Another Epic Fail for Climate Science

[Old Rocks]

You think CO2 absorbs photons and then emits them again in zero time? That would constitute a reflection, now wouldn't it. If it takes a finite amount of time (and it does) then the CO2's temperature must increase.

The CO2 molecule does not increase in temp.. it is incapable of heat transfer. IR passes right through it to space.

Whooeeeee................ OK, Billy Boob, what else can we expect from you?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Yes, I have seen an IR image of the earth...

Why don't you just get to your point...whatever you have been trying to get at has become so convoluted that I doubt that you even know what it is any more....Why do you suppose it would surprise anyone that an IR image could be taken on either side of the earth? IR images of practically any object can be produced...point the thermopile at an object...either it is absorbing energy from the object in which case the rate of warming is measured and then converted to a rendered image or it is losing energy to the object because the object is cooler in which case the rate of cooling is measured and then converted to a rendered image....The image is the result of a mathematical model that measures heat gain or heat loss...it isn't an actual photograph....

Do you think that every one of those photons manages to miss the Sun?

What the hell are you talking about?

Pointing out the idiocy of your confused claims.

 

[Crick]

The image is the result of a mathematical model that measures heat gain or heat loss.

You want to make a bet?

 

[Crick]

Yes, I have seen an IR image of the earth...

Why don't you just get to your point...whatever you have been trying to get at has become so convoluted that I doubt that you even know what it is any more....Why do you suppose it would surprise anyone that an IR image could be taken on either side of the earth? IR images of practically any object can be produced...point the thermopile at an object...either it is absorbing energy from the object in which case the rate of warming is measured and then converted to a rendered image or it is losing energy to the object because the object is cooler in which case the rate of cooling is measured and then converted to a rendered image....The image is the result of a mathematical model that measures heat gain or heat loss...it isn't an actual photograph....

Do you think that every one of those photons manages to miss the Sun?

The matter all across the surface of the Earth can discern the satellite in orbit and can perform the orbital mechanics necessary to tell where the satellite and the IR photons they were emitting (through the IR-active atmosphere) would reach the exact same location at the exact same time (both accurate to the Planck scale). Now to accomplish this, atoms of the Earth's surface are exercising an accuracy of 0.000003193 degrees to restrict themselves to the satellite but an accuracy of better than 1e-49 degrees to achieve Planck scale accuracy at that distance. Now... since that is accuracy of greater magnitude (infinitessimalitude?) than the Planck scale itself, we have a problem. But I'll let SSDD explain.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Yes, I have seen an IR image of the earth...

Why don't you just get to your point...whatever you have been trying to get at has become so convoluted that I doubt that you even know what it is any more....Why do you suppose it would surprise anyone that an IR image could be taken on either side of the earth? IR images of practically any object can be produced...point the thermopile at an object...either it is absorbing energy from the object in which case the rate of warming is measured and then converted to a rendered image or it is losing energy to the object because the object is cooler in which case the rate of cooling is measured and then converted to a rendered image....The image is the result of a mathematical model that measures heat gain or heat loss...it isn't an actual photograph....

Do you think that every one of those photons manages to miss the Sun?

The matter all across the surface of the Earth can discern the satellite in orbit and can perform the orbital mechanics necessary to tell where the satellite and the IR photons they were emitting (through the IR-active atmosphere) would reach the exact same location at the exact same time (both accurate to the Planck scale). Now to accomplish this, atoms of the Earth's surface are exercising an accuracy of 0.000003193 degrees to restrict themselves to the satellite but an accuracy of better than 1e-49 degrees to achieve Planck scale accuracy at that distance. Now... since that is accuracy of greater magnitude (infinitessimalitude?) than the Planck scale itself, we have a problem. But I'll let SSDD explain.

The satellite can be instructed to fire thrusters to speed up or slow down in its orbit.
And not a single photon (or wave) already on the way can miss, because it could then impact the much hotter Sun. It truly is a miracle. Much simpler than all matter emitting all the time, according to the Stefan–Boltzmann law

 

[Crick]

Praise God!

 

[Trakar]

What leads anyone here to believe that the far IR absorption spectrum of seawater would dramatically impact climate warming, and by what proposed mechanism would this understanding change or alter mainstream climate science understandings?

 

[Kosh]

Praise God!

You praise the AGW gods every time you post here, what do you get for being in the debunked AGW religion?

 

[IanC]

What leads anyone here to believe that the far IR absorption spectrum of seawater would dramatically impact climate warming, and by what proposed mechanism would this understanding change or alter mainstream climate science understandings?

this is an excellent question! I am not remotely qualified to give any comprehensive answer but I will give a generalized answer on one aspect.

we have all been told that the surface emits radiation which is absorbed by CO2, which is then re-emitted in a random direction of which ~1/2 is sent to the surface. this 1/2 is then re-emitted and 1/4 comes back. etc

the sum of the series { 1+1/2 +1/4 +1/8....} = 2. 1 is the amount that must leave to balance the books. the other 1 (eg 2-1) is produced by unescaped radiation causing a temperature increase in the surface heatsink until the extra radiation caused by surface temperature increases can once again push 1 through the atmosphere into space and balance the books.

if absorption/emission of seawater is 10% less than assumed then the series is { .9 +.41 +.19 +.09....} = ~1.6
and the warming is 40% less.

not that I am saying this generalized mechanism is even remotely accurate, but it is being told to the public everywhere. parasitic losses to other pathways already wipe out most of the 'backradiation' already. further reduction of energy to this puny CO2 greenhouse effect just makes it even more trivial.

 

[Crick]

You're assuming that all absorption is taking place with the same spectrum as the water is emitting. I think you will find that sea water absorbs visible and UV spectrum light quite handily. Thus it is absorbing a great deal more energy in those bands than it is radiating. The adjustment in emissivity is NOT matched by change in absorption. The reduction in emissivity means that sea water is giving off heat at a slower rate than thought and thus will increase in temperature faster than thought.

 

[idb]

This is a great discussion...I understand 0.001% of it although there's clearly a disagreement on the fundamental science before the effects can even be considered..
Nevertheless I have one question - and I'll put this out there knowing that I'm exposing my basic ignorance.
Why does it matter if the ability of seawater to absorb IR is great or not?
To put it in painfully simple terms - if there is 'more IR' hitting the water then a greater quantity will be absorbed in any case won't it?

 

[Crick]

Yes.

Regarding the issue under discussion, there's a common analogy: imagine a water tank with two connections. One is continuously putting water into the tank. The other allows the water to drain out. Let's start with an empty tank and begin filling it. Because the pressure is initially low, it flows slowly out the drain line and the level of water in the tank rises. Eventually, however, the pressure will become great enough that the flow out matches the flow in and the water level will become fixed. This is a state of equilibrium.

Now, what happens if we make changes? If we increase the rate water comes in, the water will rise to a new, higher equilibrium depth. This would be analogous to the sun sending us greater amounts of radiative energy. If we lower that rate - cool off the sun - the new equilibrium level will be lower. However, direct measurements of the sunlight hitting the Earth do not show enough change to produce the warming that's been observed. The pattern has been a bit complicated, but over the last 35 years or so, the sun's output - it's total solar irradiance (TSI) - has gone down slightly.

So let's look at the other end. If we increase the size of the drain line, the water level will start to drop. That represents the suns warmth - now converted to infrared radiation - leaving the Earth at a greater rate. If we reduce the size of the drain line - if we make it more difficult for the IR to radiate away to space - the new equilibrium level will be higher.

The greenhouse effect warms planet by restricting their heat energy from leaving to space. Reducing the rate at which the ocean's can radiate their heat away will cause the Earth's equilibrium temperature to be higher than originally thought.

 

[IanC]

You're assuming that all absorption is taking place with the same spectrum as the water is emitting. I think you will find that sea water absorbs visible and UV spectrum light quite handily. Thus it is absorbing a great deal more energy in those bands than it is radiating. The adjustment in emissivity is NOT matched by change in absorption. The reduction in emissivity means that sea water is giving off heat at a slower rate than thought and thus will increase in temperature faster than thought.

there has been no change to the physics, only our understanding of Far IR. if seawater is shedding less energy at far IR wavelengths now, it was also shedding the same smaller amount 10 or 1000 or 1000000 years ago. because absorption and emission are exactly the same for any given wavelength, that means the amount of energy going into the CO2 greenhouse effect feedback loop is LESS than we thought. less is coming out initially, less is being reabsorbed, and so forth for every iteration.

perhaps the GCMs are already using this smaller amount but the authors of that paper state that this is a new and unexpected result.

why do you feel that the reduction in the CO2 greenhouse effect worldwide is less important than the ice effect in the Arctic?

you seem to have a double standard on these type of things. you ignored the suggestion that Antarctic sea ice has a much greater effect per unit area on albedo because the incident solar angle is less. I dont think you parse any of the information that gets released for feasibility or magnitude of effect.

 

[IanC]

Yes.

Regarding the issue under discussion, there's a common analogy: imagine a water tank with two connections. One is continuously putting water into the tank. The other allows the water to drain out. Let's start with an empty tank and begin filling it. Because the pressure is initially low, it flows slowly out the drain line and the level of water in the tank rises. Eventually, however, the pressure will become great enough that the flow out matches the flow in and the water level will become fixed. This is a state of equilibrium.

Now, what happens if we make changes? If we increase the rate water comes in, the water will rise to a new, higher equilibrium depth. This would be analogous to the sun sending us greater amounts of radiative energy. If we lower that rate - cool off the sun - the new equilibrium level will be lower. However, direct measurements of the sunlight hitting the Earth do not show enough change to produce the warming that's been observed. The pattern has been a bit complicated, but over the last 35 years or so, the sun's output - it's total solar irradiance (TSI) - has gone down slightly.

So let's look at the other end. If we increase the size of the drain line, the water level will start to drop. That represents the suns warmth - now converted to infrared radiation - leaving the Earth at a greater rate. If we reduce the size of the drain line - if we make it more difficult for the IR to radiate away to space - the new equilibrium level will be higher.

The greenhouse effect warms planet by restricting their heat energy from leaving to space. Reducing the rate at which the ocean's can radiate their heat away will cause the Earth's equilibrium temperature to be higher than originally thought.

??????????

hahahahaha. you should be in a Roadrunner cartoon. Wiley coyote doesnt fall down the cliff until he actually looks down and notices there is nothing underneath him. you think extra warming will happen because we discovered a mistake in our data, even though it was always there. and you also ignore the implications for global impact of less energy going into the CO2 greenhouse effect.

 

[Kosh]

Yes.

Regarding the issue under discussion, there's a common analogy: imagine a water tank with two connections. One is continuously putting water into the tank. The other allows the water to drain out. Let's start with an empty tank and begin filling it. Because the pressure is initially low, it flows slowly out the drain line and the level of water in the tank rises. Eventually, however, the pressure will become great enough that the flow out matches the flow in and the water level will become fixed. This is a state of equilibrium.

Now, what happens if we make changes? If we increase the rate water comes in, the water will rise to a new, higher equilibrium depth. This would be analogous to the sun sending us greater amounts of radiative energy. If we lower that rate - cool off the sun - the new equilibrium level will be lower. However, direct measurements of the sunlight hitting the Earth do not show enough change to produce the warming that's been observed. The pattern has been a bit complicated, but over the last 35 years or so, the sun's output - it's total solar irradiance (TSI) - has gone down slightly.

So let's look at the other end. If we increase the size of the drain line, the water level will start to drop. That represents the suns warmth - now converted to infrared radiation - leaving the Earth at a greater rate. If we reduce the size of the drain line - if we make it more difficult for the IR to radiate away to space - the new equilibrium level will be higher.

The greenhouse effect warms planet by restricting their heat energy from leaving to space. Reducing the rate at which the ocean's can radiate their heat away will cause the Earth's equilibrium temperature to be higher than originally thought.

More proof that the AGW does not have a clue about science, just AGW religious dogma..

The importance of water vapor and clouds can be seen in the day/night temperatures between desert cities and deep south humid cities. In this example the desert gets much hotter because their is less water vapor in the atmosphere. For the same reason, the temperature can drop as much as 45oF during the night during the summer. On the other hand, the humid city does not get as hot, but the temperature does not drop as much at night because the water vapor holds the heat. Clouds can not only hold the heat close to the earth, but during the day, much of the solar radiation reflects off of the clouds, preventing the solar energy from reaching the earth's surface to heat it. Otherwise it would become unbearably hot.

 

[SSDD]

Yes, I have seen an IR image of the earth...

Why don't you just get to your point...whatever you have been trying to get at has become so convoluted that I doubt that you even know what it is any more....Why do you suppose it would surprise anyone that an IR image could be taken on either side of the earth? IR images of practically any object can be produced...point the thermopile at an object...either it is absorbing energy from the object in which case the rate of warming is measured and then converted to a rendered image or it is losing energy to the object because the object is cooler in which case the rate of cooling is measured and then converted to a rendered image....The image is the result of a mathematical model that measures heat gain or heat loss...it isn't an actual photograph....

Do you think that every one of those photons manages to miss the Sun?

What the hell are you talking about?

Pointing out the idiocy of your confused claims.

OK...lets cut to the chase, OK...you have become really boring with this windmill tilting quest you are on so answer one question for me...yes or no.

Do you think that radiation from a cooler radiator with its lower frequency energy can fill up the higher energy microstates that the warmer radiator already has filled up?

Microstate statistical mechanics - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

If you do, then you are completely wrong and if you don't then you agree with me whether you know it or not.

 

[SSDD]

What leads anyone here to believe that the far IR absorption spectrum of seawater would dramatically impact climate warming, and by what proposed mechanism would this understanding change or alter mainstream climate science understandings?

CO2 emits in the far IR spectrum...if sea water is a poor absorber of far IR, which is what CO2 is emitting, then 3/4ths of the earths surface is a poor absorber....climate models assume that sea water is a fine absorber of far IR... You really don't get the ramifications of sea water being a poor absorber vs the assumptions made by climate science and, in turn, the models?

 

[SSDD]

You're assuming that all absorption is taking place with the same spectrum as the water is emitting. I think you will find that sea water absorbs visible and UV spectrum light quite handily. Thus it is absorbing a great deal more energy in those bands than it is radiating. The adjustment in emissivity is NOT matched by change in absorption. The reduction in emissivity means that sea water is giving off heat at a slower rate than thought and thus will increase in temperature faster than thought.

But the visible and UV spectrum are not components of the AGW hypothesis and are entirely out of our control and therefore not political issues....of course the ocean is absorbing in the visible and UV....refer to "its the sun stupid"....not CO2.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Yes, I have seen an IR image of the earth...

Why don't you just get to your point...whatever you have been trying to get at has become so convoluted that I doubt that you even know what it is any more....Why do you suppose it would surprise anyone that an IR image could be taken on either side of the earth? IR images of practically any object can be produced...point the thermopile at an object...either it is absorbing energy from the object in which case the rate of warming is measured and then converted to a rendered image or it is losing energy to the object because the object is cooler in which case the rate of cooling is measured and then converted to a rendered image....The image is the result of a mathematical model that measures heat gain or heat loss...it isn't an actual photograph....

Do you think that every one of those photons manages to miss the Sun?

What the hell are you talking about?

Pointing out the idiocy of your confused claims.

OK...lets cut to the chase, OK...you have become really boring with this windmill tilting quest you are on so answer one question for me...yes or no.

Do you think that radiation from a cooler radiator with its lower frequency energy can fill up the higher energy microstates that the warmer radiator already has filled up?

Microstate statistical mechanics - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

If you do, then you are completely wrong and if you don't then you agree with me whether you know it or not.

...you have become really boring with this windmill tilting quest you are

Yes, trying to show you your errors has been a pointless quest.

Do you think that radiation from a cooler radiator with its lower frequency energy can fill up the higher energy microstates that the warmer radiator already has filled up?

You think that molecules in the atmosphere, happily radiating in all directions according to SB, cannot radiate toward the ground, because the microstate of the ground "has filled up"?

Does this mean you feel the ground can't absorb more energy?

 

[SSDD]

Yes, I have seen an IR image of the earth...

Why don't you just get to your point...whatever you have been trying to get at has become so convoluted that I doubt that you even know what it is any more....Why do you suppose it would surprise anyone that an IR image could be taken on either side of the earth? IR images of practically any object can be produced...point the thermopile at an object...either it is absorbing energy from the object in which case the rate of warming is measured and then converted to a rendered image or it is losing energy to the object because the object is cooler in which case the rate of cooling is measured and then converted to a rendered image....The image is the result of a mathematical model that measures heat gain or heat loss...it isn't an actual photograph....

Do you think that every one of those photons manages to miss the Sun?

What the hell are you talking about?

Pointing out the idiocy of your confused claims.

OK...lets cut to the chase, OK...you have become really boring with this windmill tilting quest you are on so answer one question for me...yes or no.

Do you think that radiation from a cooler radiator with its lower frequency energy can fill up the higher energy microstates that the warmer radiator already has filled up?

Microstate statistical mechanics - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

If you do, then you are completely wrong and if you don't then you agree with me whether you know it or not.

...you have become really boring with this windmill tilting quest you are

Yes, trying to show you your errors has been a pointless quest.

Do you think that radiation from a cooler radiator with its lower frequency energy can fill up the higher energy microstates that the warmer radiator already has filled up?

You think that molecules in the atmosphere, happily radiating in all directions according to SB, cannot radiate toward the ground, because the microstate of the ground "has filled up"?

Does this mean you feel the ground can't absorb more energy?

Can't manage a yes no answer...how unsurprising is that? Again, Do you think that radiation from a cooler radiator with its lower frequency energy can fill up the higher energy microstates that the warmer radiator already has filled up?