AGW: atmospheric physics

[polarbear]

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.

For now just a short response, because I`m certain the AGW spammers will bury it with as much of their garbage which has zilch to do with what you just posted. There is nothing wrong with any of your statements in this post.
However:
If you just "eyeball" the emission curves then they appear more similar than they really are..
Look at the Y-axis "Relative Brightness" and note the wavelength where each curve peaks.
If you got a CAD drag that graph into a window and examine each curve a little bit closer:

The 350 nm peak of the 7500 K curve has a Rel.Br. which is 11 times higher than the 650 nm peak of the 4500 K curve.
It only takes a few mouse clicks with a CAD program and you get the integral for each curves.
The relation ship is the same as for the relative peak values.
But none of that takes into consideration what should be the third dimension, which is completely missing on that graph.
And that is the energy increase of photons as the wavelength gets shorter. You could draw in that line yourself .
A 350 nm photon carries ~ 1.9 times the energy of a 650 nm photon.
Plot that relationship on the Z-axis which is not on that graph and then you can cube the graph which the familiar E= proportional relation ship with T in fact does.
From that extrapolate down to 20 C and the 15 000 nanometer photons that CO2 "re-emits" or "back radiates" with each of these photons .Then cube that graph again and you will notice that the CO2 "back radiation" effect is as miniscule as a fly having a head on collision with a freight train going in the opposite direction.
Last not least be aware that this graph is for IDEAL black bodies in a theoretical IDEAL vacuum. Only under IDEAL condition can an object convert heat energy quantitatively into light with that spectral distribution.
In the real world a 30mW Laser 532 nanometers needed 250mW at 650 nm for equal brightness.
That's 8.3 times more power...way more than what it would take with an ideal black body for a wavelength spectral span of only 118 nanometers...which is only 1 tick unit increment on the X-axis on that 2 dimensional graph

I should paste in what the Siamese cat and "Saigon" buried yesterday within minutes after I posted it:
The distinguishing difference between the terms kinetic energy and thermal energy is that thermal energy is the mean energy of disordered, i.e. random, motion of the particles or the oscillations in the system. The conversion of energy of ordered motion to thermal energy results from collisions.

For gaseous systems, the factor f, the number of degrees of freedom, commonly has the value 3 in the case of the monatomic gas, 5 for many diatomic gases, and 7 for larger molecules at ambient temperatures. In general however, it is a function of the temperature of the system as internal modes of motion, vibration, or rotation become available in higher energy regimes
Today's narrow definition of heat in physics contrasts with its use in common language, in some engineering disciplines, and in the historical scientific development of thermodynamics

sqrt (3 * Kelvin * Blz. constant(1.3805*10^- 23 J/K) divided by molecular mass of air 28.9 g/mol (4.799*10^-26) =average V is 500 meters per second at 300 K.
When you heat a gas by 1 deg then the average molecular speed increases by almost 30 meters per second and expands in an open system as a consequence.
It does so against a 1 atm pressure and that means work was performed, consuming energy...which in turn is no longer available to produce it`s energy equivalent in photons

 

[polarbear]

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.

Global Warming Petition Project

31,487 American scientists have signed this petition,
including 9,029 with PhDs

Engineers can`t make a living just by publishing papers. They have to use cutting edge science to design systems that actually function.
Cooling to near absolute Zero K with high energy tunable Lasers:

Laser Cooling of Solids

It is possible to cool a material by anti-Stokes fluorescence. This simply means that the material emits photons which have a higher mean energy than those it absorbs. The energy difference arises from thermal excitations in the sample. Effectively, heat is converted into light, which leaves the material and is dumped onto a heat sink elsewhere.
The cooling efficiency can be defined as the ratio of the cooling power in the active material to the input electric power to the pump light source.

And that simply exploits what was mentioned by many engineers that commented on low energy photons being "absorbed" by a black-body resonator which at the hotter temperature is forced to emit most of it`s photons at a higher energy level (shorter wave length).

Something AGW "scientists" keep denying.
..but call us "Denialists"...which is a "Saigon",Siamese Cat, and "Numan newspeak" superlative for 19th century AGW(-stone- age-"science") deniers. All they got is Roy Spencer "thought experiments" and wacky "computer models"
Engineers or "Denialist dévotes" as the "erudite Numan" calls our "occult" don`t deny anything else they would all be unemployed in short order.
None would get another paycheck if all they did so far, was making silly video game animations ( they call "computer models") of spinning globes that heat up with 380 ppm CO2.

Quote: Originally Posted by numan

Advice on avoiding denialist 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.

They go insane when I post pictures of Greenland and compare them with what Greenland looked like when the first wooden ships navigated through the Nares Strait all the way up to where CFS Alert is..which was named after Admiral Nares HMS Alert.
Found some good pictures today in "Der Spiegel.de" when Stephan Oth retraced his grandfathers footsteps on Greenland being diligent even when to be where what day of the year exactly 100 years later:
Opas Eisberg von Stephan Orth: Sensationsfund auf dem Dachboden - SPIEGEL ONLINE

Same spot now:

And exactly 100 years ago:

I got pictures from Fort Conger.

When Greely was there they went Duck hunting. Now it`s too cold for any ducks to venture this far north.
And when Greely was there there was no ice on "them there hills" either:

But all around that area we find huge trees and tree stumps that should not exist according to the hockey stick theory:

Every time I post pictures from Greenland the "skepticalscience" dot comers freak out and call it a "rant, that has nothing to do with global warming"..."Numan" already calls it "global heating"...
The more pissed off they get the more amusing it gets for me.
I`m actually looking forward to see how they will enrich the English language with even more leftwingnut "newspeak" to add to their hatred and ever more intense tirades

 

[mamooth]

That would be because your pictures of Greenland have nothing to do with global warming. They're just random pictures of Greenland. My vacation photos have as much relevance.

Say, why don't you something unusual for you, and try discussing science, instead of running from the science by way of picture-spamming?

Let's start with your interpretation of the second law.

SSDD says a red star won't radiate in the direction of a blue star.

Do you think SSDD is correct or incorrect?

Try to reign in the BS, and restrict your answer to the either the single word "correct" or "incorrect".

 

[westwall]

That would be because your pictures of Greenland have nothing to do with global warming. They're just random pictures of Greenland. My vacation photos have as much relevance.

Say, why don't you something unusual for you, and try discussing science, instead of running from the science by way of picture-spamming?

Let's start with your interpretation of the second law.

SSDD says a red star won't radiate in the direction of a blue star.

Do you think SSDD is correct or incorrect?

Try to reign in the BS, and restrict your answer to the either the single word "correct" or "incorrect".

They are only irrelevent to a science denier such as yourself. Polarbears photo's show quite clearly that Greenland has been MUCH warmer in the not too distant past, something that Mann and Co. have tried to erase from the historical record...like all good revisionists do...

Eh mr. neo nazi?

 

[polarbear]

That would be because your pictures of Greenland have nothing to do with global warming. They're just random pictures of Greenland. My vacation photos have as much relevance.

Say, why don't you something unusual for you, and try discussing science, instead of running from the science by way of picture-spamming?

Let's start with your interpretation of the second law.

SSDD says a red star won't radiate in the direction of a blue star.

Do you think SSDD is correct or incorrect?

Try to reign in the BS, and restrict your answer to the either the single word "correct" or "incorrect".

I know it bugs the hell out of you and the "erudite Numan" when I post pictures because he whines that his PC takes forever to load ....which explains why you took more than 1 minute to get out of the kitty litter box and start crapping in here.
Last edited by mamooth; Today at 05:59 PM.
This time 6 minutes after I was done. Usually you had 5 or more posts about your "Meow I used to run nuclear reactors".
We are all waiting for you to post your service record.

Let's start with your interpretation of the second law.

SSDD says a red star won't radiate in the direction of a blue star.

Do you think SSDD is correct or incorrect?

How dumb can you get. I already posted a reply.
http://www.usmessageboard.com/environment/279415-agw-atmospheric-physics-63.html#post7099220
Was it too complicated for you?
A whole bunch of people read it already and none of them had a problem with it.

Do you think SSDD is correct or incorrect?

1.) I`m not like you and don`t sit here all day and read everything every person on your lengthy hate list writes.
2.) Where do you get the idea that you can tell me how to answer your question "correct or incorrect".
3.) It`s the wrong question. SSDD did not publish "skepticalscience" blogs or any of the gobbledygook "climatology" crap you keep quoting and posting "Like all ski races had to be cancelled in Greenland and here is a satellite picture"
4.) What the fuck dies a distant red and a blue star have to do with the earth's atmosphere.
Ooops my microwave just dinged and my road coffee is ready.
The snowplow even did my driveway. It`s a balmy -5C and bright sunshine.
So now I`m off "running away" (with my wife) to town and we'll have a nice sea food dinner at my favorite restaurant.
You`ll have to find somebody else to pay attention to you.
Go watch some global warming color cartoons @ skeptical "science" or something. I can`t sit here all day because you want me too, else my wife might start wondering what`s taking me so long to start my car.

 

[mamooth]

Polarbears photo's show quite clearly that Greenland has been MUCH warmer in the not too distant past,

No they don't. Where do you get such nonsense?

something that Mann and Co. have tried to erase from the historical record...like all good revisionists do...

Yes, we know you cult commands you to lie about Mann, and we know you would never dare disobey your cult's orders. No need to remind us.

Eh mr. neo nazi?

I get all tingly when you play internet tough guy.

 

[mamooth]

Was it too complicated for you?

It was unreadable gibberish. That would be why not a single person referred to it. No one read it, because it was unreadable gibberish.

A whole bunch of people read it already and none of them had a problem with it.

Nobody read it. That's the point. No one reads anything your write, because it's just mountains of crap. If there's something intelligent buried inside the mountain of crap, it's never worth the effort to dig it out of the crap, thus everyone just skips over the crap.

When you ask me questions, I answer them clearly, briefly and directly. That's because I want people read what I say. Understand the virtue of brevity. If you keep posting mountains of crap, people will continue to keep skipping over it all.

Now, let's see if you've learned that simple lesson. Answer this very simple question with "correct" or "incorrect".

Do you think SSDD is correct or incorrect when he says a red star won't radiate in the direction of a blue star?

 

[Meister]

Polarbears photo's show quite clearly that Greenland has been MUCH warmer in the not too distant past,

No they don't. Where do you get such nonsense?

something that Mann and Co. have tried to erase from the historical record...like all good revisionists do...

Yes, we know you cult commands you to lie about Mann, and we know you would never dare disobey your cult's orders. No need to remind us.

Eh mr. neo nazi?

I get all tingly when you play internet tough guy.

Read up on Greenland, M.

Climate helped drive Vikings from Greenland | Brown University News and Events

 

[gslack]

That would be because your pictures of Greenland have nothing to do with global warming. They're just random pictures of Greenland. My vacation photos have as much relevance.

Say, why don't you something unusual for you, and try discussing science, instead of running from the science by way of picture-spamming?

Let's start with your interpretation of the second law.

SSDD says a red star won't radiate in the direction of a blue star.

Do you think SSDD is correct or incorrect?

Try to reign in the BS, and restrict your answer to the either the single word "correct" or "incorrect".

You still haven't caught on yet have you... You still have no idea why people generally dislike you... Don't have a clue why we call you fake or phony.. Completely oblivious aren't you..

ITS YOU JUNIOR! ROFL

You act like a child desperate for attention. With you it's always Oh,oh look at me, look at me. It's impossible to take you seriously, or believe your claims because you just aren't believable dude.. Seriously, go google or photoshop a better forgery, that one's unreadable...

 

[mamooth]

You still haven't caught on yet have you... You still have no idea why people generally dislike you... Don't have a clue why we call you fake or phony.. Completely oblivious aren't you..

Would you please restrict your creepy obsessive psychostalking of me to just one single thread? That would currently be the "human footprint" thread. Thank you.

 

[mamooth]

Read up on Greenland

It's warmer now in Greenland than it was during the Medieval Warm Period

Oh, you didn't know that? You probably should read up on Greenland.

 

[polarbear]

Was it too complicated for you?

It was unreadable gibberish. That would be why not a single person referred to it. No one read it, because it was unreadable gibberish.

A whole bunch of people read it already and none of them had a problem with it.

Nobody read it. That's the point. No one reads anything your write, because it's just mountains of crap. If there's something intelligent buried inside the mountain of crap, it's never worth the effort to dig it out of the crap, thus everyone just skips over the crap.

When you ask me questions, I answer them clearly, briefly and directly. That's because I want people read what I say. Understand the virtue of brevity. If you keep posting mountains of crap, people will continue to keep skipping over it all.

Now, let's see if you've learned that simple lesson. Answer this very simple question with "correct" or "incorrect".

Do you think SSDD is correct or incorrect when he says a red star won't radiate in the direction of a blue star?

I guess you need a lesson in basic high school physics.
I hope you ate some cat food so that your little brain`s neurons fire up because most of them seem to be on the blink.
I had a great evening,steak & lobster. Unfortunately our table guests kept talking about the Boston bombing and we were glad that these horrific acts have not yet spilled over into Canada. While they were wondering what kind of psycho would do such a thing I was reminded of your friend "Numan" who said if he knew how he would like to create a bio-weapon that could sterilize most people who he considers beneath his "erudite" demi-God status. I`ve seen that you were at it while I was out and called some people neo-nazis and all kinds of stuff.
So there is little hope that you would be able to think outside your filthy litter box. But I`ll give it a try. It may not do you any good but all the rest who read my answer to you will realize at once just how fucking stupid this question was that I`m supposed to answer with on e word...either "correct" or "incorrect".

Do you think SSDD is correct or incorrect when he says a red star won't radiate in the direction of a blue star?

Well you dumb fuck if that`s all you understand that`s your problem, not mine. I don`t want to spend all evening digging around what SSDD said EXACTLY and I don`t believe anything that you say he said, because you lied the same way about me.
I`ll take a best guess and assume SSDD said that photons from a red star don`t add heat to a blue star.
Let's pick the nearest red star, Betelgeuse which is "only" about 640 light years from us and the nearest star our sun which is far from being a "blue star". Yet even the sun's outer mantle is almost all hydrogen in a plasma state. That means there are no electrons in a ground state that could possibly absorb any photons from a cooler red star.
I know that for a fact because I did a lot of atomic absorption spectroscopy and when too many atoms are ionized you get sweet fuck all as an absorption signal and when the whole lot is ionized as in a plasma not a single photon is absorbed from the corresponding spectral line light source
Atomic absorption spectroscopy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

• Ionization – depending on the ionization potential of the analyte atoms and the energy available in a particular flame, atoms might be in part converted to gaseous ions.

Each of these stages includes the risk of interference in case the degree of phase transfer is different for the analyte in the calibration standard and in the sample. Ionization is generally undesirable, as it reduces the number of atoms that is available for measurement, i.e., the sensitivity

We have to mix in ionization "buffers" to avoid excessive ionization at the temperature it takes to get an atomic ion to the "ground state" where it has the electron that can absorb a photon.
So how many "ground state" Hydrogen atoms do you think are in a plasma D'OH ?

Just like you he is an expert in physics and "used to run nuclear power plants".
The difference between you and Homer is, that Homer might know how to run 2 turbine generator sets in sync at the same rpm and phase angle.
I bet you cant even run your right index finger in a right circle on the table and do a circle to the left under the table with your right foot at the same time.
When the temperature of a REAL body gets hot enough to ionize then all you got is EMISSION, there is no more ABSORPTION and sure as hell not on a star which has a mantle that exists entirely in the plasma state

 

[mamooth]

I guess you need a lesson in basic high school physics.

There's your problem. This is way beyond high school physics, but high school physics is as far as you go.

I hope you ate some cat food so that your little brain`s neurons fire up because most of them seem to be on the blink.
I had a great evening,steak & lobster....

Please restrict your grandpa Simpson type stories to a more appropriate venue.

I`ll take a best guess and assume SSDD said that photons from a red star don`t add heat to a blue star.

No, he said the red star won't even emit photons in the direction of the blue star. You seem to disagree. Good. I won't press you, because I know it causes you physical pain to even think of saying that another member of your cult is incorrect, and that the dirty liberals are right.

That means there are no electrons in a ground state that could possibly absorb any photons from a cooler red star.

You're assuming ground state absorption is the only way for photons to be absorbed. That's some fine high-school level physics there, but the universe is more complicated than that. Absorption of photons by a plasma is a very complicated topic that dives deep into quantum mechanics, and is beyond the scope of anyone here.

However we know it happens because ... conservation of energy. The energy of the photons has to go somewhere. It can't just vanish.

I know that for a fact because

Because you again assumed your limited knowledge had to be the entire answer, and thus didn't look any further.

 

[gslack]

You still haven't caught on yet have you... You still have no idea why people generally dislike you... Don't have a clue why we call you fake or phony.. Completely oblivious aren't you..

Would you please restrict your creepy obsessive psychostalking of me to just one single thread? That would currently be the "human footprint" thread. Thank you.

Oh junior stop all the drama.. no ones stalking you. If anything you are the stalker here. With your obsessive "bet me to post my DD214, go on bet me" nonsense...You practically begged us to look at it and when you finally do it's a blurry mess we can't make heads or tails of.



Lighten up Admiral, you aren't even that important to anybody..

 

[mamooth]

Again, please restrict your creepy stalker routine to a single thread, the "human footprint" thread. To quote the forum rules:

"No Cross posting. Cross posting is posting the same content repeatedly or in multiple forums. Pick one."

Thank you for your cooperation.

 

[gslack]

Again, please restrict your creepy stalker routine to a single thread, the "human footprint" thread. To quote the forum rules:

"No Cross posting. Cross posting is posting the same content repeatedly or in multiple forums. Pick one."

Thank you for your cooperation.

Don't be a baby junior. I didn't post the same content tool.. It may have had the same point (you being an obsessive moron), but the content was different..

Like right now I will call you Admiral Poopey-pants. Now look and see if I called you that in another thread..

 

[westwall]

Polarbears photo's show quite clearly that Greenland has been MUCH warmer in the not too distant past,

No they don't. Where do you get such nonsense?

something that Mann and Co. have tried to erase from the historical record...like all good revisionists do...

Yes, we know you cult commands you to lie about Mann, and we know you would never dare disobey your cult's orders. No need to remind us.

Eh mr. neo nazi?

I get all tingly when you play internet tough guy.

From historical fact nimrod. We know when it was warmer in Greenland and When it wasn't. We also get to use carbon dating to fix the time frame of those logs and voila! they are thousands of years old and could only have grown in that area when it was much warmer....like the Holocene Thermal Max for instance.

And once again for the learning impaired (such as yourself) we don't have to do anything to mock Mann...he is his own worst enemy. I look forward to his being shot down in flames with his incredibly moronic lawsuit against Dr. Ball.

Hoist on his own petard and you're too fucking stupid to realise it....you must be one of his janitors....

 

[Saigon]

Westwall -

So the climate records dating back to the Holocene Era are accurate?

Would you mind providing your source for those, because they could perhaps provide a useful, objectie basis for discussion.

 

[westwall]

Read up on Greenland

It's warmer now in Greenland than it was during the Medieval Warm Period

Oh, you didn't know that? You probably should read up on Greenland.

No it's not you moron. They were able to grow things there that we can't grow even now. The same go's for Scotland where they were able to grow wine grapes during the MWP you fool. We KNOW this because of the Domesday Book, which was a tax record of all the farms and settlements in the UK so that the King could get his money.

Before you go making a complete ass of yourself you might want to do just a little bit of research. Just a little....I know it taxes your tiny little mind, but really...just do it...

 

[westwall]

Westwall -

So the climate records dating back to the Holocene Era are accurate?

Would you mind providing your source for those, because they could perhaps provide a useful, objectie basis for discussion.

No, the records aren't "accurate" in the sense that you would like to use them. However, those logs certainly exist. They have certainly been dated, and they certainly weren't dropped there by aliens.