What does this mean...............?

Question

A very prominent internet climatologist, when asked what we would see if we could see ONLY at CO2 wavelengths wrote:

"Red would dominate but because objects absorb and reflect different wavelengths things that are white in the visible spectrum would appear green in the infrared. "

I'm having trouble understanding this.  I apparently have spent too much time on differential equations, and not enough time on internet climatology.

happy · Accepted Answer

What do you expect when you are trying to determine what a bullshit artist is saying.

Sagebrush · Answer

That question was bogus. CO2 does absorb some frequencies better than others. It doesn't absorb the whole infrared spectrum. It only absorbs some. And we could even theoretically apply that to the harmonic wavelengths. 

CO2 does not transmit. It absorbs and converts to heat. Now heat energy is another matter. It does not act as a lens, as I have seen stated here before. It does not act as a transmitter, like your radio, as I have seen here before. 

Heat energy may be random or it may have a frequency. There is not enough space here to elaborate and to only partially explain would be to open up to misconceptions. If you really are interested, I suggest you take a course in Vacuum Deposition technology. Stanford and especially Berkeley are probably the best in the US. They along with Lawrence Livermore Laboratories have researched this subject as far as anyone. 

But the question as written does not make any sense.

pegminer · Answer

Hmm, that sentence is a bit difficult to parse.  However, there is a nice discussion of this subject in Feynman's Lectures on Physics, probably lecture 35 or 36 in Volume I.

Actually, I think Feynman was talking about the very same subject--what we would perceive if we could see wavelengths that are invisible to us.

EDIT: I think there was some confusion in the original question about what IR we're talking about, since it spans a pretty big range.  I don't fully understand what is meant by CO2 wavelengths anyway, and I think Trevor and the people he is quoting were not talking about those wavelengths, so Trevor missed the CO2 part. The whole question I think it gets into philosophy and the physiology of vision (hence the Feynman reference).

Trevor · Answer

If you disagree with the comment I made (which you have taken out of context) then please contact Professors Babak Bohran and James Geiger at Michigan State Uni and the Smithsonian and tell them that the work they did last December is wrong.

Please inform them that the protein they discovered in the human eye that detects beyond what we see as red doesn’t exist after all.

You may also want to read my answer again. Immediately after I made the comment you quoted I stated “That’s what we’d see in theory. But what we would actually see…”

- - - - - - -

EDIT: RE YOUR ADDED DETAILS

• Quote from the Smithsonian Mag referencing the work of Prof. James Geigler “If we could see in infrared, we’d be able to detect all sorts of things… If these proteins were present in the eye you would be able to see red light that is invisible to you now. But since objects reflect a mixture of light, the world would not necessarily always appear more red. Something that looked white before would now look green…”
http://blogs.smithsonianmag.com/smartnews/2012/12/what-would-it-be-like-to-see-infrared-light/#ixzz2Z3nMN4Ru

• Where has anyone ever denied the validity of differential equations in science.  Please provide a link, if you’re unable to validate your claim then stop repeating it, it makes you look like a liar.

• “A pretty large fraction of the population is clowning, but close to 100 percent on this particular board is clownish.”  We’re back to the same scenario of “I am right, everyone else is wrong”.

Rio · Answer

All I know is color defines heat intensity. Is it related to lasers? Not all objects emit the infrared spectrum. But I'm also limited to the physical spectrum where the Sun appears white not red. 
 CO2 is Omni directional but the radiative emission is averaged. 

Not a link most skeptics would appreciate: But I can't find where this guy has intentionally mislead. Where every other Alarmist has.

Dale-E · Answer

I'm having trouble with both the asker and the answer. The blind asker, seeing at ONLY CO2 wavelengths would still be blind. Being limited to such a narrow spectrum of light perception, would put global warming as #50 on his list of concerns, I would think. 
This reminds me of another discussion. "What is the real color of the Sun?"
Perhaps "Internet Climatologist" like to help people in the distractions being put forth by Dupont, Monsanto, and others who's futures are riding on the wavelengths of confusion.

What does this mean...............?

Related Questions

Trending Questions