how much warming from adding carbon dioxide to the atmosphere is what we

[SSDD]

[MENTION=23872]ssa[/MENTION]DhD

Thanks. I was pretty sure that you lacked the character to admit the intimidation and fears of inadequacy I bring out in you and would not be able to admit it to yourself. I prefer the public admission of those feelings and fears anyway. You really should be able to get more imaginative than that. How much fear and intimidation can you project with such a mewling twisting of my name?

[This may help you.

I simply don't read the majority of your posts. You simply are not important enough. *I have you on ignore, so all I see is that you have posted.

Sure you don't. You go to a great deal of trouble to project onto someone you don't read. I suppose you have your sock read the posts that are not commented on by anyone else and therefore not duplicated just so you can answer.

Of course, maybe you have put me on ignore after the shellacking you took yesterday. To see that the foundation of the AGW hypothesis is a fraud must have been a shock, and even worse that your own link provided the impetus for that miserable defeat.

It would be expected from one who lacks the character to simply man up and admit that he was wrong. Call some names, project some feelings of inferiority, then run away with what, to you, must seem like a reasonable excuse to not have to speak to me again.
You are worthy of a chuckle.

[I was searching backwards, out of boredom, to find where the whole thermo thing got started. It didn't take long to find some gross error to reply to. *You present so many examples of what not to do. It is impossible to keep up.

Right. Now begins the requsite shuck and jive in a futile effort to completely avoid the drubbing you and I both know you received in our last exchange. You asked for proof that backradiation did not exist and were given it in spades via the material you posted yourself in an attempt to make your case.

There has been one gross error made insofar as you are concerned. You engaged me on the topic of thermodynamics and you lost...and lost badly. Not only is my postion supported by the Second Law as it is stated in every physics text, science dictionary, and encyclopedia, but is demonstrable by repeatable experiment. Sucks to be you...huh?

[Now, you will find that, before I ever used SSaDhD,

You started fiddling with my name shortly after I started trying to engage you on the topic of thermodynamics. I watch things like that as I am a student of the psychology behind why people behave as they do and am particularly interested in stress reactions. The questions I put to you regarding the Second Law triggered an anxiety response in you as a result of feelings of inadequacy and intimidation. Manning up and admitting it to yourself will be the first step in dealing, internally with those feelings and kissing them goodbye. Internalizing them and attempting, unsuccessfully to project them on to me will only compound them and add to your frustration.

[or moved from objective response to saying something about you, was after you had used the second person pronoun, in a derogatory fashion, most likely directed at me, possibly towards someone else who had presented an objective idea. *Either way, you were measured immediately and found lacking.

He says with a tremble in his voice. Tell me, does it really make you feel stronger to talk lke that to someone on the internet who so obviously makes you feel inadequate?

All this talk to avoid the post that brought it on. Do you have any idea how obvious your effort to avoid the parallels between Prictet's experiment and the solar oven experiment and the hard, undeniable evidence it provides that backradiation isn't warming anything and in fact, does not exist at all?

If you had an answer to the problems those experiments pose to your belief, you would be confidently answering them in this post rather than the craven and panicky attempt to side step the issue and divert attention away from them.

The biggest problem with not being able to objectively examine your own feelings and the behavior they prompt you to exibit is that you have no idea how obvious your attempt to supress them is to everyone else.

I measure things objectively. *

Sure you do. That is why you have put all this effort into hiding from the fact that Prictet's experiment and the analogous solar oven experiment demonstrate that backradiation is not warming the earth...and in fact, does not exist at all. That's hard, observable, demonstrable evidence kiddo. Only a fool argues with such.

Just for fun, lets take the solar oven experiment to the next level and have it kill two birds with one stone. We have the solar oven pointed at open sky, and have placed a thermometer at the focal point and have observed the cooling. Observable results that have meaning sure, but lets take it to the next level.

Lets take your pyrgeometer, or bolometer, or interferometer, or whatever instrument you have been using to fool yourself into a belief in back radiation and place it on a dish at the focal point of the solar oven. Before we do that, however, lets put a surface temperature sensor on your device and watch it cool as it tells you that it is measuring enough backradiation to cause warming. Quite a sticky wicket there, what eh? Any answers to that conundrum? Either the hard physical evidence that you can observe and measure is lying to you or your instrument is lying to you. In a court of law, I am afraid that the peponderance of the evidence would convict your instrument as being a liar.

Slacksack has been measured and as he has no clue as to photosynthesis, nothing he says is relevant until he figures that out. *

Yeah, I have been watching that conversation progress. But the paddling he as been giving you there, and your entertaining, albeit predictable psychological responses to said paddling are neither here nor there and don't bring you one angstrom closer to addressing the problems the solar oven experiment, not to mention the Second Law of themodynamics (one in the same really) lay upon your AGW hypothesis.

Oddballs has an information entropy so low that the air conditioners, for the USMB servers, expend less energy everytime he posts. *The more he posts, the cooler the servers get. *If he were to post enough, the harddrives would crystalize.

You must really be intimidated by me to feel the need to project the inadequacy all these other people make you feel upon me as well. Doesn't really help though once you submit the reply and put your deep seeded fears and shortcomings out for public view, does it?

It is a viscious cycle which serves to do nothing but further cripple you emotionally. You can't give it up though, can you? Feels too good when you are typing it all out...hammering on those keys...pouring your fears out on us....really giving it to us....till you hit that submit reply button and the inevetable answer comes. It is just mental masturbation though, and like its physical counterpart, doesn't really leave you with anything afterward but an empty feeling and another mess to clean up.

**If we adjust the concept of information entropy such that incorrect information is less than one and correct info is greater than one, we have a measure that is consistent with the context of Shannon's idea in that the absolute value is the same, more information is higher entropy, higher energy, higher randomness.

Meaningless...and still not bringing you any closer to answering the problems that the hard physical evidence I have put in your hands lays on your AGW hypothesis. They aren't going away. In fact, I am thinking of starting a thread specifically on the topic of how your reference to Prictet's experiment led to hard, repeatable, measurable,and undenable evidence that backradiation is not happening.

That said, unlike OddBalls, who consistently posts zero info, your information entropy is consistently less than one.

So you say, and yet, you have concocted this tedious lament and public airing of your intimidation and inadequacy...put it all out here for everyone to see, symbolically prostrated yourself at my feet, rather than simply answer the post which has served to prove that backradiation is not warming the earth.

*As measured, your repeated use of the term "correlatiom doesn't prove causation" sits at the foundation of any understanding of science. *Correlation is necessary and required for proving causation. A presentation of correlation is correct and saying "correlation doesn't prove causation" is meaningless. *As this concept is fundamental to science, until you work that out, nothing you say beyond it has any relevance. *Science builds from a foundation. *As you have no foundation, nothing further is of any relevance.

Of course correlation is a necessary part of finding answers. But the correlations must be accurate and reach a valid conclusion. Take Prictet's experiment, and the analogous solar oven experiment. When placed in the focal point of the mirror reflecting a cold object, or the atmosphere, the temperature dropped. Take that bit of measurable data and combine it with the statement of the Second Law of Thermodynamics which states that energy transfers are only possible from warm regions to cold regions and you have physical evidence that was predicted by the law of physics. That sort of corelation will lead you to a meaningful and correct conclusion.

Taking evidence gleaned from ice core data which show time and time again that increased atmospheric CO2 follows temperature rises, sometimes by as much as 800 or more years, and then trying to torture that data into submission so that it says that CO2 drives temperature will not lead you to anything meaningful. It only leads to situations in which you find yourself now...confronted with undeniable, physical evidence that your belief is not true and the, inevetable, and (should be) embarrassing public psychological reaction that brings on.

So if your wondering why I don't answer questions that you present, it is simply that I don't read them.

I'm not wondering. I know precisely why you haven't answered them. You have stated explicitly why you have not answered them with the projections you have vented in this post. What is sad is that you don't know why you haven't answered them. I do believe you when you say that you believe they are unimportant. Since you lack the emotional maturity to admit that you were wrong, you must tell yourself that I am wrong and that nothing I say could possibly be of any importance to you...and then you fashion a post like this one in which you cry out at the top of your lungs that what I say is in fact important to you in that it scares the hell out of you and makes you feel like a child. The sad thing is that you are unable to see what is so obvious...but alas, that's the way it goes.

And as such, even should you happen to randomly be correct, it is purely by accident.

Mental masturbation is such a lonely, cold, and bitter practice...isn't it? To bad it doesn't leave any good feelings once you are finished.

That said, I'd just as well appreciate it if you don't read my posts. In fact, I forbid you crom reading my post, here to forth.

You forbid? You sound like my youngest grandson (3 years old). Earlier this week my daughter and he were visiting. I stood him on the mantle so that he could have a higher vantage point from which to launch his rubber band powered plane. He accidentally knocked over a chatzky which promptly fell and broke on the fireplace hearth. With as much bravado as he could muster at 3 years old, he "commanded" me to clean up that mess.

In this case, you are going to have to clean up your own mess. It isn't going to go away. You have had your ears pinned to the wall at your own request and it is going to linger for some time to come. Till you can bring yourself to actually discuss the Second Law, and the ramifications of Prictet's experiment and the analogous solar oven experiment on the AGW hypothesis, your mess is going to be a millstone around your neck.

It's the gambit all over again. If you ignore me, you lose..if you engage me, you lose.

You aren't a chess player or any sort of strategist are you?

 

[SSDD]

On the other they are rejected out off hand.

Rejected out of hand? You are joking aren't you? Maybe you would like to discuss the ramifications that the statement of the Second Law, Prictet's experiment, and the analogous solar oven experiment have on the AGW hypothesis and backradiaton specifically which is the backbone of the hypothesis. Without backradiation, there is no AGW hypothesis.

Lets hear your explanation for how an object placed at the focal point of a mirror, reflecting open sky cools rapidly and how ice will form on a dish of water placed at that focal point if the ambient temperature is 45F or less...and how the surface of a device that supposedly measures backradiation of a sufficient quantity to warm the earth will cool when placed in that focal point while it says that it is measuring backradiation sufficent to cause warming.

Hard, observable, repeatable, measurable evidence proving the hypothesis is flawed is hardly rejecting out of hand. There is an experiment that you can perform yourself that demonstrates conclusively that backradition as described by the AGW hypothesis is not happening...can you show any experiment that proves that it is?

chatzkyIf the believers in science address only other believers in science, and the deniers address only other deniers let those who come new to the forum pick the story most credible to them. [/quote]

You mean, if the members of the church of AGW only talk to other members of the church, all will be well. That solar oven pointed at open sky is science. The reaction that it elicits is science. If backradiation were warming the earth, then that solar oven pointed at the sky would be gathering it and anything placed at its focal point would warm. That, however, is not what happens. When the facts don't jibe with the predictions of the hypothesis, then the hypothesis is suspect, not the facts.

We'll let actions of the majority of Americans decide.

They are. That is why the concern over global warming is dropping like a stone in the polls. That is why discussion of climate change has become the literal third rail for politicians seeking re election. The people have decided that in spite of the billions of dollars spent and the decades long media campaign, that global warming simply isn't worth the time to consider seriously.

 

[SSDD]

"When the experts are agreed, the opposite opinion cannot be held to be certain;*when [they] are not agreed, no opinion can be regarded as certain by a non-expert;*when they all hold that no sufficient grounds for a positive opinion exist, the ordinary man would do well to suspend his judgement."
Bertrand Russell.

How many times have the experts been proven wrong? How many long held beliefs by the consensus of the experts have been demonstrably and completely proven wrong?

Dodging isn't going to take that millstone off your neck.

If backradiation is happening and it is sufficient to warm the earth, why then does an object placed at the focal point of a concave mirror pointed at the open sky cool. Did you know that Prictet didn't stop at just reflecting a cold flask with his concave mirrors? He also used warm objects. The Second Law predicts that objects placed at the focal point of that mirror reflecting a warm object will warm. Care to guess what his termometer registered when placed at that focal point? He though that the warm object was reflecting fire particles to the termometer causing it to warm. We know today that the warm object was radiating to the thermometer in the focal point of the mirror. We also know that if the atmosphere were backradiating heat from the surface of the earth, the concave mirror would concentrate that heat and any object placed in its focal point would, inded warm as predicted by the Second Law of Thermodynamics. Practical experiment tells us that this is not what is happening, therefore the idea of backradiation from the atmosphere to the surface of the earth is without merit...regardless of how many so called "experts" say it is so...practical experimental evidence proves them wrong.

 

[SSDD]

Still, I would like to see the page and paragraph that you read as demonstrating heat transfer from cold to hot. Thermodynamics doesn't forbid it, obviously, or my air conditioner and freezer wouldn't work. Thermo just says it isn't for free.

You are very far behind the curve aren't you. A statement like that is a clear indication that you really don't have even the requsite basic education in physics to effectively discuss the topic. Of course that was clear when you referenced Prictet's experiment. How far behind must you be to bring your air conditioner, and freezer, which are machines designed specifically to do the work of transferring energy from cold to hot? This is very basic stuff that anyone with even a rudementary scientific education would understand and not be making errors on. Perhaps I should repost the second law of thermodynamics:

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.

The key phrase there as it relates to your air conditioner and freezer is that heat won't flow from cold to warm without work having been done to accomplish the flow. Your air conditioner and freezer expend a great deal of energy in work performed to accomplish the task of moving energy from cold to warm. And it certainly isn't free...your electric bill should clue you into that fact. Of course, if you are still living with your parents, you may have never seen an actual electric bill.

 

[IanC]

Are we back arguing over solar ovens?

Parabolic mirrors simply replace the environment radiating into the exposed surfaces of the focal object with radiation from a single direction. It works best with solar rays because they are highly ordered, Colimated as polar bear would say. Next best is radiation from a solid object, like a block of ice. Least effective is a gas.

SSDD- radiation from the atmosphere is as dispersed and disordered as it can get. Why do you think it can be focused in any meaningful way? Backradiation replaces some of the radiation from the surface that would directly escape without GHGs. This reduction of energy loss affects the equilibrium, it does not directly heat the surface.

 

[PMZ]

Radiation is the movement of energy away from any object warmer than absolute zero. It has no plan, no goal. All bodies, at all temperatures >0K radiate. It requires no medium. When it encounters another object, depending on the properties of the object, it will be reflected, transmitted or absorbed in knowable proportions. If it is absorbed that energy is added to the receiving body's energy.

That's the way the entire universe works every second.

The universe in SSDDs head, however, follows a different science.

 

[SSDD]

This reduction of energy loss affects the equilibrium, it does not directly heat the surface.

That's your own hypothesis. Not that endorsed by climate science or the mechanism depicted in climate models.

 

[SSDD]

Radiation is the movement of energy away from any object warmer than absolute zero. It has no plan, no goal. All bodies, at all temperatures >0K radiate. It requires no medium. When it encounters another object, depending on the properties of the object, it will be reflected, transmitted or absorbed in knowable proportions. If it is absorbed that energy is added to the receiving body's energy.

That's the way the entire universe works every second.

The universe in SSDDs head, however, follows a different science.

Observable as opposed to your unprovable fantasy universe.

 

[IanC]

This reduction of energy loss affects the equilibrium, it does not directly heat the surface.

That's your own hypothesis. Not that endorsed by climate science or the mechanism depicted in climate models.

Would you be happier if Trenberth's cartoon only showed net radiation of 66W up rather than 400 up and 335 down? Or would you then complain that the number didn't match the blackbody radiation? It is already simplified, do you want it even more simple so that you can have a different set of quibbles?

 

[IanC]

Radiation is the movement of energy away from any object warmer than absolute zero. It has no plan, no goal. All bodies, at all temperatures >0K radiate. It requires no medium. When it encounters another object, depending on the properties of the object, it will be reflected, transmitted or absorbed in knowable proportions. If it is absorbed that energy is added to the receiving body's energy.

That's the way the entire universe works every second.

The universe in SSDDs head, however, follows a different science.

I asked SSDD, now I will ask you. Where does the blackbody radiation come from? Does a single molecule have a 'temperatue'?

 

[flacaltenn]

This reduction of energy loss affects the equilibrium, it does not directly heat the surface.

That's your own hypothesis. Not that endorsed by climate science or the mechanism depicted in climate models.

Would you be happier if Trenberth's cartoon only showed net radiation of 66W up rather than 400 up and 335 down? Or would you then complain that the number didn't match the blackbody radiation? It is already simplified, do you want it even more simple so that you can have a different set of quibbles?

That's the key right there. Net flow is UP -- nothing is violated. Heating of the GHGases merely SLOWS the rate of gray body energy transfer up.. EZ -- PZ... Except that Trenberth is in the wrong units for an "energy" budget.. It's actually a fictionalized power budget that neglects the time of day, the seasons, the latitude, and all the important stuff :RAZZ:

BTW: Heating of the GHGases also causes loss of heat in upper bounds of atmos. due to INCREASING the thermal gradient at the upper boundaries..

 

[itfitzme]

Radiation is the movement of energy away from any object warmer than absolute zero. It has no plan, no goal. All bodies, at all temperatures >0K radiate. It requires no medium. When it encounters another object, depending on the properties of the object, it will be reflected, transmitted or absorbed in knowable proportions. If it is absorbed that energy is added to the receiving body's energy.

That's the way the entire universe works every second.

The universe in SSDDs head, however, follows a different science.

I've been reviewing my thermo and chemistry. Thermo went in a conceptual box, related to steam, freon, ammonia, and the like, where then energy associated with large quantities were analyzed under isothermal and adiabadic changes in a Carnot cycle. The question of energy transfer do to IR simply never arose.

The mechanisms that will limit absorption of IR by CO2 is simply the limited density of gasses and the binding energy of the atoms in the molecule.

There are three vibrational modes for CO2. *These are bending, symetric stretch and asymetric stretch. These modes are responsible for the spectral absorption lines as each wavelength corresponds to the energy level required for the electron in the bond. *There is no limit to the number of photons that may be absorbed except that, at high enough energy, the bond will be broken, disassociated into constituent elements.

As well, the vibrational energy may be transfered to kinetic energy during the collision of two molecules. This kinetic energy may be translational amd rotational.

The average kinetic energy of the molecules in the gas is what temperature measures. *This includes both translational and rotational energy of the molecule. It also includes the potential and vibrational energy in the bonds.

The total amount of energy in the volume of gas is the enthalpy. *

Entropy measures the randomness of the in the material. *A crystal, like a diamond, has a single ordered state and thus low entropy. *As the energy, and thus temperature increases, the entropy increases as the individual particles are flying about, thus having more randomness and more ways that they can be arranged.

Entropy is related to enthalpy as S= α+ β*H. *It is, though, more practical to consider the change in entropy and enthalpy as*ΔS= α+ β ΔH. *The coefficients,*α and*β depend on the material. *

The relationship between temperature and enthalpy depends on the material. *It is not linear. It has to do with volume, pressure, and other factors.

Entropy, enthalpy, kinetic energy, vibrational mode energy, and temperature all increase as CO2 absorbes IR energy, with the exception that the energy is divided up between different modes.

There is nothing that limits the absorbtion of IR energy, by a CO2 molecule, except the atoms disassociating. *Ergo, IR may be emitted by a "colder" molecule and be independently absorbed by a "hotted" molecule. *The net behavior, as described by thermodynamic principles is, exactly that, net behavior as the hotter gas radiates more energy tham the cooler gas.

 

[flacaltenn]

Isn't the internet wonderful??

Now you can steal wisdom and pretend to play along..

 

[SSDD]

This reduction of energy loss affects the equilibrium, it does not directly heat the surface.

That's your own hypothesis. Not that endorsed by climate science or the mechanism depicted in climate models.

Would you be happier if Trenberth's cartoon only showed net radiation of 66W up rather than 400 up and 335 down? Or would you then complain that the number didn't match the blackbody radiation? It is already simplified, do you want it even more simple so that you can have a different set of quibbles?

The problem is that it is, in fact a cartoon. The whole shooting match is based on a cartoon that simply does not reflect reality...ergo, its constant and continuing failure.

The hypothesis as stated by climate science is that the backradiation actually warms the surface of the earth and if it were so, then the solar oven would warm whatever was placed at its focal point. It does not because there is no backradiation.

 

[SSDD]

That's the key right there. Net flow is UP -- nothing is violated. Heating of the GHGases merely SLOWS the rate of gray body energy transfer up.. EZ -- PZ... Except that Trenberth is in the wrong units for an "energy" budget.. It's actually a fictionalized power budget that neglects the time of day, the seasons, the latitude, and all the important stuff :RAZZ:

BTW: Heating of the GHGases also causes loss of heat in upper bounds of atmos. due to INCREASING the thermal gradient at the upper boundaries..

Two way net flow is unproven, unobserved theory. The fact that you guys speak it as if it were known fact is...well...just amusing.

 

[IanC]

That's your own hypothesis. Not that endorsed by climate science or the mechanism depicted in climate models.

Would you be happier if Trenberth's cartoon only showed net radiation of 66W up rather than 400 up and 335 down? Or would you then complain that the number didn't match the blackbody radiation? It is already simplified, do you want it even more simple so that you can have a different set of quibbles?

The problem is that it is, in fact a cartoon. The whole shooting match is based on a cartoon that simply does not reflect reality...ergo, its constant and continuing failure.

The hypothesis as stated by climate science is that the backradiation actually warms the surface of the earth and if it were so, then the solar oven would warm whatever was placed at its focal point. It does not because there is no backradiation.

Does a cup of coffee cool faster outside at 0C or in your kitchen at 25C? Is the warmer air warming the coffee directly or indirectly? Why are you holding on to your strawman so tightly? The increased radiation returning to the earths surface indirectly warms the surface by reducing heat loss. While you can calculate the energy moving in both directions, you cannot just ignore one side of the equation. We would cool very quickly if all 400W/m2 was actually escaping to space.

What is wrong with you? You ignore all the impossible results that logically follow from your bizarre interpretation of the SLoT and the diety that must decide which emissions and absorptions are allowed.

 

[gslack]

yes, we have been over it a hundred times. equilibrium temperature is based on input (mostly from the sun, temperature invariant) minus output (radiation, convection, latent, which are all temperature dependent). choking off the output warms the surface, not by the energy returning from the atmosphere, but by the radiation that fails to escape in a timely fashion. the same stable input from the sun can result in a wide range of surface temperatures depending on the conditions that affect the output of energy into space. it is a simple concept but totally beyond your ken.

I bolded the backpeddling part..

WTF Ian? You are now claiming that back-radiation doesn't exist? Or is it just more of your waffling? If you are now stating that, wtf was all of your BS before? We stated time and again the extra "warming" claimed in AGW theory does not come from back-radiation from the atmosphere to it's warmer source (the surface warmed by the sun), and that was what set you off every time.. You spent post after post trying to defend backradiation, yet here you are denying it's existence now...

Dude do you even know what you believe on this? Unfreaking believable man.. ROFL

I have explained this dozens of times, in a variety of ways, to you and your ilk. I cannot help but think that you are too dense to just pick it up easily and too obstinate to actually read for comprehension.

over and over and over again I have said that it is the sun that warms the surface, with atnospheric conditions adjusting the final equilibrium temperature. the net flow of energy and heat is always outwards towards space.

there are two types of backradiation. the first is temperature dependent blackbody radiation that would be present even without greenhouse gases. the second is GHG dependent by which certain wavelengths of surface IR radiation are stopped from exiting directly into outer space because they are absorbed and re-emitted in random directions, dispersing the energy into the atmosphere where it returns to the surface/finally escapes to space/or is added to the temperature of the atmosphere where it simply becomes part of the blackbody radiation. is that simple enough for you gslack? the atmosphere will always send backradiation to the surface because it is warm and gives off blackbody radiation. GHGs just add to that existing backradiation.

the surface gives off blackbody radiation according to its temperature. if there was no atmosphere it would simply exit into space, relative to (Tsur^4 - Tspa^4), where Tsur is surface temp and Tspa is space temp. if there is an atmosphere in place then the surface would give off radiation relative to (Tsur^4 - Tatm^4). because Tatm >> Tspa the power dissapated is much less. that difference is taken up into the heat sinks of the surface and atmosphere until the energy flowing out again matches the solar input but the surface is now at a higher equilibrium temperature.

planck curves somewhat representative of surface and atmosphere temperatures. the surface is emitting more radiation and at a slightly higher energy wavelengths. when it absorbs the radiation from the lower curve, the area between the two curves is the energy available to go through the atmosphere and exit into space. it is a visual explanation of the second law of thermodynamics, it shows why heat always goes from warm to cool. there is more radiation from the warmer body to the cooler body.

is this a complete or even a good model? not really, especially if the atmosphere was only N2 and O2. the surface radiation would mostly escape, but a significant amount of heat would still be passed to the atmosphere by conduction, which would be spread by convection. it is only when GHGs are added that surface radiation starts being dispersed and substantially removed from radiation loss. water is the main GHG but it also adds a new method of transporting latent heat above the near surface bottleneck by increasing convection as heat pipes (humid air is ligher and therefore rises, until it is cool enough for the water to change phase releasing heat which can now escape). CO2 takes another bite out of the planck curve, dissapating 15 micron IR and returning some to the surface.

it does not matter that the surface and especially the atmosphere are not true blackbodies. we are concerned only with disturbances to the equilibrium, the equilibrium that has already been in place using heat sinks, convection, conduction, latent heat, and radiation.

with no atmosphere heat transport and energy loss is 100% radiation driven. as you add an atmosphere conduction and convection become increasingly important in heat transport. when you add GHGs the ratios between conduction, convection, latent heat, and radiation change again. the radiation blocked by doubling CO2 does not necessarily all go into raising the surface equilibrium temperature, it is likely that much of it is just diverted into other transport mechanisms to get it high enough to escape. Trenberth's cartoon already shows that the minority of low altitude energy escapes as radiation, especially if you take out the 10micron atmospheric window. only 26W/m2 pinball through the lower atmosphere now, closing it down even further is not making a huge change.

just to be specific about gslack's statement that I am backpedalling on back radiation....all the radiation from the atmosphere directed at, and reaching, the surface is absorbed and used to offset the outward radiation from the surface, a la planck curves. because the net radiation is almost always towards the atmosphere, the movement of heat is away from the surface. the surface temperature may rise incrementally with addition of GHGs but that is only because the solar input is not being fully balanced by surface output reaching outer space. like I have said dozens of times but gslack never seems to be able to comprehend the idea of equilibriums being being based not only on inputs but outputs as well. that is why he and SSDD and others have so much trouble understanding why solar input is only 160W but surface output via heat sink is 400W (surface output not top of the atmosphere output, which is in balance with solar input).

Sorry I didn't respond till now. I'm doing my roof so I had zero free time till now...

LOL, so if it's now that back-radiation does not warm the surface further, even though you believe in its existence, what difference does it make? If it's there but does nothing to warm the surface, than it's a moot point Ian...

So which is it now? Seriously dude you're waffling big time.. Before you stated it's role in warming the planet as fact minus the extremists claims, hence your luke-warmer status. Now you claim it's their but ineffectual in warming the surface more...

SO wtf? Make up your damn mind already dude. This is exactly the kind of thing I talked about from you. Waffling when it doesn't fit your belief system... You know it's BS, or you know it's not, time to man up.. Pick a side and face the music, you will be right or you will be wrong. It's called a risk and everyone should be ready to take some...

If it were a simple matter of hyped-science only but a sound theory, there would be some thing made to harness this backradiation property by now, if only for the press and the ability to shut up skeptics.. It's a flawed theory and based on an incomplete one...

 

[gslack]

Would you be happier if Trenberth's cartoon only showed net radiation of 66W up rather than 400 up and 335 down? Or would you then complain that the number didn't match the blackbody radiation? It is already simplified, do you want it even more simple so that you can have a different set of quibbles?

The problem is that it is, in fact a cartoon. The whole shooting match is based on a cartoon that simply does not reflect reality...ergo, its constant and continuing failure.

The hypothesis as stated by climate science is that the backradiation actually warms the surface of the earth and if it were so, then the solar oven would warm whatever was placed at its focal point. It does not because there is no backradiation.

Does a cup of coffee cool faster outside at 0C or in your kitchen at 25C? Is the warmer air warming the coffee directly or indirectly? Why are you holding on to your strawman so tightly? The increased radiation returning to the earths surface indirectly warms the surface by reducing heat loss. While you can calculate the energy moving in both directions, you cannot just ignore one side of the equation. We would cool very quickly if all 400W/m2 was actually escaping to space.

What is wrong with you? You ignore all the impossible results that logically follow from your bizarre interpretation of the SLoT and the diety that must decide which emissions and absorptions are allowed.

Don't try and use entropy as evidence of backradiation... It's dishonest and BS..When we talk of back-radiation in AGW threads like this one, we are talking about the claim of AGW theory regarding IR re-emitted from GH gases back to it's warmer source the surface. You are trying to falsely attribute entropy and the natural state of all things above absolute zero to radiate in seemingly random directions, including possibly back to it's source, as proof of atmospheric back-radiation warming the surface further..

It's a silly claim Ian, and you should know better. If you are half the thinker you claim to be you would realize that just because something radiates towards something it doesn't mean it can effect change in that object radiated to. ALSO, if you continue to claim that the 2nd law somehow denotes a "net flow" rather than an absolute hot to cold, than the point still remains. If the "net flow" is hot to cold with some incidental radiation to the reverse, but that incidental radiation would certainly so slight that it would not effect change in the warmer object. Not to mention phase and various other quanta that would prohibit such...

The fact is whether or not atmospheric backradiation exists is moot. The problem is can it effect change in it's warmer source.

If you believe it can, than you must also believe in perfect heat engines because that is what you will have created. An infinite source of heat from a finite resource..

Again time to grow a backbone and pick a side because your waffling and BS are tiresome. Especially when coated in all that jargon...

PS... Why don't you correct PMZ/ifitzme on their "sequestered CO2" BS? You know it's nonsense, yet you say nothing.. If you're a "luke-warmer" and possess half the knowledge you claim here, you would in the very least put as much effort into correcting that nonsense as you spent trying to preach at us over our disagreement in back-radiation.. But no not a peep from you to them about their obvious nonsense..

Luke-warmer my ass...

 

[westwall]

Clearly there are two sides here.

On one side current scientific theory and data are accepted as fact.

On the other they are rejected out off hand.

More and more it's become apparent to me that given that, the issue is unresolvable at the level of this forum.

Is that a problem? I don't think that it has to be.

If the believers in science address only other believers in science, and the deniers address only other deniers let those who come new to the forum pick the story most credible to them.

There is nobody here, I don't think, capable of advancing the science. Nothing new will be proposed or added here to what climate science has already figured out. We are merely cataloging what's been published by others. Some of us have faith in that reporting, others not.

Those without that confidence should feel free to address their aversion to the theory and data. And make up what ever they are inclined to in alternative realities.

Those ho are confident in the current science should feel free to discuss why current theory and data make sense, and are what needs to be acted on.

We'll let actions of the majority of Americans decide.

Yes, there is. And the desperation with which you and your clones feverishly try and bury OUR posts shows just how full of crap you all are. Thank you for once again proving our point.

 

[flacaltenn]

I bolded the backpeddling part..

WTF Ian? You are now claiming that back-radiation doesn't exist? Or is it just more of your waffling? If you are now stating that, wtf was all of your BS before? We stated time and again the extra "warming" claimed in AGW theory does not come from back-radiation from the atmosphere to it's warmer source (the surface warmed by the sun), and that was what set you off every time.. You spent post after post trying to defend backradiation, yet here you are denying it's existence now...

Dude do you even know what you believe on this? Unfreaking believable man.. ROFL

I have explained this dozens of times, in a variety of ways, to you and your ilk. I cannot help but think that you are too dense to just pick it up easily and too obstinate to actually read for comprehension.

over and over and over again I have said that it is the sun that warms the surface, with atnospheric conditions adjusting the final equilibrium temperature. the net flow of energy and heat is always outwards towards space.

there are two types of backradiation. the first is temperature dependent blackbody radiation that would be present even without greenhouse gases. the second is GHG dependent by which certain wavelengths of surface IR radiation are stopped from exiting directly into outer space because they are absorbed and re-emitted in random directions, dispersing the energy into the atmosphere where it returns to the surface/finally escapes to space/or is added to the temperature of the atmosphere where it simply becomes part of the blackbody radiation. is that simple enough for you gslack? the atmosphere will always send backradiation to the surface because it is warm and gives off blackbody radiation. GHGs just add to that existing backradiation.

the surface gives off blackbody radiation according to its temperature. if there was no atmosphere it would simply exit into space, relative to (Tsur^4 - Tspa^4), where Tsur is surface temp and Tspa is space temp. if there is an atmosphere in place then the surface would give off radiation relative to (Tsur^4 - Tatm^4). because Tatm >> Tspa the power dissapated is much less. that difference is taken up into the heat sinks of the surface and atmosphere until the energy flowing out again matches the solar input but the surface is now at a higher equilibrium temperature.

planck curves somewhat representative of surface and atmosphere temperatures. the surface is emitting more radiation and at a slightly higher energy wavelengths. when it absorbs the radiation from the lower curve, the area between the two curves is the energy available to go through the atmosphere and exit into space. it is a visual explanation of the second law of thermodynamics, it shows why heat always goes from warm to cool. there is more radiation from the warmer body to the cooler body.

is this a complete or even a good model? not really, especially if the atmosphere was only N2 and O2. the surface radiation would mostly escape, but a significant amount of heat would still be passed to the atmosphere by conduction, which would be spread by convection. it is only when GHGs are added that surface radiation starts being dispersed and substantially removed from radiation loss. water is the main GHG but it also adds a new method of transporting latent heat above the near surface bottleneck by increasing convection as heat pipes (humid air is ligher and therefore rises, until it is cool enough for the water to change phase releasing heat which can now escape). CO2 takes another bite out of the planck curve, dissapating 15 micron IR and returning some to the surface.

it does not matter that the surface and especially the atmosphere are not true blackbodies. we are concerned only with disturbances to the equilibrium, the equilibrium that has already been in place using heat sinks, convection, conduction, latent heat, and radiation.

with no atmosphere heat transport and energy loss is 100% radiation driven. as you add an atmosphere conduction and convection become increasingly important in heat transport. when you add GHGs the ratios between conduction, convection, latent heat, and radiation change again. the radiation blocked by doubling CO2 does not necessarily all go into raising the surface equilibrium temperature, it is likely that much of it is just diverted into other transport mechanisms to get it high enough to escape. Trenberth's cartoon already shows that the minority of low altitude energy escapes as radiation, especially if you take out the 10micron atmospheric window. only 26W/m2 pinball through the lower atmosphere now, closing it down even further is not making a huge change.

just to be specific about gslack's statement that I am backpedalling on back radiation....all the radiation from the atmosphere directed at, and reaching, the surface is absorbed and used to offset the outward radiation from the surface, a la planck curves. because the net radiation is almost always towards the atmosphere, the movement of heat is away from the surface. the surface temperature may rise incrementally with addition of GHGs but that is only because the solar input is not being fully balanced by surface output reaching outer space. like I have said dozens of times but gslack never seems to be able to comprehend the idea of equilibriums being being based not only on inputs but outputs as well. that is why he and SSDD and others have so much trouble understanding why solar input is only 160W but surface output via heat sink is 400W (surface output not top of the atmosphere output, which is in balance with solar input).

Sorry I didn't respond till now. I'm doing my roof so I had zero free time till now...

LOL, so if it's now that back-radiation does not warm the surface further, even though you believe in its existence, what difference does it make? If it's there but does nothing to warm the surface, than it's a moot point Ian...


So which is it now? Seriously dude you're waffling big time.. Before you stated it's role in warming the planet as fact minus the extremists claims, hence your luke-warmer status. Now you claim it's their but ineffectual in warming the surface more...

SO wtf? Make up your damn mind already dude. This is exactly the kind of thing I talked about from you. Waffling when it doesn't fit your belief system... You know it's BS, or you know it's not, time to man up.. Pick a side and face the music, you will be right or you will be wrong. It's called a risk and everyone should be ready to take some...

If it were a simple matter of hyped-science only but a sound theory, there would be some thing made to harness this backradiation property by now, if only for the press and the ability to shut up skeptics.. It's a flawed theory and based on an incomplete one...

There IS backradiation... Has to be.. Photons don't decide where to go depending on the destination temperature. NET FLOW is upwards. Doesn't violate ANY damn principle.. The warming of the lower trop simply acts to SLOW DOWN the ENERGY transfered from the Gray Body Surface upwards.. Remember the diff between POWER (instantaneous) and ENERGY (over time).

You and ssdd are stuck on the paradigm that this means the net warming direction changes. It doesn't.. Take the sun out of the picture. Desert at night.

1) What is the surface COOLING profile (over time) on a cloudless night?

2) What is the surface COOLING profile (over time) on a cloudy night?

THere's your backradiation effect..

THe reason your backradiation oven doesn't work >>>>>>> --- there's NO NET DOWNWARD FLOW --- ever..
((OK maybe BRIEFLY LOCALLY with warmer air aloft and other weather transients. ))

Check the plug.. That's what an electronics engineer always does first..