AGW: atmospheric physics

[SSDD]

If Venus had an atmosphere composed of nitrogen or oxygen, 90 times more dense than the atmosphere of Earth, then Venus would be much cooler than it is at present.
.

No it wouldn't...Again, refer to the gas giants. Travel to jupiter, enter its atmosphere travel down into it till you reach a depth where the atmospheric pressure is equal to that on earth....compensate for the difference in distance from the sun and subsequently the amount of solar energy reaching jupiter and you will find that the temperature there is the same as that of earth even though the atmosphere is nearly all hydrogen and helium...definately not socalled greenhouse gases.

 

[SSDD]

You are wrong. Completely and hopelessly wrong. I'm a geologist and know more about rocks than you ever will and as I stated QUITE CLEARLY, we could BURN EVERY CARBON BEARING ROCK ON THIS PLANET AND CO2 WOULD STILL BE A TRACE GAS.

Guess he thinks buring carbon bearing rocks would increase the atmospheric pressure 90 times as well.

 

[SSDD]

Here is an article on The Second Law of Thermodynamics in relation to climate, which also makes it fairly clear exactly where SSDD is going wrong.

I suggest that you actually visit some physics text books. I have. Unsurprisingly, classical physics texts don't teach backradiation.

Just for example, these physics texts...used to teach the hard science of phsics do not teach backradiation.

•Atmospheric Radiation: Theoretical Basis by Goody and Yung:
•Radiative Heat Transfer by Modest
•Radiative Transfer by Chandrasekhar
•3D Radiative Transfer in Cloudy Atmospheres by Marshak-Davis
•An Introduction to Radiative Transferby Peraiah

While these physics texts used to teach the soft science of climatology do teach backradiation because with no backradiation there is no climate scare.

•An Introduction to Atmospheric Physic by Andrews
•Fundamentals of atmospheric radiation by Bohren-Clothiaux
•A First Course in Atmospheric Radiation by Petty
•The Greenhouse Effect by Lindzen
•Assessing Climate Change by Rapp

 

[Saigon]

I suggest that you actually visit some physics text books. I have. Unsurprisingly, classical physics texts don't teach backradiation.

That is because they do not relate to climate or the atmosphere.

I suggest you atually "visit" (sic) some physics text books which relate to atmopsheric physics.

I have already posted two articles which explain clearly and with examples exactly what part of the Second Law of Thermodynamics you have misunderstood.

Unfortunately, we both know that you are incapable of admitting error, in which case it is impossible for other posters to know at what point you do start to understand, but suffice to say that if you actually read the two articles posted, I imagine you will probably understand where you went wrong.

The example I gave earlier of (warmer) rain falling on (cooler) snow or frozen ground is as basic and obvious an example as anyone could hope for.

 

[SSDD]

I suggest that you actually visit some physics text books. I have. Unsurprisingly, classical physics texts don't teach backradiation.

That is because they do not relate to climate or the atmosphere.

Can you read?

Atmospheric Radiation: Theoretical Basis by Goody and Yung - does not teach backradiation as it is not physical
3D Radiative Transfer in Cloudy Atmospheres by Marshak-Davis - does not teach backradiation as it is not physical

And are you under the impression that backradiation would be something that only happens in the atmosphere? If backradiation existed, then it would be happening everywhere and if it existed, we would have perpetual motion machines everwhere and energy would not be of the slightest concern to us.

I suggest you atually "visit" (sic) some physics text books which relate to atmopsheric physics.

I gave you two examples of hard physics books related to the atmosphere that do not teach backradiation. And again, if backradiation existed, it would not be confined to the atmosphere. You really don't have much of a grasp of this do you? The soft science of climate science teaches backradiation because without backradiation, there is no AGW alarmism.

I have already posted two articles which explain clearly and with examples exactly what part of the Second Law of Thermodynamics you have misunderstood.

What you haven't posted, nor can you, nor all of climate science post is a single laboratory experiment that demonstrates backradiation...nor any measurement of backradiation at ambient temperature...that would be because it does not exist. We have no problem at all measuring incoming radiation from the sun but are absolutely unable to measure the claimed backradiation from the atmosphere to the ground which is claimed by climate science to be twice as much as is coming in from the sun. Explain that.

Unfortunately, we both know that you are incapable of admitting error, in which case it is impossible for other posters to know at what point you do start to understand, but suffice to say that if you actually read the two articles posted, I imagine you will probably understand where you went wrong.p

When I make one, I will admit it. Perhaps you should read enough to understand that backradiation is a fiction.

The example I gave earlier of (warmer) rain falling on (cooler) snow or frozen ground is as basic and obvious an example as anyone could hope for.

And exactly what do you suppose that proves? Do you think it proves that the cold ice radiates cold to the warm rain and makes the rain water warmer or do you think it proves what the second law of thermodynamics predicts which would be that energy from the warmer rain would transfer to the cooler ice losing energy in the process till something close to equilibrium was reached?

 

[numan]

You are wrong. Completely and hopelessly wrong. I'm a geologist and know more about rocks than you ever will and as I stated QUITE CLEARLY, we could BURN EVERY CARBON BEARING ROCK ON THIS PLANET AND CO2 WOULD STILL BE A TRACE GAS.

That statement is just pathetic. You may have a rock hammer and a couple of books on rock-hounding, but you could not possibly be a trained geologist when you write such an absurdity, which runs counter to all the vast research whose results may be found in any encyclopaedia, geology textbook, scientific article -- or even introductory undergraduate course -- which deals with the subject.

Guess he thinks burning carbon bearing rocks would increase the atmospheric pressure 90 times as well.

I do not think, I know that burning all the carbonate rocks on this planet would increase the atmospheric pressure by dozens of times -- and anyone with even the slightest knowledge of geology would know it, too.
.

 

[SSDD]

I do not think, I know that burning all the carbonate rocks on this planet would increase the atmospheric pressure by dozens of times -- and anyone with even the slightest knowledge of geology would know it, too.
.

You are a blithering idiot... Burning everything burnable on the planet earth would not increase the atmospheric pressure by even 5 psi...much less increase it by 90 times.

Change your avatar...your use of it is an insult to Stephen Hawking.

 

[Saigon]

SSDD -

As mentioned earlier, the fact that you lack the ability to admit error makes discussions like this difficult, although me feeling has been that you probably realised that you were wrong about three pages back.

Perhaps you should read enough to understand that backradiation is a fiction.

Apparently not. But this does not mean that you can understand it.

Can you provide any reliable, objective peer-reviewed source which claims that it is a fiction?

I suggest you do a little reading on non-equilibrium thermodynamics:

Non-equilibrium thermodynamics is a branch of thermodynamics that deals with thermodynamic systems that are not in thermodynamic equilibrium. Most systems found in nature are not in thermodynamic equilibrium; for they are changing or can be triggered to change over time, and are continuously and discontinuously subject to flux of matter and energy to and from other systems and to chemical reactions. Non-equilibrium thermodynamics is concerned with transport processes and with the rates of chemical reactions.[1] Many natural systems still today remain beyond the scope of currently known macroscopic thermodynamic methods.

The thermodynamic study of non-equilibrium systems requires more general concepts than are dealt with by equilibrium thermodynamics. One fundamental difference between equilibrium thermodynamics and non-equilibrium thermodynamics lies in the behaviour of inhomogeneous systems, which require for their study knowledge of rates of reaction which are not considered in equilibrium thermodynamics of homogeneous systems. This is discussed below. Another fundamental difference is the difficulty in defining entropy in macroscopic terms for systems not in thermodynamic equilibrium.[2][3]

Non-equilibrium thermodynamics - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I am still waiting for you to address the point about rainfall on snow. We both know you can not.

 

[numan]

If Venus had an atmosphere composed of nitrogen or oxygen, 90 times more dense than the atmosphere of Earth, then Venus would be much cooler than it is at present.

No it wouldn't...Again, refer to the gas giants. Travel to jupiter, enter its atmosphere travel down into it till you reach a depth where the atmospheric pressure is equal to that on earth....compensate for the difference in distance from the sun and subsequently the amount of solar energy reaching jupiter and you will find that the temperature there is the same as that of earth even though the atmosphere is nearly all hydrogen and helium...definately not socalled greenhouse gases.

Life is simply too short to deal with all the ignorant statements made by the global heating deniers on this thread. Having excreted a plethora of ignorant gaffes about geology and atmospheric physics, they are now attempting to conquer the astronomical universe with their absurdities!!

Surely everyone who has ever cracked a book on basic astronomy knows that most of the heat on Jupiter comes from internal sources, and not from the Sun!! · ·

You must think of Jupiter not as a planet like the Earth, but rather as a failed Sun -- if you know what the Sun is!!
.

 

[polarbear]

Neither are you clownboy. Amazingly enough (well not really, considering it's you) there is no such rank, specialty, or distinguishing group in the US Navy. None.

Groan. Civilians.

"Officer of the Deck" is not a rank, but there is a position called "Officer of the Deck", and you have to pass the OOD certification to hold it.

"Engineering Officer of the Watch" (ee-ow) is not a rank, but there is watch position called "Engineering Officer of the Watch", and you have to pass the Reactor Watch Officer certification to hold it.

Lying again, and you got caught yet again. Sad....just sad.

This should be where you apologize for accusing me of lying just because you were such a dumbfuck.

Then, you might want to look back at the results of all your other idiot vendettas. Is the endless humiliation that it gets you worth it?

Officer of the Deck is a well known temporary job description for LINE OFFICERS, and there are even optical devices created for them bearing that name. What you described is an enlisted position (as verified by a check to the list of jobs on the US Navy's website) where you watch gauges and other powerplant management systems. The person in charge of that engineering section would of course be an engineering officer.

So, what was your rating?

And for the record it would be you getting humiliated...but you have no consience or shame, so humiliating you is just fun.

Absolutely correct !
And on his cap would be his call name (stitched on). Ask him what it was and he`ll try and find one with Google.I have not been in the Navy but I volunteered helping some who were to prepare for their engineering exams. So I have a very good idea what`s on their exams and what it takes to pass one.
This person behind the Siamese cat is an insult to all "Engineering Officers"
Never mind that liar..
The ISS Cmdr. Chris Hadfield up-loaded some more fascinating pictures:

Here is Newfoundlands natural ice breaker (Belle Isle) at work:

It`s got nothing to do with melting.
That process is driven by water currents and winds....and not just around Newfoundland but also for the Lincoln Sea
Here is an amazing picture of a "Karman Vortex Street":

Here is what the St.Lawrence Strait (Quebec) looks like right now:

They caught some spectacular "sprites" on camera.
These ones went up over 100 km:

Don Pettit who is the current ISS photographer had to ask NASA`s permission to remove the IR filters from the cameras

and shot some amazing pictures, like this coral reef :

Or the Ganges Delta agriculture fields:

The violet regions on the left are bare fields.
Here is the Pico do Fogo volcano and it`s Siamese cat in the hat "Chinese aerosol":

And by the way

This is the digital finger print for these photos:
FF D8 FF E0 00 10 4A 46 ÿØÿà JF
49 46 00 01 02 00 00 01 IF
00 01 00 00 FF ED 00 9B ÿí ›
50 68 6F 74 6F 73 68 6F Photosho
70 20 33 2E 30 00 38 42 p 3.0 8B
49 4D 04 04 07 43 61 70 IM Cap
74 69 6F 6E 00 00 00 79 tion y
1C 02 78 00 40 42 69 6C x @Bil
64 65 72 20 61 75 73 20 der aus
64 65 6D 20 41 6C 6C 20 dem All
2D 20 46 6F 74 6F 74 69 - Fototi
70 70 73 20 76 6F 6E 20 pps von
44 6F 6E 20 50 65 74 74 Don Pett
69 74 2E 56 6F 6E 20 4B it.Von K
61 72 6D 6F 6E 20 63 6C armon cl
6F 75 64 73 2E 1C 02 69 ouds.i
00 26 4E 41 53 41 20 2F &NASA /
20 50 65 74 74 69 74 20 Pettit
2F 20 49 53 53 20 46 6F / ISS Fo
74 6F 73 20 61 75 73 20 tos aus
64 65 6D 20 41 6C 6C 20 dem All

From that I can tell that the German News Magaizne "Der Spiegel" has reformatted Pettit, NASA`s photographer`s pictures.
But all they did is change the size and renamed them for their archives
So don`t try bullshit me again with photo- or any other image-shop reworked forecast anomaly pictures from one of these idiotic blogs you keep pasting in here, where Greenland looks like molten lava and pass them off as "Satellite pictures".
We are still waiting for you to scan in a document or a picture that shows that you "used to run nuclear power plants".
Here is a digital fingerprint of a picture my brother took with his camera when he visited me in Canada
45 78 69 66 00 00 49 49 Exif II
2A 00 08 00 00 00 01 00 *
69 87 04 00 01 00 00 00 i‡
1A 00 00 00 00 00 00 00
01 00 86 92 02 00 1E 00 †’
00 00 2C 00 00 00 00 00 ,
00 00 4C 45 41 44 20 54 LEAD T
65 63 68 6E 6F 6C 6F 67 echnolog
69 65 73 20 49 6E 63 2E ies Inc.
20 56 31 2E 30 31 00 00 V1.01
FF FE 00 1F 4C 45 41 44 ÿþ LEAD
20 54 65 63 68 6E 6F 6C Technol
6F 67 69 65 73 20 49 6E ogies In
63 2E 20 56 31 2E 30 31 c. V1.01
00 FF FE 00 1F 4C 45 41 ÿþ LEA
44 20 54 65 63 68 6E 6F D Techno
6C 6F 67 69 65 73 20 49 logies I
6E 63 2E 20 56 31 2E 30 nc. V1.0
31 00 FF DB 00 43 00 02 1 ÿÛ C
For this photo print I scanned in and uploaded:

You are stuck...because you don`t know how to do digital forgery that would go right by me...just like "Saigon, the Journalist in Finland" who can`t run his finger across "QWERTYUIOP" and generate the ASCII sequence a Finnish key board would generate.
Almost all of you AGW forum trolls are complete frauds

69% Say It’s Likely Scientists Have Falsified Global Warming Research

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_are_standard_IQ_scale_rates
70% of IQ scores fall between 85 and 115

remaining are those with an IQ range from 50-70 (- Mild mental retardation )
There is a pretty good correlation I would say.

You guys delude yourselves that you are "winning" never realizing you`all are on the wrong track:

 

[mamooth]

What you described is an enlisted position (as verified by a check to the list of jobs on the US Navy's website) where you watch gauges and other powerplant management systems.

Nope. Enlisted can qualify as EOOW on conventional ships, but on nuclear-powered vessels, the position is officer-only. Senior enlisted on nuclear ships will hold the Engineering Watch Supervisor (EWS) position. EOOW sits in the control room, while the EWS works out in the plant.

The person in charge of that engineering section would of course be an engineering officer.

The Engineering Department head would be an O-4. The individual engineering division (M, A, E, RE, RL, RC) officers , who are also the EOOW watchstanders, would be O-1-2-3's. Not many O-1's, because you've almost hit O-2 by the time you finish training and hit the ship.

So, what was your rating?

Officers don't have ratings.

Give it up. You're frantically trolling websites for something, while actually I did it for years. This isn't a debate. This is just me telling you how wrong you are.

 

[SSDD]

Can you provide any reliable, objective peer-reviewed source which claims that it is a fiction?

How about the second law of thermodynamics for an objective peer reviewed source.

Second Law of Thermodynamics

Second Law of Thermodynamics: 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.

Back radiation is defined as long wave or infrared radition directed from the atmosphere towards the surface of the earth. Since the second law of thermodynamics says that heat can't flow from a colder body to a warmer body without some work having been done to accompish the task and that energy will not flow spontaneously from a low temperature area to an area of higher temperature...backradiation is not possible. There is no experiment that proves the existence of backradiation and backradiation has never been measured at ambient temperature.

I am still waiting for you to address the point about rainfall on snow. We both know you can not.

I already did and asked you what your point was. Clearly you had no point and thought that rain on snow proved something that it doesn't. The second law of thermodynamics predicts that rain, being warmer than snow will transfer energy to the snow and lose energy itself till such time as equilibrium or near equilibrium is reached unless some additional energy is put into the system.

What? Did you think it proved that the snow would radiate cold to the rain and somehow warm it up? That is the claim made by those who believe backradiation exists...that cold objects can radiate to warm objects and warm them up in direct opposition to the statement of the second law.

 

[SSDD]

Life is simply too short to deal with all the ignorant statements made by the global heating deniers on this thread. Having excreted a plethora of ignorant gaffes about geology and atmospheric physics, they are now attempting to conquer the astronomical universe with their absurdities!!

You are the only one making ignorant statements here.

Surely everyone who has ever cracked a book on basic astronomy knows that most of the heat on Jupiter comes from internal sources, and not from the Sun!! · ·

Internal sources?? Like atmospheric pressure? And when I said compensate for the difference between solar energy reaching jupiter and solar energy reaching earth....are you aware that you have to compensate when a body receives less solar energy just the same as you must compensate when a body receives more solar energy...Maybe you should look up the word compensate.

You must think of Jupiter not as a planet like the Earth, but rather as a failed Sun -- if you know what the Sun is!!
.

Physics are physics regardless of whether you are talking about planets, stars, or failed stars. Jupiter's heat is due to pressure... Travel down in the atmosphere till the pressure is equal to that on venus, compensate for the differences in solar radiation and you will find a temperature nearly identical to that of venus....move back up till the atmospheric pressure is equal to that on earth...compensate for the differences in solar radiation and again, you will find a temperature nearly identical to that of earth just like you find a temparture nearly identical to earth on venus if you are at a level in the atmosphere where the pressure is equal to the earth and compensate for the differences in incoming solar radiation.

Apparenly you aren't bright enough to connect the dots and understand what that means.

 

[westwall]

You are wrong. Completely and hopelessly wrong. I'm a geologist and know more about rocks than you ever will and as I stated QUITE CLEARLY, we could BURN EVERY CARBON BEARING ROCK ON THIS PLANET AND CO2 WOULD STILL BE A TRACE GAS.

That statement is just pathetic. You may have a rock hammer and a couple of books on rock-hounding, but you could not possibly be a trained geologist when you write such an absurdity, which runs counter to all the vast research whose results may be found in any encyclopaedia, geology textbook, scientific article -- or even introductory undergraduate course -- which deals with the subject.

Guess he thinks burning carbon bearing rocks would increase the atmospheric pressure 90 times as well.

I do not think, I know that burning all the carbonate rocks on this planet would increase the atmospheric pressure by dozens of times -- and anyone with even the slightest knowledge of geology would know it, too.
.

I challege you to go to ANY university with a Earth Sciences department and tell them what you just said. They will laugh you out of the quad.

And no, when the CO2 levels were 20 TIMES what they are now the atmospheric pressure was the same BECAUSE CO2 is now, and will allways be, a TRACE GAS you incompetent fool.

 

[westwall]

SSDD -

As mentioned earlier, the fact that you lack the ability to admit error makes discussions like this difficult, although me feeling has been that you probably realised that you were wrong about three pages back.

Perhaps you should read enough to understand that backradiation is a fiction.

Apparently not. But this does not mean that you can understand it.

Can you provide any reliable, objective peer-reviewed source which claims that it is a fiction?

I suggest you do a little reading on non-equilibrium thermodynamics:

Non-equilibrium thermodynamics is a branch of thermodynamics that deals with thermodynamic systems that are not in thermodynamic equilibrium. Most systems found in nature are not in thermodynamic equilibrium; for they are changing or can be triggered to change over time, and are continuously and discontinuously subject to flux of matter and energy to and from other systems and to chemical reactions. Non-equilibrium thermodynamics is concerned with transport processes and with the rates of chemical reactions.[1] Many natural systems still today remain beyond the scope of currently known macroscopic thermodynamic methods.

The thermodynamic study of non-equilibrium systems requires more general concepts than are dealt with by equilibrium thermodynamics. One fundamental difference between equilibrium thermodynamics and non-equilibrium thermodynamics lies in the behaviour of inhomogeneous systems, which require for their study knowledge of rates of reaction which are not considered in equilibrium thermodynamics of homogeneous systems. This is discussed below. Another fundamental difference is the difficulty in defining entropy in macroscopic terms for systems not in thermodynamic equilibrium.[2][3]

Non-equilibrium thermodynamics - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I am still waiting for you to address the point about rainfall on snow. We both know you can not.

I have proven you catastrophically wrong on three major facts and you blather away at SSDD who has been more correct than wrong than you ever will.

Get a clue fool. You're not credible. You will never be credible. You have the scientific knowledge of a gnat and will never get better.

 

[westwall]

What you described is an enlisted position (as verified by a check to the list of jobs on the US Navy's website) where you watch gauges and other powerplant management systems.

Nope. Enlisted can qualify as EOOW on conventional ships, but on nuclear-powered vessels, the position is officer-only. Senior enlisted on nuclear ships will hold the Engineering Watch Supervisor (EWS) position. EOOW sits in the control room, while the EWS works out in the plant.

The person in charge of that engineering section would of course be an engineering officer.

The Engineering Department head would be an O-4. The individual engineering division (M, A, E, RE, RL, RC) officers , who are also the EOOW watchstanders, would be O-1-2-3's. Not many O-1's, because you've almost hit O-2 by the time you finish training and hit the ship.

So, what was your rating?

Officers don't have ratings.

Give it up. You're frantically trolling websites for something, while actually I did it for years. This isn't a debate. This is just me telling you how wrong you are.

No, no you didn't. You lie about everything. You are correct that officers don't have ratings but you weren't an officer. You're not smart enough.

 

[mamooth]

Again, you might want to lose that crazy vendetta against me.

 

[SSDD]

Again, you might want to lose that crazy vendetta against me.

Idiots tend to draw bullseyes on themselves...it is one of the prominent characteristics of idiots. Live with it.

 

[westwall]

Again, you might want to lose that crazy vendetta against me.

Why on Earth would I have a vendetta against a silly person You're beginning to sound like a paranoid schizophrenic.

 

[Saigon]

SSDD -

Most of these threads seem to follow quite a familiar pattern, which is:

a) you make some inexplicable claim - in this case that climate change is incompatible with the Second Law of Thermondynamics

b) A number of posters correct you error and provide information

c) you refuse to look at the material, claim the sources are not the ones you prefer, or, as in this case, simply continue to insist that you are right, despite all evidence to the contrary.

I explained very clearly the two points you are missing. I posted two links to reputable sources to back those up, one of which also provided excellent examples of back radiation.

It is absolutely fine with me if you do not understand the Second Law of Thermodynamics. It is fine with me that you are arrogant enough to believe that you have now re-written the law to exclude back-radiation.

No one on this board is being paid to make you understand basic physics, and if you prefer to be poorly informed, the only person who pays a price for that is you.

For anyone else, here is the explanation:

Some of Earth’s accumulated energy is exported via evapotranspiration (latent and sensible heat loss to atmosphere), clouds form from condensing water vapor, some precipitation occurs and (to make it really obvious) some rain falls on glaciers (snow, ice fields&#8230. The liquid water precipitating out of (falling from) the atmosphere is warmer than our glacier (or snow or ice fields) and by melting same it is undeniably returning some of Earth’s previously exported energy back to Earth – this is a feedback. Does precipitation then falsify the 2nd Law? It doesn’t, of course, since Earth is exporting more heat than it is receiving via feedback and heat flow is still from warmer to cooler but undeniably the atmosphere is returning some energy to Earth and thus keeping it from cooling as rapidly as it otherwise would.

Is there a conflict between Greenhouse Effect and the Second Law of Thermodynamics? | JunkScience.com