Trenberth's Energy Budget

[gslack]

I love how Ian tries to make it seem all the discussion on our part was ad hom... He started insulting everyone who disagreed with his view on this from the very start. All I did in the beginning was verify some things wirebender had said as being factual and he went off following me around and harassing my every post for days after. But it was us...sure..

Ian you implied EM fields were some made up esoteric theory.. I showed this was not the case, and from there you went ape shit.. Do we have to start linking to every one of your tantrums to get some honesty out of you?

 

[wirebender]

I love how Ian tries to make it seem all the discussion on our part was ad hom... He started insulting everyone who disagreed with his view on this from the very start. All I did in the beginning was verify some things wirebender had said as being factual and he went off following me around and harassing my every post for days after. But it was us...sure..

Ian you implied EM fields were some made up esoteric theory.. I showed this was not the case, and from there you went ape shit.. Do we have to start linking to every one of your tantrums to get some honesty out of you?

Better make sure someone famous hasn't already said ape shit or he will start calling you a plagerist also. Imagine, plagerizing the laws of physics.

 

[IanC]

Then again these cynics have forgotten, that in this example as with all the other ones they do use, not a single one has ever managed to prove that CO2 is an "insulator".
..having failed to do so ..."climatology" has been using the same method over and over again...

please excuse my use of power and energy incorrectly. I have always tried to impress upon my sons the need for using units when solving physics problems as a good way of avoiding simple mistakes. unfortunately I no longer solve physics problems and I tend to try using different words when describing things. no excuse, simply imprecise terminology for the sake of readability which in fact had the reverse effect.

as to the quote....I find it hard to believe that you think CO2 has no potential to slow the escape of energy from the earth's surface.

the earth emits 15 micron radiation that can interact with CO2. there are 3 scenarios that are important to this discussion-

1. the photon simply escapes into space at the speed of light carrying the energy with it.
2. the photon is absorbed by a CO2 molecule, which then reemits a similar photon which escapes into space. the energy is still gone but it has taken much longer to escape.
3. the photon is absorbed by a CO2 molecule, which then reemits a similar photon back towards earth. the energy does not escape and the time has been used up that could have been spent losing the radiation. a decrease in the intensity of energy shedding.

by what standard of 'insulation' do #2 and #3 not meet the criteria?

"please excuse my use of power and energy incorrectly."....no apology necessary and I have no intention to harp on it,...other than reiterating that
in this case, the difference is crucial. It was an oversight, than can happen to the best of us, so don`t worry too much about it...Okay...!!!
But I do have to bring it up again, not for the purpose of rubbing Your face into it , but because I have to in order to respond to the
3 points You raised here

Power is energy per time( as in divided by) and energy is power multiplied by the time frame in question.
and I know that You don`t need a lecture using numerical examples to show the difference between a division and a multiplication .

Let me expand the meaning of this last sentence in 2 directions.
1.) I am not trying to lecture You nor do I view this as a contest who is smarter on the grounds who defends what.
But more importantly it is 2.) the vastly different conclusions that can be drawn if this un-intentional oversight
is allowed to run the course through the statements 1,2,3

So now let me clear up this uncertainty You have, where I stand (or any other Phys/Chem professional)..:
"I find it hard to believe that you think CO2 has no potential to slow the escape of energy from the earth's surface."

CO2 can and does absorb ENERGY on several bands in the IR spectrum...nobody disputes that.
The entire field of Spectroscopy in analytical Chemistry & Physics relies on the fact that the presence of a specific substance can be detected by the ENERGY absorption at very specific wavelengths.

However we never had and to the best of my knowledge still don`t have any such analytical spectroscopic instrument
which would be able to measure what You (& all of "climatology") keeps claiming....this mysterious "POWER" increase...

If this "POWER" increase is enough to warm the globe we (anybody who ever did IR spectro-analysis) should have noticed that a long time ago.

This is seriously SENSITIVE INSTRUMENTATION,...in case You did not know that...and if there would indeed be a POWER increase with an increase of ppm CO2, there is no way, that would have gone un-noticed

Nobody (You included) is entitled to run through Your 1.,2,3 statements without specifying the time frame in statement
number 2: " the energy does not escape and the time has been used up..."

So exactly how much EXTRA time are we talking about here....?

In so many words You and all of "climatology" is stating that if You spread out an original ENERGY amount of A watt seconds
over a longer time, that You can somehow wind up with an ENERGY INCREASE of A ..+X Watts (as in POWER) using an increase of TIME

So that rules out ENERGY all together, because You know how wrong that is..right.?..it`s even going in the opposite direction of these claims.
Same ENERGY divided by MORE TIME = a DECREASE in POWER, not an INCREASE...and You did say, that You knew that and simply overlooked it

Yet You and "climatologists" begin this argument :
"the energy is still gone but it has taken much longer to escape.
And in the end wind up with the EXTRA POWER this "longer time" generates in a universe, ....where "climatology", not nature rules

And then "climatology" makes the pseudo-logic leap from energy to power without ever even bothering to quantify the time other by simply stating that it would take "much longer" .


You and all the others are in effect claiming that the CO2 in the path of an infrared beam is reducing the speed of light of using Your words " the photon simply escapes into space at the speed of light"


Really...? So by how much does CO2 then reduce this speed of light as it must if , using Your words again " similar photon which escapes into space. the energy is still gone but it has taken much longer to escape."

And lastly:
"by what standard of 'insulation' do #2 and #3 not meet the criteria?"

well if You can`t quantify the time or any detectable difference in the speed of light then You have not shown anything at all.

And as far as the leap back to the 'insulation' escape hatch when the "back-radiation" theory "logic" starts to collapse....even I am growing tired of re-explaining the difference between insulation and this "back-radiation"

There are tables upon tables of insulation properties for just about any substance that has insulation properties.
It`s quite easy to measure and engineers call it the "R-" factor.
What has been the problem preventing the heavily $$$$ funded "climatologists" to present the rest of science with a table that shows an
actually measured increase in the "R" factor for CO2, specifically how much that is per ppm increase of CO2 in the air...????????????

That will never happen...and You know that deep down as well...

What will happen and always has happened (You just now, did it again )... is the usual 2 way use of the escape hatch , in this case from the "insulation" argument back to the "back-radiation" ....the alter universe of "climatology" in which the dimension TIME does not exist.

In this alter universe "climatologists" can generate more power from less energy and do so simply by extending the time dimension,...or letting this dimension dis-appear altogether ...but as You said that was a simple error and an oversight...

That leaves now (again) the original problem, to explain how the "slowing down photons" with CO2 can GENERATE any extra POWER...You know, the POWER in Watts per square meter that CO2 is supposed to add in all these "climatology" computer models that are supposed to melt all these cubic miles of ice at the poles within a certain TIME..

the CO2 is decreasing the power of out going radiation. any slowing down of the radiation is diminishing it. less is less, I dont have to put a numerical figure to it. less than the speed of light therefore it is escaping slower.

the incoming radiation from the sun warms the planet, the reduction of heat loss from radiation to space increases the net warming from the sun. it couldnt be a simpler concept.

 

[IanC]

where exactly do you think I am gaining or losing energy?

you are the one who is saying that physical objects that must be radiating by existing at a temperature greater than 0K, are not radiating if an object near by is warmer by any fraction of a degree. and I am not sure because you dont explain yourself but I think that you might perhaps think that that secondary warmer object still radiates at full strength for its temperature.

please give a description of two blocks close to each other, with a temperature difference of say, 10 degrees Kelvin. describe what amount of radiation +/or heat is exchanged. assume a vacuum for simplicity.

ian, you can formulate a million pertubations of that experiment but you will never raise the temperature of the heated bar unless you either reduce the dimensions of the heated bar, increase the power going into the heated bar from the electrical cord, or raise the temperature of the background. I used 0K for my calculations because spencer said that he wanted to simulate the earth in cold space. If you begin with 0F, instead of 0K then the heated bar is radiating 340.3 wm2 in order to be 150 degrees F. Initially, you will get different numbers but you still won't get the second bar to raise the temperature of the heated bar by even the tineist fraction of a watt per square meter unless you reduce the size of the heated bar, increase the amount of electricity coming into the heated bar from the wall socket, or raise the temperature of the background. Spencer's chamber is cooled to 0 so its temperature isn't rising as the heater radiates. To do so would violate the 2nd law of thermodynamics which states:

It is not possible for heat to flow from a colder body to a warmer body without any work having been done to accomplish this flow. Energy will not flow spontaneously from a low temperature object to a higher temperature object.

I don't know what it is about the phrases not possible and will not flow spontaneously that is so difficult for you to understand but it is what the second law of thermodynamics states and you simply can't get around it. You can play word games and build thought experiments till the cows come home but the fact remains that you can not build a machine that does what you claim and not even the tiniest shred of observable, repeatable evidence exists for the existence of backradiation.

You can point a parabolic reflector into open sky (away from the sun) on a clear sunny day and the temperature in that reflector will decrease. If backradiation existed as you claim, the temperature in that reflector would not decrease. Or perhaps you might like to explain how some mysterious "cold" backradiation might heat the earth.

no heat is flowing from cold to hot. the electricity is warming the heater. the second bar insulates the first bar making the electrical power more efficient at raising the temperature of the heated bar.

are you saying the electricity cant warm the heater any hotter or are you saying the second bar cant insulate the first bar?

 

[Rozman]

how many of you think it is a deception to have 390 (W/m2) going up and 324 coming down? while it is true in an absolute way it disguises the fact that only 66 w/m2 is available as the difference between the temps of the surface and the lower atmosphere. out of that 66, 40 leaves directly with only 26 W/m2 warming the lower atmosphere.

so 26 W/m2 is the greenhouse effect and I have never seen any estimates higher than 26% for CO2's share of the GHE so that means ~8 W/m2 or less for the total amount of CO2. the absorption of CO2 is logrithmic so that means we are into the ninth doubling (256-512) so every doubling is ~(8W/m2)/8 doublings= 1 W/m2 or less.

I find it hard to believe that something that is responsible for ~1 W/m2 is the grand control knob of the climate. it is an amount that is lost in the error bars of measurement. but that is just my opinion but now you know why I think that way.

does everybody understand the conceptual difference between the 168 W/m2 coming from the sun that is available to directly heat an object, and the 324 W/m2 backradiation that can only counteract part of the 390 W/m2 upward radiation from the surface? on a cloudy day you feel immediate warmth when the sun peeks through.

how many of you think it is a deception

Actually Sheldon from The big Bang Theory TV show on CBS covered this very topic in depth in season one of their show....

Who do you think you're dealing with here... a bunch of rubes?

 

[gslack]

Ian fix your quote... its gives a false impression of the conversation here..

The one above where you quoted polarbear, is missing a tag making it seem his quote is yours... Fix that please and try and refrain from editing peoples quoted posts, that way this sort of thing is avoided..

 

[IanC]

where exactly do you think I am gaining or losing energy?

you are the one who is saying that physical objects that must be radiating by existing at a temperature greater than 0K, are not radiating if an object near by is warmer by any fraction of a degree. and I am not sure because you dont explain yourself but I think that you might perhaps think that that secondary warmer object still radiates at full strength for its temperature.

please give a description of two blocks close to each other, with a temperature difference of say, 10 degrees Kelvin. describe what amount of radiation +/or heat is exchanged. assume a vacuum for simplicity.

ian, you can formulate a million pertubations of that experiment but you will never raise the temperature of the heated bar unless you either reduce the dimensions of the heated bar, increase the power going into the heated bar from the electrical cord, or raise the temperature of the background. I used 0K for my calculations because spencer said that he wanted to simulate the earth in cold space. If you begin with 0F, instead of 0K then the heated bar is radiating 340.3 wm2 in order to be 150 degrees F. Initially, you will get different numbers but you still won't get the second bar to raise the temperature of the heated bar by even the tineist fraction of a watt per square meter unless you reduce the size of the heated bar, increase the amount of electricity coming into the heated bar from the wall socket, or raise the temperature of the background. Spencer's chamber is cooled to 0 so its temperature isn't rising as the heater radiates. To do so would violate the 2nd law of thermodynamics which states:

It is not possible for heat to flow from a colder body to a warmer body without any work having been done to accomplish this flow. Energy will not flow spontaneously from a low temperature object to a higher temperature object.

I don't know what it is about the phrases not possible and will not flow spontaneously that is so difficult for you to understand but it is what the second law of thermodynamics states and you simply can't get around it. You can play word games and build thought experiments till the cows come home but the fact remains that you can not build a machine that does what you claim and not even the tiniest shred of observable, repeatable evidence exists for the existence of backradiation.

You can point a parabolic reflector into open sky (away from the sun) on a clear sunny day and the temperature in that reflector will decrease. If backradiation existed as you claim, the temperature in that reflector would not decrease. Or perhaps you might like to explain how some mysterious "cold" backradiation might heat the earth.

wirebender- you have a distorted view of thermo dynamics.

why does a blanket make you feel warmer? because it decreases heat loss. does the blanket actually heat your body? no, your body heats itself by processing food. less food needs to be 'burned' to keep your internal temperature stable when you use clothing or blankets to decrease the heat loss to the environment.

in Spencer's experiment, does the second bar actually heat the heated bar? no, the electrical power going into the heater heats the bar, the second bar only insulates which means the rate of heat loss to the environment is decreased. if the same amount of power goes into the heated bar then the temperature will be higher when it is insulated than when it was not. but it is the electrical power that heats it. have you been quibbling over some strange semantics? Spencer said the first bar will become warmer if a second bar is placed next to it. are you denying that, or are you just denying that heat energy is coming from the second bar? you have built a strawman by saying anyone has claimed heat was flowing into the first bar from the second. the claim is that the second bar insulated the first causing the heater to be more efficient in raising the temperature.

the same holds true for the earth/atmosphere CO2/greenhouse argument. no one has said that the atmosphere is warming the earth's surface (except under rare inversion conditions). the claim is that CO2 is decreasing heat loss by radiation which means the sun's incoming radiation will warm the surface more than when there was less insulation.

no one claims that insulation actually 'heats' anything. it slows heat loss, making it easier to achieve a higher temperature or maintain a temperature with less inputted energy. I have said this to you over and over again. apparently there really are deniers. you are just as foolish in your ways as the crackpot warmists are in their claims of certain doom. there should be at least three categories. Deniers, Warmists and Realists.

 

[wirebender]

no heat is flowing from cold to hot. the electricity is warming the heater. the second bar insulates the first bar making the electrical power more efficient at raising the temperature of the heated bar.

The second bar is a heat sink ian, not an insulator. I am not sure why you don't seem to be able to understand the difference between an insulator and a heat sink and what each actually does. Here are a couple of definitions. By the way, I got them from a dictionary and aren't the product of entirely original breakthrough thinking on my part.

insulator - A material or an object that does not easily allow heat, electricity, light, or sound to pass through it. Air, cloth and rubber are good electrical insulators; feathers and wool make good thermal insulators.

heat sink - a metallic heat exchanger designed to absorb and dissipate excess heat from one of the devices, as a transistor or resistor, in a circuit. A metal plate specially designed to conduct and radiate heat from an electrical component.

Now you tell me how you believe the second bar to be acting as an insulator ian, and show me the math or describe the physical law by which you make the claim.

are you saying the electricity cant warm the heater any hotter or are you saying the second bar cant insulate the first bar?

I am saying both. You have a fixed amount of power going into the bar and you have a fixed background temperature. Therefore, the only way to raise the temperature of the heated bar is to reduce its surface area.

The second bar is a heat sink, not an insulator so no, it can't cause the temperature of the first bar to increase, it effectively gives the second bar mor radiating surface so it serves to lower the temperature of the heated bar.

 

[wirebender]

wirebender- you have a distorted view of thermo dynamics.

ian, my view of thermodynamics is fine and the math supports my view. In fact, I hold my view because the math supports it. If the math supported your view, I would support your view and subscribe to backradiation.

why does a blanket make you feel warmer? because it decreases heat loss. does the blanket actually heat your body? no, your body heats itself by processing food. less food needs to be 'burned' to keep your internal temperature stable when you use clothing or blankets to decrease the heat loss to the environment.

There is yet another mistake on your part ian. Why does a blanket make you "feel" warmer? It doesn't matter a whit what you feel ian, it doesn't actually make you warmer. The blanket traps dead air which you feel around you but it does not make you warmer. If you wrapped a blanket tightly around yourself so that no dead air space were trapped, it would serve as a heat sink and drop your body temperature.

The second bar in the experiment is not acting as a blanket however, it is acting as a heat sink.

in Spencer's experiment, does the second bar actually heat the heated bar? no, the electrical power going into the heater heats the bar, the second bar only insulates which means the rate of heat loss to the environment is decreased.

The second bar is a heat sink ian, not an insulator. I really don't see why that is so difficult for you to grasp. There is no real area for confusion between heat sinks and insulators. The second bar is identical to the first bar except it has no heating element inside. Where does this insulating property you are so adamant about come from. Which physical law are you depending on to support the claim that it is a heat sink. I am using the Stefan-Boltzman law to support my claim that it is a heat sink.

The second bar effectively adds surface area to the first bar. Adding surface area will cause a temperature decrease.

if the same amount of power goes into the heated bar then the temperature will be higher when it is insulated than when it was not.

But the second bar is a heat sink, not an insulator. If you wrapped fiberglass insulation around the heated bar, you could certainly maintain a higher temperature with less electricity or generate a higher temperature with the same amount of electricity but that isn't what the second bar is doing.

The claim in that experiment is that backradiation from the second bar is causing the heated bar to be warmer and it simply isn't happening. Heat sinks don't cause the radiator to increase in temperature.

but it is the electrical power that heats it. have you been quibbling over some strange semantics?

I have been arguing ofer your gross misunderstanding of what is happening in the experiment. The difference between a heat sink and an insulator is not a matter of semantics. They are two different things and facilitate two entirely different reactions. The second bar, identical to the first can not be construed to be an insulator. That is like saying that if you put a house identical to your own next to your own home, the second house will act as an insulator. Do you really believe your neighbors house keeps your own house warmer?

Spencer said the first bar will become warmer if a second bar is placed next to it. are you denying that,

Yes I am denying that. Spencer clearly doesn't grasp the difference between an insulator and a heat sink if he believes anything like what you are describing is happening. Again, does your neighbor's house insulate your house?

or are you just denying that heat energy is coming from the second bar?

Spencer is claiming backradiation from the 2nd bar is warming the first bar. If you don't get that, then you have once again, entirely missed the boat and don't even know what you are arguing about.

you have built a strawman by saying anyone has claimed heat was flowing into the first bar from the second. the claim is that the second bar insulated the first causing the heater to be more efficient in raising the temperature.

ian, you really don't get it do you? Look at the arrows on spencers diagarams. He is claiming backradiation from the second bar is causing the first bar to be warmer.

the same holds true for the earth/atmosphere CO2/greenhouse argument.

Sorry ian, that is another argument you have entirely missed the boat on.

no one has said that the atmosphere is warming the earth's surface (except under rare inversion conditions). the claim is that CO2 is decreasing heat loss by radiation which means the sun's incoming radiation will warm the surface more than when there was less insulation.[/quote

Of course they are. Look back to the beginning of this thread at trenberth's diagram. That tan bar on the far right hand side of the diagram pointing towards the earth with the number 324 labeled backradiation and the words underneath saying absorbed by the surface is most certainly making the claim that 324 watts per meter squared are being radiated from the atmosphere and are being absorbed by the surface of the earth and by being absorbed is serving to warm the surface allowing it to radiate more energy than it receives from the sun.

no one claims that insulation actually 'heats' anything. it slows heat loss, making it easier to achieve a higher temperature or maintain a temperature with less inputted energy.

IR radiates away from the surface of the earth at, or very near the speed of light. CO2 does not slow it down.

I have said this to you over and over again. apparently there really are deniers. you are just as foolish in your ways as the crackpot warmists are in their claims of certain doom. there should be at least three categories. Deniers, Warmists and Realists.

The math supports me ian, you are out there barking with the moonbats denying the laws of physics and the mathematics that support them.

 

[polarbear]

1. the photon simply escapes into space at the speed of light carrying the energy with it.
2. the photon is absorbed by a CO2 molecule, which then reemits a similar photon which escapes into space. the energy is still gone but it has taken much longer to escape.
3. the photon is absorbed by a CO2 molecule, which then reemits a similar photon back towards earth. the energy does not escape and the time has been used up that could have been spent losing the radiation. a decrease in the intensity of energy shedding.

by what standard of 'insulation' do #2 and #3 not meet the criteria?


it couldnt be a simpler concept

And it is exactly that assertion which is the problem..this "simple concept"...Now we have (again) gone from "back-radiation" to heat flow via heat CONDUCTION...and in this simple concept there is no heat convection flows, which are HUGE and no adiabatic cooling...and so on and on and on...
+ totally neglecting that no climatologist has ever even delved in the heat conduction and INSULATION properties of CO2..
I keep pointing this out to You,...and as they do, You do...this pesty problem is dodged by running back to "back- RADIATION"

Then as soon as someone voices concern, the defenders of climatology flee the battle ground and seek refuge behind words like "insulation" within quote marks so that You can`t nail the jello to the tree once and for all if we are discussing heat RADIATION or heat CONDUCTION/flows

Okay Ian, decide and choose either one or the other.
Much better would be if You and "climatology" would follow every path and not just pick one out while ignoring everything else..
But the whole thing is degraded to a con-game...when "back RADIATION" hits a "cul de sac" "climatologists" jump over every thermo-dynamic law in existence ( especially Kirchhoff`s) and want to continue on the heat CONDUCTION path, ...and continue to use the heat RADITION traffic rules.

But at the end of the maze, the claim is made yet again, that You all got there on the back radiation path.

Wirebender and Gslack are right when they say.."without back-radiation"there is no man made global warming.
I`m not taking sides here with the persons "wirebender" and Gslack...I am agreeing with what they have said in that regard...
And You should not see that as if I "ganged up" on You..
You never did say that, I just want to fore-go that...
I`m sure Gslack or wirebender would not hesitate to point out any oversights or errors if they spot some in my statements...
And I welcome it...in no way would I see these 2 guys as some sort of enemy because of that...

They are just as interested in Physics & Science as You & I...and have personally written me, that they have enjoyed
discussing science with You and have held You in high esteem before this discussion morphed into a full blown argument.

I`m willing to walk with You on either path You decide to take and we`ll chat as we stroll along...(in a non combative manner, of course)
The last time we discussed it, You wanted to take me on a journey riding an imaginary photon which has been emitted from the not so black body we call earth through a layer of gas that contains carbon dioxide.

That`s fine,...also it`s Okay to make mistakes or overlook something.
But if that happens, then it`s important to look at the things that have passed by on this photon journey, that You may have not noticed,...but that I do know this photon will encounter.

The first thing to bear in mind, that a photon has no "resting mass" which could be calculated from Einstein`s E=m*C^2.
So it`s important not to view it as if it were a true particle that has a discrete directional momentum it could maintain
It is very important to keep in mind that this photon as we follow this "back-radiation" journey has a dual existence...it also exhibits wave properties.

And as such (as an e-mag.-wave quantum) every time previously absorbed "photons" are re-emitted they spread out in all directions, not just one.

After all this is why an IR spectrophotometer can measure IR Absorption.
At the wavelength at which CO2 had absorbed IR are now missing ENERGY.

So where has this ENERGY (which are Your photons) gone...?
Is this missing ENERGY now staying in the CO2 as HEAT...?

No it is not. The reason why a photo-multiplier "sees" less Energy at these bands is because the Energy quanti , Your photons have not proceeded in the same direction they were on when they were absorbed,...

They are now re-emitted as a wave equally in all directions...and now You have "dark lines" in the absorption spectrum.

Here is the best illustration I could find on the Internet for You...
There may be better ones, but I think this should do :

Atomic Absorption and Emission Spectra

An absorption spectrum occurs when light passes through a cold, dilute gas and atoms in the gas absorb at characteristic frequencies; since the re-emitted light is unlikely to be emitted in the same direction as the absorbed photon, this gives rise to dark lines (absence of light) in the spectrum.

So as You can see this is not as "climatology" is trying to "explain" it a matter of "energy that is trapped much longer" ...as in the "energy takes much longer to escape at all.

It is a matter of re-direction into ALL OTHER POSSIBLE DIRECTIONS and certainly not a "lengthened escape time"....or any of these analogies that Trenberth, Spencer and all the others prefer to use...

Okay, then let`s all go on a photon journey which is on a so called "back-radiation" path...which is 180 degrees in the opposite direction where this photon has come from...this "black body" which these photons are now supposed to heat up to more than it would be without the CO2 Molecules that have scattered the incoming and absorbed IR in every possible direction...

Well the same wave duality laws will apply in the opposite "back-radiation" direction too...

So let`s apply that !
Picture a volume that has a 380 ppm (MOLAR) CO2 content...
Now considering the Loschmidt number :
2.686 7774(47)×10^25 Molecules per cubic meter at standard conditions

Now sit down and think about it how many such wave re-direction or "re-scattering" encounters these "back-radiation" photons will have trying to get back to the square meter of this "black body" where they came from...!


Perhaps it`s now a little easier to see why no math/phys/Chem professional is willing to subscribe to the assertions made by the "climatologist" professionals concerning black body heating with "back-radiation"....

it couldnt be a simpler concept

Well if it`s such a "simple concept " then let`s do the not quite so "simple math" what would REALLY happen to any photon on a back radiation path, where it gets re-bounced 2.686 7774(47)×10^25 times in all different directions...

And that is the job the person(s) who made the assertion...but so far none of these bothered.

@IanC...:

did You spot it?... I make mistakes too...actually I was just plain too lazy..
I simply left the number of re-directs at the L-number but in reality there are only ~380 ppm MOLAR CO2 able to "re-direct" photons as a wave.
Not that would help the case for "back-radiation" a whole lot...
that still leaves L *380 *10^(-9) ~ 1*10^24 re-directs.

Had You, wirebender or Gslack pointed out my oversight I would not have viewed this as some sort of personal attack,...
And since I feel free to point out such oversights if that happened to You or anyone else, why should I get upset.

We are discussing science here, and scrutiny is the better part of science.
That "dirty Harry" picture below is for the sort of people who are on my ignore list.
You`ld have to do a whole lot more than just pointing out a mistake I made, to wind up on that list

 

[wirebender]

Polarbear, you are going to run afoul of ian here because he views photons as free agents that go zipping about the universe in more or less straight lines till such time as they run into some sort of solid matter.

He doesn't recognize a photon as the smallest possible unit of energy in an electromagnetic field which can exhaust itself in opposition to an EM field of greater magnitude propagated from the opposite direction. He seems to believe that when EM fields cancel, the photons that made up those fields continue to zip about the universe till they hit something even though the EM fields which they made up effectively cancelled each other out or were diminished to the point of non existence via the subtraction of EM fields.

And don't even bother mentioning particle-wave duality or the fact that phenomena like interference and cancelling of EM fields can only be explained if one assumes EM fields to be waves rather than separate photons zipping about the universe till they run into some sort of solid matter.

 

[polarbear]

Polarbear, you are going to run afoul of ian here because he views photons as free agents that go zipping about the universe in more or less straight lines till such time as they run into some sort of solid matter.

He doesn't recognize a photon as the smallest possible unit of energy in an electromagnetic field which can exhaust itself in opposition to an EM field of greater magnitude propagated from the opposite direction. He seems to believe that when EM fields cancel, the photons that made up those fields continue to zip about the universe till they hit something even though the EM fields which they made up effectively cancelled each other out or were diminished to the point of non existence via the subtraction of EM fields.

And don't even bother mentioning particle-wave duality or the fact that phenomena like interference and cancelling of EM fields can only be explained if one assumes EM fields to be waves rather than separate photons zipping about the universe till they run into some sort of solid matter.

That may be so, but then again this is more or less how the strange universe which is ruled by "climatology-physics" photons are supposed to behave...and if IanC is restricting his reading material to this kind of "simple matter" physics to defend Trenberth`s "energy budget" or Spencer`s example, which is a pseudo-logic classic then I won`t fault him (personally) .

What worries me is not so much what IanC is reading or what he subscribes to,...what really worries me a lot, is ...:
Are the schools preaching this kind of nonsense in today`s physics classes also..????...or is it just in the Internet...?
And is IanC a typical product of this Orwellian "new-speak" physics...?

Unlike some of the mud flinging trolls( You know ...like what`s his name Thunderfart or something like that)... You, Gslack, Westwall, Skooker-bill & I had run into in some of the other threads, I can`t see any such malice or ill will in IanC, ...he is convinced he is believing and doing the right thing by continuing to defend this hypothesis which does not have a leg to stand on in the so called "hard sciences".

As far as I can see I have answered all the questions he asked,...
but I have yet to get an answer to any of the questions I have asked him.

But be that as it may up to this point I have enjoyed this discussion...
Thanks for letting me in on it guys...!!
And my best Greetings to all of You..

 

[gslack]

Frankly my faith in humanities future has been lessened lately.. one can now minor in "climate change" from virtually any liberal arts college. That And the complete ignorance of the general populace regarding money and finance, tell me that there will be a reckoning all too soon.. One that we as a whole are ill-prepared for.

Imagine a biblical apocalypse and we have scientists like spencer and so many others to turn to... Shudders me to my soul...

 

[IanC]

And it is exactly that assertion which is the problem..this "simple concept"...Now we have (again) gone from "back-radiation" to heat flow via heat CONDUCTION...and in this simple concept there is no heat convection flows, which are HUGE and no adiabatic cooling...and so on and on and on...
+ totally neglecting that no climatologist has ever even delved in the heat conduction and INSULATION properties of CO2..
I keep pointing this out to You,...and as they do, You do...this pesty problem is dodged by running back to "back- RADIATION"

Then as soon as someone voices concern, the defenders of climatology flee the battle ground and seek refuge behind words like "insulation" within quote marks so that You can`t nail the jello to the tree once and for all if we are discussing heat RADIATION or heat CONDUCTION/flows

Okay Ian, decide and choose either one or the other.
Much better would be if You and "climatology" would follow every path and not just pick one out while ignoring everything else..
But the whole thing is degraded to a con-game...when "back RADIATION" hits a "cul de sac" "climatologists" jump over every thermo-dynamic law in existence ( especially Kirchhoff`s) and want to continue on the heat CONDUCTION path, ...and continue to use the heat RADITION traffic rules.

But at the end of the maze, the claim is made yet again, that You all got there on the back radiation path.

Wirebender and Gslack are right when they say.."without back-radiation"there is no man made global warming.
I`m not taking sides here with the persons "wirebender" and Gslack...I am agreeing with what they have said in that regard...
And You should not see that as if I "ganged up" on You..
You never did say that, I just want to fore-go that...
I`m sure Gslack or wirebender would not hesitate to point out any oversights or errors if they spot some in my statements...
And I welcome it...in no way would I see these 2 guys as some sort of enemy because of that...

They are just as interested in Physics & Science as You & I...and have personally written me, that they have enjoyed
discussing science with You and have held You in high esteem before this discussion morphed into a full blown argument.

I`m willing to walk with You on either path You decide to take and we`ll chat as we stroll along...(in a non combative manner, of course)
The last time we discussed it, You wanted to take me on a journey riding an imaginary photon which has been emitted from the not so black body we call earth through a layer of gas that contains carbon dioxide.

That`s fine,...also it`s Okay to make mistakes or overlook something.
But if that happens, then it`s important to look at the things that have passed by on this photon journey, that You may have not noticed,...but that I do know this photon will encounter.

The first thing to bear in mind, that a photon has no "resting mass" which could be calculated from Einstein`s E=m*C^2.
So it`s important not to view it as if it were a true particle that has a discrete directional momentum it could maintain
It is very important to keep in mind that this photon as we follow this "back-radiation" journey has a dual existence...it also exhibits wave properties.

And as such (as an e-mag.-wave quantum) every time previously absorbed "photons" are re-emitted they spread out in all directions, not just one.

After all this is why an IR spectrophotometer can measure IR Absorption.
At the wavelength at which CO2 had absorbed IR are now missing ENERGY.

So where has this ENERGY (which are Your photons) gone...?
Is this missing ENERGY now staying in the CO2 as HEAT...?

No it is not. The reason why a photo-multiplier "sees" less Energy at these bands is because the Energy quanti , Your photons have not proceeded in the same direction they were on when they were absorbed,...

They are now re-emitted as a wave equally in all directions...and now You have "dark lines" in the absorption spectrum.

Here is the best illustration I could find on the Internet for You...
There may be better ones, but I think this should do :

Atomic Absorption and Emission Spectra

So as You can see this is not as "climatology" is trying to "explain" it a matter of "energy that is trapped much longer" ...as in the "energy takes much longer to escape at all.

It is a matter of re-direction into ALL OTHER POSSIBLE DIRECTIONS and certainly not a "lengthened escape time"....or any of these analogies that Trenberth, Spencer and all the others prefer to use...

Okay, then let`s all go on a photon journey which is on a so called "back-radiation" path...which is 180 degrees in the opposite direction where this photon has come from...this "black body" which these photons are now supposed to heat up to more than it would be without the CO2 Molecules that have scattered the incoming and absorbed IR in every possible direction...

Well the same wave duality laws will apply in the opposite "back-radiation" direction too...

So let`s apply that !
Picture a volume that has a 380 ppm (MOLAR) CO2 content...
Now considering the Loschmidt number :
2.686 7774(47)×10^25 Molecules per cubic meter at standard conditions

Now sit down and think about it how many such wave re-direction or "re-scattering" encounters these "back-radiation" photons will have trying to get back to the square meter of this "black body" where they came from...!


Perhaps it`s now a little easier to see why no math/phys/Chem professional is willing to subscribe to the assertions made by the "climatologist" professionals concerning black body heating with "back-radiation"....

Well if it`s such a "simple concept " then let`s do the not quite so "simple math" what would REALLY happen to any photon on a back radiation path, where it gets re-bounced 2.686 7774(47)×10^25 times in all different directions...

And that is the job the person(s) who made the assertion...but so far none of these bothered.

@IanC...:

did You spot it?... I make mistakes too...actually I was just plain too lazy..
I simply left the number of re-directs at the L-number but in reality there are only ~380 ppm MOLAR CO2 able to "re-direct" photons as a wave.
Not that would help the case for "back-radiation" a whole lot...
that still leaves L *380 *10^(-9) ~ 1*10^24 re-directs.

Had You, wirebender or Gslack pointed out my oversight I would not have viewed this as some sort of personal attack,...
And since I feel free to point out such oversights if that happened to You or anyone else, why should I get upset.

We are discussing science here, and scrutiny is the better part of science.
That "dirty Harry" picture below is for the sort of people who are on my ignore list.
You`ld have to do a whole lot more than just pointing out a mistake I made, to wind up on that list

all of what you said simply reinforces my statements.

the earth wants to shed heat by radiation.

the most effective way would be to simply have the IR photons directly escape into space at the speed of light.

the second best way is for the photons to be absorbed and then emitted to open space.

the totally ineffective way is for the photon to be absorbed and be emitted back to the earth.

some radiation does directly escape. some does get absorbed and reemitted to space. some does get absorbed and reemitted to the surface.

we only need to consider the up/down component of the photon, with consideration of the curvature of earth for escape directions. the sideways component is irrelevant, except for increasing the time of escape.

the estimate for the free path of an IR photon is less than 10 interactions, I believe. if you were correct that it is 10^24 then it only strengthens my case. the longer the photon is held in the atmosphere the more inefficiency in heat loss.

I am simply describing how CO2 slows the shedding of heat from the earth's surface. there are many, many other factors and I consider CO2 a relatively minor effect, at least in this portion of the log curve for concentration. my concern is that if we deny obviously true effects that reasonable people will ignore us on other topics as well. why should warmists believe your criticisms of real problems like climate feedback numbers when you disavow even simple physical concepts?

 

[gslack]

Ian backtrack much? Gotta love revisionist history especially when its recent enough to verify.. Or dispute... I loved this line...

"I am simply describing how CO2 slows the shedding of heat from the earth's surface."



no ian what ya did was call wire everything from wrong with no proof, to outright calling him a crackpot using esoteric claims, likened EM fields to made-up nonsense, and even harassed me simply because I proved you were dead wrong on that... Hell man you followed me around for 3 days harrassing my posts over it like a child..

YOU DIRECTLY ATTACKED WIREBENDER FROM THE START!!

Sorry but your behavior has been inexcusable, and until there is an apology and acceptance of your responsibility in this you can spare your act....

 

[wirebender]

What worries me is not so much what IanC is reading or what he subscribes to,...what really worries me a lot, is ...:
Are the schools preaching this kind of nonsense in today`s physics classes also..????...or is it just in the Internet...?
And is IanC a typical product of this Orwellian "new-speak" physics...?

I can't speak to most of it, but the corrupted version of the SB equations where the SB law is applied twice, once from the emitter to the background and again from the background to the emitter is being taught in climate science physics classes. On an earlier post in this thread, I provided ian a list of physics books in which the corrupted version of SB was taught and was not taught. Classical physics where the practitioners are likely to move on to engineering, astrophysics, etc are taught the actual SB law while climate physics teaches the corrupted version of SB.

 

[wirebender]

I am simply describing how CO2 slows the shedding of heat from the earth's surface.

Like the difference between heat sinks and insulators, you also don't seem to grasp what "slowing down" means. IR radiates away from the earth at, or very near the speed of light and doesn't slow down and none of it is beamed back towards the earth by CO2 molecules.

my concern is that if we deny obviously true effects that reasonable people will ignore us on other topics as well.

Take your own advice ian, you are denying the laws of physics in an effort to support an invention of climate pseudoscience that is necessary to promote climate alarmism. Which law of physics is it that you believe supports the notion of back radiation?

why should warmists believe your criticisms of real problems like climate feedback numbers when you disavow even simple physical concepts?

It is you who is denying simple physical concepts ian. Hell you just applied the workings of an insulator to a heat sink in order to support the crackpot idea of backradiation.

This may come as a surprise to you ian, but you are not the voice of reason here. You are the barking moonbat who supports the corruption of physical laws for pete's sake in an effort to rationalize a hypothesis that simply isn't supported by hard science. You readily stand by even when you are shown how a physical law has been corrupted and continue to support claims which have not, can not, and never will be substantiated either mathematically or by repeatable, observable, experimentation in the lab or in nature.

 

[polarbear]

all of what you said simply reinforces my statements.

the earth wants to shed heat by radiation.

the most effective way would be to simply have the IR photons directly escape into space at the speed of light.

the second best way is for the photons to be absorbed and then emitted to open space.

the totally ineffective way is for the photon to be absorbed and be emitted back to the earth.

some radiation does directly escape. some does get absorbed and reemitted to space. some does get absorbed and reemitted to the surface.

we only need to consider the up/down component of the photon, with consideration of the curvature of earth for escape directions. the sideways component is irrelevant, except for increasing the time of escape.

the estimate for the free path of an IR photon is less than 10 interactions, I believe. if you were correct that it is 10^24 then it only strengthens my case. the longer the photon is held in the atmosphere the more inefficiency in heat loss.

I am simply describing how CO2 slows the shedding of heat from the earth's surface. there are many, many other factors and I consider CO2 a relatively minor effect, at least in this portion of the log curve for concentration. my concern is that if we deny obviously true effects that reasonable people will ignore us on other topics as well. why should warmists believe your criticisms of real problems like climate feedback numbers when you disavow even simple physical concepts?

So You have finally committed Yourself to specify where this "extra time" is supposed to come from...the "longer time" that the 1.7 or so watts are spending in the
strange universe of "climatology".
True, the speed of light is proportionally reduced by the optical density of the transparent gas a beam of light has to traverse.
This is also observed as the "refractive index"...which also goes up as the density of this gas increased.

Finally we get to do the math and see as a number what You say is gained as "extra time"..instead of using "much longer" etc.
The much longer is in the case of air at standard pressure & temperature as opposed to a vacuum :

(1/299792368)-(1/ 299792458)= ~ 1 * 10^(-15) "extra time" in seconds for each meter
I really don`t care how many energy (photon) quant`s You want to use, use as many as You like to get Your back-radiation POWER flow of say 1.7 Watt. and please do apply this "extra time" how "much longer" these climatology photons are spending because of the "CO2 obstructions"

So IanC, do tell us how much ENERGY that amounts to ... these extra 1 *10^(-15) seconds
(....ENERGY expressed as Watt seconds...)
If You won`t tell then I shall.
It comes out to a miniscule 1.7 * 10^(-15) Watt seconds of heat ENERGY
So, Wirebender, Gslack, I`m sure they would...but I shall ...decide to let You have say a couple of hundred watts worth` of "back-radiation" for an "extra time" of 0.0000000000000015 seconds in your explanation how "climatologists" can measure with thermometers the so called extra heat ENERGY increase You could
achieve with that...
"climatologists" keep claiming they have measured this extra CO2 caused temperature increase,...and that they did so with thermometers...or do You argue that...???

And now to Your other statement:

if you were correct that it is 10^24 then it only strengthens my case. the longer the photon is held in the atmosphere the more inefficiency in heat loss.

Why do I have to continue to give You free tutoring in physics....in this case what is what in an absorption spectrum..
I linked You to some literature and You could have educated Yourself in that regard...
Obviously You did not...

Absorption is measured by a spectro-photometer which sends a beam of light from a source through air
containing CO2 in our case.
Nearly 100 % of the light would reach the detector if there is nothing in the straight line path from the source to the detector.
So now we put air containing 380 ppm molar CO2 in this path.
The detector will now experience a drop in received energy, the dark absorption lines in the picture + the explanation I have linked You to.
Had You studied up on this subject then You should not have any trouble at all understanding that
the more molecules are encountered that can absorb this light on the straight path from the source to the detector,....the more
of Your mechanical "climatology photons' have strayed from the straight pass from the source to detector and went off
in all other possible directions.

They don`t spend any "extra time" in there which the detector experiences as a drop in energy transmission.
And they did not "back-radiate" to the source either.

Because on the way back these ever so mechanical Ian photons encounter the same problem as they had
on their path to the detector.

And You come back and say, the higher the number of encounters as can be calculated using the Loschmitt number
the better for "back-radiation" or using Your words it "strengthens Your case".

I noticed You use the word "simple" quite often...and that is the problem.
You should start doing some serious,...not just simple thinking and reading before You make any more statements like this

Also have You ever given it a simple thought what your climatology photons have to pass through on their way back, as opposed to the way .

On the way back the air + CO2 gets increasingly denser and is as You keep putting it "obstructs" IR radiation
while on the way out the air gets progressively less dense and the number of CO2 molecules that are
obstructing Your climatology photons get less and less.

Lets not even get into that air which has been warmed plus the CO2 in it which is supposed to "back-radiate"
starts climbing at rates which can be in excess of 3000 feet per minute...adding this distance (=~ 17 additional meters each second) the
"climatology photons" would have to traverse on their way back to earth.

IanC...Do You understand how a diode or a "rectifier" works..???
Well if somebody would have to design a "rectifier" or a diode for electro magnetic (heat) radiation
which transmits stored heat quite well in one direction, away from earth... and impedes the "back-radiation" path..
a more efficient design than how our atmosphere and applying the laws of thermodynamics work
does to date not exist.

In the absence of gravity on this "climatology" model-planet, "warm" air+CO2 would just sit and hover where they were and be a drag on photons preventing the "escape of heat" but add heat "back-radiating" heat, now with no obstruction and all day long over the same short distance that gravity/convection in reality does add in addition to everything else I have pointed out to You.
But in Your "simple" concept which You insist we should accept as a proof of concept for global warming the planet earth is a simple "black-body", has no gravity and "climatology photons",
CO2 has a lot of "drag" on departing photons, slowing these down,
... but the same "drag" does not apply on the "back-radiation" way back down...

IanC in essence Your "climatology photons" behave like rocks falling back to earth.

Say where exactly did You get this :
"the estimate for the free path of an IR photon is less than 10 interactions, I believe"

Let me guess, that`s 10 climatology-photon "interactions" with the 380 molar ppm CO2
Not only does light no longer exist as electro-magnetic radiation , equally spreading in all directions and therefore diminishing in intensity by the square of the distance...it also has to hit something or have some sort of "interaction" ....say like the 10 You estimated
before light can diminish in intensity...

Now You have finally given us an insight into Your simple "climatology" universe...where the photons fly around like little space ships and hit or miss CO2 molecules that behave like little planets.


That is alarmingly similar to how simple teenagers would imagine it after smoking a few too
many "joints"....after that everything,....also whatever little brains remain... gets rather simple

 

[polarbear]

Ian backtrack much? Gotta love revisionist history especially when its recent enough to verify.. Or dispute... I loved this line...

"I am simply describing how CO2 slows the shedding of heat from the earth's surface."



no ian what ya did was call wire everything from wrong with no proof, to outright calling him a crackpot using esoteric claims, likened EM fields to made-up nonsense, and even harassed me simply because I proved you were dead wrong on that... Hell man you followed me around for 3 days harrassing my posts over it like a child..

YOU DIRECTLY ATTACKED WIREBENDER FROM THE START!!

Sorry but your behavior has been inexcusable, and until there is an apology and acceptance of your responsibility in this you can spare your act....

Yes by a whooping 1 *10^(-15) seconds
But what caught my attention here is the little bomb You dropped here:

Gotta love revisionist history especially when its recent enough to verify.. Or dispute... I loved this line...

I love it too...!!!
Especially the history that has been verified by none other than the honorable Kamerad Stalin...
The same Stalin who`s word we are supposed to take that under all that steel re-enforced concrete are some of the 6 million Jews us Germans have "zyklon-B`d" to death and which then vanished...

He says, that could be verified by anyone who would be able to dig through all this concrete...which he says the Soviets poured there so that the dead will not be disturbed:

But since ground penetrating radar we have in addition to all this concrete a #130 "holocaust denial" paragraph in Germany, which earns You a 10 year prison sentence if You would pry in any way shape or form to check if Stalin was a liar.
Same goes for anyone who dares to actually analyze for HCN residues in the ruins that are claimed to have been "gas chambers"...
At least one of these, the holocaust "gas chamber" + all the "ovens" icons in Auschwitz has been "re-constructed" by the Soviets from an air-raid shelter,...The Russians + the Polish Auschwitz curator Dr.Piper finally admitted that on camera to David Cole... that this "re-construction" magic was performed during the time while nobody from the West was allowed to inspect anything inside Soviet occupied territory...

Well I am not claiming one thing or the other, but as far as "verification" is concerned "climatology" is inching ever closer to the same methodology as "holocaust verification research" ...
as long as there are enough fools who believe something then it must be true.

 

[IanC]

thats odd. where did your last post go wirebender? do you mind putting that link up again, my phone doesnt have a history on the browser.

its an interesting idea but I am not really sure that it is fair to compare emissivity of CO2 over a large range when we are interested in IR that the earth gives off. CO2 has a couple of fat bands right in the middle of earth's radiation, with the 15 micron band practically to itself.

judging from the big bite taken out of the 15 micron portion of TOA outward radiation it appears that CO2 does a pretty good job of absorbing that band of radiation. actually I would like to read a paper on how much more energy can even be stopped because it looks like most already has been. I suppose that is why we are in the low slope portion of the log scale for doubling CO2 concentration.