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

[gslack]

You're a coward Ian. Be intellectually, or otherwise. When the clones where regurgitating the sequestered CO2 nonsense and treating CO2 as an element, what did you say? NOTHING.. Not a word.. And why not? Because you liked the fact they were arguing everyone else but you. A fine example of how you would rather rule in hell than serve in heaven, a true cowards motto, it will serve you well. ANd that wasn't the only time I have seen you do that.. You let people ramble nonstop BS pseudo-science so long as they are arguing with certain people, no matter how idiotic they may be, or how wrong their claims, you say nothing. Yet let someone you don't like say anything you deem unscientific and you're on them like white on rice.. A true save-ass opportunistic punk..

Feel insulted now? Good.. Please make another plead to the forum post, we love those..ROFL.

BTW, as far as my brain power, I don't know, I think I must be doing alright, I have caught you in BS so many times it's becoming old hat.. I remember when you didn't know what Fermat's last theorem was.. ROFL. Too funny.. Mr. Big Brain math expert caught being full of shit by the guy he claims is lacking brain power.. Dude what's that say about you??

bump the relevent post on sequestered carbon. if there is one. I dont read comments that are just ad hom attacks by you, or fitz and pms.

as far as Fermat and his column margin theorum...I answered you in real time that it was an old time mathematician. when I asked you at the same time what happens to the pH of water as it warms you refused to answer. same old, same old. you probably still dont know what happens to the pH even though it was answered by others. it actually takes knowledge of concepts rather than memorization of old mathematicians' names.

Liar... Ian, now you know better the thing was in a few threads and over tens of posts.. Don't lie...

And again, you asked me about ph of water INSTEAD of answering my question.. See the problem yet? Of course you do.. The true weasel way.. Yes, yes, a math wiz and science expert on all things physics like yourself, can't be bothered by trivialities like Fermat and any of the other things the rest of the lesser mathematicians spend careers working on. You have a web forum to troll and pseudo-science to post... Yes, Ian you're a genius.. A genius with no clue what is a fact and what is a theory... Wow, you are amazing...LOL

 

[flacaltenn]

NO radiation physics doesn't border on belief in perpetual motion, his interpretation of it does.. See the difference?

ANd the slowing of heat loss is due to the constant transfer of that energy as it is transferred through the gas.. Your own link in your next post gives an example just before it turns into a "climate science" bit of nonsense..

RE: the bolded above.. This does not agree with the view that CONDUCTIVE heating is a miniscule contribution to earth surface heat loss.. Perhaps you have a reference saying the conduction and convection are the PRIMARY source of surface heat loss??? Doubt it..

I even mentioned that in the my quote above.. Do you know the diff between conduction and radiation??

Bxzzzzt --- Try again..

Don't need one, We see it every day and the fact we have varied weather proves it. But of course you think energy emitted by the surface can be re-used to warm itself further, so it's no surprise.. SLice it any way you want, you are still re-using the same energy...

THERE --- you just SAID IT!!!! "you are reusing the same energy"..

That's true -- It's NOT high-tailing it into space. In other words

the cooling rate is reduced. And what happens if you reduce the cooling rate but keep the exact SAME conditions for the warming rate?? Go on man --- say it.. I know you can do it !!!!

 

[Foxfyre]

RE: the bolded above.. This does not agree with the view that CONDUCTIVE heating is a miniscule contribution to earth surface heat loss.. Perhaps you have a reference saying the conduction and convection are the PRIMARY source of surface heat loss??? Doubt it..

I even mentioned that in the my quote above.. Do you know the diff between conduction and radiation??

Bxzzzzt --- Try again..

Don't need one, We see it every day and the fact we have varied weather proves it. But of course you think energy emitted by the surface can be re-used to warm itself further, so it's no surprise.. SLice it any way you want, you are still re-using the same energy...

THERE --- you just SAID IT!!!! "you are reusing the same energy"..

That's true -- It's NOT high-tailing it into space. In other words

the cooling rate is reduced. And what happens if you reduce the cooling rate but keep the exact SAME conditions for the warming rate?? Go on man --- say it.. I know you can do it !!!!

Wouldn't that depend on what the cooling rate was to begin with and what it is over time? If I put a warm roast, say 100 degrees, in the refrigerator set at 40 degrees, the temperature in the fridge will be temporarily raised somewhat but the roast will cool at a certain rate. If I put the same size roast at the same temperature in the fridge set at 45 degrees, the temperature in the fridge will rise a bit more than before and the roast will not cool as rapidly, but it will still cool.

And we are assuming that there are no other variables to add to that scenario too. And I am guessing that we don't have the means to guage all the variables in warming and cooling in climate science as much as we can guage the controlled conditions in a refrigerator.

 

[flacaltenn]

Last try here. You say the gases are slowing heat loss...

Last try for what? To build a proper strawman? Where the hell did you get the idea that I believe that gasses are slowing down heat loss? I said:

"Guess he hasn't considered the ideal gas laws. Miles deep column of air....wonder why it would be warmer closer to the surface?"

and from that you get the idea that I am claiming that gasses are slowing down heat loss? I even stated that the comment was directly related to the idea gas laws. I don't guess you are aware that repeatable experimental proof has been achieved in a laboratory that further supports the atmospheric thermal effect as stated by N&Z?

The temperature is warmer at the base of a column of air because of pressure, not some trace gas's magical ability to block the escape of heat, or backradiate heat, or whatever miraculous ability you are giving it on any particular day.

In order to discount that trace gas's ability to re-radiate heat to the surface, you'd have to also dismiss the ability of water vapor to be a major player in the reason the planet isn't a sno-cone.. And I don't want to do this "CO2 can't store no heat" biz with you again..

Certainly adiabatic heating exists. That's what causes local heat waves.. But unless you got a chart showing that the STANDARD barometric pressure has increased since the late 18th century --- I don't think you've even got a conspiracy theory worthy of N&Z going on Art Bell (or whoever is doing that boogeyman show now)..

The primary heat retention mechanism is radiative EM heating. I DO BELIEVE it's currently WAAAAY overrated about conduction and convection --- but that's gonna have to wait til I fund my own sabbatical to go back into academia to correct the TrenBerth mess...

 

[flacaltenn]

As CO2 and water vapor selectively absorb infrared radiation, they also selectively emit infrared radiation in all directions. Some of this energy is radiated back toward the Earth�s surface where it is absorbed and heats the ground. At this point, the process of the Earth radiating infrared wavelengths continues.

<< RUh ROh.. Sounds like back-radiation don't it? >>

In case you were confused, typing in big and bold doesn't make it true. I have never argued that some people don't believe in backradiation. In fact, I have provided the titles to several physics texts that do.

The fact remains, no matter how many clips you post of people agreeing with you, that none of you can provide any actual evidence of backradiation. You just prove that you aren't out there all alone making claims based on faith rather than hard evidence.

Would be totally embarrassing if FAS was passing off bogus educational material wouldn't it????

Any more embarassing than GISS and the other big surface temperature gatekeepers passing off bogus temperature data to make the past look cooler than it was in an effort to make the present look warmer? Any more embarassing than the crazy shit innumerable other government agencies pass off in order to get their share of the funding for those who can demonstrate that they are paying passengers on the AGW crazy train?

I need the same thing from you as I need from GSlack.. ALL of what appears in BOTH those Atmospheric Physics is supported in the Radiative Physics books.. Books going back to the 19th century are consistent.. HOWEVER -- the concepts INCLUDED in "back radiation" span several chapters in the more primary references.

I don't know if you stuck on radiation from cold to hot --- or BBody calculations --- or the wavelength conversion that allows Broadband in and LongWave only out..

So you need to tell me which of these SIX you are rejecting...

But to understand ANY of them you have to accept..

1) EVERY body (regardless of temp) radiates some amount of IR EM in every available direction. That is derived from BBody laws and Stephan Boltzmann..

2) WHERE the energy of that ejected photon originally CAME FROM is irrelevent.

3) Cooler bodies radiate towards warmer bodies and vice versa. The NET FLOW subtracts this amount from the thermal flux of the warmer body and obeys the 2nd law.

4) My warmer IR thermometer is reading photons from a COOLER BODY.. Which demonstrates that direction of exchange.

5) The term "back radiation" is a particular construct of the GreenHouse crowd describing the heat flux from the cooler atmos
to the ground. It is NOT USED in classical derivations of radiative heat exchange but it is describing the T2 flux that gets subtracted from the blackbody radiation of the earth.

6) If cooler objects were NOT radiating towards warmer objects, two objects in proximity, having acheived a thermal equilibrium T1 == T2 would have to STOP radiating towards each other according to your view because there is NO NET FLOW. This doesn't happen.. What really happens in the language of GreenHouse theory is that under this condition.. The back-radiation would equal the forward-radiation.. ((T1 - T2) == 0) Totally consistent with the fact that both objects still HAVE a temp and that they are radiating EQUALLY at each other..

((NOTE -- I am not suggesting that the atmos would ever equal the BBody temp of the earth surface. Merely using that terminology to describe another set of general bodies in thermal equilibrium))

You have so many unfounded peripheral objections (like CO2 is NOT a GreenHouse Gas) that I haven't really put any energy into discussing this with you..


But if you want to see that the more fundamental texts back up those assertions from Harvard and the Atmos Physic book -- tell me which of the six above you have a problem with..

I've got the patience of a freaking saint..
To the point where I get mocked for my effort...

 

[flacaltenn]

How about taking this back radiation to books on Atmos Physics..

Like ((Intro to Atmos Physics David G. Andrews pub 2000 Cambridge))

From somewhere in the 1st Chapter... Close to the front.

See the down arrow from the atmos in the illust. above?? That's the back-radiation.. The pages
describe the intimate calculations for EACH of those terms. Models the earth as BBody.. Models a BIDIRECTIONAL flow of radiative heating due to the atmos.. Everything I've told you for days now...

Continuation directly below the 1st snippet above..

Want to see it in an Atmos. Physics Guide from HARVARD???

CHAPTER 7. THE GREENHOUSE EFFECT

7.1 RADIATION


Radiation is energy transmitted by electromagnetic waves. All objects
emit radiation.
.....

This absorption of energy by the Earth must be balanced by emission of
terrestrial radiation out to space. The Earth is not a blackbody at
visible wavelengths since the absorption efficiency of solar radiation
by the Earth is only e = 1-A = 0.72. However, the Earth radiates almost
exclusively in the IR where the absorption efficiency is in fact near
unity. For example, clouds and snow reflect visible radiation but absorb
IR radiation. We approximate here the emission flux from the Earth as
that of a blackbody of temperature TE, so that the energy balance
equation for the Earth is

(7.10)

The concepts presented in the previous sections allow us to build a
simple model of the greenhouse effect. In this model, we view the
atmosphere as an isothermal layer placed some distance above the surface
of the Earth ( Figure 7-12 ). The layer is transparent to solar
radiation, and absorbs a fraction f of terrestrial radiation because of
the presence of greenhouse gases. The temperature of the Earth's surface
is To and the temperature of the atmospheric layer is T1.
Figure 7-12 Simple greenhouse model. Radiation fluxes per unit area of
Earth's surface are shown.

NOT ONLY DO BOTH THESE BOOKS LAY OUT THE BI-DIRECTIONAL radiation from the atmos to the ground, (and the atmos to space) ---- they actually BOTH CALCULATE the equations for all components and end up with a reasonable number for the Earth's surface temp...
I don't fault you if you can't follow the math.. But it's there. And on that -- you'll have to trust me..

Done playing here.. YOU GOT appropriate pages from EIGHT different physics at scienceofdoom.. I'm not retrieving them for you.. Can't help it if you ignore them..

Good luck with cred on this issue when you have no alternate physics for explaining why the Earth's surface
isn't closer to -4degF.

Yes, yes we have established it's taught in climate science already.. Is this thing on?

Taught in climate science got it... What you have found is a link to a book on climate science..Nice, now please show me that first, it is established fact, and second that it is standard in PHYSICS.. Not climate science version... But no matter here's a part of your book you didn't cite..

PROBLEMS

PROBLEMS

7. 1 Climate response to changes in ozone

Simulations with a general circulation model (GCM) have been used to investigate the climate sensitivity to large changes in atmospheric ozone. Explain qualitatively the results below.

1. A simulation in which all O3 above 30 km altitude is removed shows a large tropospheric warming (+1-3oC) and a very large stratospheric cooling (up to -80oC).

2. A simulation where all O3 in the upper troposphere is removed shows a 1oC cooling of the Earth's surface, while a simulation where the same amount of O3 is removed but in the lower troposphere shows no significant temperature change.

[Source: Hansen, J., et al., Radiative forcing and climate response, J. Geophys. Res., 102, 6831-6864, 1997.]

7. 2 Interpretation of the terrestrial radiation spectrum

The Figure below shows terrestrial emission spectra measured from a satellite over northern Africa, the Mediterranean Sea, and and Antarctica. The spectra are reported as a function of wavenumber, which is the inverse of wavelength.

1. Estimate from the spectra the surface temperature of each region.

2. Explain the dips at 600-700 cm-1 (14-16 mm) and 1000-1050 cm-1 (9.5-10 mm) in the emission spectra for the Sahara and Mediterranean Sea. Why do these dips become bumps in the emission spectrum for Antarctica?

7. 3 Jupiter and Mars

1. Jupiter is 7.8x10 8 km from the Sun. Its albedo is 0.73.

1.1 Calculate the effective temperature of Jupiter assuming that the Sun is the only energy source.

1.2 Observations indicate an effective temperature for Jupiter of 134 K. This temperature is maintained in part by heat from gravitational accretion and chemical reactions within the planet. How does the magnitude of Jupiter's internal heat source compare to the source from solar radiation?

2. Mars is 2.3x10 8 km away from the Sun; its albedo is 0.15. Its only source of heat is solar radiation.

2.1. Calculate the effective temperature of Mars.

2.2. The temperature observed at the surface of Mars is 220 K. What do you conclude about the Martian atmosphere?

7. 4 The "faint Sun" problem

Sedimentary deposits in rocks show that liquid water was present on Earth as early as 3.8 billion years ago, when solar radiation was 25% less than today according to current models of the evolution of the Sun. Consider the simple greenhouse model described in this chapter where the atmosphere is represented as a thin layer transparent to solar radiation and absorbing a fraction f of terrestrial radiation. Assume throughout this problem a constant planetary albedo A = 0.28 for the Earth.

1. If the greenhouse effect 3.8 billion years ago were the same as today (f = 0.77), what would be the surface temperature of the Earth? Would liquid water be present?

2. Current thinking is that a stronger greenhouse effect offset the weaker Sun.
Let us try to simulate this stronger greenhouse effect by keeping our 1-layer model for the atmosphere but assuming that the atmospheric layer absorbs 100% of terrestrial radiation. Calculate the resulting surface temperature. What do you conclude?

3. We can modify our model to produce a warmer surface temperature by representing the atmosphere as two superimposed layers, both transparent to solar radiation and both absorbing 100% of terrestrial radiation. Provide a physical justification for this 2-layer model. Calculate the resulting surface temperature.

4. It has been proposed that the strong greenhouse effect in the early Earth could have resulted from accumulation in the atmosphere of CO2 emitted by volcanoes. Imagine an Earth initially covered by ice. Explain why volcanic CO2 would accumulate in the atmosphere under such conditions, eventually thawing the Earth.

[To know more: Caldeira, K., and J.F. Kasting, Susceptibility of the early Earth to irreversible glaciation caused by carbon dioxide clouds, Nature, 359, 226-228, 1992.]

7. 5 Planetary skin

Consider a two-layer model for the Earth's atmosphere including:

a "main" atmospheric layer of temperature Tmain that is transparent to solar radiation and absorbs a fraction f = 0.77 of terrestrial radiation;
a "thin" atmospheric layer of temperature Tthin above this main layer that is transparent to solar radiation and absorbs a small fraction f' << 1 of terrestrial radiation. This layer is often called the "planetary skin".

Calculate the temperature Tthin. This temperature represents the coldest temperature achievable in the Earth's atmosphere in the absence of absorption of solar radiation by gas molecules. Explain briefly why.

7. 6 Absorption in the atmospheric window

The water vapor dimer absorbs radiation in the 8-12 mm atmospheric window. The resulting optical depth for an elemental atmospheric column of thickness dz is dd = krdz, where r is the mass density of air and k = 1x10 -11 P2H2O m 2 per kg of air is an absorption coefficient for the water vapor dimer; PH2O is the water vapor pressure in Pascals.

1. Explain why k varies as the square of the water vapor pressure.

2. Assuming a scale height of 4 km for the water vapor mixing ratio, a surface air density r o of 1.2 kg m -3 , and p o = 1x10 3 Pa for the water vapor pressure in surface air, calculate the total optical depth from absorption by the water vapor dimer. How efficient is the dimer at absorbing radiation in the 8-12 mm window?

That comes at the last part of the chapter you cited from.. It seems they admit there are issues with the theory. Enough issues to warrant an entire page to point them out.. Issues concerning absorption and emission discrepancies to name just one.. LOL, kind of a let down huh... ROFL..

What's more from reading the chapter we find it's a fine example of IPCC making science for you... Nice.. Tell ya what, go make a CO2 powered miracle heat engine then..LOL

THose are just homework questions chief.. If they were truly unexplainable issues, they wouldn't be given to the reader to solve.. I'm certain that the Ozone question is explainable from contents of the previous chapter.. I didn't read the 600 pages..

Can you explain why EVERY atmospheric physics text I checked has the SAME diagram showing AND CALCULATING (very accurately for the crude assumptions) the surface temp of the earth?? Was the HARVARD study guide a product of the IPCC??

I've presented pages from 9 thermo books, 2 radiative physics books and 2 atmos physics books.. As well as a tutorial prepared by the Federation of American Scientists on Atmos Physic for dummies that verifies EVERYTHING I'VE ASSERTED.. As well as knocking myself out for 4 days ----- while YOU ----
poke fun, wise crack, and make unfounded assertions..

Tell me -- are you INTERESTED in resolving this? Or are you just being entertained?
You want to be spoonfed physics or ya gonna take a bite?

 

[flacaltenn]

How about taking this back radiation to books on Atmos Physics..

Like ((Intro to Atmos Physics David G. Andrews pub 2000 Cambridge))

You were asked specifically for a classical hard physics text preaching backradiation...not a soft text used to teach the soft science of climate science, so what do you provide?

Beg to differ... Atmos Physics IS NOT climate science. THey don't give a rump about history of the climate, or tree rings or guessing a "GLOBAL albedo" or even interpreting minute swings of a degree or two..

It IS a hard science required for advance meterology, and analysis of space borne instrumentation.. Darned if I know what else..

Tell me which of the six issues you have with "back-radiation" and we can walk back from Atmos Physics all the way to straight High School Physics with NO NADA ZERO conspiracy theories..

I reposted the 6 issues in contention at this recent post.. http://www.usmessageboard.com/7561845-post2245.html

 

[flacaltenn]

Don't need one, We see it every day and the fact we have varied weather proves it. But of course you think energy emitted by the surface can be re-used to warm itself further, so it's no surprise.. SLice it any way you want, you are still re-using the same energy...

THERE --- you just SAID IT!!!! "you are reusing the same energy"..

That's true -- It's NOT high-tailing it into space. In other words

the cooling rate is reduced. And what happens if you reduce the cooling rate but keep the exact SAME conditions for the warming rate?? Go on man --- say it.. I know you can do it !!!!

Wouldn't that depend on what the cooling rate was to begin with and what it is over time? If I put a warm roast, say 100 degrees, in the refrigerator set at 40 degrees, the temperature in the fridge will be temporarily raised somewhat but the roast will cool at a certain rate. If I put the same size roast at the same temperature in the fridge set at 45 degrees, the temperature in the fridge will rise a bit more than before and the roast will not cool as rapidly, but it will still cool.

And we are assuming that there are no other variables to add to that scenario too. And I am guessing that we don't have the means to guage all the variables in warming and cooling in climate science as much as we can guage the controlled conditions in a refrigerator.

Yep.. The main heating and cooling paths have to be accounted for. Assumptions are made that solar insolation is NOT changing, and the drain rate to cold space is not changing. You might even dismiss convection and conduction as minor when calculating the radiative part of the heat budget...

This is what you do in a textbook.. You make simplifying assumptions so that the BASIC concepts are isolated and presented coherently. You cannot "teach" a comprehensive model of something like the atmos in a text. That takes a room of supercomputers and several man-years of programming.

Part of the problem with this "conspiracy" revolt is that the standard Thermo texts virtually ignore radiative heat transfer. Because it DOESN'T behave like the heat flow due to molecule flow thru materials. That connection is never really made until the students are exposed to Electromagnetic Fields and Waves or never.

That's WHY you find this problem of GreenHouse in Atmos Physics books and not really in classic Thermo. In classic thermo -- you MIGHT find a 2 body problem involving radiation. And I've shown multiple examples of that. But then -- they don't use the term "back-radiation" to describe the TWO-WAY exchange of photons between those bodies.

The problems with GreenHouse theory have to do EXACTLY with your observation about what assumptions are being made in the cheap ass climate models. And MOST of the models for AGW have been designed TO SHOW the predominant effect of CO2. You get what you program.. And I'd rather be arguing about that -- than dealing with "rogue skeptics" who deny that CO2 is a GreenHouse gas or claim that the GreenHouse effect is somehow a "perpetual motion scheme"...

 

[gslack]

How about taking this back radiation to books on Atmos Physics..

Like ((Intro to Atmos Physics David G. Andrews pub 2000 Cambridge))

From somewhere in the 1st Chapter... Close to the front.

See the down arrow from the atmos in the illust. above?? That's the back-radiation.. The pages
describe the intimate calculations for EACH of those terms. Models the earth as BBody.. Models a BIDIRECTIONAL flow of radiative heating due to the atmos.. Everything I've told you for days now...

Continuation directly below the 1st snippet above..

Want to see it in an Atmos. Physics Guide from HARVARD???

NOT ONLY DO BOTH THESE BOOKS LAY OUT THE BI-DIRECTIONAL radiation from the atmos to the ground, (and the atmos to space) ---- they actually BOTH CALCULATE the equations for all components and end up with a reasonable number for the Earth's surface temp...
I don't fault you if you can't follow the math.. But it's there. And on that -- you'll have to trust me..

Done playing here.. YOU GOT appropriate pages from EIGHT different physics at scienceofdoom.. I'm not retrieving them for you.. Can't help it if you ignore them..

Good luck with cred on this issue when you have no alternate physics for explaining why the Earth's surface
isn't closer to -4degF.

Yes, yes we have established it's taught in climate science already.. Is this thing on?

Taught in climate science got it... What you have found is a link to a book on climate science..Nice, now please show me that first, it is established fact, and second that it is standard in PHYSICS.. Not climate science version... But no matter here's a part of your book you didn't cite..

PROBLEMS

PROBLEMS

7. 1 Climate response to changes in ozone

Simulations with a general circulation model (GCM) have been used to investigate the climate sensitivity to large changes in atmospheric ozone. Explain qualitatively the results below.

1. A simulation in which all O3 above 30 km altitude is removed shows a large tropospheric warming (+1-3oC) and a very large stratospheric cooling (up to -80oC).

2. A simulation where all O3 in the upper troposphere is removed shows a 1oC cooling of the Earth's surface, while a simulation where the same amount of O3 is removed but in the lower troposphere shows no significant temperature change.

[Source: Hansen, J., et al., Radiative forcing and climate response, J. Geophys. Res., 102, 6831-6864, 1997.]

7. 2 Interpretation of the terrestrial radiation spectrum

The Figure below shows terrestrial emission spectra measured from a satellite over northern Africa, the Mediterranean Sea, and and Antarctica. The spectra are reported as a function of wavenumber, which is the inverse of wavelength.

1. Estimate from the spectra the surface temperature of each region.

2. Explain the dips at 600-700 cm-1 (14-16 mm) and 1000-1050 cm-1 (9.5-10 mm) in the emission spectra for the Sahara and Mediterranean Sea. Why do these dips become bumps in the emission spectrum for Antarctica?

7. 3 Jupiter and Mars

1. Jupiter is 7.8x10 8 km from the Sun. Its albedo is 0.73.

1.1 Calculate the effective temperature of Jupiter assuming that the Sun is the only energy source.

1.2 Observations indicate an effective temperature for Jupiter of 134 K. This temperature is maintained in part by heat from gravitational accretion and chemical reactions within the planet. How does the magnitude of Jupiter's internal heat source compare to the source from solar radiation?

2. Mars is 2.3x10 8 km away from the Sun; its albedo is 0.15. Its only source of heat is solar radiation.

2.1. Calculate the effective temperature of Mars.

2.2. The temperature observed at the surface of Mars is 220 K. What do you conclude about the Martian atmosphere?

7. 4 The "faint Sun" problem

Sedimentary deposits in rocks show that liquid water was present on Earth as early as 3.8 billion years ago, when solar radiation was 25% less than today according to current models of the evolution of the Sun. Consider the simple greenhouse model described in this chapter where the atmosphere is represented as a thin layer transparent to solar radiation and absorbing a fraction f of terrestrial radiation. Assume throughout this problem a constant planetary albedo A = 0.28 for the Earth.

1. If the greenhouse effect 3.8 billion years ago were the same as today (f = 0.77), what would be the surface temperature of the Earth? Would liquid water be present?

2. Current thinking is that a stronger greenhouse effect offset the weaker Sun.
Let us try to simulate this stronger greenhouse effect by keeping our 1-layer model for the atmosphere but assuming that the atmospheric layer absorbs 100% of terrestrial radiation. Calculate the resulting surface temperature. What do you conclude?

3. We can modify our model to produce a warmer surface temperature by representing the atmosphere as two superimposed layers, both transparent to solar radiation and both absorbing 100% of terrestrial radiation. Provide a physical justification for this 2-layer model. Calculate the resulting surface temperature.

4. It has been proposed that the strong greenhouse effect in the early Earth could have resulted from accumulation in the atmosphere of CO2 emitted by volcanoes. Imagine an Earth initially covered by ice. Explain why volcanic CO2 would accumulate in the atmosphere under such conditions, eventually thawing the Earth.

[To know more: Caldeira, K., and J.F. Kasting, Susceptibility of the early Earth to irreversible glaciation caused by carbon dioxide clouds, Nature, 359, 226-228, 1992.]

7. 5 Planetary skin

Consider a two-layer model for the Earth's atmosphere including:

a "main" atmospheric layer of temperature Tmain that is transparent to solar radiation and absorbs a fraction f = 0.77 of terrestrial radiation;
a "thin" atmospheric layer of temperature Tthin above this main layer that is transparent to solar radiation and absorbs a small fraction f' << 1 of terrestrial radiation. This layer is often called the "planetary skin".

Calculate the temperature Tthin. This temperature represents the coldest temperature achievable in the Earth's atmosphere in the absence of absorption of solar radiation by gas molecules. Explain briefly why.

7. 6 Absorption in the atmospheric window

The water vapor dimer absorbs radiation in the 8-12 mm atmospheric window. The resulting optical depth for an elemental atmospheric column of thickness dz is dd = krdz, where r is the mass density of air and k = 1x10 -11 P2H2O m 2 per kg of air is an absorption coefficient for the water vapor dimer; PH2O is the water vapor pressure in Pascals.

1. Explain why k varies as the square of the water vapor pressure.

2. Assuming a scale height of 4 km for the water vapor mixing ratio, a surface air density r o of 1.2 kg m -3 , and p o = 1x10 3 Pa for the water vapor pressure in surface air, calculate the total optical depth from absorption by the water vapor dimer. How efficient is the dimer at absorbing radiation in the 8-12 mm window?

That comes at the last part of the chapter you cited from.. It seems they admit there are issues with the theory. Enough issues to warrant an entire page to point them out.. Issues concerning absorption and emission discrepancies to name just one.. LOL, kind of a let down huh... ROFL..

What's more from reading the chapter we find it's a fine example of IPCC making science for you... Nice.. Tell ya what, go make a CO2 powered miracle heat engine then..LOL

THose are just homework questions chief.. If they were truly unexplainable issues, they wouldn't be given to the reader to solve.. I'm certain that the Ozone question is explainable from contents of the previous chapter.. I didn't read the 600 pages..

Can you explain why EVERY atmospheric physics text I checked has the SAME diagram showing AND CALCULATING (very accurately for the crude assumptions) the surface temp of the earth?? Was the HARVARD study guide a product of the IPCC??

I've presented pages from 9 thermo books, 2 radiative physics books and 2 atmos physics books.. As well as a tutorial prepared by the Federation of American Scientists on Atmos Physic for dummies that verifies EVERYTHING I'VE ASSERTED.. As well as knocking myself out for 4 days ----- while YOU ----
poke fun, wise crack, and make unfounded assertions..

Tell me -- are you INTERESTED in resolving this? Or are you just being entertained?
You want to be spoonfed physics or ya gonna take a bite?

OH.. so they are problems for a student to figure out then... That explains a lot... But not why it was put up as simply "problems".. Seems odd for a text book.. Oh that's right,it's not a text book it's an introduction to IPCC atmospheric climate science... My bad...Sorry, the format was a bit ridiculous..

Point still remains though.. You submitted pages from two climate science books and as far as their being text books actually used, we don't know that. After all they are web published books. Not exactly a guarantee they are legitimate text books at all...

But hey, you believe that we can re-use the same energy naturally so,what you call a text book might be something else..

So you and Ian go make your incredible CO2 energy recycling miracle device working and patent it quick before someone else does... LOL,the things been a theory for how long now and not one device capitalizes on it???? Not even one? A hair dryer even? How about a soup warmer? NADA.. not a thing...

It has to be the most amazing thing never capitalized on... But you two got this I'm sure ..

 

[SSDD]

In order to discount that trace gas's ability to re-radiate heat to the surface, you'd have to also dismiss the ability of water vapor to be a major player in the reason the planet isn't a sno-cone.. And I don't want to do this "CO2 can't store no heat" biz with you again..

I acknowledged that CO2 can store heat. Of course it can't store it at a temperature above 0.01675K or -459.63985 F at atmospheric pressure, but I am not sure how that helps your argument.

Water actually can store heat at atmospheric pressure...CO2 can't. It can't store heat in its gas form.

 

[Foxfyre]

THERE --- you just SAID IT!!!! "you are reusing the same energy"..

That's true -- It's NOT high-tailing it into space. In other words

the cooling rate is reduced. And what happens if you reduce the cooling rate but keep the exact SAME conditions for the warming rate?? Go on man --- say it.. I know you can do it !!!!

Wouldn't that depend on what the cooling rate was to begin with and what it is over time? If I put a warm roast, say 100 degrees, in the refrigerator set at 40 degrees, the temperature in the fridge will be temporarily raised somewhat but the roast will cool at a certain rate. If I put the same size roast at the same temperature in the fridge set at 45 degrees, the temperature in the fridge will rise a bit more than before and the roast will not cool as rapidly, but it will still cool.

And we are assuming that there are no other variables to add to that scenario too. And I am guessing that we don't have the means to guage all the variables in warming and cooling in climate science as much as we can guage the controlled conditions in a refrigerator.

Yep.. The main heating and cooling paths have to be accounted for. Assumptions are made that solar insolation is NOT changing, and the drain rate to cold space is not changing. You might even dismiss convection and conduction as minor when calculating the radiative part of the heat budget...

This is what you do in a textbook.. You make simplifying assumptions so that the BASIC concepts are isolated and presented coherently. You cannot "teach" a comprehensive model of something like the atmos in a text. That takes a room of supercomputers and several man-years of programming.

Part of the problem with this "conspiracy" revolt is that the standard Thermo texts virtually ignore radiative heat transfer. Because it DOESN'T behave like the heat flow due to molecule flow thru materials. That connection is never really made until the students are exposed to Electromagnetic Fields and Waves or never.

That's WHY you find this problem of GreenHouse in Atmos Physics books and not really in classic Thermo. In classic thermo -- you MIGHT find a 2 body problem involving radiation. And I've shown multiple examples of that. But then -- they don't use the term "back-radiation" to describe the TWO-WAY exchange of photons between those bodies.

The problems with GreenHouse theory have to do EXACTLY with your observation about what assumptions are being made in the cheap ass climate models. And MOST of the models for AGW have been designed TO SHOW the predominant effect of CO2. You get what you program.. And I'd rather be arguing about that -- than dealing with "rogue skeptics" who deny that CO2 is a GreenHouse gas or claim that the GreenHouse effect is somehow a "perpetual motion scheme"...

And, to go back to the refrigerator analogy, just some of the variables affecting the rate at which a warm roast will cool will also be affected by whether the refrigerator is empty or whether there are other already chilled substances around it, where it is placed in the refrigerator, how it is wrapped or whether it is covered, etc. etc. etc.

In climate science we can easily argue that we all share the same pool of air and mostly the same sea water, and yet there are huge variables in the temperature of air and water depending on where it is located on the planet. So warming in the arctic does not produce an equal warming in the Anarctic region etc. Water in the gulf stream will be even of a somewhat different chemistry than that in the Bering Sea. The air in the jet streams behaves much differently than air over the Equator, etc.

Unless ALL possible variables are entered into the climate models, and that would be humanly impossible to accomplish with the technology we have at this time, to put all our faith in those climate models to determine our fate as a people is foolish at best; criminal at worst.

 

[mamooth]

Water actually can store heat at atmospheric pressure...CO2 can't. It can't store heat in its gas form.

You often talk about enthalpy and heat capacity as if they're the same thing, switching back and forth between them. You have to, to make your crazy theory work.

Let's look at your "Deserts get cold at night because there's no water vapor in the air to store heat!" line of reasoning.

If you're strictly talking heat capacity, water vapor has a heat capacity about double of dry air. Water vapor makes up about 1% of the atmosphere at 50% humidity. Thus, moist air will have a heat capacity of 1.01 times that of dry air. 1% more. Simply not significant. Heat capacity can't explain your theory.

So, you'll have to jump back to enthalpy to explain it. To release the heat you're talking about, the water vapor in the atmosphere in humid regions would have to be constantly condensing all night long to release the stored heat. But I can go outside at night at my house on a hot night, and water isn't condensing on me or falling from the skies. The condensing isn't happening, and the heat is clearly not from enthalpy.

Your theory only works if you take the very large value of water vapor enthalpy and secretly pull a switcharoo and shove it into the equation in place of the small value for water vapor heat capacity. Nonsense junk science on your part.

 

[itfitzme]

Water actually can store heat at atmospheric pressure...CO2 can't. It can't store heat in its gas form.

You often talk about enthalpy and heat capacity as if they're the same thing, switching back and forth between them. You have to, to make your crazy theory work.

Let's look at your "Deserts get cold at night because there's no water vapor in the air to store heat!" line of reasoning.

If you're strictly talking heat capacity, water vapor has a heat capacity about double of dry air. Water vapor makes up about 1% of the atmosphere at 50% humidity. Thus, moist air will have a heat capacity of 1.01 times that of dry air. 1% more. Simply not significant. Heat capacity can't explain your theory.

So, you'll have to jump back to enthalpy to explain it. To release the heat you're talking about, the water vapor in the atmosphere in humid regions would have to be constantly condensing all night long to release the stored heat. But I can go outside at night at my house on a hot night, and water isn't condensing on me or falling from the skies. The condensing isn't happening, and the heat is clearly not from enthalpy.

Your theory only works if you take the very large value of water vapor enthalpy and secretly pull a switcharoo and shove it into the equation in place of the small value for water vapor heat capacity. Nonsense junk science on your part.

Nice. Units and quantities are everything. Without them, qualities get mixed around as being synonymous and scale is entirely ignored. Sure, there are potential effects that, when the scale is properly attended to, are entitely inneffective.

Thanks.

 

[gslack]

Water actually can store heat at atmospheric pressure...CO2 can't. It can't store heat in its gas form.

You often talk about enthalpy and heat capacity as if they're the same thing, switching back and forth between them. You have to, to make your crazy theory work.

Let's look at your "Deserts get cold at night because there's no water vapor in the air to store heat!" line of reasoning.

If you're strictly talking heat capacity, water vapor has a heat capacity about double of dry air. Water vapor makes up about 1% of the atmosphere at 50% humidity. Thus, moist air will have a heat capacity of 1.01 times that of dry air. 1% more. Simply not significant. Heat capacity can't explain your theory.

So, you'll have to jump back to enthalpy to explain it. To release the heat you're talking about, the water vapor in the atmosphere in humid regions would have to be constantly condensing all night long to release the stored heat. But I can go outside at night at my house on a hot night, and water isn't condensing on me or falling from the skies. The condensing isn't happening, and the heat is clearly not from enthalpy.

Your theory only works if you take the very large value of water vapor enthalpy and secretly pull a switcharoo and shove it into the equation in place of the small value for water vapor heat capacity. Nonsense junk science on your part.

Nice. Units and quantities are everything. Without them, qualities get mixed around as being synonymous and scale is entirely ignored. Sure, there are potential effects that, when the scale is properly attended to, are entitely inneffective.

Thanks.

Yes and if BS and boot-licking your sock was useful, you would be forum president..

LOL get a room socko..

 

[gslack]

Just wanted to point out a few things..

1. The so-called links to text books.. So far only one was actually to a text book, and that one did not even mention backradiation, and despite the claims of flac, it had a very robust section on radiative transfer. In fact the books title was, "the fundamentals of heat and mass transfer".. LOL yeah it was on heat transfer specifically.. And no mention of backradiation. Just radiation...

2. GH gases in their natural state on earth do not store heat. A gas in our atmosphere lacks the extra molecular bonds to effectively store heat for any noticeable amount of time.. HOWEVER, gases thermal and thermodynamic properties change with their temperature and density. Meaning high or low pressure and higher or lower temps change their properties. ALSO, the more complex the gas compound at the molecular level, the greater it's ability to slow heat transfer. More molecular bonds means more bonds to react with and so on. Hence GH gases in particular stronger reactions to IR.

3. A nice graphic and explanation from NASA..

Now IF that is true, than any incidental back radiation effecting any of the objects is bogus..

 

[flacaltenn]

In order to discount that trace gas's ability to re-radiate heat to the surface, you'd have to also dismiss the ability of water vapor to be a major player in the reason the planet isn't a sno-cone.. And I don't want to do this "CO2 can't store no heat" biz with you again..

I acknowledged that CO2 can store heat. Of course it can't store it at a temperature above 0.01675K or -459.63985 F at atmospheric pressure, but I am not sure how that helps your argument.

Water actually can store heat at atmospheric pressure...CO2 can't. It can't store heat in its gas form.

OMG --- Not this again.. So if I try to impart a calibrated temp to a container of CO2, the stuff will NOT heat above 0.016K ?? Holy Jesus --- that's a MIRACLE.. The ultimate HEATSINK. Returns to abs Zero when you try to raise it's temp.. Please contact the Vatican..

Oh and tell THESE folks too...

http://www.durr-cleantechnology.com/environmental-and-energy-systems-products/co2-heat-pumps/

 

[flacaltenn]

Wouldn't that depend on what the cooling rate was to begin with and what it is over time? If I put a warm roast, say 100 degrees, in the refrigerator set at 40 degrees, the temperature in the fridge will be temporarily raised somewhat but the roast will cool at a certain rate. If I put the same size roast at the same temperature in the fridge set at 45 degrees, the temperature in the fridge will rise a bit more than before and the roast will not cool as rapidly, but it will still cool.

And we are assuming that there are no other variables to add to that scenario too. And I am guessing that we don't have the means to guage all the variables in warming and cooling in climate science as much as we can guage the controlled conditions in a refrigerator.

Yep.. The main heating and cooling paths have to be accounted for. Assumptions are made that solar insolation is NOT changing, and the drain rate to cold space is not changing. You might even dismiss convection and conduction as minor when calculating the radiative part of the heat budget...

This is what you do in a textbook.. You make simplifying assumptions so that the BASIC concepts are isolated and presented coherently. You cannot "teach" a comprehensive model of something like the atmos in a text. That takes a room of supercomputers and several man-years of programming.

Part of the problem with this "conspiracy" revolt is that the standard Thermo texts virtually ignore radiative heat transfer. Because it DOESN'T behave like the heat flow due to molecule flow thru materials. That connection is never really made until the students are exposed to Electromagnetic Fields and Waves or never.

That's WHY you find this problem of GreenHouse in Atmos Physics books and not really in classic Thermo. In classic thermo -- you MIGHT find a 2 body problem involving radiation. And I've shown multiple examples of that. But then -- they don't use the term "back-radiation" to describe the TWO-WAY exchange of photons between those bodies.

The problems with GreenHouse theory have to do EXACTLY with your observation about what assumptions are being made in the cheap ass climate models. And MOST of the models for AGW have been designed TO SHOW the predominant effect of CO2. You get what you program.. And I'd rather be arguing about that -- than dealing with "rogue skeptics" who deny that CO2 is a GreenHouse gas or claim that the GreenHouse effect is somehow a "perpetual motion scheme"...

And, to go back to the refrigerator analogy, just some of the variables affecting the rate at which a warm roast will cool will also be affected by whether the refrigerator is empty or whether there are other already chilled substances around it, where it is placed in the refrigerator, how it is wrapped or whether it is covered, etc. etc. etc.

In climate science we can easily argue that we all share the same pool of air and mostly the same sea water, and yet there are huge variables in the temperature of air and water depending on where it is located on the planet. So warming in the arctic does not produce an equal warming in the Anarctic region etc. Water in the gulf stream will be even of a somewhat different chemistry than that in the Bering Sea. The air in the jet streams behaves much differently than air over the Equator, etc.

Unless ALL possible variables are entered into the climate models, and that would be humanly impossible to accomplish with the technology we have at this time, to put all our faith in those climate models to determine our fate as a people is foolish at best; criminal at worst.

This is exactly why it's juvenile to reduce the entire AGW argument to ONE FREAKING number.. That "global mean surface temp anomaly" --- entirely rubbish.. It's been packaged for general public consumption..

There are other single numbers of convienience that are purposely there to "dumb-down" the climate science for public consumption.. The largest offender is trying to come up with a SINGLE number (again) for "climate sensitivity".. That's the multiplier that gives CO2 warming it's SuperPowers.. Any thinking person knows that the response of the Arctic to a 1degC change is gonna be different than the tropics. In fact Climate Sensitivity varies HOUR by HOUR and SEASON by SEASON. That snow cover changes the albedo and the "climate sensitivity".. When you average ALL of these variant functions together into a SINGLE number --- you get noise and confusion..

The Trenberth diagram is yet another sparse model of energy exchange. It doesn't know day from night, winter from summer, median lattitudes from tropics.

YET --- THOSE 3 things are what we fight about... And except for skirmishes like this one -- we almost NEVER get into the details of the science behind the simplifications...

 

[flacaltenn]

Just wanted to point out a few things..

1. The so-called links to text books.. So far only one was actually to a text book, and that one did not even mention backradiation, and despite the claims of flac, it had a very robust section on radiative transfer. In fact the books title was, "the fundamentals of heat and mass transfer".. LOL yeah it was on heat transfer specifically.. And no mention of backradiation. Just radiation...

2. GH gases in their natural state on earth do not store heat. A gas in our atmosphere lacks the extra molecular bonds to effectively store heat for any noticeable amount of time.. HOWEVER, gases thermal and thermodynamic properties change with their temperature and density. Meaning high or low pressure and higher or lower temps change their properties. ALSO, the more complex the gas compound at the molecular level, the greater it's ability to slow heat transfer. More molecular bonds means more bonds to react with and so on. Hence GH gases in particular stronger reactions to IR.

3. A nice graphic and explanation from NASA..

Now IF that is true, than any incidental back radiation effecting any of the objects is bogus..

Not expending any more energy on this with you unless you tell me which of the six issues in contention is bugging you.. I've posted the list THREE TIMES now..

You are playing 2 of the issues here in this one post.. That because backradiation is mentioned in basic thermo --- it can't exist.. And the other is that objects in thermal equilibrium CEASE to radiate at each other under thermal equilibrium (DSlack Physics).. That's your HS level NASA diagram.. Radiative Physics says those objects are STILL back radiating at EACH OTHER in equal and opposite directions.

Right now you're lying about what I've given.. There were 8 THERMO texts quoted in Scienceofdoom and no EARTHLY reason why I or anyone else would have to go and independently retrieve those references.. YOU just ignored them.. with no comments..

Comment on the six issues, put them in YOUR ORDER of wrongness and we can continue..

 

[gslack]

Just wanted to point out a few things..

1. The so-called links to text books.. So far only one was actually to a text book, and that one did not even mention backradiation, and despite the claims of flac, it had a very robust section on radiative transfer. In fact the books title was, "the fundamentals of heat and mass transfer".. LOL yeah it was on heat transfer specifically.. And no mention of backradiation. Just radiation...

2. GH gases in their natural state on earth do not store heat. A gas in our atmosphere lacks the extra molecular bonds to effectively store heat for any noticeable amount of time.. HOWEVER, gases thermal and thermodynamic properties change with their temperature and density. Meaning high or low pressure and higher or lower temps change their properties. ALSO, the more complex the gas compound at the molecular level, the greater it's ability to slow heat transfer. More molecular bonds means more bonds to react with and so on. Hence GH gases in particular stronger reactions to IR.

3. A nice graphic and explanation from NASA..

Now IF that is true, than any incidental back radiation effecting any of the objects is bogus..

Not expending any more energy on this with you unless you tell me which of the six issues in contention is bugging you.. I've posted the list THREE TIMES now..

You are playing 2 of the issues here in this one post.. That because backradiation is mentioned in basic thermo --- it can't exist.. And the other is that objects in thermal equilibrium CEASE to radiate at each other under thermal equilibrium (DSlack Physics).. That's your HS level NASA diagram.. Radiative Physics says those objects are STILL back radiating at EACH OTHER in equal and opposite directions.

Right now you're lying about what I've given.. There were 8 THERMO texts quoted in Scienceofdoom and no EARTHLY reason why I or anyone else would have to go and independently retrieve those references.. YOU just ignored them.. with no comments..

Comment on the six issues, put them in YOUR ORDER of wrongness and we can continue..

It wasn't basic "thermo" it was a proper text book.. Hell you brought it into the discussion. You just don't like it now that it defies your logic.. Sorry but that's the difference between pseudo-climate science and real science..

I already addressed your list specifically in a previous post, but if you feel taking the Ian route is best be my guest. Just deny it was addressed and keep on dancing..

The graphic and simple rule under it, explains a great deal.. For instance, how can backradiation effect change in that graphic if the rule is correct? IF correct, then there could not be any heat gain from incidental backradiation from any of the three objects.. Otherwise the rule is wrong. IF backradiation exists and does as you claim, then the rule cannot be correct... SO which is it? IF as we all know all things radiate, and as you state they cannot decide which direction to radiate or not radiate in even if one direction is warmer, and that backradiation does effect change in other objects around it, than this thermodynamic equilibrium rule here cannot be so. In fact the concept of thermodynamic equilibrium is put into question if your claim is correct as you state it..

How could things ever reach thermodynamic equilibrium between 3 objects if backradiation from each object warms the other object and so on?

See what happens when you actually apply your BS theory? It creates havok. You claim it doesn't violate any laws but in practice it clearly does. Re-using the same energy for the same purpose and in the same system creates an infinite feedback loop..

 

[flacaltenn]

Just wanted to point out a few things..

1. The so-called links to text books.. So far only one was actually to a text book, and that one did not even mention backradiation, and despite the claims of flac, it had a very robust section on radiative transfer. In fact the books title was, "the fundamentals of heat and mass transfer".. LOL yeah it was on heat transfer specifically.. And no mention of backradiation. Just radiation...

2. GH gases in their natural state on earth do not store heat. A gas in our atmosphere lacks the extra molecular bonds to effectively store heat for any noticeable amount of time.. HOWEVER, gases thermal and thermodynamic properties change with their temperature and density. Meaning high or low pressure and higher or lower temps change their properties. ALSO, the more complex the gas compound at the molecular level, the greater it's ability to slow heat transfer. More molecular bonds means more bonds to react with and so on. Hence GH gases in particular stronger reactions to IR.

3. A nice graphic and explanation from NASA..

Now IF that is true, than any incidental back radiation effecting any of the objects is bogus..

Not expending any more energy on this with you unless you tell me which of the six issues in contention is bugging you.. I've posted the list THREE TIMES now..

You are playing 2 of the issues here in this one post.. That because backradiation is mentioned in basic thermo --- it can't exist.. And the other is that objects in thermal equilibrium CEASE to radiate at each other under thermal equilibrium (DSlack Physics).. That's your HS level NASA diagram.. Radiative Physics says those objects are STILL back radiating at EACH OTHER in equal and opposite directions.

Right now you're lying about what I've given.. There were 8 THERMO texts quoted in Scienceofdoom and no EARTHLY reason why I or anyone else would have to go and independently retrieve those references.. YOU just ignored them.. with no comments..

Comment on the six issues, put them in YOUR ORDER of wrongness and we can continue..

It wasn't basic "thermo" it was a proper text book.. Hell you brought it into the discussion. You just don't like it now that it defies your logic.. Sorry but that's the difference between pseudo-climate science and real science..

I already addressed your list specifically in a previous post, but if you feel taking the Ian route is best be my guest. Just deny it was addressed and keep on dancing..

Please provide the post link where you told me WHICH of the 6 issues were a problem to you...

The graphic and simple rule under it, explains a great deal.. For instance, how can backradiation effect change in that graphic if the rule is correct? IF correct, then there could not be any heat gain from incidental backradiation from any of the three objects.. Otherwise the rule is wrong. IF backradiation exists and does as you claim, then the rule cannot be correct... SO which is it? IF as we all know all things radiate, and as you state they cannot decide which direction to radiate or not radiate in even if one direction is warmer, and that backradiation does effect change in other objects around it, than this thermodynamic equilibrium rule here cannot be so. In fact the concept of thermodynamic equilibrium is put into question if your claim is correct as you state it..

How could things ever reach thermodynamic equilibrium between 3 objects if backradiation from each object warms the other object and so on?

See what happens when you actually apply your BS theory? It creates havok. You claim it doesn't violate any laws but in practice it clearly does. Re-using the same energy for the same purpose and in the same system creates an infinite feedback loop..

We don't even know if those 3 objects are in a vacuum or air or water.. Would make a diff as to the major component of thermal prop being conduction or radiation..

Point is --- according to BBody Physics --- those objects are STILL radiating photons.. If you DENY this --- please provide me a reference that says that a BlackBody radiates CONDITIONALLY depending on what surrounds it.. That statement doesn't exist in science.

So from the appropriate RADIATIVE thermo view.. The bodies are exchanging the appropriate amount of photons to make EQUAL AND OPPOSITE changes to their temp. ((Excluding considerations of the MUTUAL loss rate to the world outside of the cartoon))

If that WASN'T true, you could not read their temp with an IR thermometer in equilibrium.. QED...

No havok. No BS.. Now be a good little whiner and go show me a single reference that says BBody RADIATION of EM IR STOPS when it reaches equilibrium with it's surroundings.

That BI-DIRECTIONAL exchange INCLUDES "back-radiation" from EACH of the bodies.

I'd appreciate if you save the victory dance on my mangled corpse til you actually land a punch.. My patience is about gone...

If you DON'T link to where you the discussed the six issues --- I'm pretty much done with the tutorial part of this thread..