Truth To Power wrote:You didn't make a point.
Sure it is. That's actually why it's called the thermosphere.
That makes it the hottest.
That is not an argument or evidence, only a confession of your confusion. We measure how hot things are by temperature, not heat content. In what you are no doubt pleased to call your "mind," a bucket of ice water is hotter than a candle flame because its heat content is greater. Hard to imagine how any amount of ridicule I could heap on such claims would make them look any more absurd and risible than they already are on their face.
There is nothing incorrect about my Angstrom argument. There's just no point in repeating it in every post merely to remind you of the fact that neither you nor anyone else has ever shown it was incorrect.
Actually, context matters. For example, steam at 100 deg.C is or feels much hotter than water at 100 deg. C.
And ice at 0 deg. C is or feels much colder than water at 0 deg.C. We think this way when we ice down beer in a cooler and don't just pour ice-cold water into the cooler.
That is, in some cases or contexts, we do think in terms of heat content and not temp.
Also, you say (in the bold part) you have given up defending your support for Angstrom's experiment.
OK, fine. I claim that I won. And you lost.
I just wish that the Lurkers were able to vote. Then we could see who won.
I'll post some links to refutations of his experiment.https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/a ... t-part-ii/https://history.aip.org/climate/co2.htm
This one is clearer. => http://clivebest.com/blog/?p=1169https://agwobserver.wordpress.com/2010/ ... t-climate/
I'll quote some of this one. =>
This paper says,
"Gilbert Plass was then the person who finally solved the problem. In 1956 he published results from his study (Plass, 1956) where he had used latest laboratory measurements of the absorption properties of greenhouse gases and had determined the radiation flux in the primary absorption band of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere with a theoretical model (up to the height of 75 km). Among other things, his model included the pressure and Doppler broadening of absorption lines and the overlaps of spectral lines. According to his results, doubling of carbon dioxide concentration would cause 3.6°C warming to the surface of the Earth. In addition to this result, Plass also gave answers to all arguments that were thought to show that carbon dioxide wouldn’t cause warming to the surface of the Earth. Plass (1956b) wrote a popular article on the subject and the article happens currently to be freely accessible for everyone. In this article, there are answers to above-mentioned arguments. First the overlapping of the water vapour and carbon dioxide:"
Plass wrote:The fact that water vapor absorbs to some extent in the same spectral interval as carbon dioxide is the basis for the usual objection to the carbon dioxide theory. According to this argument the water vapor absorption is so large that there would be virtually no change in the outgoing radiation if the carbon dioxide concentration should change. However, this conclusion was based on early, very approximate treatments of the very complex problem of the calculation of the infrared flux in the atmosphere. Recent and more accurate calculations that take into account the detailed structure of the spectra of these two gases show that they are relatively independent of one another in their influence on the infrared absorption. There are two main reasons for this result: (1) there is no correlation between the frequencies of the spectral lines for carbon dioxide and water vapor and so the lines do not often overlap because of nearly coincident positions for the spectral lines; (2) the fractional concentration of water vapor falls off very rapidly with height whereas carbon dioxide is nearly uniformly distributed. Because of this last fact, even if the water vapor absorption were larger than that of carbon dioxide in a certain spectral interval at the surface of the Earth, at only a short distance above the ground the carbon dioxide absorption would be considerably larger than that of the water vapor.
The paper continued, "And then the saturation of the carbon dioxide absorption band:"
Plass wrote:One further objection has been raised to the carbon dioxide theory: the atmosphere is completely opaque at the center of the carbon dioxide band and therefore there is no change in the absorption as the carbon dioxide amount varies. This is entirely true for a spectral interval about one micron wide on either side of the center of the carbon dioxide band. However, the argument neglects the hundreds of spectral lines from carbon dioxide that are outside this interval of complete absorption. The change in absorption for a given variation in carbon dioxide amount is greatest for a spectral interval that is only partially opaque; the temperature variation at the surface of the Earth is determined by the change in absorption of such intervals.
So the change in carbon dioxide affects the temperature because with closer inspection the absorption of carbon dioxide is not overlapping with the absorption of water vapour and water vapour is absorbing more strongly only in the lower atmosphere, and the saturation of certain parts of carbon dioxide absorption bands are already taken into consideration in the calculations which still result in the warming of the Earth’s surface when more carbon dioxide is added to the atmosphere.
The paper continued, "This problem was solved in 1956, over 50 years ago."
BTW --- I still want to know what happens to the energy of the IR light/heat that is being absorbed in the tube containing the CO2. Conservation of energy says it must still be there or go somewhere.
. . . 1] If it is in the air then it will heat up a lot each day. So, this can't be true.
. . . 2] It might be heating the glass of the tube. In this case the IU has been reradiated sideways. This keeps the IR in the air of the Earth. So, we know it is finally absorbed because we don't measure vast amounts of IR going sideways. So, this can't be true.
. . . 3] It can be reradiated down to Earth's surface. This would heat the surface a lot. So, this can't be true.
. . . 4] It can be reradiated up. I just read that satellites have measured the IR coming up at the wavelengths that CO2 absorbs and there is very, very little escaping to space at these wavelengths.
. . . I can't think of another place the energy could be.
. . . Therefore, I'm going to postulate that it is reradiated up and out into space at some different wavelength.
IMHO, almost all the energy of all wavelengths of light from the sun must averaged over a year be reradiated back into space. The sun heats the surface over land areas by about 10 deg.C each day and it cools at night the same amount. My back of the envelope calculation is that ACC is warming the Earth by about 0.0002 deg.C per day on average over a year. This about 1 deg. C per 15 years.
. . . Taken together these 2 numbers mean that during the day the Earth heats up 10 deg.C, and the at night it cools off 9.9998 deg. C. 10 / 9.9998 = 1.0002. This means that only 0.0000002% of the heat coming in each day is retained each day.
This a really tiny percentage. Is it any wonder that we can't measure it anywhere?
It follows from what we all know that the air itself glows in IR light/heat.
How much does it glow? Not much at all. A really tiny amount.
It might be about 0.0000002% as much energy as we have hitting us from the sun on a clear day.
Maybe this explains how IR can be radiated into space, and we can't directly measure it.