Northern nations warming faster than global average

[SSDD]

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

And CO2 raises the emissivity of the atmosphere...and yet, you believe that somehow raising its emissivity results in warming.

 

[SSDD]

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!

Still waiting for you to describe the work that makes it possible for energy to move from the cooler atmosphere to the warmer surface. Energy can move from cool to warm, but work must be done to make it happen. What work is being done to make radiation move from the cooler atmosphere to the warmer surface...describe the mechanism in some detail.

 

[SSDD]

Stupidity on parade..congratulations...do describe the work being done to make such energy movement possible...

do describe the work being done to make such energy movement possible...

The same work that allows the Sun's surface to radiate toward the hotter corona.
Or did you forget already?

There is an "input of energy from the surroundings".

So again, you’re saying you know more than every scientist. Interesting, Nobel prize

So again, you’re saying you know more than every scientist.

Knowing more than SSDD (really low bar) isn't knowing more than every scientist.

Now, are you saying the Earth's atmosphere doesn't have an "input of energy from the surroundings"?

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"
.

Yet another failed mental model.....you do live in a fantasy.

 

[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!

Still waiting for you to describe the work that makes it possible for energy to move from the cooler atmosphere to the warmer surface. Energy can move from cool to warm, but work must be done to make it happen. What work is being done to make radiation move from the cooler atmosphere to the warmer surface...describe the mechanism in some detail.

Still waiting for you to describe the work that makes it possible for energy to move from the cooler atmosphere to the warmer surface.

Still waiting for you to describe the work that makes it possible for energy to move from the cooler surface toward the warmer corona.

 

[Wuwei]

Energy can move from cool to warm, but work must be done to make it happen.

That is true for thermal energy but not always for any type of energy. Of course the two primary examples are black body radiation, which can move anywhere and radiation from spontaneous energy sources such as phosphorescence and other types of "cold radiation" sources. It's in science text books. Google luminescence for more information.


.

 

[SSDD]

Energy can move from cool to warm, but work must be done to make it happen.

That is true for thermal energy but not always for any type of energy. Of course the two primary examples are black body radiation, which can move anywhere and radiation from spontaneous energy sources such as phosphorescence and other types of "cold radiation" sources. It's in science text books. Google luminescence for more information.


.

That is true for any type of energy from the short wave to the infrared bands. For those outside of those bands, then frequency becomes the more important factor. Energy can't move spontaneously from a low frequency source to a higher frequency source...which also holds true for energy in the infrared bands except we express that energy in terms of temperature rather than frequency.

And phosphorescence is not a spontaneous energy movement...as it requires an energy input from the environment...it is tragic that you are so f'ing stupid that you can't get such a simple fact through your head... Refer to the numerous times you have lost this point if you must continue to relive it...it isn't necessary that you expose us to the tedium of it.

 

[Wuwei]

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?

There are 2.53 10²⁵ molecules of air per m³. If CO2 is 400 ppm, that would mean there are roughly 10²² CO2 molecules per m³.

If only 1 billionth can radiate, that would mean 10¹³ CO2 molecules are radiating a photon every 26 microseconds. (26us is the mean vibration relaxation time.)

In one second 10¹³ / 26*10⁻⁶ = 3.8 10¹⁷ molecules are radiating.

Planck's law gives the energy of one 15 micron photon as 1.32 10⁻²⁰ Joules

The total radiation per cubic meter is 3.8 10¹⁷ x 1.32 10⁻²⁰ = 5 10⁻³ Joules/sec or 5 x 10⁻³ Watts. It's small but much larger than convection.


.

 

[Wuwei]

That is true for any type of energy from the short wave to the infrared bands. For those outside of those bands, then frequency becomes the more important factor. Energy can't move spontaneously from a low frequency source to a higher frequency source...which also holds true for energy in the infrared bands except we express that energy in terms of temperature rather than frequency.

That makes no sense. You are conflating temperature with frequency. You are saying the physics is different at different temperatures for no given reason. I have seen no physics source that makes those claims. Do you have any links?


.

 

[jc456]

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?

There are 2.53 10²⁵ molecules of air per m³. If CO2 is 400 ppm, that would mean there are roughly 10²² CO2 molecules per m³.

If only 1 billionth can radiate, that would mean 10¹³ CO2 molecules are radiating a photon every 26 microseconds. (26us is the mean vibration relaxation time.)

In one second 10¹³ / 26*10⁻⁶ = 3.8 10¹⁷ molecules are radiating.

Planck's law gives the energy of one 15 micron photon as 1.32 10⁻²⁰ Joules

The total radiation per cubic meter is 3.8 10¹⁷ x 1.32 10⁻²⁰ = 5 10⁻³ Joules/sec or 5 x 10⁻³ Watts. It's small but much larger than convection.


.

or..

Carbon Dioxide 400 ppm Atmospheric Concentration Diagrams | UCAR Center for Science Education

The black dots represent the volume of CO2 in our atmosphere. And only 1 in a billion is radiating. holy fking shit!!!!! that will knock the snot out of cold air I tell you!! I love it.

 

[IanC]

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?

You keep chanting about inevitable hot spot. Please give a simple explanation how radiation directly causes this. What is the mechanism?

The discussions about it that I have read say that it would be formed by excess evaporation which would convect and release latent energy.

It is the change of temperature at the surface, for any reason, that would cause the hot spot higher up. Or presumably a cold spot if the surface was cooling.

But you obviously have more and better information on how the hotspot should inevitably and inescapably form. Please share your wisdom, oh great swami.

 

[IanC]

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.

My premise? jc claimed that 'most all' radiation would escape to space because the earth is curved.

While the curvature of the Earth does make a slight difference, it is vanishingly small at the surface and tiny at 10 miles.

You guys always make unsupported claims and then disappear when called out to explain yourselves.

 

[IanC]

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.

Except the instrument used to take those readings wasn't cooled to -80C.

 

[jc456]

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.

Except the instrument used to take those readings wasn't cooled to -80C.

link!!

 

[IanC]

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

And CO2 raises the emissivity of the atmosphere...and yet, you believe that somehow raising its emissivity results in warming.

Another misleading statement that you refuse to elaborate on.

The initial addition of CO2 to the atmosphere makes a huge difference because it does increase the emissivity by adding absorption bands that were not previously there.

Increasing the concentration of CO2 further does 'widen the wings' near the surface but the emission height is defined by the concentration of CO2 that is low enough to let 15 micron radiation escape. So you are exactly wrong. More outbound surface radiation is captured (in a smaller volume) while the emission height increases to a cooler area of the atmosphere where less 15 micron radiation is produced due to colder temperature.

Please explain your bizarroland version of physics where some how cooling takes place.

 

[IanC]

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.

Except the instrument used to take those readings wasn't cooled to -80C.

link!!

The graph is from a Science of Doom article. It also had a photograph of the instrument with model type. At the time I linked manufacturers documentation and a paper comparing it to other instruments like it, showing the response and accuracy.

You guys didnt listen then, why would you listen now? If you are so interested, just search the archives. I think it was about 3-6 years ago but I am not certain.

 

[IanC]

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?

There are 2.53 10²⁵ molecules of air per m³. If CO2 is 400 ppm, that would mean there are roughly 10²² CO2 molecules per m³.

If only 1 billionth can radiate, that would mean 10¹³ CO2 molecules are radiating a photon every 26 microseconds. (26us is the mean vibration relaxation time.)

In one second 10¹³ / 26*10⁻⁶ = 3.8 10¹⁷ molecules are radiating.

Planck's law gives the energy of one 15 micron photon as 1.32 10⁻²⁰ Joules

The total radiation per cubic meter is 3.8 10¹⁷ x 1.32 10⁻²⁰ = 5 10⁻³ Joules/sec or 5 x 10⁻³ Watts. It's small but much larger than convection.


.

A diagram showing absorption by GHGs. 15 micron radiation has a wavenumber of 667. The actual amount escaping is far less than the red line which gives the amount produced at the surface.

 

[jc456]

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.

Except the instrument used to take those readings wasn't cooled to -80C.

link!!

The graph is from a Science of Doom article. It also had a photograph of the instrument with model type. At the time I linked manufacturers documentation and a paper comparing it to other instruments like it, showing the response and accuracy.

You guys didnt listen then, why would you listen now? If you are so interested, just search the archives. I think it was about 3-6 years ago but I am not certain.

well, that may have been some time ago, I don't recall, but I went to science of doom saw all of the back radiation articles, but nothing about the measuring device. oh well.

 

[jc456]

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.

Except the instrument used to take those readings wasn't cooled to -80C.

link!!

The graph is from a Science of Doom article. It also had a photograph of the instrument with model type. At the time I linked manufacturers documentation and a paper comparing it to other instruments like it, showing the response and accuracy.

You guys didnt listen then, why would you listen now? If you are so interested, just search the archives. I think it was about 3-6 years ago but I am not certain.

BTW, since the last time you may have spoke into this, I learned that 99% of the CO2 that absorbs IR, loses it during collisions with N and O molecules. how, if that is indeed the case as I have read, is it possible to radiate and to be read by a meter?

 

[IanC]

The white area under the red line is the amount of energy returning to the surface. It is about 1/3 (remember the black sawtooth is half white, half escaping blue).

Solar insolation is 340w, 100w is reflected, which leaves 240w. The surface radiates at 390w, less 240w IR escaping, leaves 150w being recycled.

Decent back of the envelope first estimates.

Ask our resident deniers how the surface can remain hot enough to radiate at 390w with only 240w coming in from the Sun.

 

[IanC]

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.

Except the instrument used to take those readings wasn't cooled to -80C.

link!!

The graph is from a Science of Doom article. It also had a photograph of the instrument with model type. At the time I linked manufacturers documentation and a paper comparing it to other instruments like it, showing the response and accuracy.

You guys didnt listen then, why would you listen now? If you are so interested, just search the archives. I think it was about 3-6 years ago but I am not certain.

well, that may have been some time ago, I don't recall, but I went to science of doom saw all of the back radiation articles, but nothing about the measuring device. oh well.

Bullshit.