Climate Sensitivities. Is Solar Forcing more efficient than IR forcing?

[IanC]

for our departed comrade flacaltenn, who couldnt stand the mindless bullshit posted here lately.


does anyone else think that small changes in solar forcing (ordered shortwave) that is capable of actually warming things and powering physical processes like photosynthesis would be more influential than a similar increase in 'backradiation' (unordered longwave)?

most of the world is covered by water, sunlight penetrates water, IR doesnt. Is there anything that IR can affect other than the equilibrium of radiation loss of the surface?

 

[IanC]

for our departed comrade flacaltenn, who couldnt stand the mindless bullshit posted here lately.


does anyone else think that small changes in solar forcing (ordered shortwave) that is capable of actually warming things and powering physical processes like photosynthesis would be more influential than a similar increase in 'backradiation' (unordered longwave)?

most of the world is covered by water, sunlight penetrates water, IR doesnt. Is there anything that IR can affect other than the equilibrium of radiation loss of the surface?

Your question assumes backradiation exists. As I have found it only exists in global warming theory, and even then it's still unproven. It only exists in theory to date, so how can we make any legitimate claim as to its value comparative to anything?

Really? What happens to the radiation produced by the atmosphere? Are you a magically disappearing photon type? Perhaps a harmonic reflection a la Claes Johnson type? Or are you a SSDD type that thinks some new and poorly understood Law of Nature knows the temperature of everything and decides which emissions are allowable?

I'm not trying to insult you, I just am interested as to why you think there is not a two way exchange of energy between the surface and the atmosphere with a net flow of heat from warm to cold.

edit- Claes Johnson. stupid auto correct

 

[SSDD]

Really? What happens to the radiation produced by the atmosphere? Are you a magically disappearing photon type? Perhaps a harmonic reflection a la Class Johnson type? Or are you a SSDD type that thinks some new and poorly understood Law of Nature knows the temperature of everything and decides which emissions are allowable?

Why can seemingly all sorts of radiation be measured at ambient temperature except backradiation? Why is there not a single measurement anywhere at any time of backradiation at ambient temperature?

I'm not trying to insult you, I just am interested as to why you think there is not a two way exchange of energy between the surface and the atmosphere with a net flow of heat from warm to cold.

Not to answer for him but the second law says there is no two way flow. The radiation going back to the warmer object would be returning to a state of less entropy....not possible.

 

[Old Rocks]

Really? What happens to the radiation produced by the atmosphere? Are you a magically disappearing photon type? Perhaps a harmonic reflection a la Class Johnson type? Or are you a SSDD type that thinks some new and poorly understood Law of Nature knows the temperature of everything and decides which emissions are allowable?

Why can seemingly all sorts of radiation be measured at ambient temperature except backradiation? Why is there not a single measurement anywhere at any time of backradiation at ambient temperature?

I'm not trying to insult you, I just am interested as to why you think there is not a two way exchange of energy between the surface and the atmosphere with a net flow of heat from warm to cold.

Not to answer for him but the second law says there is no two way flow. The radiation going back to the warmer object would be returning to a state of less entropy....not possible.

LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

So, I take a mirror I have had in the refrigerator, and reflect the light of an incandescent bulb back at the bulb, the light swerves to avoid the bulb?

If I shine a the light from my led flashlight into one of the furnaces at work, the light won't go into the interior because the the furnace is much hotter than the emission source of the light in the led light?

A Photon does not care whether the emitter is hot or cold, or whether the object it impigns on is hot or cold.

 

[IanC]

Really? What happens to the radiation produced by the atmosphere? Are you a magically disappearing photon type? Perhaps a harmonic reflection a la Class Johnson type? Or are you a SSDD type that thinks some new and poorly understood Law of Nature knows the temperature of everything and decides which emissions are allowable?

Why can seemingly all sorts of radiation be measured at ambient temperature except backradiation? Why is there not a single measurement anywhere at any time of backradiation at ambient temperature?

I'm not trying to insult you, I just am interested as to why you think there is not a two way exchange of energy between the surface and the atmosphere with a net flow of heat from warm to cold.

Not to answer for him but the second law says there is no two way flow. The radiation going back to the warmer object would be returning to a state of less entropy....not possible.

so it is possible to measure radiation going up, right? and it is possible to measure radiation coming from the atmosphere going sideways? does the radiation stop abruptly as soon as the angle is smaller than parallel, or does it incrementally decrease as the downward slope becomes steeper?

what happens on days where a warm front comes in and the atmosphere above the surface is warmer than the ground? does the ground stop radiating?

your line of logic just doesnt seem to work, at least for me.

 

[SSDD]

LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

So, I take a mirror I have had in the refrigerator, and reflect the light of an incandescent bulb back at the bulb, the light swerves to avoid the bulb?

I make no claims about what happens to the energy. The second law says that energy won't transfer from a low temperature object to a higher temperature object...and that once energy radiates from the filament of your bulb, it is in a state of higher entropy than energy that is yet to radiate from the filament of your bulb. For the energy go back and be reabsorbed by the filament would require that it return to a state of lower entropy...expressly forbidden by the second law.

Are you saying that the second law is wrong?

If I shine a the light from my led flashlight into one of the furnaces at work, the light won't go into the interior because the the furnace is much hotter than the emission source of the light in the led light?

Is the furnace really hotter than the filament of the light? Most light bulbs have filaments that heat to an excess of 3000 degrees C.

A Photon does not care whether the emitter is hot or cold, or whether the object it impigns on is hot or cold.

The second law does and it says that energy from a cool object can't move to a warmer object. Are you saying that the second law is wrong?

 

[SSDD]

your line of logic just doesnt seem to work, at least for me.

What line of logic. I said that the second law says that energy can't move from cool to warm or from high entropy to low entropy. I don't need to be able to explain a mechanism...all I need is to know what the second law says.

So are you saying that the second law is wrong and that energy can spontaneously move from high entropy to low entropy?

 

[IanC]

your line of logic just doesnt seem to work, at least for me.

What line of logic. I said that the second law says that energy can't move from cool to warm or from high entropy to low entropy. I don't need to be able to explain a mechanism...all I need is to know what the second law says.

So are you saying that the second law is wrong and that energy can spontaneously move from high entropy to low entropy?

you are appealing to the authority of a description of systems that was formulated before an understanding of EMR at the atomic scale was known. if, and only if, photons could expend or transfer their energy without the necessity of matter being present would your 'variation' of the SLoT be true. in the real world the SLoT only holds for systems and net flows, not for individual instances of emission of radiation.

besides, you do realize that the momentum transfer between source and receiver of a photon satisfies the requirement for an increase in entropy when matching radiation is swapped.

 

[IanC]

no one out there has an opinion on the difference of ability to do work between ordered shortwave radiation and diffuse longwave IR, even if they are nominally the same amount of energy?

 

[IanC]

how about you Polarbear?

do you agree or disagree that disordered IR has little ability to do work. period. and no ability to warm the surface if the temp differential is cooler atmosphere. does the IR coming off the surface have much ability to do work on the atmosphere?

do you believe that the surface emits all of its radiation, according to its blackbody temperature? or just the net difference between the Radiation (surface) minus Radiation (atmosphere)?

any comment on how the surface would cool very quickly if all of its potential radiation was leaving without some coming 'back'?

if the surface radiation is nominally more than the input of the sun, how do you explain it? I say the atmosphere interferes with outgoing radiation and forms a heatsink which is sensitive to the amount of water and CO2 in the atmosphere. what is your explanation.

 

[SSDD]

you are appealing to the authority of a description of systems that was formulated before an understanding of EMR at the atomic scale was known.

And you are appealing to the authority of mathematical models and computer simulations without a bit of empirical evidence.

if, and only if, photons could expend or transfer their energy without the necessity of matter being present would your 'variation' of the SLoT be true. in the real world the SLoT only holds for systems and net flows, not for individual instances of emission of radiation.

Are you sure photons even exist? Can you prove that they exist? Has anyone ever proven that they exist?

So you are talking about theoretical energy transfer by theoretical entities. When you talk about this sort of thing, you speak as if it were real and has been proven real. It's like kids talking about tooth faries and santa clause

 

[IanC]

you are appealing to the authority of a description of systems that was formulated before an understanding of EMR at the atomic scale was known.

And you are appealing to the authority of mathematical models and computer simulations without a bit of empirical evidence.

if, and only if, photons could expend or transfer their energy without the necessity of matter being present would your 'variation' of the SLoT be true. in the real world the SLoT only holds for systems and net flows, not for individual instances of emission of radiation.

Are you sure photons even exist? Can you prove that they exist? Has anyone ever proven that they exist?

So you are talking about theoretical energy transfer by theoretical entities. When you talk about this sort of thing, you speak as if it were real and has been proven real. It's like kids talking about tooth faries and santa clause

1800's descriptions are exactly correct, even about things they didntt know existed. But 20th century advances are fsirytales. Gotcha.

 

[SSDD]

1800's descriptions are exactly correct, even about things they didntt know existed. But 20th century advances are fsirytales. Gotcha.

Again...are you sure photons exist? How do you define them if they do. Are they particles or simply simply a very small measure of electromagnetic radiation?

You talk about these things as if you know that they exist when in truth, we don't know. They are an explanation for something that we really don't have a handle on yet. Why pretend that we know all when the fact is that at this point we don't even know what we don't know?

 

[IanC]

1800's descriptions are exactly correct, even about things they didntt know existed. But 20th century advances are fsirytales. Gotcha.

Again...are you sure photons exist? How do you define them if they do. Are they particles or simply simply a very small measure of electromagnetic radiation?

You talk about these things as if you know that they exist when in truth, we don't know. They are an explanation for something that we really don't have a handle on yet. Why pretend that we know all when the fact is that at this point we don't even know what we don't know?

we know an incredible amount of things about photons. by experiment and measurable data. a lot of things and some of it very strange.

they have some properties of particles and some properties of waves so I am pretty sure that they are neither. you can only manipulate them in the vicinity of matter so I suppose you could argue that they dont exist as a 'thing'. that said, you can predict their behaviour to a very fine degree which implies that they must exist in some form or other.

bosons...bosons....bosons....bosons....bosons....bosons....

whew! for a minute there I thought I was a never coming back.

much as I love to ponder intractable questions, the reality is that the real world is driven in large part by energy transferred by entities known as photons, in a strict and orderly way. it doesnt matter how it happens, just as long as we can recognize the pattern and predict the results.

 

[SSDD]

[much as I love to ponder intractable questions, the reality is that the real world is driven in large part by energy transferred by entities known as photons, in a strict and orderly way. it doesnt matter how it happens, just as long as we can recognize the pattern and predict the results.

And one factor of energy transfer that you can always count on is that energy won't move from high entropy to low entropy...ever....anywhere....at any level.