AGW: atmospheric physics

[westwall]

Bauble-

It is in LINE ONE of the report:

Sporadically we are challenged over the reality of Earth’s Greenhouse Effect (GE) on the grounds this represents a heat flow from a cooler to a warmer body and hence violates the Second Law of Thermodynamics (2nd Law).

Go and look for yourself, and then you can also explain to SSDD how many references there are to feedback and back radiation!

What? You're still here?

 

[Saigon]

Back Radiation:

This is one of 3 articles on this sight which explain it all in GREAT detail -

What’s amazing about back-radiation is how many different ways people arrive at the conclusion it doesn’t exist or doesn’t have any effect on the temperature at the earth’s surface.

Atmospheric longwave radiation is the surface radiation budget component most rarely available in climatological stations due to the cost of the longwave measuring instruments, the pyrgeometers, compared with the cost of pyranometers, which measure the shortwave radiation. Consequently, the estimate of longwave radiation for no-pyrgeometer places is often done through the most easily measured atmospheric variables, such as air temperature and air moisture. Several parameterization schemes have been developed to estimate downward longwave radiation for clear-sky and cloudy conditions, but none has been adopted for generalized use.

The Amazing Case of ?Back-Radiation? | The Science of Doom

 

[gslack]

Back Radiation:

This is one of 3 articles on this sight which explain it all in GREAT detail -

What’s amazing about back-radiation is how many different ways people arrive at the conclusion it doesn’t exist or doesn’t have any effect on the temperature at the earth’s surface.

Atmospheric longwave radiation is the surface radiation budget component most rarely available in climatological stations due to the cost of the longwave measuring instruments, the pyrgeometers, compared with the cost of pyranometers, which measure the shortwave radiation. Consequently, the estimate of longwave radiation for no-pyrgeometer places is often done through the most easily measured atmospheric variables, such as air temperature and air moisture. Several parameterization schemes have been developed to estimate downward longwave radiation for clear-sky and cloudy conditions, but none has been adopted for generalized use.

The Amazing Case of ?Back-Radiation? | The Science of Doom

No that article you linked to, is the authors take on why the 2nd law isn't violated by greenhouse effect. Whatever other articles he has, you didn't link to and frankly given his BS in the one you did link to, i didn't want to bother..

He doesn't PROVE backradiation in any of it. he claims it works and uses the very theory in question to try and prove it...

Again, fox + hen house = bad for the chickens... Get it?

 

[Saigon]

is the authors take on why the 2nd law isn't violated by greenhouse effect.

EXACTLY.

And there are two other closely related articles on the same site. I can provide links for those if you can't find them, but they are on the same site. All three are well worth a read.

The fact that both of the sources I have used provide real world examples of feeback are fairly clear evidence that it is real, no?


Westwall -

Please limit the off-topic spamming. We know you are lost without you proving it ten times a day.

 

[mamooth]

Here we got a bunch of morons lecturing engineers

Because in this case, the engineer lacks any vestige of knowledge about physics, as well as lacking any vestige of common sense.

But then, maybe the whole world is wrong, and only a select few gibbering right-wing-fringe cultists know the real truth about thermodynamics. No doubt the anal probes which they received from the aliens must have imparted such special knowledge.

 

[mamooth]

Of course it won't, but that is what warmers believe will happen.

If you have to make up crazy stories about what we supposedly believe, we'll correctly take it as your admission of surrender.

They think that if you point a flashlight at a mirror, the flashlight will burn brighter

No we don't, being that the light reflected back into the filament is negligible. Remember, just because you lack common sense and an engineer's sense of scale, don't assume we're so handicapped.

...or if you aim a mirror at your fireplace, you will get more heat than the burning wood alone could produce.

Wow. That's so crazy, I simply have no idea where you got it or how to respond to it. You're off the rails in your own happy crazy dimension.

 

[polarbear]

Bauble-

It is in LINE ONE of the report:

Sporadically we are challenged over the reality of Earth’s Greenhouse Effect (GE) on the grounds this represents a heat flow from a cooler to a warmer body and hence violates the Second Law of Thermodynamics (2nd Law).

Go and look for yourself, and then you can also explain to SSDD how many references there are to feedback and back radiation!

What? You're still here?

Of course he is so is the rabid Siamese cat. They are glued to their PC all day long every day since they registered.
Trolling and posting over every post that goes against their weirdo beliefs.
Notice how many posts in a row that "Meow i used to run nuclear reactors" psycho makes every time somebody else posted something?
4 or five posts in a row so that the other stuff is buried at least 2 pages deep. None of it is subject related but are just sucker punches that you are supposed to react to.
Typical Libtard tactics

 

[gslack]

is the authors take on why the 2nd law isn't violated by greenhouse effect.

EXACTLY.

And there are two other closely related articles on the same site. I can provide links for those if you can't find them, but they are on the same site. All three are well worth a read.

The fact that both of the sources I have used provide real world examples of feeback are fairly clear evidence that it is real, no?


Westwall -

Please limit the off-topic spamming. We know you are lost without you proving it ten times a day.

LOL, you really aren't very good at critical thinking are you... I thought it was your defense, but it's genuine, you're an idiot and not acting at all....

Again, it uses the theory to try and prove itself... Therefore is not proof at all..

Is this thing on? You catchin any of this yet?

 

[polarbear]

Bauble-

It is in LINE ONE of the report:

Sporadically we are challenged over the reality of Earth’s Greenhouse Effect (GE) on the grounds this represents a heat flow from a cooler to a warmer body and hence violates the Second Law of Thermodynamics (2nd Law).

Go and look for yourself, and then you can also explain to SSDD how many references there are to feedback and back radiation!

What? You're still here?

Of course he is so is the rabid Siamese cat. They are glued to their PC all day long every day since they registered.
Trolling and posting over every post that goes against their weirdo beliefs.
Notice how many posts in a row that "Meow i used to run nuclear reactors" psycho makes every time somebody else posted something?
4 or five posts in a row so that the other stuff is buried at least 2 pages deep. None of it is subject related but are just sucker punches that you are supposed to react to.
Typical Libtard tactics

...:
Originally Posted by mamooth

Here's the wiki page on current uniforms:

Uniforms of the United States Navy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

So, I've been accurate about every single thing, and you've been a raging 'tard who has gotten every single thing wrong. According to you, that proves I'm a fraud.

Good luck with that.

A page taken right out of AGW "science" where everything is true unless proven wrong by "denialists"..which is a "newspeak" superlative of "deniers" that are skeptical of what comes out of the Siamese cat crap hole

 

[mamooth]

S&B is not applicable in this thought exercise.

That's nice. It doesn't matter. Your claim still fails energy conservation, whether S&B applies or not. I only brought it up to give a rough idea of the temperature increase of the lamp.

Neither of the two objects are blackbodies and neither of them are in equilibrium with their environment. They are in equilibrium with one another, not the environment...

That's meaningless handwaving. Your claim still violates energy conservation.

The heat coming back through the housing now? LOL, really? what google search gave you that conclusion?

Unlike ivory tower theorists such as you, I don't need google. I just look at the actual world. I reach over, touch my desk lamp, and feel that the lamp housing is hot, and is radiating heat.

Do you, perhaps, have a some kind of magic incandescent lamp that doesn't emit heat through the lamp housing? If so, you might want to bring such a miraculous invention to market.

So your contention is that the energy from each light flows against their opposing yet equal counterpart and effects real heat change in the apparatus it's connected to?

Restate that in English please? I have no idea what you're saying there.

Let's break it down.

Assume we have two 200-watt heat lamps.

Assume 90% of the energy (180 watts) goes out as radiation through the lens (the "beam"), and 10% (20 watts) is waste heat, heating up the lamp housing to 150F. So at equilibrium, the housings radiate at a steady 20 watts each.

With lamps pointed away from each other, total power flow out of the entire system into the universe is 400 watts at equilibrium. 360 watts in the 2 beams, and 40 watts in radiation from the lamp housings.

Now aim the lamps at each other. Assume 50% of the beam is absorbed by the other lamp, and 50% is reflected/scattered.

So, now we have the 40 watts from the lamp housings, and 180 watts from the scattered beams going out into the universe. 220 watts total.

Yet the system is producing 400 watts. That extra 180 watts has to go somewhere. So it goes into heating up the lamp housings. The lamp housings will heat up until it they radiate 110 watts each instead of 20 watts. At that point, the new equilibrium is reached.

 

[gslack]

S&B is not applicable in this thought exercise.

That's nice. It doesn't matter. Your claim still fails energy conservation, whether S&B applies or not. I only brought it up to give a rough idea of the temperature increase of the lamp.

Neither of the two objects are blackbodies and neither of them are in equilibrium with their environment. They are in equilibrium with one another, not the environment...

That's meaningless handwaving. Your claim still violates energy conservation.

The heat coming back through the housing now? LOL, really? what google search gave you that conclusion?

Unlike ivory tower theorists such as you, I don't need google. I just look at the actual world. I reach over, touch my desk lamp, and feel that the lamp housing is hot, and is radiating heat.

Do you, perhaps, have a some kind of magic incandescent lamp that doesn't emit heat through the lamp housing? If so, you might want to bring such a miraculous invention to market.

So your contention is that the energy from each light flows against their opposing yet equal counterpart and effects real heat change in the apparatus it's connected to?

Restate that in English please? I have no idea what you're saying there.

Let's break it down.

Assume we have two 200-watt heat lamps.

Assume 90% of the energy (180 watts) goes out as radiation through the lens (the "beam"), and 10% (20 watts) is waste heat, heating up the lamp housing to 150F. So at equilibrium, the housings radiate at a steady 20 watts each.

With lamps pointed away from each other, total energy flow out of the entire system into the universe is 400 watts at equilibrium. 360 watts in the 2 beams, and 40 watts in radiation from the lamp housings.

Now aim the lamps at each other. Assume 50% of the beam is absorbed by the other lamp, and 50% is reflected/scattered.

So, now we have the 40 watts from the lamp housing, and 180 watts from the scattered beams going out into the universe. 220 watts total.

Yet the system is producing 400 watts. That extra 180 watts has to go somewhere. So it goes into heating up the lamp housings. The lamp housings will heat up until it they radiate 110 watts each instead of 20 watts. At that point, the new equilibrium is reached.

Yes, yes, you're High Admiral bookitty popeye, you worked reactors and who knows all and sees all... We know junior, we know...

All of that you wrote, I started to doze off after you tried to sneak boltzmann back into it...

BLAH, BLAH, BLAH, and you regurgitated the same nonsense you tried before.. Don't change my thought experiment, make your own! My experiment my parameters, don't like it, don't play...

Once again you embarrassed yourself, and now you want to BS and confound the argument or change it to save face... Too late junior, you missed that part again..

But hey you were an admiral, you knew all of this anyway...ROFL

 

[IanC]

This. Is. Insane.

You're telling me the red star magically knows not to emit photons towards the blue star? Could you describe the physical process behind that?

It doesn't "know" which way to emit photons any more than a rock "knows" which way to fall, or a marble on an incline "knows" which way to roll, or air in a tire "knows" which way to move out of a hole. The laws of physics determine what will happen given any particular circumstance.

Heck, the red star would have to know how to not emit photons towards every warmer star in the universe, even the ones that hadn't formed yet, but which would form by the time the light arrived. Could you describe the physical process behind that?

Does the rock have to know which way to fall when you drop it? Can you describe the physical process behind that...there is a nobel in it for you if you can actually describe the physical process of gravity. And since most of space is empty, emitting in the direction of cooler space isn't a problem.

Good God! I wish you werent nominally on 'my side'. worse yet you have brought back that retarded little ankle biting chihuahua Gslack.

you continue to ignore pointed questions about this natural process that forbids emission of radiation in certain directions. you say it is an analogue of gravity but give no details. while gravity cannot be 'explained' it can be described to very high degree of precision. where is the description of this new found natural law? I have never heard of it.

and if you could be so kind to answer a few questions about the redstar/bluestar scenario.
1. would it make a difference if the red star was a red giant? the nuclear core in red giants are 'burning' elements other than hydrogen at a much higher temperature. is it the internal temp that matters or just the surface temp?
2. what wavelengths are forbidden? the graph of emissions for stars are composed of almost identical wavelengths. are you saying that IR wavelengths from the hotter star are allowed to be emitted while the UV wavelengths from the cooller star are forbidden?

and one other thing. light from even nearby stars takes a finite amount of time to cross distance. there are many chaotic processes that make it impossible to predict the exact location of matter in the future. therefore you are implying that all photons are virtual photons and only become real when they actually contact a bit of matter, like the force carrying photons of the electric or magnetic force. is that your position?

 

[mamooth]

Yes, yes, you're High Admiral bookitty popeye, you worked reactors and who knows all and sees all... We know junior, we know...

You claim _still_ violates energy conservation, no matter what evasions you try to use.

So, is pursuing your obsessive idiot vendetta against me worth the ongoing humiliation it brings you?

 

[gslack]

This. Is. Insane.

You're telling me the red star magically knows not to emit photons towards the blue star? Could you describe the physical process behind that?

It doesn't "know" which way to emit photons any more than a rock "knows" which way to fall, or a marble on an incline "knows" which way to roll, or air in a tire "knows" which way to move out of a hole. The laws of physics determine what will happen given any particular circumstance.

Heck, the red star would have to know how to not emit photons towards every warmer star in the universe, even the ones that hadn't formed yet, but which would form by the time the light arrived. Could you describe the physical process behind that?

Does the rock have to know which way to fall when you drop it? Can you describe the physical process behind that...there is a nobel in it for you if you can actually describe the physical process of gravity. And since most of space is empty, emitting in the direction of cooler space isn't a problem.

Good God! I wish you werent nominally on 'my side'. worse yet you have brought back that retarded little ankle biting chihuahua Gslack.

you continue to ignore pointed questions about this natural process that forbids emission of radiation in certain directions. you say it is an analogue of gravity but give no details. while gravity cannot be 'explained' it can be described to very high degree of precision. where is the description of this new found natural law? I have never heard of it.

and if you could be so kind to answer a few questions about the redstar/bluestar scenario.
1. would it make a difference if the red star was a red giant? the nuclear core in red giants are 'burning' elements other than hydrogen at a much higher temperature. is it the internal temp that matters or just the surface temp?
2. what wavelengths are forbidden? the graph of emissions for stars are composed of almost identical wavelengths. are you saying that IR wavelengths from the hotter star are allowed to be emitted while the UV wavelengths from the cooller star are forbidden?

and one other thing. light from even nearby stars takes a finite amount of time to cross distance. there are many chaotic processes that make it impossible to predict the exact location of matter in the future. therefore you are implying that all photons are virtual photons and only become real when they actually contact a bit of matter, like the force carrying photons of the electric or magnetic force. is that your position?

No one "brought me" shithead. I smelled luke warmer BS and knew it was you.. How ya been? Gotten any better with critical thinking? No I see you haven't sorry...

 

[gslack]

Yes, yes, you're High Admiral bookitty popeye, you worked reactors and who knows all and sees all... We know junior, we know...

You claim _still_ violates energy conservation, no matter what evasions you try to use.

So, is pursuing your obsessive idiot vendetta against me worth the ongoing humiliation it brings you?

Yes, yes Admiral "nuke" "I don't wear black ever" fraud.. and "you" claim is still ignorant and irrelevant... Cry me a river fraud, fake, phony, con-man, Bullshitter..

What's next? Gonna tell us all about your adventures aboard the only boat in the navy that lets any old swabby man the reactors? What was it called? The USS Lollipop?

 

[westwall]

Bauble-

It is in LINE ONE of the report:

Sporadically we are challenged over the reality of Earth’s Greenhouse Effect (GE) on the grounds this represents a heat flow from a cooler to a warmer body and hence violates the Second Law of Thermodynamics (2nd Law).

Go and look for yourself, and then you can also explain to SSDD how many references there are to feedback and back radiation!

What? You're still here?

Of course he is so is the rabid Siamese cat. They are glued to their PC all day long every day since they registered.
Trolling and posting over every post that goes against their weirdo beliefs.
Notice how many posts in a row that "Meow i used to run nuclear reactors" psycho makes every time somebody else posted something?
4 or five posts in a row so that the other stuff is buried at least 2 pages deep. None of it is subject related but are just sucker punches that you are supposed to react to.
Typical Libtard tactics

Ye, they must be paid by the admins to stir up crap like truthiness etc. They have no thoughts of their own they merely take contrarian POV's to try and stir up the educated people here on the board.

There is no other explanation that makes sense based on how completely ignorant and stupid they are.

 

[westwall]

is the authors take on why the 2nd law isn't violated by greenhouse effect.

EXACTLY.

And there are two other closely related articles on the same site. I can provide links for those if you can't find them, but they are on the same site. All three are well worth a read.

The fact that both of the sources I have used provide real world examples of feeback are fairly clear evidence that it is real, no?


Westwall -

Please limit the off-topic spamming. We know you are lost without you proving it ten times a day.

The queen of the spammers whines yet again......

 

[numan]

Numan :

I beg the sensible reader not to be thwarted by these feral predators. Just go to the page which lists all my postings, and then read only those. then you will have the wheat without the chaff, and the barbarians will be defeated.

The posters -- mamooth, Dot Com, editec, Dugdale_Jukes, Old Rocks, joewp -- have demonstrated the ability to make rational comments on this subject. It would be good to link to the Postings Pages of these thoughtful people, too.

Holy shit, are you on Numan`s ignore list? Or did he simply forget to mention you?

I DID forget to mention you, Saigon, for which I apologize.

In extenuation, I will point out that the Endangered Arctoid lifted the quote, entirely without acknowledgement, from a completely different thread to which you did not contribute comments on global heating.

I do think, however, that comments on the color of naval uniforms and the like are completely inappropriate to either thread, and detract seriously from the discussion of the topics.
.

 

[SSDD]

Gaia fantasies notwithstanding, Earth does not “choose” to radiate selectively in particular directions any more than the sun or any other object does, they simply radiate in all directions.

That is an assumption. There is no law that says that an object "must" radiate in all directions.

At the same time as the sun is irradiating Earth, Earth is irradiating the sun, albeit at a much lower intensity. Technically Earth is keeping the sun slightly warmer than it would otherwise be by returning a tiny portion of the energy the sun radiates.

Not happening...but feel free to prove it if you believe it is.

Second law of thermodynamics: It is not possible for heat to 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.


Earth, being a lower temperature object than the sun can not radiate energy to the sun. How is it that you can take something on faith when the second law says explicitly that it can not happen?

 

[westwall]

Numan :

I beg the sensible reader not to be thwarted by these feral predators. Just go to the page which lists all my postings, and then read only those. then you will have the wheat without the chaff, and the barbarians will be defeated.

The posters -- mamooth, Dot Com, editec, Dugdale_Jukes, Old Rocks, joewp -- have demonstrated the ability to make rational comments on this subject. It would be good to link to the Postings Pages of these thoughtful people, too.

Holy shit, are you on Numan`s ignore list? Or did he simply forget to mention you?

I DID forget to mention you, Saigon, for which I apologize.

In extenuation, I will point out that the Endangered Arctoid lifted the quote, entirely without acknowledgement, from a completely different thread to which you did not contribute comments on global heating.

I do think, however, that comments on the color of naval uniforms and the like are completely inappropriate to either thread, and detract seriously from the discussion of the topics.
.

I love it! The sock acknowledging the drone!