Why is it?

[Crick]

Do you actually think a multitude of PhD scientists would use an instrument which certainly states on its label somewhere that it sees X to X+1 microns when they wanted to measure data across a dozen microns or more? Where do you think the data you've seen a hundred times came from? Do you think they just made it up? Do you think all the world's IR thermometers are restricted to 1 micron bandwidth? Do you think it is no longer possible to measure irradiance outside those narrow IRT band? Get real.

 

[IanC]

Do you actually think a multitude of PhD scientists would use an instrument which certainly states on its label somewhere that it sees X to X+1 microns when they wanted to measure data across a dozen microns or more? Where do you think the data you've seen a hundred times came from? Do you think they just made it up? Do you think all the world's IR thermometers are restricted to 1 micron bandwidth? Do you think it is no longer possible to measure irradiance outside those narrow IRT band? Get real.

I'm not sure who your comment was directed at but I would like to respond.

hand held IR guns are manufactured to read the temperature of whatever they are pointed at. that is their purpose. they are not designed to measure all frequencies of IR, or to give information on the individual bands. there are other instruments designed to do that.

the interesting part, at least to me, is that hand held IR thermometers need to use a frequency that is unobstructed by greenhouse gases. think about it, the gun reads the total flux in any direction that it is pointed in. perpendicular to the surface, skyward, it receives 'blackbody' radiation from all the air above it but that air cools with height. T, T-x, T-2x, T-3x,.... Looking parallel it sees T,T,T,T....

if the gun used CO2 specific 15 micron radiation, it would basically read the same no matter which part of the atmosphere you pointed it at because that radiation cannot freely move through the air. you would only 'see' about ten meters out in any direction.

 

[Crick]

I believe we were talking about instruments used to produce data plots such as

 

[IanC]

I believe we were talking about instruments used to produce data plots such as

yah, yah, for the one hundredth time. is it somehow different this time? did I not mention instruments that cover the whole range?

SSDD's link caused me to refine my thinking by adding more information to my worldview. I typically catch on quicker than most so I wanted to share with others that didnt read the link, and/or havent thought about the topic in this way.

this is a fine example of how an idea stands on its own merit regardless of who states it. it had three strikes against it, SSDD linked it, Sullivan and Postma wrote it, and it was posted at PSI. yet parts of it were very useful.

 

[IanC]

here is a graph of emissivity in IR for common surface types

many graphs for water and seawater only go down to 12 microns, showing a steep decline. I wanted something that contained the CO2 specific 15 micron band.

interesting results, urban areas are practically perfect blackbody emitters/absorbers. the forrests, water and croplands. I was surprised that barren and scrubby land was lower.

anyway, water is a good emitter/absorber at the CO2 band. does this measured empirical data capable of changing anyone's mind? probably not.

I havent studied the paper but here it is. http://www-cave.larc.nasa.gov/pdfs/Wilber.NASATchNote99.pdf if you read it and find something interesting, post it up

 

[SSDD]

Do you actually think a multitude of PhD scientists would use an instrument which certainly states on its label somewhere that it sees X to X+1 microns when they wanted to measure data across a dozen microns or more? Where do you think the data you've seen a hundred times came from? Do you think they just made it up? Do you think all the world's IR thermometers are restricted to 1 micron bandwidth? Do you think it is no longer possible to measure irradiance outside those narrow IRT band? Get real.

Spencer is fooling himself with an IR thermometer and he is among the brightest of the climate scientists for what that is worth...so yes, I don't find it surprising at all that a whole field of soft scientists could fool themselves with instrumentation.

 

[SSDD]

here is a graph of emissivity in IR for common surface types

You do know how useful it is to show crick a graph don't you?...why not simply explain it to him in ancient Aramaic...he has as much chance of understanding your point either way.

 

[Crick]

Did you understand the graph SID? Are you still claiming that water doesn't absorb or emit IR?

 

[SSDD]

Did you understand the graph SID? Are you still claiming that water doesn't absorb or emit IR?

I have never made the claim..but lying is your thing so it isn't surprising that you would lie and claim that I have...

 

[Crick]

Your right. My apologies. Is your claim that the IR is absorbed in a thin layer at the surface and then is all lost to evaporation? Are you one of those fellows that claim IR cools water by this process?

 

[IanC]

Your right. My apologies. Is your claim that the IR is absorbed in a thin layer at the surface and then is all lost to evaporation? Are you one of those fellows that claim IR cools water by this process?

Who the fuck knows what he is saying.

My best guess is that agrees that water can absorb or emit IR but somehow the atmosphere doesn't emit any IR to be absorbed. If pushed he will admit air can absorb and emit IR but somehow only in preferred directions. It doesn't make any sense and he refuses to explain his grand theory. Something about every observationever made except the one that don't agree with him.

 

[SSDD]

Your right. My apologies. Is your claim that the IR is absorbed in a thin layer at the surface and then is all lost to evaporation? Are you one of those fellows that claim IR cools water by this process?

Who the fuck knows what he is saying.

My best guess is that agrees that water can absorb or emit IR but somehow the atmosphere doesn't emit any IR to be absorbed. If pushed he will admit air can absorb and emit IR but somehow only in preferred directions. It doesn't make any sense and he refuses to explain his grand theory. Something about every observationever made except the one that don't agree with him.

You really are getting to be as big a liar as crick...congratulations...the atmosphere absorbs and emits IR...it just doesn't emit it back towards the earth except in the rare instance of a temperature inversion...energy only moves from warm to cool...never in the other direction...but do let me know when they rewrite the second law of thermodynamics to reflect your beliefs.

 

[Crick]

Because of the temperature difference?

Why don't you write your professor buddies and ask their opinion on that point? Afraid?

Stupid and a coward.

 

[SSDD]

Because of the temperature difference?

Why don't you write your professor buddies and ask their opinion on that point? Afraid?

Stupid and a coward.

Don't need to write anyone...the second law of thermodynamics is written in a very straight forward manner...anyone should be able to understand it...hell, even you crick...it doesn't involve a graph...

Second Law of Thermodynamics: It is not possible for heat o flow from a colder body to a warmer body without any work having been done to accomplish this flow. Energy will not flow spontaneously from a low temperature object to a higher temperature object.

Which part do you disagree with?

 

[IanC]

The part where you say heat is flowing from the cool atmosphere to the warm surface.

The radiation is leaving both the surface and the atmosphere at the same time. Warmer objects radiate more than cool ones therefore the net exchange (heat) is going from warm to cool. Always, like the SLoT states.

You say that the radiation from both is somehow throttled down so that only the net amount from the surface is created, leaving both the surface and the atmosphere radiating much less than the S-B equation calls for, at their respective temperatures. You have no explanation, no mechanism for how this throttling down happens, and it would in fact violate other Laws of Physics.

That is what we disagree with.

 

[SSDD]

The part where you say heat is flowing from the cool atmosphere to the warm surface.

That is your idiot belief...not mine and don't pretend that I ever made such a claim.

The radiation is leaving both the surface and the atmosphere at the same time. Warmer objects radiate more than cool ones therefore the net exchange (heat) is going from warm to cool. Always, like the SLoT states.

The second law states no such thing...your unobservable, untestable, unprovable mathematical models may make the claim, but that is about as far as it goes...observation says otherwise.

You say that the radiation from both is somehow throttled down so that only the net amount from the surface is created, leaving both the surface and the atmosphere radiating much less than the S-B equation calls for, at their respective temperatures. You have no explanation, no mechanism for how this throttling down happens, and it would in fact violate other Laws of Physics.

Nope...again, you are making up arguments to rail against...arguments that I never made...there is no "net" energy flow...there is only gross one way movement from the surface to space..as the SLoT says.

 

[Crick]

It is patently obvious that you have never had a class in thermodynamics. Or, if you did, you completely flunked it. Todd and other have found numerous thermo textbooks discussing NET RADIATIVE TRANSFER. In the way of references, you have provided NONE,ZERO, ZIP, NADA. When given the opportunity to ask experts what they thought of your interpretation of S-B, you remained silent. Why might all that that be?