Correlation between temperature and CO2

[jc456]

You think CO2 warms the planet, so much it adds I think twice as much heat as the incoming rays of the sun? Or something like that from the models you've posted. I've even stated to you that with your thinking of how CO2 interacts with the atmosphere we'd have perpetual motion! I will say one more time that as of my time in this forum now five + years, not one individual has posted one iota of observed evidence of CO2 impacting our temperatures.

You don't seem to be capable of catching on to concepts. Should I really bother explaining it all again when you will just ask the same questions next time?

The surface and the atmosphere both have stored energy. At night (no incoming energy from the Sun) they both cool by radiation. The surface feeds energy into the atmosphere and some escapes directly to space through the atmospheric window. The atmosphere radiates its stored energy in all directions, some returns towards the surface. This returned energy balances out some of the radiation loss from the surface therefore the surface doesn't cool as fast as it would if there was no atmosphere. But both are cooling by passive diffusion of energy THAT WAS ALREADY THERE.

The sun actively adds energy to the system. New energy, that gets stored. The surface temperature goes up, chasing the equilibrium temperature where input equals output. This is active heating, not passive redistribution, although that is still happening as well.

You made a comment on energy coming back from the atmosphere being twice the amount being received by the Sun. That is a fundamental misunderstanding of Thermodynamics. There is a two way flow of radiation between the surface and atmosphere. 400w up and 340w down for a net of 60w up. You can't have one without the other, they happen at the same time.

That is a fundamental misunderstanding of Thermodynamics. There is a two way flow of radiation between the surface and atmosphere. 400w up and 340w down for a net of 60w up. You can't have one without the other, they happen at the same time.

Now the question is, has this been measured?

from three different scientists:
“[T]he absorption of incident solar-light by the atmosphere as well as its absorption capability of thermal radiation, cannot be influenced by human acts.” – Allmendinger, 2017
“[G]lobal warming can be explained without recourse to the greenhouse theory. The varying solar irradiation constitutes the sole input driving the changes in the system’s energy transfers.” – Blaauw, 2017
“The down-welling LW radiation is not a global driver of surface warming as hypothesized for over 100 years but a product of the near-surface air temperature controlled by solar heating and atmospheric pressure.” -Nikolov and Zeller, 2017

CO2 Coalition | 17 New Scientific Papers Dispute CO2 Greenhouse Effect As Primary Explanation For Climate Change

 

[IanC]

You think CO2 warms the planet, so much it adds I think twice as much heat as the incoming rays of the sun? Or something like that from the models you've posted. I've even stated to you that with your thinking of how CO2 interacts with the atmosphere we'd have perpetual motion! I will say one more time that as of my time in this forum now five + years, not one individual has posted one iota of observed evidence of CO2 impacting our temperatures.

You don't seem to be capable of catching on to concepts. Should I really bother explaining it all again when you will just ask the same questions next time?

The surface and the atmosphere both have stored energy. At night (no incoming energy from the Sun) they both cool by radiation. The surface feeds energy into the atmosphere and some escapes directly to space through the atmospheric window. The atmosphere radiates its stored energy in all directions, some returns towards the surface. This returned energy balances out some of the radiation loss from the surface therefore the surface doesn't cool as fast as it would if there was no atmosphere. But both are cooling by passive diffusion of energy THAT WAS ALREADY THERE.

The sun actively adds energy to the system. New energy, that gets stored. The surface temperature goes up, chasing the equilibrium temperature where input equals output. This is active heating, not passive redistribution, although that is still happening as well.

You made a comment on energy coming back from the atmosphere being twice the amount being received by the Sun. That is a fundamental misunderstanding of Thermodynamics. There is a two way flow of radiation between the surface and atmosphere. 400w up and 340w down for a net of 60w up. You can't have one without the other, they happen at the same time.

That is a fundamental misunderstanding of Thermodynamics. There is a two way flow of radiation between the surface and atmosphere. 400w up and 340w down for a net of 60w up. You can't have one without the other, they happen at the same time.

Now the question is, has this been measured?

Yes. And you've seen the data, seen photos of the instruments taking the readings, seen the manufacturer's documentation of the accuracy of the instruments, etc.

And here you are again. Asking for the same information. If I dredge up the old thread, or refind the information you will ignore it one more time, only to ask the same question in the future. You and Old Rocks are similar in that way. You can't remember things that you didn't want to actually see.

 

[IanC]

You think CO2 warms the planet, so much it adds I think twice as much heat as the incoming rays of the sun? Or something like that from the models you've posted. I've even stated to you that with your thinking of how CO2 interacts with the atmosphere we'd have perpetual motion! I will say one more time that as of my time in this forum now five + years, not one individual has posted one iota of observed evidence of CO2 impacting our temperatures.

You don't seem to be capable of catching on to concepts. Should I really bother explaining it all again when you will just ask the same questions next time?

The surface and the atmosphere both have stored energy. At night (no incoming energy from the Sun) they both cool by radiation. The surface feeds energy into the atmosphere and some escapes directly to space through the atmospheric window. The atmosphere radiates its stored energy in all directions, some returns towards the surface. This returned energy balances out some of the radiation loss from the surface therefore the surface doesn't cool as fast as it would if there was no atmosphere. But both are cooling by passive diffusion of energy THAT WAS ALREADY THERE.

The sun actively adds energy to the system. New energy, that gets stored. The surface temperature goes up, chasing the equilibrium temperature where input equals output. This is active heating, not passive redistribution, although that is still happening as well.

You made a comment on energy coming back from the atmosphere being twice the amount being received by the Sun. That is a fundamental misunderstanding of Thermodynamics. There is a two way flow of radiation between the surface and atmosphere. 400w up and 340w down for a net of 60w up. You can't have one without the other, they happen at the same time.

That is a fundamental misunderstanding of Thermodynamics. There is a two way flow of radiation between the surface and atmosphere. 400w up and 340w down for a net of 60w up. You can't have one without the other, they happen at the same time.

Now the question is, has this been measured?

from three different scientists:
“[T]he absorption of incident solar-light by the atmosphere as well as its absorption capability of thermal radiation, cannot be influenced by human acts.” – Allmendinger, 2017
“[G]lobal warming can be explained without recourse to the greenhouse theory. The varying solar irradiation constitutes the sole input driving the changes in the system’s energy transfers.” – Blaauw, 2017
“The down-welling LW radiation is not a global driver of surface warming as hypothesized for over 100 years but a product of the near-surface air temperature controlled by solar heating and atmospheric pressure.” -Nikolov and Zeller, 2017

CO2 Coalition | 17 New Scientific Papers Dispute CO2 Greenhouse Effect As Primary Explanation For Climate Change

I see you have added to your post.

I have no problem with those three quotes. They are factoids, devoid of context. I can easily imagine the context where they are trivially true but misleading anyways.

Why don't you try to explain them? Or at least link up to their origin?

The atmosphere doesn't directly heat the surface except when there is an inversion. It indirectly warms the surface by reducing energy loss which allows the sun to raise it to a higher temperature.

I know you are incapable of understanding the difference. Both of us are wasting our time until you can see this fundamental point.

 

[IanC]

Of the list of papers in your link I can highly recommend Evans 2016. It points out the location of many flaws in the IPCC modeling.

But it also shows the warming influence of CO2, so maybe you wouldn't like it after all.

N&Z would be much better if they only claimed it to be scaffolding to hang other radiative effects on, rather than the whole picture. Their method of determining the energy storage in the atmosphere is an exercise in circular reasoning. There are many right answers to their equation, not just one.

I haven't read the others, that I can remember, so I can't give an opinion on them. Ones that involve TSI are highly dependent on which data set you use, so should be taken with a grain of salt. Orbital position of the gas giants needs the whole salt shaker.

 

[SSDD]

Yes. And you've seen the data, seen photos of the instruments taking the readings, seen the manufacturer's documentation of the accuracy of the instruments, etc.

And here you are again. Asking for the same information. If I dredge up the old thread, or refind the information you will ignore it one more time, only to ask the same question in the future. You and Old Rocks are similar in that way. You can't remember things that you didn't want to actually see.

All the instruments you have shown were either cooled to a temperature lower than the atmosphere or they were only measuring changes in temperature of internal thermopiles....just you being fooled by instrumentation

 

[SSDD]

Of the list of papers in your link I can highly recommend Evans 2016. It points out the location of many flaws in the IPCC modeling.

But it also shows the warming influence of CO2, so maybe you wouldn't like it after all.

N&Z would be much better if they only claimed it to be scaffolding to hang other radiative effects on, rather than the whole picture. Their method of determining the energy storage in the atmosphere is an exercise in circular reasoning. There are many right answers to their equation, not just one.

I haven't read the others, that I can remember, so I can't give an opinion on them. Ones that involve TSI are highly dependent on which data set you use, so should be taken with a grain of salt. Orbital position of the gas giants needs the whole salt shaker.

The idea of a radiative greenhouse effect in an atmosphere dominated by convection is laughable...believing in a radiative greenhouse effect in an atmosphere dominated by convection is just sad.

 

[jc456]

You think CO2 warms the planet, so much it adds I think twice as much heat as the incoming rays of the sun? Or something like that from the models you've posted. I've even stated to you that with your thinking of how CO2 interacts with the atmosphere we'd have perpetual motion! I will say one more time that as of my time in this forum now five + years, not one individual has posted one iota of observed evidence of CO2 impacting our temperatures.

You don't seem to be capable of catching on to concepts. Should I really bother explaining it all again when you will just ask the same questions next time?

The surface and the atmosphere both have stored energy. At night (no incoming energy from the Sun) they both cool by radiation. The surface feeds energy into the atmosphere and some escapes directly to space through the atmospheric window. The atmosphere radiates its stored energy in all directions, some returns towards the surface. This returned energy balances out some of the radiation loss from the surface therefore the surface doesn't cool as fast as it would if there was no atmosphere. But both are cooling by passive diffusion of energy THAT WAS ALREADY THERE.

The sun actively adds energy to the system. New energy, that gets stored. The surface temperature goes up, chasing the equilibrium temperature where input equals output. This is active heating, not passive redistribution, although that is still happening as well.

You made a comment on energy coming back from the atmosphere being twice the amount being received by the Sun. That is a fundamental misunderstanding of Thermodynamics. There is a two way flow of radiation between the surface and atmosphere. 400w up and 340w down for a net of 60w up. You can't have one without the other, they happen at the same time.

That is a fundamental misunderstanding of Thermodynamics. There is a two way flow of radiation between the surface and atmosphere. 400w up and 340w down for a net of 60w up. You can't have one without the other, they happen at the same time.

Now the question is, has this been measured?

from three different scientists:
“[T]he absorption of incident solar-light by the atmosphere as well as its absorption capability of thermal radiation, cannot be influenced by human acts.” – Allmendinger, 2017
“[G]lobal warming can be explained without recourse to the greenhouse theory. The varying solar irradiation constitutes the sole input driving the changes in the system’s energy transfers.” – Blaauw, 2017
“The down-welling LW radiation is not a global driver of surface warming as hypothesized for over 100 years but a product of the near-surface air temperature controlled by solar heating and atmospheric pressure.” -Nikolov and Zeller, 2017

CO2 Coalition | 17 New Scientific Papers Dispute CO2 Greenhouse Effect As Primary Explanation For Climate Change

I see you have added to your post.

I have no problem with those three quotes. They are factoids, devoid of context. I can easily imagine the context where they are trivially true but misleading anyways.

Why don't you try to explain them? Or at least link up to their origin?

The atmosphere doesn't directly heat the surface except when there is an inversion. It indirectly warms the surface by reducing energy loss which allows the sun to raise it to a higher temperature.

I know you are incapable of understanding the difference. Both of us are wasting our time until you can see this fundamental point.

couple of questions....If I heated a pan on a stove, the heat above the pan is hot because of IR or convection? And is the heat off the pan's side more, less, or the same as directly above it?

 

[IanC]

Of the list of papers in your link I can highly recommend Evans 2016. It points out the location of many flaws in the IPCC modeling.

But it also shows the warming influence of CO2, so maybe you wouldn't like it after all.

N&Z would be much better if they only claimed it to be scaffolding to hang other radiative effects on, rather than the whole picture. Their method of determining the energy storage in the atmosphere is an exercise in circular reasoning. There are many right answers to their equation, not just one.

I haven't read the others, that I can remember, so I can't give an opinion on them. Ones that involve TSI are highly dependent on which data set you use, so should be taken with a grain of salt. Orbital position of the gas giants needs the whole salt shaker.

The idea of a radiative greenhouse effect in an atmosphere dominated by convection is laughable...believing in a radiative greenhouse effect in an atmosphere dominated by convection is just sad.

That logic is stupid. It's like saying the monthly mortgage payment is the biggest expense, so the car payment doesn't exist.

 

[IanC]

You think CO2 warms the planet, so much it adds I think twice as much heat as the incoming rays of the sun? Or something like that from the models you've posted. I've even stated to you that with your thinking of how CO2 interacts with the atmosphere we'd have perpetual motion! I will say one more time that as of my time in this forum now five + years, not one individual has posted one iota of observed evidence of CO2 impacting our temperatures.

You don't seem to be capable of catching on to concepts. Should I really bother explaining it all again when you will just ask the same questions next time?

The surface and the atmosphere both have stored energy. At night (no incoming energy from the Sun) they both cool by radiation. The surface feeds energy into the atmosphere and some escapes directly to space through the atmospheric window. The atmosphere radiates its stored energy in all directions, some returns towards the surface. This returned energy balances out some of the radiation loss from the surface therefore the surface doesn't cool as fast as it would if there was no atmosphere. But both are cooling by passive diffusion of energy THAT WAS ALREADY THERE.

The sun actively adds energy to the system. New energy, that gets stored. The surface temperature goes up, chasing the equilibrium temperature where input equals output. This is active heating, not passive redistribution, although that is still happening as well.

You made a comment on energy coming back from the atmosphere being twice the amount being received by the Sun. That is a fundamental misunderstanding of Thermodynamics. There is a two way flow of radiation between the surface and atmosphere. 400w up and 340w down for a net of 60w up. You can't have one without the other, they happen at the same time.

That is a fundamental misunderstanding of Thermodynamics. There is a two way flow of radiation between the surface and atmosphere. 400w up and 340w down for a net of 60w up. You can't have one without the other, they happen at the same time.

Now the question is, has this been measured?

from three different scientists:
“[T]he absorption of incident solar-light by the atmosphere as well as its absorption capability of thermal radiation, cannot be influenced by human acts.” – Allmendinger, 2017
“[G]lobal warming can be explained without recourse to the greenhouse theory. The varying solar irradiation constitutes the sole input driving the changes in the system’s energy transfers.” – Blaauw, 2017
“The down-welling LW radiation is not a global driver of surface warming as hypothesized for over 100 years but a product of the near-surface air temperature controlled by solar heating and atmospheric pressure.” -Nikolov and Zeller, 2017

CO2 Coalition | 17 New Scientific Papers Dispute CO2 Greenhouse Effect As Primary Explanation For Climate Change

I see you have added to your post.

I have no problem with those three quotes. They are factoids, devoid of context. I can easily imagine the context where they are trivially true but misleading anyways.

Why don't you try to explain them? Or at least link up to their origin?

The atmosphere doesn't directly heat the surface except when there is an inversion. It indirectly warms the surface by reducing energy loss which allows the sun to raise it to a higher temperature.

I know you are incapable of understanding the difference. Both of us are wasting our time until you can see this fundamental point.

couple of questions....If I heated a pan on a stove, the heat above the pan is hot because of IR or convection? And is the heat off the pan's side more, less, or the same as directly above it?

Both. Radiation and convection play a part, plus you seemed to have forgotten about conduction.

Gravity is the mechanism behind the macroscopic movement of mass that carries the energy in convection. Radiation and conduction are microscopic processes, one that doesn't need close physical proximity and one that does.

I have a feeling that you are over estimating the amount of temperature differential between the top and the sides of the pan. Where you actually thinking of a pan of boiling water? In that case it is the steam which carries the energy to the heat receptors in your hand.

 

[jc456]

You think CO2 warms the planet, so much it adds I think twice as much heat as the incoming rays of the sun? Or something like that from the models you've posted. I've even stated to you that with your thinking of how CO2 interacts with the atmosphere we'd have perpetual motion! I will say one more time that as of my time in this forum now five + years, not one individual has posted one iota of observed evidence of CO2 impacting our temperatures.

You don't seem to be capable of catching on to concepts. Should I really bother explaining it all again when you will just ask the same questions next time?

The surface and the atmosphere both have stored energy. At night (no incoming energy from the Sun) they both cool by radiation. The surface feeds energy into the atmosphere and some escapes directly to space through the atmospheric window. The atmosphere radiates its stored energy in all directions, some returns towards the surface. This returned energy balances out some of the radiation loss from the surface therefore the surface doesn't cool as fast as it would if there was no atmosphere. But both are cooling by passive diffusion of energy THAT WAS ALREADY THERE.

The sun actively adds energy to the system. New energy, that gets stored. The surface temperature goes up, chasing the equilibrium temperature where input equals output. This is active heating, not passive redistribution, although that is still happening as well.

You made a comment on energy coming back from the atmosphere being twice the amount being received by the Sun. That is a fundamental misunderstanding of Thermodynamics. There is a two way flow of radiation between the surface and atmosphere. 400w up and 340w down for a net of 60w up. You can't have one without the other, they happen at the same time.

That is a fundamental misunderstanding of Thermodynamics. There is a two way flow of radiation between the surface and atmosphere. 400w up and 340w down for a net of 60w up. You can't have one without the other, they happen at the same time.

Now the question is, has this been measured?

from three different scientists:
“[T]he absorption of incident solar-light by the atmosphere as well as its absorption capability of thermal radiation, cannot be influenced by human acts.” – Allmendinger, 2017
“[G]lobal warming can be explained without recourse to the greenhouse theory. The varying solar irradiation constitutes the sole input driving the changes in the system’s energy transfers.” – Blaauw, 2017
“The down-welling LW radiation is not a global driver of surface warming as hypothesized for over 100 years but a product of the near-surface air temperature controlled by solar heating and atmospheric pressure.” -Nikolov and Zeller, 2017

CO2 Coalition | 17 New Scientific Papers Dispute CO2 Greenhouse Effect As Primary Explanation For Climate Change

I see you have added to your post.

I have no problem with those three quotes. They are factoids, devoid of context. I can easily imagine the context where they are trivially true but misleading anyways.

Why don't you try to explain them? Or at least link up to their origin?

The atmosphere doesn't directly heat the surface except when there is an inversion. It indirectly warms the surface by reducing energy loss which allows the sun to raise it to a higher temperature.

I know you are incapable of understanding the difference. Both of us are wasting our time until you can see this fundamental point.

couple of questions....If I heated a pan on a stove, the heat above the pan is hot because of IR or convection? And is the heat off the pan's side more, less, or the same as directly above it?

Both. Radiation and convection play a part, plus you seemed to have forgotten about conduction.

Gravity is the mechanism behind the macroscopic movement of mass that carries the energy in convection. Radiation and conduction are microscopic processes, one that doesn't need close physical proximity and one that does.

I have a feeling that you are over estimating the amount of temperature differential between the top and the sides of the pan. Where you actually thinking of a pan of boiling water? In that case it is the steam which carries the energy to the heat receptors in your hand.

no, just the hot pan. no water.

 

[IanC]

Yes. And you've seen the data, seen photos of the instruments taking the readings, seen the manufacturer's documentation of the accuracy of the instruments, etc.

And here you are again. Asking for the same information. If I dredge up the old thread, or refind the information you will ignore it one more time, only to ask the same question in the future. You and Old Rocks are similar in that way. You can't remember things that you didn't want to actually see.

All the instruments you have shown were either cooled to a temperature lower than the atmosphere or they were only measuring changes in temperature of internal thermopiles....just you being fooled by instrumentation

Can you elaborate a bit on this 'fooled by instrumentation' idea? In what way are we being fooled? Where does the cause and effect relationship break down? The measurements seem to be precise and repeatable.

 

[IanC]

You don't seem to be capable of catching on to concepts. Should I really bother explaining it all again when you will just ask the same questions next time?

The surface and the atmosphere both have stored energy. At night (no incoming energy from the Sun) they both cool by radiation. The surface feeds energy into the atmosphere and some escapes directly to space through the atmospheric window. The atmosphere radiates its stored energy in all directions, some returns towards the surface. This returned energy balances out some of the radiation loss from the surface therefore the surface doesn't cool as fast as it would if there was no atmosphere. But both are cooling by passive diffusion of energy THAT WAS ALREADY THERE.

The sun actively adds energy to the system. New energy, that gets stored. The surface temperature goes up, chasing the equilibrium temperature where input equals output. This is active heating, not passive redistribution, although that is still happening as well.

You made a comment on energy coming back from the atmosphere being twice the amount being received by the Sun. That is a fundamental misunderstanding of Thermodynamics. There is a two way flow of radiation between the surface and atmosphere. 400w up and 340w down for a net of 60w up. You can't have one without the other, they happen at the same time.

That is a fundamental misunderstanding of Thermodynamics. There is a two way flow of radiation between the surface and atmosphere. 400w up and 340w down for a net of 60w up. You can't have one without the other, they happen at the same time.

Now the question is, has this been measured?

from three different scientists:
“[T]he absorption of incident solar-light by the atmosphere as well as its absorption capability of thermal radiation, cannot be influenced by human acts.” – Allmendinger, 2017
“[G]lobal warming can be explained without recourse to the greenhouse theory. The varying solar irradiation constitutes the sole input driving the changes in the system’s energy transfers.” – Blaauw, 2017
“The down-welling LW radiation is not a global driver of surface warming as hypothesized for over 100 years but a product of the near-surface air temperature controlled by solar heating and atmospheric pressure.” -Nikolov and Zeller, 2017

CO2 Coalition | 17 New Scientific Papers Dispute CO2 Greenhouse Effect As Primary Explanation For Climate Change

I see you have added to your post.

I have no problem with those three quotes. They are factoids, devoid of context. I can easily imagine the context where they are trivially true but misleading anyways.

Why don't you try to explain them? Or at least link up to their origin?

The atmosphere doesn't directly heat the surface except when there is an inversion. It indirectly warms the surface by reducing energy loss which allows the sun to raise it to a higher temperature.

I know you are incapable of understanding the difference. Both of us are wasting our time until you can see this fundamental point.

couple of questions....If I heated a pan on a stove, the heat above the pan is hot because of IR or convection? And is the heat off the pan's side more, less, or the same as directly above it?

Both. Radiation and convection play a part, plus you seemed to have forgotten about conduction.

Gravity is the mechanism behind the macroscopic movement of mass that carries the energy in convection. Radiation and conduction are microscopic processes, one that doesn't need close physical proximity and one that does.

I have a feeling that you are over estimating the amount of temperature differential between the top and the sides of the pan. Where you actually thinking of a pan of boiling water? In that case it is the steam which carries the energy to the heat receptors in your hand.

no, just the hot pan. no water.

In that case I would suggest using a sphere of some sort so that physical shape does not interfere with your perception. A pan has more surface area facing upwards than to the side. Are you talking about a pan that is actively being heated, or one that has been warmed and is now cooling by the three mechanisms in a passive fashion? If it is actively being heated, by what kind of of source. Gas flame, electric element, or electric induction?

 

[jc456]

That is a fundamental misunderstanding of Thermodynamics. There is a two way flow of radiation between the surface and atmosphere. 400w up and 340w down for a net of 60w up. You can't have one without the other, they happen at the same time.

Now the question is, has this been measured?

from three different scientists:
“[T]he absorption of incident solar-light by the atmosphere as well as its absorption capability of thermal radiation, cannot be influenced by human acts.” – Allmendinger, 2017
“[G]lobal warming can be explained without recourse to the greenhouse theory. The varying solar irradiation constitutes the sole input driving the changes in the system’s energy transfers.” – Blaauw, 2017
“The down-welling LW radiation is not a global driver of surface warming as hypothesized for over 100 years but a product of the near-surface air temperature controlled by solar heating and atmospheric pressure.” -Nikolov and Zeller, 2017

CO2 Coalition | 17 New Scientific Papers Dispute CO2 Greenhouse Effect As Primary Explanation For Climate Change

I see you have added to your post.

I have no problem with those three quotes. They are factoids, devoid of context. I can easily imagine the context where they are trivially true but misleading anyways.

Why don't you try to explain them? Or at least link up to their origin?

The atmosphere doesn't directly heat the surface except when there is an inversion. It indirectly warms the surface by reducing energy loss which allows the sun to raise it to a higher temperature.

I know you are incapable of understanding the difference. Both of us are wasting our time until you can see this fundamental point.

couple of questions....If I heated a pan on a stove, the heat above the pan is hot because of IR or convection? And is the heat off the pan's side more, less, or the same as directly above it?

Both. Radiation and convection play a part, plus you seemed to have forgotten about conduction.

Gravity is the mechanism behind the macroscopic movement of mass that carries the energy in convection. Radiation and conduction are microscopic processes, one that doesn't need close physical proximity and one that does.

I have a feeling that you are over estimating the amount of temperature differential between the top and the sides of the pan. Where you actually thinking of a pan of boiling water? In that case it is the steam which carries the energy to the heat receptors in your hand.

no, just the hot pan. no water.

In that case I would suggest using a sphere of some sort so that physical shape does not interfere with your perception. A pan has more surface area facing upwards than to the side. Are you talking about a pan that is actively being heated, or one that has been warmed and is now cooling by the three mechanisms in a passive fashion? If it is actively being heated, by what kind of of source. Gas flame, electric element, or electric induction?

let's say it was heated on a gas stove, and now you suspend it flat in normal temperature air, does the pan evenly warm the air around it. If I took two thermometers, placed one two inches from the top surface and one two inches from the bottom surface, would they all read the same temperatures as the pan cools down?

 

[IanC]

That is a fundamental misunderstanding of Thermodynamics. There is a two way flow of radiation between the surface and atmosphere. 400w up and 340w down for a net of 60w up. You can't have one without the other, they happen at the same time.

Now the question is, has this been measured?

from three different scientists:
“[T]he absorption of incident solar-light by the atmosphere as well as its absorption capability of thermal radiation, cannot be influenced by human acts.” – Allmendinger, 2017
“[G]lobal warming can be explained without recourse to the greenhouse theory. The varying solar irradiation constitutes the sole input driving the changes in the system’s energy transfers.” – Blaauw, 2017
“The down-welling LW radiation is not a global driver of surface warming as hypothesized for over 100 years but a product of the near-surface air temperature controlled by solar heating and atmospheric pressure.” -Nikolov and Zeller, 2017

CO2 Coalition | 17 New Scientific Papers Dispute CO2 Greenhouse Effect As Primary Explanation For Climate Change

I see you have added to your post.

I have no problem with those three quotes. They are factoids, devoid of context. I can easily imagine the context where they are trivially true but misleading anyways.

Why don't you try to explain them? Or at least link up to their origin?

The atmosphere doesn't directly heat the surface except when there is an inversion. It indirectly warms the surface by reducing energy loss which allows the sun to raise it to a higher temperature.

I know you are incapable of understanding the difference. Both of us are wasting our time until you can see this fundamental point.

couple of questions....If I heated a pan on a stove, the heat above the pan is hot because of IR or convection? And is the heat off the pan's side more, less, or the same as directly above it?

Both. Radiation and convection play a part, plus you seemed to have forgotten about conduction.

Gravity is the mechanism behind the macroscopic movement of mass that carries the energy in convection. Radiation and conduction are microscopic processes, one that doesn't need close physical proximity and one that does.

I have a feeling that you are over estimating the amount of temperature differential between the top and the sides of the pan. Where you actually thinking of a pan of boiling water? In that case it is the steam which carries the energy to the heat receptors in your hand.

no, just the hot pan. no water.

In that case I would suggest using a sphere of some sort so that physical shape does not interfere with your perception. A pan has more surface area facing upwards than to the side. Are you talking about a pan that is actively being heated, or one that has been warmed and is now cooling by the three mechanisms in a passive fashion? If it is actively being heated, by what kind of of source. Gas flame, electric element, or electric induction?

I think you should put the pan (or better yet a cannonball) in an oven so that there is no uneven heat distribution. Once preheated all of the mechanisms will come into play in short order.

Not that I disagree with your premise.

Conduction is the most efficient means of heat transfer, then convection, then radiation. But it does depend on local conditions as well. Conduction needs contact, convection need a medium to carry the energy plus gravity to move it, radiation needs nothing but a molecule not in ground state.

 

[IanC]

I see you have added to your post.

I have no problem with those three quotes. They are factoids, devoid of context. I can easily imagine the context where they are trivially true but misleading anyways.

Why don't you try to explain them? Or at least link up to their origin?

The atmosphere doesn't directly heat the surface except when there is an inversion. It indirectly warms the surface by reducing energy loss which allows the sun to raise it to a higher temperature.

I know you are incapable of understanding the difference. Both of us are wasting our time until you can see this fundamental point.

couple of questions....If I heated a pan on a stove, the heat above the pan is hot because of IR or convection? And is the heat off the pan's side more, less, or the same as directly above it?

Both. Radiation and convection play a part, plus you seemed to have forgotten about conduction.

Gravity is the mechanism behind the macroscopic movement of mass that carries the energy in convection. Radiation and conduction are microscopic processes, one that doesn't need close physical proximity and one that does.

I have a feeling that you are over estimating the amount of temperature differential between the top and the sides of the pan. Where you actually thinking of a pan of boiling water? In that case it is the steam which carries the energy to the heat receptors in your hand.

no, just the hot pan. no water.

In that case I would suggest using a sphere of some sort so that physical shape does not interfere with your perception. A pan has more surface area facing upwards than to the side. Are you talking about a pan that is actively being heated, or one that has been warmed and is now cooling by the three mechanisms in a passive fashion? If it is actively being heated, by what kind of of source. Gas flame, electric element, or electric induction?

let's say it was heated on a gas stove, and now you suspend it in flat in normal temperature air, does the pan evenly warm the air around it. If I took two thermometers, placed one two inches from the top surface and one two inches from the bottom surface, would they all read the same temperatures as the pan cools down?

The volume of air inside pan would heat the quickest because it has the most exposure to conduction and radiation. That would initiate convection. The air above the pan would be warmer than the air below because warm air is less dense and gravity replaces it with cooler air, pushing the warm air up.

Two inches below the pan, air would only be warmed by radiation. The air in direct contact with the bottom would rise before much energy could diffuse downward. The sides would be somewhat warmer because the energy would have a better chance to diffuse outwards.

It would be interesting to see the convection pattern of air flow. I bet the pan would cool more unevenly that its shape would suggest.

I still think a cannonball would give cleaner results with less complications due to shape and convoluted air flows.

 

[jc456]

couple of questions....If I heated a pan on a stove, the heat above the pan is hot because of IR or convection? And is the heat off the pan's side more, less, or the same as directly above it?

Both. Radiation and convection play a part, plus you seemed to have forgotten about conduction.

Gravity is the mechanism behind the macroscopic movement of mass that carries the energy in convection. Radiation and conduction are microscopic processes, one that doesn't need close physical proximity and one that does.

I have a feeling that you are over estimating the amount of temperature differential between the top and the sides of the pan. Where you actually thinking of a pan of boiling water? In that case it is the steam which carries the energy to the heat receptors in your hand.

no, just the hot pan. no water.

In that case I would suggest using a sphere of some sort so that physical shape does not interfere with your perception. A pan has more surface area facing upwards than to the side. Are you talking about a pan that is actively being heated, or one that has been warmed and is now cooling by the three mechanisms in a passive fashion? If it is actively being heated, by what kind of of source. Gas flame, electric element, or electric induction?

let's say it was heated on a gas stove, and now you suspend it in flat in normal temperature air, does the pan evenly warm the air around it. If I took two thermometers, placed one two inches from the top surface and one two inches from the bottom surface, would they all read the same temperatures as the pan cools down?

The volume of air inside pan would heat the quickest because it has the most exposure to conduction and radiation. That would initiate convection. The air above the pan would be warmer than the air below because warm air is less dense and gravity replaces it with cooler air, pushing the warm air up.

Two inches below the pan, air would only be warmed by radiation. The air in direct contact with the bottom would rise before much energy could diffuse downward. The sides would be somewhat warmer because the energy would have a better chance to diffuse outwards.

It would be interesting to see the convection pattern of air flow. I bet the pan would cool more unevenly that its shape would suggest.

I still think a cannonball would give cleaner results with less complications due to shape and convoluted air flows.

now, I agree with this write up!

We could turn the pan upside down suspended. Again, the heat would still be greater on the top.

I could do the cannon ball as well. then you could put four thermometers and read four points. I don't think again, they would be equal in temperature reading.

 

[Billy_Bob]

This is distraction, making it difficult to come to the realistic conclusion that water is very reactive to LWIR.

And this assumption has been proven demonstrably wrong in sea water by observed and quantified evidence. You "Believe" without fact. Show me demonstrable evidence that LWIR has any effect on a grey body of water, where its energy is released in the first 10 microns and results in surface cooling. I'll wait.

First off, are you acknowledging that the atmosphere does give off LWIR in all directions, some of which reaches the surface? You have never openly disagreed with SSDD'S weird dimmer switch theory of radiation, so I thought you might be in his camp.

There are three possibilities for the atmospheric LWIR. Absorption, transmission or reflection. Your point is based on LWIR not penetrating sea water so that option is off the table. Absorption or reflection?

Claes Johnson is a slightly loopy physicist over at PSI that has a convoluted theory of harmonic reflection, that the incoming LWIR is not actually absorbed but the same amount of radiation is not emitted from the water. He freely admits that the numbers are identical to classical physics so I don't see the point of adding in an epicycle.

So what was your point exactly? Are you saying that LWIR is absorbed but because the energy is positioned so close to the boundary that it will be re-radiated quickly? So what? That is what thermodynamics is all about, redistribution of energy.

Perhaps you are confused because other processes are going on at the same time. Evaporation removes a lot of energy from the skin of the ocean. High speed (high 'temperature') molecules leave the ocean taking their energy with them. This predominantly happens when the Sun is actively heating the surface. Conduction is also happening at the skin. Air molecules bounce off the surface and either subtract or add to the energy of the skin, depending on the size and direction of the temperature differential between the atmosphere and surface at the boundary.

All these things are happening at the same time. Just because there are many pathways that does not mean that LWIR being absorbed by water doesn't count. It just means it is difficult to separate out and measure directly.

You simply will not give up on the almighty model.. All while ignoring the physical evidence.. I don't know what to tell you. Your faith is unmovable even when the physical evidence shows your models a failure.

 

[IanC]

This is distraction, making it difficult to come to the realistic conclusion that water is very reactive to LWIR.

And this assumption has been proven demonstrably wrong in sea water by observed and quantified evidence. You "Believe" without fact. Show me demonstrable evidence that LWIR has any effect on a grey body of water, where its energy is released in the first 10 microns and results in surface cooling. I'll wait.

First off, are you acknowledging that the atmosphere does give off LWIR in all directions, some of which reaches the surface? You have never openly disagreed with SSDD'S weird dimmer switch theory of radiation, so I thought you might be in his camp.

There are three possibilities for the atmospheric LWIR. Absorption, transmission or reflection. Your point is based on LWIR not penetrating sea water so that option is off the table. Absorption or reflection?

Claes Johnson is a slightly loopy physicist over at PSI that has a convoluted theory of harmonic reflection, that the incoming LWIR is not actually absorbed but the same amount of radiation is not emitted from the water. He freely admits that the numbers are identical to classical physics so I don't see the point of adding in an epicycle.

So what was your point exactly? Are you saying that LWIR is absorbed but because the energy is positioned so close to the boundary that it will be re-radiated quickly? So what? That is what thermodynamics is all about, redistribution of energy.

Perhaps you are confused because other processes are going on at the same time. Evaporation removes a lot of energy from the skin of the ocean. High speed (high 'temperature') molecules leave the ocean taking their energy with them. This predominantly happens when the Sun is actively heating the surface. Conduction is also happening at the skin. Air molecules bounce off the surface and either subtract or add to the energy of the skin, depending on the size and direction of the temperature differential between the atmosphere and surface at the boundary.

All these things are happening at the same time. Just because there are many pathways that does not mean that LWIR being absorbed by water doesn't count. It just means it is difficult to separate out and measure directly.

You simply will not give up on the almighty model.. All while ignoring the physical evidence.. I don't know what to tell you. Your faith is unmovable even when the physical evidence shows your models a failure.

I hadn't realized it was a model that said LWIR was fully absorbed in the first millimetre of water. I thought it was measured.

Are you now saying it's not true? Or are you just pissed because it means water is a great absorber (and emitter) of IR?

 

[IanC]

I think there is an important point to be learned in this discussion about LWIR and the skin of the ocean.

Transmission of radiation has two effects depending on the location and direction. Radiation transmitted into the ocean is eventually absorbed to extinction, and is considered a good form of heating because it put the energy farther down where it cannot easily escape again.

Going in the other direction, transmission of surface radiation through the atmosphere is considered a good form of cooling because any energy not absorbed quickly in the dense lower atmosphere usually completes its escape to space.

Most people know and understand the ocean concept. Few people know or even consider the atmospheric concept. It is quite possible that they even automatically think the concept is the same for both directions unless it is specifically pointed out to them.

When one science concept is inculcated it becomes the default position. When you have a hammer, everything looks like a nail.

 

[SSDD]

Can you elaborate a bit on this 'fooled by instrumentation' idea? In what way are we being fooled? Where does the cause and effect relationship break down? The measurements seem to be precise and repeatable.

That would depend on what you think the instruments are measuring.