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

Skip to comments.

Global Warming Theory Disproved a Century Ago
global warming religion ^ | 10/04/18 | Reasonmclucus

Posted on 10/05/2018 9:56:29 PM PDT 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.

Philosophical Magazine might not sound like the name of a science publication, but a century ago leading scientists published their discoveries in it.

During the early 19th Century many physicists supported the theory postulated by Benjamin Franklin that heat involved some type of fluid. The theory became known as "caloric theory". Joseph Jean Baptiste Fourier's theory that the atmosphere was heated from infrared radiation from the ground was a variation of caloric theory with IR functioning as the "fluid". Fourier believed greenhouses were heated by trapping this radiation.

Physicists in the early 19th Century were attempting to develop theories to explain the nature of atoms and their properties such as heat. Physicists theorized that atoms were the smallest particles of matter.

By the end of the century a new theory of heat, called "kinetic theory", was being developed that suggested heat was the motion, or kinetic energy, of atoms. However, Fourier's theory that IR heated the atmosphere particularly by interacting with carbon dioxide and water vapor continued to have support.

In 1897 J.J. Thompson overturned the popular theory of the atoms being the smallest particles of matter by reporting his discovery of the electron and predicting two other types of charged particles he called protons and neutrons.

Wood was an expert on IR. His accomplishments included inventing both IR and UV (ultraviolet) photography. In 1909 he decided to test Fourier's theory about how greenhouses retained heat.

Wood constructed two identical small greenhouses. The description implies the type of structure a gardener would refer to as a "cold frame" 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. He called the amount of energy absorbed and emitted as a "quantum". (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 that reflects a broad spectrum of IR 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: Conspiracy; History; Science; Weather
KEYWORDS: carlsagan; fakenews; fakescience; globalwarming; globalwarminghoax; infraredradiation; rwwood
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-33 last
To: HypatiaTaught

Well, that mice-through-a-chain-linked-fence comparison is simple, but it doesn’t ring so true. The so-called greenhouse gases absorbed over 94% of the outgoing infrared radiation from Earth’s surface before the industrial age, and that figure is probably a tiny bit bigger today. But that’s not the whole story either. When a so-called greenhouse gas molecule absorbs an IR photon, it reemits IR. The new emissions go in random directions, some go out towards space and some go down towards Earth. On their way, they too may be absorbed by another greenhouse gas molecule, or maybe they’ll hit a particle of black soot or something and transfer some or all of their energy to the particle. The greenhouse gas absorptions and remissions occur at the speed of light. It’s a very busy atmosphere. A lot of the infrared emitted from Earth’s surface does make it out to space, but the notion that relatively low ppm value makes these greenhouse molecules as easy to avoid (for IR) as a chain link fence is for a mouse doesn’t do justice to how many inches of atmosphere these photons have to travel through.


21 posted on 10/06/2018 5:10:33 AM PDT by Steve Schulin (Cheap electricity gives your average Joe a life better than kings used to enjoy)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: kathsua

Government grants specific to global warming research are corrupting scientists.

Universities are the most greedy of all.


22 posted on 10/06/2018 5:27:02 AM PDT by old curmudgeon (There is no situation so terrible, so disgraceful, that the federal government can not make worse)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Gene Eric

I would think that 100 years ago government grants were few and far between.


23 posted on 10/06/2018 5:35:08 AM PDT by old curmudgeon (There is no situation so terrible, so disgraceful, that the federal government can not make worse)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: kathsua
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.

Sorry, but I'm going to be the cockroach in the punchbowl.

The statement above is true and also false. It depends on the wavelength of the light involved.

In the infrared, the energies involved are too small to cause electrons to move to a higher energy state. Instead, they cause vibration modes in the chemical bonds in the molecule to intensify. That's just another way of saying that the molecule gets hotter. It is true that the molecule can release that energy by a re-radiating another infrared photon, just like any hot object can give up some of its energy by radiating an infrared photon. But it is not true to say that CO2 absorbing infrared doesn't become hotter. It does.

By contrast, ultraviolet photons have enough energy to cause electrons to promote to higher energy states. This can break chemical bonds and form new ones. That's why UV light can kill bacteria and give you skin cancer.

24 posted on 10/06/2018 5:59:44 AM PDT by Campion ((marine dad))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kathsua

Ping


25 posted on 10/06/2018 6:16:28 AM PDT by SomeCallMeTim ( The best minds are not in government. If any were, business would hire them!it)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kathsua

Ping


26 posted on 10/06/2018 6:16:29 AM PDT by SomeCallMeTim ( The best minds are not in government. If any were, business would hire them!it)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kathsua
" 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. "

I checked, they don't even sell sheets of rock salt on ebay. So I'm forced to guess; a screen or cloth is stretched over the opening supporting a layer of table salt. And the glass is obscured or frosted so they both reflect the same amount of light.

Sure would be cool to see this experiment done.

27 posted on 10/06/2018 6:51:39 AM PDT by WhoisAlanGreenspan?
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Bob434

OK!! Everybody pay attention!
Lesson for today:
1. The sun is 1,300,000 times as big as the earth.
2. The sun is a giant nuclear furnace that controls the climates of all its planets.
3. The earth is one of the sun’s planets.
4. The earth is a speck in comparison to the size of the sun.
5. Inhabitants of the earth are less than specks.
Study Question: How do less-than-specks in congress plan to control the sun?


28 posted on 10/06/2018 7:07:10 AM PDT by abclily
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Campion

I believe CO2 scatters just a few discrete frequencies of IR, a very small portion of the IR spectrum. The scattering is supposedly significant, as some of this IR will make its back to earth and have a atmospheric warming effect via convection. I believe what you are saying is that if an IR photon hits a CO2 atom that is not near one of the aforementioned frequencies, it will excite (warm) the atom instead of scattering the energy, which is likely true for other atmospheric gases.

It would be interesting to find out how climate models predict warming due to CO2. I’ve looked for theory behind this warming, which should lead to the specifics on how climate models account for it, but have not been able to find anything. There is at least one open source climate model, but haven’t had time yet to dive into it.


29 posted on 10/06/2018 8:00:33 AM PDT by jasonandtheb
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: politicianslie

Is anyone aware of a detailed report explaining why the temperatures were adjusted downward? I’ve read that some ocean temperature readings taken at sea were corrupted, leading to temperatures higher than what they actually were, but this should have been documented in detail. Another factor is the warming effect of urbanization, which should have led to a downward adjustment for more recent readings at some land based stations.


30 posted on 10/06/2018 8:09:59 AM PDT by jasonandtheb
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: kathsua

A different way to prove the same thing is with balloons and the “tree line”. CO2 is heavy. Fill a balloon with CO2 and it falls to the ground. Trees need CO2, and on mountains the tree line show where there is not enough.

The theory that CO2, a vital trace gas, can cause GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE when it’s concentration declines from 400 parts per million to virtually nothing by around 10,000 feet is ridiculous. The “hockey stick” theory, which depends on a feedback loop when CO2 hits 400 ppm has also been disproven by current temperature read by satellites.


31 posted on 10/06/2018 9:54:54 AM PDT by jdsteel (Americans are Dreamers too!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: arrogantsob

If all these people actually believe that man causes global warming why don’t they off themselves for the cause?


32 posted on 10/06/2018 10:47:39 AM PDT by oldasrocks (rump)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: kathsua

Despite the cloak of virtue so many in the “scientific” community love to display and wear, they’re all still human beings and subject to all human frailties as the rest of us...

Dangle enough $ in front of some of these “scientists” and by golly, whaddaya know, they can find the outcome their patrons hired ‘em to find...

Some propose the desired conclusion, then work backwards cooking the data along the way, and others who’d like a piece of the action swear to it...


33 posted on 10/06/2018 12:48:34 PM PDT by elteemike (Light travels faster than sound...That's why so many people appear bright until you hear them speak)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-33 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