to support but does not explain the reaction. For anyone interested, please tell me why this does not support the premise of the heating effect of CO2. What are we seeing?

Please remember I'm searching and non-scientific. Please don't challenge me about it because I'm asking objectively.



Why don't they just have a 1m^3 cube (or taller to prevent air circulation) with no top outside? Since CO2 displaces both oxygen and nitrogen, the CO2 levels inside the cube can be increased.
Does inside the cube become warmer as CO2 levels are increased? And what if mostly CO2 was placed in such a cube/column? How would its temperature compare to the air around the cube?
That would basically end all arguments/discussion but hasn't been done.
For what you are asking, what I posted would be the simplest test to determine the heating potential of CO2 in our atmosphere.

Irrelevant. You fell for the same party trick again, James.



Nah, I'm aware of what everyone is ignoring. Like in this link
https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/global-warming/last-2000-years
Where they say;
For example, it has become apparent that the "Medieval Climate Anomaly" temperatures from about 950 to 1250 AD were mostly warmer averaged over the Northern Hemisphere than during the subsequent "Little Ice Age" from roughly 1450 to 1850 AD.

Our current warming might be nothing more than a normal warming cycle. Until natural climate cycles are explained, do we really understand what's going on with our atmosphere? We don't except for pollution.
And with the simple party trick, no one has done it because they want the debate. And historically speaking, the temperature spiked during 3 out of the last 4 inter-glacial periods. But what we need to be concerned with is how it impacts a societies ability to function.
Edited on 25-12-2019 21:20
25-12-2019 21:41
Harry CProfile picture★☆☆☆☆
(140)
Into the Night wrote:
What you are seeing is the same party trick performed a thousand times. It shows that CO2 does absorb infrared light and convert it to thermal energy.


Thank you. I'm really not wishing to be obtuse about the matter but trying to reinforce my understanding. This point is important. So the IR is creating heat (increase in temperature) from the CO2 exposed to IR?

Into the Night wrote:
The trick part is that you can somehow heat the Earth by using Earth's own emitted IR this way. You can't.

CO2 absorption of infrared light emitted from Earth's surface is just another way for the surface to heat the atmosphere. The surface is cooled by this action.

You can't create energy out of nothing.

This is the objective answer. You can't create energy out of nothing. It's a party trick, leaving out this inconvenient little point. In the trick the fact that the surface is cooled by emitting IR is ignored.


I understand the second point about entropy.


You learn something new every day if you are lucky!
26-12-2019 21:32
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(12745)
James___ wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
James___ wrote:
Harry C wrote:
As I've stated repeatedly here, I'm looking for information about the claim that CO2 does what is stated in AGW theory. In my search, I came across this demonstration in support of the CO2 reaction with IR.
https://www.physics.upenn.edu/~pcn/Ms/18PhysTeacher.pdf

It appears to support but does not explain the reaction. For anyone interested, please tell me why this does not support the premise of the heating effect of CO2. What are we seeing?

Please remember I'm searching and non-scientific. Please don't challenge me about it because I'm asking objectively.



Why don't they just have a 1m^3 cube (or taller to prevent air circulation) with no top outside? Since CO2 displaces both oxygen and nitrogen, the CO2 levels inside the cube can be increased.
Does inside the cube become warmer as CO2 levels are increased? And what if mostly CO2 was placed in such a cube/column? How would its temperature compare to the air around the cube?
That would basically end all arguments/discussion but hasn't been done.
For what you are asking, what I posted would be the simplest test to determine the heating potential of CO2 in our atmosphere.

Irrelevant. You fell for the same party trick again, James.



Nah, I'm aware of what everyone is ignoring. Like in this link
...deleted redundant link...
Where they say;
For example, it has become apparent that the "Medieval Climate Anomaly" temperatures from about 950 to 1250 AD were mostly warmer averaged over the Northern Hemisphere than during the subsequent "Little Ice Age" from roughly 1450 to 1850 AD.

It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth, either in 1450, 1850, or now.
James___ wrote:
Our current warming might be nothing more than a normal warming cycle.

It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth.
James___ wrote:
Until natural climate cycles are explained,

Climates do not have cycles. A desert climate is always a desert climate. A tropical climate is always a tropical climate.
James___ wrote:
do we really understand what's going on with our atmosphere?

Apparently most people here have no clue.
James___ wrote:
We don't except for pollution.

Define 'pollution'.
James___ wrote:
And with the simple party trick, no one has done it because they want the debate.

Correct. It is because they want to preach.
James___ wrote:
And historically speaking, the temperature spiked during 3 out of the last 4 inter-glacial periods.

It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth.
James___ wrote:
But what we need to be concerned with is how it impacts a societies ability to function.

We are still here. Society is still functioning.


The Parrot Killer
26-12-2019 21:38
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(12745)
Harry C wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
What you are seeing is the same party trick performed a thousand times. It shows that CO2 does absorb infrared light and convert it to thermal energy.


Thank you. I'm really not wishing to be obtuse about the matter but trying to reinforce my understanding. This point is important. So the IR is creating heat (increase in temperature) from the CO2 exposed to IR?

Heat is not an increase in temperature. It is the flow of thermal energy. Heat is not 'created'. It simply either exists, or not. Emitting IR from the surface requires energy. That cools the surface. CO2 absorbs some of that energy. That warms the CO2. The CO2 is also emitting IR, and that cools the CO2.

You can almost think of Earth basking like a hot coal on the edge of the fires of the Sun. It doesn't make energy itself, it just basks in the glow of the fire as the energy from that fire dissipates in to space.

While the Sun isn't actually fire, and the Earth isn't actually a hot coal, the same kind of thing is happening.

Harry C wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
The trick part is that you can somehow heat the Earth by using Earth's own emitted IR this way. You can't.

CO2 absorption of infrared light emitted from Earth's surface is just another way for the surface to heat the atmosphere. The surface is cooled by this action.

You can't create energy out of nothing.

This is the objective answer. You can't create energy out of nothing. It's a party trick, leaving out this inconvenient little point. In the trick the fact that the surface is cooled by emitting IR is ignored.


I understand the second point about entropy.


There are two laws of thermodynamics that apply here:

The 1st law: E(t+1) = E(t)+U
where E is energy, t is time, and U is work.

The 2nd law: e(t+1)>=e(t)
where e is entropy and t is time.

The 1st law says that energy is conserved. You cannot create or destroy energy. The only way to increase energy in any system is to put work into it. The only way you can get work out of a system is to reduce the available energy.

Work is just force * distance. Energy is the ability to create that force.

The 2nd law defines the word 'heat' and gives it a direction of flow. Energy naturally dissipates. Thermal energy is no exception. Heat is the flow of thermal energy (a concentration of thermal energy is 'hot', and a lack of thermal energy is 'cold'). Heat always flows from hot to cold, never the reverse.


The Parrot Killer
Edited on 26-12-2019 21:49
27-12-2019 00:42
HarveyH55
★★★★★
(2047)
How much planet killing warming could there be? CO2 is a trace gas in the atmosphere, only about 0.04%. The planet isn't enclosed in a jar. The parlor trick, fills the jar with CO2, not just 0.04%. It only warms, while the lamp is on. But, they never mention how quickly it cools, after the lamp is truned off...
27-12-2019 02:44
Harry CProfile picture★☆☆☆☆
(140)
HarveyH55 wrote:
How much planet killing warming could there be? CO2 is a trace gas in the atmosphere, only about 0.04%. The planet isn't enclosed in a jar. The parlor trick, fills the jar with CO2, not just 0.04%. It only warms, while the lamp is on. But, they never mention how quickly it cools, after the lamp is truned off...


I understand what you are saying. The thought occurred to me that the vessel was likely overcharged with CO2, relative to atmospheric volumes. That said, it appears that the FLIR cameras see a demonstration of heat. However I suspect that it's more of a display of a the reaction. In other words, neither vessel has a warmer interior. The one with CO2 concentrates the reaction in to a visible display. Or alternately it may amplify the heat but cool more quickly such that the total heat is the same...different energy over time?

As usual I know my lay descriptions may not be technically correct so please forgive me. I'm not trying to make something out of nothing.


You learn something new every day if you are lucky!
27-12-2019 03:11
Harry CProfile picture★☆☆☆☆
(140)
Into the Night wrote:
Heat is not an increase in temperature. It is the flow of thermal energy. Heat is not 'created'. It simply either exists, or not. Emitting IR from the surface requires energy. That cools the surface. CO2 absorbs some of that energy. That warms the CO2. The CO2 is also emitting IR, and that cools the CO2.

You can almost think of Earth basking like a hot coal on the edge of the fires of the Sun. It doesn't make energy itself, it just basks in the glow of the fire as the energy from that fire dissipates in to space.

While the Sun isn't actually fire, and the Earth isn't actually a hot coal, the same kind of thing is happening.


OK, I *think* I might have had a break through in comprehension when I was composing the post below to Harvey. Back to the results of the test from the original post, the IR energy in to both vessels was ostensibly the same. A possible conclusion: the FLIR cameras are demonstrating a momentary increase in temperature on the side with with CO2, that side would cool quicker (like an extinguisher) wherein the total energy over time would be the same.

Does CO2 diffuse the photons? Something like causing a grenade to explode before it reaches its target?

If not I still need some help.
Edited on 27-12-2019 03:32
27-12-2019 04:09
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(6995)
HarveyH55 wrote: CO2 is a trace gas in the atmosphere, only about 0.04%. The planet isn't enclosed in a jar. The parlor trick, fills the jar with CO2, not just 0.04%. It only warms, while the lamp is on.

Harvey, you have to ask yourself "Why is there even a (special) lamp? Instead of pretending to "simulate" the sun with something that isn't the sun, why don't they do this trick outdoors in broad daylight on a sunny day with the same sunlight that the rest of the earth gets?"

After all, a heat lamp simply is nowhere near an exact replication of the sun which is required for there to be any sort of "scientific method"-type credibility involved. Yet EVERY instance of this parlor trick avoids the sun like the plague and uses a special lamp ... just like magicians need exactly the props and gear that they use to fool the audience otherwise the trick won't work.


A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles

Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
27-12-2019 05:04
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(12745)
Harry C wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Heat is not an increase in temperature. It is the flow of thermal energy. Heat is not 'created'. It simply either exists, or not. Emitting IR from the surface requires energy. That cools the surface. CO2 absorbs some of that energy. That warms the CO2. The CO2 is also emitting IR, and that cools the CO2.

You can almost think of Earth basking like a hot coal on the edge of the fires of the Sun. It doesn't make energy itself, it just basks in the glow of the fire as the energy from that fire dissipates in to space.

While the Sun isn't actually fire, and the Earth isn't actually a hot coal, the same kind of thing is happening.


OK, I *think* I might have had a break through in comprehension when I was composing the post below to Harvey. Back to the results of the test from the original post, the IR energy in to both vessels was ostensibly the same. A possible conclusion: the FLIR cameras are demonstrating a momentary increase in temperature on the side with with CO2, that side would cool quicker (like an extinguisher) wherein the total energy over time would be the same.

Does CO2 diffuse the photons? Something like causing a grenade to explode before it reaches its target?

If not I still need some help.


CO2 is just another gas. There is nothing special about it.


The Parrot Killer
27-12-2019 06:34
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(6995)
Into the Night wrote:CO2 is just another gas. There is nothing special about it.

Into the Night ... I think beer drinkers around the world are going to disagree with you on this one. Champagne drinkers as well.

Oh sure, I know, I know ... you're thinking of that one guy in New Mexico that prefers flat beer. I'm not talking about him.


.


A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles

Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
27-12-2019 18:13
Harry CProfile picture★☆☆☆☆
(140)
Into the Night wrote:
Harry C wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Heat is not an increase in temperature. It is the flow of thermal energy. Heat is not 'created'. It simply either exists, or not. Emitting IR from the surface requires energy. That cools the surface. CO2 absorbs some of that energy. That warms the CO2. The CO2 is also emitting IR, and that cools the CO2.

You can almost think of Earth basking like a hot coal on the edge of the fires of the Sun. It doesn't make energy itself, it just basks in the glow of the fire as the energy from that fire dissipates in to space.

While the Sun isn't actually fire, and the Earth isn't actually a hot coal, the same kind of thing is happening.


OK, I *think* I might have had a break through in comprehension when I was composing the post below to Harvey. Back to the results of the test from the original post, the IR energy in to both vessels was ostensibly the same. A possible conclusion: the FLIR cameras are demonstrating a momentary increase in temperature on the side with with CO2, that side would cool quicker (like an extinguisher) wherein the total energy over time would be the same.

Does CO2 diffuse the photons? Something like causing a grenade to explode before it reaches its target?

If not I still need some help.


CO2 is just another gas. There is nothing special about it.


Other than the difference between the two tubes in the demonstration referenced above, wherein one contains dry air and the other is CO2, what accounts for the increase in temperature (quoted below) in the vessel with CO2?

Figure 1 (c) The tubes were exposed to infrared light for two minutes. After irradiation was stopped, the one containing CO2 was observed to be slightly warmer for about one minute. That is, the apparent temperature when looking through this chamber was higher than either the backdrop or the other chamber.



You learn something new every day if you are lucky!
27-12-2019 18:37
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(12745)
IBdaMann wrote:
Into the Night wrote:CO2 is just another gas. There is nothing special about it.

Into the Night ... I think beer drinkers around the world are going to disagree with you on this one. Champagne drinkers as well.

Oh sure, I know, I know ... you're thinking of that one guy in New Mexico that prefers flat beer. I'm not talking about him.


.


Soda drinkers too.



The Parrot Killer
27-12-2019 20:53
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(6995)
Into the Night wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Into the Night wrote:CO2 is just another gas. There is nothing special about it.

Into the Night ... I think beer drinkers around the world are going to disagree with you on this one. Champagne drinkers as well.

Oh sure, I know, I know ... you're thinking of that one guy in New Mexico that prefers flat beer. I'm not talking about him.


.


Soda drinkers too.


Do those really exist or is that just a myth. All the "photographic evidence" on Google is blurry and cropped.

.


A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles

Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
28-12-2019 05:25
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(3217)
Harry C wrote:
...the heating effect of CO2. ....
And water vapor, methane, any greenhouse gas. You seem to be looking for something that's not actually being claimed by anyone.

All matter has thermal energy due to the movement of its molecules.

All matter will either absorb, reflect or transmit radiance of a given frequency

All matter radiates due to its thermal energy

The Earths ground and water surfaces have temperatures that results in infrared radiance being emitted.

CO2, water vapor and other greenhouse gases absorb infrared where O2, N2 transmit it.

By absorbing termal energy on it's way out of the Earth sytem more thermal energy is present and the temperature is higher. Just like putting speed bumps on the freeway would increase traffic.


"Good tests kill flawed theories; we remain alive to guess again." - Karl Popper
ITN/IBD Fraud exposed:  The 2nd LTD add on claiming radiance from cooler bodies can't be absorbed Max Planck debunks, they can't explain:net-thermal-radiation-you-in-a-room-as-a-reference & Proof: no data is ever valid for them
Edited on 28-12-2019 05:27
28-12-2019 06:22
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(6995)
tmiddles wrote: By absorbing termal energy on it's way out of the Earth sytem more thermal energy is present and the temperature is higher.

You are violating the 1st law of thermodynamics again. How is there more energy in the "earth system" by some CO2 within the "earth system" absorbing some ... especially considering that all matter has to have some anyway? It just means that the matter that previously had that thermal energy now has less. The "earth system" as a whole cannot somehow have more thermal energy now that some of its CO2 has absorbed some.

What do you have against thermodynamics anyway ... aside from it running counter to your faith?

tmiddles wrote: Just like putting speed bumps on the freeway would increase traffic.

Speed bumps do not increase traffic. Speed bumps slow down the average speed of the same amount of traffic. Speed bumps cannot control how many cars wish to pass over them.


.


A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles

Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
28-12-2019 08:59
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(3217)
IBdaMann wrote:
What do you have against thermodynamics anyway ... .


Open question to all:
Is the Sun in thermodynamic equilibrium? Does it emit precisely what it absorbs?

"Good tests kill flawed theories; we remain alive to guess again." - Karl Popper
ITN/IBD Fraud exposed:  The 2nd LTD add on claiming radiance from cooler bodies can't be absorbed Max Planck debunks, they can't explain:net-thermal-radiation-you-in-a-room-as-a-reference & Proof: no data is ever valid for them
28-12-2019 11:47
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(12745)
tmiddles wrote:
Harry C wrote:
...the heating effect of CO2. ....
And water vapor, methane, any greenhouse gas.

There is no such thing as a 'greenhouse gas'. No gas or vapor is capable of warming the Earth using IR emitted from Earth's surface. You cannot create energy out of nothing.
tmiddles wrote:
All matter has thermal energy due to the movement of its molecules.
All matter will either absorb, reflect or transmit radiance of a given frequency

WRONG. There is no frequency term in the Stefan-Boltzmann law.
tmiddles wrote:
All matter radiates due to its thermal energy
The Earths ground and water surfaces have temperatures that results in infrared radiance being emitted.
CO2, water vapor and other greenhouse gases absorb infrared where O2, N2 transmit it.

WRONG. All matter emits according to the Stefan-Boltzmann law. There are no exceptions.
You cannot store or trap thermal energy. There is always heat.
tmiddles wrote:
By absorbing termal energy on it's way out of the Earth sytem more thermal energy is present and the temperature is higher.

WRONG. You cannot create energy out of nothing. You cannot store or trap thermal energy. You cannot store or trap heat.
tmiddles wrote:
Just like putting speed bumps on the freeway would increase traffic.

Such speed bumps does not increase traffic. Speed bumps do not create cars.


The Parrot Killer
28-12-2019 16:52
spot
★★★★☆
(1323)
tmiddles wrote:
Harry C wrote:
...the heating effect of CO2. ....
And water vapor, methane, any greenhouse gas. You seem to be looking for something that's not actually being claimed by anyone.

All matter has thermal energy due to the movement of its molecules.

All matter will either absorb, reflect or transmit radiance of a given frequency

All matter radiates due to its thermal energy

The Earths ground and water surfaces have temperatures that results in infrared radiance being emitted.

CO2, water vapor and other greenhouse gases absorb infrared where O2, N2 transmit it.

By absorbing termal energy on it's way out of the Earth sytem more thermal energy is present and the temperature is higher. Just like putting speed bumps on the freeway would increase traffic.


"Good tests kill flawed theories; we remain alive to guess again." - Karl Popper
ITN/IBD Fraud exposed:  The 2nd LTD add on claiming radiance from cooler bodies can't be absorbed Max Planck debunks, they can't explain:net-thermal-radiation-you-in-a-room-as-a-reference & Proof: no data is ever valid for them


Another thing to note is that the non greenhouse gasses, oxygen nitrogen and the noble gasses are either monoatomic or diatomic, the greenhouse gasses are three molecules or more. That's why anesthetic gasses for example are much more powerful greenhouse gas then carbon dioxide however they degrade and are present in such small amounts as to be negligible.


IBdaMann wrote:
"Air" is not a body in and of itself. Ergo it is not a blackbody.


Planck's law describes the spectral density of electromagnetic radiation emitted by a black body in thermal equilibrium at a given temperature T.
28-12-2019 20:15
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(12745)
spot wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
Harry C wrote:
...the heating effect of CO2. ....
And water vapor, methane, any greenhouse gas. You seem to be looking for something that's not actually being claimed by anyone.

All matter has thermal energy due to the movement of its molecules.

All matter will either absorb, reflect or transmit radiance of a given frequency

All matter radiates due to its thermal energy

The Earths ground and water surfaces have temperatures that results in infrared radiance being emitted.

CO2, water vapor and other greenhouse gases absorb infrared where O2, N2 transmit it.

By absorbing termal energy on it's way out of the Earth sytem more thermal energy is present and the temperature is higher. Just like putting speed bumps on the freeway would increase traffic.


"Good tests kill flawed theories; we remain alive to guess again." - Karl Popper
ITN/IBD Fraud exposed:  The 2nd LTD add on claiming radiance from cooler bodies can't be absorbed Max Planck debunks, they can't explain:net-thermal-radiation-you-in-a-room-as-a-reference & Proof: no data is ever valid for them


Another thing to note is that the non greenhouse gasses, oxygen nitrogen and the noble gasses are either monoatomic or diatomic, the greenhouse gasses are three molecules or more. That's why anesthetic gasses for example are much more powerful greenhouse gas then carbon dioxide however they degrade and are present in such small amounts as to be negligible.


There is no such thing as a 'greenhouse gas'. No gas or vapor has the capability to warm the Earth using Earth's own emitted IR.

You cannot make energy out of nothing.


The Parrot Killer
28-12-2019 21:01
Harry CProfile picture★☆☆☆☆
(140)
tmiddles wrote:
Harry C wrote:
...the heating effect of CO2. ....
And water vapor, methane, any greenhouse gas. You seem to be looking for something that's not actually being claimed by anyone.


The point of the first post in this thread was to isolate and differentiate the physical action of CO2. There is a Penn State experiment referenced that states that CO2 does increase the temperature in the experimental tube. This is consistent with the prevailing position of the 'climate alarmists'.

I was hung up on my comprehension of the actions of CO2 in a closed loop system wherein it was either adding heat to the atmosphere or not. While it may be a moot point for discussion, it was something I wanted clarified.

Since I can't seem to get this right, I'll take another swing at it and state that the issue is not whether or not CO2 adds temperature to the atmosphere because the IR photons will ultimately be converted to thermal energy whether it's through carbon dioxide or some other mechanism.

If that's true, I'm back to square one of trying to figure out why carbon dioxide is considered by 'climate alarmists' to be the boogeyman.

At the risk of personal ridicule, I can't be anymore forthcoming than this.


You learn something new every day if you are lucky!
28-12-2019 21:14
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(3217)
Harry C wrote:
I'm back to square one of trying to figure out why carbon dioxide is considered by 'climate alarmists' to be the boogeyman.

It's because we add new fresh CO2 to the system when we burn fossil fuels. We cannot add new water vapor, the major greenhouse gas, through any human activity.

To claim CO2 has some magic ability water vapor doesnt is called a "straw man" debate tactic. You shift the position of the opponent you wish to discredit to a weak one so its easier to defeat.
28-12-2019 21:20
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(12745)
tmiddles wrote:
Harry C wrote:
I'm back to square one of trying to figure out why carbon dioxide is considered by 'climate alarmists' to be the boogeyman.

It's because we add new fresh CO2 to the system when we burn fossil fuels.

We don't burn fossils for fuel. Fossils don't burn.
tmiddles wrote:
We cannot add new water vapor, the major greenhouse gas, through any human activity.

There is no such thing as a 'greenhouse gas'. You can't create energy out of nothing.
tmiddles wrote:
To claim CO2 has some magic ability water vapor doesnt is called a "straw man" debate tactic.

Strawman fallacy. There is no magick ability of either.
tmiddles wrote:
You shift the position of the opponent you wish to discredit to a weak one so its easier to defeat.

WRONG. The problem is YOU and YOUR fallacies. You cannot blame others for your fallacies.

Burden of proof fallacy.


The Parrot Killer
28-12-2019 21:22
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(6995)
tmiddles wrote:Open question to all:
Is the Sun in thermodynamic equilibrium? Does it emit precisely what it absorbs?

Too funny. You are violating thermodynamics again ... by simply not understanding it.

You just did the equivalent of asking if a functioning space heater is in equilibrium. Um, hello! It is a heat source! The sun is a fusion reactor that converts chemical potential energy to thermal energy. Is your car in "equilibrium" when you drive it or is that a stupid question to ask?


.


A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles

Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
28-12-2019 21:35
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(6995)
spot wrote: Another thing to note is that the non greenhouse gasses, oxygen nitrogen and the noble gasses are either monoatomic or diatomic,

... and they are all in greenhouses.

spot wrote:That's why anesthetic gasses for example are much more powerful greenhouse gas then carbon dioxide however they degrade and are present in such small amounts as to be negligible.

... and they are never in greenhouses.


.


A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles

Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
28-12-2019 21:43
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(6995)
tmiddles wrote: It's because we add new fresh CO2 to the system when we burn fossil fuels.

Well that's certainly much better than adding old, stale CO2. By the way, which fossils did you claim burn?


tmiddles wrote: We cannot add new water vapor, the major greenhouse gas, through any human activity.

You have never seen kids having a hose fight.

Does water in a swimming pool not evaporate?

tmiddles wrote: To claim CO2 has some magic ability water vapor doesnt is called a "straw man" debate tactic.

To claim that CO2 has some sort of magickal superpower to violate Stefan-Boltzmann or the laws of thermodynamics is simply stupid, or deeply religious in nature.

tmiddles wrote: You shift the position of the opponent you wish to discredit to a weak one so its easier to defeat.

Are you assigning to him the position of assigning bogus positions to opponents and then of attacking those assigned bogus positions ... and are you attacking him based on that bogus position you assigned to him?


.


A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles

Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
28-12-2019 21:52
spot
★★★★☆
(1323)
Harry C wrote:


The point of the first post in this thread was to isolate and differentiate the physical action of CO2. There is a Penn State experiment referenced that states that CO2 does increase the temperature in the experimental tube. This is consistent with the prevailing position of the 'climate alarmists'.

I was hung up on my comprehension of the actions of CO2 in a closed loop system wherein it was either adding heat to the atmosphere or not. While it may be a moot point for discussion, it was something I wanted clarified.

Since I can't seem to get this right, I'll take another swing at it and state that the issue is not whether or not CO2 adds temperature to the atmosphere because the IR photons will ultimately be converted to thermal energy whether it's through carbon dioxide or some other mechanism.

If that's true, I'm back to square one of trying to figure out why carbon dioxide is considered by 'climate alarmists' to be the boogeyman.

At the risk of personal ridicule, I can't be anymore forthcoming than this.


The effects of CO2 are well known I can't see how this is an "issue" certainly other mechanisms are at play in determining temperature and finding exactly what effects they are is something that work is being done but you won't find out about that on here.

If you are interested in issues rather then physics a more interesting discussion is what are we going to do about all this and how.


IBdaMann wrote:
"Air" is not a body in and of itself. Ergo it is not a blackbody.


Planck's law describes the spectral density of electromagnetic radiation emitted by a black body in thermal equilibrium at a given temperature T.
28-12-2019 21:57
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(12745)
spot wrote:
Harry C wrote:


The point of the first post in this thread was to isolate and differentiate the physical action of CO2. There is a Penn State experiment referenced that states that CO2 does increase the temperature in the experimental tube. This is consistent with the prevailing position of the 'climate alarmists'.

I was hung up on my comprehension of the actions of CO2 in a closed loop system wherein it was either adding heat to the atmosphere or not. While it may be a moot point for discussion, it was something I wanted clarified.

Since I can't seem to get this right, I'll take another swing at it and state that the issue is not whether or not CO2 adds temperature to the atmosphere because the IR photons will ultimately be converted to thermal energy whether it's through carbon dioxide or some other mechanism.

If that's true, I'm back to square one of trying to figure out why carbon dioxide is considered by 'climate alarmists' to be the boogeyman.

At the risk of personal ridicule, I can't be anymore forthcoming than this.


The effects of CO2 are well known

And what 'effects' are that?
spot wrote:
I can't see how this is an "issue" certainly other mechanisms are at play in determining temperature

It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth.
spot wrote:
and finding exactly what effects they are is something that work is being done but you won't find out about that on here.

What effects?
spot wrote:
If you are interested in issues rather then physics

So you want to just cast aside physics???
spot wrote:
a more interesting discussion is what are we going to do about all this and how.

Do about what? Void argument fallacy.


The Parrot Killer
28-12-2019 22:01
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(6995)
spot wrote: The effects of CO2 are well known

The magickal effects of CO2 are well believed, yes.

spot wrote: I can't see how this is an "issue"

The "issue" here is that warmizombies try to preach their WACKY religious beliefs as "settled science," e.g. CO2 has strange magickal superpowers of violate physics, etc..



.


A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles

Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
28-12-2019 22:24
Harry CProfile picture★☆☆☆☆
(140)
tmiddles wrote:
Harry C wrote:
I'm back to square one of trying to figure out why carbon dioxide is considered by 'climate alarmists' to be the boogeyman.

It's because we add new fresh CO2 to the system when we burn fossil fuels. We cannot add new water vapor, the major greenhouse gas, through any human activity.


If the reaction of 100% of atmospheric gasses to IR are the same, and there's a finite amount of IR entering the atmosphere, and energy cannot be created through those reactions, what difference does it make how much CO2 is in the atmosphere?


You learn something new every day if you are lucky!
28-12-2019 22:41
spot
★★★★☆
(1323)
Harry C wrote:

If the reaction of 100% of atmospheric gasses to IR are the same,


Different gasses are different. that's what the experiment you linked shows.


IBdaMann wrote:
"Air" is not a body in and of itself. Ergo it is not a blackbody.


Planck's law describes the spectral density of electromagnetic radiation emitted by a black body in thermal equilibrium at a given temperature T.
28-12-2019 23:11
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(3217)
IBdaMann wrote:
tmiddles wrote:Open question to all:
Is the Sun in thermodynamic equilibrium? Does it emit precisely what it absorbs?

The sun is a fusion reactor that converts chemical potential energy to thermal energy.
OK so I think we can all agree the Sun is not in thermodynamic equilibrium. It's actually generating thermal energy, which in turn is emitted as radiance.

When looking at the thermodynamics of any planet in our solar system you cannot remove the Sun from the equation. Radiance from the Sun is the dominant source of thermal energy for everything above ground.

So Earth essentially receives energy from the Sun and then loses it out into space when it either reflects or radiates it.

Can we agree that the dark side of Earth has a much higher temperature than the dark side of the moon?

"Good tests kill flawed theories; we remain alive to guess again." - Karl Popper
ITN/IBD Fraud exposed:  The 2nd LTD add on claiming radiance from cooler bodies can't be absorbed Max Planck debunks, they can't explain:net-thermal-radiation-you-in-a-room-as-a-reference & Proof: no data is ever valid for them
28-12-2019 23:16
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(3217)
Harry C wrote:
If the reaction of 100% of atmospheric gasses to IR are the same,
They are not.

When radiance reaches matter it does one of three things (these are your only options):
1- Reflected away
2- Absorbed
3- Transmitted

Transmitted means that the radiance passes right through the matter without being absorbed or reflected. It's transparent to the radiance. We know room air for example is transparent to the white light we see. We know the wall and door absorb that white light and reflect it.

Infra red passes right through Oxygen and Nitrogen, 99% of the non water vapor composition of our atmosphere, because it is transmitted.

Tyndall discovered the unique difference of CO2 to room air by seeing that infra red radiance passed through room air easily while CO2 interrupted it's path (because it absorbed it).

Here is a modern version of Tyndall's experiment:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kGaV3PiobYk

White light, high frequency radiance, passes right through CO2 and water vapor as well. Which of course we know because we see this with our own eyes.

Harry C wrote:...there's a finite amount of IR entering the atmosphere,...
IBD in particular likes to play this game and pretending Earth is a closed system with X amount of Energy.

Earth has a continuous supply of energy from the Sun. It's not a "fixed" amount like a bank account balance but more like a "Fixed income" like a pension.

The temperature of Earth is not determined by the Energy we get from the Sun directly but by the amount of Energy present at any one time. Despite the claims that thermal energy cannot be stored it essential is. Thermal energy works it's way through a system. It is NOT instantly re-radiated all of the time. If it were the dark side of Earth would be as cold as the moon's dark side wouldn't it?

"Good tests kill flawed theories; we remain alive to guess again." - Karl Popper
ITN/IBD Fraud exposed:  The 2nd LTD add on claiming radiance from cooler bodies can't be absorbed Max Planck debunks, they can't explain:net-thermal-radiation-you-in-a-room-as-a-reference & Proof: no data is ever valid for them
Edited on 28-12-2019 23:24
29-12-2019 00:13
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(3217)
IBdaMann wrote:
Speed bumps do not increase traffic. Speed bumps slow down the average speed of the same amount of traffic. Speed bumps cannot control how many cars wish to pass over them.


Very wrong.

You're claiming a speed limit can't increase traffic.
29-12-2019 00:37
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(6995)
tmiddles wrote: Very wrong. You're claiming a speed limit can't increase traffic.

Very wrong. You're claiming that "traffic" is "congestion."

If we were to presume that hijacking the meanings of words is not allowed then I am correct and you are mistaken.

.


A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles

Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
29-12-2019 04:28
Harry CProfile picture★☆☆☆☆
(140)
tmiddles wrote:
Harry C wrote:
If the reaction of 100% of atmospheric gasses to IR are the same,
They are not.


You're not following the conversation. They are the same in terms of the end result of being converted to thermal energy.
tmiddles wrote:
Harry C wrote:...there's a finite amount of IR entering the atmosphere,...
IBD in particular likes to play this game and pretending Earth is a closed system with X amount of Energy.

Earth has a continuous supply of energy from the Sun. It's not a "fixed" amount like a bank account balance but more like a "Fixed income" like a pension.


I will take responsibility for perhaps a poor word choice. It is measurably finite, not variable enough to account for an increase in global average temperatures over time.


You learn something new every day if you are lucky!
29-12-2019 05:10
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(3217)
Harry C wrote:
You're not following the conversation.
You were relying to me? I'm not sure what I missed.

So you recognize that gases react very differently to infrared? Depending on the gas?

"They are the same in terms of the end result of being converted to thermal energy." is not correct. If radiance is transmitted, as in a gas is transparent to it as air we breath is to white light, then it's not converted into thermal energy at all.

Harry C wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
Harry C wrote:...there's a finite amount of IR entering the atmosphere,...

Earth has a continuous supply of energy from the Sun.

...It is measurably finite, not variable enough to account for an increase in global average temperatures over time.

OK again there is a misunderstanding. Let me ask you this:
Why is the dark side of Earth so warm? I mean it's blazing hot compared to the dark side of the moon.

Dark side of Earth at ground level is ~ 10C
Dark side of the Moon at ground level is ~ -150C

pretty different right? Why?

"Good tests kill flawed theories; we remain alive to guess again." - Karl Popper
ITN/IBD Fraud exposed:  The 2nd LTD add on claiming radiance from cooler bodies can't be absorbed Max Planck debunks, they can't explain:net-thermal-radiation-you-in-a-room-as-a-reference & Proof: no data is ever valid for them
Page 1 of 3123>





Join the debate Demonstrating IR CO2 reaction:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
CO2521-06-2020 15:37
where all the co2 at120-05-2020 14:13
The Prevention of Climate Change Through CO2 Removal2328-03-2020 22:32
Do I have the CO2 calamity math right? (help from an expert please)23024-02-2020 23:13
Co2A (Co2 Atmosphere) = SUM(SOURCES)-SUM(SINKS)913-02-2020 18:05
▲ Top of page
Public Poll
Who is leading the renewable energy race?

US

EU

China

Japan

India

Brazil

Other

Don't know


Thanks for supporting Climate-Debate.com.
Copyright © 2009-2020 Climate-Debate.com | About | Contact