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

[SSDD]

Page 4 section 2 paragraph 2

"In accordance with their definitions, thermodynamic properties apply to systems which must contain a very large number of elementary ultimate particles"

Now, why do you suppose a more rigorous text would say that?




http://www.uic.edu/labs/trl/1.OnlineMaterials/BasicPrinciplesByTWLeland.pdf

Wow, a whole paper based on a theory that is, as of yet, completely unobserved, untested, unmeasured, and unproven. Thanks for that.

 

[SSDD]

"We introduce the concepts of temperature, energy, work, heating, entropy, engines, and the laws of thermodynamics and related macroscopic concepts."

Now, why point out macroscopic?

STP Textbook Chapter 2: Thermodynamic Concepts and Processes Documents

Wow. A whole textbook based on a theory that is , as of yet, completely unobserved, untested, unmeasured, and unproven. Thanks for that to. Do you see a trend here? You can only find information to support your claim in texts that are describing theory as espoused by mathematical model...not the first bit of observed, measured, empirical evidence...The Second Law still stands as law and your theory remains a theory.

 

[SSDD]

Wow, bummer dude, you are screwed.

Why? Because you can post links to theoretical information in an attempt to overturn every observation ever made since the beginning of time? Maybe you should look up the definition of screwed.

 

[SSDD]

As far as what the textbooks say.. Check out ScienceofDoom.. Get this from another skeptic..

Scienc of doom Skeptical? Really?

Keep treading. By the way, did you see the post above where ifitzme told you that you were getting it? HERE

Congratuations...you appear to be making new friends.

 

[SSDD]

Two bodies at different temperatures in proximity both radiate towards each other. Heat flow is determined by the net effect. As standard textbooks indicate:

http://scienceofdoom.files.wordpres...at-and-mass-transfer-chapter-12-radiation.png

[/QUOTE]

No shit![/QUOTE]

Guess you never read a standard textbook. Classical physics texts do not teach two way net flow of energy. Physics texts for climate science do...but then climate science is not a hard science and climate science is interested in funding. Those textbooks that teach an unphysical phenomenon like backradiation are just another piece in the error cascade that climate science has fallen victim to.

For example:

•Radiative Heat Transfer by Modest does not teach two way heat flow.
•Radiative Transfer by Chandrasekhar, again, a hard science text does not teach two way heat flow.
•An Introduction to Radiative Transfer does not teach two way heat flow.
•Atmospheric Radiation: Theoretical Basis by Goody and Yung used to teach the hard science of physics does not teach two way heat flow.

While

•An Introduction to Atmospheric Physic by Andrews a text used in climate science courses does
•Advancing the Science of Climate Change 2010, NRC does teach two way heat flow
•IPCC TAR 2007 does teach two way heat flow
•The Greenhouse Effect by Lindzen does teach two way heat flow
•Fundamentals of atmospheric radiation by Bohren-Clothiaux, again, a text routinely used in the soft science of climate science does teach two way heat flow.

 

[IanC]

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...

You are as bad as polar bear when it comes to mis remembering what I have said in the past. Quote one of my posts where I have said something different than backradiation affects equilibrium.

I can understand how it is difficult to argue against my words and ideas but I really wish you guys wouldn't go all politician-like and put strawman words in my mouth

 

[Foxfyre]

You don't need to make it that complicated SSDD. Just observe an ice cube. There is no scenario in which an ice cube ever became colder when placed in a warmer environement.

 

[IanC]

Two bodies at different temperatures in proximity both radiate towards each other. Heat flow is determined by the net effect. As standard textbooks indicate:

http://scienceofdoom.files.wordpres...at-and-mass-transfer-chapter-12-radiation.png

No shit![/QUOTE]

Guess you never read a standard textbook. Classical physics texts do not teach two way net flow of energy. Physics texts for climate science do...but then climate science is not a hard science and climate science is interested in funding. Those textbooks that teach an unphysical phenomenon like backradiation are just another piece in the error cascade that climate science has fallen victim to.

For example:

•Radiative Heat Transfer by Modest does not teach two way heat flow.
•Radiative Transfer by Chandrasekhar, again, a hard science text does not teach two way heat flow.
•An Introduction to Radiative Transfer does not teach two way heat flow.
•Atmospheric Radiation: Theoretical Basis by Goody and Yung used to teach the hard science of physics does not teach two way heat flow.

While

•An Introduction to Atmospheric Physic by Andrews a text used in climate science courses does
•Advancing the Science of Climate Change 2010, NRC does teach two way heat flow
•IPCC TAR 2007 does teach two way heat flow
•The Greenhouse Effect by Lindzen does teach two way heat flow
•Fundamentals of atmospheric radiation by Bohren-Clothiaux, again, a text routinely used in the soft science of climate science does teach two way heat flow.[/QUOTE]

Pretty much all physics texts give formulas for calculating the radiation of an object (kT^4) or between objects (k(Th^4 - Tc^4)). A simple rearrangement of terms gives (net power equals power emitted minus power absorbed).

Just because you would rather quote an out-of-context snippet of a definition of the SLoT that does not make you right. The SLoT is used to describe large number macroscopic systems not individual atomic events.

 

[SSDD]

Pretty much all physics texts give formulas for calculating the radiation of an object (kT^4) or between objects (k(Th^4 - Tc^4)). A simple rearrangement of terms gives (net power equals power emitted minus power absorbed).

does not describe two way radiation flow. You mention rearranging...what are you going to do, alter a perfectly elegant equation in an attempt to give it some meaningless meaning?

Just because you would rather quote an out-of-context snippet of a definition of the SLoT that does not make you right. The SLoT is used to describe large number macroscopic systems not individual atomic events.

We both know that the statement that I routinely quote is not out of context. Your claim that the Second Law does not include individual atomic events is hypothesis..unobserved, untested, unmeasured, unproven. It is nice that you have something to beleive in, but I am afraid that your belief doesn't override what the Second Law actually says.

 

[itfitzme]

Two bodies at different temperatures in proximity both radiate towards each other. Heat flow is determined by the net effect. As standard textbooks indicate:

http://scienceofdoom.files.wordpres...at-and-mass-transfer-chapter-12-radiation.png

No shit!

Guess you never read a standard textbook. Classical physics texts do not teach two way net flow of energy. Physics texts for climate science do...but then climate science is not a hard science and climate science is interested in funding. Those textbooks that teach an unphysical phenomenon like backradiation are just another piece in the error cascade that climate science has fallen victim to.

For example:

•Radiative Heat Transfer by Modest does not teach two way heat flow.
•Radiative Transfer by Chandrasekhar, again, a hard science text does not teach two way heat flow.
•An Introduction to Radiative Transfer does not teach two way heat flow.
•Atmospheric Radiation: Theoretical Basis by Goody and Yung used to teach the hard science of physics does not teach two way heat flow.

While

•An Introduction to Atmospheric Physic by Andrews a text used in climate science courses does
•Advancing the Science of Climate Change 2010, NRC does teach two way heat flow
•IPCC TAR 2007 does teach two way heat flow
•The Greenhouse Effect by Lindzen does teach two way heat flow
•Fundamentals of atmospheric radiation by Bohren-Clothiaux, again, a text routinely used in the soft science of climate science does teach two way heat flow.

Pretty much all physics texts give formulas for calculating the radiation of an object (kT^4) or between objects (k(Th^4 - Tc^4)). A simple rearrangement of terms gives (net power equals power emitted minus power absorbed).

Just because you would rather quote an out-of-context snippet of a definition of the SLoT that does not make you right. The SLoT is used to describe large number macroscopic systems not individual atomic events.

[/quote]

The quotes are skewed up. You've got someone elses text as me.

 

[flacaltenn]

For Gslack and SSDD..

Certainly -- when you come in from the cold winter and experience a +20F boost in ambient temp -- that boost certainly can't warm a body surface that's already +25F above the ambient?

Skin 90F Room 67F Outside 47F

You were COOLING outside FASTER than inside. Assume there is no convection or conduction. JUST radiative heating from the room.. (minute amount of double paned glass with good deep IR transmission) Same effect. You will COOL slower. Your skin will EVENTUALLY assume a new equilibrium say 95F.

You'll say the body supplies the heat.. Of course. Just like the daily pumping of solar energy the earth surface gets. But the body LOSES heat at lower rate --- EVEN IN the proximity of a colder radiative mass.

As far as what the textbooks say.. Check out ScienceofDoom.. Get this from another skeptic..

Radiation Basics and the Imaginary Second Law of Thermodynamics | The Science of Doom

The equation for how much radiation is emitted by a body – εσT4 – does not include any terms for where the radiation might end up. So whether this radiation will be incident on a colder or hotter body, it has no effect on the radiation from the source. (See note 3).

Similarly, when radiation is incident on a body the only factor which affects how much radiation is absorbed and how much radiation is reflected is the absorptivity of the body at that direction and wavelength. The body cannot put out traffic cones because the incident radiation has been emitted by a colder body.

This is elementary thermodynamics. Emissivity and temperature determine the radiation from a body. Absorptivity determines how much incident radiation is absorbed.

Therefore, elementary thermodynamics shows that a cold body can radiate onto the surface of a hotter body. And the hotter body will absorb the radiation – assuming it has absorptivity at that wavelength and direction.

And once thermal radiation is absorbed it must heat the body, or slow down a loss of heat which is taking place. It cannot have no effect. This would be contrary to the first law of thermodynamics.

Two bodies at different temperatures in proximity both radiate towards each other. Heat flow is determined by the net effect. As standard textbooks indicate:

Science of doom? LOL, the Clone to spencer's shtick? No thanks...

So you're rejecting the website of a guy who is there PRIMARILY because he's an AGW skeptic. Real scientists don't reject sources until they've bludgeoned them to death a couple times. And even then -- we take the time to knock down particularly scurulous assertions.

If you want to regurgitate the same argument's spencer and CO. use, it's a silly and tired strategy.. One that Ian tries...

Once again(like Ian and spencer) you are trying to use the properties of an insulator to explain backradiation warming the surface further, and it's been gone over again and again. It's a bogus claim, that relies on a theoretical concept of actions at the atomic and sub-atomic levels. A theoretical concept which has not and cannot be proven any place other than an equation.

Not all.. Doesn't depend on sub-atomic tricks. Only an understanding of the diff between thermal flow thru conduction and convection and thermal flow thru radiation of EM waves. I've gotten you that far in previous posts only to have you come back and mix up thermal radiation with "molecular densities".. Has nothing to do with materials during propagation. (unless it's an EM absorber)

Ian cited one of spencers arguments recently. The man tried to use an insulated house to make the same claim your site just tried. The problem was he said the insulation made the house warmer. No it didn't. Insulation allowed the house to reach a certain temperature faster and more efficiently than it would have otherwise because it slowed heat loss. Once the temp in the house hit the proper temp the thermostat was set to, it shut off. Minus insulation, it took a lot longer. Now we here on earth have a thermostat as well. it's called day and night.

Exactly.. You're on the brink of breakthru here. But you use the wrong analogy. We have no control over the thermostat here on Earth. It is a Pulse Width Modulated type of thermal excitation with a FIXED thermostat setting. So that adding a layer of R16 Pink Panther insulation will result in a HIGHER equilibrium solution for the surface temp..

Now,when we get a realistic energy budget based on a full day/night cycle and not based on a flat disc earth bathed in 24/7 twilight, you will see that backradiation is unneeded..

You rejected the explanation I gave above INCLUDING A PAGE from a standard Thermo TEXTBOOK.. Are you saying the TEXTBOOK is wrong? ((Attrib for the page is on the original weblink))..

 

[IanC]

Sorry I didn't read too far into that reply.. You're still not getting it.

You didn't answer my questions about the desert COOLING profile under 2 conditions..

The desert will cool at night WITH or WITHOUT clouds. But the RATES will be diff and the EQUILIBRIUM position will be different depending on the cloud "blanket"... If it loses LESS heat at night because of the thermal insulation effect of the clouds, it will start the day warmer than it normally would because of the RETAINED HEAT.. NOT ADDED HEAT from the back radiation.. Get it?? NOTHING ADDED to time integral of net flow.. Just RETAINED...

So will your "iron bar" reach a different equilibrium if you pump it daily for 12 hours with a little bit of energy.. Depending on whether the blanket is there or not.

All you're doing is adding a thermal resistance to a uni-directional flow.. That's how rates of flow according to thermolaws behave. THey radiate BOTH ways and establish a net flow. THe warmer object will cool SLOWER if interacting with a boundary that is raised in heat energy --- but still cooler than the radiating grey body.

No wave/particle discussion, no violation of any thermo law..

The bolded part... A lame excuse. Why respond then? If you can't be bothered toread it,than why bother responding to it?

Your desert at night analogy; pointless in the exchange here. The fact remains an insulator does not warm it's source more, it slows heat loss. You are assuming that any incidental radiation that may be radiated back towards it's source is used by that source.

As we already know CO2 is transparent to short-wave IR radiation from the sun, but reacts to long wave IR radiation from the surface. What makes you believe that there isn't a similar situation going on here? Do you know this? Have you been made privy to some kind factual evidence that the rest of the world hasn't been told about?

Again, just because something can radiate in any and all directions at once, doesn't mean it will do so back to it's source or that it can effect change in that source.. You are assuming radiation in a direction from whence that energy came, must effect change in that source. Why? Because it effects change in other objects? Warmer objects? No... WHY? Because entropy doesn't work that way.

Two-way energy flow could mean perfect machines, it can't happen to our knowledge but you seem to think that back-radiation exists anyway.

Again your desert scenario. Cloud cover at night acting as an insulator is not proff of back-radiation. It shows how an insulator is supposed to work. That's it. SLowing heat loss does not mean re-radiating some back to it's source. It simply means that the energy is slowed in it's transfer between the molecular bonds of a material. More molecular bonds = more time to through them.

One reason GH gases react to IR is the extra bonds they have over less complex gaseous compounds. More bonds = more time spent in transfer. A solid for instance can retain heat a lot longer than a gas, for this very same reason. It doesn't have to re-radiate, there is no need for it and it violates the fundamental laws.

You're getting closer.. We have to unravel about 3 knots here..

1) Heat energy transfers in various ways. You mentioned the requirement for molecular bonds.. There are no molecular bonds transfering the sun's energy thru space. This is a different college course called "Fields and Waves".. There the propagation of EMagnetic energy is discussed and this is the basis for the back radiation claim. There is no conduction or convection involved in the back radiation claim.. It is solely based on EM propagation..

2) Therefore my use of the word "thermal resistance" or the use of the word "blanket" can lead to misconceptions. It should read --- a change in the Thermal Flux of EM radiation due to bidirectional exchange of long wave IR.. When you have 2 black bodies in proximity... EVEN WITH A VACUUM separating them --- there will be an exchange of longwave IR. The NET FLUX will correspond to the 2nd law and flow from hot to cold. But EACH body is a source of IR photons traveling unrestricted between the bodies.

3) THis results in the effect of REDUCING the net flow of energy from the warmer to cooler body. Those clouds in the desert are a source of IR photons from heating during the day. And it is raining IR photons all day long reducing the net flow from the surface. You can only REDUCE the amount of COOLING of the earth's surface in this fashion.. IF --- the temperature and heat content of the atmos remains the <<Edited error>> COOLER body. See next.

4) The obeyance of the Thermo Laws is calculated on net exchange of energy RESULTING in entropy changes. In reality, energy always has a time element. If you increase the amount of heat induced IR EMagnetic radiation from the atmos to the ground, you reduce the ability of the surface to shed that much heat on a daily basis. So eventually, equilibrium will produce a higher surface temperature.

The temperature is not higher solely BECAUSE of the raining IR EM energy. It ALL came from the sun in the first place. But it forced the earth to become an energy storage mechanism for the excess energy that could not be sent upwards against the flux of the back radiation.

That's why no clouds (less GHGas back radiation) starts the next day in the desert at a lower temperature and vice versa. ((More complicated during the day, because clouds also restrict incoming solar radiation)) Not because the clouds acted as a material insulator, but because they were a source of (weaker) opposing RADIATIVE energy.

It's a simple minus sign in the net upward radiative loss from the surface.

It ACTS like a blanket --- but involves no material or molecular heat transfer.. And it doesn't violate a single law of physics..

As for SSDD quotes from the physics books. THe change in Entropy implied in any exchange does not specify the details of such exchange on the basis of thermal conduction, convection, or radiation.. Only that the NET RESULT must obey the law..

Pretty much all physics texts give formulas for calculating the radiation of an object (kT^4) or between objects (k(Th^4 - Tc^4)). A simple rearrangement of terms gives (net power equals power emitted minus power absorbed).

does not describe two way radiation flow. You mention rearranging...what are you going to do, alter a perfectly elegant equation in an attempt to give it some meaningless meaning?

Just because you would rather quote an out-of-context snippet of a definition of the SLoT that does not make you right. The SLoT is used to describe large number macroscopic systems not individual atomic events.

We both know that the statement that I routinely quote is not out of context. Your claim that the Second Law does not include individual atomic events is hypothesis..unobserved, untested, unmeasured, unproven. It is nice that you have something to beleive in, but I am afraid that your belief doesn't override what the Second Law actually says.

Hahahaha. Now your bizarre interpretation of the SLoT is overtrumping the distributive law of mathematics? Hubris, perhaps?

 

[flacaltenn]

OK .. Really don't have time to protect the honor of Radiation Physics here..

Gslack is rejecting textbook pages because of where they appeared. SSDD has TOO many technical issues to deal with including a rejection that CO2 has any heat carrying capability at all. (I've done that one with him before)..

So new tactic... YOU TWO need to provide YOUR understanding of the following real world examples..

1) A lot of my work is in cameras INCLUDING thermal IR.. So I'd be out of biz if IR photons only traveled to cooler objects..

Just bought another Lab grade IR thermometer.. (needed one with smaller field of view for small electronic components).. I bring the sensor to room temperature.. Point it at leak in the window sill.. You telling me that I can't READ 12degF below room temp because the "photons aren't gonna travel from a cooler to warmer object"????

2) I place 2 identical metal bars on strings in a vacuum container with a uniform constant heat source outside. They come to equilibrium temp at 100DegF... Does that mean they don't radiate EM IR photons anymore at each other.. ((And indeed uniformly out in all directions?)) So if I point my IR reader at them --- they somehow are not radiating black bodies anymore? Or is the distribution of their radiation limited to an inate guidance system that measures the temperature of EVERY OBJECT in their path?

I'm waiting to be entertained... LOL

 

[flacaltenn]

does not describe two way radiation flow. You mention rearranging...what are you going to do, alter a perfectly elegant equation in an attempt to give it some meaningless meaning?

That difference is only the NET thermal Energy.. One is BIGGER or EQUAL to the other.. Those canonical precepts say NOTHING about the mode of the transfer.. There are SEVERAL modes for heat transfer.. Conduction, Convection obey ONE SET OF RULES.. Radiated EM obey an entirely diff set of rules.. NONE of those transfer mechanisms violates the law for NET flow...

We are arguing about the set of rules for RADIATIVE thermal transfer.. And THERE, EVERY body is a source.. The Black Body Radiation laws SAY they are...

 

[itfitzme]

The bolded part... A lame excuse. Why respond then? If you can't be bothered toread it,than why bother responding to it?

Your desert at night analogy; pointless in the exchange here. The fact remains an insulator does not warm it's source more, it slows heat loss. You are assuming that any incidental radiation that may be radiated back towards it's source is used by that source.

As we already know CO2 is transparent to short-wave IR radiation from the sun, but reacts to long wave IR radiation from the surface. What makes you believe that there isn't a similar situation going on here? Do you know this? Have you been made privy to some kind factual evidence that the rest of the world hasn't been told about?

Again, just because something can radiate in any and all directions at once, doesn't mean it will do so back to it's source or that it can effect change in that source.. You are assuming radiation in a direction from whence that energy came, must effect change in that source. Why? Because it effects change in other objects? Warmer objects? No... WHY? Because entropy doesn't work that way.

Two-way energy flow could mean perfect machines, it can't happen to our knowledge but you seem to think that back-radiation exists anyway.

Again your desert scenario. Cloud cover at night acting as an insulator is not proff of back-radiation. It shows how an insulator is supposed to work. That's it. SLowing heat loss does not mean re-radiating some back to it's source. It simply means that the energy is slowed in it's transfer between the molecular bonds of a material. More molecular bonds = more time to through them.

One reason GH gases react to IR is the extra bonds they have over less complex gaseous compounds. More bonds = more time spent in transfer. A solid for instance can retain heat a lot longer than a gas, for this very same reason. It doesn't have to re-radiate, there is no need for it and it violates the fundamental laws.

You're getting closer.. We have to unravel about 3 knots here..

1) Heat energy transfers in various ways. You mentioned the requirement for molecular bonds.. There are no molecular bonds transfering the sun's energy thru space. This is a different college course called "Fields and Waves".. There the propagation of EMagnetic energy is discussed and this is the basis for the back radiation claim. There is no conduction or convection involved in the back radiation claim.. It is solely based on EM propagation..

2) Therefore my use of the word "thermal resistance" or the use of the word "blanket" can lead to misconceptions. It should read --- a change in the Thermal Flux of EM radiation due to bidirectional exchange of long wave IR.. When you have 2 black bodies in proximity... EVEN WITH A VACUUM separating them --- there will be an exchange of longwave IR. The NET FLUX will correspond to the 2nd law and flow from hot to cold. But EACH body is a source of IR photons traveling unrestricted between the bodies.

3) THis results in the effect of REDUCING the net flow of energy from the warmer to cooler body. Those clouds in the desert are a source of IR photons from heating during the day. And it is raining IR photons all day long reducing the net flow from the surface. You can only REDUCE the amount of COOLING of the earth's surface in this fashion.. IF --- the temperature and heat content of the atmos remains the <<Edited error>> COOLER body. See next.

4) The obeyance of the Thermo Laws is calculated on net exchange of energy RESULTING in entropy changes. In reality, energy always has a time element. If you increase the amount of heat induced IR EMagnetic radiation from the atmos to the ground, you reduce the ability of the surface to shed that much heat on a daily basis. So eventually, equilibrium will produce a higher surface temperature.

The temperature is not higher solely BECAUSE of the raining IR EM energy. It ALL came from the sun in the first place. But it forced the earth to become an energy storage mechanism for the excess energy that could not be sent upwards against the flux of the back radiation.

That's why no clouds (less GHGas back radiation) starts the next day in the desert at a lower temperature and vice versa. ((More complicated during the day, because clouds also restrict incoming solar radiation)) Not because the clouds acted as a material insulator, but because they were a source of (weaker) opposing RADIATIVE energy.

It's a simple minus sign in the net upward radiative loss from the surface.

It ACTS like a blanket --- but involves no material or molecular heat transfer.. And it doesn't violate a single law of physics..

As for SSDD quotes from the physics books. THe change in Entropy implied in any exchange does not specify the details of such exchange on the basis of thermal conduction, convection, or radiation.. Only that the NET RESULT must obey the law..

does not describe two way radiation flow. You mention rearranging...what are you going to do, alter a perfectly elegant equation in an attempt to give it some meaningless meaning?

Just because you would rather quote an out-of-context snippet of a definition of the SLoT that does not make you right. The SLoT is used to describe large number macroscopic systems not individual atomic events.

We both know that the statement that I routinely quote is not out of context. Your claim that the Second Law does not include individual atomic events is hypothesis..unobserved, untested, unmeasured, unproven. It is nice that you have something to beleive in, but I am afraid that your belief doesn't override what the Second Law actually says.

Hahahaha. Now your bizarre interpretation of the SLoT is overtrumping the distributive law of mathematics? Hubris, perhaps?

It is unfortunate, for him, that Hyperphysics doesn't make any overt statement of the definition for a system. Every thermo text does, in the first section od the first chapter. Hyperphysics does, early in the presentation, use a glass of water as am example, but that alone is to weak to imply that everything following applies only to glass of water size objects.

I've presented a few thermo quotes that do say the system is macroscopic. No source says otherwise. They either mention macroscopic or they neglects to mentiom it at all. That should give one pause.

Short of getting Hyperphysics to edit their page, I don't sew how SSaDhD's ever going to make the connection.

The thread has gone on and on about this for days, an issue that would have been resolved in a minute's time in a course semester. At this rate, what should take 3 months x 4 weeks x 3 days x 1 hour will be dragging out for years.

Seems to me, he's basically screwed.

 

[IanC]

No one seems to be stepping up with a simple explanation describing why objects emit radiation according to their temp. Is this a weak spot in many people's thermo understanding?

Single molecules have favoured absorption/emission but for temp related radiation there is a smooth Planck curve. This is indicative of a different process. And is one of the reasons why the SLoT does not cover individual atomic events..

 

[IanC]

OK .. Really don't have time to protect the honor of Radiation Physics here..

Gslack is rejecting textbook pages because of where they appeared. SSDD has TOO many technical issues to deal with including a rejection that CO2 has any heat carrying capability at all. (I've done that one with him before)..

So new tactic... YOU TWO need to provide YOUR understanding of the following real world examples..

1) A lot of my work is in cameras INCLUDING thermal IR.. So I'd be out of biz if IR photons only traveled to cooler objects..

Just bought another Lab grade IR thermometer.. (needed one with smaller field of view for small electronic components).. I bring the sensor to room temperature.. Point it at leak in the window sill.. You telling me that I can't READ 12degF below room temp because the "photons aren't gonna travel from a cooler to warmer object"????

2) I place 2 identical metal bars on strings in a vacuum container with a uniform constant heat source outside. They come to equilibrium temp at 100DegF... Does that mean they don't radiate EM IR photons anymore at each other.. ((And indeed uniformly out in all directions?)) So if I point my IR reader at them --- they somehow are not radiating black bodies anymore? Or is the distribution of their radiation limited to an inate guidance system that measures the temperature of EVERY OBJECT in their path?

I'm waiting to be entertained... LOL

Dream on flac. They don't have a coherent understanding of how things work, only talking points and ad homs.

 

[itfitzme]

No one seems to be stepping up with a simple explanation describing why objects emit radiation according to their temp. Is this a weak spot in many people's thermo understanding?

Single molecules have favoured absorption/emission but for temp related radiation there is a smooth Planck curve. This is indicative of a different process. And is one of the reasons why the SLoT does not cover individual atomic events..

That is a quantum physics issue. At some level, you just have to take the empirical evidence as a postulate. As temp goes up, the probability of emmission increases. That much we can say. For macro quantities, there are more particles at higher energy so the probability increases. For a single particle, at higher "internal" energy, the probability of emission increases.

The whole thing with the why of physics is that it is based on a "finer grain". Macro properties were what they were until microscopic "ultimate particles", atoms and molecules were proven. Then the why became the mechanical statistics of the microscopic particles.

The why is always one level of granularity lower. Macro materials to molecules. Molecules to atoms. Atoms to electron. Electrons to, well now were getting to the quantum level issue. At that point, it is simply a matter of describing what is and recognizing that our "why" is often an analogy.

 

[itfitzme]

This is a bit more rigorus presentation of why Barker's 2002 attempt is wrong.

Let TN be night temp and TD be day temp. *

d is the amount added during the day. Let*&#916;C be the little bit more from additional CO2

So, on day 1,*

TN1 *and TD1=TN1+d** TI=*TN1/(TN+d+&#916;C)

That is, the day time temp is up by d, due to day time heating plus the additional amount due to that *dau increase in CO2. *TI is Barkers "thermal inertia" measure.

The next day,*

TN2=TN1+&#916;C *and TD2=(TN2+d+&#916;C)=TN1+d+2&#916;C

The second night is a bit warmer due to the day's additional CO2 warmth. The daytime is the accumulation of the two days additional CO2 plus the daytime warmth d.

TI2=(TN1+&#916;C)/(TN1+d+2&#916;C)

TNn=(TN1+(n-1)&#931;&#916;C)/(TN1+d+(n)&#931;&#916;C)

&#916;C is very very small, so for

TNn=(TN1+(n-1)&#931;&#916;C)/(TN1+d+(n-1)&#931;&#916;C)

Even*(n-1)&#931;&#916;C is really small, amounting to no more than degree over decades compared to the day time and night time temp in the desert. Compared to TN and TD, it is swamped out.

Essentially,*

TNn=(TN1)/(TN1+d)

Barker 2002 doesn't present his raw data. *But, we can use a couple of example numbers that are reasonable. *Let's say 30F and 120F. Over the course of 1931 to 1995, the average change in temp due to CO2 was, let's say 2 degrees.

So &#916;C is 2/(1995-1931)=.031F per year, for 64 years.

Using*TNn=(TN1+(n-1)&#931;&#916;C)/(TN1+d+(n-1)&#931;&#916;C)

d is the difference between day and night, 120-30=90.*n is 64 years.

TN1 is 30, TI1 is 30/120=.25

TN64=(30+2)/(120+2)=.262

Barkers TI changes by .112 over the course of 64 years. Meanwhile, the precipitation index he uses has year to year swings of .20.

It is a week measure as he is dividing the top and bottom by a factor containing the CO2 temp change, effectively cancelling them out. The example I've used is rather forgiving as I have assumed nice smooth changes. Larger variability in all the factors will just bury the year to year trend in the noise.

The other issue is fairly simple. He never does a multivariate on the TI to both CO2 and his precipitation index. *Had he, he may have very well found a better fit with both than either alone.

All he has managed to demonstrate is the obvious, that weather is more variable than climate. *But we already know that.

A New Metric to Detect CO2 Greenhouse Effect* Applied To Some New Mexico Weather Data

 

[IanC]

You're getting closer.. We have to unravel about 3 knots here..

1) Heat energy transfers in various ways. You mentioned the requirement for molecular bonds.. There are no molecular bonds transfering the sun's energy thru space. This is a different college course called "Fields and Waves".. There the propagation of EMagnetic energy is discussed and this is the basis for the back radiation claim. There is no conduction or convection involved in the back radiation claim.. It is solely based on EM propagation..

2) Therefore my use of the word "thermal resistance" or the use of the word "blanket" can lead to misconceptions. It should read --- a change in the Thermal Flux of EM radiation due to bidirectional exchange of long wave IR.. When you have 2 black bodies in proximity... EVEN WITH A VACUUM separating them --- there will be an exchange of longwave IR. The NET FLUX will correspond to the 2nd law and flow from hot to cold. But EACH body is a source of IR photons traveling unrestricted between the bodies.

3) THis results in the effect of REDUCING the net flow of energy from the warmer to cooler body. Those clouds in the desert are a source of IR photons from heating during the day. And it is raining IR photons all day long reducing the net flow from the surface. You can only REDUCE the amount of COOLING of the earth's surface in this fashion.. IF --- the temperature and heat content of the atmos remains the <<Edited error>> COOLER body. See next.

4) The obeyance of the Thermo Laws is calculated on net exchange of energy RESULTING in entropy changes. In reality, energy always has a time element. If you increase the amount of heat induced IR EMagnetic radiation from the atmos to the ground, you reduce the ability of the surface to shed that much heat on a daily basis. So eventually, equilibrium will produce a higher surface temperature.

The temperature is not higher solely BECAUSE of the raining IR EM energy. It ALL came from the sun in the first place. But it forced the earth to become an energy storage mechanism for the excess energy that could not be sent upwards against the flux of the back radiation.

That's why no clouds (less GHGas back radiation) starts the next day in the desert at a lower temperature and vice versa. ((More complicated during the day, because clouds also restrict incoming solar radiation)) Not because the clouds acted as a material insulator, but because they were a source of (weaker) opposing RADIATIVE energy.

It's a simple minus sign in the net upward radiative loss from the surface.

It ACTS like a blanket --- but involves no material or molecular heat transfer.. And it doesn't violate a single law of physics..

As for SSDD quotes from the physics books. THe change in Entropy implied in any exchange does not specify the details of such exchange on the basis of thermal conduction, convection, or radiation.. Only that the NET RESULT must obey the law..

does not describe two way radiation flow. You mention rearranging...what are you going to do, alter a perfectly elegant equation in an attempt to give it some meaningless meaning?




We both know that the statement that I routinely quote is not out of context. Your claim that the Second Law does not include individual atomic events is hypothesis..unobserved, untested, unmeasured, unproven. It is nice that you have something to beleive in, but I am afraid that your belief doesn't override what the Second Law actually says.

Hahahaha. Now your bizarre interpretation of the SLoT is overtrumping the distributive law of mathematics? Hubris, perhaps?

It is unfortunate, for him, that Hyperphysics doesn't make any overt statement of the definition for a system. Every thermo text does, in the first section od the first chapter. Hyperphysics does, early in the presentation, use a glass of water as am example, but that alone is to weak to imply that everything following applies only to glass of water size objects.

I've presented a few thermo quotes that do say the system is macroscopic. No source says otherwise. They either mention macroscopic or they neglects to mentiom it at all. That should give one pause.

Short of getting Hyperphysics to edit their page, I don't sew how SSaDhD's ever going to make the connection.

The thread has gone on and on about this for days, an issue that would have been resolved in a minute's time in a course semester. At this rate, what should take 3 months x 4 weeks x 3 days x 1 hour will be dragging out for years.

Seems to me, he's basically screwed.

While SSDD has a blind sop on the SLoT, you have blind spot on correlation/causation and the issue of undisclosed variables. How long will it take to bring you around? Hahaha.