Questions.....RE: The Greenhouse Effect

[Wuwei]

Inspired by SSDD, I have discovered that all science is wrong and the SB equation is actually this:
j = sigma (T^2 - Tc^2)(T^2 + Tc^2)

I have also discovered that Einsteins famous mass - energy equation is wrong and this is right:
E = c(c x m)

I think that SSDD will agree that these factoring modifications of the algebraic form change the physics interpretation completely !

 

[Wuwei]

Hahahaha. I bet you knew that the first thing I would do is check the plus and minus signs in your factoring.

You should have prefaced your post with "Spoiler Alert". You gave away the secret and now SSDD won't have to spend the next hours working out the arithmetic.

 

[IanC]

Mine is gone

 

[Wuwei]

I'm too late.

 

[IanC]

I'm too late.

Oh well. I, for one, thank you for sending me down memory lane. Calculus puzzles were a lot of fun to solve, finding the right string to pull that undid the knot. And topology and matrix math where it actually does matter what order you do things in. And remembering the brilliance of geniuses like Euler and Riemann who were the first to recognize patterns that were so difficult to understand even when you knew they were there.

 

[SSDD]

The fundamental form of the SB equation describes a perfect black body emitting in the complete absence of other matter you idiot. Tell me, where might that happen?

You didn't look at the article I posted. The fourth power equation is derived with absolutely no assumption about background objects or temperature. Look at the article. It is the essence of what Boltzmann himself derived.

Also look up a derivation of this formula

You will see that they assume a net two-way flow. Net flow has been known by science for a hundred years.

Show me the expression within that equation that allows you to derive net...T - Tc describes a gross transaction...deriving net would require an equation that looks quite different from that...which is why climate science engaged in some pretty shitty mathematics in an attempt to make net energy transfer real..an equation from which you can derive net would look like this...

Of course it is completely terrible mathematics to apply the distributive property to an equation that is already reduced...when I asked him when else he might do that with an equation, he had no answer...maybe you have one...when would you do that and for what reason?

Aside from that, in physics, an equation is like a sentence..it attempts to describe a thing that is happening in reality...changing the equation changes the story it tells...and just as with language, changing the story does not change what happened in reality..it is just telling a lie.

 

[SSDD]

The fundamental law is j = sigma T^4

This describes the radiation produced by an object at a specified temperature. Regardless of its surroundings. One object, one temperature, one instant of time. It is the simplest and purest form of the S-B equations.

Sorry ian, but you and wuwei are both wrong...and I provided you with responses from some pretty high octane physicists to prove the point...the first equation is a ideal model and doesn't deal with the "messiness" of reality.

 

[Wuwei]

Of course it is completely terrible mathematics to apply the distributive property to an equation that is already reduced...when I asked him when else he might do that with an equation, he had no answer...maybe you have one...when would you do that and for what reason?

It is the other way around. The separated form is part of the derivation to show the physics of the incoming and outgoing radiation of an object. Once that physics is understood the two equations are combined to make the arithmetic calculation less redundant. The arithmetic manipulation does not change the physics in any way. Here are two references to show that the equation

is an intermediate step.

Radiation emission and absorption

http://www.dartmouth.edu/~physics/l...oltzmann.law/stefan.boltzmann.law.writeup.pdf

So there is no reason to view that intermediate step as a final step for calculation since the calculation is easer with the reduced form,

This is a snapshot of the second reference:

Aside from that, in physics, an equation is like a sentence..it attempts to describe a thing that is happening in reality...changing the equation changes the story it tells...and just as with language, changing the story does not change what happened in reality..it is just telling a lie.

That is so wrong. Changing an equation using arithmetic theorems has absolutely no effect on changing the "story" or what the equation stands for. In the case of the SB law. It is the intermediate step with the subtraction that tells the real "story."

That equation tells us that a body is emitting and absorbing. The reduced form of the equation with (T^4 -Tc^) is a very obvious arithmetic simplicity for succinctness of calculations and expression of the formula.

 

[SSDD]

It is the other way around. The separated form is part of the derivation to show the physics of the incoming and outgoing radiation of an object. Once that physics is understood the two equations are combined to make the arithmetic calculation less redundant. The arithmetic manipulation does not change the physics in any way. Here are two references to show that the equation

is an intermediate step.

Keep talking..you just keep showing how little you know...

 

[IanC]

Show me the expression within that equation that allows you to derive net...T - Tc describes a gross transaction...deriving net would require an equation that looks quite different

????

Where is the term (T-Tc)? That term is not present in any of the S-B equations that I have seen, certainly not in your favorite one.

Temperature (T) is a real property. T^4 is not a real property, it is an imaginary relationship that allows us to calculate the radiation coming off an object.

Your favourite S-B equation takes two intensive properties, j1 and j2, subtracts them to get a net result, and turns the intensive properties into an extensive property by defining the area (A) where they are interacting.

P/A = j1 - j2, where j = sigmaT^4, the original and most basic form of the S-B equations. The term for emmisivity is added in for less than perfect blackbodies.

 

[IanC]

It is the other way around. The separated form is part of the derivation to show the physics of the incoming and outgoing radiation of an object. Once that physics is understood the two equations are combined to make the arithmetic calculation less redundant. The arithmetic manipulation does not change the physics in any way. Here are two references to show that the equation

is an intermediate step.

Keep talking..you just keep showing how little you know...

WUWEI has shown his understanding multiple times in the past, and now has produced numerous references to support his position.

You, on the other hand, have produced no references, and continue to make sophomoric mistakes like using the term (T-Tc) instead of (T^4-Tc^4).

 

[toobfreak]

So I was in a conversation with one of our local crop of warmers...one who claims to grasp the science and claims to have read the literature...including the IPCC documentation...... and rather than continue to swap insults, I decided that I might try asking a couple of questions about the greenhouse effect as described by climate science.

So I grab a diagram from the University of Washington atmospheric sciences department which they say describes the mechanism of the greenhouse effect. Here it is.

Our local warmer immediately begins to equivocate and then asks what's my point?

Well, I thought my point was pretty clear...I wanted to establish that we were on the same page to begin with...so I go out and get a few more diagrams from the atmospheric sciences department at Penn State, and Harvard, and one from no place in particular that seems to be showing the same thing. These are they.

Again, I ask if these describe the basic mechanism of the greenhouse effect as described by climate science. And what does the pathetic wretch ask me?...again...what's my point? This guy, who claims to get the science, and claims to have read the IPCC documentation can't bring himself to say whether or not the graphs above, purported by the University of Washington, Penn State, and Harvard to describe the mechanism of the greenhouse effect actually describes the mechanism of the greenhouse effect.

Who was the pathetic wretch I was talking to?....I am sure you can guess if you like...or you can go to the conversation here and see for yourself....

The fact that this warmer was scared....or unsure enough to even say whether or not the graphics above accurately show the mechanism of the greenhouse effect as described by climate science perhaps brings up a much larger point...but that's beside the point and doesn't begin to answer the questions I have about the greenhouse effect.

So are there any warmers here on the board that might be able to look at the graphics above and say whether or not they describe the basic mechanism of the greenhouse effect as described by climate science and perhaps talk a bit about that mechanism and effect? By the way...I notice some trivial differences in the above graphics that actually show the amount of radiation moving about...those differences are irrelevant to my questions...

All of the above charts are a bit simplistic as they address only the basic mechanism and do not give meaning to any of the terms, but basically, greenhouse warming is pretty simple: does the rate of incoming heat into a system exceed its rate of release? What are the sources of incoming energy? The Sun (which varies both intrinsically slightly as well as a function of our distance and angle to it), and to a lesser degree, from the Earth itself, which includes both internal heat as well as activity from man.

What are some of the variables? The Earth's albedo, or reflectivity--- a snow covered Earth reflects more heat into space. Another factor is the opacity of the sky to wavelengths longer than about 450nm, the beginnings of the IR band. Various trace gasses such as Methane, CO2 and even water vapor all have some effect on how well the atmosphere reflects infrared energy back to the Earth.

Now the question is how does one quantify all of these factors into an accurate model of the actual Earth to derive meaningful data. The first problem is our poor understanding of all of the factors first, second, whether we can honestly or accurate quantify them. I don't see the above charts doing any of that without a great deal more information and explanation. So does your buddy Crick have the definitive answer either? I would say NO.

 

[Muhammed]

So I was in a conversation with one of our local crop of warmers...one who claims to grasp the science and claims to have read the literature..

Those who are familiar with the literature like myself know exactly which people and papers the damning climategate emails refer to and are fucking outraged. The most often cited and influential climate science papers were not merely shoddy science as some thought, they were fraudulent. And the emails prove that the data the fraudsters claimed was lost when the University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit moved to a new building was actually purposefully destroyed because they feared that the data would have to be released because of the UK's new Freedom of Information law.

If your warmer friend is not outraged by climategate he is full of shit when says he grasps the science and has read the literature.

 

[Wuwei]

It is the other way around. The separated form is part of the derivation to show the physics of the incoming and outgoing radiation of an object. Once that physics is understood the two equations are combined to make the arithmetic calculation less redundant. The arithmetic manipulation does not change the physics in any way. Here are two references to show that the equation

is an intermediate step.

Keep talking..you just keep showing how little you know...

That's the best you can do? Another insult? Why didn't you comment on the very simple derivation that came from Dartmouth University. Millions of scientists through their texts and journals know that the derivation is the only one that makes any sense. Do you not understand it?

 

[IanC]

Most people only understand simple examples, that is why there are so many of them.

The atmosphere stores and recycles energy. That is how a solar input of only 165w can support a surface radiating at 400w.

Something like an amplifying system. (Another simple example!). Most people will say this is akin to a perpetual motion machine and therefore impossible.

There is more to energy transfer than just keeping the Watts balanced. There is a quality to radiation as well as a quantity. Entropy is involved. Work can be done during the transformation of highly ordered, high energy solar radiation into diffuse low energy IR even though the amounts balance.

Entropy is a difficult concept to grasp, for anyone. The second law of thermodynamics is now laid out in terms of entropy. The concept of the term work, and its definition is also quite vague to most people.

One of the deficiencies of the climate models is to balance the energy budget in Watts but to ignore the entropy change. They consider a watt of IR to be equal to a watt of solar insolation. Passive redistribution of net energy can only be done from a warmer source to a cooler source.

 

[IanC]

It is the other way around. The separated form is part of the derivation to show the physics of the incoming and outgoing radiation of an object. Once that physics is understood the two equations are combined to make the arithmetic calculation less redundant. The arithmetic manipulation does not change the physics in any way. Here are two references to show that the equation

is an intermediate step.

Keep talking..you just keep showing how little you know...

That's the best you can do? Another insult? Why didn't you comment on the very simple derivation that came from Dartmouth University. Millions of scientists through their texts and journals know that the derivation is the only one that makes any sense. Do you not understand it?

SSDD collects talking points and does not care to imbed them into a coherent underlying pattern. He knows 'facts' but does not understand them. He simply ignores anything that does not fit into his worldview.

He also thinks everyone else is doing the same thing. He falsely assumes his position has just as great a chance for being right as anyone else's.

He doesn't change his position as new information is added. He is stuck in the science defined 150 years ago.

 

[Wuwei]

SSDD collects talking points and does not care to imbed them into a coherent underlying pattern. He knows 'facts' but does not understand them. He simply ignores anything that does not fit into his worldview.

He also thinks everyone else is doing the same thing. He falsely assumes his position has just as great a chance for being right as anyone else's.

He doesn't change his position as new information is added. He is stuck in the science defined 150 years ago.

Yes. We know that and I think he knows that too. His latest missive did not even attempt a "talking point" related to science. He resorted to his usual menu of trollish sounding insults. I think he is running out of steam. Of course he will deny that and come back with something stale as usual.

 

[IanC]

SSDD collects talking points and does not care to imbed them into a coherent underlying pattern. He knows 'facts' but does not understand them. He simply ignores anything that does not fit into his worldview.

He also thinks everyone else is doing the same thing. He falsely assumes his position has just as great a chance for being right as anyone else's.

He doesn't change his position as new information is added. He is stuck in the science defined 150 years ago.

Yes. We know that and I think he knows that too. His latest missive did not even attempt a "talking point" related to science. He resorted to his usual menu of trollish sounding insults. I think he is running out of steam. Of course he will deny that and come back with something stale as usual.

He may abandon this thread but you can be sure that he will pop up in another with the same bald assertions.

 

[SSDD]

Show me the expression within that equation that allows you to derive net...T - Tc describes a gross transaction...deriving net would require an equation that looks quite different

????

Where is the term (T-Tc)? That term is not present in any of the S-B equations that I have seen, certainly not in your favorite one.

Temperature (T) is a real property. T^4 is not a real property, it is an imaginary relationship that allows us to calculate the radiation coming off an object.

Your favourite S-B equation takes two intensive properties, j1 and j2, subtracts them to get a net result, and turns the intensive properties into an extensive property by defining the area (A) where they are interacting.

P/A = j1 - j2, where j = sigmaT^4, the original and most basic form of the S-B equations. The term for emmisivity is added in for less than perfect blackbodies.

Didn't realize I have to write out the whole damned equation every time for you...dementia onset maybe?

here is the deal...if you can provide an actual observed, measured example of energy moving from a radiator to a cooler object, and the same frequencies of energy moving from the cooler object back to, and being absorbed by the radiator, then lets talk..if you can't..then as I have said, all you have is unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable models...and in that case, WE really have nothing to talk about..I am not really interested in unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable models...what is the point...as I have told you before, if you want to talk about fiction, there are a universe of more interesting topics.

 

[SSDD]

It is the other way around. The separated form is part of the derivation to show the physics of the incoming and outgoing radiation of an object. Once that physics is understood the two equations are combined to make the arithmetic calculation less redundant. The arithmetic manipulation does not change the physics in any way. Here are two references to show that the equation

is an intermediate step.

Keep talking..you just keep showing how little you know...

WUWEI has shown his understanding multiple times in the past, and now has produced numerous references to support his position.

Right...by claiming that a black body has a great deal of heat capacity...by believing, like you, that the difference between the temperature of a radiator and its surroundings has no effect on the amount of radiation it puts out..and on and on...all he has demonstrated is that, like you, he can't differentiate between models and reality....is that your benchmark for "understanding"...blind belief in the models?