AGW: atmospheric physics

[numan]

Molecule absorbs backradiation photon, jumps to higher vibrational state. It's not complicated. You've just got this emotional block. You don't understand because you willfully don't want to understand.

Molecule can only absorb a photon at a higher frequency than itself. Lower frequencies are not absorbed.

Oh, my lord! Imagine anyone claiming a knowledge of physics saying that! What a howler!! You've got it exactly ass-backwards!!

Bohr atom

According to Bohr theory, which accurately predicts the energy levels for one-electron atoms like H, He+, Li2+, the energy of an electron in the nth energy level is given by:

The energy levels predicted by Bohr theory for the H atom are shown below:

Energy Levels in the Bohr Atomand Electronic Transitions of the Balmer Series

The more excited an electron is, the less and less energy (lower frequencies) it takes to raise it to the next energy level. It must absorb lower and lower frequencies or else it will be knocked out of the atom, and the atom will become ionized!

The same holds for molecules -- it just becomes more complex to calculate!
.

 

[SSDD]

If we place a rocket between the two stars, we'll be able to see this mysterious black spot, yes? Oh wait, we won't. Our spaceship is cooler than both stars, so the photons will flow again ... but only to our spaceship! You've created a perfect bit of pseudoscience, as it's impossible to falsify!

So what would falsify the greenhouse effect for you? Nearly 20 years of non warming while the CO2 continues to increase hasn't done it. What would falsify it for you?

The second law just says how total heat flow works statistically. It makes no attempt to explain what turns the source of the heat on and off. Claiming the second law controls a stellar fusion process is like claiming a speed-measuring radar gun controls the functioning of an internal combustion engine. It's just nonsense.

Statements like "not possible" and "will not" are not statistical statements. The second law is a statement of fact, not statisitics. Show me a statistical study that speaks in absolutes.

You wave your hands around, shout "SECOND LAW", and think that supposedly means something. It doesn't, except that you're essentially invoking magic to explain your pseudoscience.

"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic."

Guess that goes for laws of nature for some people as well.

 

[SSDD]

You don't get any smarter, do you, SSDD?

Honestly - you claim the report is not about the greenhouse effect - and yet in the first line if the report it mentions the greenhouse effect.

It seems as if it is you who doesn't get any smarter. The guy says greenhouse effect in the first line, then goes on to talk about everything except the greenhouse effect and you believe it is a paper about the greenhouse effect. In order for him, or anyone to talk about the greenhouse effect, they must be talking about backradiation since backradiation is, by definition, what causes the greenhouse effect.

Now you claim it is not about backradiation - even though the report clearly states that it is?

You think rain falling on ice is backradiation? You think lightning striking the ground is backradiation? Ordinarily I don't find ignorance funny, but in your case....

 

[Saigon]

SSDD -

IF you read the report, THEN it may make sense to you.

 

[SSDD]

The more excited an electron is, the less and less energy (lower frequencies) it takes to raise it to the next energy level. It must absorb lower and lower frequencies or else it will be knocked out of the atom, and the atom will become ionized!

The same holds for molecules -- it just becomes more complex to calculate!
.

I was in error there, but the electron can only absorb energy of a specific frequency and there is still the matter of energy at a lower concentration in the atmosphere to a higher concentration in the surface of the earth. And the fact that every time energy moves from one place to another it becomes less organized. You can not get around the fact that energy always...always...always moves from more organized to less organized.

All natural processes...and radiation escaping from the surface of the earth is a natural process are irreversable. Once energy is emitted from the surface of the earth in the form of radiation..that energy can not be put back.

What are Reversible and Irreversible Processes in Thermodynamics?

There are two main types of thermodynamic processes: the reversible and irreversible. The reversible process is the ideal process which never occurs, while the irreversible process is the natural process that is commonly found in the nature.

Thermal Processes and State Variables

All Natural processes are Irreversible.

 

[SSDD]

SSDD -

IF you read the report, THEN it may make sense to you.

I read the report...he does not discuss backradiation. If you aren't discussing backradiation, you aren't discussing the greenhouse effect. The fact that he said greenhouse effect in the title and never actually discussed the greenhouse efffect should have registered with you if you had ever taken the time to actually learn what the greenhouse effect is...here is a clue...IT IS BACKRADIATION.

 

[Saigon]

I read the report...he does not discuss backradiation.

Ok, so you're going to lie.

I do think lying is a realy good way to convince people that you have a strong argument. And probably no one will actually notice the lie anyway, right?

 

[polarbear]

SSDD -

IF you read the report, THEN it may make sense to you.

I read the report...he does not discuss backradiation. If you aren't discussing backradiation, you aren't discussing the greenhouse effect. The fact that he said greenhouse effect in the title and never actually discussed the greenhouse efffect should have registered with you if you had ever taken the time to actually learn what the greenhouse effect is...here is a clue...IT IS BACKRADIATION.

Don`t forget that "Saigon, the educated journalist in Finland" had to Google who Finland's current Prime Minister is.
You are overtaxing his mental capacity.
A "Global warming back radiation" 15 µm photon has an energy of 6.08 × 10^-18 Joules. 1 Joule = 1 Watt second.
A Watt second does have a heat energy equivalent, but it`s not heat till a watt second is converted into heat.
If it`s one watt second's worth of electrical energy then only a resistor can convert that energy into heat. An oscillator will convert this watt second into electromagnetic radiation instead of heat.

Only an ideal black body can convert the 6.08 × 10^-18 watt seconds into heat and neither CO2 nor the earth is a black body because both allow other energy avenues for the 6.08 × 10^-18 watt seconds carried by the CO2 re-emitted 15 µm photon.

When air gets heated by 1 deg C the average molecular speed increases and the energy of the gas increased by the square of the velocity times the mass divided by 2 (thermal energy of gasses). The equation can be solved for the average molecular velocity :
v= √(3*T*k/m)
T is the temperature in Kelvin, k is the Boltzman constant = 1.3805*10^- 23 J/K and m is the mass of the gas particle.
average mass of air is ~ 29 g/mol each gas particle ~4.799*10^-26), at room temperature is 27 C (300K) and at that temperature the average molecular motion is ~ 500 meters per second.
When the temperature goes up by 1 degree the molecular speed is increased by 29 meters per second.
That can be observed very accurately by the Doppler effect in the IR absorption band when CO2 is heated
To increase the speed of a mass work has to be performed and that in turn consumes energy which has to come from the 6.08 × 10^-18 Joules 15 µm photons. When the molecular speed of a gas is increased the gas expands and the 1 deg C temperature rise heat energy equivalent has already gone poooof because it performed work while it expanded against a 1 atm pressure.
But not in "back radiation climatology".
They make it real simple for themselves and assign an "average albedo effect " of 35% to the entire planet.
7/10 th of the surface is liquid water.

Which does not absorb 15 µm and convert it into heat like a black body and not even like a "35% albedo black body".

The water molecule, in the gaseous state, has three types of transition that can give rise to absorption of electromagnetic radiation
The infrared spectrum of liquid water is dominated by the intense absorption due to the fundamental O-H stretching vibrations.
There is no rotational fine structure, but the absorption band are broader than might be expected, because of hydrogen bonding.[18] Peak maxima for liquid water are observed at 3450 cm−1 (2.898 μm), 3615 cm−1 (2.766 μm) and 1640 cm −1 (6.097 μm).

And none of the liquid water O-H bond stretching are in the 15 µm band where CO2 "back radiates".

Water molecules in the vapor state does have in contrast to liquid water vigorous O-H stretching and scissoring ability because there are no hydrogen bridge bonds hindering it.
Water vapor absorbs ~ 74 % of the entire IR that that comes from the sun and the earth`s surface.
CO2 absorbs only in a very narrow region of the 26% "IR window".

In the atmospheric window between approximately 8000 and 14000 nm, in the far-infrared spectrum, carbon dioxide and water absorption is weak.[28] This window allows most of the thermal radiation in this band to be radiated out to space, keeping the Earth's atmosphere from going into thermal runaway. This band is also used for remote sensing of the Earth from space, for example with thermal Infrared imaging.

But pointing that out to the wacko- phyics "experts" in this forum makes you not just a "denier"...they invented a new superlative : "denialist"

 

[gslack]

I read the report...he does not discuss backradiation.

Ok, so you're going to lie.

I do think lying is a realy good way to convince people that you have a strong argument. And probably no one will actually notice the lie anyway, right?

No he's not lying, you are.. Either that, or you saw the word in the title and assumed the rest... LOL, that's exactly what you did wasn't it...

 

[Saigon]

Gslack -

And IF you read the article, you also may understand it.

Honestly - if you want to hide something from a deniar, put it in a book. They'll NEVER find it.

btw, Greenhouse gases aren't mentoned in the title, genius. It is in the first line of the article - where SSDD apparently couldn't find it.

 

[polarbear]

I read the report...he does not discuss backradiation.

Ok, so you're going to lie.

I do think lying is a realy good way to convince people that you have a strong argument. And probably no one will actually notice the lie anyway, right?

No he's not lying, you are.. Either that, or you saw the word in the title and assumed the rest... LOL, that's exactly what you did wasn't it...

He just wants to bury what I just posted with his usual garbage...
Fuck him I`ll copy& post it again over his garbage:

SSDD -

IF you read the report, THEN it may make sense to you.

I read the report...he does not discuss backradiation. If you aren't discussing backradiation, you aren't discussing the greenhouse effect. The fact that he said greenhouse effect in the title and never actually discussed the greenhouse efffect should have registered with you if you had ever taken the time to actually learn what the greenhouse effect is...here is a clue...IT IS BACKRADIATION.

Don`t forget that "Saigon, the educated journalist in Finland" had to Google who Finland's current Prime Minister is.
You are overtaxing his mental capacity.
A "Global warming back radiation" 15 µm photon has an energy of 6.08 × 10^-18 Joules. 1 Joule = 1 Watt second.
A Watt second does have a heat energy equivalent, but it`s not heat till a watt second is converted into heat.
If it`s one watt second's worth of electrical energy then only a resistor can convert that energy into heat. An oscillator will convert this watt second into electromagnetic radiation instead of heat.
Tunable high power Laser

Only an ideal black body can convert the 6.08 × 10^-18 watt seconds into heat and neither CO2 nor the earth is a black body because both allow other energy avenues for the 6.08 × 10^-18 watt seconds carried by the CO2 re-emitted 15 µm photon.

When air gets heated by 1 deg C the average molecular speed increases and the energy of the gas increased by the square of the velocity times the mass divided by 2 (thermal energy of gasses). The equation can be solved for the average molecular velocity :
v= √(3*T*k/m)
T is the temperature in Kelvin, k is the Boltzman constant = 1.3805*10^- 23 J/K and m is the mass of the gas particle.
average mass of air is ~ 29 g/mol each gas particle ~4.799*10^-26), at room temperature is 27 C (300K) and at that temperature the average molecular motion is ~ 500 meters per second.
When the temperature goes up by 1 degree the molecular speed is increased by 29 meters per second.
That can be observed very accurately by the Doppler effect in the IR absorption band when CO2 is heated
To increase the speed of a mass work has to be performed and that in turn consumes energy which has to come from the 6.08 × 10^-18 Joules 15 µm photons. When the molecular speed of a gas is increased the gas expands and the 1 deg C temperature rise heat energy equivalent has already gone poooof because it performed work while it expanded against a 1 atm pressure.
But not in "back radiation climatology".
They make it real simple for themselves and assign an "average albedo effect " of 35% to the entire planet.
7/10 th of the surface is liquid water.

Which does not absorb 15 µm and convert it into heat like a black body and not even like a "35% albedo black body".

The water molecule, in the gaseous state, has three types of transition that can give rise to absorption of electromagnetic radiation
The infrared spectrum of liquid water is dominated by the intense absorption due to the fundamental O-H stretching vibrations.
There is no rotational fine structure, but the absorption band are broader than might be expected, because of hydrogen bonding.[18] Peak maxima for liquid water are observed at 3450 cm−1 (2.898 μm), 3615 cm−1 (2.766 μm) and 1640 cm −1 (6.097 μm).

And none of the liquid water O-H bond stretching are in the 15 µm band where CO2 "back radiates".

Water molecules in the vapor state does have in contrast to liquid water vigorous O-H stretching and scissoring ability because there are no hydrogen bridge bonds hindering it.
Water vapor absorbs ~ 74 % of the entire IR that that comes from the sun and the earth`s surface.
CO2 absorbs only in a very narrow region of the 26% "IR window".

In the atmospheric window between approximately 8000 and 14000 nm, in the far-infrared spectrum, carbon dioxide and water absorption is weak.[28] This window allows most of the thermal radiation in this band to be radiated out to space, keeping the Earth's atmosphere from going into thermal runaway. This band is also used for remote sensing of the Earth from space, for example with thermal Infrared imaging.

But pointing that out to the wacko- phyics "experts" in this forum makes you not just a "denier"...they invented a new superlative : "denialist"
They are so ignorant and keep posting the same crap over and over again 24/7 just as soon as a post appears that they can`t stomach.
Tunable Lasers and the Laser cooling of atoms is incompatible wit their Fred Flintstone "back-radiation" physics.
Here we got a bunch of morons lecturing engineers on the laws of thermodynamics they keep copy/paste/posting the same garbage from enviro.org blogger sites over and over gain..Then I`ll do likewise and at the end of the day or week I`ll keep pasting a re-posting whatever these trolls want to bury...They sit there all day long and refresh their screen to see if there is a new post and then bury it.
What a pitiful bunch of psychos.

 

[gslack]

Gslack -

And IF you read the article, you also may understand it.

Honestly - if you want to hide something from a deniar, put it in a book. They'll NEVER find it.

btw, Greenhouse gases aren't mentoned in the title, genius. It is in the first line of the article - where SSDD apparently couldn't find it.

Okay then point it out.. Simple really, we say it didn't address it you say it did, sopoint out where and how it does...

 

[Saigon]

Bauble-

It is in LINE ONE of the report:

Sporadically we are challenged over the reality of Earth’s Greenhouse Effect (GE) on the grounds this represents a heat flow from a cooler to a warmer body and hence violates the Second Law of Thermodynamics (2nd Law).

Go and look for yourself, and then you can also explain to SSDD how many references there are to feedback and back radiation!

 

[IlarMeilyr]

LOL, relax guys it's a simple thought experiment. The type of bulbs, the wattage doesn't matter I already told you the parameters that matter here. The fact that both bulbs are equal and are at 150F..

You guys are forgetting the fact its a simple thought experiment, not a hypothesis for peer review.. Don't think too hard just remember entropy and how it behaves..

I am relaxed. I guess the problem is, I am not a well versed scientist.

They are at 150 BEFORE the experiment.

What does your understanding of entropy have to do with whether (or not) the bulbs would each gain a bit of temperature from the energy provided by the "other" respective bulb?

Remember this quote...

"Any method involving the notion of entropy, the very existence of which depends on the second law of thermodynamics, will doubtless seem to many far-fetched, and may repel beginners as obscure and difficult of comprehension."

Willard Gibbs, Graphical Methods in the Thermodynamics of Fluids[4]

Now before you guys get all bound up let's review the thought experiment. Remember we are assuming all things being equal here, it's not hypothesis up for review, just a thought experiment to get the idea of entropy. All things being equal would mean in this case, Assume the experiment takes place in a perfect vacum and the natural ambient temperature of the surrounding vacum to be absolute zero. That way we can eliminate the nit-picking over atmospheric make-up, wattage of the bulbs, etc..Just remember all things being equal...

Two heat lamps whose operating temperature on their own at the lens is 150F, two meters apart, facing one another squarely. Wait a few hours and measure the lens temps again and tell me if the temps increased, decreased, or stayed the same.

Think on it, but don't overlook the 2nd law, in the process. Also remember conservation of energy..

The short answer is the temperature won't go beyond 150F, reason? It's the temperature of BOTH heat sources, there is no gain over the energy output of either source. The system is in equilibrium.

I know some of you are going to wonder what happened to the 2nd 150F source right? Your thinking being 150 and 150 should be 300F. No for the effects of the two sources to double effectively they would have to act upon another object.

It may seem like it flies in the face of all that you know, and in some ways it probably does. But remember the quote I told you to memorize? Make sense now?

Permit me to dumb that down for a second. If you "direct" any portion of 150 degrees at the second lens, which is already AT 150 degrees, the second lens will gain no heat.

If you add the heat from the heat source to an ice cube, the ice cube might melt since it can certainly gain some temperature that way. But if you direct added heat to a hotplate from a lens, and the lens is emitting heat at a lower temperature than the plate, the plate will not gain any additional heat.

 

[SSDD]

Okay then point it out.. Simple really, we say it didn't address it you say it did, sopoint out where and how it does...

He does a "thought experiment" where the sun sends in 100 units, and the earth radiates back 1 which causes (get this) the sun to get warmer and then radiates 50 units straight out into space and 50 units into the atmosphere...wonder how 50 of those units got back to space without passing through the atmosphere? Then the atmosphere radiates 25 to space and 25 back to earth.

He makes no mention of how this energy in the atmosphere at a lower concentration gets back into the surface of the earth which is at a higher concentration. I guess because he could demonstrate some well known and unargued feedbacks, that it was ok to violate the 2nd law with the rest...imagine, the earth causes the sun to get warmer.

I suppose in siagon's little mind, that constitutes an actual discussion on the greenhouse effect. If you don't know anything about a topic, I suppose anything might sound like a rational discourse on the topic. The guy raises far more questions than he answers and like most warmers...a "thought experiment" is all he has to offer as evidence to support his claim. Can you say circular reasoning?....

 

[gslack]

Bauble-

It is in LINE ONE of the report:

Sporadically we are challenged over the reality of Earth’s Greenhouse Effect (GE) on the grounds this represents a heat flow from a cooler to a warmer body and hence violates the Second Law of Thermodynamics (2nd Law).

Go and look for yourself, and then you can also explain to SSDD how many references there are to feedback and back radiation!

Already told you whats wrong with it and the whole site in general, remember?

To the point, the article addresses the authors circle-talk and nonsensical musings on how the 2nd law of thermodynamics isn't violated by the greenhouse effect. Thats it. Doesn't explain the theory behind it, doesn't address anything else really. What's worse it tries to justify it's claims by using the very theory that is in question..

Do you like to let the fox guard the hen house or do you simply not understand it...

 

[polarbear]

Bauble-

It is in LINE ONE of the report:

Sporadically we are challenged over the reality of Earth’s Greenhouse Effect (GE) on the grounds this represents a heat flow from a cooler to a warmer body and hence violates the Second Law of Thermodynamics (2nd Law).

Go and look for yourself, and then you can also explain to SSDD how many references there are to feedback and back radiation!

Why don`t you, the "educated Journalist in Finland", the Siamese cat "physics expert" or the "erudite Numan" explain it to the engineers who worked out how to use high energy photons to cool matter to near absolute zero K.
According to you and the rest of the AGW forum poster "photon experts" that should not be possible.
It`s "heresy" and only what you idiots write is "reality":
Numan :

I beg the sensible reader not to be thwarted by these feral predators. Just go to the page which lists all my postings, and then read only those. then you will have the wheat without the chaff, and the barbarians will be defeated.

The posters -- mamooth, Dot Com, editec, Dugdale_Jukes, Old Rocks, joewp -- have demonstrated the ability to make rational comments on this subject. It would be good to link to the Postings Pages of these thoughtful people, too.

Holy shit, are you on Numan`s ignore list? Or did he simply forget to mention you?

Laser cooling refers to a number of techniques in which atomic and molecular samples are cooled down to near absolute zero through the interaction with one or more laser light fields.
Laser cooling is primarily used for experiments in Quantum Physics to achieve temperatures of near absolute zero (−273.15°C, −459.67°F).

This may soon change, as a new breakthrough in the technology has successfully cooled a macro-scale object to near absolute zero

 

[SSDD]

If you add the heat from the heat source to an ice cube, the ice cube might melt since it can certainly gain some temperature that way. But if you direct added heat to a hotplate from a lens, and the lens is emitting heat at a lower temperature than the plate, the plate will not gain any additional heat.

Of course it won't, but that is what warmers believe will happen. They think that if you point a flashlight at a mirror, the flashlight will burn brighter...or if you aim a mirror at your fireplace, you will get more heat than the burning wood alone could produce. It's crazy, but they believe it right down to the depths of their pea sized brains.

Eventually practitioners of hard physics are going to decend on climate science and show them precisely where they have gone wrong.. It is already apparent that the hypothesis has failed and yet they continue to beleive rather than doing the rational thing which would be to return to the drawing board and work on a different hypothesis. Perhaps something that doesn't violate laws of physics.

 

[gslack]

I am relaxed. I guess the problem is, I am not a well versed scientist.

They are at 150 BEFORE the experiment.

What does your understanding of entropy have to do with whether (or not) the bulbs would each gain a bit of temperature from the energy provided by the "other" respective bulb?

Remember this quote...

"Any method involving the notion of entropy, the very existence of which depends on the second law of thermodynamics, will doubtless seem to many far-fetched, and may repel beginners as obscure and difficult of comprehension."

Willard Gibbs, Graphical Methods in the Thermodynamics of Fluids[4]

Now before you guys get all bound up let's review the thought experiment. Remember we are assuming all things being equal here, it's not hypothesis up for review, just a thought experiment to get the idea of entropy. All things being equal would mean in this case, Assume the experiment takes place in a perfect vacum and the natural ambient temperature of the surrounding vacum to be absolute zero. That way we can eliminate the nit-picking over atmospheric make-up, wattage of the bulbs, etc..Just remember all things being equal...

Two heat lamps whose operating temperature on their own at the lens is 150F, two meters apart, facing one another squarely. Wait a few hours and measure the lens temps again and tell me if the temps increased, decreased, or stayed the same.

Think on it, but don't overlook the 2nd law, in the process. Also remember conservation of energy..

The short answer is the temperature won't go beyond 150F, reason? It's the temperature of BOTH heat sources, there is no gain over the energy output of either source. The system is in equilibrium.

I know some of you are going to wonder what happened to the 2nd 150F source right? Your thinking being 150 and 150 should be 300F. No for the effects of the two sources to double effectively they would have to act upon another object.

It may seem like it flies in the face of all that you know, and in some ways it probably does. But remember the quote I told you to memorize? Make sense now?

Permit me to dumb that down for a second. If you "direct" any portion of 150 degrees at the second lens, which is already AT 150 degrees, the second lens will gain no heat.

If you add the heat from the heat source to an ice cube, the ice cube might melt since it can certainly gain some temperature that way. But if you direct added heat to a hotplate from a lens, and the lens is emitting heat at a lower temperature than the plate, the plate will not gain any additional heat.

Nicely done! Now that's critical thinking at work.

 

[Saigon]

Thats it. Doesn't explain the theory behind it

Ok, so you didn't read the article either.

Here is some of the theory you apparently could not find:

All matter with a temperature above absolute zero emits electromagnetic radiation due to the conversion of a body’s thermal energy into electromagnetic energy (that’s why it’s called thermal radiation). It is a spontaneous process of radiative distribution of entropy. Overall entropy is increasing as Sol distributes energy to space, Earth is in the emission path of some of this energy and is warmed (you can play with calculators here to derive expected equilibrium temperature under various conditions) and in turn emits to space at a lesser intensity than the sun by virtue of its having a cooler temperature.

Gaia fantasies notwithstanding, Earth does not “choose” to radiate selectively in particular directions any more than the sun or any other object does, they simply radiate in all directions. At the same time as the sun is irradiating Earth, Earth is irradiating the sun, albeit at a much lower intensity. Technically Earth is keeping the sun slightly warmer than it would otherwise be by returning a tiny portion of the energy the sun radiates. This is possible under the 2nd Law because the sole result of the continuous exchange of energy at disparate intensity is the transfer of heat from the body of higher temperature to the body of lower temperature.