AGW: atmospheric physics

[gslack]

Its not at all surprising that you condone that nonsensical rape of science Ian... I bolded the stupid parts...

A mirror and a light bulb? Exactly what part of that farce relates to CO2 warming the planets surface? YOU sit there and day and day out on this board and belittle everyone who has made any analogy to AGW, and yet you support something as completely irrelevant to the subject as that... WOW IAN SERIOUSLY WOW....

I got an idea, why not place a glass container of CO2 in between the light bulb and the mirror and see if the reflected light from the mirror gets any extra heat back from the CO2... No that would be wrong wouldn't it.. Idiotic...

As stupid and irrelevant as that idea was, the worst was this bit of nonsense..

"Similarly, if you sit in front of a radiant heater, then turn a lower powered heater on behind you, you will still get warmer even though the second heater is cooler than the first. In fact, you don’t need a second heater – a simple mirror to reflect the heat that’s gone past you will do the same!"

Brilliant, pure and simple...You will get warmer if you sit between two heaters or one heater.. This guy's a genius... Yep Ian, I can see how it explains your position almost exactly... Sounds exactly like your nonsense...

The last bolded part, is epic Ian nonsense. two-way energy flow, brilliant...Photons interacting with CO2 creates more photons. Genius... Not only more of them but they can now oppose their incoming stronger force and warm that source even more..

I usually dont respond to your comments but I am bored.

I can understand how you get confused, and lose track of the concepts by focussing on irrelevant details. perhaps you are saying to yourself that the light meter would throw a shadow on the mirror so that none would reflect back at the meter. that is a legitimate point if the mirror was perfectly aligned but the thought experiment is an analogy for surface/earth. the light from the surface (IR) is diffuse, the radiation from molecules in the atmosphere even more so. that is why he said a half silvered mirror, to accomodate the fact that only half of the atmospheric radiation has a downward component (less because of the curvature of the earth if you want to be picky).

moving on to the heater example. do you doubt that two heaters would warm you up more? again, the single heater is not that great a simulation of the surface because it is not diffuse. one interesting aspect is that you could actually use a parabolic mirror behind you to focus the escaped IR that missed you the first time. you can magnify and direct sunlight, or output from a point source but you cannot magnify diffuse radiation from the surface or the sky to any appreciable extent at ambient temperatures. this entropy is why you cannot use the large amount of energy in the ground or atmosphere to do work.

I dont really expect you to pick up on any of the concepts from Joe's comment, gslack. you never seem to be able to pick up anything.

go back to your ad homs. you dont need brains for that, just bad manners.

Classic Ian misdirect... Want to point to where I said two heaters won't warm you more?

Why do you do that? Seriously,you read what I wrote,it was very simple, yet you try that childish misdirection.. Come on Ian just once be honest about what people post. You're supposed to be so brilliant why the deliberate troll behavior?

We know,it's because you can't defend this retarded theory honestly, it's too flawed. You're too much a coward to debate this honestly...

All your high talk and in reality your just a coward... Everytime you pull this tactic, you lose respect, and not just from me.

 

[Saigon]

Gslack -

Want to point to where I said two heaters won't warm you more?

He did not say you did - he suggested it as an example.

Everytime you pull this tactic, you lose respect, and not just from me.

What tactic?

Ian posted a perfectly honest and straightfoward post - which seems to have gone right over your head.

And no, this does not mean I've taken you off ignore mode, either!

 

[gslack]

Gslack -

Want to point to where I said two heaters won't warm you more?

He did not say you did - he suggested it as an example.

Everytime you pull this tactic, you lose respect, and not just from me.

What tactic?

Ian posted a perfectly honest and straightfoward post - which seems to have gone right over your head.

And no, this does not mean I've taken you off ignore mode, either!

It's called a misdirect, when rather than address what was said, you address something you make up and attribute to them...And as you just said, that is exactly what he did...

His post was his usual when he can't defend some nonsense he posted or can't address something honestly without showing the weakness of his argument or position...

Now, evidently you don't know what "ignore" means. It means you ignore my posts either by choosing to not view or read them, or by using the ignore feature on the forum software. Either way it means you don't acknowledge my posts, and you certainly don't respond to them.

Saying you are still ignoring me in a response to my post is as pointless and dumb as your Dad Ian's ramblings...

 

[Saigon]

GSlack -

I do have you on Ignore Mode because you seem to lack both the literacy and intelligence to hold any form of sensible discussion - as you establish again here by misdirecting Ian's comments, even as you accuse him of doing the same thing (which he doesn't do, btw).

I can choose to view your comment by clocking 'view comment' on the line that shows that you have posted. On this occassion I chose to look - but am unlikely to make the same mistake in future.

 

[gslack]

GSlack -

I do have you on Ignore Mode because you seem to lack both the literacy and intelligence to hold any form of sensible discussion - as you establish again here by misdirecting Ian's comments, even as you accuse him of doing the same thing (which he doesn't do, btw).

I can choose to view your comment by clocking 'view comment' on the line that shows that you have posted. On this occassion I chose to look - but am unlikely to make the same mistake in future.

No ya don't obviously... How many times are you going to choose to look? The entire point of ignoring me means you don't choose to look.. IF you do you aren't ignoring me...

What you ARE doing is showing your immaturity..

 

[IanC]

perhaps we could put CO2 on the back burner and talk about the GHG that really counts, H2O.

the molecules in liquid H2O move back and forth, the average speed determines the temperature. occasionally a molecule by random interactions will find itself both close to the surface and with enough kinetic speed to break free, becoming water vapour. this actually cools the water because only fast moving (more energetic) molecules escape which leaves the average lower, which by definition is temperature. {why arent the SLoTers saying that it breaks the second law to bump up the energy enough to escape?}

moist air is lighter than dry air, so it rises, taking the phase change (evaporation) energy with it. decreasing air pressure lowers the air temperature and at some point depending on conditions the water vapour condenses into microdroplets (clouds) and then into rain or snow, turning the kinetic energy into radiation. although the radiation is released in all directions, most of it goes upwards because downward radiation just gets reabsorbed.

are there any other ways water vapour in the atmosphere affects energy transfer? yes. H2O molecules absorb most bands of IR radiation from the surface (or elsewhere) and re-radiate it in a random direction just like CO2. not only that but micro droplets are a very good reflector of IR.

do the SLoTers also deny that atmospheric H2O is capable of capturing and diffusing surface IR, or reflecting it downwards from clouds? perhaps they think there is no observed, measured, repeatable evidence for H2O either.

 

[IanC]

GSlack -

I do have you on Ignore Mode because you seem to lack both the literacy and intelligence to hold any form of sensible discussion - as you establish again here by misdirecting Ian's comments, even as you accuse him of doing the same thing (which he doesn't do, btw).

I can choose to view your comment by clocking 'view comment' on the line that shows that you have posted. On this occassion I chose to look - but am unlikely to make the same mistake in future.

No ya don't obviously... How many times are you going to choose to look? The entire point of ignoring me means you don't choose to look.. IF you do you aren't ignoring me...

What you ARE doing is showing your immaturity..

when my kids were small I rewarded them for good behaviour and clever ideas by being more interested in them! I didnt ignore them when they were 'bad', I just made it clear that 'bad' behaviour was boring, unstimulating and unlikely to lead towards entertaining experiences. they grew up to be bright, empathetic, engaging and successful.

either gslack did not have a similar childhood or he was incapable of learning civilized behaviour because we can all see he grew up to be a bore.

 

[gslack]

GSlack -

I do have you on Ignore Mode because you seem to lack both the literacy and intelligence to hold any form of sensible discussion - as you establish again here by misdirecting Ian's comments, even as you accuse him of doing the same thing (which he doesn't do, btw).

I can choose to view your comment by clocking 'view comment' on the line that shows that you have posted. On this occassion I chose to look - but am unlikely to make the same mistake in future.

No ya don't obviously... How many times are you going to choose to look? The entire point of ignoring me means you don't choose to look.. IF you do you aren't ignoring me...

What you ARE doing is showing your immaturity..

when my kids were small I rewarded them for good behaviour and clever ideas by being more interested in them! I didnt ignore them when they were 'bad', I just made it clear that 'bad' behaviour was boring, unstimulating and unlikely to lead towards entertaining experiences. they grew up to be bright, empathetic, engaging and successful.

either gslack did not have a similar childhood or he was incapable of learning civilized behaviour because we can all see he grew up to be a bore.

So then you are saying it's my fault your pal can't grasp the concept of "ignore"?

Why not address my post to YOU honestly now.... Ya know Ian your chicken shit tactics are tiresome. When pressured you misdirect and your pals distract on cue. Then when you respond again it's to one of the posts by your little clones or someone else..

Calling people dumb and pretending some higher education or intellect as defense only works if you are willing to back that pretense up with honest behavior. Something you seem to never be able to do..

 

[IanC]

'
Well, even for the arctoid from the mental wastelands of Canada, that last posting was remarkably doltish!

First of all, his figures were wrong, but putting that aside, the obvious difference between the cover of the barbeque and the situation of the hot plate inside the barbeque is that air is constantly removing heat from the lid by convection and the heat of the hot plate is contained inside the barbeque!!!

Moreover, how similar, how very similar the way heat is built up inside the barbeque is to the back radiation from the atmosphere to the earth!!!

Idiocy like this is unimaginable to mere mortals -- it takes a genius of the absurd like bear-brain and his fellow Denialists to come up with something this nuts!!
.

bobgnote is well on his way to a massive red medallion rep bar again.

 

[SSDD]

perhaps we could put CO2 on the back burner and talk about the GHG that really counts, H2O.

Ever notice that along the same lines of latitude and at similar elevation that areas with more atmopspheric H20 tend to be cooler than drier areas...

 

[gslack]

'
Well, even for the arctoid from the mental wastelands of Canada, that last posting was remarkably doltish!

First of all, his figures were wrong, but putting that aside, the obvious difference between the cover of the barbeque and the situation of the hot plate inside the barbeque is that air is constantly removing heat from the lid by convection and the heat of the hot plate is contained inside the barbeque!!!

Moreover, how similar, how very similar the way heat is built up inside the barbeque is to the back radiation from the atmosphere to the earth!!!

Idiocy like this is unimaginable to mere mortals -- it takes a genius of the absurd like bear-brain and his fellow Denialists to come up with something this nuts!!
.

bobgnote is well on his way to a massive red medallion rep bar again.

Can't do it can ya coward... ROFL,yes Ian I am laughing AT you...

 

[polarbear]

I usually dont respond to your comments but I am bored.

I can understand how you get confused, and lose track of the concepts by focussing on irrelevant details. perhaps you are saying to yourself that the light meter would throw a shadow on the mirror so that none would reflect back at the meter. that is a legitimate point if the mirror was perfectly aligned but the thought experiment is an analogy for surface/earth. the light from the surface (IR) is diffuse, the radiation from molecules in the atmosphere even more so. that is why he said a half silvered mirror, to accomodate the fact that only half of the atmospheric radiation has a downward component (less because of the curvature of the earth if you want to be picky).

moving on to the heater example. do you doubt that two heaters would warm you up more? again, the single heater is not that great a simulation of the surface because it is not diffuse. one interesting aspect is that you could actually use a parabolic mirror behind you to focus the escaped IR that missed you the first time. you can magnify and direct sunlight, or output from a point source but you cannot magnify diffuse radiation from the surface or the sky to any appreciable extent at ambient temperatures. this entropy is why you cannot use the large amount of energy in the ground or atmosphere to do work.

I dont really expect you to pick up on any of the concepts from Joe's comment, gslack. you never seem to be able to pick up anything.

go back to your ad homs. you dont need brains for that, just bad manners.

IanC, do you have a BBQ?
Mine is black alu, has a 24 x 16 inch lid, and if I place it during the summer at 12:00 noon into direct sunlight it also exposes the 24 by 20 inch front to the sun...which radiates ~1000 Watts per m^2 at it. After 5 minutes it received on top and at the front ~ 244 000 watt seconds solar radiation, yet you can put your hand on the lid for as long as you want to.

But if you put a 500 watt electric hotplate inside the BBQ you can`t touch the lid after 5 minutes without getting your fingers burnt even though that was only 150 000 watt seconds.

You can try out the same thing with a 1 m^2 sheet metal painted pitch black. If you stand on it after it was exposed to the sun for an hour it won`t burn your feet either, but if it`s been sitting for an hour on a 1000 watt electric heater it would.

Photons @ x µm do represent a specific energy quantum but that does not mean that each Joule of energy carried at a given radiation flux is converted into heat.
Much of it remains radiation and only an ideal black body converts the entire amount into heat.

It`s Okay to speculate if one lamp would heat the filament of another lamp next to it, but unless you can show that it actually does so it`s a mute point.

You keep saying it would and also keep saying that Roy Spencers silly "thought experiment" + his anecdotal "explanations" are correct, while you are disputing the rest of that "science"....the back radiation temperature yields that this photon===> equal amount of heat energy has been projecting.

great example. I am short on time right now but I think this is a case of convection and conduction being a much more efficient way of transferring heat. as well there is 1000w heater putting the power through much less than 1 m2. and thirdly there is the matter of emissivity, what wavelengths a material preferentially absorbs. as a kid I hated chrome doorhandles on sunny summer days.

please be careful when saying or even implying what I have said. you have distorted my position almost every time in the past, so please just make an actual quote of my words, preferably with the context. as far as Spencer, do you disagree that the temperature of an object is not only affected by the energy input but also by the energy loss?

I can tell you were too much in a hurry, because I never said there was a 1000 watt heater in the BBQ, I said a 500 watt heater.
Most BBQ`s resemble a cube with rounded edges and cubes have 6 sides, my BBQ is no exception. So the "1000 watts and less surface" argument was a slip-up I attribute to you being in a hurry,...or as you put it " I am short on time right now".
Take all the time you need and think about it when you are not too busy answering somebody else.
A 500 watt heater inside a metal cube (a BBQ) radiates heat in all directions except a little less through it`s own base down to the BBQ bottom. So if anything the radiation energy flux to the surfaces that face the sun is less with the 500 watt heater than what the same surfaces get from 1000 watts/ m^2 from solar.
If you don`t like the BBQ with the 500 watt heater inside...which is pretty well the same arrangement as Roy Spencer`s heated bar...with an internal electric heater then try it out with a 1 m^2 piece of sheet metal on top of a 500 watt electric heater.
After 5 minutes you won`t be able to pick up that sheet metal without wearing gloves...not even at the edges....they are sizzling hot.
Not so the same piece of sheet metal even if it`s black and laid for over an hour in the noon sun.
We`ll talk about it after "numan" shuts up...he can`t even figure out how many watt seconds a 500 watt heater delivers in 5 minutes and argues that the inside of the thin gauge metal lid is way hotter than the outside, because the 500 watt heater was inside.
We have been around this bend last year when I told you to be cautious with your acquired habit to equate radiation flux Joules into 100 % heat...after you read Roy Spencer`s "thought experiment".
That 100% radiation absorption and conversion to heat only happens in theory with a theoretical black body of a non specified material and mass, a non specified specific heat and in a vacuum

'
Well, even for the arctoid from the mental wastelands of Canada, that last posting was remarkably doltish!

First of all, his figures were wrong, but putting that aside, the obvious difference between the cover of the barbeque and the situation of the hot plate inside the barbeque is that air is constantly removing heat from the lid by convection and the heat of the hot plate is contained inside the barbeque!!!

Moreover, how similar, how very similar the way heat is built up inside the barbeque is to the back radiation from the atmosphere to the earth!!!

Idiocy like this is unimaginable to mere mortals -- it takes a genius of the absurd like bear-brain and his fellow Denialists to come up with something this nuts!!
.

Hey "numan"...if you connect 2 light bulbs 100 watts each in series how many watts worth of light will they radiate ?...Including "back radiating" each other inside a mirror sphere ?
Did it get as bright as a single 100 watt bulb ?
Or as dim as you, together with your nuclear admiral friend, the expert on black bodies, who had no idea why heat sinks are painted black.

 

[IanC]

perhaps we could put CO2 on the back burner and talk about the GHG that really counts, H2O.

Ever notice that along the same lines of latitude and at similar elevation that areas with more atmopspheric H20 tend to be cooler than drier areas...

While I have made that point myself in the past, I sm not sure we can separate the conditions sufficiently enough to accurately tease out the factors involved.

 

[IanC]

IanC, do you have a BBQ?
Mine is black alu, has a 24 x 16 inch lid, and if I place it during the summer at 12:00 noon into direct sunlight it also exposes the 24 by 20 inch front to the sun...which radiates ~1000 Watts per m^2 at it. After 5 minutes it received on top and at the front ~ 244 000 watt seconds solar radiation, yet you can put your hand on the lid for as long as you want to.

But if you put a 500 watt electric hotplate inside the BBQ you can`t touch the lid after 5 minutes without getting your fingers burnt even though that was only 150 000 watt seconds.

You can try out the same thing with a 1 m^2 sheet metal painted pitch black. If you stand on it after it was exposed to the sun for an hour it won`t burn your feet either, but if it`s been sitting for an hour on a 1000 watt electric heater it would.

Photons @ x µm do represent a specific energy quantum but that does not mean that each Joule of energy carried at a given radiation flux is converted into heat.
Much of it remains radiation and only an ideal black body converts the entire amount into heat.

It`s Okay to speculate if one lamp would heat the filament of another lamp next to it, but unless you can show that it actually does so it`s a mute point.

You keep saying it would and also keep saying that Roy Spencers silly "thought experiment" + his anecdotal "explanations" are correct, while you are disputing the rest of that "science"....the back radiation temperature yields that this photon===> equal amount of heat energy has been projecting.

great example. I am short on time right now but I think this is a case of convection and conduction being a much more efficient way of transferring heat. as well there is 1000w heater putting the power through much less than 1 m2. and thirdly there is the matter of emissivity, what wavelengths a material preferentially absorbs. as a kid I hated chrome doorhandles on sunny summer days.

please be careful when saying or even implying what I have said. you have distorted my position almost every time in the past, so please just make an actual quote of my words, preferably with the context. as far as Spencer, do you disagree that the temperature of an object is not only affected by the energy input but also by the energy loss?

I can tell you were too much in a hurry, because I never said there was a 1000 watt heater in the BBQ, I said a 500 watt heater.
Most BBQ`s resemble a cube with rounded edges and cubes have 6 sides, my BBQ is no exception. So the "1000 watts and less surface" argument was a slip-up I attribute to you being in a hurry,...or as you put it " I am short on time right now".
Take all the time you need and think about it when you are not too busy answering somebody else.
A 500 watt heater inside a metal cube (a BBQ) radiates heat in all directions except a little less through it`s own base down to the BBQ bottom. So if anything the radiation energy flux to the surfaces that face the sun is less with the 500 watt heater than what the same surfaces get from 1000 watts/ m^2 from solar.
If you don`t like the BBQ with the 500 watt heater inside...which is pretty well the same arrangement as Roy Spencer`s heated bar...with an internal electric heater then try it out with a 1 m^2 piece of sheet metal on top of a 500 watt electric heater.
After 5 minutes you won`t be able to pick up that sheet metal without wearing gloves...not even at the edges....they are sizzling hot.
Not so the same piece of sheet metal even if it`s black and laid for over an hour in the noon sun.
We`ll talk about it after "numan" shuts up...he can`t even figure out how many watt seconds a 500 watt heater delivers in 5 minutes and argues that the inside of the thin gauge metal lid is way hotter than the outside, because the 500 watt heater was inside.
We have been around this bend last year when I told you to be cautious with your acquired habit to equate radiation flux Joules into 100 % heat...after you read Roy Spencer`s "thought experiment".
That 100% radiation absorption and conversion to heat only happens in theory with a theoretical black body of a non specified material and mass, a non specified specific heat and in a vacuum

'
Well, even for the arctoid from the mental wastelands of Canada, that last posting was remarkably doltish!

First of all, his figures were wrong, but putting that aside, the obvious difference between the cover of the barbeque and the situation of the hot plate inside the barbeque is that air is constantly removing heat from the lid by convection and the heat of the hot plate is contained inside the barbeque!!!

Moreover, how similar, how very similar the way heat is built up inside the barbeque is to the back radiation from the atmosphere to the earth!!!

Idiocy like this is unimaginable to mere mortals -- it takes a genius of the absurd like bear-brain and his fellow Denialists to come up with something this nuts!!
.

Hey "numan"...if you connect 2 light bulbs 100 watts each in series how many watts worth of light will they radiate ?...Including "back radiating" each other inside a mirror sphere ?
Did it get as bright as a single 100 watt bulb ?
Or as dim as you, together with your nuclear admiral friend, the expert on black bodies, who had no idea why heat sinks are painted black.

Sorry. Maybe later. How hot with 500watts of light truncated to cut out the IR and enough ventilation to remove conduction and convection?

 

[SSDD]

perhaps we could put CO2 on the back burner and talk about the GHG that really counts, H2O.

Ever notice that along the same lines of latitude and at similar elevation that areas with more atmopspheric H20 tend to be cooler than drier areas...

While I have made that point myself in the past, I sm not sure we can separate the conditions sufficiently enough to accurately tease out the factors involved.

We can separate them enough to realise that radiative gasses produce a cooling effect as opposed to the warming effect that results from the application of flawed physics.

 

[numan]

either gslack did not have a similar childhood or he was incapable of learning civilized behaviour because we can all see he grew up to be a bore.

I prefer to think of him as a cad.
.

 

[numan]

are there any other ways water vapour in the atmosphere affects energy transfer? yes. H2O molecules absorb most bands of IR radiation from the surface (or elsewhere) and re-radiate it in a random direction just like CO2. not only that but micro droplets are a very good reflector of IR.

do the SLoTers also deny that atmospheric H2O is capable of capturing and diffusing surface IR, or reflecting it downwards from clouds? perhaps they think there is no observed, measured, repeatable evidence for H2O either.

Laugh Out Loud !!

These gibbering Denialists have already proclaimed that, when there are clouds over the desert at night, you are not warmer on the ground than when there are no clouds overhead !!
· · · ·

 

[IlarMeilyr]

are there any other ways water vapour in the atmosphere affects energy transfer? yes. H2O molecules absorb most bands of IR radiation from the surface (or elsewhere) and re-radiate it in a random direction just like CO2. not only that but micro droplets are a very good reflector of IR.

do the SLoTers also deny that atmospheric H2O is capable of capturing and diffusing surface IR, or reflecting it downwards from clouds? perhaps they think there is no observed, measured, repeatable evidence for H2O either.

Laugh Out Loud !!

These gibbering Denialists have already proclaimed that, when there are clouds over the desert at night, you are not warmer on the ground than when there are no clouds overhead !!
· · · ·

noman can't even figure out that it can be warmer with no cloud cover sometimes.

So, it kinda depends on the season and the temperature, you dull-witted dip shit hack motherfucker.

 

[numan]

'

Why do Global Heating Denialism and Tourette's Syndrome always seem to go together?

An interesting psychological study worthy of an international conference may lie here.
.

 

[Saigon]

'

Why do Global Heating Denialism and Tourette's Syndrome always seem to go together?

An interesting psychological study worthy of an international conference may lie here.
.

I've noticed the same thing, and you could also add 'extreme right-wing political views' to that mix.

The only people who throw abuse around on these threads are Deniers. I wonder why that is?