AGW: atmospheric physics

[SSDD]

That isn't backradiation

It amuses me, how you think that backradiation is somehow magically different from plan old long-wave infrared radiation. In your world, instruments that detect longwave IR are inexplicably incapable of sensing backradiation.

Backradiation, by definition would be energy radiated back to its source. That is energy spontaneously returning to its original high energy state from a lower energy state. I am afraid that simply is not possible. If you think otherwise, provide real world measurements of backradiation at ambient temperature.

And detecting longwave IR does not imply backradiation. Backradiation is a physical impossibility. It would be a violation of the law of conservation of energy. Suppose you have a source radiating 100 watts per square meter and it receives and absorbs backradiation of 1 watt per square meter resulting in an output of 101 watts per square meter. Where did that extra watt come from? The sky isn't an energy source for the radiator since IR there is at a lower energy state than the surface so it can't provide any energy. Where did that 1 watt come from? It had to be created because the system is only capable of radiating 100 watts per square meter. What created it...where did it come from?

 

[SSDD]

.just like the Siamese Cat is trying to tell me that no 2 turbine driven generators can run at the same rpm and phase angle while there are tens of thousands perfectly synchronized at any given time on our power grid

I never said such any such thing, you lying sack of shit.

Why can't you speak about me without lying, you big pussy...cat? Oh, that's right, it's because you're such a big pussycat.

What you said comes pretty damned close.. You said:

Nope. There's no way to keep 2 separate turbine generators at the same relative phase angle, given that generator frequency is controlled by separate analog circuits, with fine tuning being done from the Electrical Control Panel in EOS. Since the frequencies are always slightly different, phase angle between separate energized buses always varies, and it's not possible to instantly parallel buses. The Electrical Operator has to look at the phase difference meter, and manually close the breaker when he sees it hit eleven o'clock.

 

[mamooth]

And yet, the whole of science can't prove what you seem to take on faith. You call it an error but are completely unable to prove it.

Given that the whole planet over the past two centuries agrees with me, I'm not the one who needs to prove anything. Sucks to be you that way, but you freely chose to spout crank nonsense.

Again, you couldn't possibly be more wrong. I would like to see you prove that energy moves from low states to high states.

Individual molecules certainly can and do move from a low state to a high state. The system as a whole can not. The statistics, the sum of the individual probabilities, always goes from high to low, even if some individual molecules go the opposite way. That's the second law, a description of statistics. And you fail hard at understanding it.

And no, none of your examples contradicted my statements in any way. The fact that you didn't understand that simply showed the magnitude of your failure to understand. You really need some hard physics behind you, some college level physics department thermo classes where they delve into the statistics that form the foundation of thermodynamics.

Because there is no work being done, there is no backradiation. The IR in the atmosphere is at a lower energy state than the IR stored in the surface of the earth.

And there is no net flow...there is gross flow in one direction. The second law doesn't allow two way energy flow without some work being done to accomplish it.

Your glaring failure there, again, is your confusion of the micro with the macro, due to your failure to understand what the second law of thermodynamics actually says.

The second law is a description of the physical world.. Your claims regarding net two way flows of energy are

... directly observed in the real world, over and over. Hence, I _know_ you're a raging kook. Your denial of reality does not make the reality go away.

 

[mamooth]

What you said comes pretty damned close.. You said:

Leaving out the part where I said there was no computer control on the ship, and that computer control could manage the trick? That comes close to lying by omission on your part.

You really, really don't want to be jumping on PolarBear's idiot vendetta bandwagon. It never ends well for the people who do.

 

[mamooth]

And detecting longwave IR does not imply backradiation. Backradiation is a physical impossibility. It would be a violation of the law of conservation of energy.

Just like those silvery space blankets violate energy conservation. I mean, put one next to you, and instead of 0 watts bouncing back at you, a bunch of watts start bouncing back at you, and it raises your own temp, and you start radiating more. Where did that extra energy come from?

Suppose you have a source radiating 100 watts per square meter and it receives and absorbs backradiation of 1 watt per square meter resulting in an output of 101 watts per square meter. Where did that extra watt come from?

From energy that was sent back instead of going out into space. What, you thought that was a hard question?

The sky isn't an energy source for the radiator since IR there is at a lower energy state than the surface so it can't provide any energy. Where did that 1 watt come from?

From the same mysterious dimension from which the space blanket "created" energy, obviously.

 

[polarbear]

.just like the Siamese Cat is trying to tell me that no 2 turbine driven generators can run at the same rpm and phase angle while there are tens of thousands perfectly synchronized at any given time on our power grid

I never said such any such thing, you lying sack of shit.

Why can't you speak about me without lying, you big pussy...cat? Oh, that's right, it's because you're such a big pussycat.

Typical. You get caught with your b.s. and if somebody reads you back your own words then you deny you said it and call others a "lying sack of shit".

Here is the crock of shit you posted 04-09-2013, 01:28 PM #748 (permalink) :
04-09-2013, 01:28 PM #748 (permalink)

There's no way to keep 2 separate turbine generators at the same relative phase angle, given that generator frequency is controlled by separate analog circuits, with fine tuning being done from the Electrical Control Panel in EOS. Since the frequencies are always slightly different, phase angle between separate energized buses always varies, and it's not possible to instantly parallel buses. The Electrical Operator has to look at the phase difference meter, and manually close the breaker when he sees it hit eleven o'clock.

As if anyone would let a retard like you run loose in a power plant.
Instead of calling us names show us some proof, a document , a badge or a picture. You won`t because you can`t. You are a fraud . Not even your Googled buzzwords and jargon match reality. You did not even recognize the Westinghouse PLC programming manuals I showed you and figured that was "Microsoft Windows". The only time we phase in a second turbine/generator unit manually is when we check out a newbe to see if he understands how the PLC`s do it when there is a demand surge which exceeds what`s feeding the common bus.
EVERY power plant works that way from nuclear to coal fired, hydro and even power plants with multiple diesel generators.
Power plants got 1/2 their generators running 1 or 2 of these actually generate power the rest are spun up and are being held in sync and the rest sit idle for backup, but go on standby sync just as soon as as the producing 1/2 of the plant begins to approach max load capacity.
It`s all fully automatic and controlled by the same Westinghouse Programmable Logic Control system which has been an industrial standard since the early 1970`s.
Even the latest Windmill farms use the same control system which has been upgraded from a 16 bit data bus to 32 and 64 bits and is in use in EVERY MODERN POWER PLANT regardless what the power source is.
Hydro and steam turbines , including nuclear are the easiest, Diesel powered gen-sets are more difficult. All it takes to modulate a turbine is to open the intake wicket gates and the turbine spins up. With a > 10 00 or more hp air turbine started Diesel there is a lot more involved. You can`t put in on line till all the cylinder and turbo temps have stabilized...and it`s all done by the same Westinghouse software I showed you twice already...:
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aanSnb6FrjU"]C280-16 Startup - YouTube[/ame]
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W-VlTKL7U6A"]MAN Diesel engine starting with pneumatic starter - YouTube[/ame]

That genset can go on standby while in sync with the power grid.
The sensors that the software is monitoring continuously, check if there is any power being fed to the bus by this generator, if so then it simply reduces the current to the rotor coils and the electronic speed governor prevents the turbine or Diesel engine from speeding up.
With a wind turbine the same software adjusts the blade pitch and that`s why wind turbines are so troublesome, because at fine pitch the torque drops and with a coarser pitch the rpm`s drop. (They should hire you to turn knobs manually like you said you did when you were "running nuclear power plants"..to keep a wind farm in sync)
If the generator is drawing power from the grid because it`s out of sync then the software checks the phase angle and decides it if the turbine wickets have to be modulated up or down. For a 60 Hertz 3 phase system it performs this check 360 times per second and adjusts accordingly.
Turbine intake wickets or fuel racks on > 17 000 hp Diesel Engines.
The entire North American Power grid runs like that. It matters dick all what kind of generator contributes they are all perfectly in sync like a huge symphony orchestra no matter if there are fiddles or brass instruments playing along. The only time it doesn`t matter if a sector is out of sync if that sector transforms their 3 phaes HVAC to HVDC long range transmission, because then it`s synchronized at the HVDC to HVAC converter station
There is no way a dummy like you could keep up watching gauges and turn knobs.


You are just too fucking dumb to wrap your little hate filled shit brain around it.

When somebody ignores your utter bullshit, then you claim "Polarbear is running away scared" and when I debunk your crap then it`s a "vendetta".
Go get a Rabie shot and then see a shrink. People with severe Paranoia are a risk to public safety and there is no way a twisted weirdo like you ever passed DOD clearance

 

[gslack]

No one on this thread has claimed that an object MUST radiate heat to a warmer object - only that it could given certain conditions.

Backradiation may not occur in every scenario with cushions, heaters and frogs, but we know for a fact that it exists in the earth & atmopshere, and you can go and watch it happen yourself if you are sufficiently interested.

I've posted all of the information on this twice now - I've yet to see you address the science behind it.

What conditions? What conditions allow for two-way heat flow? A perfect machine? Doesn't exist..

Backradiation is make believe, a hoax to sell a messed up theory. Ever see some of the convoluted equations and explanations they use to explain it? It's simply retarded..

The laws of physics do not stop working just to suit some theory. They are laws because in the natural world they have shown to be inflexible therefore laws. They are using complex mathematics and theoretical mumbo-jumbo to claim that in this one case, the laws of physics are broken.. Nowhere else in the natural world at anytime have they shown this phenomenon, but using their computer generated models, and theoretical math based on equations designed to give the result they want, they say it's fact now..

BS..

Yeah but the thing is, slackjawed, you're a clueless, brainwashed retard with no real knowledge or understanding of the laws of physics or anything else in science, as you have clearly demonstrated every time you post. As SSooooDDuuumb has also done, almost as well as you. Two clueless dumbfucks, spewing ignorant drivel and nonsense.

I just posted some good explanations from Dr. Roy Spencer that detail just how you denier cult fools are misinterpreting the 2nd law of thermodynamics. As he said: "thermal conduction involves energy flow in only one direction. But radiation flow involves energy flow in both directions".

If you mindless denier cult dupes actually knew anything at all about physics, you would realize just how absurd your claims are about the "impossibility of backradiation". What seems to be beyond your meager comprehension is the fact that infrared radiation is very close to the visible light wavelengths that we can see in the electromagnetic spectrum. and both IR and visible light are transferring energy with photons. If there were actually no backradiation possible, as you kooks would have it, we would certainly notice that when a 1000 lumens lamp and a 500 lumens lamp were pointed directly at each other, the lower intensity light source would just black out and refuse to emit photons in the direction of the other lamp. LOLOLOLOLOLOLOL. Or point a flashlight at the sun and then hold up a mirror next to the sun and see if the flashlight is still shining. LOLOLOL....you Dunning-Kruger Effect afflicted rightwingnutjobs are soooo hilarious when you try to explain how all of the scientists are wrong and you're right. You're just too stupid and ignorant to be able to recognize just how extremely stupid and ignorant you really are and you have no comprehension at all of just how much smarter most other people are than you imbeciles.

See blunder I gave you rational thought and you respond with name-calling and foot stomping... You are a troll nothing more...

 

[gslack]

No thanks read his nonsense before.. Want a clue? His premise is false... His contention...

Right.

So the scientists have got it wrong - again. It's surprising how often it comes down to that on this board.

Even more surprising that we can post research written by a Professor of Physics with 25 years experience, and he can be "proven wrong" by someone who struggled to pass high school maths.

Enlightening.

btw, keep this in mind:

The simplest direct observation of the greenhouse effect at work is atmospheric backradiation. Any substance that absorbs thermal radiation will also emit thermal radiation; this is a consequence of Kirchoff's law. The atmosphere absorbs thermal radiation because of the trace greenhouse gases, and also emits thermal radiation, in all directions. This thermal emission can be measured from the surface and also from space. The surface of the Earth actually receives in total more radiation from the atmosphere than it does from the Sun.

The greenhouse effect and the 2nd law of thermodynamics

That guy isn't a scientist, he's a website entrepreneur and PR man. He may have been trained to be one, but he has forsaken it in exchange being famous and rich..

One post, to one thread.. WTF?

 

[gslack]

The dudes a BS artist nothing more. I read his crap a few times, he's a charlatan

David C. Tobin

Dr. David C. Tobin received his PhD degree in 1996 at the University of Maryland ? Baltimore Campus (UMBC) where he worked under Professor Larrabee Strow. His Ph.D. research focused on molecular spectroscopy, infrared radiative transfer, and remote sensing. His dissertation work dealt with laboratory and theoretical studies of the infrared spectral line shapes of water vapor and carbon dioxide. For the past eleven years, Dr. Tobin has been a research scientist at the University of Wisconsin-Madison Space Science and Engineering Center, where he is part of the center’s infrared high spectral resolution remote sensing group led by Dr. Hank Revercomb. He has made exceptional advances in the measurement and semi-empirical representation of the water vapor continuum absorption, including, (a) laboratory measurements of the water vapor continuum absorption in infrared window regions and in the 6 μm vibrational band, (b) theoretical investigation and empirical representation of the near-wing super-Lorentz lineshape behavior, (c) measurement of the far-infrared absorption using ground-based downwelling sky view spectra, and (d) development and validation of the latest water vapor continuum model, MT(Tobin)_CKD, which is now used in state-of-the-art line-by-line radiative transfer models. He is involved with various projects involving infrared molecular spectroscopy and atmospheric radiative transfer, atmospheric water vapor, infrared spectro-radiometer calibration and validation, and infrared remote sensing. Current efforts include Level 1 and 2 product validation as part of the AIRS science and Aura (TES) validation teams, infrared radiance and flux closure studies for the ARM program, investigations of the water vapor continuum, NPP science team efforts including CrIS sensor and algorithm assessments, characterization studies of the Geosynchronous Imaging Fourier Transform Spectrometer (GIFTS) and the Infrared Atmospheric Sounding Interferometer (IASI), and involvement in the center’s aircraft based interferometer program. In summary, Dr. Tobin's scientific contributions are extraordinary for a young scientist. His work has already had, and continues to have, a most significant impact on the field of atmospheric radiation. These outstanding contributions led the IRC to present Dr. Tobin with the 2008 IRC Young Scientist Award.

International Radiation Commission

SO he's been educated to prove AGW theory, got that already.. I know you see titles and degrees and big words, and suddenly assume they are all meaningful. But save it, most of that is a repeat of the same qualifications using different language...

So he's an educated con-man... Lot's of them out there..

 

[Saigon]

SO he's been educated to prove AGW theory, got that already.. I know you see titles and degrees and big words, and suddenly assume they are all meaningful. But save it, most of that is a repeat of the same qualifications using different language...

So he's an educated con-man... Lot's of them out there..

So who is a better source for information on thermodynamics - Dr Tobin, or you and SSDD?

Who is more likely to be right, would you say?

 

[gslack]

SO he's been educated to prove AGW theory, got that already.. I know you see titles and degrees and big words, and suddenly assume they are all meaningful. But save it, most of that is a repeat of the same qualifications using different language...

So he's an educated con-man... Lot's of them out there..

So who is a better source for information on thermodynamics - Dr Tobin, or you and SSDD?

Who is more likely to be right, would you say?

Or you? A guy who takes what he's told by Al Gore as gospel?

Look, we are telling you what is common knowledge. No BS, I have no damn agenda, nobody pays me to post shit, I don't play party politics, I give a shit less which assholes in office because they are all equally worthless.

If you took some kind of basic science in middle or high school, you should know the basic laws of physics, and the laws of thermodynamics can be found anywhere on the net. Why are they laws? Because they are inflexible and thereby laws. They became laws over time because they have shown to be true and factual in the natural world whenever tested.

Now you are buying into some ridiculous theory that claims it has "special conditions" or "special circumstances" where those laws are flexible to the point of complete breakdown.They can't show you this in any true, honest physical experiment, they can only show you using thought experiments and equations designed to give a desired result.

DUDE!!! Seriously if they can't show you a true and honest physical experiment of this theory actually doing as they claim, and it by it's very definition defies the laws of physics, what the hell is so damn believable about it?

I'll tell you, you were sold this by people you trust. Politicians made it popular and one in particular well trusted by liberals and progressives, was the leader in this scam. He stood to make Billions off of the taxes, and markets he had planned to capitalize on it. So did many of the scientists, researchers, universities, and green tech companies.

Now it's shown false,and you can't accept it, you won't accept it.. They get caught lying time and again, you still believe it, they tell you exactly what their plans are with the carbon credit/tax and ,markets, and you accept it even excuse it. Their top scientists tell you in their own words that they are going to exaggerate claims and hide any doubts in the scientific community and you excuse them for it anyway. They defy all known laws of physics and you just accept it as true anyway..

What's it gonna take man? Seriously how many false claims, how many exaggerated findings, how many lies, how many times will they have to betray your trust before you can man the fuck up and call them on it?

I manned up right after I found out about the carbon credit market AL gore started. Saw that, then read what was out there, then read the theory, and I got freakin mad.. You should too..

You want to blame me, call us "deniers" and stomp your foot. Fine, just remember they are the ones who made you look the fool countless times now. They fuck up you defend em, they lie, you defend em, they BS you and you defend em... Now they defy the laws of physics and tell you "hey it's true even if we can't physically show you, trust us" and you still do...

Yeah go ahead, and when you run out of excuses and just can't trust or forgive them anymore, think about this conversation...

 

[Saigon]

we are telling you what is common knowledge.

Apparently not.

What you are saying is NOT the opinion of a single international scientific body, is contradicted by the overwhelming majority of experts in the fields, and is contradicted by evidence you can see from your own living room window.

A guy who takes what he's told by Al Gore as gospel?

I always laugh that you guys think American politicians are important, household names right around the world...Al Gore is nobody in Europe. He has no influence here at all. I couldn't care less what Al Gore thinks.

Opinion here is influenced much more by local scientists, politicians, journalists and scientific organisations, the great majority of which are conservative.

The thing I notice you guys really struggle to understand is that climate science is NOT a political issue outside the US. It's not something that political parties fight about, because the scientific evidence here is such that basically everyone agrees on it. The solutions are debated, but the science itself is accepted as science, and there has never been a single accusation of fraud or poor science against any Finnish research centre or scientist.

 

[gslack]

we are telling you what is common knowledge.

Apparently not.

What you are saying is NOT the opinion of a single international scientific body, is contradicted by the overwhelming majority of experts in the fields, and is contradicted by evidence you can see from your own living room window.

A guy who takes what he's told by Al Gore as gospel?

I always laugh that you guys think American politicians are important, household names right around the world...Al Gore is nobody in Europe. He has no influence here at all. I couldn't care less what Al Gore thinks.

Opinion here is influenced much more by local scientists, politicians, journalists and scientific organisations, the great majority of which are conservative.

The thing I notice you guys really struggle to understand is that climate science is NOT a political issue outside the US. It's not something that political parties fight about, because the scientific evidence here is such that basically everyone agrees on it. The solutions are debated, but the science itself is accepted as science, and there has never been a single accusation of fraud or poor science against any Finnish research centre or scientist.

WHat majority? The one they told you about? Gimme a break, they also told you the oceans would rise 30 feet...

No we understand exactly what it is, you are the one told that it's non-political. By the same politicians and political bodies, running the same paid for scientists and studies, that have lied to you repeatedly..

Notice my signature at the bottom of my posts? Thats exactly what they do... One of the heads of the IPCC scientistson climate change told you that thye were going to exaggerate findings and give scary scenarios, and downplay any doubts, and what do you say about it? Nothing you just pretend that it meant nothing, or pretend he was one guy, or that the IPCC isn't a political body.. Sorry , wrong on all counts..

But hey keep on buying it... Eventually they will tell you to ignore what you see, for they are the truth...

 

[RollingThunder]

It is not possible for heat to flow

Yep, flow. Conduction. That particular way of stating the second law is specifically talking about about heat conduction, not energy radiation.

I suppose it is possible to misunderstand the second law of thermodynamics more profoundly than you apparently do, but I don't quite know how. Conduction? Are you kidding? The second law describes any and all types of energy transfer. The second law is a law of nature, not a law of systems. It certainly covers conduction, but every sort of energy transfer imaginable is subject to the second law of thermodynamics.

For example, the water behind a dam has a great deal of potential energy. The water behind the dam at its base is under more pressure than water at the surface. As the water flows out from the bottom of the dam, doing work, or whatever, it comes out the other side under less pressure and as such the energy has moved from a concentrated state to a less concentrated state. Water doesn't flow both ways in a single outlet and you can't get the water back to a higher energy state without doing some work to make it happen..either by pumping it back into the lake or building another dam or something similar downstream.

The second law governs the use of fuels whether they be gasoline, or carbohydrates and fats in food. The second law states that the energy (highly concentrated in gasoline and food) once processed will move towards a less dense energy state. The energy flow is one way. You can't run your engine backwards and get gas out of the fuel injectors and you can't return the exaust to a useful high energy state without doing some work to make it happen.

Put a marble on an incline and watch it roll down and you see a process governed by the second law. The marble at the top of the incline represents potential energy...let go of it and it rolls down to a lower energy state. It won't roll back up the incline unless some sort of work is done to make it happen.

Hold a rock out at arms length and let go. What do you think the second law of thermodynamics predicts will happen? High energy state held out at arm's length...low energy state laying on the ground and you can't get the rock back to where it was unless you do some work to make it happen.

The second law governs chemical reactions...iron + oxygen = rust. The molecules of the piece of iron are in a higher energy state than the molecules in the rust. Energy was released in the oxydizing process and you can't get back to where you started without having done some work to make it happen.

Pump up a tire and put a hole in it. Again, the second law at work. Pressurized air inside the tire...high energy state...air outside the tire...lower energy state. The flow is one way and you can't get the air back into the tire unless you do some work to make it happen.

Every energy transfer is an example of the second law and in every energy transfer, energy moves from a higher energy state to a lower energy state and it can't go back to the higher energy state unless some work is done to make that happen.

IR in the surface of the earth is at a higher energy state than IR in the atmosphere. The IR disperses in the atmosphere and you simply can't get it to go back to the higher energy state (ie absorbed back into the surface of the earth) without doing work to make it happen.

Your problem seems to be your confusion of heat and energy. The energy goes both ways, but the heat, which comes from a sum of the energies, only goes one way. The second law is a statement of statistics, not of tracking individual bits of energy.

Your problem is that you don't understand the laws of thermodynamics. Energy goes one way....period. You can get energy to go two ways, but you have to do work to make it happen. Whether you are talking about a marble rolling down an incline, air escaping from a tire, burning fuel in your vehicle or in your body, watching an old tractor rust, or speaking of IR radiation moving from the surface of the earth to space...energy moves in one direction unless you do work to make it move in the other direction. Radiation is not an exception.

By the way, absorption and emission is not work.

The second law is a statement of energy transfer. If you beleive energy can move in two directions, give one example of it happening without work having been done to accomplish the task and offer some proof that the energy moved in two directions.

Anyways, given how ignorant you and PolarBear are of the basic physics, why should anyone take you two seriously?

I am afraid that it is you and yours who are ignorant. Second law only about radiation....what a laugh. I suggest that if you are actually interested, that you do some reading. The second law governs every energy transfer everywhere under every condition and it states clearly, and proves every day that if energy is moving, it only moves in one direction...from a high energy state to a low energy state.

If you think otherwise, then show an observed, measured example and I will show you the basis for a perpetual motion machine. We can both become billionaires overnight.

It's been fun watching you twist in the wind and back yourself into an insane little corner, SSoooDDuuumb. In the future, anyone on this forum who wants to totally discredit your bullshit claims only has to point to this thread where you once again get your ass handed to you on a plate. You have exposed yourself in no uncertain terms to be a scientific ignoramus and an idiot and, of course, severely afflicted by the Dunning-Kruger Effect.

Pyrgeometer
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
A pyrgeometer is a device that measures the atmospheric infra-red radiation spectrum that extends approximately from 4.5 µm to 100 µm.

Pyrgeometer components

Example of a pyrgeometer showing the principal components

A pyrgeometer consists of the following major components:

* A thermopile sensor which is sensitive to radiation in a broad range from 200 nm to 100 µm

* A silicon dome or window with a solar blind filter coating. It has a transmittance between 4.5 µm and 50 µm that eliminates solar shortwave radiation.

* A temperature sensor to measure the body temperature of the instrument.

* A sun shield to minimize heating of the instrument due to solar radiation.

Measurement of long wave downward radiation

The atmosphere and the pyrgeometer (in effect its sensor surface) exchange long wave IR radiation. This results in a net radiation balance according to:

\ E_{net} = { \ E_{in} - \ E_{out} }

Where:
E_{net} - net radiation at sensor surface [W/m²]
E_{in} - Long-wave radiation received from the atmosphere [W/m²]
E_{out} - Long-wave radiation emitted by the sensor surface [W/m²]

The pyrgeometer's thermopile detects the net radiation balance between the incoming and outgoing long wave radiation flux and converts it to a voltage according to the equation below.

\ E_{net} = { \ U_{emf} \over \ S}

Where:
E_{net} - net radiation at sensor surface [W/m²]
U_{emf} - thermopile output voltage [V]
S - sensitivity/calibration factor of instrument [V/W/m²]

The value for S is determined during calibration of the instrument. The calibration is performed at the production factory with a reference instrument traceable to a regional calibration center.[1]

To derive the absolute downward long wave flux, the temperature of the pyrgeometer has to be taken into account. It is measured using a temperature sensor inside the instrument, near the cold junctions of the thermopile. The pyrgeometer is considered to approximate a black body. Due to this it emits long wave radiation according to:

\ E_{out} = { \sigma * \ T^4}

Where:
E_{out} - Long-wave radiation emitted by the earth surface [W/m²]
\sigma - Stefan-Boltzmann constant [W/(m²·K4)]
T - Absolute temperature of pyrgeometer detector [kelvins]

From the calculations above the incoming long wave radiation can be derived. This is usually done by rearranging the equations above to yield the so called pyrgeometer equation by Albrecht and Cox.

\ E_{in} = { \ U_{emf} \over \ S }+ {\sigma * \ T^4}

Where all the variables have the same meaning as before.

As a result, the detected voltage and instrument temperature yield the total global long wave downward radiation.

Usage

Pyrgeometers are frequently used in meteorology, climatology studies. The atmospheric long-wave downward radiation is of interest for research into long term climate changes.

The signals are generally detected using a data logging system, capable of taking high resolution samples in the millivolt range.

(Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a non-profit organization.)


Atmospheric back radiation in the tropical pacific: Intercomparison of in-situ measurements, simulations and satellite retrievals
Meteorology and Atmospheric Physics
1997, Volume 63, Issue 3-4, pp 217-226
Cover Date
1997-09-01
DOI
10.1007/BF01027386
Print ISSN
0177-7971
Online ISSN
1436-5065

Authors
L. C. Schanz (1) (2)
P. Schlüssel (1) (3)

Author Affiliations

1. Meteorologisches Institut, Universität Hamburg, Hamburg, Germany
2. Deutsche Forschungsanstalt für Luft und Raumfahrt, D-51140, Köln, Germany
3. Meteorologisches Institut, Universität München, Theresienstrasse 37, D-80333, München, Germany

Summary

The back radiation has been measured with an Eppley pyrgeometer on board the R/V Vickers in the tropical Pacific Ocean during the field campaigns COARE (Coupled Ocean Atmosphere Response Experiment) and CEPEX (Central Equatorial Pacific Experiment) in February and March 1993, respectively. As part of these compaigns radiosondes have been launched from the Vickers several times per day and cloud cover was observed frequently. The radiosonde and cloud observations are used together with a radiative transfer model to calculate the back radiation for a subsequent intercomparison with the pyrgeometer measurements. Another means of comparison is derived from space-borne SSM/I (Special Sensor Microwave/Imager) measurements. The mean difference between pyrgeometer measurements and simulated downwelling irradiance at the sea surface is less than 2 W/m2, at a mean of 425 W/m2 in the warm pool, with a standard deviation of 8 W/m2. The comparison of satellite measurements with pyrgeometer readings shows a mean difference of-3 W/m2 and a standard deviation of 14 W/m2. The mean difference between satellite-derived back radiation and simulated one is 3 W/m2 with a standard deviation of 14 W/m2. Comparisons with results obtained from bulk formulae applied to surface meteorological observations show a good performance of the bulk parameterisations in the cloud-free case but a general overestimation of the back radiation in cloudy situations.

 

[SSDD]

Given that the whole planet over the past two centuries agrees with me, I'm not the one who needs to prove anything. Sucks to be you that way, but you freely chose to spout crank nonsense.

Appeal to authority doesn't constitute a rational argument and since you are the one making the claim that I am wrong, of course it falls to you to prove it.

Don't worry about it though. We both know that you can't and at least one of us (me) knows that you can't because there doesn't exist the smallest bit of observed evidence to support the claim.

Individual molecules certainly can and do move from a low state to a high state. The system as a whole can not. The statistics, the sum of the individual probabilities, always goes from high to low, even if some individual molecules go the opposite way. That's the second law, a description of statistics. And you fail hard at understanding it.

Of course they can, and do. But not spontaneously. Some work must be done to move them from a low energy state to a high energy state. Again, if you believe I am wrong, then bring some actual evidence to support the claim.

Again, don't worry because we both know that such evidence won't be forthcoming.

And no, none of your examples contradicted my statements in any way. The fact that you didn't understand that simply showed the magnitude of your failure to understand. You really need some hard physics behind you, some college level physics department thermo classes where they delve into the statistics that form the foundation of thermodynamics.

Of course they did. Your failure to see that is as glaring as your misunderstanding, at a very basic level of the laws of thermodynamics. Really. Claiming that a marble rolling down an incline isn't governed by the second law..or water falling over a dam. Did you really not know these things and every other energy transfer is an example of the second law?

You claimed that the second law only covered convection...clearly you were terribly wrong....not that I would expect you to admit it even with credible evidence that proves you wrong.

Your glaring failure there, again, is your confusion of the micro with the macro, due to your failure to understand what the second law of thermodynamics actually says.

Not my failure mamooth. Here are several variations of the statement of the second law.

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.

“The natural tendency of the heat is to flow from high temperature reservoir to low temperature reservoir.”

“It is impossible to construct a device which, operating in a cycle, will produce no effect other than the transfer of heat from a colder to a hotter body.”

There are more but these represent the statement accurately enough. Now, what have I said, at any point that is contrary to these statements? We both know what you have said. There is no mention of two way net energy flow...there is no mention there of any situation in which energy might spontaneously flow from cold to warm...there is no mention there of a molecule spontaneously moving from a low energy state to a high energy state...and on and on. It is you who is making claims that are contrary to the second law and you who remains unable to provide even the smallest bit of observed evidence to support your claim.

... directly observed in the real world, over and over. Hence, I _know_ you're a raging kook. Your denial of reality does not make the reality go away.

Directly observed in the real world over and over. Really? I suppose that is why you can't seem to provide a single solitary example. Your claim that FLIR units record backradiation is demonstrably false by the fact that they must be cooled. If they could see backradiation...if backradiation exists...the device would not need to be cooled to a temperature lower than the ambiet in order to see the image.

There are no examples of observed backradiation anywhere in the history of the world because backradiation does not exist.

As I suggested, try doing a search of FLIR and backradiation...no such claim has ever been made of the device because it can't happen because backradiation doesn't exist. If a device existed that could detect backradiation at ambient temperature, then the AGW debate would be over. There is no device anywhere that can detect, and measure something that doesn't exist.

Your failure to provide any example while still faitfully claiming that it is possible is just sad.

 

[SSDD]

What you said comes pretty damned close.. You said:

Leaving out the part where I said there was no computer control on the ship, and that computer control could manage the trick? That comes close to lying by omission on your part.

You really, really don't want to be jumping on PolarBear's idiot vendetta bandwagon. It never ends well for the people who do.

Didn't I say pretty damed close? Did I say that you said exactly that? Touchy aren't you? Evidence of a lack of confidence.

 

[Saigon]

Gslack -

Unfortunately much of your last post is simply gibberish.

No we understand exactly what it is, you are the one told that it's non-political. By the same politicians and political bodies, running the same paid for scientists and studies, that have lied to you repeatedly..

Seriously, what on earth are you talking about? Are you suggesting that politicians are telling people that climate change is not political?

Try and post with a little common sense. Climate change is not a political issue in much of the world, because politicians and political parties are in general agreement about the science.

This is proven by the fact that the conservative parties of almost every western country have climate change policies on their websites and in their manifestos. By all means go and check.

Until you understand that, you are never going to get to grips with this topic at all.

And again - there has never been as much as an allegation of fraug against any Finnish scientific institude involved in climate change - you are just making up stories and presenting them as facts.

Try and present facts, actual examples and real information - not just your own paranoid conspiracy theories.

 

[SSDD]

Just like those silvery space blankets violate energy conservation. I mean, put one next to you, and instead of 0 watts bouncing back at you, a bunch of watts start bouncing back at you, and it raises your own temp, and you start radiating more. Where did that extra energy come from?

Of course they don't. They block convection and conduction. They will not cause the temperature of my skin to raise above my internal temperature and certainly can't cause my internal temperature to raise.

There is no extra energy...there is just the trapping of the radiation coming off my body being blocked from dispersing because convection and conduction are being blocked.

Microwave a bowl of dry rice for 45 seconds...take its temperature every 30 seconds and record the results till it reaches something like room temperature. Record the time from removal from the microwave till it reached room temperature.

Now warm it up again...take its temperature and put one of those emergency blankets over it. You will note that its temperature won't go above the temperature it was when you put the blanket over it since there is no additional energy. It will cool down slower because you have blocked convection and conduction, but it will never get even a fraction of a degree warmer than it was when you put it under the blanket. Slowed cooling is not warming.

From energy that was sent back instead of going out into space. What, you thought that was a hard question?

You really don't undestand thermodynamics do you? The energy reflected back is at a lower energy state than the energy going out...it can't be absorbed by the radiator. If it could, then you would have the basis for a perpetual motion machine. That additional watt of energy being radiated out constitues creation of energy.

You have a system whose maximum output is 100 watts per square meter suddenly radiating 101 watts per square meter without the input of additional energy. Its magic...its impossible...it is the basis for perpetual motion. Once energy is lost out into space, you can't spontaneously get it back to its source. The energy is concerved, but it is degraded so that it is no longer usable by the source. That is why perpetual motion is not possible. If you could spontaneously get it back to the source, then you would increase the output of the source whereby you would have the energy to do what the source was already doing, and have a little bit left over...in the example above, 1 watt.....1 impossible watt.

If you could increase the output of a device putting out 100 watts by 1 watt, why not make a device putting out 10,000 watts, reflect its enrgy back to it and collect the additional 100 watts to do something else with...or bump up the output to 100,000 watts and collect the extra 10,000 watts to do something else with?

You see, if you could get one watt by reflecting energy back, then it stands to reason that you could get 10,000 watts by reflecting energy back or a million by reflecting energy back. If that were possible, don't you think we would be doing it? If you could cause any radiated energy to be spontaneously reflected back to and absorbed by its source you would have a perpetual motion engine.

From the same mysterious dimension from which the space blanket "created" energy, obviously.

The space blanket doesn't create energy...it simply slows cooling. Go back to the rice experiment. If you could increase the temperature of that rice by putting the blanket over it, then you would be creating energy. You can't reflect energy back to its source and expect that source to absorb it and warm. You can't get a high frequency energy source to absorb energy from a lower frequency source. Backradiation would be at a lower frequency than the source from which it radiated and therfore could not be absorbed.

 

[SSDD]

It's been fun watching you twist in the wind and back yourself into an insane little corner, SSoooDDuuumb. In the future, anyone on this forum who wants to totally discredit your bullshit claims only has to point to this thread where you once again get your ass handed to you on a plate. You have exposed yourself in no uncertain terms to be a scientific ignoramus and an idiot and, of course, severely afflicted by the Dunning-Kruger Effect.

Pyrgeometer

I figured some idiot would jump up and point at a pyregometer. May as well be you. Here, have a read.

How to Fool Yourself with a Pyrgeometer

CO2 alarmism feeds on an idea of massive backradiation or Downwelling Longwave Radiation DLR from the atmosphere to the Earth surface, about 330 W/m2 to be compared with 170 W/m2 absorbed shortwave radiation from the Sun.

DLR thus triples the radiation from the Sun to an alarming 500 W/m2 hitting the Earth surface. This should make it possible to boil eggs on the bare ground, but since this does not work out, we ask: What is the evidence that there is massive DLR?

The answer by a CO2 alarmist is: DLR exists because you can measure it, e.g. it by a pyrgeometer:

•a device that measures the atmospheric infra-red radiation spectrum that extends approximately from 4.5 µm to 100 µm. Here is how it works according to Wikipedia:

The atmosphere and the pyrgeometer (in effect the earth surface) exchange long wave IR radiation. This results in a net radiation balance according to:

Where:
Enet - net radiation at sensor surface [W/m²]
Ein - Long-wave radiation received from the atmosphere [W/m²]
Eout - Long-wave radiation emitted by the earth surface [W/m²]
The pyrgeometer's thermopile detects the net radiation balance between the incoming and outgoing long wave radiation flux and converts it to a voltage according to the equation below.

Where:
Enet - net radiation at sensor surface [W/m²]
Uemf - thermopile output voltage [V]
S - sensitivity/calibration factor of instrument [V/W/m²]
The value for S is determined during calibration of the instrument. The calibration is performed at the production factory with a reference instrument traceable to a regional calibration center.[1]
To derive the absolute downward long wave flux, the temperature of the pyrgeometer has to be taken into account. It is measured using a temperature sensor inside the instrument, near the cold junctions of the thermopile. The pyrgeometer is considered to approximate a black body. Due to this it emits long wave radiation according to:

Where:
Eout - Long-wave radiation emitted by the earth surface [W/m²]
σ - Stefan-Boltzmann constant [W/(m²·K4)]
T - Absolute temperature of pyrgeometer detector [kelvins]
From the calculations above the incoming long wave radiation can be derived. This is usually done by rearranging the equations above to yield the so called pyrgeometer equation by Albrecht and Cox.

Where all the variables have the same meaning as before.
As a result, the detected voltage and instrument temperature yield the total global long wave downward radiation.

So now we now how DLR is measured. Does this mean that DLR exists as a physical transfer of energy from atmosphere to Earth surface? No, it does not as explained as myth of backradiation or DLR. We recall:

A pyrgeometer measures a net transfer and then invents DLR by adding the net to outgoing radiation according to Stefan-Boltzmann for a blackbody emitting into a void at 0 K.

We see that a pyrgeometer does not measure DLR directly but invents it from the formula
•E_in = E_net + E_out,
which is supposed to result from E_net = E_in - E_out expressing a Stefan-Boltzmann law of the form
•E_net = sigma Ta^4 - sigma Te^4,
where Ta and Te are the temperatures of atmosphere and Earth surface. But Stefan-Boltzmann's law is not described this way in physics literature, where it instead takes the form
•E_net = sigma (Ta^4 - Te^4),
which does not allow extracting DLR as sigma Ta^4.

DLR and backradiation is thus fiction invented from an ad hoc formula without physical reality, which is not described in the physics literature. Nevertheless there are companies selling pyrgeometers at price of 4.000 Euro, but of course selling fiction can also serve as a business idea. But is it legal to sell fiction as science? As science fiction?

To sum up: Working with fictional differences of massive gross flows feeds alarm, while physically correct net flow does not.

Claes Johnson on Mathematics and Science: How to Fool Yourself with a Pyrgeometer


So you see thunder, your pyrgeometer isn't measuring backradiation, it is inventing it via a misuse of the Stefan-Boltzman equation for a blackbody emitting into a void at absolute zero. Is the pyrgeometer in a void at absolute zero? If not, why does its internal programming tell it that it is?

Your device is measuring temperature but reporting radiance which is a fiction.

 

[mamooth]

Of course they don't. They block convection and conduction. They will not cause the temperature of my skin to raise above my internal temperature and certainly can't cause my internal temperature to raise.

And so we come back to your ludicrous claim that an insulator won't raise the temperature of a heat-creating body, something that the entire industrialized world would be very surprised to learn.

It will cool down slower because you have blocked convection and conduction, but it will never get even a fraction of a degree warmer than it was when you put it under the blanket. Slowed cooling is not warming.

Irrelevant, since the rice isn't creating new heat. A body creating heat will absolutely positively get warmer if you insulate it. Blankets make people warmer. A layer of dust will make your CPU overheat.

You really don't undestand thermodynamics do you? The energy reflected back is at a lower energy state than the energy going out...it can't be absorbed by the radiator.

Many people have told you many times how laughably wrong that statement is, being it's based on your whackaloon misinterpretation of the second law. Since you fail hard at that step, all your subsequent claims are also totally fail.