Welcome to
Science a GoGo's
Discussion Forums
Please keep your postings on-topic or they will be moved to a galaxy far, far away.
Your use of this forum indicates your agreement to our terms of use.
So that we remain spam-free, please note that all posts by new users are moderated.


The Forums
General Science Talk        Not-Quite-Science        Climate Change Discussion        Physics Forum        Science Fiction

Who's Online Now
0 members (), 181 guests, and 2 robots.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Latest Posts
Top Posters(30 Days)
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
P
paul Offline OP
Megastar
OP Offline
Megastar
P
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2401416/posts


so I've found an article that is about an experiment that
covers the ignored facts about the suns IR and the heat it
can and does produce even if the global warming alarmist
don't believe it will , of course this closes the door on
the recent attempts by a couple of saggs resident global warming alarmist
to suggest that the suns incoming IR is negligible.

but of course the GWA's will claim the experiment is not
from a worthy source as the experiment will lessen the
monetary value of the alarms they sound.


Quote:
Description of simple experiment that shows CO2 can't cause warming by trapping Infra Red (Credit to mystery blogger)

The claim that carbon dioxide (CO2) can increase air temperatures by "trapping" infrared radiation (IR) ignores the fact that in 1909 physicist R.W. Wood disproved the popular 19th Century thesis that greenhouses stayed warm by trapping IR. Unfortunately, many people who claim to be scientists are unaware of Wood's experiment which was originally published in the Philosophical magazine , 1909, vol 17, p319-320.

Wood was an expert on IR. His accomplishments included inventing both IR and UV (ultraviolet) photography. Wood constructed two identical small greenhouses. The description implies the type of structure a gardener would refer to as a "coldframe" rather than a building a person could walk into. He lined the interior with black cardboard which would absorb radiation and convert it to heat which would heat the air through conduction. The cardboard would also produce radiation. He covered one greenhouse with a sheet of transparent rock salt and the other with a sheet of glass. The glass would block IR and the rock salt would allow it to pass.

During the first run of the experiment the rock salt greenhouse *heated faster due to IR from the sun entering it but not the glass greenhouse. He then set up another pane of glass to filter the IR from the sun before the light reached the greenhouses. The result from this run was that the greenhouses both heated to about 50 C with less than a degree difference between the two. Wood didn't indicate which was warmer or whether there was any difference in the thermal conductivity between the glass sheet and the rock salt. A slight difference in the amount of heat transfered through the sheets by conduction could explain such a minor difference in temperature. The two sheets probably didn't conduct heat at the same rate.

The experiment conclusively demonstrates that greenhouses heat up and stay warm by confining heated air rather than by trapping IR. If trapping IR in an enclosed space doesn't cause higher air temperature, then CO2 in the atmosphere cannot cause higher air temperatures. The heated air in the greenhouses couldn't rise higher than the sheets that covered the tops of the greenhouses. Heated air outside is free to rise allowing colder air to fall to the ground. Atmospheric CO2 is even less likely to function as a barrier to IR or reflect it back to reheat the ground or water than the sheet of glass in Wood's greenhouse. The blackened cardboard in Wood's greenhouses was a very good radiator of IR as is typical of black substances. The water that covers 70% of earth's surface is a very poor radiator and produces only limited amounts of IR as is typical of transparent substances. Water releases heat through evaporation rather than radiation. The glass sheet provided a solid barrier to IR.

Atmospheric CO2 is widely dispersed comprising less than 400 parts per million in the atmosphere. Trapping IR with CO2 would be like trying to confine mice with a chain link fence. Glass reflects a wider spectrum of IR than interacts with CO2. The glass sheets reflected IR back toward the floor of the greenhouse. CO2 doesn't reflect IR. At the time of Wood's experiment, it was believed that CO2 and other gas molecules became hotter after absorbing IR. Four years later Niels Bohr reported his discovery that the absorption of specific wavelengths of light didn't cause gas atoms/molecules to become hotter. Instead, the absorption of specific wavelengths of light caused the electrons in an atom/molecule to move to a higher energy state. After absorption of light of a specific wavelength an atom couldn't absorb additional radiation of that wavelength without first emitting light of that wavelength. (Philosophical Magazine Series 6, Volume 26 July 1913, p. 1-25) Unlike the glass which reflects IR back where it comes from, CO2 molecules emit IR up and sideways as well as down. In the time interval between absorbing and reemitting radiation, CO2 molecules allow IR to pass them by. Glass continuously reflects IR.

Those who claim that CO2 molecules in the atmosphere can cause heating by trapping IR have yet to provide any empirical scientific evidence to prove such a physical process exists. The experiment by R.W. Wood demonstrates that even a highly reflective covering cannot cause heating by trapping IR in a confined space. There is no way CO2, which at best only affects a small portion of the IR produced by earth's surface, can heat the atmosphere by trapping IR. Contrary to the lie repeated in news stories about climate, science doesn't say that CO2 is causing higher temperatures by trapping IR. Empirical science indicates that no such process exists in this physical universe.


* heated faster = more heat!

it was believed that CO2 and other gas molecules became hotter after absorbing IR.

that stops the heating hype in its tracks and makes loads
of scientific sense , the IR light energy is stored
in the CO2 as kinetic energy not as heat.

so , I guess the atomic level of observation isn't just
yada yada yada as the GWA's seem to think.

its a fact of physics.



3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.
.
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,858
B
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
B
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,858
Originally Posted By: Paul
that stops the heating hype in its tracks and makes loads
of scientific sense , the IR light energy is stored
in the CO2 as kinetic energy not as heat.

What's the difference between kinetic energy and heat?

I keep saying that I will stop responding to your nonsense, but I just can't seem to resist.

Bill Gill


C is not the speed of light in a vacuum.
C is the universal speed limit.
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
P
paul Offline OP
Megastar
OP Offline
Megastar
P
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
Quote:
What's the difference between kinetic energy and heat?


heat is hot...

kinetic energy is not.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/heat

Quote:
a. A form of energy associated with the motion of atoms or molecules and capable of being transmitted through solid and fluid media by conduction, through fluid media by convection, and through empty space by radiation.

b. The transfer of energy from one body to another as a result of a difference in temperature or a change in phase.


atoms bumping into one another do not create any kinetic
energy through their motions they simply transfer the
existing kinetic energy between the atoms.

a change in state is required for CO2 to re-emit a photon
the additional energy that the CO2 had before re-emission
is then lost during the change in state and the emission of
the photon.

GWA's would have us believe that there is somehow a sort of
free energy called CO2 located in the atmosphere that is triggered by surface radiation.

it would be nice if CO2 were a free energy source molecule
because I could then build yet another free energy device
from a few bottles of coca cola some plastic sheeting
and a flashlight.

fill the device with the CO2 from the cokes
momentarily shine the light towards the CO2
and sit back and just bleed all the excess heat from
it from now on as it bounces back and fourth
creating free energy.



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinetic_energy

Quote:
In physics, the kinetic energy of an object is the energy that it possesses due to its motion






3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,164
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,164
Originally Posted By: paul
so I've found an article that is about an experiment that
covers the ignored facts about the suns IR and the heat it
can and does produce even if the global warming alarmist
don't believe it will , of course this closes the door on
the recent attempts by a couple of saggs resident global warming alarmist
to suggest that the suns incoming IR is negligible.

but of course the GWA's will claim the experiment is not
from a worthy source as the experiment will lessen the
monetary value of the alarms they sound.

...
its a fact of physics.
...I often learn something new, when I try to figure out how you construct your picture of the world.
===

R. W. Wood has a well-respected legacy as a scientist (invented liquid mirror for astronomy, and led advances in optics and ultrasonics R&D);
though as he, in the conclusion to his 1909 “Note on the Theory of the Greenhouse,” himself admits:

I do not pretend to have gone very deeply into the matter, and publish this note merely to draw attention to the fact that trapped radiation
appears to play but a very small part in the actual cases with which we are familiar
.”
–R.W. Wood (my emphasis ...throughout)
===

Wood also said, “It seems to me very doubtful if the atmosphere is warmed to any great extent by absorbing the radiation from the ground, even under the most favourable conditions.”

Paul, you’re thinking at the 1909 level now, within the long history of climate science;
so maybe with a bit more study, you can join the 21st century. wink
===

There is a great survey of the science’s history, from the American Institute of Physics:
http://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm
Originally Posted By: AIP
Greenhouse Speculations:
Beginning with work by Joseph Fourier in the 1820s, scientists had understood that gases in the atmosphere might trap the heat received from the Sun. As Fourier put it, energy in the form of visible light from the Sun easily penetrates the atmosphere to reach the surface and heat it up, but heat cannot so easily escape back into space.
...

Anyway temperatures a few degrees higher hardly sounded like a bad idea in chilly Sweden. Another highly respected scientist, Walter Nernst, even fantasized about setting fire to useless coal seams in order to release enough CO2 to deliberately warm the Earth's climate.

Skepticism (1900-1940s)
Experts could dismiss the hypothesis because they found Arrhenius's calculation implausible on many grounds.
...and the AIP summary of the theory's development continues
...even past the 1940s ...and (spoiler alert) the theory survives and gets more validation.
...but this section on skepticism leaves out R.W. Wood!

Though as far as I can tell, Wood’s ‘Note on the Theory…’ was his only contribution in the climate arena.
===

However:
This historical dissertation, on
how the “greenhouse” metaphor itself evolved, does discuss Wood’s contribution:

Communicating Climate Change: Climate Rhetorics and Discursive Tipping Points in United States Global Warming Science and Public Policy
by Richard D. Besel, ProQuest, 2007 (218 pages).

Originally Posted By: Discursive Tipping Points
“Wood rejected the radiation hypothesis altogether by arguing the air was warmed by winds carrying the air in close proximity to the Earth which was warmed by the solar rays. –p.45

“…supposedly refuted the greenhouse theory; however, taking into account Arrhenius and Tyndall’s observations about gases acting like the glass, they could easily explain Wood’s observations and still argue for the existence of a greenhouse theory. Wood did not appear to be aware of the nuanced differences between these possibilities.” –p.46

This seems to be the key. He didn’t see “the nuanced differences between these possibilities.”

Paul, I think you also are missing some nuance; especially like Wood, at times
confusing convection with radiation, when examining ‘warmth’ from the air.

Originally Posted By: Besel, 2007
“How Wood chose to prove his point was actually grounded in a misunderstanding of the metaphor and actually did not take Arrhenius’ or Tyndall’s work into consideration.” –p.45

-p.44
“In the same year Arrhenius published his book popularizing hothouses, R. W. Wood wrote his ‘Notes on the Theory of the Greenhouse.’ Wood attempted to argue the Earth’s atmosphere did not function like a greenhouse. What makes Wood’s article so important is not so much his observations about the problem with the metaphor, but the fact that the metaphor began driving his science.”
…lest we get lost in the metaphor!

Don’t let the metaphor drive your understanding of how the science 'must be' operating.

~ smile


Pyrolysis creates reduced carbon! ...Time for the next step in our evolutionary symbiosis with fire.
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
P
paul Offline OP
Megastar
OP Offline
Megastar
P
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
sam

that's a lot of text , but to be honest with you
I didn't read anywhere that shows a separate experiment
that disproves wood's findings in his experiment.

do you know of an experiment that would show that wood's
findings in his experiment has been found to be incorrect
or are you only suggesting that theory outweighs gathered
data from experiments.

his gathered data from his experiments still stand.

unless someone has produced evidence that his data
was gathered incorrectly.

Quote:
Paul, you’re thinking at the 1909 level now


whether its 1909 or 2014 makes no difference to the physical world.

are you saying that his experiment could not be performed
in 2014 with the same results?

or are you saying that if I read more about what others
have theorized about I would more clearly understand that experimental data also has no value to todays climate
propaganda machine?

if I had enough money invested in a climate science education it would direct my focus away from data gathered from experimentation and would only allow speculation from the
climate propaganda machine to direct my beliefs.




3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.

Link Copied to Clipboard
Newest Members
debbieevans, bkhj, jackk, Johnmattison, RacerGT
865 Registered Users
Sponsor

Science a GoGo's Home Page | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Contact UsokĀž»­¾W
Features | News | Books | Physics | Space | Climate Change | Health | Technology | Natural World

Copyright © 1998 - 2016 Science a GoGo and its licensors. All rights reserved.

Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.5