how much warming from adding carbon dioxide to the atmosphere is what we

[flacaltenn]

If I am in the desert at night, and there is a substantial cloud deck, and I look at my hygrometer, I will surely see that there is much more humidity in the air than if the skys are clear. Water, even in its vaporous form, can, unlike any of the other so called greenhouse gasses, actually has the capacity to absorb, and hold on to heat. It has nothing to do with backradiation, it has to to with the relative humidity in the air and water's ability to store heat.



And in reality, neither do we. Your "quantum effects" are the product of mathematical models and remain to this day, and all days in the forseeable future, unmeasured, unobserved, undetectable, and unprovable. Thanks for the reminder, but the present paradigm is that energy flow is one way towards more entropy.....when the Second Law is rewritten to reflect what you believe, then, and only then will a new paradigm exist.



So you say, but you can't even begin to prove it. You may as well claim that a certain percentage of dropped rocks falls up because the forces that govern which way the rock fall aren't necessarily consistent, or just don't have time to deal with all of the dropped rocks.

It doesn't matter if all of the photons are moving towards a state of greater entropy. Why would you believe that any photon, or any other form of energy would be able to move towards a state of less entropy?

Really can't help you with ALL your misconceptions.. Can only do one at a time..

That's unfortunate that you deny that CO2 can retain heat. A simple trip to a Chem materials handbook could fix that. But whatever....

As for the two frigates battling analogy.. A body is gonna emit what is dictated BY THE body and it's temp. So literally take 2 identical bodies bring one to T1 equilibrium and the other to T1 equilibrium plus 0.01degC. (where T1 is very low temp giving you about 20 avg photons per (say) nanosecond. BOTH will emit identically except for that 21st photon per unit time. THAT will determine the NET flow of 1 photon per time unit.

At that point -- they are pretty equally bombarding each other.. Your view that nothing gets launched at lower entropy targets becomes very problematic. For short time periods of observations --- it is EVEN POSSIBLE that the net flow reverses temporarily.. But over the long haul -- nothing in the thermo laws gets violated.

But what the hay.. Your view is problematic on several levels..

Let's compromise with "the desert thought experiment works for water vapor then".. You just need to cross the finish line with it. The water retains heat.. Becomes both a source of emission AND thermal resistance to the outbound flow of heat from the surface. Lowers the total amount of surface cooling due to (yes say it , say it) back radiation.. What else could it be? The additional heat in the air INCREASES radiation heating via IR photons.. That IS the definition of radiative heat transfer.

((Might also increase pure conduction and convection as well))

What I wanted to do was to make that point and then direct you to a paper on why CO2 does not REALLY work in that desert scenario.. A study that DOES NOT FIND Global Warming in the desert at night when controlling for water vapor...

A New Metric to Detect CO2 Greenhouse Effect* Applied To Some New Mexico Weather Data

The arid environment of New Mexico is examined in an attempt to correlate increases in atmospheric CO2 with an increase in greenhouse effect. Changes in the greenhouse effect are estimated by using the ratio of the recorded annual high temperatures to the recorded annual low temperatures as a measure of heat retained (i.e. thermal inertia, TI). It is shown that the metric TI increases if a rise in mean temperature is due to heat retention (greenhouse) and decreases if due to heat gain (solar flux). Essentially no correlation was found between the assumed CO2 atmospheric concentrations and the observed greenhouse changes, whereas there was a strong correlation between TI and precipitation. Further it is shown that periods of increase in the mean temperature correspond to heat gain, not heat retention. It is concluded that either the assumed CO2 concentrations are incorrect or that they have no measurable greenhouse effect in these data.

Seems like with our rough edges here ---- At least we could agree on that..

A New Metric to Detect CO2 Greenhouse Effect*Applied To Some New Mexico Weather Data*Slade Barker*2002

Yep, listed at;

Junkscience.com -- Archives, July 2002


That explains why, in 11 years, it has never been cited in another paper.

you poor lost puppy.. I'm a fan of junkscience.com and the archives are simply a daily log of topical and interesting stuff... If they wanted to debunk anything -- they wouldn't be shy.

Probably find some good hansen and mann stuff in the archive too..

Can't help it if no one appreciates the genius of looking for global warming AT NIGHT (without the sun radiation) and in the DESERT (so that water vapor content can be controlled for).. Should be 100 papers looking at this -- the fact that there isn't -- should tell you something about the results..

 

[itfitzme]

Not one of them makes that statement. If you are so convined otherwise, pick one and quote it.

So either you are a bald faced liar, or you can't read. Which one is it?

Second Law of Thermodynamics

Physics Department of the University of Georgia...Cut and paste from that link

"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."

Maybe you are a liar who can't read.

Well, now I see why you are confused, because the second law doesn't say that energy won't flow from a cold to hot body. The author is simply wrong or you have lifted it out of context. The second says that entropy of an isolated system cannot decrease.

I am sorry you are so confused.

Well, I was looking on Hyperphysics for a decription of the system. It doesn't explain to you it is for large qualtities of materials and net flow only.

To bad you don't get it is reference material.

I guess you are screwed then. Now we know why.

 

[itfitzme]

Page 4 section 2 paragraph 2

"In accordance with their definitions, thermodynamic properties apply to systems which must contain a very large number of elementary ultimate particles"

Now, why do you suppose a more rigorous text would say that?




http://www.uic.edu/labs/trl/1.OnlineMaterials/BasicPrinciplesByTWLeland.pdf

 

[itfitzme]

"We introduce the concepts of temperature, energy, work, heating, entropy, engines, and the laws of thermodynamics and related macroscopic concepts."

Now, why point out macroscopic?

STP Textbook Chapter 2: Thermodynamic Concepts and Processes Documents

 

[itfitzme]

Wow, bummer dude, you are screwed.

 

[flacaltenn]

No you are missing the point here. Net flow, or absolute, IF there is back-radiation yet it cannot warm it's source it's a moot claim as far as AGW theory goes. If the process slows heat loss as you just said, and Ian now claims (despite past claims to the contrary by him) than it's an insulator and NOT a secondary heating mechanism.

An insulator does not create more heat, it slows heat loss. Now if Ian's previous claim via Dr. Spencer and co. is to be believed, backradiation can produce additional warming of the source. IF Ian is now claiming that it doesn't warm the source more but only slows heat loss, which we claimed all along, then he is in fact backpeddling from his previous claims..

Thermal properties of gases (especially GH gases due to additional the molecular bonds), are directly effected by their temperature. Meaning more heat in, the faster it sheds that heat. Same thing in reverse, less heat in the better an insulator they are. Further, and at that same time Add heat, and convection increases, remove heat and convection decreases.

Air minus convection is a great thermal insulator, add convection and it's a great heat dissipation/transfer system. We aren't discussing solid, liquid, or a porous material with trapped air pockets inside here, we are discussing air moving relatively freely and able to convect heat away very well.

As I said before and will continue to say, the entire system is an excellent heat pump, with limited thermal insulating properties. Limited by air flow and the inherent thermal properties of gases.

Compress the gasses to the point they are near liquid, a different story. But they aren't here and so they react as gases do to heat.

You can call it "net flow" all you want, the fact remains if the "back-radiation" that is claimed is actually going on, and as you and Ian say it has no effect on the warmer source, than it's a moot claim..

All things radiate some amount of heat, yet that does not mean that radiated heat can warm it's warmer heat source. Call it phase differential, call it wavelength variance, call it magic for all I care, the point remains it doesn't effect noticeable change in it's source.

If you heat up a iron bar until it's red hot, and wrap it in a blanket, it will still cool down, slower than without the blanket, but it won't get hotter, it will cool.

That's the very reason we cannot create perfect or even near-perfect heat engines. The entire process would require infinite or near-infinite reusable energy from a source.

PS.. Before I forget again. You're forgetting the wave-like properties of EM radiation. You are doing what Ian and Spencer does and treating it as a particle only. As SSD pointed out before if it's a particle, it can flow back due to the shear space available to miss the incoming source particle. But if it's a wave than it is a wave and cannot flow back towards it's greater source. What we have in our understanding right now is wave-particle duality, meaning to our understanding it shows properties of both equally. Dismissing the wave property to suit a theory makes the theory dubious at best. As I said before, the entire system reacts and responds more like a heat pump than an insulator. The thermal properties of gases and convection alone would lead to this conclusion, add in the complete failure of climate modeling and predictions based on them, the failure of rises in GH gases to show additional warming in the last decade and a half, and then realize that 180 years of CO2 increases and we have not even a 2 degree rise in temps globally.. Yet every year in my state we go from 90 degree and up summers and 30 degree and below winters, and this drastic drop is due to our position relative to the sun. SOmething which warmers and luke-warmers claim to have less an impact on climate then a trace gas...

Sorry I didn't read too far into that reply.. You're still not getting it.

You didn't answer my questions about the desert COOLING profile under 2 conditions..

The desert will cool at night WITH or WITHOUT clouds. But the RATES will be diff and the EQUILIBRIUM position will be different depending on the cloud "blanket"... If it loses LESS heat at night because of the thermal insulation effect of the clouds, it will start the day warmer than it normally would because of the RETAINED HEAT.. NOT ADDED HEAT from the back radiation.. Get it?? NOTHING ADDED to time integral of net flow.. Just RETAINED...

So will your "iron bar" reach a different equilibrium if you pump it daily for 12 hours with a little bit of energy.. Depending on whether the blanket is there or not.

All you're doing is adding a thermal resistance to a uni-directional flow.. That's how rates of flow according to thermolaws behave. THey radiate BOTH ways and establish a net flow. THe warmer object will cool SLOWER if interacting with a boundary that is raised in heat energy --- but still cooler than the radiating grey body.

No wave/particle discussion, no violation of any thermo law..

The bolded part... A lame excuse. Why respond then? If you can't be bothered toread it,than why bother responding to it?

Your desert at night analogy; pointless in the exchange here. The fact remains an insulator does not warm it's source more, it slows heat loss. You are assuming that any incidental radiation that may be radiated back towards it's source is used by that source.

As we already know CO2 is transparent to short-wave IR radiation from the sun, but reacts to long wave IR radiation from the surface. What makes you believe that there isn't a similar situation going on here? Do you know this? Have you been made privy to some kind factual evidence that the rest of the world hasn't been told about?

Again, just because something can radiate in any and all directions at once, doesn't mean it will do so back to it's source or that it can effect change in that source.. You are assuming radiation in a direction from whence that energy came, must effect change in that source. Why? Because it effects change in other objects? Warmer objects? No... WHY? Because entropy doesn't work that way.

Two-way energy flow could mean perfect machines, it can't happen to our knowledge but you seem to think that back-radiation exists anyway.

Again your desert scenario. Cloud cover at night acting as an insulator is not proff of back-radiation. It shows how an insulator is supposed to work. That's it. SLowing heat loss does not mean re-radiating some back to it's source. It simply means that the energy is slowed in it's transfer between the molecular bonds of a material. More molecular bonds = more time to through them.

One reason GH gases react to IR is the extra bonds they have over less complex gaseous compounds. More bonds = more time spent in transfer. A solid for instance can retain heat a lot longer than a gas, for this very same reason. It doesn't have to re-radiate, there is no need for it and it violates the fundamental laws.

You're getting closer.. We have to unravel about 3 knots here..

1) Heat energy transfers in various ways. You mentioned the requirement for molecular bonds.. There are no molecular bonds transfering the sun's energy thru space. This is a different college course called "Fields and Waves".. There the propagation of EMagnetic energy is discussed and this is the basis for the back radiation claim. There is no conduction or convection involved in the back radiation claim.. It is solely based on EM propagation..

2) Therefore my use of the word "thermal resistance" or the use of the word "blanket" can lead to misconceptions. It should read --- a change in the Thermal Flux of EM radiation due to bidirectional exchange of long wave IR.. When you have 2 black bodies in proximity... EVEN WITH A VACUUM separating them --- there will be an exchange of longwave IR. The NET FLUX will correspond to the 2nd law and flow from hot to cold. But EACH body is a source of IR photons traveling unrestricted between the bodies.

3) THis results in the effect of REDUCING the net flow of energy from the warmer to cooler body. Those clouds in the desert are a source of IR photons from heating during the day. And it is raining IR photons all day long reducing the net flow from the surface. You can only REDUCE the amount of COOLING of the earth's surface in this fashion.. IF --- the temperature and heat content of the atmos remains the <<Edited error>> COOLER body. See next.

4) The obeyance of the Thermo Laws is calculated on net exchange of energy RESULTING in entropy changes. In reality, energy always has a time element. If you increase the amount of heat induced IR EMagnetic radiation from the atmos to the ground, you reduce the ability of the surface to shed that much heat on a daily basis. So eventually, equilibrium will produce a higher surface temperature.

The temperature is not higher solely BECAUSE of the raining IR EM energy. It ALL came from the sun in the first place. But it forced the earth to become an energy storage mechanism for the excess energy that could not be sent upwards against the flux of the back radiation.

That's why no clouds (less GHGas back radiation) starts the next day in the desert at a lower temperature and vice versa. ((More complicated during the day, because clouds also restrict incoming solar radiation)) Not because the clouds acted as a material insulator, but because they were a source of (weaker) opposing RADIATIVE energy.

It's a simple minus sign in the net upward radiative loss from the surface.

It ACTS like a blanket --- but involves no material or molecular heat transfer.. And it doesn't violate a single law of physics..

As for SSDD quotes from the physics books. THe change in Entropy implied in any exchange does not specify the details of such exchange on the basis of thermal conduction, convection, or radiation.. Only that the NET RESULT must obey the law..

 

[itfitzme]

Sorry I didn't read too far into that reply.. You're still not getting it.

You didn't answer my questions about the desert COOLING profile under 2 conditions..

The desert will cool at night WITH or WITHOUT clouds. But the RATES will be diff and the EQUILIBRIUM position will be different depending on the cloud "blanket"... If it loses LESS heat at night because of the thermal insulation effect of the clouds, it will start the day warmer than it normally would because of the RETAINED HEAT.. NOT ADDED HEAT from the back radiation.. Get it?? NOTHING ADDED to time integral of net flow.. Just RETAINED...

So will your "iron bar" reach a different equilibrium if you pump it daily for 12 hours with a little bit of energy.. Depending on whether the blanket is there or not.

All you're doing is adding a thermal resistance to a uni-directional flow.. That's how rates of flow according to thermolaws behave. THey radiate BOTH ways and establish a net flow. THe warmer object will cool SLOWER if interacting with a boundary that is raised in heat energy --- but still cooler than the radiating grey body.

No wave/particle discussion, no violation of any thermo law..

The bolded part... A lame excuse. Why respond then? If you can't be bothered toread it,than why bother responding to it?

Your desert at night analogy; pointless in the exchange here. The fact remains an insulator does not warm it's source more, it slows heat loss. You are assuming that any incidental radiation that may be radiated back towards it's source is used by that source.

As we already know CO2 is transparent to short-wave IR radiation from the sun, but reacts to long wave IR radiation from the surface. What makes you believe that there isn't a similar situation going on here? Do you know this? Have you been made privy to some kind factual evidence that the rest of the world hasn't been told about?

Again, just because something can radiate in any and all directions at once, doesn't mean it will do so back to it's source or that it can effect change in that source.. You are assuming radiation in a direction from whence that energy came, must effect change in that source. Why? Because it effects change in other objects? Warmer objects? No... WHY? Because entropy doesn't work that way.

Two-way energy flow could mean perfect machines, it can't happen to our knowledge but you seem to think that back-radiation exists anyway.

Again your desert scenario. Cloud cover at night acting as an insulator is not proff of back-radiation. It shows how an insulator is supposed to work. That's it. SLowing heat loss does not mean re-radiating some back to it's source. It simply means that the energy is slowed in it's transfer between the molecular bonds of a material. More molecular bonds = more time to through them.

One reason GH gases react to IR is the extra bonds they have over less complex gaseous compounds. More bonds = more time spent in transfer. A solid for instance can retain heat a lot longer than a gas, for this very same reason. It doesn't have to re-radiate, there is no need for it and it violates the fundamental laws.

You're getting closer.. We have to unravel about 3 knots here..

1) Heat energy transfers in various ways. You mentioned the requirement for molecular bonds.. There are no molecular bonds transfering the sun's energy thru space. This is a different college course called "Fields and Waves".. There the propagation of EMagnetic energy is discussed and this is the basis for the back radiation claim. There is no conduction or convection involved in the back radiation claim.. It is solely based on EM propagation..

2) Therefore my use of the word "thermal resistance" or the use of the word "blanket" can lead to misconceptions. It should read --- a change in the Thermal Flux of EM radiation due to bidirectional exchange of long wave IR.. When you have 2 black bodies in proximity... EVEN WITH A VACUUM separating them --- there will be an exchange of longwave IR. The NET FLUX will correspond to the 2nd law and flow from hot to cold. But EACH body is a source of IR photons traveling unrestricted between the bodies.

3) THis results in the effect of REDUCING the net flow of energy from the warmer to cooler body. Those clouds in the desert are a source of IR photons from heating during the day. And it is raining IR photons all day long reducing the net flow from the surface. You can only REDUCE the amount of COOLING of the earth's surface in this fashion.. IF --- the temperature and heat content of the atmos remains the warmer body. See next.

4) The obeyance of the Thermo Laws is calculated on net exchange of energy RESULTING in entropy changes. In reality, energy always has a time element. If you increase the amount of heat induced IR EMagnetic radiation from the atmos to the ground, you reduce the ability of the surface to shed that much heat on a daily basis. So eventually, equilibrium will produce a higher surface temperature.

The temperature is not higher solely BECAUSE of the raining IR EM energy. It ALL came from the sun in the first place. But it forced the earth to become an energy storage mechanism for the excess energy that could not be sent upwards against the flux of the back radiation.

That's why no clouds (less GHGas back radiation) starts the next day in the desert at a lower temperature and vice versa. ((More complicated during the day, because clouds also restrict incoming solar radiation)) Not because the clouds acted as a material insulator, but because they were a source of (weaker) opposing RADIATIVE energy.

It's a simple minus sign in the net upward radiative loss from the surface.

It ACTS like a blanket --- but involves no material or molecular heat transfer.. And it doesn't violate a single law of physics..

As for SSDD quotes from the physics books. THe change in Entropy implied in any exchange does not specify the details of such exchange on the basis of thermal conduction, convection, or radiation.. Only that the NET RESULT must obey the law..

Now you are getting it. It is part of the reason Barker's TI doesn't work effectively. He uses TI=T_low/T_high, looking for retained heat.

Problem is that the high temperature will be higher and the low temperature will be lower so the ratio will be roughly, (T_low+dT)/(T_high+dT). Both climb simultaneously and he has simply removed the majority of the systematic increase from his measure.

 

[flacaltenn]

For Gslack and SSDD..

Certainly -- when you come in from the cold winter and experience a +20F boost in ambient temp -- that boost certainly can't warm a body surface that's already +25F above the ambient?

Skin 90F Room 67F Outside 47F

You were COOLING outside FASTER than inside. Assume there is no convection or conduction. JUST radiative heating from the room.. (minute amount of double paned glass with good deep IR transmission) Same effect. You will COOL slower. Your skin will EVENTUALLY assume a new equilibrium say 95F.

You'll say the body supplies the heat.. Of course. Just like the daily pumping of solar energy the earth surface gets. But the body LOSES heat at lower rate --- EVEN IN the proximity of a colder radiative mass.

As far as what the textbooks say.. Check out ScienceofDoom.. Get this from another skeptic..

Radiation Basics and the Imaginary Second Law of Thermodynamics | The Science of Doom

The equation for how much radiation is emitted by a body &#8211; &#949;&#963;T4 &#8211; does not include any terms for where the radiation might end up. So whether this radiation will be incident on a colder or hotter body, it has no effect on the radiation from the source. (See note 3).

Similarly, when radiation is incident on a body the only factor which affects how much radiation is absorbed and how much radiation is reflected is the absorptivity of the body at that direction and wavelength. The body cannot put out traffic cones because the incident radiation has been emitted by a colder body.

This is elementary thermodynamics. Emissivity and temperature determine the radiation from a body. Absorptivity determines how much incident radiation is absorbed.

Therefore, elementary thermodynamics shows that a cold body can radiate onto the surface of a hotter body. And the hotter body will absorb the radiation &#8211; assuming it has absorptivity at that wavelength and direction.

And once thermal radiation is absorbed it must heat the body, or slow down a loss of heat which is taking place. It cannot have no effect. This would be contrary to the first law of thermodynamics.

Two bodies at different temperatures in proximity both radiate towards each other. Heat flow is determined by the net effect. As standard textbooks indicate:

 

[itfitzme]

For Gslack and SSDD..

Certainly -- when you come in from the cold winter and experience a +20F boost in ambient temp -- that boost certainly can't warm a body surface that's already +25F above the ambient?

Skin 90F Room 67F Outside 47F

You were COOLING outside FASTER than inside. Assume there is no convection or conduction. JUST radiative heating from the room.. (minute amount of double paned glass with good deep IR transmission) Same effect. You will COOL slower. Your skin will EVENTUALLY assume a new equilibrium say 95F.

You'll say the body supplies the heat.. Of course. Just like the daily pumping of solar energy the earth surface gets. But the body LOSES heat at lower rate --- EVEN IN the proximity of a colder radiative mass.

As far as what the textbooks say.. Check out ScienceofDoom.. Get this from another skeptic..

Radiation Basics and the Imaginary Second Law of Thermodynamics | The Science of Doom

The equation for how much radiation is emitted by a body – &#949;&#963;T4 – does not include any terms for where the radiation might end up. So whether this radiation will be incident on a colder or hotter body, it has no effect on the radiation from the source. (See note 3).

Similarly, when radiation is incident on a body the only factor which affects how much radiation is absorbed and how much radiation is reflected is the absorptivity of the body at that direction and wavelength. The body cannot put out traffic cones because the incident radiation has been emitted by a colder body.

This is elementary thermodynamics. Emissivity and temperature determine the radiation from a body. Absorptivity determines how much incident radiation is absorbed.

Therefore, elementary thermodynamics shows that a cold body can radiate onto the surface of a hotter body. And the hotter body will absorb the radiation – assuming it has absorptivity at that wavelength and direction.

And once thermal radiation is absorbed it must heat the body, or slow down a loss of heat which is taking place. It cannot have no effect. This would be contrary to the first law of thermodynamics.

Two bodies at different temperatures in proximity both radiate towards each other. Heat flow is determined by the net effect. As standard textbooks indicate:

http://scienceofdoom.files.wordpres...at-and-mass-transfer-chapter-12-radiation.png

No shit!

 

[flacaltenn]

The bolded part... A lame excuse. Why respond then? If you can't be bothered toread it,than why bother responding to it?

Your desert at night analogy; pointless in the exchange here. The fact remains an insulator does not warm it's source more, it slows heat loss. You are assuming that any incidental radiation that may be radiated back towards it's source is used by that source.

As we already know CO2 is transparent to short-wave IR radiation from the sun, but reacts to long wave IR radiation from the surface. What makes you believe that there isn't a similar situation going on here? Do you know this? Have you been made privy to some kind factual evidence that the rest of the world hasn't been told about?

Again, just because something can radiate in any and all directions at once, doesn't mean it will do so back to it's source or that it can effect change in that source.. You are assuming radiation in a direction from whence that energy came, must effect change in that source. Why? Because it effects change in other objects? Warmer objects? No... WHY? Because entropy doesn't work that way.

Two-way energy flow could mean perfect machines, it can't happen to our knowledge but you seem to think that back-radiation exists anyway.

Again your desert scenario. Cloud cover at night acting as an insulator is not proff of back-radiation. It shows how an insulator is supposed to work. That's it. SLowing heat loss does not mean re-radiating some back to it's source. It simply means that the energy is slowed in it's transfer between the molecular bonds of a material. More molecular bonds = more time to through them.

One reason GH gases react to IR is the extra bonds they have over less complex gaseous compounds. More bonds = more time spent in transfer. A solid for instance can retain heat a lot longer than a gas, for this very same reason. It doesn't have to re-radiate, there is no need for it and it violates the fundamental laws.

You're getting closer.. We have to unravel about 3 knots here..

1) Heat energy transfers in various ways. You mentioned the requirement for molecular bonds.. There are no molecular bonds transfering the sun's energy thru space. This is a different college course called "Fields and Waves".. There the propagation of EMagnetic energy is discussed and this is the basis for the back radiation claim. There is no conduction or convection involved in the back radiation claim.. It is solely based on EM propagation..

2) Therefore my use of the word "thermal resistance" or the use of the word "blanket" can lead to misconceptions. It should read --- a change in the Thermal Flux of EM radiation due to bidirectional exchange of long wave IR.. When you have 2 black bodies in proximity... EVEN WITH A VACUUM separating them --- there will be an exchange of longwave IR. The NET FLUX will correspond to the 2nd law and flow from hot to cold. But EACH body is a source of IR photons traveling unrestricted between the bodies.

3) THis results in the effect of REDUCING the net flow of energy from the warmer to cooler body. Those clouds in the desert are a source of IR photons from heating during the day. And it is raining IR photons all day long reducing the net flow from the surface. You can only REDUCE the amount of COOLING of the earth's surface in this fashion.. IF --- the temperature and heat content of the atmos remains the warmer body. See next.

4) The obeyance of the Thermo Laws is calculated on net exchange of energy RESULTING in entropy changes. In reality, energy always has a time element. If you increase the amount of heat induced IR EMagnetic radiation from the atmos to the ground, you reduce the ability of the surface to shed that much heat on a daily basis. So eventually, equilibrium will produce a higher surface temperature.

The temperature is not higher solely BECAUSE of the raining IR EM energy. It ALL came from the sun in the first place. But it forced the earth to become an energy storage mechanism for the excess energy that could not be sent upwards against the flux of the back radiation.

That's why no clouds (less GHGas back radiation) starts the next day in the desert at a lower temperature and vice versa. ((More complicated during the day, because clouds also restrict incoming solar radiation)) Not because the clouds acted as a material insulator, but because they were a source of (weaker) opposing RADIATIVE energy.

It's a simple minus sign in the net upward radiative loss from the surface.

It ACTS like a blanket --- but involves no material or molecular heat transfer.. And it doesn't violate a single law of physics..

As for SSDD quotes from the physics books. THe change in Entropy implied in any exchange does not specify the details of such exchange on the basis of thermal conduction, convection, or radiation.. Only that the NET RESULT must obey the law..

Now you are getting it. It is part of the reason Barker's TI doesn't work effectively. He uses TI=T_low/T_high, looking for retained heat.

Problem is that the high temperature will be higher and the low temperature will be lower so the ratio will be roughly, (T_low+dT)/(T_high+dT). Both climb simultaneously and he has simply removed the majority of the systematic increase from his measure.

Thanks for encouragement --- but your rebuttal to Barker sucks.. You managed to miss both points of innovation and brilliance in that exercise..

By looking at the ratio of Tnightlow/Tdayhigh -- you can isolate the diff between solar heating and the GHouse retention. GHouse retention occurs all day long and would RAISE the ratio -- while the ratio decreases if the source of heating is primarily solar.

You need a delGH and a delSolar in your mothy math..

Similiarly, you can isolate the confounding effect of water vapor when you check for GHouse effect in a desert..

Congrats..

 

[itfitzme]

You're getting closer.. We have to unravel about 3 knots here..

1) Heat energy transfers in various ways. You mentioned the requirement for molecular bonds.. There are no molecular bonds transfering the sun's energy thru space. This is a different college course called "Fields and Waves".. There the propagation of EMagnetic energy is discussed and this is the basis for the back radiation claim. There is no conduction or convection involved in the back radiation claim.. It is solely based on EM propagation..

2) Therefore my use of the word "thermal resistance" or the use of the word "blanket" can lead to misconceptions. It should read --- a change in the Thermal Flux of EM radiation due to bidirectional exchange of long wave IR.. When you have 2 black bodies in proximity... EVEN WITH A VACUUM separating them --- there will be an exchange of longwave IR. The NET FLUX will correspond to the 2nd law and flow from hot to cold. But EACH body is a source of IR photons traveling unrestricted between the bodies.

3) THis results in the effect of REDUCING the net flow of energy from the warmer to cooler body. Those clouds in the desert are a source of IR photons from heating during the day. And it is raining IR photons all day long reducing the net flow from the surface. You can only REDUCE the amount of COOLING of the earth's surface in this fashion.. IF --- the temperature and heat content of the atmos remains the warmer body. See next.

4) The obeyance of the Thermo Laws is calculated on net exchange of energy RESULTING in entropy changes. In reality, energy always has a time element. If you increase the amount of heat induced IR EMagnetic radiation from the atmos to the ground, you reduce the ability of the surface to shed that much heat on a daily basis. So eventually, equilibrium will produce a higher surface temperature.

The temperature is not higher solely BECAUSE of the raining IR EM energy. It ALL came from the sun in the first place. But it forced the earth to become an energy storage mechanism for the excess energy that could not be sent upwards against the flux of the back radiation.

That's why no clouds (less GHGas back radiation) starts the next day in the desert at a lower temperature and vice versa. ((More complicated during the day, because clouds also restrict incoming solar radiation)) Not because the clouds acted as a material insulator, but because they were a source of (weaker) opposing RADIATIVE energy.

It's a simple minus sign in the net upward radiative loss from the surface.

It ACTS like a blanket --- but involves no material or molecular heat transfer.. And it doesn't violate a single law of physics..

As for SSDD quotes from the physics books. THe change in Entropy implied in any exchange does not specify the details of such exchange on the basis of thermal conduction, convection, or radiation.. Only that the NET RESULT must obey the law..

Now you are getting it. It is part of the reason Barker's TI doesn't work effectively. He uses TI=T_low/T_high, looking for retained heat.

Problem is that the high temperature will be higher and the low temperature will be lower so the ratio will be roughly, (T_low+dT)/(T_high+dT). Both climb simultaneously and he has simply removed the majority of the systematic increase from his measure.

Thanks for encouragement --- but your rebuttal to Barker sucks.. You managed to miss both points of innovation and brilliance in that exercise..

By looking at the ratio of Tnightlow/Tdayhigh -- you can isolate the diff between solar heating and the GHouse retention. GHouse retention occurs all day long and would RAISE the ratio -- while the ratio decreases if the source of heating is primarily solar.

You need a delGH and a delSolar in your mothy math..

Similiarly, you can isolate the confounding effect of water vapor when you check for GHouse effect in a desert..

Congrats..

No you don't, because it will look the same whether there is CO2 or not. Nighttime doesn't have any less CO2 and changes from one day to the next are systematic and are cancelled out.

It is cold. Then it gets hot. TI1 is determined
Then it cools of, but not as much as before. Then it gets hotter cuz it started off a litter warmer. TI2 is calculated. The low temp is higher, the hot temp is higher. The TI is (T_low+dT)/(T_high+dT) and the ratio is the same. The change from day to day got canceled out. The low temp increased, the high temp increased.

1/1=1 2/2=1 3/3=1

1/2=.5 1.1/2.2=.5 1.2/2.4=.5

His method of TI takes out systematic change, amd quite arbitrarily

 

[flacaltenn]

Now you are getting it. It is part of the reason Barker's TI doesn't work effectively. He uses TI=T_low/T_high, looking for retained heat.

Problem is that the high temperature will be higher and the low temperature will be lower so the ratio will be roughly, (T_low+dT)/(T_high+dT). Both climb simultaneously and he has simply removed the majority of the systematic increase from his measure.

Thanks for encouragement --- but your rebuttal to Barker sucks.. You managed to miss both points of innovation and brilliance in that exercise..

By looking at the ratio of Tnightlow/Tdayhigh -- you can isolate the diff between solar heating and the GHouse retention. GHouse retention occurs all day long and would RAISE the ratio -- while the ratio decreases if the source of heating is primarily solar.

You need a delGH and a delSolar in your mothy math..

Similiarly, you can isolate the confounding effect of water vapor when you check for GHouse effect in a desert..

Congrats..

No you don't, because it will look the same whether there is CO2 or not. Nighttime doesn't have any less CO2 and changes from one day to the next are systematic and are cancelled out.

Nope.. Go to the board and write... (Tnight + delGH) / (Tday + delGH + delSol)

Now with delSol == 0 ........... Put in some numbers like (14 + 2)/(21 + 2).. Is that LARGER than Tnight/Tday???

Can you tell me what happens to the ratio when delSol is the prevalent addition.

For homework -- give me the algebraic proof that adding a constant to the numerator and denominator results in a larger number if Tnight < Tday .

The patience of a saint I tell ya...

BTW: There's the weakness in what Baker did.. Seasonal changes in the ratios give non-linear results. So you really only get the drift of what's happening without further fiddling.. Got to read the paper again..

 

[gslack]

Sorry I didn't read too far into that reply.. You're still not getting it.

You didn't answer my questions about the desert COOLING profile under 2 conditions..

The desert will cool at night WITH or WITHOUT clouds. But the RATES will be diff and the EQUILIBRIUM position will be different depending on the cloud "blanket"... If it loses LESS heat at night because of the thermal insulation effect of the clouds, it will start the day warmer than it normally would because of the RETAINED HEAT.. NOT ADDED HEAT from the back radiation.. Get it?? NOTHING ADDED to time integral of net flow.. Just RETAINED...

So will your "iron bar" reach a different equilibrium if you pump it daily for 12 hours with a little bit of energy.. Depending on whether the blanket is there or not.

All you're doing is adding a thermal resistance to a uni-directional flow.. That's how rates of flow according to thermolaws behave. THey radiate BOTH ways and establish a net flow. THe warmer object will cool SLOWER if interacting with a boundary that is raised in heat energy --- but still cooler than the radiating grey body.

No wave/particle discussion, no violation of any thermo law..

The bolded part... A lame excuse. Why respond then? If you can't be bothered toread it,than why bother responding to it?

Your desert at night analogy; pointless in the exchange here. The fact remains an insulator does not warm it's source more, it slows heat loss. You are assuming that any incidental radiation that may be radiated back towards it's source is used by that source.

As we already know CO2 is transparent to short-wave IR radiation from the sun, but reacts to long wave IR radiation from the surface. What makes you believe that there isn't a similar situation going on here? Do you know this? Have you been made privy to some kind factual evidence that the rest of the world hasn't been told about?

Again, just because something can radiate in any and all directions at once, doesn't mean it will do so back to it's source or that it can effect change in that source.. You are assuming radiation in a direction from whence that energy came, must effect change in that source. Why? Because it effects change in other objects? Warmer objects? No... WHY? Because entropy doesn't work that way.

Two-way energy flow could mean perfect machines, it can't happen to our knowledge but you seem to think that back-radiation exists anyway.

Again your desert scenario. Cloud cover at night acting as an insulator is not proff of back-radiation. It shows how an insulator is supposed to work. That's it. SLowing heat loss does not mean re-radiating some back to it's source. It simply means that the energy is slowed in it's transfer between the molecular bonds of a material. More molecular bonds = more time to through them.

One reason GH gases react to IR is the extra bonds they have over less complex gaseous compounds. More bonds = more time spent in transfer. A solid for instance can retain heat a lot longer than a gas, for this very same reason. It doesn't have to re-radiate, there is no need for it and it violates the fundamental laws.

You're getting closer.. We have to unravel about 3 knots here..

1) Heat energy transfers in various ways. You mentioned the requirement for molecular bonds.. There are no molecular bonds transfering the sun's energy thru space. This is a different college course called "Fields and Waves".. There the propagation of EMagnetic energy is discussed and this is the basis for the back radiation claim. There is no conduction or convection involved in the back radiation claim.. It is solely based on EM propagation..

2) Therefore my use of the word "thermal resistance" or the use of the word "blanket" can lead to misconceptions. It should read --- a change in the Thermal Flux of EM radiation due to bidirectional exchange of long wave IR.. When you have 2 black bodies in proximity... EVEN WITH A VACUUM separating them --- there will be an exchange of longwave IR. The NET FLUX will correspond to the 2nd law and flow from hot to cold. But EACH body is a source of IR photons traveling unrestricted between the bodies.

3) THis results in the effect of REDUCING the net flow of energy from the warmer to cooler body. Those clouds in the desert are a source of IR photons from heating during the day. And it is raining IR photons all day long reducing the net flow from the surface. You can only REDUCE the amount of COOLING of the earth's surface in this fashion.. IF --- the temperature and heat content of the atmos remains the warmer body. See next.

4) The obeyance of the Thermo Laws is calculated on net exchange of energy RESULTING in entropy changes. In reality, energy always has a time element. If you increase the amount of heat induced IR EMagnetic radiation from the atmos to the ground, you reduce the ability of the surface to shed that much heat on a daily basis. So eventually, equilibrium will produce a higher surface temperature.

The temperature is not higher solely BECAUSE of the raining IR EM energy. It ALL came from the sun in the first place. But it forced the earth to become an energy storage mechanism for the excess energy that could not be sent upwards against the flux of the back radiation.

That's why no clouds (less GHGas back radiation) starts the next day in the desert at a lower temperature and vice versa. ((More complicated during the day, because clouds also restrict incoming solar radiation)) Not because the clouds acted as a material insulator, but because they were a source of (weaker) opposing RADIATIVE energy.

It's a simple minus sign in the net upward radiative loss from the surface.

It ACTS like a blanket --- but involves no material or molecular heat transfer.. And it doesn't violate a single law of physics..

As for SSDD quotes from the physics books. THe change in Entropy implied in any exchange does not specify the details of such exchange on the basis of thermal conduction, convection, or radiation.. Only that the NET RESULT must obey the law..

1. I didn't say molecular bonds were required to transfer energy through space. I was very clear that we were discussing the manner which GH gases react to IR radiation. Not Radaition through space, but the transfer of IR through GH gas molecules. Try and stick to what I say and not what you gleam from a quick browse of a post...

2. AND ONCE AGAIN... Just because it CAN radiate in all directions, doesn't mean it WILL or it will cause change in the warmer body... You can repeat yourself using as many varied terms or vernacular as you want, the point remains the same...

3. SEE NUMBER 2 ABOVE... AGAIN... It doesn't mean it will effect change in it's source,or warmer object... AND I already went over the issue with slowing of heat loss. It's a matter of molecular bonds inherent in GH gases that are not present in less complex gases. More bonds = longer path to escape= slower heat loss.. I don't see how many times I have to repeat the same thing, in response to the same issues.. The system doesn't require backradiation, no system does and it's akin to a perfect machine to pretend so..

4. ONCE AGAIN.. Why is it you assume an insulator re-radiates rather than slows heat loss? The fact is an insulated item still cools, a bit slower than an uninsulated item, but cools nonetheless. Using you and Ian's logic, even the slightest insulator would increase efficiency of a heat engine exponentially. More heat in would mean more heat back in again, the higher the temp the less heat loss through the insulator. But we all know that's completely false. Higher temps, lessen the ability of anything to retain heat or retard heat loss. And with gases it's even more so...


I think you need to read what I write more carefully.. You just mistook my mentioning heat transferring through molecular bonds of an element(GH gases in this case) for convective/conductive transferof heat.. We are discussing radiative heat transfer through a GH gas...

All the condescension aside, if you aren't going to properly read what I write why pretend?

 

[itfitzme]

Thanks for encouragement --- but your rebuttal to Barker sucks.. You managed to miss both points of innovation and brilliance in that exercise..

By looking at the ratio of Tnightlow/Tdayhigh -- you can isolate the diff between solar heating and the GHouse retention. GHouse retention occurs all day long and would RAISE the ratio -- while the ratio decreases if the source of heating is primarily solar.

You need a delGH and a delSolar in your mothy math..

Similiarly, you can isolate the confounding effect of water vapor when you check for GHouse effect in a desert..

Congrats..

No you don't, because it will look the same whether there is CO2 or not. Nighttime doesn't have any less CO2 and changes from one day to the next are systematic and are cancelled out.

Nope.. Go to the board and write... (Tnight + delGH) / (Tday + delGH + delSol)

Now with delSol == 0 ........... Put in some numbers like (14 + 2)/(21 + 2).. Is that LARGER than Tnight/Tday???

Can you tell me what happens to the ratio when delSol is the prevalent addition.


The patience of a saint I tell ya...

Thanks for encouragement --- but your rebuttal to Barker sucks.. You managed to miss both points of innovation and brilliance in that exercise..*

By looking at the ratio of Tnightlow/Tdayhigh -- you can isolate the diff between solar heating and the GHouse retention. GHouse retention occurs all day long and would RAISE the ratio -- while the ratio decreases if the source of heating is primarily solar.*

You need a delGH and a delSolar in your mothy math..*

Similiarly, you can isolate the confounding effect of water vapor when you check for GHouse effect in a desert..*

Congrats..

No you don't, because it will look the same whether there is CO2 or not. *Nighttime doesn't have any less CO2 and changes from one day to the next are systematic and are cancelled out.

Nope.. Go to the board and write...*

(Tnight + delGH) / (Tday + delGH + delSol)

Now with delSol == 0 ........... Put in some numbers like (14 + 2)/(21 + 2).. Is that LARGER than Tnight/Tday???*

Can you tell me what happens to the ratio when delSol is the prevalent addition.


* * The patience of a saint I tell ya...

(Tnight + delGH) / (Tday + delGH + delSol)

you are counting the sun twice. *Day time is hot because of the sun, duh.

(Tnight + delGH) / (Tnight + delGH + delSol)

(Tnight + delGH) / (Tday + delGH)

And your still not getting that GHG accounts for the NEXT day and night BOTH being warmer.

The TI cancels out the day to day warming.

 

[gslack]

For Gslack and SSDD..

Certainly -- when you come in from the cold winter and experience a +20F boost in ambient temp -- that boost certainly can't warm a body surface that's already +25F above the ambient?

Skin 90F Room 67F Outside 47F

You were COOLING outside FASTER than inside. Assume there is no convection or conduction. JUST radiative heating from the room.. (minute amount of double paned glass with good deep IR transmission) Same effect. You will COOL slower. Your skin will EVENTUALLY assume a new equilibrium say 95F.

You'll say the body supplies the heat.. Of course. Just like the daily pumping of solar energy the earth surface gets. But the body LOSES heat at lower rate --- EVEN IN the proximity of a colder radiative mass.

As far as what the textbooks say.. Check out ScienceofDoom.. Get this from another skeptic..

Radiation Basics and the Imaginary Second Law of Thermodynamics | The Science of Doom

The equation for how much radiation is emitted by a body – &#949;&#963;T4 – does not include any terms for where the radiation might end up. So whether this radiation will be incident on a colder or hotter body, it has no effect on the radiation from the source. (See note 3).

Similarly, when radiation is incident on a body the only factor which affects how much radiation is absorbed and how much radiation is reflected is the absorptivity of the body at that direction and wavelength. The body cannot put out traffic cones because the incident radiation has been emitted by a colder body.

This is elementary thermodynamics. Emissivity and temperature determine the radiation from a body. Absorptivity determines how much incident radiation is absorbed.

Therefore, elementary thermodynamics shows that a cold body can radiate onto the surface of a hotter body. And the hotter body will absorb the radiation – assuming it has absorptivity at that wavelength and direction.

And once thermal radiation is absorbed it must heat the body, or slow down a loss of heat which is taking place. It cannot have no effect. This would be contrary to the first law of thermodynamics.

Two bodies at different temperatures in proximity both radiate towards each other. Heat flow is determined by the net effect. As standard textbooks indicate:

Science of doom? LOL, the Clone to spencer's shtick? No thanks...

If you want to regurgitate the same argument's spencer and CO. use, it's a silly and tired strategy.. One that Ian tries...

Once again(like Ian and spencer) you are trying to use the properties of an insulator to explain backradiation warming the surface further, and it's been gone over again and again. It's a bogus claim, that relies on a theoretical concept of actions at the atomic and sub-atomic levels. A theoretical concept which has not and cannot be proven any place other than an equation.

Ian cited one of spencers arguments recently. The man tried to use an insulated house to make the same claim your site just tried. The problem was he said the insulation made the house warmer. No it didn't. Insulation allowed the house to reach a certain temperature faster and more efficiently than it would have otherwise because it slowed heat loss. Once the temp in the house hit the proper temp the thermostat was set to, it shut off. Minus insulation, it took a lot longer. Now we here on earth have a thermostat as well. it's called day and night.

Now,when we get a realistic energy budget based on a full day/night cycle and not based on a flat disc earth bathed in 24/7 twilight, you will see that backradiation is unneeded..

 

[itfitzme]

For Gslack and SSDD..

Certainly -- when you come in from the cold winter and experience a +20F boost in ambient temp -- that boost certainly can't warm a body surface that's already +25F above the ambient?

Skin 90F Room 67F Outside 47F

You were COOLING outside FASTER than inside. Assume there is no convection or conduction. JUST radiative heating from the room.. (minute amount of double paned glass with good deep IR transmission) Same effect. You will COOL slower. Your skin will EVENTUALLY assume a new equilibrium say 95F.

You'll say the body supplies the heat.. Of course. Just like the daily pumping of solar energy the earth surface gets. But the body LOSES heat at lower rate --- EVEN IN the proximity of a colder radiative mass.

As far as what the textbooks say.. Check out ScienceofDoom.. Get this from another skeptic..

Radiation Basics and the Imaginary Second Law of Thermodynamics | The Science of Doom

The equation for how much radiation is emitted by a body – &#949;&#963;T4 – does not include any terms for where the radiation might end up. So whether this radiation will be incident on a colder or hotter body, it has no effect on the radiation from the source. (See note 3).

Similarly, when radiation is incident on a body the only factor which affects how much radiation is absorbed and how much radiation is reflected is the absorptivity of the body at that direction and wavelength. The body cannot put out traffic cones because the incident radiation has been emitted by a colder body.

This is elementary thermodynamics. Emissivity and temperature determine the radiation from a body. Absorptivity determines how much incident radiation is absorbed.

Therefore, elementary thermodynamics shows that a cold body can radiate onto the surface of a hotter body. And the hotter body will absorb the radiation – assuming it has absorptivity at that wavelength and direction.

And once thermal radiation is absorbed it must heat the body, or slow down a loss of heat which is taking place. It cannot have no effect. This would be contrary to the first law of thermodynamics.

Two bodies at different temperatures in proximity both radiate towards each other. Heat flow is determined by the net effect. As standard textbooks indicate:

Science of doom? LOL, the Clone to spencer's shtick? No thanks...

If you want to regurgitate the same argument's spencer and CO. use, it's a silly and tired strategy.. One that Ian tries...

Once again(like Ian and spencer) you are trying to use the properties of an insulator to explain backradiation warming the surface further, and it's been gone over again and again. It's a bogus claim, that relies on a theoretical concept of actions at the atomic and sub-atomic levels. A theoretical concept which has not and cannot be proven any place other than an equation.

Ian cited one of spencers arguments recently. The man tried to use an insulated house to make the same claim your site just tried. The problem was he said the insulation made the house warmer. No it didn't. Insulation allowed the house to reach a certain temperature faster and more efficiently than it would have otherwise because it slowed heat loss. Once the temp in the house hit the proper temp the thermostat was set to, it shut off. Minus insulation, it took a lot longer. Now we here on earth have a thermostat as well. it's called day and night.

Now,when we get a realistic energy budget based on a full day/night cycle and not based on a flat disc earth bathed in 24/7 twilight, you will see that backradiation is unneeded..

It does if the insulation keeps increasing everyday. Everyday the insulation is more, so temperature goes up as the heater never goes off.

 

[itfitzme]

Get a box and cover it with foam rubber. Put lightbulb in it. Stick a thermometer throuh the side. Turn on bulb. Wait till thermometer stabilizes. Add more foam rubber..Watch temp increase. Keep adding more foam. It will increase as long as you have enough foam rubber.

You can go to the hardware store and buy the parts.

 

[flacaltenn]

No you don't, because it will look the same whether there is CO2 or not. Nighttime doesn't have any less CO2 and changes from one day to the next are systematic and are cancelled out.

Nope.. Go to the board and write... (Tnight + delGH) / (Tday + delGH + delSol)

Now with delSol == 0 ........... Put in some numbers like (14 + 2)/(21 + 2).. Is that LARGER than Tnight/Tday???

Can you tell me what happens to the ratio when delSol is the prevalent addition.


The patience of a saint I tell ya...

No you don't, because it will look the same whether there is CO2 or not. *Nighttime doesn't have any less CO2 and changes from one day to the next are systematic and are cancelled out.

Nope.. Go to the board and write...*

(Tnight + delGH) / (Tday + delGH + delSol)

Now with delSol == 0 ........... Put in some numbers like (14 + 2)/(21 + 2).. Is that LARGER than Tnight/Tday???*

Can you tell me what happens to the ratio when delSol is the prevalent addition.


* * The patience of a saint I tell ya...

(Tnight + delGH) / (Tday + delGH + delSol)

you are counting the sun twice. *Day time is hot because of the sun, duh.

(Tnight + delGH) / (Tnight + delGH + delSol)

(Tnight + delGH) / (Tday + delGH)

And your still not getting that GHG accounts for the NEXT day and night BOTH being warmer.

The TI cancels out the day to day warming.

Say WHATTTT?? You can't even follow instructions.. WHERE is the sun counted twice?

The numerator is the NOMINAL Tnight with added GH effect.
The denominator is the NOMINAL Tday with added GH effect and any added Solar effect.

You do understand that this ratio is almost always less than 1 right? Because you were freakin me out with your
1/1 == 1 2/2 == 1 crap before... So if add identical GW deltas to top and bottom --- the ratio INCREASES...

If future Tnight/Tday numbers INCREASE --- It's because the GH effect increased..
If future Tnight/Tday numbers DECREASE --- It's because the Solar effect increased.

*assumes Tnight < Tday

((OMG -- I'm not doing this at 11:30 with a Software Validation at a client in the morning))

Setting delSol = 0 leaves JUST the GH effect.

Now go get a calculator and tell me if (14 + 2) / (21 +2) is GREATER THAN, LESS THAN or EQUAL TO 14/21

the value WITHOUT an increase in the GH effect.

So if you look at a history of Tnights/Tdays and you see the graph GO UP --- GWarming.

If it goes down --- sell IBM shares..
I'm being punked right???

No more ---- UNCLE....

 

[gslack]

For Gslack and SSDD..

Certainly -- when you come in from the cold winter and experience a +20F boost in ambient temp -- that boost certainly can't warm a body surface that's already +25F above the ambient?

Skin 90F Room 67F Outside 47F

You were COOLING outside FASTER than inside. Assume there is no convection or conduction. JUST radiative heating from the room.. (minute amount of double paned glass with good deep IR transmission) Same effect. You will COOL slower. Your skin will EVENTUALLY assume a new equilibrium say 95F.

You'll say the body supplies the heat.. Of course. Just like the daily pumping of solar energy the earth surface gets. But the body LOSES heat at lower rate --- EVEN IN the proximity of a colder radiative mass.

As far as what the textbooks say.. Check out ScienceofDoom.. Get this from another skeptic..

Science of doom? LOL, the Clone to spencer's shtick? No thanks...

If you want to regurgitate the same argument's spencer and CO. use, it's a silly and tired strategy.. One that Ian tries...

Once again(like Ian and spencer) you are trying to use the properties of an insulator to explain backradiation warming the surface further, and it's been gone over again and again. It's a bogus claim, that relies on a theoretical concept of actions at the atomic and sub-atomic levels. A theoretical concept which has not and cannot be proven any place other than an equation.

Ian cited one of spencers arguments recently. The man tried to use an insulated house to make the same claim your site just tried. The problem was he said the insulation made the house warmer. No it didn't. Insulation allowed the house to reach a certain temperature faster and more efficiently than it would have otherwise because it slowed heat loss. Once the temp in the house hit the proper temp the thermostat was set to, it shut off. Minus insulation, it took a lot longer. Now we here on earth have a thermostat as well. it's called day and night.

Now,when we get a realistic energy budget based on a full day/night cycle and not based on a flat disc earth bathed in 24/7 twilight, you will see that backradiation is unneeded..

It does if the insulation keeps increasing everyday. Everyday the insulation is more, so temperature goes up as the heater never goes off.

WHAT? Dude are you on crack or what?

Every single night the heater goes off numbnuts. Not to mention your idiotic claim that the insulator increases daily..

Dude get a grip..

 

[SSDD]

Well, now I see why you are confused, because the second law doesn't say that energy won't flow from a cold to hot body. The author is simply wrong or you have lifted it out of context. The second says that entropy of an isolated system cannot decrease.

Actually you don't, but being what you are, you must tell yourself that you were not dead wrong. Predictable and somewhat sad.

Funny that you, an obvious pretend science expert on the internet says that one of the most respected physics departments on the face of the earth is wrong. If you had a clue in the first place, you would never suggest that the physics department at the University of Georgia is wrong.