I appreciate your being patient with me.

The molecules transfer the radiant energy to some combination of kinetic energy. You were right. I was wrong.

The effect must be small otherwise there would have been a temperature difference between the two boxes. Looking at why increased IR radiation would have a small effect, I see a few reasons.

1. The rock salt encasement reflected some higher energy photons offsetting the temperature change due to the increased amount of IR.

2. The heat transfer coefficient for the molecules that absorb IR radiation is small enough that the IR radiation is re-emitted quickly.

3. The rock salt allowed more IR to escape since there was likely more outgoing than incoming.

Then again, it is visible light that increases the amount of heat while the IR band is already low on the energy totem pole. IR is the result not the cause. In other words, IR radiation cannot cause more heat wherease visible light can.

Now that I have figured out that I was wrong about the absorption of a photon not changing to dynamic kinetic energy, I will finally go back to your #26261 post above.

Originally Posted By: samwik
Just to be clear, when you say "leaves little radiation," it's important to realize that there is lots of heat at 4-5 microns, as well as more at the shorter wavelengths. There's no danger of "running out of 4-5 micron radiation" for CO2 to absorb or "reflect."


Most of the IR at the 4-5 microns is already being absorbed by the much more plentiful (78% vs 0.0387%) Nitrogen while the 2-3 micron range is absorbed by the much more plentiful water vapour.

http://www.coe.ou.edu/sserg/web/Results/Spectrum/n2.pdf

You can check other molecules at this link:
http://www.coe.ou.edu/sserg/web/Results/results.htm

Of course, that N2 spectrum does not help my Woods link argument, but it does bring us back to the actual topic of human influence on climate -- finally.