Northern nations warming faster than global average

[jc456]

Ssdd is every scientist? Hmm you’re fked up. Derp

Ssdd is every scientist?

Ssdd is an idiot.
Just because I know more than him doesn't mean I "know more than every scientist"

Your brain injury acting up again? You seem more confused than usual.

well again, I'm unaware of any scientist that understands the flow of heat from the sun to the corona and back to the surface. Feel free to post one name and I'll check it out. But until then, you and only you is claiming to know the flow of the heat between the two areas of the sun. And why my response about every scientist.

I'm unaware of any scientist that understands the flow of heat from the sun to the corona and back to the surface.

Can photons from the surface move toward the hotter corona? Yes or no?

sure, why not if there is energy forcing it there. Never said there wasn't. What I said was spontaneously. you know, that one word you seem to have difficulty with.

What I said was spontaneously. you know, that one word you seem to have difficulty with.

I don't have any difficulty with the word.
Just waiting for SSDD and you to pin yourself down.

spontaneous, again, a word you have issues with.

 

[jc456]

In your head, I believe that

Spontaneous process is defined as a process that will occur without any energy input from the surroundings. It is a process that will occur on its own.

Northern nations warming faster than global average

Is he right?

If any energy input from the surroundings assist a process...it is not spontaneous...

Northern nations warming faster than global average

Is he right?​

sure, post up something that says differently.

Why would I post something different when he just explained why back-radiation can happen?

no one ever said it wasn't possible for cold to flow toward heat with help. no one.

no one ever said it wasn't possible for cold to flow toward heat with help. no one.

That must explain why SSDD, with your agreement, has claimed for years, even a few days ago, that back radiation can't happen. LOL!

not the way the AGW crowd promotes it, nope. We know that 99% of CO2 hands off the energy, which means that 99% isn't emitting anything during that process. So, not sure where the radiation is coming from.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Ssdd is every scientist?

Ssdd is an idiot.
Just because I know more than him doesn't mean I "know more than every scientist"

Your brain injury acting up again? You seem more confused than usual.

well again, I'm unaware of any scientist that understands the flow of heat from the sun to the corona and back to the surface. Feel free to post one name and I'll check it out. But until then, you and only you is claiming to know the flow of the heat between the two areas of the sun. And why my response about every scientist.

I'm unaware of any scientist that understands the flow of heat from the sun to the corona and back to the surface.

Can photons from the surface move toward the hotter corona? Yes or no?

sure, why not if there is energy forcing it there. Never said there wasn't. What I said was spontaneously. you know, that one word you seem to have difficulty with.

What I said was spontaneously. you know, that one word you seem to have difficulty with.

I don't have any difficulty with the word.
Just waiting for SSDD and you to pin yourself down.

spontaneous, again, a word you have issues with.

I have no issue with the refutation of SSDD's one-way flow of photons.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Spontaneous process is defined as a process that will occur without any energy input from the surroundings. It is a process that will occur on its own.

Northern nations warming faster than global average

Is he right?

If any energy input from the surroundings assist a process...it is not spontaneous...

Northern nations warming faster than global average

Is he right?​

sure, post up something that says differently.

Why would I post something different when he just explained why back-radiation can happen?

no one ever said it wasn't possible for cold to flow toward heat with help. no one.

no one ever said it wasn't possible for cold to flow toward heat with help. no one.

That must explain why SSDD, with your agreement, has claimed for years, even a few days ago, that back radiation can't happen. LOL!

not the way the AGW crowd promotes it, nope. We know that 99% of CO2 hands off the energy, which means that 99% isn't emitting anything during that process. So, not sure where the radiation is coming from.

not the way the AGW crowd promotes it, nope.

LOL!

So, not sure where the radiation is coming from.

You're not sure where back-radiation comes from?

 

[jc456]

sure, post up something that says differently.

Why would I post something different when he just explained why back-radiation can happen?

no one ever said it wasn't possible for cold to flow toward heat with help. no one.

no one ever said it wasn't possible for cold to flow toward heat with help. no one.

That must explain why SSDD, with your agreement, has claimed for years, even a few days ago, that back radiation can't happen. LOL!

not the way the AGW crowd promotes it, nope. We know that 99% of CO2 hands off the energy, which means that 99% isn't emitting anything during that process. So, not sure where the radiation is coming from.

not the way the AGW crowd promotes it, nope.

LOL!

So, not sure where the radiation is coming from.

You're not sure where back-radiation comes from?

what back radiation?

 

[jc456]

well again, I'm unaware of any scientist that understands the flow of heat from the sun to the corona and back to the surface. Feel free to post one name and I'll check it out. But until then, you and only you is claiming to know the flow of the heat between the two areas of the sun. And why my response about every scientist.

I'm unaware of any scientist that understands the flow of heat from the sun to the corona and back to the surface.

Can photons from the surface move toward the hotter corona? Yes or no?

sure, why not if there is energy forcing it there. Never said there wasn't. What I said was spontaneously. you know, that one word you seem to have difficulty with.

What I said was spontaneously. you know, that one word you seem to have difficulty with.

I don't have any difficulty with the word.
Just waiting for SSDD and you to pin yourself down.

spontaneous, again, a word you have issues with.

I have no issue with the refutation of SSDD's one-way flow of photons.

I care why?

 

[gfm7175]

And yet, you still believe that a radiative greenhouse effect exists in a troposphere completely dominated by convection and conduction. Maybe you can help toddster in his search for a description of the radiative greenhouse effect as described by climate science that explains how the vast bulk of energy moving through the troposphere via convection and conduction equals a radiative greenhouse effect.

As you know, the radiative greenhouse effect has it's largest influence near the surface. Much less so above a few dozen meters.


.

How does this "radiative greenhouse effect" work, exactly? Show how it does not reject the laws of thermodynamics nor the stefan boltzmann law...

 

[gfm7175]

The greenhouse effect does not heat anything. The sun heats the earth and penetrates the ocean.


.

So AGW is NOT heating the oceans. That's what we've been saying

GHGs alone are not a source of heat.
The sun heats the oceans and land.
GHGs keep the surface heat from escaping too rapidly from the oceans and land.
If there were no GHGs too much heat would escape and the oceans would freeze.
The GHGs keep the ocean from freezing; they don't heat the ocean.
That's what we've been saying.
You were told this many times by many people.

You must have seen the blanket analogy many times.
A blanket is not a source of heat.
Your body is.
The blanket retains your body heat.

It can't be made simpler than that.


.

So this "GHG" blanket of yours is a magickal one way blanket??

 

[gfm7175]

The greenhouse effect does not heat anything. The sun heats the earth and penetrates the ocean.


.

So AGW is NOT heating the oceans. That's what we've been saying

GHGs alone are not a source of heat.
The sun heats the oceans and land.
GHGs keep the surface heat from escaping too rapidly from the oceans and land.
If there were no GHGs too much heat would escape and the oceans would freeze.
The GHGs keep the ocean from freezing; they don't heat the ocean.
That's what we've been saying.
You were told this many times by many people.

You must have seen the blanket analogy many times.
A blanket is not a source of heat.
Your body is.
The blanket retains your body heat.

It can't be made simpler than that.


.

dude remarkable. The blanket keeps the cold off my body. it's a physical barrier. how is it the heavier the blanket the warmer one gets? too special indeed.

And how does conduction warm the water exactly? Cause that's what you just implied. tell us how it penetrates the water.

Wuwei is correct about a blanket not being a source of "heat" (when he says "heat" here, he means thermal energy itself, rather than the transfer of thermal energy, which is what heat actually is). These types like to equivocate the meaning of the word 'heat'. Anyway, he's also correct that one's body is the source of "heat" (again, he means thermal energy itself, not the transfer of it). Although, I think he misses the reason why this is, though... What happens is the blanket reduces heat (heat meaning the transfer of thermal energy)... In other words, it reduces the coupling between one's body and the outside air. One's body requires much less energy output to stay warm. This also explains why one gets warmer with a heavier blanket. A heavier blanket even further reduces the coupling between one's body and the outside air compared to a lighter blanket.

What these types like Wuwei also do is they like to equivocate a closed convective system with an open convective system...

 

[Wuwei]

A spontaneous process is one that takes place with no input of energy from the surroundings. He thinks that phosphorescence (like the glowing numbers on your watch) is a spontaneous process.... He even says that the glow that happens "AFTER" you turn off the lights is a spontaneous process. He can't get it through his head that the fact that he has to add "AFTER" means that the lights being on in the first place was an input of energy from the surroundings.

He even says that the glow that happens "AFTER" you turn off the lights is a spontaneous process.

The key word "AFTER" is the essence of the scientific definition of spontaneous. It seems you understand the science definition but choose to defy it.

This definition has more clarity.

A spontaneous process occurs without the need for a continual input of energy from some external source, while a nonspontaneous process requires such.​

https://chem.libretexts.org/Bookshelves/General_Chemistry/Map:_General_Chemistry_(Petrucci_et_al.)/19:_Spontaneous_Change:_Entropy_and_Gibbs_Energy/19.1:_Spontaneity:_The_Meaning_of_Spontaneous_Change

Here are some well known examples. I hope they help in your understanding of spontaneous.​

• Charging a battery is not spontaneous. The discharging through a conductor is spontaneous.
• Illuminating a mineral phosphor is not spontaneous. The delayed release of light is spontaneous.
• Refining iron ore is not spontaneous. Oxidation is.

.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Why would I post something different when he just explained why back-radiation can happen?

no one ever said it wasn't possible for cold to flow toward heat with help. no one.

no one ever said it wasn't possible for cold to flow toward heat with help. no one.

That must explain why SSDD, with your agreement, has claimed for years, even a few days ago, that back radiation can't happen. LOL!

not the way the AGW crowd promotes it, nope. We know that 99% of CO2 hands off the energy, which means that 99% isn't emitting anything during that process. So, not sure where the radiation is coming from.

not the way the AGW crowd promotes it, nope.

LOL!

So, not sure where the radiation is coming from.

You're not sure where back-radiation comes from?

what back radiation?

 

[jc456]

no one ever said it wasn't possible for cold to flow toward heat with help. no one.

no one ever said it wasn't possible for cold to flow toward heat with help. no one.

That must explain why SSDD, with your agreement, has claimed for years, even a few days ago, that back radiation can't happen. LOL!

not the way the AGW crowd promotes it, nope. We know that 99% of CO2 hands off the energy, which means that 99% isn't emitting anything during that process. So, not sure where the radiation is coming from.

not the way the AGW crowd promotes it, nope.

LOL!

So, not sure where the radiation is coming from.

You're not sure where back-radiation comes from?

what back radiation?

cute

 

[Wuwei]

Wuwei is correct about a blanket not being a source of "heat" (when he says "heat" here, he means thermal energy itself, rather than the transfer of thermal energy, which is what heat actually is). These types like to equivocate the meaning of the word 'heat'. Anyway, he's also correct that one's body is the source of "heat" (again, he means thermal energy itself, not the transfer of it). Although, I think he misses the reason why this is, though... What happens is the blanket reduces heat (heat meaning the transfer of thermal energy)... In other words, it reduces the coupling between one's body and the outside air. One's body requires much less energy output to stay warm. This also explains why one gets warmer with a heavier blanket. A heavier blanket even further reduces the coupling between one's body and the outside air compared to a lighter blanket.

What is HEAT? definition of HEAT (Science Dictionary)

Energy in the process of transfer between a system and its surroundings as a result of temperature differences. However, the term is still used also to refer to the energy contained in a sample of matter. ...​

To a physicist the definition of heat should be obvious from the context. However, I don't think JC would appreciate the subtleties of the two definitions of heat anyway. I'm from the old school and find that "heat" is one syllable and is much easier to type than the 5 syllable "thermal energy" or the 8 syllable "transfer of thermal energy".

The blanket analogy shouldn't be taken too seriously as an explanation of complex thermal processes near the earth surface.

What these types like Wuwei also do is they like to equivocate a closed convective system with an open convective system...

Can you elaborate on what you think the "equivocation" is, and how it relates to radiation physics in my post that you referenced?


.

 

[IanC]

Sunlight charges the 'battery ' in daytime, which then partially discharges at night.

The surface warms up and cools down faster than the atmosphere because they have different emissivities.

There is a huge amount of energy already stored in the atmosphere. That is why the surface is much warmer (on average) than it would be with just solar insolation.

What is the source of all that stored energy? Radiation that did not escape to space. If the Sun stopped shining all that energy would be released as the planet cooled.

 

[Wuwei]

The surface warms up and cools down faster than the atmosphere because they have different emissivities.

It is easy to say the earth is a black body. Even though the surface is heterogeneous, the emissivity is very close to 1, land, sea, or forest etc.

If the atmosphere is a black body the Stefan-Boltzmann equation can apply. However, defining air as a black body is more problematic for several reasons.

It is a heterogeneous mixture but only a small percentage of it actively absorbing and emitting LWIR.
The emissivity curve is a discontinuous superposition of the vibrational atomic spectra of GHG molecules in the mixture.
Finally, air has a large optical depth.

It seems the emissivity can only be defined in the case of a slab of air with a thickness that provides full absorption; and resignation to the fact that the emissivity curve is "ragged".

Is this the way you see it?


.

 

[IanC]

Yes. The surface emits in a continuous band (at least for IR), of which some escapes directly and some is absorbed by the atmosphere.

In the specific case of CO2 and 15 micron radiation from the surface; half of that radiation is absorbed by the time it gets to the 2 metre mean free path height and it is basically extinct 10 metres above the surface. The question is...what happens to the energy?

If there were no alternative pathways then the excited CO2 molecules would simply re-emit the photon in a random direction with roughly half going up and half going back down to the surface.

The mean free path in the upwards direction is longer at 2 metres than it was at the surface. The mean free path continues to lengthen until the CO2 molecules are so rarified that the radiation escapes altogether. According to this mechanism half of the surface 15 micron energy would eventually escape after being scattered the same amount of times as there are mean free path lengths until the emission to space height.

This mechanism is similar for the radiative influence of all GHGs. Half out, half back.

There are other pathways that complicate this.

 

[jc456]

Yes. The surface emits in a continuous band (at least for IR), of which some escapes directly and some is absorbed by the atmosphere.

In the specific case of CO2 and 15 micron radiation from the surface; half of that radiation is absorbed by the time it gets to the 2 metre mean free path height and it is basically extinct 10 metres above the surface. The question is...what happens to the energy?

If there were no alternative pathways then the excited CO2 molecules would simply re-emit the photon in a random direction with roughly half going up and half going back down to the surface.

The mean free path in the upwards direction is longer at 2 metres than it was at the surface. The mean free path continues to lengthen until the CO2 molecules are so rarified that the radiation escapes altogether. According to this mechanism half of the surface 15 micron energy would eventually escape after being scattered the same amount of times as there are mean free path lengths until the emission to space height.

This mechanism is similar for the radiative influence of all GHGs. Half out, half back.

There are other pathways that complicate this.

even in this analogy, the earth is round, once in the atmosphere most all would still go away from the surface. the edge of the planet is not flat.

 

[IanC]

even in this analogy, the earth is round, once in the atmosphere most all would still go away from the surface. the edge of the planet is not flat.

Here is a good time to flesh out your thinking. What is the angle under the tangent for a circle with radius of 4000 miles? How about another 10 miles up (r=4010), higher than the emission height of the GHGs?

Without doing any of the calculations I would guesstimate that excess sideways escape area at the surface is less than 1%. And less than 5% 10 miles up. What are your initial guesses? Are you willing to find the actual numbers?

 

[SSDD]

no one ever said it wasn't possible for cold to flow toward heat with help. no one.

no one ever said it wasn't possible for cold to flow toward heat with help. no one.

That must explain why SSDD, with your agreement, has claimed for years, even a few days ago, that back radiation can't happen. LOL!

not the way the AGW crowd promotes it, nope. We know that 99% of CO2 hands off the energy, which means that 99% isn't emitting anything during that process. So, not sure where the radiation is coming from.

not the way the AGW crowd promotes it, nope.

LOL!

So, not sure where the radiation is coming from.

You're not sure where back-radiation comes from?

what back radiation?

Meaurement made with an instrument cooled to approximately -80 degrees. All that is being measured is energy moving from the warmer atmosphere to the cooler instrument...place an identical instrument next to that one...don't cool it and you won't measure any back radiation at all. Funny for you to call anyone an idiot when you are so easily fooled by instrumentation.

 

[SSDD]

even in this analogy, the earth is round, once in the atmosphere most all would still go away from the surface. the edge of the planet is not flat.

Here is a good time to flesh out your thinking. What is the angle under the tangent for a circle with radius of 4000 miles? How about another 10 miles up (r=4010), higher than the emission height of the GHGs?

Without doing any of the calculations I would guesstimate that excess sideways escape area at the surface is less than 1%. And less than 5% 10 miles up. What are your initial guesses? Are you willing to find the actual numbers?

Your mental model is fatally flawed...as are most of your mental models. It assumes that radiation is the primary mode of energy transport to the top of the troposphere...it isn't. Radiation is such a small bit player in the movement of energy through the troposphere that it is irrelevant.

Here...chew on this model for a minute or two and lets see if you are willing to find the actual numbers. If only one in a billion CO2 molecules actually gets to hold on to energy in the form of IR that it absorbs long enough to actually radiate it, of what importance is either your circle, or your sideways escape area? And where is upper tropospheric hot spot that would be the inevitable, and inescapable result of your model if radiation were the main mode of energy movement through the troposphere?

Try building your model on the true premise that the vast bulk of energy below your circle is just conducting and convecting right through it and that in reality, your circle is nothing but a symbol of a false premise.

Alas, living in the world of atmospheric models, when there is abundant observable, measurable, testable phenomenon going on in the atmosphere around you disconnects you from the stark reality that your models are wrong because they are based on false assumptions.