Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Greenhouse Theory Disproved a Century Ago
Town Hall ^ | 02/03/09 | reasonmclucus

Posted on 02/03/2009 4:15:22 PM PST by kathsua

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 than 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.


TOPICS: Science; Weather
KEYWORDS: experiment; globalwarming; greenhouse; maunderminimum; milankovitch; milankovitchcycles; rwwood
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-25 next last
If it isn't science, why do so many scientists claim it is? Is science perhaps overrated or are standards for who qualifies as a scientist too low?

I don't understand how something disproved that long ago can still be accepted or are liberal media lying when they say this is science.

1 posted on 02/03/2009 4:15:22 PM PST by kathsua
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: kathsua; Little Bill; IrishCatholic; Normandy; According2RecentPollsAirIsGood; Fiddlstix; ...
 




Beam me to Planet Gore !

2 posted on 02/03/2009 4:19:02 PM PST by steelyourfaith (BO has been POTUS two weeks and I still have to buy my gas and pay my mortgage. What's up with that?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kathsua

Here’s a guideline - if a non-scientist tells you what is or is not good science, you should be very skeptical of his unverified statement.


3 posted on 02/03/2009 4:25:32 PM PST by Post Toasties (Conservatives allow the guilty to be executed but Lefties insist that the innocent be executed.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kathsua
"If it isn't science, why do so many scientists claim it is?"

Because nobody gets hundreds of millions or even billions of dollars in grants to study something that isn't a problem. So, the "scientific community" looks the other way as the UN and western governments back up the dump truck full of tax-payer money to the back doors of their labratories.

It's about money. As my grandfather taught me a long, long time ago. It's always about money.

4 posted on 02/03/2009 4:28:04 PM PST by Big_Monkey
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kathsua

Ay,. Ay, Ay my eyes hurt. Call the formatting police!


5 posted on 02/03/2009 4:31:24 PM PST by Cacique (quos Deus vult perdere, prius dementat ( Islamia Delenda Est ))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kathsua; OKSooner; honolulugal; Killing Time; Beowulf; Mr. Peabody; RW_Whacko; SideoutFred; ...
Image and video hosting by TinyPic

FReepmail me to get on or off

Image and video hosting by TinyPic

Climate Research News

Click on POGW graphic for full GW rundown

GREENIE WATCH

Ping me if you find one I've missed.


Gird yer eyeballs....
6 posted on 02/03/2009 4:36:46 PM PST by xcamel (The urge to save humanity is always a false front for the urge to rule it. - H. L. Mencken)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Post Toasties; kathsua
Here’s a guideline - if a non-scientist tells you what is or is not good science, you should be very skeptical of his unverified statement.

Here's another guideline - if someone with a PhD in science tells you that you must change your life because of something that science dictates, you should be very skeptical of his pseudo-verified statement.

7 posted on 02/03/2009 4:39:04 PM PST by SampleMan (Community Organizer: What liberals do when they run out of college, before they run out of Marxism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Cacique

not widely known but he also disproved the theory of using paragraphs in formatting


8 posted on 02/03/2009 4:40:12 PM PST by beebuster2000
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: kathsua

[fixed format]

Greenhouse Theory Disproved a Century Ago

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 than 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.


9 posted on 02/03/2009 4:40:14 PM PST by xcamel (The urge to save humanity is always a false front for the urge to rule it. - H. L. Mencken)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: xcamel

Thanks for fixing it...


10 posted on 02/03/2009 5:00:32 PM PST by dcwusmc (We need to make government so small that it can be drowned in a bathtub.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: kathsua

You can argue the economics: “even if gw is true it isn’t worth the cost to counter it because...”

You can argue against the misrepresentation of scientific results at the hands of people like Gore...

But by saying with a straight face that carbon dioxide doesn’t absorb infrared radiation you make us all look like idiots.

Please go to your nearest college campus and measure the CO2 absorption spectra. There is no conspiracy about that. Although I’m becoming more convinced that there is a conspiracy of idiocy at FR.


11 posted on 02/03/2009 5:02:22 PM PST by newguy357
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: newguy357
Please go to your nearest college campus and measure the CO2 absorption spectra. There is no conspiracy about that. Although I’m becoming more convinced that there is a conspiracy of idiocy at FR.

(sighs heavily...)

I'll have to satisfy myself with quoting Wolfgang Pauli..."It's not even wrong."

Cheers!

12 posted on 02/03/2009 5:28:28 PM PST by grey_whiskers (The opinions are solely those of the author and are subject to change without notice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: newguy357
I can't resist anymore.

Here.

13 posted on 02/03/2009 5:34:13 PM PST by grey_whiskers (The opinions are solely those of the author and are subject to change without notice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: grey_whiskers
For discussion purposes... Wiki seems to say that GW theory is based on a different effect than that of a greenhouse. To wit:
The greenhouse effect refers to the change in the steady state temperature of a planet or moon by the presence of an atmosphere containing gas that absorbs and emits infrared radiation.

Greenhouse gases, which include water vapor, carbon dioxide and methane, warm the atmosphere by efficiently absorbing thermal infrared radiation emitted by the Earth’s surface, by the atmosphere itself, and by clouds. As a result of its warmth, the atmosphere also radiates thermal infrared in all directions, including downward to the Earth’s surface.

Thus, greenhouse gases trap heat within the surface-troposphere system. This mechanism is fundamentally different from the mechanism of an actual greenhouse, which instead isolates air inside the structure so that the heat is not lost by convection and conduction, as discussed below.

From here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_effect

14 posted on 02/03/2009 11:02:48 PM PST by D-fendr (Deus non alligatur sacramentis sed nos alligamur.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: grey_whiskers

I say CO2 absorbs infrared, and you protest by sending me a link about how CO2 absorbs infrared?


15 posted on 02/03/2009 11:36:06 PM PST by newguy357
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: newguy357
I was protesting the *thread*, not you.

That post was supposed to be covering fire for you.

Cheers!

16 posted on 02/04/2009 4:25:02 AM PST by grey_whiskers (The opinions are solely those of the author and are subject to change without notice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: D-fendr
Granted; and granted that the contribution of manmade CO2is supposed to be minimal; but parts of the original thread implied that IR could not excite vibrational bands at all...which is why I posted.

The name "Greenhouse Effect" is a metaphor for the "effects" in layman's terms, as far as I can make out.

Cheers!

17 posted on 02/04/2009 4:28:38 AM PST by grey_whiskers (The opinions are solely those of the author and are subject to change without notice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: steelyourfaith; kathsua; Little Bill; IrishCatholic; Normandy; According2RecentPollsAirIsGood; ...
Totally lost it on the G.Gordon Liddy show yesterday. Are Americans now so dumbed down that their eyes glaze over when one mentions the Milankovitch Cycle? The terms "Precession," or "Axial Tilt," cause people to go numb.

As Mother Gaia tilts and wobbles around a 23,000 year elliptical orbit that brings it closer to the Sun, and then out again, there is climate change. Heating and Cooling.

Milankovitch and Wood worked this all out 100 years ago. Where is the mystery? But today, the Greens stand poised to wreck the economies of the West creating policies based on feelings: on un-scientific gibberish. Auto emission rules are made up by people who wouldn't know a spark plug from a camshaft. The modern Diesel engine, which employed as the family car's prime mover, could end our dependence upon foreign oil, is an object of some sort of cult hatred.

What the hell uis going on when a Republican Candidate, John McCain, a graduate of the US Naval Academy, where one is presumably required to pass Thermodynamics, has never made an anti- "Global Warming" statement.

Development of domestic oil resources and refining capacity is fought tooth and nail. Coal? Worth your life to mention it in polite company. Nuclear? OK, When?

We are not reaching the people at the mall. We cannot even get the point across to our representatives, who are largely lawyers, most without even the barest minimum of technical knowledge. They have fallen prey to pseudo-scientists who milk them like cows for research money to create self-fulfilling theoretical prophecies in which contrary data is dismissed.

Sorry, but Americans, even those in positions of great power, are now so technically stupid* that when Al Gore says "The Sky is Falling!" they believe him.

* Yeah. Stupid. Ignorance is reparable. This isn't.

18 posted on 02/04/2009 11:22:37 AM PST by Kenny Bunk (Obama campaigned in Kenya for Jihadist Church-Burner Odinga. Didn't McCain know?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: grey_whiskers

Thanks for the clarification :)


19 posted on 02/04/2009 12:58:09 PM PST by newguy357
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: xcamel

bump


20 posted on 02/04/2009 12:59:25 PM PST by Captain Beyond (The Hammer of the gods! (Just a cool line from a Led Zep song))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-25 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson