Let`s have a vote on back radiation

[IanC]

polarbear said-

Neither you and all the other instant forum heat radiation experts realize what kind of nonsense you`ve been writing in here about Spencer`s positive back radiation "energy feedback", pretending you have even the slightest understanding of any of the equations you copied&pasted in here.
That does not necessarily make any of you the same kind of idiot Spencer is...unless you sat through physics lectures like Spencer and still are too dumb to understand any of it after the principles of thermodynamics have been thoroughly explained...
hahaha...but you are...because I`ve explained it to you over and over again and yet just like Spencer and his dumb daughter, the realtor you still think that a black body which radiates a temperature specific frequency profile is the same process as heating a black body to a specific temperature with radiation...

Furthermore heating the CO2 in the air with "black body" radiation, then feeding back the CO2 absorbed IR as "back radiation" to increase the GROUND temperature even more is beyond hahahaha..

I actually paid attention in physics and that is why my comprehension of the basic principles is stronger than many on this message board. I try to deal with one issue at a time rather than race around like polarbear, mixing up one concept with another and getting confused in the process.

radiation near the surface is a poor method of shedding heat because it is dispersed in all directions. therefore convection and latent heat from evaporation do much of the lifting to higher altitudes. at higher altitudes the tops of clouds release that heat through radiation. radiation is the only way for energy to escape the earth.

the complexities are enormous but the bottom line is that highly ordered higher energy sunlight is absorbed by the earth where it is used to power natural systems which in turn return that energy as lower ordered, lower energy IR radiation to space. fully adhering to the second law of thermodynamics. it is obvious by life on earth, wind and ocean currents, etc that entropy can be either increased or decreased along the pathway as long as the final tally is correct.

 

[polarbear]

is it really possible that you dont even know who Spencer is????? hahahahaha

Is it really possible that my 7 year old great grandson is smarter than You or Spencer...hahahaha...yes he is..!

Neither you and all the other instant forum heat radiation experts realize what kind of nonsense you`ve been writing in here about Spencer`s positive back radiation "energy feedback", pretending you have even the slightest understanding of any of the equations you copied&pasted in here.
That does not necessarily make any of you the same kind of idiot Spencer is...unless you sat through physics lectures like Spencer and still are too dumb to understand any of it after the principles of thermodynamics have been thoroughly explained...
hahaha...but you are...because I`ve explained it to you over and over again and yet just like Spencer and his dumb daughter, the realtor you still think that a black body which radiates a temperature specific frequency profile is the same process as heating a black body to a specific temperature with radiation...

Furthermore heating the CO2 in the air with "black body" radiation, then feeding back the CO2 absorbed IR as "back radiation" to increase the GROUND temperature even more is beyond hahahaha..


In case you haven`t noticed,...all the data that has been gathered to support this crap consists of AIR- not GROUND temperature data.

But you still don`t get it !! (hahahaha)

Heat radiation does indeed radiate in a vacuum equally in all directions...but not so in air or any other gas.

Light up a Bic lighter and hold your hand 3 inches off to one side...see you don`t get burned...
Now hold your hand 3 inches above the flame...hahaha...see what I mean?
Like I said my 7 year old is smarter than you.


He already knows what the "Schlieren Effekt" around the tip of a hot soldring gun looks like

And when I showed you what happens to a thermistor cooling below room temperature at the focal point of a 6 inch reflector when the telescope was pointed at a colder object instead of warming up as it`s supposed to according to Spencer you said hahaha and said it cooled off because there was a closed (THERMAL R 40 !!!) window > 6 inches from the thermistor which was inside the tube, behind Saran wrap and behind the second focal mirror.

Another idiot had an issue that my thermistor was only a few millimeters in diameter...and was too dumb to figure out what area a six inch diameter reflector scope had focused on it....some more "hahaha" like that came from pooophysist with the frog in the microwave oven crap.

is it really possible that you dont even know who Spencer is????? hahahahaha

Is it really possible that you do ?????...carnally ! hahahahaha

here we go again with your strawman misquotes of me, and your wild red herrings to veer off topic.

why are you bringing convection to a radiation fight? radiation goes in every available direction. period. convection is powered by gravity. warmer gases are lighter because they take up more volume per unit therefore they float upwards. why are you confusing radiation with convection?

as far as your solar oven/cooler/telescope youtube experiment....I said the temperature reading went down because the mirrors directed most of the radiation towards a cooler area where there was less back radiation returning to the thermistor. I asked you if you would be surprised if the temperature went up if you aimed your telescope at the fireplace but you refused to answer my question because you knew it would destroy your scenario.

I support Spencer's thought experiment in principle because it in fact works. If you are asking me my opinion on other aspects of atmospheric energy exchange, be specific and dont presume to know what my position is in advance.

No Ian ! You forgot that in the real world scenario convection by far out-powers radiation and to remind you of that I posted the Schlieren Effekt picture, because that`s what happens to almost all the heat energy wattage the sun managed to impart to the earth`s surface.

I asked you if you would be surprised if the temperature went up if you aimed your telescope at the fireplace but you refused to answer my question

No I did not refuse,...I simply missed out reading the posting where You asked that question..of course the thermistor in my telescope would scavenge the radiant heat from a fireplace...because heat energy does add from hotter to colder...not the other way around as in Spencer`s strange imagination.
Don`t get too obsessed with that Spencer crap. Take a break, man...! ...I did , it`s Christmas. We may be at logger heads over something which turns out to be totally insignificant in the large scheme of things, but this is a time for peace,...not war.
Consider Yourself included in my Christmas Greetings to all my friends `round this world..:
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8rxp-TLOT94&list=UUvj7dbOY14kt_MFIR1Y1iwA&index=1"]Manitoba Christmas 2012 - YouTube[/ame]

And pay attention (again) how my R-40 Kitchen windows look at -27 C in the morning,...and later at 13:00 at - 32 C...even though we have been cooking...no ice on the pane...not even any condensation. You get my point ? The 6 `` reflector telescope used as a "solar fridge" ignored my window and did react to the objects outside..!!!

But on Christmas we should cut each other some slack...even in a bitter fight...we always did wherever I served as a military engineer even when I was on "Sapper" duty ,...and still do in my retirement years..even though it floored my wife just how much slack I do cut others on occasion..:

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vWUHJeDUWxk&feature=youtu.be"]If mom knew that.wmv - YouTube[/ame]

In that spirit, the same goes for You
from "Polarbear", Long Plain First Nations
Manitoba Canada
Take a break from it and pay more attention to the things that matter most...
My best and sincerest Season`s Greetings to You & Your`s

 

[IanC]

hahahahaha. I dont know whether OPPD is a physicist or not but I sure know that you have never taken physics or math if you are offended by rearranging terms in a formula. are you even sure that OPPD believes in CAGW? so far I have only noticed him laughing at your stupidity.

I notice that you didn't answer the question either. Between you two geniuses, you should be able to answer the question I have asked.

Why would you apply any property to an equation that is already elegant? What is to be gained by doing it? What do you get that you don't get when you use the equation as it is actually written?

How about an answer?

OK, I have 5 minutes to kill.

Planck curves for two objects, one at 10C, the other at -10C. if you wanted to see how much energy was leaving the warmer object to the cooler one how would you do it? in a stripped down, complexities removed thought experiment you would simply calculate the radiation leaving the first, then calculate the radiation leaving the second, subtract them and the net result would be your answer, and depending on whether the answer was positive or negative you would know the direction.

The rate of energy emitted by an ideal surface, frequently called a blackbody, is given by the following relationship:
E = KsbT^4
where T is absolute temperature & Ksb is the Stefan-Boltzamnn constant which is 0.567 x 10-9 W/mK4

you may have noticed that there is only one (T^4) term. that is because the other term is assumed to be zero and 0^4=0. this also the reason why we must measure in the absolute temperature scale of degrees Kelvin.

we could work out both terms and subtract them, but it is easier to just subtract the T^4 terms immediately so that we only have to write the constant terms once.

what I find elegant is how the visual Planck curves so easily describe what is going on in radiation exchanges. it is easy to see why the second law is correct. the warmer object always has an excess of radiation to give to the other cooler object. as the two objects get closer together in temperature there is less and less excess (this is where polarbear's first derivative comes into play) to drive heat exchange. and when the two objects are the same temperature, it shows how there is still an exchange of radiation, just no movement of heat.


I will ask you again....what do you think happens when two objects are the same temperature? you said before that radiation could only go from a warmer to cooler object, even down to one single photon. if that is correct, then where does the radiation go?

hi SSDD. you expressed an interest in Latour's criticism of Spencer. while we obviously debated this topic five years ago, I am willing to revisit it.

 

[Old Rocks]

Note: Measurement system for the radiative forcing of greenhouse gases in a laboratory scale

The radiative forcing of the greenhouse gases has been studied being based on computational simulations or the observation of the real atmosphere meteorologically. In order to know the greenhouse effect more deeply and to study it from various viewpoints, the study on it in a laboratory scale is important. We have developed a direct measurement system for the infrared back radiation from the carbon dioxide (CO2) gas. The system configuration is similar with that of the practical earth-atmosphere-space system. Using this system, the back radiation from the CO2 gas was directly measured in a laboratory scale, which roughly coincides with meteorologically predicted value.

Well, looks like the physicists are agreeing that back radiation is real.

 

[Billy_Bob]

I have spent two hours reading this thread.. OMG!

lets get a few things straight.

To answer much of the back and forth about theoreticals...

All matter radiates in all directions.. What that LWIR does is still an unknown and empirical evidence has not yet shown what it does and how it does it. All modeling of this, to date, fails empirical review (doesn't mesh with reality and observed behavior of matter).

Cooler black bodies can not warm warmer ones. Violates the laws of thermal energy travel. The presence of increased mass will slow overall thermal release. IE: a cooler object next to a warmer object. A cooler object can not warm a warmer object without external force applied!

Entropy (energy release) is dependent on the matter doing the transport and the temperature gradient of the matter or different types of matter through which it passes.

Grey Bodies are cooler than black and thus their effect is null. (LWIR wave length is the main reason, theoretical energy contained in the wave)

Dr Spencer is a luke-warmer and has been as long as I have known him. I do not speak for him. Given the basics I have pointed out above, the current AGW hypothesis is a total failure.

The main point of contention I have with Dr Spencer, what is happening in our atmosphere, which is not allowing the theoretical AGW "hot spot" to materialize? If CO2 was really slowing energy release where is the stored energy?

An ongoing study (actually three) is being put together by the Boulder Co Atmospheric Physics Lab. I am one of a select few who are reading the works.

The backscatter of re-emitted or reflected LWIR did not increase with CO2 increase, it decreased. This indicates a significant misunderstanding of how our atmosphere works.

The authors of the paper are now looking closely at water vapor energy absorption and retention. If what they suspect is true, CO2 will never cause a runaway effect due to water transport of energy in our atmosphere.

A net loss of energy directed towards the surface in the >6um bands was not expected but was observed.

The assumption that CO2 increase must cause increased back-scatter was looked at closely. They found that farms that use CO2 dispersers, to increase plant growth at ground level, actually caused cooling at ten feet above ground level as compared with like fields not using CO2 enhancement and they looked into what was happening to LWIR. They indicate that water vapor increased in the air, cooling occurred and downward LWIR >6um diminished.

Understand that DOWN WELLING (solar) LWIR is 2-6um and is not inhibited by CO2. Only the range above >6um is affected. When you look at the bandpass of blackbody LWIR you begin to understand how water is absorbing the energy before it reaches the earths surface and is carried away by conduction and convection. Cooling occurs in the region where water becomes vapor, near ground. It takes roughly 4 times the energy to warm water than it does air due to its mass. A loss of 1.3-2.2% down ward LWIR in the >6um band was noted from 150 feet as compared to ground level. This indicates that the energy is being absorbed in that region.

With all of the new studies coming out, which are turning our understanding of how our atmosphere works on its head, its hard to see AGW being even remotely valid today.

Dr Spencer and I disagree on the energy transport mechanism and why the earth is not presenting a hot spot. CO2 is not acting like he and others thought and its becoming painfully apparent to him.

As to the OP's "Back Radiation" or more precisely 'back-scatter or Rayleigh Scattering", as defined by EM theroy, it is real and provable. What it does and the effect it has in our open atmosphere however, is an unanswered question. One that lays the AGW hypothesis and all modeling waste.

 

[Billy_Bob]

SO what does increasing CO2 do to plants? It increases their systems metabolism and function. Farmers find that plants grow faster, healthier and use less over all water. The water they do emit, as they grow bigger and thus emit more water vapor, rises. Increased humidity levels capture more photons near ground keeping it from hitting the black body (earth).

Convection then takes over... And water holds the energy, unlike CO2 which almost immediately re-emits its photons. The energy is then released at top of troposphere or above cloud boundary and emits LWIR in 12-32um bandwidth as there was loss of energy (cooling) as it rises.

The end result is cooling and no stored energy in the atmosphere. AGW game over...

 

[Old Rocks]

Click for high-resolution image. —Credit: National Snow and Ice Data Center

Arctic Sea Ice News and Analysis | Sea ice data updated daily with one-day lag

Now if there is no stored energy in the atmosphere, how is this possible? Do you understand the significance of three standard deviations?

 

[Billy_Bob]

Sensor failure happened in late Aug early September. Current graphing is total bull shit because it is wholly manufactured from unreliable data.. NASA just placed a new satellite into orbit and this new data will correct many of these problems in the next few months. Given the images from other satellites the data will be back within two standard deviations and near 30 year trend 'normal' very soon.

IF you think this is some how evidence of stored energy you would be wrong. IF Melting is occurring the energy is expended not stored. That is the thing about buffered systems, they don't like change and resist it.

 

[Crick]

From NSIDC:

Arctic Sea Ice News and Analysis | Sea ice data updated daily with one-day lag
Sluggish ice growth in the Arctic
November 2, 2016


After a quick initial freeze-up during the second half of September, ice growth slowed substantially during early October. On October 20, 2016, Arctic sea ice extent began to set new daily record lows for this time of year. After mid-October, ice growth returned to near-average rates, but extent remained at record low levels through late October. High sea surface temperatures in open water areas were important in limiting ice growth. October air temperatures were also unusually high, and this warmth extended from the surface through a considerable depth of the atmosphere.

...

A primary culprit behind the slow growth is that sea surface temperatures in the Beaufort and Chukchi Seas, the Barents and Kara Seas along the Eurasian coast, as well as the East Siberian Sea, were above average. The open water areas in the highest latitudes at the date of the minimum in September had only recently formed and there was little input of solar radiation so far north. So those waters were just above the freezing point. When the atmosphere cooled in September, ice formed rapidly. However, further south, the sea ice had retreated far earlier in the season and a lot of solar energy was absorbed through the summer. This ocean heat inhibited the growth of ice in these regions. Finally toward the end of October, the surface ocean heat began to dissipate, triggering ice formation. However, even by October 25, sea surface temperatures were above average in these areas (Figure 2b).

The atmospheric circulation also played a role. October air temperatures at the 925 hPa level (about 2,500 feet above sea level) were unusually high over most of the Arctic Ocean (Figure 2c), especially over the Beaufort and Chukchi Seas and over the East Greenland Sea (up to 8 degrees Celsius or 14 degrees Fahrenheit above the 1981 to 2010 average). In part, these high temperatures resulted from high sea surface temperatures over the open water areas. However, unusually high sea level pressure centered over northern Scandinavia brought southerly winds from the East Siberian and Barents Seas, contributing to high air temperatures in these regions. In turn, unusually low pressure on the Pacific side centered roughly over the western Bering Sea brought southerly winds over the Beaufort and Chukchi Seas, contributing to unusually high air temperature there. The combined effects of the high sea surface temperatures and atmospheric circulation led to a pattern in which for the Arctic, unusual warmth in October extended from the surface through a deep layer of the atmosphere (Figure 2d).

As noted in our post last month, the Arctic is losing it’s oldest and thickest ice. A new animation from NASA Goddard’s Scientific Visualization Studio shows this loss over the past 30 years.
*******************************************

No mention of a possible satellite problem. And, of course, to produce these observations, you'd require simultaneous and synchronous failures in two satellites (for temperature and ice coverage) and something to throw off all the data collected at the surface.