Roy Spencer's explanation of the Green House Effect

[IanC]

More Musings from the Greenhouse « Roy Spencer, Ph. D.

Temperature is the Result of Energy Gain AND Energy Loss
The temperature of something (the Earth’s surface, an atmospheric layer, the human body, a pot of water on the stove) is related to rates of energy gain and energy loss. Thus, generally speaking, you can increase temperature in one of two ways: (1) increase the rate of energy gain, or (2) decrease the rate of energy loss. (There can also be conversion between energy types, of course, but for simplicity here I am just talking about thermal energy, that is, sensible heat.)

For example, if you are lying in bed and are too cold, you can turn up the electric blanket (increase energy gain), or add a regular blanket (decrease the rate of energy loss). If you add even more blankets, you will gradually make the temperature under the blankets higher…but at the same time you make the temperature of the outer blankets colder.

Heat will always flow from higher temperature to lower temperature, but this does not mean that temperatures cannot change. The actual temperatures at different depths in the blankets depend upon the rate of energy gain and energy loss at those different depths, not just the rate of energy input into the system.

The same is true of the climate system, and when explaining the surface temperature of the Earth. It does not matter whether we are talking about radiative heat transfer, or conduction, temperature is a matter of energy gain versus energy loss.

The Greenhouse Effect Decreases the Rate of Energy Loss by the Earth’s Surface
The atmospheric gases most responsible for IR absorption and emission in the atmosphere (“greenhouse gases”) act like a radiative blanket, cooling the middle and upper layers, but warming the lowest layers and the surface.

pretty straightforward stuff. hey wirebender- notice how it rebuts your theory of how a blanket cools a person rather than warms them?

 

[wirebender]

pretty straightforward stuff. hey wirebender- notice how it rebuts your theory of how a blanket cools a person rather than warms them?

Actually, he doesn't rebutt anything. He says that it will get warmer under the blankets than your body temperature. He is still working from his failed yes virginia thought experiment.

It is an easy enough experiment, I have done it and you can never, no matter how many blankets you use, get the temperature above the source of the warmth, ie your body temperature; and your skin temperature will be lower where the blanket is touching.

The greenhouse effect, if you like the term is a result of pressure, not CO2 or any other trace gas within the atmosphere. The ideal gas laws tell us this but you faithers and luke warmers are so concerned with being right, or controling world economic systems that you simply can't, or won't apply the laws of physics and look at reality.

 

[Old Rocks]

And only whigged out rightwingnuts truly know science. All them pointy headed librul scientists all over the world are just trying to control your gonads.

Sing it again, Bent, sing it again.

 

[IanC]

pretty straightforward stuff. hey wirebender- notice how it rebuts your theory of how a blanket cools a person rather than warms them?

Actually, he doesn't rebutt anything. He says that it will get warmer under the blankets than your body temperature. He is still working from his failed yes virginia thought experiment.

It is an easy enough experiment, I have done it and you can never, no matter how many blankets you use, get the temperature above the source of the warmth, ie your body temperature; and your skin temperature will be lower where the blanket is touching.

The greenhouse effect, if you like the term is a result of pressure, not CO2 or any other trace gas within the atmosphere. The ideal gas laws tell us this but you faithers and luke warmers are so concerned with being right, or controling world economic systems that you simply can't, or won't apply the laws of physics and look at reality.

you are insane. stand in a 10C room in your underwear and measure a spot on your body at equilibrium. then put a shirt and jacket on and wait for equilibrium again. measure the same spot and it will be warmer. you are claiming that the transient drop in temp from conduction when a cool blanket first touches skin is the whole story. once the inside of the blanket/clothes become charged with heat it takes less heat to maintain a higher temp.

like Spencer said- to warm something up you need to increase the heat source or decrease the heat loss. an electric appliance is a better example. throw a blanket on your stereo's receiver and check back in an hour to see if the temp decreased.

 

[mudwhistle]

And only whigged out rightwingnuts truly know science. All them pointy headed librul scientists all over the world are just trying to control your gonads.

Sing it again, Bent, sing it again.

Old Rocks when he was a baby.

 

[wirebender]

you are insane. stand in a 10C room in your underwear and measure a spot on your body at equilibrium. then put a shirt and jacket on and wait for equilibrium again. measure the same spot and it will be warmer.

By insane, do you mean working from empirical, observed evidence instead of instinct? I have done the experiment ian, and your body will never get warmer where the clothing is touching. Your skin temperature is always lower where the cloth touches your body because heat is exchanging from your skin to the cloth. No matter how many clothes you put on, you will still be bleeding heat off where the cloth touches your skin.

You can go on forever on this but I have done the experiment with a pretty high grade infrared camera (sensitive enough to detect the slight temperature difference that accounts for the dark fur on a siamese cat's face, ears, feet, and tail) and can tell you that where your clothing touches your skin, it is cooler than where no clothing touches your skin.

you are claiming that the transient drop in temp from conduction when a cool blanket first touches skin is the whole story. once the inside of the blanket/clothes become charged with heat it takes less heat to maintain a higher temp.

I am not claiming anything. I am telling you what happens and telling you that it is precisely what the 2nd law of thermodynamics predicts.

like Spencer said- to warm something up you need to increase the heat source or decrease the heat loss. an electric appliance is a better example. throw a blanket on your stereo's receiver and check back in an hour to see if the temp decreased.

Back to his failed thought experiment. You are operating on what you believe, rather than what you can prove. Show me one single experiment that proves that heat can radiate from cool back to warm.

You completely fail to realise that if you slow down the rate of cooling, you are still cooling. You can't generate additional energy by slowing the escape of energy. Your instincts and intuition are wrong and in oppositon to the laws of thermodynamics.

Hee Haw all you like, I am not going over this with you again. I did the math to prove my point and you did nothing but make baseless claims in a failed attempt to both disprove mine and support your own. You lost ian and that is the end of it for me. Piss and moan, whine and cry, or lay down on the floor and kick your feet in a full blown tantrum. The facts are not going to alter and I am not going to go over it all again with you.

 

[IanC]

you are insane. stand in a 10C room in your underwear and measure a spot on your body at equilibrium. then put a shirt and jacket on and wait for equilibrium again. measure the same spot and it will be warmer.

By insane, do you mean working from empirical, observed evidence instead of instinct? I have done the experiment ian, and your body will never get warmer where the clothing is touching. Your skin temperature is always lower where the cloth touches your body because heat is exchanging from your skin to the cloth. No matter how many clothes you put on, you will still be bleeding heat off where the cloth touches your skin.
....

You completely fail to realise that if you slow down the rate of cooling, you are still cooling. You can't generate additional energy by slowing the escape of energy. Your instincts and intuition are wrong and in oppositon to the laws of thermodynamics.

....

first off, I dont believe you have usable and complete empirical observed evidence. you have not fitted your anecdotal infrared camera snapshots into any sort of organized data set.

the human body is a poor choice for an experiment but let's investigate the problems. the thermostat is located in the core with homeostatic mechanisms to stay in a range centred on 37C. what is the ambient temperature at which a human body does not have to invoke heating or cooling processes to remain at 37C? ~25C should be pretty close. as the ambient air increases past 25C does the skin actually drop in temperature due to sweating? under 25C how much does the skin cool per degree as blood flow is restricted to reduce heat loss? at what temperature does the human body invoke shivering to increase the basal metabolic rate to keep the core at 37? how do you adjust your measurements for sweating, shivering or even minor control of blood flow? how long does it take to approach equilibrium?

I do not have an infrared camera so perhaps you could do this experiment for us. turn the heat down in your bedroom but use enough blankets to remain comfortable. stick one foot out of the covers while leaving the other inside. wait half an hour and then flip back the covers and read the temperatures of both feet. according to your halfbaked theory the outside foot should be warmer! my wife would disagree with you but I guess we should wait for the official infrared camera results.

bodies lose heat at a rate dictated by the temperature differential between the body and what it is losing heat to. you must also consider by which mechanisms the heat is flowing, conduction is much more efficient than radiation. if you put a blanket around you on a chilly night it will cut the heat loss drastically but more heat will escape in those places where the blanket actually touches skin and less where warmed air adds another layer of insulation by inefficient radiation between skin and blanket.

if a body has a constant internal heat source and is radiating away 100w to the outside at temperate A, then if you add a blanket that is capable of cutting the heat loss in half, the 50w not radiated away because it is blocked by the blanket will increase the temperature of the body until it reaches temperature B where it is radiating 200w, which is enough to force 100w across the blanket. temperature B is not twice temperature A because radiation is proportional to (T^4 power). there has been no creation of energy. the energy that was not lost to the outside when the blanket was placed on the body is used to increase the temperature of the body until it comes back into temperature equilibrium where 100w is once again being radiated to the outside. if you take the blanket away, the body will quickly cool from radiating 200w down to 100w which means it is at temperature A again. the extra energy radiated as the body cools exactly equals the amount of energy that was not radiated when the blanket was first placed on the body and the temperature rose. the net output of the body is exactly the net input into the outside. when the body was at temperature B and radiating at 200w this was only an internal redistribution of energy, NOT A NET LOSS!. the blanket was in effect backradiating the extra 100w.

the earth is like my example. various things affect the transfer of heat in various ways. the temperature of the surface or various levels of the atmosphere can go up or down BUT in the long run the input equals the output and no energy is created or destroyed, just sequestered or released, in one area or another.

 

[wirebender]

first off, I dont believe you have usable and complete empirical observed evidence. you have not fitted your anecdotal infrared camera snapshots into any sort of organized data set.

Since your readings have dropped so low on my respect-O-meter, I really don't give a crap what you believe ian. You have demonstrated beyond any doubt that you operate on intuition and instinct rather than mathematical, or observed evidence and the actual laws of physics. Therefore, what you think is unimportant.

the human body is a poor choice for an experiment but let's investigate the problems.

The human body is a fine choice for the experiment. In fact, any emitter is just fine as they all demonstrate, and prove the laws of physics. Perform your thought experiments in your head. At least one person will be listening/interested.

 

[Si modo]

Wirebender, you are assuming that a human body cannot generate more heat than 37C.

As you sit there, likely in a single layer of clothes and in about 25C room, your body temperature is likely 37C. Obviously, your body is at a higher temperature than the room, so it is losing heat to the room, but your body is in steady state at 37C under those conditions.

But, our bodies are active chemical reactors.

We insulate them more (reduce their heat loss) and produce a new steady state temperature for our bodies. Granted, we will try to cool ourselves by increasing sweat, but the heat loss is even more limited with the insulation.

I think you are confusing the normal steady state temp of 37C as the maximum heat the body can generate. That's simply not the case.

 

[IanC]

the human body is a poor choice for an experiment but let's investigate the problems.

The human body is a fine choice for the experiment. In fact, any emitter is just fine as they all demonstrate, and prove the laws of physics. Perform your thought experiments in your head. At least one person will be listening/interested.

the human body reacts differently according to conditions, in that way it is like the climate system. but typically it is better to use a simpler example to illustrate basic physics otherwise people like you twist distortions into the explanation by misrepresenting the conditions. in this thread you have compared the greater effectiveness of conduction to the inefficientcy of radiation and declared that blankets cool a person rather than warm them. apples and oranges. you picked one detail and reformed the description to only include one aspect and then generalized it out to an incorrect conclusion about the overall situation. if you compared (skin in contact with an insulating material) to (skin not covered) instead of (skin insulated by dead air plus insulating material) then your theory falls apart.

you are just like the more extremist warmers. the only difference is you dishonestly argue the opposite. but you both are still dishonest.

 

[wirebender]

I think you are confusing the normal steady state temp of 37C as the maximum heat the body can generate. That's simply not the case.

I am not confusing anything. I am telling you that if you observe your clothed body, or covered body with a sufficiently sensitive infrared camera, you will see that where the cloth, or cover is touching the skin, the surface temperature of the skin will be lower than the temperature of the surrounding skin. This is precisely what the 2nd law of thermodynamics predicts will happen. I don't see why you guys hate the 2nd law so much.

 

[wirebender]

you are just like the more extremist warmers. the only difference is you dishonestly argue the opposite. but you both are still dishonest.

Here ian, talk to this.

 

[Si modo]

I think you are confusing the normal steady state temp of 37C as the maximum heat the body can generate. That's simply not the case.

I am not confusing anything. I am telling you that if you observe your clothed body, or covered body with a sufficiently sensitive infrared camera, you will see that where the cloth, or cover is touching the skin, the surface temperature of the skin will be lower than the temperature of the surrounding skin. This is precisely what the 2nd law of thermodynamics predicts will happen. I don't see why you guys hate the 2nd law so much.

I hate the 2nd Law?

Funny. Whenever someone has to resort to propaganda tools, you just know that THEY know their argument is weak.

Why do you hate America, WB?

OK. So not that I've commented on your argument, or lack thereof, I'll go back to the science.




Conservation of energy (one of those things that you think I hate ): Your uninsulated body, or minimally insulated with a single layer of clothes, in a room cooler than your body is at 37C.

I hope we can agree on that - 37C, minimal insulation, and cooler room.

Thus, your body is constantly and at steady state, losing heat to the room. And that's because, as you so often say, heat flows from warm to cold and you are exactly correct when you say that.

I hope we can agree on that.

Now, let's mix it up, shall we?

Let's put some really effectively insulating blankets on your body and not change a single other thing in that room (our boundary for this system is the room, BTW).

Your body is still generating the same amount of heat that it was before, at least initially. That hasn't changed. But, you've cut the heat loss of your body significantly.

So, as you love Laws of thermo, apparently, there is only one thing that can happen to the temperature under the blanket.

Let's see if you can guess what that is.

 

[IanC]

wirebender- I talk at you not because I expect you to listen but because I want to vaccinate others so that they dont carelessly believe your distortions.

 

[wirebender]

Let's see if you can guess what that is.

No need to guess. The second law, and a sufficently sensitive infrared camera will tell you. The skin that is in contact with the blanket, or the clothing, or whatever else you care to put it in contact with will be cooler than the skin that is not touching anything.

The temperature in the dead space will increase, but that is irrelavent to the atmosphere that this whole silly experiment is trying to analogize. In any event, the temperature will never rise above that of the emitter, no matter how much insulation you use.

 

[wirebender]

wirebender- I talk at you not because I expect you to listen but because I want to vaccinate others so that they dont carelessly believe your distortions.

I have proven my point ian. Thus far, you have proven nothing more than that you don't accept the laws of physics.

 

[Si modo]

Let's see if you can guess what that is.

No need to guess. The second law, and a sufficently sensitive infrared camera will tell you. The skin that is in contact with the blanket, or the clothing, or whatever else you care to put it in contact with will be cooler than the skin that is not touching anything.

The temperature in the dead space will increase, but that is irrelavent to the atmosphere that this whole silly experiment is trying to analogize. In any event, the temperature will never rise above that of the emitter, no matter how much insulation you use.

Um, yes it will, if you reduce the amount of heat loss of the emitter and the emitter still emits at the same rate.

Temperature is just a measure of amount of heat present. Insulate, and less heat loss means more heat present.

Seriously, WTF?

 

[Old Rocks]

Yep. Kind of like the atmosphere.

 

[wirebender]

Temperature is just a measure of amount of heat present. Insulate, and less heat loss means more heat present.

Seriously, WTF?

Insulate all you like but you aren't going to get the smallest fraction of a BTU out of your heat pump that you don't pay the electric company for.

 

[Si modo]

Temperature is just a measure of amount of heat present. Insulate, and less heat loss means more heat present.

Seriously, WTF?

Insulate all you like but you aren't going to get the smallest fraction of a BTU out of your heat pump that you don't pay the electric company for.

No shit.

Now, that has little to do with your error.