AGW: atmospheric physics

[SSDD]

Back Radiation:

This is one of 3 articles on this sight which explain it all in GREAT detail -

What’s amazing about back-radiation is how many different ways people arrive at the conclusion it doesn’t exist or doesn’t have any effect on the temperature at the earth’s surface.

Atmospheric longwave radiation is the surface radiation budget component most rarely available in climatological stations due to the cost of the longwave measuring instruments, the pyrgeometers, compared with the cost of pyranometers, which measure the shortwave radiation. Consequently, the estimate of longwave radiation for no-pyrgeometer places is often done through the most easily measured atmospheric variables, such as air temperature and air moisture. Several parameterization schemes have been developed to estimate downward longwave radiation for clear-sky and cloudy conditions, but none has been adopted for generalized use.

The Amazing Case of ?Back-Radiation? | The Science of Doom

No one argues the existence of long wave radiation...the discussion arises when you try to spontaneously put it back into the surface of the earth from which it radiated...you can not spontaneously put it back.

 

[SSDD]

If you have to make up crazy stories about what we supposedly believe, we'll correctly take it as your admission of surrender.

If you believe that the atmosphere can reflect energy back to the surface of the earth where it is absorbed making the earth warmer, why wouldn't you belive you can reflect energy back to anything and get more out of it than is coming from its energy source?

No we don't, being that the light reflected back into the filament is negligible. Remember, just because you lack common sense and an engineer's sense of scale, don't assume we're so handicapped.

Negligible means some when in fact, none is absorbed. If you believe the atmosphere can radiate energy to a warmer surface and make it warmer...why not believe that a mirror can radiate back to a flashlight, be reabsorved, and make the flashlight radiate more (burn brighter)? If you believe one can happen, why not the other when they are the same principle?

Wow. That's so crazy, I simply have no idea where you got it or how to respond to it. You're off the rails in your own happy crazy dimension.

It is no more crazy than saying that the atmosphere can radiate energy back to the surface of the earth and cause it to warm. We are talking about the same principle here. What makes one crazy and one rational? If you think about it for just a second, the mirror makes more sense (even though it is impossible} because it is a hell of a lot better reflector than a trace gas in the atmosphere.

 

[SSDD]

LOL, you really aren't very good at critical thinking are you... I thought it was your defense, but it's genuine, you're an idiot and not acting at all....

Again, it uses the theory to try and prove itself... Therefore is not proof at all..

Is this thing on? You catchin any of this yet?

Maybe you should spell out circular reasoning for him and give him a definition.

 

[SSDD]

you continue to ignore pointed questions about this natural process that forbids emission of radiation in certain directions. you say it is an analogue of gravity but give no details. while gravity cannot be 'explained' it can be described to very high degree of precision. where is the description of this new found natural law? I have never heard of it.

I can't explain exactly how the second law is enforced in nature any more than I can explain pecisely how gravity works...just like you can't either. The fact remains that energy can't transfer from a low temperature object to a high temperature object...it simply can't happen and any claim to the contrary is false and completely unprovable.

and if you could be so kind to answer a few questions about the redstar/bluestar scenario.
1. would it make a difference if the red star was a red giant? the nuclear core in red giants are 'burning' elements other than hydrogen at a much higher temperature. is it the internal temp that matters or just the surface temp?
2. what wavelengths are forbidden? the graph of emissions for stars are composed of almost identical wavelengths. are you saying that IR wavelengths from the hotter star are allowed to be emitted while the UV wavelengths from the cooller star are forbidden?

Easy answer. 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.

and one other thing. light from even nearby stars takes a finite amount of time to cross distance. there are many chaotic processes that make it impossible to predict the exact location of matter in the future. therefore you are implying that all photons are virtual photons and only become real when they actually contact a bit of matter, like the force carrying photons of the electric or magnetic force. is that your position?

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.

I don't need to be able to explain the process any more than I need to be able to explain gravity...the second law says that energy won't move from cool to warm. If you can prove that it will...actual proof as opposed to some "thought experiment" I am all ears. Got any observed, measured proof that energy will move from cool to warm?

 

[SSDD]

I love it! The sock acknowledging the drone!

Are you sure it isn't two socks talking to each other?

 

[numan]

Earth, being a lower temperature object than the sun can not radiate energy to the sun.

Well, I think that says it all.

The man (if such he be) is clearly a raving lunatic.
.

 

[SSDD]

Earth, being a lower temperature object than the sun can not radiate energy to the sun.

Well, I think that says it all.

The man (if such he be) is clearly a raving lunatic.
.

Do you believe the earth radiates energy to the surface of the sun where it gets absorbed and causes the sun to warm further?

 

[westwall]

Earth, being a lower temperature object than the sun can not radiate energy to the sun.

Well, I think that says it all.

The man (if such he be) is clearly a raving lunatic.
.

 

[mamooth]

Do you believe the earth radiates energy to the surface of the sun where it gets absorbed and causes the sun to warm further?

That's exactly what happens, though the the amount of warming it causes on the sun will be too small to be measurable.

And no, the second law doesn't forbid it at all. Your whackaloon misinterpretation of the second law may forbid it, but the universe is not constrained in any way by your bizarre fantasies.

Go on, tell us again how entire stars shut down in a certain direction because, as you claim, the second law commands it. That may be the dumbest single thing I've ever seen posted on the internet.

 

[mamooth]

That is an assumption. There is no law that says that an object "must" radiate in all directions.

Yes, there is. Learn some statistical thermodynamics, will ya? Molecules emit in random directions. Given how many molecules there are in an object, the object must radiate in all directions.

 

[mamooth]

Yes, yes Admiral "nuke" "I don't wear black ever" fraud.. and "you" claim is still ignorant and irrelevant... Cry me a river fraud, fake, phony, con-man, Bullshitter..

What's next? Gonna tell us all about your adventures aboard the only boat in the navy that lets any old swabby man the reactors? What was it called? The USS Lollipop?

Your wacky claim _still_ violates conservation of energy.

Are you ever going to talk about science again, or do you plan to spend the rest of your life here just blubbering about how I humiliated you?

And gslack? Let's talk science. Do you agree with SSDD's insane rant about how a red star will shut down photon production on the side facing a blue star? A simple yes or no will do.

Westwall, you should answer that as well.

 

[IanC]

It is no more crazy than saying that the atmosphere can radiate energy back to the surface of the earth and cause it to warm. We are talking about the same principle here. What makes one crazy and one rational? If you think about it for just a second, the mirror makes more sense (even though it is impossible} because it is a hell of a lot better reflector than a trace gas in the atmosphere.

there is a difference between energy and useful heat differentials. the atmosphere does send radiation down towards the surface which cancels out a fraction of the outgoing surface radiation. energy from the Sun is what warms the surface, not the energy from the atmosphere which of course is in a two way equilibrium with the surface with the net movement of energy being outwards to space.

there is a (purposeful) misunderstanding over the meaning of the term 'warmed'. the atmosphere causes conditions that reduce the loss of IR radiation from the surface which in turn allows the energy input from the Sun to raise the surface temperature higher. the atmosphere does not directly warm the surface, except perhaps in a very localized way and for a very short time until overall outward radiation loss returns the temp to stasis.

 

[IanC]

and if you could be so kind to answer a few questions about the redstar/bluestar scenario.
1. would it make a difference if the red star was a red giant? the nuclear core in red giants are 'burning' elements other than hydrogen at a much higher temperature. is it the internal temp that matters or just the surface temp?
2. what wavelengths are forbidden? the graph of emissions for stars are composed of almost identical wavelengths. are you saying that IR wavelengths from the hotter star are allowed to be emitted while the UV wavelengths from the cooller star are forbidden?

Easy answer. 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.

please attempt to answer the questions. are you now saying that stars are not capable of doing work?

 

[SSDD]

That is an assumption. There is no law that says that an object "must" radiate in all directions.

Yes, there is. Learn some statistical thermodynamics, will ya? Molecules emit in random directions. Given how many molecules there are in an object, the object must radiate in all directions.

Prove that. You can do it by showing observed, measured examples of backradiation.

Lets see them.

 

[SSDD]

there is a (purposeful) misunderstanding over the meaning of the term 'warmed'. the atmosphere causes conditions that reduce the loss of IR radiation from the surface which in turn allows the energy input from the Sun to raise the surface temperature higher. the atmosphere does not directly warm the surface, except perhaps in a very localized way and for a very short time until overall outward radiation loss returns the temp to stasis.

The IPCC documents describe the greenhouse effect as energy being radiated down from the atmosphere being absorbed by the surface of the earth and causing warming beyond that which the sun can provide on its own.

Do you think the earth radiates energy to the sun which causes the sun to warm by even the smallest fraction of a joule?

 

[SSDD]

please attempt to answer the questions. are you now saying that stars are not capable of doing work?

The energy they emit is capable of doing work. No work is being done by simply radiating. Radiating may be the result of work, but radiating iself isn't work and that is all we are talking about here. The second law is all you need to answer that question...it says that energy won't transfer spontaneously from a cool object to a warm object. How are you going to get it to happen in order to satisfy the predictions of your hypothesis?

 

[IanC]

here are emission curves for three different temps in the star range.

it is easy to see that each curve has almost the exact same range of wavelengths as the others, although the higher temps produce more radiation and the average wavelength is in a higher energy band.

this type of graph makes the second law of thermodynamics easy to understand when dealing with radiation. although the range is almost exactly the same for each temperature, the amount of radiation at any particular wavelength is always larger for the hotter object. this is why heat alway flows from warmer to cooler. if you subtract the graph of the cooler object from the warmer one you get a visual amount of radiation which is available to be transfered to the cooler object. note well that all three curves produce photons in the full range, with the exception of very few extra high photons at the very left side. a 500nm photon produced by any of the temps is indistinguishable from the others.

here is a graph for temps more likely to be found under earthly conditions. same basic shape, same relationship as to why heat flows one way, towards the cooler because the warmer object is always producing more radiation in every range.


are the earth's surface and atmosphere perfect black bodies? of course not. I reccomend Glickstein at WUWT (Google Image Result for http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2011/05/gw-heat-light-detail.jpg or the guy at Science of Doom (Google Image Result for http://scienceofdoom.files.wordpress.com/2012/01/goody-p4.png?w=500) depending on which blogs you read. better yet, read both sets of article. better still read the comments after the articles as well. and the other articles on the same subject by the authors. and more articles on the subject by different authors. etc, etc, etc, until you understand the basics, understand the differences according to which side is talking, and then make up your own mind.

 

[gslack]

Yes, yes Admiral "nuke" "I don't wear black ever" fraud.. and "you" claim is still ignorant and irrelevant... Cry me a river fraud, fake, phony, con-man, Bullshitter..

What's next? Gonna tell us all about your adventures aboard the only boat in the navy that lets any old swabby man the reactors? What was it called? The USS Lollipop?

Your wacky claim _still_ violates conservation of energy.

Are you ever going to talk about science again, or do you plan to spend the rest of your life here just blubbering about how I humiliated you?

And gslack? Let's talk science. Do you agree with SSDD's insane rant about how a red star will shut down photon production on the side facing a blue star? A simple yes or no will do.

Westwall, you should answer that as well.

Sorry phony, I don't care what you want. I post how I please..

 

[polarbear]

Numan :


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

I DID forget to mention you, Saigon, for which I apologize.

In extenuation, I will point out that the Endangered Arctoid lifted the quote, entirely without acknowledgement, from a completely different thread to which you did not contribute comments on global heating.

I do think, however, that comments on the color of naval uniforms and the like are completely inappropriate to either thread, and detract seriously from the discussion of the topics.
.

I love it! The sock acknowledging the drone!

And in the process he invented more "newspeak".
Arctoid and "global heating".
Besides all that it`s his pet, the Siamese cat who incessantly harps on what kind of rags Navy personnel are wearing in the engine decks.
Watch the pattern.
They are all silent for almost 20 hours. But as soon as anyone writes a subject related post the entire Numan crowd appears seconds later after you post something relevant.
First "Saigon" chimes in and he is supposed to be in a time zone where normal people are no longer glued to their PC .
Then he digs up something SSDD said over a week ago and wants to start up an argument about a detail which he ignored for 7 days or more, just to bury what has been posted minutes ago.
The weird Siamese cat does the same thing. Minutes after you post something informative about the subject that`s being discussed it pops up and plasters a dozen or more one liner posts into any active thread in order to spam it with as many screen pages as possible. Mostly insults and sucker punches hoping somebody will fall for it and oblige that bitch to change the subject yet again.
It`s a typical libtard tactic.
If they get cornered they dig up stuff like "guess who was a corporate lawyer for Monsanto 40 years ago" . Or that the "animal abuser" Romney had his dog riding on the roof rack decades ago when the dog had diarrhea when Americans wanted to know what happened in Benghazi.
I`ll post a reply to IanC and SSDD later tonight and watch how fast the asshole crowd piles in moments later with a ton of spam and sucker punches. It`s the same predictable stimulus and response effect as you would get poking lab rat brains with a probe.
They really squirm when you pin prick their inflated ego...then their involuntary spasms continue for almost a month

 

[Meister]

Average of GISS, NCDC, and HadCRUT4 monthly global surface temperature anomalies from January 1970 through November 2012 (green) with linear trends applied to the timeframes Jan '70 - Oct '77, Apr '77 - Dec '86, Sep '87 - Nov '96, Jun '97 - Dec '02, Nov '02 - Nov '12.

Your Skepticalscience.com site?

Skeptical Science is a climate alarmist website created by a self-employed cartoonist, John Cook. It is moderated by zealots who ruthlessly censor any and all form of dissent from their alarmist position. This way they can pretend to win arguments, when in reality they have all been refuted. The abuse and censorship does not pertain to simply any dissenting commentator there but to highly credentialed and respected climate scientists as well; Dr. Pielke Sr. has unsuccessfully attempted to engage in discussions there only to be childishly taunted and censored while Dr. Michaels has been dishonestly quoted and smeared. The irony of the site's oxymoronic name "Skeptical Science" is that the site is not skeptical of even the most extreme alarmist positions.
Popular Technology.net: The Truth about Skeptical Science

Keep up the good work....they like a good tool.