AGW: atmospheric physics

[gslack]

mamooth- gslack is on the wrong side of the bell curve so it is of little use trying to communicate with him. polarbear is different though. his whole schtick here is to make debating points or something. he purposely misunderstands the idea that you are trying to put forward, then replies with some non sequitor with a lot of numbers and equations. or sometimes he just picks a poorly chosen phrase and ridicules it, endlessly.

anyone with half a brain knows that a mirrored, or even just white, room is brighter than a dark room. anyone with half a brain knows that a 1000w gold smelter uses heat sinks to produce a high temperature but a 1000w room heater doesnt melt the room.

anybody with half a brain knows that the earth's surface is a heat sink that is a higher temp because the atmosphere interferes with energy loss, allowing the Sun's energy to warm the surface until it is radiating and conducting energy at a high enough rate to force energy through the atmosphere so that it matches the incoming energy. just because the heat sink changes temperature that does not mean that the input or output has changed.

And now YOU... Where to start? DO we start with your complete lack of ethics and decisions to ignore the mind-numbingly ignorant claims of your pal here and attack me? Or do we start with your hero-worship of Roy Spencer and his deliberate fudging of science?

You're luke-warmer and apologist nature cannot hide your continued cowardice when confronted on this subject. When you get challenged you pretend you don't speak english anymore. So please your opinion of me means squat..

Why don't you correct the admirals claims Ian? LOL, because you lack the character to do it we know..

 

[polarbear]

mamooth- gslack is on the wrong side of the bell curve so it is of little use trying to communicate with him. polarbear is different though. his whole schtick here is to make debating points or something. he purposely misunderstands the idea that you are trying to put forward, then replies with some non sequitor with a lot of numbers and equations. or sometimes he just picks a poorly chosen phrase and ridicules it, endlessly.

anyone with half a brain knows that a mirrored, or even just white, room is brighter than a dark room.

Gee, I expected something a little bit better from you, but then again I should not because you aren`t much better than this idiot:

That visible light is going to hit the walls, and 80% will bounce off. And that reflected light will hit the walls again, and 64% will bounce. And so on. By the infinite summation formula, we can calculate the final light flux at 1/(1-.8) = 5 times the luminous flux

Cat shit for brains is accumulating photons, which requires a system that could accumulate photons over a period of time.
That would require nothing less than a novel "photon capacitor" which according to the "I used to run nuclear reactors" needs nothing more than a room with mirrors or walls painted white.
So why don`t you tell me how long it takes before that "white room" goes dark after you switched off the light bulb, then calculate the "photon capacitance" of this "mamooth" stupidity which culminates in 5 times the original flux

That`s one thing.
It`s a whole other matter when anyone with half a brain (like you) starts adding vectors that point in all possible directions and sums them up regardless of direction to get to :

By the infinite summation formula, we can calculate the final light flux at 1/(1-.8) = 5 times the luminous flux[

What`s the matter with you?
Can`t you read?

Gerhard Gerlich
Institut Mathematische Physik
Technische Universität Carolo-Wilhelmina
In classical radiation theory radiation is not described by a vector field assigning to every space point a corresponding vector. Rather, with each point of space many rays are associated (Figure 3). This is in sharp contrast to the modern description of the radiation field as an electromagnetic field with the Poynting vector field as the relevant
quantity [99].

Apparently not, :

anyone with half a brain knows that a mirrored, or even just white, room is brighter than a dark room

because only people with half a brain would come up with:

By the infinite summation formula, we can calculate the final light flux at 1/(1-.8) = 5 times the luminous flux[

The rest of them who don`t just have half a brain would know that:

In physics, the Poynting vector represents the directional energy flux density (the rate of energy transfer per unit area, in watts per square metre (W·m−2)) of an electromagnetic field.

Energy flux is the rate of transfer of energy through a surface.
This is a vector quantity, its components being determined in terms of the normal (perpendicular) direction to the surface of measurement.
A vector) is a geometric object that has magnitude (or length) and direction and can be added to other vectors according to vector algebra.

And simply add all the vectors up as though they were in parallel lockstep and all pointing in the same direction regardless that half of the vectors have opposing directions:


"Half a brain" that`s what all you Roy Spencer worshipers have in common.
In your half brained "logic" a detector could register not just the incoming light, but add the emitted light to it as if both vectors were pointing into the same direction.
Wow...that means your eye could catch up to the photons from a light source next to you that is pointed out into space.
So if they had a rifle with a laser and a scope on the ISS and point it at a nearby object, according to half brain "physics" you would not only be able to register the incoming light that is being reflected but also the light that the laser emits towards the object, the light with the directly opposite vector.
Amazing

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

I don't even get how this is being debated so far.

Do the deniers in this thread even understand the greenhouse effect? Its really simple - infrared radiation coming from Earth's surface is scattered rather than streaming into space. That's really it.

 

[gslack]

I don't even get how this is being debated so far.

Do the deniers in this thread even understand the greenhouse effect? Its really simple - infrared radiation coming from Earth's surface is scattered rather than streaming into space. That's really it.

And there is Ian's sock on cue...

 

[Saigon]

I don't even get how this is being debated so far.

Do the deniers in this thread even understand the greenhouse effect? Its really simple - infrared radiation coming from Earth's surface is scattered rather than streaming into space. That's really it.

I believe SSDD has claimed that there is no such thing as a greenhouse effect. He maintains that the Second Law of Thermodynamics has been 'misunderstood', or something, and that back radiation does not exist.

If you have the patience, there must be 30 pages of him disagreeing with virtually everyone on the forum covering this.

You'll have to wade through a lot of spamming, abuse and photographs of Polarbear's barbeques to read it, though.

 

[polarbear]

I don't even get how this is being debated so far.

Do the deniers in this thread even understand the greenhouse effect? Its really simple - infrared radiation coming from Earth's surface is scattered rather than streaming into space. That's really it.

We already know that you don`t get it ever since you equated "back radiation" to the frog popping power of your microwave oven.

This is what`s being debated:
http://www.usmessageboard.com/environment/279415-agw-atmospheric-physics-98.html#post7207238

The amount of heat radiated from the atmosphere to the surface (sometimes called “back radiation&#8221 is equivalent to 100 percent of the incoming solar energy.[dubious – discuss]
As solar heating and “back radiation” from the atmosphere raise the surface temperature, the surface simultaneously releases an increasing amount of heat—equivalent to about 117 percent of incoming solar energy

150 years later we have so many versions of this "back radiation" gospel that even it`s own disciples can`t make up their mind which one they should use.
Wikipedia alone has several versions..here are 2 of them, but there are almost over a dozen of them embedded in other topics:

So in addition to your microwave popping frogs we got another idiot that can surpass the 117% gain, first it was :

Now, the mirror room is interesting. You'd get a "hall of mirrors" effect and see many lights shining at you. It would be very bright. Eventually, imperfections in the mirrors and the fact that you were absorbing light would limit the bounces, but you could easily get ten times the original light flux.

Then it was:

That visible light is going to hit the walls, and 80% will bounce off. And that reflected light will hit the walls again, and 64% will bounce. And so on. By the infinite summation formula, we can calculate the final light flux at 1/(1-.8) = 5 times the luminous flux

Making your frog popping 1:1 power microwave oven obsolete
So tell us, which version do you not "deny"...
the 1/2 brained- 117% version, the 10 times or the 5 times version ?
Or do you prefer your own scatter brained version ...

infrared radiation coming from Earth's surface is scattered rather than streaming into space

...which would be in numbers ?..... what exactly?
Be careful how you answer, I got a sharp pencil
[dubious ]
Synonyms
doubtful - uncertain - questionable - shady - equivocal

 

[SSDD]

I believe SSDD has claimed that there is no such thing as a greenhouse effect. He maintains that the Second Law of Thermodynamics has been 'misunderstood', or something, and that back radiation does not exist.

There is an atmospheric thermal effect which is far greater than the claimed greenhouse effect...further, the atmospheric thermal effect accurately predicts the temperatures on every planet in the solar system with an atmosphere...and has been proven experimentally.

The greenhouse effect on the other hand can't even accurately predict the temperature here on earth and doesn't even come close to predicting the temperatures of other planets in the solar system...and doesn't have the first bit of observed measureable evidence in support of its existence...belief in a greenhouse effect is pure faith.

 

[westwall]

I don't even get how this is being debated so far.

Do the deniers in this thread even understand the greenhouse effect? Its really simple - infrared radiation coming from Earth's surface is scattered rather than streaming into space. That's really it.

Yeah, except that's not really what happens is it. Especially when all you can give is a "thought experiment" to describe the concept. there is zero empirical data to support your "theory". You would think that someone with a PhD in physics would understand that....sadly it seems to have escaped your teachers...

 

[westwall]

I don't even get how this is being debated so far.

Do the deniers in this thread even understand the greenhouse effect? Its really simple - infrared radiation coming from Earth's surface is scattered rather than streaming into space. That's really it.

I believe SSDD has claimed that there is no such thing as a greenhouse effect. He maintains that the Second Law of Thermodynamics has been 'misunderstood', or something, and that back radiation does not exist.

If you have the patience, there must be 30 pages of him disagreeing with virtually everyone on the forum covering this.

You'll have to wade through a lot of spamming, abuse and photographs of Polarbear's barbeques to read it, though.

No, once again you misrepresent what has been said...but what would one expect from a propagandist..no, there most definitely is a greenhouse effect...and it occurs in sealed systems like......uh.....ohhhhh.....GREENHOUSES! Yeah, that's it! Greenhouses exhibit that effect because they're closed systems...

Care to explain how the Earth is a closed system....

 

[Saigon]

You would think that someone with a PhD in physics would understand that....sadly it seems to have escaped your teachers...

It seems to have escaped Stephen Hawking as well.

It's amazing how many posters on this board know more about physics than Hawking does.

 

[westwall]

You would think that someone with a PhD in physics would understand that....sadly it seems to have escaped your teachers...

It seems to have escaped Stephen Hawking as well.

It's amazing how many posters on this board know more about physics than Hawking does.

Yes, and Hawking has been wrong on how many subjects now? So, how is it in Finland now mr. east coast USA poster...

 

[Saigon]

Westwall -

Oh, I'm from the US East Coast now am I?! Fantastic! What was it that gave me away?!

btw. In Helsinki it's drizzling, around 15C and a bit dull and colourless. I just got home from work.

Honestly....what a child you are!

 

[westwall]

Westwall -

Oh, I'm from the US East Coast now am I?! Fantastic! What was it that gave me away?!

btw. In Helsinki it's drizzling, around 15C and a bit dull and colourless. I just got home from work.

Honestly....what a child you are!

15? The weather channel says its 11.

 

[Saigon]

Westwall -

I notice you are very quiet on exactly why you don't think I'm in Finland! Is it a secret?

After all, you have repeated this claim a dozen times now - why not post the damning proof?!

btw. The weather channel probably uses data from out by H-V airport, where it is quite windy.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

I don't even get how this is being debated so far.

Do the deniers in this thread even understand the greenhouse effect? Its really simple - infrared radiation coming from Earth's surface is scattered rather than streaming into space. That's really it.

Yeah, except that's not really what happens is it. Especially when all you can give is a "thought experiment" to describe the concept. there is zero empirical data to support your "theory". You would think that someone with a PhD in physics would understand that....sadly it seems to have escaped your teachers...

The opacity of Co2 to infrared radiation is experimentally verified.

 

[IanC]

I don't even get how this is being debated so far.

Do the deniers in this thread even understand the greenhouse effect? Its really simple - infrared radiation coming from Earth's surface is scattered rather than streaming into space. That's really it.

I believe SSDD has claimed that there is no such thing as a greenhouse effect. He maintains that the Second Law of Thermodynamics has been 'misunderstood', or something, and that back radiation does not exist.

If you have the patience, there must be 30 pages of him disagreeing with virtually everyone on the forum covering this.

You'll have to wade through a lot of spamming, abuse and photographs of Polarbear's barbeques to read it, though.

No, once again you misrepresent what has been said...but what would one expect from a propagandist..no, there most definitely is a greenhouse effect...and it occurs in sealed systems like......uh.....ohhhhh.....GREENHOUSES! Yeah, that's it! Greenhouses exhibit that effect because they're closed systems...

Care to explain how the Earth is a closed system....

the earth is not a closed system. that is why it is so odd that the SLoTers here make a big fuss over changes in the location equilibrium temperatures as energy flows from the sun, through the earth system and then out to space. why shouldnt the surface be radiating more energy than it receives from the sun? a large fraction of it does not escape.

let's ignore GHGs. would an atmosphere of just N2 warm the surface? even though all the surface IR could directly escape to space, the atmosphere would be sending energy to the surface via blackbody radiation. I realize the blackbodies are not perfect, I understand the concept of potential/kinetic energy heat sink of the atmosphere, etc. any atmosphere will raise the average surface temperature and reduce the swings in temp from daylight to nighttime.

if we add GHGs, then surface radiation is actually impeded, unlike a pure nitrogen atmosphere. of course GHGs actually make it easier to lose IR once it gets high enough in the atmosphere so it is actually close to a 'push' except that there is a resistance close to the surface. energy from the sun was used to fill up the heat sink of the surface until it reached a temperature able to get IR past the 'speed bump' caused by GHGs. perhaps 'Dam' is a better analogy because energy is like water, always seeking the lowest level. once filled the dam does not change the flow of water, just the height at which it drops from.

personally I dont think CO2 has a very big part of the process because it is already in sufficient quantity to diffuse its favourite band of IR. the next 400ppm will only add ~1C. other pathways take up the energy CO2 returns to the surface. BUT! to deny the basic physics principles of how CO2 interacts with the general equilibrium systems of sun/earth/space just gives the warmists cause to ignore everything else we say. you dont find McIntyre, Watts, Dyson, Lindzen, Monckton, or any of the important skeptics, denying what we should all know to be possible even if it is severely curtailed by other processes.

 

[polarbear]

{the earth is not a closed system. that is why it is so odd that the SLoTers here make a big fuss over changes in the location equilibrium temperatures as energy flows from the sun, through the earth system and then out to space. why shouldnt the surface be radiating more energy than it receives from the sun? a large fraction of it does not escape.}

*let's ignore GHGs. would an atmosphere of just N2 warm the surface? even though all the surface IR could directly escape to space, the atmosphere would be sending energy to the surface via blackbody radiation. I realize the blackbodies are not perfect, I understand the concept of potential/kinetic energy heat sink of the atmosphere, etc. any atmosphere will raise the average surface temperature and reduce the swings in temp from daylight to nighttime.

if we add GHGs, then surface radiation is actually impeded, unlike a pure nitrogen atmosphere. of course GHGs actually make it easier to lose IR once it gets high enough in the atmosphere so it is actually close to a 'push' except that there is a resistance close to the surface. energy from the sun was used to fill up the heat sink of the surface until it reached a temperature able to get IR past the 'speed bump' caused by GHGs. perhaps 'Dam' is a better analogy because energy is like water, always seeking the lowest level. once filled the dam does not change the flow of water, just the height at which it drops from.

personally I dont think CO2 has a very big part of the process because it is already in sufficient quantity to diffuse its favourite band of IR. the next 400ppm will only add ~1C. other pathways take up the energy CO2 returns to the surface.

BUT! to deny the basic physics principles of how CO2 interacts with the general equilibrium systems of sun/earth/space just gives the warmists cause to ignore everything else we say. you dont find McIntyre, Watts, Dyson, Lindzen, Monckton, or any of the important skeptics, denying what we should all know to be possible even if it is severely curtailed by other processes.

Sometimes you (almost) make sense. I say (almost) because the rest of the time you allow yourself to be sucked in again by Roy`s stupid "thought experiment" again and again.
I`m Okay with that, because the universe shall unfold as it should regardless what you believe.
So this time let`s focus on the part that made sense.

Let me start with
*let's ignore GHGs. would an atmosphere of just N2 warm the surface?

You would have been on to something had you asked that question the other way around :
"let's ignore GHGs, would the surface warm an atmosphere of just N2"...(ignoring also water vapor)
Of course it would !
You can`t avoid to heat any gas over a heated surface, Nitrogen is no exception...need examples?...Nah...you are not nearly as stupid as "mamooth" so we`ll just take it from there.
Assuming we are talking about a 1 G planet this Nitrogen atm would have a temperature gradient (lapse rate) due to convection and should according to the "back radiation" hypothesis act accordingly, no different than any other gas, CO2 included.
The only difference is that you can`t blame the presence of Nitrogen or Oxygen on mankind and tax the shit out of us.
Just mentioning CO2, a trace gas as a "greenhouse gas" on a planet with 7/10 th of the surface being water is an oxymoron.
Even if there would be no water, the amount of heat transferred by a warm surface to a gas above it dwarfs the tiny amount of IR that CO2 can absorb..and can convert into heat (quantitatively) if you disallow all other avenues, such as expansion
That leaves us with the IR fraction that CO2 re-emits towards the surface...be aware that Heinz Hug`s measurement does not consider the Poynting vector...this is the total amount:
The Climate Catastrophe - A Spectroscopic Artifact

[FONT=Arial, Geneva]We integrated from a value E = 3 (above which absorption deems negligible, related to the way through the whole troposphere) until the ends (E = 0) of the R- and P-branch. So the edges are fully considered. They start at 14.00 µm for the P-branch and at 15.80 µm for the R-branch, going down to the base line E=0. IPCC starts with 13.7 and 16 µm [SIZE=-1][13][/SIZE]. For the 15 µm band our result was:[/FONT]
15 µm band 357 ppm 714 ppm total integral
624,04 cm[SIZE=-2]-1[/SIZE] - 703,84 cm[SIZE=-2]-1[/SIZE] 0.5171/cm 1.4678/cmsum of slope integrals 1.11[SIZE=+1]*[/SIZE]10[SIZE=-2]-4[/SIZE]/cm 9.79[SIZE=+1]*[/SIZE]10[SIZE=-2]-4[/SIZE]/cm
[FONT=Arial, Geneva]Crucial is the relative increment of greenhouse effect . This is equal to the difference between the sum of slope integrals for 714 and 357 ppm, related to the total integral for 357 ppm. Considering the n[SIZE=-2]3[/SIZE] band alone (as IPCC does) we get[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Geneva](9.79[SIZE=+1]*[/SIZE]10[SIZE=-2]-4[/SIZE] cm[SIZE=-2]-1[/SIZE] - 1.11[SIZE=+1]*[/SIZE]10[SIZE=-2]-4[/SIZE] cm[SIZE=-2]-1[/SIZE]) / 0.5171 cm[SIZE=-2]-1[/SIZE] = 0.17 %[/FONT]

[FONT=Arial, Geneva] Conclusions[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Geneva]It is hardly to be expected that for CO[SIZE=-2]2[/SIZE] doubling an increment of IR absorption at the 15 µm edges by 0.17% can cause any significant global warming or even a climate catastrophe.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Geneva]The radiative forcing for doubling can be calculated by using this figure. If we allocate an absorption of 32 W/m[SIZE=-2]2[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1][14][/SIZE] over 180º steradiant to the total integral (area) of the n[SIZE=-2]3[/SIZE] band as observed from satellite measurements [SIZE=-1](Hanel et al., 1971)[/SIZE] and applied to a standard atmosphere, and take an increment of 0.17%, the absorption is 0.054 W/m[SIZE=-2]2[/SIZE] - and not 4.3 W/m[SIZE=-2]2[/SIZE].[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Geneva]This is roughly 80 times less than IPCC's radiative forcing.[/FONT]

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

Assuming we are talking about a 1 G planet this Nitrogen atm would have a temperature gradient (lapse rate) due to convection and should according to the "back radiation" hypothesis act accordingly, no different than any other gas, CO2 included.

CO2 is opaque to most infrared, N2 is not.

 

[polarbear]

Assuming we are talking about a 1 G planet this Nitrogen atm would have a temperature gradient (lapse rate) due to convection and should according to the "back radiation" hypothesis act accordingly, no different than any other gas, CO2 included.

CO2 is opaque to most infrared, N2 is not.

You are the dimwit that claimed to be a physicist and kept spelling it "physisist". So you better stay out of it, seeing the best you can do is"CO2 is opaque to most infrared" while you were looking at a IR band 2µ "wide" :

First we have to establish that you can read. After that I`ll let you have 54 milli -watts of power which is about the power rating of a jumbo IR LED on your TV remote.
Point that IR remote at a square meter of black dirt and tell me how much the dirt warmed up. If that don`t work you can stick it right into the dirt so that there is no albedo effect in case "black dirt" is something that is politically incorrect since Obama became President.
After you`re done stick that remote up your ass and check if your eyes bugged out like the frog`s eyes you used to pop in your microwave oven...as you said you did last last year when you said that you were a "physisist"...

 

[mamooth]

First we have to establish that you can read. After that I`ll let you have 54 milli -watts of power which is about the power rating of a jumbo IR LED on your TV remote.

What are you babbling about?

That's why no one responds to you. You're not dazzling anyone with brilliance. You're baffling everyone with bullshit. It's like you're speaking some authentic frontier gibberish, to steal a quote from Blazing Saddles.

This is why we can tell you've never been trained as a scientist or engineer. You stink at communicating. Good scientists and engineers can explain a topic clearly. You can't. You toss up your pictures and numbers, but no one can figure out why you tossed them up.