Nye's Quadrant

[polarbear]

And the only reason why Malaysia does not plunge down to almost - 160 C at night as the shady side of the ISS is at, is because the atmosphere over Malaysia is a massive heat reservoir because it has mass

And that is what I have been saying over and over again while you guys keep saying no no no.

Energy is stored in the atmosphere. In both kinetic and potential form.

Heat moves from one object to another according to temperature differential.

With no GHGs the atmosphere would only receive energy from the surface by conduction and much of the surface energy would just freely escape to space by radiation, the ratio of conduction/radiation would be determined the most efficient loss of energy possible.

If you add CO2 to the atmosphere, certain band of surface IR are absorbed and converted into stored energy by molecular collision. Some but not all of this energy is released at high altitude as IR. The atmosphere is warmer because of this extra stored energy at surface levels and cooler at the top.

If you add water, then you get even more surface radiation being intercepted by the atmosphere. Plus you get an extra means of warming the atmosphere with the water cycle depositing energy at the cloudtops by moving energy by evaporation/convection/precipitation. The total stored energy of the atmosphere has again increased. The ratio between conduction/radiation/conversation is still being determined by the most efficient means of expelling energy.

How does the atmosphere 'warm' the surface? By changing the equilibrium, the temperature gradient. Solar input causes higher surface temperature when less surface output is possible.

There are two ways that the atmosphere returns energy to the surface. One is mass mediated. Air molecules are striking the surface and imparting their kinetic energy. The other is radiation, some by GHGs if they emit very close to the surface and the IR is not immediately reabsorbed, and the radiation produced by the latent heat release at the cloudtops during precipitation (less the GHG bands, and only the radiation going in the right direction)

The energy loss to space is always very close to the amount of solar input. Otherwise the globe would be warming or cooling.

Disturbing the amount of CO2 causes the CO2 specific IR to be captured in a smaller volume of air near the surface. By definition putting the same amount of energy into a smaller volume will increase the temperature. Which of course means more energy returned to the surface by molecular collision.

I personally do not think this disturbance in saturation point makes a big change but it does cause a little change in the equilibriums of various routes of energy escape.

You can change temperature of a specific point along the pathway of energy travel without changing the actual inputs and outputs. Throw a towel over your cable box and it will warm up. Where did the extra energy come from? It came from the energy not released to the environment while the towel/box came back to equilibrium. The same amount of energy would be released after the power to the cable box was turned off.

As usual you are sooo close to how it really works and then just inches from the finish line you blow it. I know what you are trying to say about the towel on the breaker box, but an insulator impeding heat conduction is not experimental proof of "back radiation". The plastic covering the copper wires is already doing more than a towel covering the box would...and CO2 has nothing in common with a towel..except that a towel that can`t expand like a warmed gas has to is solid matter in physical contact with a heat source. All that matters in that case is what the "R" factor of a heat insulator is...in addition to that Spencer f-ed up too with that analogy because as you well know when wires heat up their resistance goes up proportionally and that means the amps drop and with it the watts of the heat source...so please forget about that towel over "the cable box" because I would have to go along with a series of events that reality excludes.
Now back to reality...use a block of copper at high temperature and no atmosphere.
It radiates heat and cools down following the StB equation.
Now use 2 blocks that touch each other and have the same combined mass and temperature as the other single unit..they cool down at exactly the same rate while in direct contact as the single block. Now separate them and behold...they still cool down as fast as the single block even though they "back-radiate" at each other and no you are not allowed the argument that we now have increased the surface area because back-radiation "experts" claim this area does not dissipate the system`s heat because for these 2 faces E=5.67*10^(-8)*(T1^4 - T2^4) and E=0 because T1=T2.
Now you need to throw in your towel,...lets up the anti and use your towel to cover one of the 2 blocks...do you really expect an engineer to believe that the covered block stayed warmer longer because the bare block, already cooler block was "heating" it ?

 

[IanC]

And the only reason why Malaysia does not plunge down to almost - 160 C at night as the shady side of the ISS is at, is because the atmosphere over Malaysia is a massive heat reservoir because it has mass

And that is what I have been saying over and over again while you guys keep saying no no no.

Energy is stored in the atmosphere. In both kinetic and potential form.

Heat moves from one object to another according to temperature differential.

With no GHGs the atmosphere would only receive energy from the surface by conduction and much of the surface energy would just freely escape to space by radiation, the ratio of conduction/radiation would be determined the most efficient loss of energy possible.

If you add CO2 to the atmosphere, certain band of surface IR are absorbed and converted into stored energy by molecular collision. Some but not all of this energy is released at high altitude as IR. The atmosphere is warmer because of this extra stored energy at surface levels and cooler at the top.

If you add water, then you get even more surface radiation being intercepted by the atmosphere. Plus you get an extra means of warming the atmosphere with the water cycle depositing energy at the cloudtops by moving energy by evaporation/convection/precipitation. The total stored energy of the atmosphere has again increased. The ratio between conduction/radiation/conversation is still being determined by the most efficient means of expelling energy.

How does the atmosphere 'warm' the surface? By changing the equilibrium, the temperature gradient. Solar input causes higher surface temperature when less surface output is possible.

There are two ways that the atmosphere returns energy to the surface. One is mass mediated. Air molecules are striking the surface and imparting their kinetic energy. The other is radiation, some by GHGs if they emit very close to the surface and the IR is not immediately reabsorbed, and the radiation produced by the latent heat release at the cloudtops during precipitation (less the GHG bands, and only the radiation going in the right direction)

The energy loss to space is always very close to the amount of solar input. Otherwise the globe would be warming or cooling.

Disturbing the amount of CO2 causes the CO2 specific IR to be captured in a smaller volume of air near the surface. By definition putting the same amount of energy into a smaller volume will increase the temperature. Which of course means more energy returned to the surface by molecular collision.

I personally do not think this disturbance in saturation point makes a big change but it does cause a little change in the equilibriums of various routes of energy escape.

You can change temperature of a specific point along the pathway of energy travel without changing the actual inputs and outputs. Throw a towel over your cable box and it will warm up. Where did the extra energy come from? It came from the energy not released to the environment while the towel/box came back to equilibrium. The same amount of energy would be released after the power to the cable box was turned off.

As usual you are sooo close to how it really works and then just inches from the finish line you blow it. I know what you are trying to say about the towel on the breaker box, but an insulator impeding heat conduction is not experimental proof of "back radiation". The plastic covering the copper wires is already doing more than a towel covering the box would...and CO2 has nothing in common with a towel..except that a towel that can`t expand like a warmed gas has to is solid matter in physical contact with a heat source. All that matters in that case is what the "R" factor of a heat insulator is...in addition to that Spencer f-ed up too with that analogy because as you well know when wires heat up their resistance goes up proportionally and that means the amps drop and with it the watts of the heat source...so please forget about that towel over "the cable box" because I would have to go along with a series of events that reality excludes.
Now back to reality...use a block of copper at high temperature and no atmosphere.
It radiates heat and cools down following the StB equation.
Now use 2 blocks that touch each other and have the same combined mass and temperature as the other single unit..they cool down at exactly the same rate while in direct contact as the single block. Now separate them and behold...they still cool down as fast as the single block even though they "back-radiate" at each other and no you are not allowed the argument that we now have increased the surface area because back-radiation "experts" claim this area does not dissipate the system`s heat because for these 2 faces E=5.67*10^(-8)*(T1^4 - T2^4) and E=0 because T1=T2.
Now you need to throw in your towel,...lets up the anti and use your towel to cover one of the 2 blocks...do you really expect an engineer to believe that the covered block stayed warmer longer because the bare block, already cooler block was "heating" it ?

I wrote a twelve paragraph comment that was chock full of ideas that interlocked together to form a consistent overarching description of energy movement in the sun/Earth/atmosphere flows of energy.

You took exception to the throw away example I used to illustrate the main idea in the last paragraph-

You can change temperature of a specific point along the pathway of energy travel without changing the actual inputs and outputs. Throw a towel over your cable box and it will warm up. Where did the extra energy come from? It came from the energy not released to the environment while the towel/box came back to equilibrium. The same amount of energy would be released after the power to the cable box was turned off.

Did you address energy storage affecting temperature along the routes of energy flow?

You brought up higher temperature affecting resistance in wires. Non sequitur. Even in the electrical device it probably has negligible impact. But it is a real factor so I don't reject the mechanism, just the relevance.

You then give a garbled example of copper blocks and the S-B laws defining radiation. Apparently they have no power input, so that is a major difference from what I was discussing, heat sinks affecting temperature during energy flows.

Then you go off the rails by saying the two blocks together radiate the same as the two blocks apart. Did you mean that the two blocks were separated enough to stop conduction but still close enough that very little radiation leaks out? If you can see into the space between the blocks then the radiation can see you. That is why the S-B equations are so difficult to calculate unless one object is enclosed in another.

You mentioned Spencer. He did have a two block thought experiment. But one of the blocks was powered by a heat source. The powered block radiated equally on all sides until a second block was placed next to it. Then five faces radiated to the cold environment and one into the second block. Until equilibrium the second block was warming, using energy that no longer was escaping to the environment. As the second block warmed it started to return energy to the first block. Less energy was leaving the communal face of the heated block, so more energy was rerouted to the uncovered faces. At equilibrium all of the heated faces are radiating at a higher temperature and the second block has warmed up as well.

The blocks were originally at equilibrium with the power source. Input equaled output to the environment. Then came a period of time of lowered output to the environment with the deficit of radiation going into the heat sinks of both blocks, raising the temperature of each. At the new equilibrium, input again matches output. Yes Virginia, a cold object can make a warm object warmer. Simply by storing energy and changing the heat differential.

The atmosphere does the same thing, only it uses radiation, conduction and convection instead of just radiation.

 

[IanC]

Now use 2 blocks that touch each other and have the same combined mass and temperature as the other single unit..they cool down at exactly the same rate while in direct contact as the single block. Now separate them and behold...they still cool down as fast as the single block even though they "back-radiate" at each other and no you are not allowed the argument that we now have increased the surface area because back-radiation "experts" claim this area does not dissipate the system`s heat because for these 2 faces E=5.67*10^(-8)*(T1^4 - T2^4) and E=0 because T1=T2.

Are you stupid or what? You just added 20% more surface area and you are crowing that they cool at the same amount per time! I thought you were trying to disprove backradiation. I think the blocks would lose heat at a slightly higher rate because of leakage from the two facing sides. And unevenly because of the similar temperature of the two facing sides. And of course the corners will cool faster as they have more area to volume. But that is just quibbling. I am glad you are now subscribing to backradiation, or at least a version of it.

 

[polarbear]

You know I could just as easy call you stupid and before you do it again maybe you should go back and read again what I said...about you and your towel over a "cable box" + the "extra energy" you keep yapping about which isn`t there when the 2 blocks are separated or when you cover just one of them with your towel

 

[IanC]

Now you need to throw in your towel,...lets up the anti and use your towel to cover one of the 2 blocks...do you really expect an engineer to believe that the covered block stayed warmer longer because the bare block, already cooler block was "heating" it ?

You really should describe these scenarios better. If I make assumptions you accuse me of not understanding but you leave me no choice but to reasonably fill in the gaps. I ignored your last paragraph because it made little sense and needed to be 'interpreted'.

Okay, I'll interpret.

First assumption, you believe that the towel will slow the energy loss from the covered block because you said the uncovered block is already cooler. You also said they were in a vacuum, so some conduction to the towel, then only radiation loss. I guess I have to assume the emissivity of the towel is less than that of the block. Typically towels and blankets keep the heat in by holding pockets of air as insulation against convection. But not in this case, eh?

Second assumption, the blocks are much warmer than the environment. And that the adjacent faces are uncovered, because really, what would be the point of this stupid scenario otherwise?

Third assumption, this time on your part. You accuse me of stating that a cooler object can 'heat' a warmer object. I have never said this, and have repeatedly asked you in the past to simply quote any of my comments that could have led you to make this serious misunderstanding of my position. So far you haven't.

Now that I have cleaned up some of your incongruities and omissions I can get around to answering your question, namely-

..do you really expect an engineer to believe that the covered block stayed warmer longer because the bare block, already cooler block was "heating" it ?

I expect that the engineer will say that yes, the block that is warmer than the environment but cooler than the warmer block is indeed slowing the heat loss from the covered block because it is warmer than the environment and is sending back more radiation than the environment would. He would probably add that slowing heat loss is not the same thing as 'heating'. Heating only occurs when an object is receiving more energy than it is losing. Obviously the cooler object produces less radiation then the warmer block.

According to your scenario, as best as I can decipher it, the covered block has less heat loss on some sides due to the towel, and less loss from the adjacent face because the bare block is warmer than the environment. The bare block is cooling faster because it has five sides radiating into the cold environment but the excess net radiation from the covered block does slow the cooling in the adjacent side. It cannot be called heating because both blocks started at the same temperature and both are cooling. One faster than the other.

 

[polarbear]

Now use 2 blocks that touch each other and have the same combined mass and temperature as the other single unit..they cool down at exactly the same rate while in direct contact as the single block. Now separate them and behold...they still cool down as fast as the single block even though they "back-radiate" at each other and no you are not allowed the argument that we now have increased the surface area because back-radiation "experts" claim this area does not dissipate the system`s heat because for these 2 faces E=5.67*10^(-8)*(T1^4 - T2^4) and E=0 because T1=T2.

Are you stupid or what? You just added 20% more surface area and you are crowing that they cool at the same amount per time! I thought you were trying to disprove backradiation. I think the blocks would lose heat at a slightly higher rate because of leakage from the two facing sides. And unevenly because of the similar temperature of the two facing sides. And of course the corners will cool faster as they have more area to volume. But that is just quibbling. I am glad you are now subscribing to backradiation, or at least a version of it.

Am I stupid? Really, I could call you something far worse after your reply.
So where is the EXTRA energy that is supplied by the extra 20% area "back radiating" at each other across the open gap?
I could have claimed that the 2 cubes with the gap cool faster, which they would indeed but refrained from saying so just as the engineers at the Glenn research center refrained from making that claim until they did the experiment to verify the claim.
But you claim without any experiment the extra back radiation energy is there because the other 5 sides of each cube cool faster.
Since when is slower cooling the same as heating?
Or do you need that towel you had on a "cable box" again to "heat" one of these 2 blocks?
That went right by you when I pointed that out. Either that or you realized you walked on thin ice with your "extra backradiation energy" and stopped short at that point before your towel was thrown into the equation....but if you refuse to walk past that point then I`ll drag you:
The block with the towel cools slower than the other bare & colder block which according to you continues to "heat" the warmer block at the 20% exposed interface area. How much of a fool are you not to realize that the warmer block with the towel is supplying the heat without which the bare block would cool even faster !
Only a total crack head would insist it`s the other way around !
Lets do something simple and better tailored for simpler minds.
Get some rocks and throw them into a stove. Did these rocks add any energy to the stove?
Yes you say because that stove took longer to cool off after the fire went out...and got away with it till some nit-picking engineer did an experiment to show you that it took way more fuel to heat a stove full off your "back radiation" rocks.
No matter how you add your idiotic back radiation energy source which you say can direct heat from the colder rocks to the hotter fuel fired stove...inside of it or piling them on top and all around it will always take more fuel to heat your "heat source"
The only people who would believe that the rocks are heating the stove have rocks in their head.
And the only people who believe that the cooler air is heating the surface below it are airheads.
When you claimed just a few days ago that "it takes a lot of energy to keep the air above the surface in a gravity field" you already showed that you might be one but now it`s official.

 

[IanC]

You know I could just as easy call you stupid and before you do it again maybe you should go back and read again what I said...about you and your towel over a "cable box" + the "extra energy" you keep yapping about which isn`t there when the 2 blocks are separated or when you cover just one of them with your towel

I'll call you stupid yet again. You don't seem to be capable of understanding the difference between something that has a power source, and a different thing that doesn't.

Power can fill up heat sinks. No power can only cool. For someone who thinks they are so smart you seem to be deficient in some of the basics. We went over all of this in the thread with jc456. It seems as if you forgot it, or didn't understand in the first place.

 

[IanC]

Am I stupid? Really, I could call you something far worse after your reply.
So where is the EXTRA energy that is supplied by the extra 20% area "back radiating" at each other across the open gap?

Yes you are stupid. What extra energy? More surface area just means more energy loss. The block will cool down faster.

 

[IanC]

But you claim without any experiment the extra back radiation energy is there because the other 5 sides of each cube cool faster.
Since when is slower cooling the same as heating?

Still stupid. Now you're adding plagiarism. I have said decreased output is not 'heating' a hundred times. When it involves a power source then it turns into an increased temperature via energy storage until the output heat loss again matches the input.

 

[IanC]

. How much of a fool are you not to realize that the warmer block with the towel is supplying the heat without which the bare block would cool even faster !
Only a total crack head would insist it`s the other way around !

How you can strawman my position like that is beyond belief. I just finished stating-

According to your scenario, as best as I can decipher it, the covered block has less heat loss on some sides due to the towel, and less loss from the adjacent face because the bare block is warmer than the environment. The bare block is cooling faster because it has five sides radiating into the cold environment but the excess net radiation from the covered block does slow the cooling in the adjacent side. It cannot be called heating because both blocks started at the same temperature and both are cooling. One faster than the other.

It now seems as if you have added lying to your repertoire.

 

[polarbear]

Am I stupid? Really, I could call you something far worse after your reply.
So where is the EXTRA energy that is supplied by the extra 20% area "back radiating" at each other across the open gap?

Yes you are stupid. What extra energy? More surface area just means more energy loss. The block will cool down faster.

I spent already more time than I should talking to a fence post like you.
I am not the one who claimed there is extra energy...you kept saying it all along and suddenly you conceded there is none and that the 2 separated blocks do cool faster.
That leaves your back radiation in total limbo because the additional surface area you now want to use as an explanation for the faster cooling should be unable to facilitate this, because as I now point out for the 3rd time net E=0 for that area
And that means no cooling or heating. Unless you are some sort of God and can create E from zero

 

[IanC]

Get some rocks and throw them into a stove. Did these rocks add any energy to the stove?
Yes you say because that stove took longer to cool off after the fire went out...and got away with it till some nit-picking engineer did an experiment to show you that it took way more fuel to heat a stove full off your "back radiation" rocks.

You have described a heat sink. The energy went into the rocks instead of the room. When the fire goes out the energy is released.

How is this fundamentally different than what I have been saying?

The atmosphere stores energy in both kinetic and potential forms. Temperature and height. It is already close to equilibrium so most of the energy has already been stored.

 

[polarbear]

Not that you would get it, but others will.
A given amount of energy can be released in shorter & higher amplitude portions or in longer duration and lower amplitude portions.
Just like the stove without the rocks versus the stove with rocks and a planet without an atmosphere versus one with an atmosphere....which results in longer duration but consequentially a lower amplitude with the same energy input. And after the Hippies discovered transcendental "thinking" energy was able to flow in the opposite direction from cold to warm and you could even increase it by doping the atmosphere with a few ppm of the same plant food that is used to grow the dope that enables the transcendental meditation state which spawned this nonsense.

 

[IanC]

And the only people who believe that the cooler air is heating the surface below it are airheads.
When you claimed just a few days ago that "it takes a lot of energy to keep the air above the surface in a gravity field" you already showed that you might be one but now it`s official

I wish you would directly quote me because your interpretation of what I said and what I actually said are seldom the same.

It takes a lot of stored energy to put an atmosphere into the gravity field above the surface. Do you disagree?

The atmosphere warms and fluffs up during daylight, shrinks and cools at night. How much energy would you have to remove to shrink it down to near surface level? A lot.

I don't know if you just want to contradict everything I say no matter how stupid it makes you look, or if you simply cannot think things through.

Either way still makes you a stupid blowhard.

 

[IanC]

Not that you would get it, but others will.
A given amount of energy can be released in shorter & higher amplitude portions or in longer duration and lower amplitude portions.
Just like the stove without the rocks versus the stove with rocks and a planet without an atmosphere versus one with an atmosphere....which results in longer duration but consequentially a lower amplitude with the same energy input. And after the Hippies discovered transcendental "thinking" energy was able to flow in the opposite direction from cold to warm and you could even increase it by doping the atmosphere with a few ppm of the same plant food that is used to grow the dope that enables the transcendental meditation state which spawned this nonsense.

Net energy flow always goes from warm to cool.

The Earth is warmer on average because the atmosphere dampens the temperature swings by storing and releasing energy.

Energy loss is proportional to temperature to the fourth power. No atmosphere means very high daytime temps and very low nighttime ones. A constant temperature would give the warmest average. Everytime you increase the range between high and low the average goes down.

Think back to elementary school math. A rectangle has less area to equal circumference than a square, and a circle has more than a square. And this is only a ^2 relationship. Temperature radiation is a ^4 relationship. A small time radiating at a high temperature uses up most of the solar input, leaving the surface temp very cold most of the time. Spreading out the solar input over the whole day supports a moderate average temperature that is much warmer than the average temperature of mostly cold with a few hours of very hot.

 

[SSDD]

I'll call you stupid yet again. You don't seem to be capable of understanding the difference between something that has a power source, and a different thing that doesn't.

You have finally done it...you have gone so far that you appear to be permanently stuck on stupid...and I mean really stuck...he is showing you real world, observable, measurable, testable examples of how you are wrong and you flatly reject them because they don't agree with your unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable mathematical models...you have finally assumed your well deserved first class seat on the AGW crazy train...how is the view from up there?

 

[IanC]

I'll call you stupid yet again. You don't seem to be capable of understanding the difference between something that has a power source, and a different thing that doesn't.

You have finally done it...you have gone so far that you appear to be permanently stuck on stupid...and I mean really stuck...he is showing you real world, observable, measurable, testable examples of how you are wrong and you flatly reject them because they don't agree with your unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable mathematical models...you have finally assumed your well deserved first class seat on the AGW crazy train...how is the view from up there?

Hahahaha. So you have given up? All you have left is name calling? Hahahaha.

What have you guys refuted? Nothing.

How are you getting along with your evidence and explanation that it takes energy to lower the height of the atmosphere? Hahahaha.

I see you actually quoted one of my comments. Do you disagree with it? Apparently it caused you to call me crazy or something. Non powered heat sources can only cool if the environment is cooler than the object. Agree or disagree? Powered heat sources have a range of possible temperatures depending on conditions that affect heat loss. Agree or disagree?

You guys repeat anything that sounds vaguely anti-AGW but don't think it through to see if it agrees with basic principles. Sometimes you just apply the wrong basic principles to the situation.

ie. Lowering the height of the atmosphere. You see it as performing work to compress it. That's the wrong way to look at it, the wrong use of basic principles. I see it as a function of stored energy. Take energy out and it lowers, add energy and it rises.

Which process happens on a daily basis? How would you compress the atmosphere even if you wanted to?

Start refuting my points with evidence and logic. Name calling is the last resort of a dullard who has run out of ideas and needs to bluster while he runs away from the debate.

 

[SSDD]

Hahahaha. So you have given up? All you have left is name calling? Hahahaha.

So now you are the crazy black knight on mony python?...it's just a scratch?

What have you guys refuted? Nothing.

What's to refute?...unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable mind experiments against real world observable, measureable, testable arguments?...sorry ian, but out here in the real world, the real wins every time.

 

[IanC]

Hahahaha. So you have given up? All you have left is name calling? Hahahaha.

So now you are the crazy black knight on mony python?...it's just a scratch?

What have you guys refuted? Nothing.

What's to refute?...unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable mind experiments against real world observable, measureable, testable arguments?...sorry ian, but out here in the real world, the real wins every time.

So far, nary a scratch.

Have you figured out how to refute my statement that it takes a lot of energy to put the atmosphere into the gravity field above the surface?

Or should I take your silence as an admission that you were wrong? That's as close as you come to a gracious change of position. Remember your double pane windows rant? You could have simply said you misread the chart. Instead you just repeated that you were still right, actual evidence be damned.

 

[IanC]

...he is showing you real world, observable, measurable, testable examples of how you are wrong and you flatly reject them because they don't agree with your unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable mathematical models...

Do you mean his copper block experiment? He described it poorly (a link would have been useful), then he fudged on the results only to recant afterwards when I pointed out it couldn't happen the way he said it did.

It would seem that I corrected him, not the other way around.

Polarbear attributes crazy statements to me, and then attacks them. Strawman fallacy.

I have repeatedly asked him to directly quote my statements but he refuses because he can't refute the ideas I put forth. The only time he actually quotes me is when finds a grammatical mistake, ignoring the context and main thought. Remember his rant about how there are no air molecules, only molecules of air? How petty is that?