Jo Nova energy balance

[flacaltenn]

The proper form for the SB equation when a radiator is emitting into its surroundings is

. It is the form found in hard physics classes. The form you reference

is found in physics for soft sciences and is incorrect. For example, the correct form is found in highly respected texts such as:

Please -- I''m begging you --- drop this. I don't want to see the carnage.
The "2 forms" you display are IDENTICAL. By way of 10th grade math..

Or did you not learn the distributive property of multiplication?

 

[SSDD]

There is no “my version.” It is the version of all scientists. Secondly, T should never be set to absolute zero. T=0 is not found in any natural process under discussion. Thirdly, I have no idea why you would want to set T to zero.

There is the version that Planck proved and received a nobel prize for it (the one I provided) and then there is a version which has not been proved and disregards the basic assumption of the SB law. (the one you brought as evidence)

Your statement misses the fact that in a system with an object at any one temperature and a surround at any other temperature, both are radiators and absorbers. The roles are both the same and not altered.

Talk to Planck...he proved the version I provided...and your claim misses the fact that the actual SB and its associated equations...proofs which resulted in Nobel prizes being awarded to those who provided the proof describes a one way gross energy flow. Can you provide a proof for the version which you prefer which describes two way net flows...my bet is that you can't so you have effectively lost the argument already no matter how much you twist and gyrate or how many mental gymnastics you perform...The version I accept is the version that has been proven..yours has not.

The difference form of the equation simply means that when the two temperatures are the same, the absorption has the same magnitude as the emission. That idea is in countless physics books.

]]

The primary difference is that in the version you provided you must set T=0 and that violates the basic assumption of the SB law which assumes that T is always greater than Tc. That is why the version I provided has been proven and the version you provided has not....the fact that a text book would disregard the version proven by Planck himself for an unproven version should tell you much about the author...and the idea is not in "countless" textbooks...it is in a limited number used to teach physics for soft sciences such as climate science.

You have it backwards. The difference form of the equation is a simplification of the two equations that define emission and absorption.

Sorry guy...if you don't even grasp what the equation is describing, you really don't have a chance..as if you had a chance against an equation proven by Planck himself. here, let me help you out and clue you in as to exactly what is happening in each equation.

This is the equation that Planck proved and got himself a nobel.

where P= the radiating power of the radiator...A = the radiating area of the radiator Sigma = Stefan's Constant e = the emissivity of the radiator T = the temperature of the radiator Tc= the temperature of the radiator's surroundings. The equation states that the radiating power of the radiator is dependent on the emissivity of the radiator X Stefan's Constant X the Area of the radiator times (the difference between the temperature of the radiator and its surroundings......that's it. T must always be greater than zero.

The equation you provided on the other hand takes this form

The first problem with this equation is that it applies the SB constant twice...certainly not part of Planck's proof. The second is that it violates the law by having to set T=0... It is in fact, that particular use of the SB equation from which the large temperature increases per doubling of CO2 are derived....even climate science has scaled back its estimates of climate sensitivity to CO2...and will continue to scale them back till they are zero or less....Then there is the problem of making the radiator become the background and the background become the radiator....again, not part of Planck's nobel winning proof of the SB law....

Both equations are valid and have been used to define the SB law, as long as you correctly understand what each form means. So, if you want to think that way, both forms of the equation should support both alarmism and skepticism.

No...both are not valid...One has been proven by no less than Planck himself for which he received a Nobel prize...the other is a misinterpretation of the SB law which remains unproven. They describe two different things....the proven equation describes a one way gross energy flow from warm to cool...the unproven version describes a two way net flow...one is proven...one is not...one is valid...the other is not.

Plank refers to a condition of thermodynamic equilibrium, in which
"any two bodies or elements of bodies selected at random exchange by radiation equal amounts of heat with each other."

(Planck, M. (1914). The Theory of Heat Radiation, p. 40 )​

That was written in 1914...he received his Nobel in 1919 by proving the SB law....i.e....one way gross energy flow.
​

As I said earlier setting T=0 is not valid. Not in any application in this galaxy.

And yet T must equal 0 in the version of the equation you provide.

A century ago Einstein show a detailed-balance, or reciprocity in absorption and emission of EM energy in atomic systems. It is that reciprocity that requires that the absorption and emission be given by the same mathematical form when it comes to black body radiation. Remember a black body is both a perfect emitter and absorber. In reality emission and absorption are both equally modified in the same way by the emissivity.

Actually he theorized that reciprocity...and it remains an unproven artifact of a mathematical model.

The short answer is that in the subtractive form the equation can validly represent both absorption and emission, and their roles can be reversed if the temperature difference is reversed.

The shorter answer is that one is valid....proven by Planck...the other is not. Afraid you lose.

It is the detailed-balance aspect that is confusing you when the emission and absorption are combined into one equation.

No...its the fact that your version is unproven and invalid....the one I reference has been proven. One is valid...the other is not... I won't discuss the topic further unless you can provide proof for the version you reference as further discussion will not prove your version....you can't prove it..no one can which is why it remains unproven...what could possibly be gained by talking about it further? You certainly aren't going to prove it here. You will just talk and talk and talk while proving nothing while the version I use remains proven.

 

[SSDD]

Please -- I''m begging you --- drop this. I don't want to see the carnage.
The "2 forms" you display are IDENTICAL. By way of 10th grade math..

Or did you not learn the distributive property of multiplication?

First, we aren't talking about 10th grade math....we are talking about an equation that is describing a physical process happening in reality...changing the description of that process changes the reality into unreality. The the fact that the answers are the same is irrelevant when you are changing the process...

You win a million dollars.....you promptly lose it = Flacaltenn has 0 dollars

You win a million dollars....you invest and triple your money...you have a fabulous life for 20 years....your accountant steals your money = flacaltenn has 0 dollars.

The bottom line is the same but are they describing the same processes? That equation that I provided is describing something...you can't simply alter the description of what is happening even if it doesn't change the answer....one is reality..the other is not and getting the same answer via unreality is simply not how physics is done...

Tell me flacaltenn....why would one even apply the distributive property to an equation that is already as elegant as it will ever be? Aside from that I would have thought that you, of all people, would know that in physics each expression means something and when one applies an algebraic property to an equation that the reason for applying the property must be defined and justified....can you justify applying the distributive property to an already elegant equation?....Is the distributive property not used primarily to simplify equations? Why apply a property used to simplify to an already elegant equation?

 

[Wuwei]

Here are some excerpts of your post.

…Planck proved and received a nobel prize …
…Talk to Planck...he proved the version I provided …
…proofs which resulted in Nobel prizes ,,,
…proven by Planck himself …
…an equation proven by Planck himself …
…that Planck proved and got himself a nobel. …
…certainly not part of Planck's proof. ....
…again, not part of Planck's nobel winning proof of the SB law …
…One has been proven by no less than Planck himself for which he received a Nobel prize ...
…That was written in 1914...he received his Nobel in 1919 by proving the SB law....
…one is valid....proven by Planck...
…version I use remains proven...

The irony is that Plank did not get a Nobel Prize in 1918 for proving anything about what Stefan and Boltzmann did, unless you show me otherwise. His prize was for discovering that energy was quantized etc.

My god SSDD, you have gone over the deep end, even for you. However, your posts are always a joy to read. I wish I had a video of you typing that repetitious rant so I could see your beet red face, your eyes bulging, and your lips drooling on your keyboard while you ranted on about something you got totally wrong. You don't understand that every physicist disagrees with you. I mean EVERY physicist including Plank.

I would really like you to show me Plank's step by step proof of the SB law.
"[in equilibrium] any two bodies or elements of bodies selected at random exchange by radiation equal amounts of heat with each other."
(Planck, M. (1914). The Theory of Heat Radiation, p. 40 )

You are saying Plank changed his mind about that and said bodies at the same temperature don't radiate to each other at all, and got a Nobel Prize for that?!

Tell me if you think that the radiation between two identical incandescent flashlights disappears when aimed at each other. After all, your (mis)understanding of the SB equation says that the temperatures would subtract to zero.

 

[IanC]

I have been arguing a similar type of explanation for years. a bottleneck at the surface with only 10 micron radiation getting out

Bottleneck, by definition, demands a hot spot...where is it?

obviously at the surface.

are you confusing the predicted mid trophospheric hotspot caused by extra evaporation, hence the positive feedback assumed, for something else? (its not there, btw)

The satellite data shows no surface hot spot..

you claim to be 'all scienced up' but your words say the opposite.

I say there is a radiation bottleneck at the surface-atmosphere boundary. what is my proof?

if the Earth had no atmosphere it would warm up and cool off more quickly as it revolves but the average surface temperature would be lower than it is presently.

if the Earth had an atmosphere of only non-GHGs, the temperature swings from day-to-night would be more moderate because the heatsink of the atmosphere would take up heat during the day and release it during the night. the average surface temp would be higher than the no atmosphere example. already the bottleneck has begun to form, as the atmosphere is returning some of the energy that the surface has imparted to it. at this point remember that all surface radiation is escaping directly into space. the atmosphere is only warming by conduction from the surface, a very limited amount of convection, and some absorption of solar.

now add GHGs, especially H2O, but CO2 and others also have an effect. 90% of the surface radiation is absorbed with only 10% escaping freely. that energy becomes part of the total atmospheric energy and much of it is available as kinetic energy, also known as temperature. we truly have a large bottleneck now. the surface temperature is much higher than the no atmosphere or the non-GHG atmosphere examples. note well that rudimentary equilibrium all three examples have the same amount of energy coming in as going out. the energy to fill the heatsinks has been 'borrowed' from radiation out while moving towards equilibrium.

I say there is a very large bottleneck at the surface/atmosphere boundary, with about 90% of surface radiation used to heat the atmosphere within the first few tens of metres, which in turn returns some of that energy to the surface.


I have said all this many times before. I havent even touched on water vapour and the convection/phase change cycles. Dont believe me? explain how else the surface radiates 400W while only receiving 160W solar input.

A "bottle neck" is a point of resistance.. that point always causes heat. In electrical circuits, water restrictions, air restrictions. Empirical evidence shows, if we had such a bottle neck it must result in heat increase.

Where is this?

do you honestly believe that the surface is not warmer because of the atmosphere? and warmer still because there are GHGs in the atmosphere?

are you arguing that there is no bottleneck at the surface, or are you arguing that we cannot measure the change in that bottleneck caused by increased CO2 because of the 'noise' of natural variations?

 

[SSDD]

Here are some excerpts of your post.

…Planck proved and received a nobel prize …
…Talk to Planck...he proved the version I provided …
…proofs which resulted in Nobel prizes ,,,
…proven by Planck himself …
…an equation proven by Planck himself …
…that Planck proved and got himself a nobel. …
…certainly not part of Planck's proof. ....
…again, not part of Planck's nobel winning proof of the SB law …
…One has been proven by no less than Planck himself for which he received a Nobel prize ...
…That was written in 1914...he received his Nobel in 1919 by proving the SB law....
…one is valid....proven by Planck...
…version I use remains proven...

The irony is that Plank did not get a Nobel Prize in 1918 for proving anything about what Stefan and Boltzmann did, unless you show me otherwise. His prize was for discovering that energy was quantized etc.

My god SSDD, you have gone over the deep end, even for you. However, your posts are always a joy to read. I wish I had a video of you typing that repetitious rant so I could see your beet red face, your eyes bulging, and your lips drooling on your keyboard while you ranted on about something you got totally wrong. You don't understand that every physicist disagrees with you. I mean EVERY physicist including Plank.

I would really like you to show me Plank's step by step proof of the SB law.
"[in equilibrium] any two bodies or elements of bodies selected at random exchange by radiation equal amounts of heat with each other."
(Planck, M. (1914). The Theory of Heat Radiation, p. 40 )

You are saying Plank changed his mind about that and said bodies at the same temperature don't radiate to each other at all, and got a Nobel Prize for that?!

Tell me if you think that the radiation between two identical incandescent flashlights disappears when aimed at each other. After all, your (mis)understanding of the SB equation says that the temperatures would subtract to zero.

I'm going to have to get back to you. I recently missed about a month here due to some extensive hand surgery....they are going back in today...complications.....got to say you have quite the imagination....were you red faced bulging eyes and drooling lips as you completely got the JCMT wrong regarding detecting CMB? I pictured you calmly typing...your hysteric nature is perhaps why you have fallen so hard for the AGW hoax.

Hope this recovery and therapy doesn't take as long as the last on....but will be back. will state today that planck's proof had to do with temperature regulating radiation from a radiator....quanta was the mechanism of the temperature regulation.

 

[IanC]

Back to the OP.

Evans is up to #13 where he is describing the type and amount of radiation going through the four 'tubes'. It's backed up by long standing data previously published.