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

[flacaltenn]

WHY? your questions do not in any way negate or disprove my statements...

But here ya go... Your questions..

"Just bought another Lab grade IR thermometer.. (needed one with smaller field of view for small electronic components).. I bring the sensor to room temperature.. Point it at leak in the window sill.. You telling me that I can't READ 12degF below room temp because the "photons aren't gonna travel from a cooler to warmer object"???? "-flac...

Are you reading the flow from warmer to colder? Seriously is that what your thermometer is reading? Or is it the change in temperature itself. OR in this example from wikkipedia...

Obviously in my example,, I'm reading a COLDER object.. It's a leaking window 15degF BELOW ambient...


Infrared thermometer - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



According to wikki they can be used for various purposes but somehow proving back-radiation isn't one of them... Hmmm...



Sorry you've apparently never used one of these.. They are carried by every HVAC tech on the planet.. I've got 3 or 4 in my lab.. No mystery.. They will read HOTTER or COLDER than the ambient surroundings.. Here...



Don't care about confusing heat with other sources if the target is isolated in the field of view. Temp is temp at an IC on a circuit board. Or a chilly window leak...



Simple dude show me the text book which states it being a fact and we are done.. Shouldn't be too hard if it's as factual and obvious as you claim...

If photon energy WAS NOT flowing from colder to warmer AND bring thermal energy to the IR sensor in those instruments, that IR thermometer WOULD NOT FUNCTION for below ambient targets -- would it?
There's your "backradiation" from a cooler sky thru radiative heating..




Your next question...

"2) I place 2 identical metal bars on strings in a vacuum container with a uniform constant heat source outside. They come to equilibrium temp at 100DegF... Does that mean they don't radiate EM IR photons anymore at each other.. ((And indeed uniformly out in all directions?)) So if I point my IR reader at them --- they somehow are not radiating black bodies anymore? Or is the distribution of their radiation limited to an inate guidance system that measures the temperature of EVERY OBJECT in their path?"

Sure they may radiate at one another, BUT... And please pay attention this time because you keep ignoring this point.... DO THEY EFFECT CHANGE IN THEIR HEAT SOURCE? OR ONE ANOTHER?

NO!

Wasn't my question. Did not ask if they effected ANY change in Temp.. I asked if they STOPPED radiating at each other? Because by YOUR rules, there is no thermal gradient and therefore no heat flow.. So --- can you answer the question now???

And why? Because the nature of blackbody radiation, or thermal equilibrium achieved by both bodies negating any gain in temperature from one another..

But hey, Don't take my word for it...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black-body_radiation



You are circle-talking, pretending that because something can radiate towards it's source, that means it can effect change in that source. It's a false assumption. Mathematically it should, but due to QM or Quantum theory being incomplete (the math behind it), reality and real world experience shows it doesn't effect change in the source.. See the problem yet?

You like Ian and so many others learned to do the math through a process, but you didn't learn to question it or think through what it means in application. Hence your attempt to use an IR thermometer to prove backradiation. If it were really that simple, there wouldn't be a case against it would there... It would be in the text books wouldn't it.. Well it's not and the reason is it's a mathematical concept which doesn't stand up to real world observation..

NOW can you please explain how it is you think that because an object can radiate in any and all directions at once, that it automatically means it can and will effect change in its greater source???

Please, if you can't answer it fine, just don't ignore it and try to make up my position for me... It's getting old..

BTW.. "kinda wins in the long run." LOL are you serious.. It wins but you aren't gonna admit it so you try and justify it with that ? ROFL

The rest is pretty much mutual assault.. Let's concentrate on the questions..

Want to stop the red text inside my quotes? It makes it hard to differentiate what you say from what I say for the rest of the forum.. As well as simply being flat-out annoying to have to pick them out in a response...

LOL I cited your questions, see them? Of course you do...

Again, the thermometer shows as you said above.."They will read HOTTER or COLDER than the ambient surroundings.." Agreed,now please explain how it is proof of backradiation... Seems like proof of radiation but not back-radiation Get it yet? The thing measures IR radiation that's it, it doesn't measure raidiation flowing back to it's warmer source.. ANd frankly, You may have them and you may use them, but you obviously don't understand how they work if you think they can show back-radiation..

The devices use blackbody radiation concepts to give a numerical (likie the one you linked to) or visual color spectrum representation of thermal radiation coming from objects. That's it.. It doesn't measure energy re-emitted back towards it's warmer source... Using your logic everything is proof of backradaition. If it radiates it's back-radiation...LOL

WTHell man... It measures IR radiation PERIOD.. What is this "flowing back to it's warmer source" crap? The meter is recieving radiation energy FROM A COOLER SOURCE. The cooler source IS THE SOURCE of the radiation.. Doesn't MATTER where the cooler source got the energy from.. It could be from conduction or convection or radiation.. Are you trying to imply that bodies have a memory of the thermal properties that they recieved their energy from?? I THINK you're saying that the cooler REMEMBERS where it got every morsel of its thermal energy from and if the source was WARMER --- it's NOT ALLOWED to radiate towards it? Is THAT your contention?

The TEMPERATURE of radiative source doesn't prohibit it from RADIATING towards a warmer body. The net flow obeys the 2nd law because the total thermal flow is the subtraction of the energy from the cooler body from the energy originating in the warmer body.. It's a SIMPLE SUBTRACTION.. Some people call the weaker stream "back radiation".

You're still not going to answer my question are you... So once more, why isn't this simply shown phenomenon shown in text books? The one you cited from Science of doom for instance, Not a peep on it anywhere... Keep on trying to avoid it and I will keep on asking it...

The simple subtraction I just referenced is ALL OVER those textbooks. It's ACCEPTED that the cooler body by DEFINITION is radiating in all possible directions (as dictated by its geometry) in proportion to the 4th power of its temp.. If you do the subtraction properly -- there is no violation of anything.. EIGHT PAGES of Thermo texts says so --- I gave you the link.. Every TEXT on Radiative Thermal Transfer says so..

But to understand ANY of them you have to accept..

1) EVERY body (regardless of temp) radiates some amount of IR EM in every available direction. That is derived from BBody laws and Stephan Boltzmann..

2) WHERE the energy of that ejected photon originally CAME FROM is irrelevent.

3) Cooler bodies radiate towards warmer bodies and vice versa. The NET FLOW subtracts this amount from the thermal flux of the warmer body and obeys the 2nd law.

4) My warmer IR thermometer is reading photons from a COOLER BODY.. Which demonstrates that direction of exchange.

5) The term "back radiation" is a particular construct of the GreenHouse crowd describing the heat flux from the cooler atmos
to the ground. It is NOT USED in classical derivations of radiative heat exchange but it is describing the T2 flux that gets subtracted from the blackbody radiation of the earth.

6) If cooler objects were NOT radiating towards warmer objects, two objects in proximity, having acheived a thermal equilibrium T1 == T2 would have to STOP radiating towards each other according to your view because there is NO NET FLOW. This doesn't happen.. What really happens in the language of GreenHouse theory is that under this condition.. The back-radiation would equal the forward-radiation.. ((T1 - T2) == 0) Totally consistent with the fact that both objects still HAVE a temp and that they are radiating EQUALLY at each other..

((NOTE -- I am not suggesting that the atmos would ever equal the BBody temp of the earth surface. Merely using that terminology to describe another set of general bodies in thermal equilibrium))

Which ones of those six are you denying??

And your second question was addressed silly person right there plain as day. And again if it doesn't effect change in it's source, how can it warm the surface further?

A body will absorb ALL radiation impinging on its surface that isn't reflected. Where is it written that an IR photon from ANYWHERE "doesn't effect change in it's source"? Are you making that up or can you tell me how SOME photons don't contain energy?

I think you are caught in the same spot Ian ends up in everytime he tries to sneak a new spencer thought experiment in on us. He talks and claims it fact until he's asked toprove it, or show it in a text book and BOOM! he stops and resorts to playing dumb or deaf, or both... Repeating the same things, whether answered, addressed, or not, he repeats or vanishes to lick his wounds for a while. He will not accept the fact his hero is wrong, or selling his latest book or website. And he certainly will not accept QM as anything but fact, despite the rest of the world calling it theory..

You two are on the same page.. The same page, in a piece fiction that you are convinced is fact...

I'm not caught in any spot.. I have a comfortable acquaintance with Radiation Heat Physics that doesn't cause me to have EXCUSE some photons from doing their job or remember where they came from.. It's a lot simpler and more consistent than the excuses you're making for denying that ALL OBJECTS (above abs Zero) radiate IR EM heat.

 

[flacaltenn]

Actually backradiation is a recent fiction specific to the greehhouse hypothesis. It is nothing more than an ad hoc construct.



Twenty textbooks? Really? Wow!! Twenty whole textbooks. Tell me, if you don't mind....how many textbooks do you think have been written on radiative physics? And 20 of them preach two way energy flow. Again...wow...

I am betting that they aren't classical....you know...real as opposed to fictional post modern physics texts, are they?

I lied.. According to Amazon --- there's 100s of them.. And that's just the search for Radiative Heat Transfer.. I didn't try Thermal Radiation Physics or other varieties..

[ame=http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_ss_i_2_9?url=search-alias%3Dstripbooks&field-keywords=radiative+heat+transfer&sprefix=Radiative%2Cstripbooks%2C334#/ref=sr_pg_1?rh=n%3A283155%2Ck%3Aradiative+heat+transfer&keywords=radiative+heat+transfer&ie=UTF8&qid=1374110340]Amazon.com: radiative heat transfer: Books[/ame]

And which of those hundreds prove back-radiation? I'll wait...

They ALL agree that radiative heat transfer (not conduction or convection) is a process that has to account for the radiation flux FROM EVERY OBJECT that has a line of sight photon path to the others.. REGARDLESS of the relative temps of those objects. And the NET EXCHANGES are calculated by subtracting the ABSORPTIONS from all the other objects from the EMISSION of the object being analyzed.. Right now, your KEYBOARD is bombarding you with IR RADIATION. If you COOLED IT --- It would STILL bombard you with IR EM photons --- only less. Doesn't matter WHERE the keyboard got that thermal energy from.. It's gonna EMIT the same fashion towards every object in it's line of sight.

To determine how much heat you're losing, you'd have to add in the photons from the cooler window in front of you that you are recieving and photons from that cup of coffee by your side.. And then SUBTRACT ALL OF THAT from the agreed upon skin emission that you are presuming..

According to the Radiative Thermal texts --- that's how radiative heat transfers are calculated.. Only with more partial differentials and integrals and shit...

 

[IanC]

physics is 75% manipulation of mathematical equations to understand the relationships between things. are you against the rearranging and replacing of equal terms for the equation F=ma ?

That isn't the question. Why would you apply any property to an already elegant equation? Even physics does not apply properties to already elegant equations, it is neither good math, nor good physics. So again, why?

I am having a hard time believing that you have taken any physics at any level. elegant? I guess so. it is meant to highlight the relationship to (temperature to the fourth power). as with many formulae it takes the ugly complexities and sticks them into the constants. have you looked at what the alpha entails? dont even get started with the emissivity derivations! even the area is a lot more complicated than it appears in a simplified formula.

I am also having a hard time understanding why you are upset over a mathematical property that is taught in what, grade 5? there is no difference between k(T1^4-T2^4) and kT1^4-kT2^4. none

any general physics text from high school on has at least a basic preamble to thermo that describes radiative heat transfer as (output minus input equals net transfer). are you so upset with the term 'backradiation' that you have lost your mind????

 

[IanC]

BTW here's a nice link to a decent article on the problem I am talking about...

Two Proofs of Planck?s Law vs Backradiation ? The World As Computation

And to show another example.. I did a google search for the words "Back-radiation proof'. here's the list I got..

back-radiation proof - Google Search

What I got was a list that contained spencer and science of doom first and second respectively (no shock there) and then in third was my link above, followed by a mass of links to various sites and articles that for the most part call the concept of back-radiation a mathematical concept or possibility that does not stand up to observation in reality..

Disagree with me all you want, but the world seems to disagree with you and Ian.. Pretty blatantly too..

is that Claes' harmonic reflection paper that gives the exact same numbers as 'standard' physics, just with a convoluted new layer of complexity? or is it something new? Claes Johnson is considered a bit of a crank by just about everyone, but good luck to him.

back radiation is a descriptive term that is only useful for describing the situation. back radiation is simply radiation. just like reverse racism is simply racism, but it gives more information about the parties involved.

Claes Johnson, prof of applied mathematics at the Royal Institute of Technology in Stockholm, Sweden.. LOLnow he's a quack by your standard? Get a grip Ian you're a web forum poster not a published scientist, and in no position to deny his credibility.. WHere did you get that nonsense? Oh wait I know it was either SPencer or science of doom right? yeah we know... Pathetic...

The simple fact is, whether you like Johnson or not, there still is no physical proof of back-radiation or back-anything.. LOL the fact you tried to use virtual photons as proof of back-conduction is beyond silly..
And now back-radiation is just a descriptive term... LOL almost didn't even hear your backpeddling that time Ian, so quite, so nonchalant. Nice try but it's a descriptive term to make a physical case for something that doesn't exist anywhere but theoretical mathematics... ROFL.

this is good example of what I have to deal with when conversing with you. you dont quote my comment, then you accuse me of saying something that I did not. virtual photons in back conduction? is it your poor comprehension skills or are you at a point where you are so rabidly in attack mode that you are willing to stoop as far as lying?

it is also obvious that there is 'backconduction', because radiative thermal interactions are part of conduction. kinetic mechanical events produce thermal radiation, whether it is a solid liquid or gas. kinetic transfer is very efficient in solids (variable to how tightly the electrons are bound) and less efficient in gases (variable to the density). the thermal radiation produced in kinetic events is always in a random direction though, so some energy is always 'bucking the tide' but that does not mean the SLoT is being violated because the net flow is always warm to cool.

if you dont like the term 'virtual photons', sue me. I use it as a shorthand to differentiate between radiative photons that are created to shed energy, and reactive photons that transfer force, either attractive or repulsive, between two charged particles. an electric field 'costs' nothing until it interacts with a charged particle because the photons cease to exist if they cannot find a partner.

from your link to wiki on virtual photons-

Some field interactions which may be seen in terms of virtual particles are:

The Coulomb force (static electric force) between electric charges. It is caused by the exchange of virtual photons. In symmetric 3-dimensional space this exchange results in the inverse square law for electric force. Since the photon has no mass, the coulomb potential has an infinite range.
The magnetic field between magnetic dipoles. It is caused by the exchange of virtual photons. In symmetric 3-dimensional space this exchange results in the inverse cube law for magnetic force. Since the photon has no mass, the magnetic potential has an infinite range.
Much of the so-called near-field of radio antennas, where the magnetic and electric effects of the changing current in the antenna wire and the charge effects of the wire's capacitive charge may be (and usually are) important contributors to the total EM field close to the source, but both of which effects are dipole effects that decay with increasing distance from the antenna much more quickly than do the influence of "conventional" electromagnetic waves that are "far" from the source. ["Far" in terms of terms of ratio of antenna length or diameter, to wavelength]. These far-field waves, for which E is (in the limit of long distance) equal to cB, are composed of actual photons. It should be noted that actual and virtual photons are mixed near an antenna, with the virtual photons responsible only for the "extra" magnetic-inductive and transient electric-dipole effects, which cause any imbalance between E and cB. As distance from the antenna grows, the near-field effects (as dipole fields) die out more quickly, and only the "radiative" effects that are due to actual photons remain as important effects. Although virtual effects extend to infinity, they drop off in field strength as 1/r2 rather than the field of EM waves composed of actual photons, which drop 1/r (the powers, respectively, decrease as 1/r4 and 1/r2). See near and far field for a more detailed discussion. See near field communication for practical communications applications of near fields.
Virtual photons are also a major component of antenna near field phenomena and induction fields, which have shorter-range effects, and do not radiate through space with the same range-properties as do electromagnetic wave photons. For example, the energy carried from one winding of a transformer to another, or to and from a patient in an MRI scanner, in quantum terms is carried by virtual photons, not actual photons.[6]
Electromagnetic induction. This phenomenon transferring energy to and from a magnetic coil via a changing (electro)magnetic field can be viewed as a near-field effect. It is the basis for power transfer in transformers and electric generators and motors, and also signal transfer in metal detectors, magnetic and magnetoacoustic anti theft electronic tags, and even signals between patient and machine in an MRI scanner. Some confusion about the use of "radio waves" results when these devices are used at conventional RF frequencies, as they are in an MRI scanner.[6] See resonant inductive coupling and wireless energy transfer for other practical examples.

do you actually read your links? your comprehension seems awfully low

 

[gslack]

The rest is pretty much mutual assault.. Let's concentrate on the questions..

Want to stop the red text inside my quotes? It makes it hard to differentiate what you say from what I say for the rest of the forum.. As well as simply being flat-out annoying to have to pick them out in a response...

LOL I cited your questions, see them? Of course you do...

Again, the thermometer shows as you said above.."They will read HOTTER or COLDER than the ambient surroundings.." Agreed,now please explain how it is proof of backradiation... Seems like proof of radiation but not back-radiation Get it yet? The thing measures IR radiation that's it, it doesn't measure raidiation flowing back to it's warmer source.. ANd frankly, You may have them and you may use them, but you obviously don't understand how they work if you think they can show back-radiation..

The devices use blackbody radiation concepts to give a numerical (likie the one you linked to) or visual color spectrum representation of thermal radiation coming from objects. That's it.. It doesn't measure energy re-emitted back towards it's warmer source... Using your logic everything is proof of backradaition. If it radiates it's back-radiation...LOL

WTHell man... It measures IR radiation PERIOD.. What is this "flowing back to it's warmer source" crap? The meter is recieving radiation energy FROM A COOLER SOURCE. The cooler source IS THE SOURCE of the radiation.. Doesn't MATTER where the cooler source got the energy from.. It could be from conduction or convection or radiation.. Are you trying to imply that bodies have a memory of the thermal properties that they recieved their energy from?? I THINK you're saying that the cooler REMEMBERS where it got every morsel of its thermal energy from and if the source was WARMER --- it's NOT ALLOWED to radiate towards it? Is THAT your contention?

The TEMPERATURE of radiative source doesn't prohibit it from RADIATING towards a warmer body. The net flow obeys the 2nd law because the total thermal flow is the subtraction of the energy from the cooler body from the energy originating in the warmer body.. It's a SIMPLE SUBTRACTION.. Some people call the weaker stream "back radiation".



The simple subtraction I just referenced is ALL OVER those textbooks. It's ACCEPTED that the cooler body by DEFINITION is radiating in all possible directions (as dictated by its geometry) in proportion to the 4th power of its temp.. If you do the subtraction properly -- there is no violation of anything.. EIGHT PAGES of Thermo texts says so --- I gave you the link.. Every TEXT on Radiative Thermal Transfer says so..

But to understand ANY of them you have to accept..

1) EVERY body (regardless of temp) radiates some amount of IR EM in every available direction. That is derived from BBody laws and Stephan Boltzmann..

2) WHERE the energy of that ejected photon originally CAME FROM is irrelevent.

3) Cooler bodies radiate towards warmer bodies and vice versa. The NET FLOW subtracts this amount from the thermal flux of the warmer body and obeys the 2nd law.

4) My warmer IR thermometer is reading photons from a COOLER BODY.. Which demonstrates that direction of exchange.

5) The term "back radiation" is a particular construct of the GreenHouse crowd describing the heat flux from the cooler atmos
to the ground. It is NOT USED in classical derivations of radiative heat exchange but it is describing the T2 flux that gets subtracted from the blackbody radiation of the earth.

6) If cooler objects were NOT radiating towards warmer objects, two objects in proximity, having acheived a thermal equilibrium T1 == T2 would have to STOP radiating towards each other according to your view because there is NO NET FLOW. This doesn't happen.. What really happens in the language of GreenHouse theory is that under this condition.. The back-radiation would equal the forward-radiation.. ((T1 - T2) == 0) Totally consistent with the fact that both objects still HAVE a temp and that they are radiating EQUALLY at each other..

((NOTE -- I am not suggesting that the atmos would ever equal the BBody temp of the earth surface. Merely using that terminology to describe another set of general bodies in thermal equilibrium))

Which ones of those six are you denying??

And your second question was addressed silly person right there plain as day. And again if it doesn't effect change in it's source, how can it warm the surface further?

A body will absorb ALL radiation impinging on its surface that isn't reflected. Where is it written that an IR photon from ANYWHERE "doesn't effect change in it's source"? Are you making that up or can you tell me how SOME photons don't contain energy?

I think you are caught in the same spot Ian ends up in everytime he tries to sneak a new spencer thought experiment in on us. He talks and claims it fact until he's asked toprove it, or show it in a text book and BOOM! he stops and resorts to playing dumb or deaf, or both... Repeating the same things, whether answered, addressed, or not, he repeats or vanishes to lick his wounds for a while. He will not accept the fact his hero is wrong, or selling his latest book or website. And he certainly will not accept QM as anything but fact, despite the rest of the world calling it theory..

You two are on the same page.. The same page, in a piece fiction that you are convinced is fact...

I'm not caught in any spot.. I have a comfortable acquaintance with Radiation Heat Physics that doesn't cause me to have EXCUSE some photons from doing their job or remember where they came from.. It's a lot simpler and more consistent than the excuses you're making for denying that ALL OBJECTS (above abs Zero) radiate IR EM heat.

Just wth do you think back-radiation is? Seriously you just tried to claim radiation proof of back-radiation and it's not the first time... So please what do you think back-radiation is if not radiation flowing back to it's source? I said it time and again and yet now you suddenly notice it? LOL, how much of these posts do you actually read?

Your own words answer defy your logic... "The meter is recieving radiation energy FROM A COOLER SOURCE."

Yes receiving radiation, not back-radiation. Or more specifically radiation that has been emitted by and object, say the ground, and then absorbed by the cooler atmosphere or air, and then re-radiated back to the ground where it warms it further.. That's the nutshell version of AGW theory's claim on it... See the problem yet? You trying to claim the fact all things radiate, to mean they all can effect change in their warmer source. Again just because something radiates, and mathematically it can be shown it happens in all directions at once, it does not mean that cooler body's radiation can effect change in the warmer body or source..

You assumed an insulator is backradiating, well science says otherwise. Now you assume since everything radiates, if it's cooler and still radiates, it's proof of back radiation, and again there is no scientific real world proof that happens.

I think you need to get a grasp on what back-radiation is first, You seem to think a cooler body radiating at all is back-radiation and that's just patently silly..

BTW, the silly Ian-esque nonsense regarding "EXCUSE some photons from doing their job or remember where they came from." is a bit annoying now.. Seriously you keep avoiding the question and dancing..

I ask it again, please try and answer it....

Just because something radiates, why do you think that radiation can effect change in a warmer object or it's source?

I made it big because you keep missing it somehow...

 

[gslack]

is that Claes' harmonic reflection paper that gives the exact same numbers as 'standard' physics, just with a convoluted new layer of complexity? or is it something new? Claes Johnson is considered a bit of a crank by just about everyone, but good luck to him.

back radiation is a descriptive term that is only useful for describing the situation. back radiation is simply radiation. just like reverse racism is simply racism, but it gives more information about the parties involved.

Claes Johnson, prof of applied mathematics at the Royal Institute of Technology in Stockholm, Sweden.. LOLnow he's a quack by your standard? Get a grip Ian you're a web forum poster not a published scientist, and in no position to deny his credibility.. WHere did you get that nonsense? Oh wait I know it was either SPencer or science of doom right? yeah we know... Pathetic...

The simple fact is, whether you like Johnson or not, there still is no physical proof of back-radiation or back-anything.. LOL the fact you tried to use virtual photons as proof of back-conduction is beyond silly..
And now back-radiation is just a descriptive term... LOL almost didn't even hear your backpeddling that time Ian, so quite, so nonchalant. Nice try but it's a descriptive term to make a physical case for something that doesn't exist anywhere but theoretical mathematics... ROFL.

this is good example of what I have to deal with when conversing with you. you dont quote my comment, then you accuse me of saying something that I did not. virtual photons in back conduction? is it your poor comprehension skills or are you at a point where you are so rabidly in attack mode that you are willing to stoop as far as lying?

it is also obvious that there is 'backconduction', because radiative thermal interactions are part of conduction. kinetic mechanical events produce thermal radiation, whether it is a solid liquid or gas. kinetic transfer is very efficient in solids (variable to how tightly the electrons are bound) and less efficient in gases (variable to the density). the thermal radiation produced in kinetic events is always in a random direction though, so some energy is always 'bucking the tide' but that does not mean the SLoT is being violated because the net flow is always warm to cool.

if you dont like the term 'virtual photons', sue me. I use it as a shorthand to differentiate between radiative photons that are created to shed energy, and reactive photons that transfer force, either attractive or repulsive, between two charged particles. an electric field 'costs' nothing until it interacts with a charged particle because the photons cease to exist if they cannot find a partner.

from your link to wiki on virtual photons-

Some field interactions which may be seen in terms of virtual particles are:

The Coulomb force (static electric force) between electric charges. It is caused by the exchange of virtual photons. In symmetric 3-dimensional space this exchange results in the inverse square law for electric force. Since the photon has no mass, the coulomb potential has an infinite range.
The magnetic field between magnetic dipoles. It is caused by the exchange of virtual photons. In symmetric 3-dimensional space this exchange results in the inverse cube law for magnetic force. Since the photon has no mass, the magnetic potential has an infinite range.
Much of the so-called near-field of radio antennas, where the magnetic and electric effects of the changing current in the antenna wire and the charge effects of the wire's capacitive charge may be (and usually are) important contributors to the total EM field close to the source, but both of which effects are dipole effects that decay with increasing distance from the antenna much more quickly than do the influence of "conventional" electromagnetic waves that are "far" from the source. ["Far" in terms of terms of ratio of antenna length or diameter, to wavelength]. These far-field waves, for which E is (in the limit of long distance) equal to cB, are composed of actual photons. It should be noted that actual and virtual photons are mixed near an antenna, with the virtual photons responsible only for the "extra" magnetic-inductive and transient electric-dipole effects, which cause any imbalance between E and cB. As distance from the antenna grows, the near-field effects (as dipole fields) die out more quickly, and only the "radiative" effects that are due to actual photons remain as important effects. Although virtual effects extend to infinity, they drop off in field strength as 1/r2 rather than the field of EM waves composed of actual photons, which drop 1/r (the powers, respectively, decrease as 1/r4 and 1/r2). See near and far field for a more detailed discussion. See near field communication for practical communications applications of near fields.
Virtual photons are also a major component of antenna near field phenomena and induction fields, which have shorter-range effects, and do not radiate through space with the same range-properties as do electromagnetic wave photons. For example, the energy carried from one winding of a transformer to another, or to and from a patient in an MRI scanner, in quantum terms is carried by virtual photons, not actual photons.[6]
Electromagnetic induction. This phenomenon transferring energy to and from a magnetic coil via a changing (electro)magnetic field can be viewed as a near-field effect. It is the basis for power transfer in transformers and electric generators and motors, and also signal transfer in metal detectors, magnetic and magnetoacoustic anti theft electronic tags, and even signals between patient and machine in an MRI scanner. Some confusion about the use of "radio waves" results when these devices are used at conventional RF frequencies, as they are in an MRI scanner.[6] See resonant inductive coupling and wireless energy transfer for other practical examples.

do you actually read your links? your comprehension seems awfully low

I quoted your post Ian, no reason to lie.. I hit the quote button and quoted you.. Now if there is something missing it wasn't anything I did and you know it...

Yes, yes all well and good you can cut and paste... NOW show where it states a case for back-conduction...

Freaking dancing bear...LOL, It's not the term I have issue with, its your attempted false use of it, to prove your BS.. It doesn't prove back-conduction silly, and if you actually knew half what you pretend, you wouldn't have even tried that claim.. It's silly and ignorant, and only a person who has no concept of what an equation or mathematical concept actually means in real world application, would think it proves your nonsensical back-conduction..

But hey, as I said before. If it's so factual and obvious, and so easily proven, why isn't it standard in all physics text books?

LOL, for all your BS and all of your SPencer worship,the fact remains it's not in any science text books, and not taught anywhere but "climate science".. WHy is that? Why is it you don't learn back-radiation in the standard first year physics? Or back-conduction? LOL...

Please, it's silly and you're silly for trying so hard to prove what nobody outside of Spencer and IPCC science accepts...

 

[SSDD]

]

I lied.. According to Amazon --- there's 100s of them.. And that's just the search for Radiative Heat Transfer.. I didn't try Thermal Radiation Physics or other varieties..

Amazon.com: radiative heat transfer: Books

That was my point. Hundreds of books.on the topic and 20 of them preach two way energy flow. All post modern where the standard of proof is practically non existent I'd wager.

 

[IanC]

NOW can you please explain how it is you think that because an object can radiate in any and all directions at once, that it automatically means it can and will effect change in its greater source???

this is the question you have been ranting for the last few pages. let's analyze it.

because an object can radiate in any and all directions at once

are you talking about a CO2 molecule or the atmosphere? one molecule can only emit one radiative photon at a time, in a random direction. where would the energy come from to radiate in every direction, all at the same time? needless to say, I dont think that. even if you are talking about the atmosphere, there is not an infinite amount of radiation, which is what your statement implied. perhaps you are still confused by wirebender's bizarre ranting of a few years ago.

means it can and will effect change in its greater source

what is it? what is its greater source?

OK, enough of making fun of your incoherence. I will shrewdly piece together a likely scenario and question from your disjointed words. did you mean....

even if the atmosphere sends radiation back to the surface, how can you be sure that it will raise the temperature?

excellent question, if I say so myself. radiation returning from the atmosphere is low energy and highly disordered therefore it has little capacity to do work. just about the only thing it is capable of is to cancel out energy that would have escaped from the surface. because this escape route is somewhat blocked, the solar input has to find extra ways to bypass this bottleneck so that the output still matches the input. while the IPCC and CO2 theorists believe that all of the extra returning radiation goes into raising the surface (edit-surface temperature) of the earth (incredibly they even think it has positive feedbacks which triple the effect) to increase outgoing radiation, and thus having more radiation escape even though the percentage escaping is lower than before , but I disagree.

the world has a heat pump system composed of water, vapour, clouds, and precipitation. the sun's input heats the water, evaporation takes place causing the air to become lighter, this causes convection which lifts the water laden air until the adbiatic lapse rate cools the water enough to form clouds, release latent heat, and return the water to the surface as precipitation. any extra surface energy (heat) simply turns on the heat pump sooner. not only this, but there are other systems as well that pump heat into areas that are more favourable for energy loss.

got that? change of equilibrium from back radiation simply shunts solar input into other avenues of escape. of course there will still be some increase of surface temperature, otherwise that energy would already be making more use of the alternate routes.

 

[IanC]

f you want me to answer anymore questions will you at least return the courtesy?

perhaps you could start with why the earth's surface isn't cooling dramatically because of the large discrepancy between solar input and surface output.


gslack- will you answer the question or do I have to put it in an extra large font, or perhaps all-caps?

 

[flacaltenn]

Want to stop the red text inside my quotes? It makes it hard to differentiate what you say from what I say for the rest of the forum.. As well as simply being flat-out annoying to have to pick them out in a response...

LOL I cited your questions, see them? Of course you do...

Again, the thermometer shows as you said above.."They will read HOTTER or COLDER than the ambient surroundings.." Agreed,now please explain how it is proof of backradiation... Seems like proof of radiation but not back-radiation Get it yet? The thing measures IR radiation that's it, it doesn't measure raidiation flowing back to it's warmer source.. ANd frankly, You may have them and you may use them, but you obviously don't understand how they work if you think they can show back-radiation..

The devices use blackbody radiation concepts to give a numerical (likie the one you linked to) or visual color spectrum representation of thermal radiation coming from objects. That's it.. It doesn't measure energy re-emitted back towards it's warmer source... Using your logic everything is proof of backradaition. If it radiates it's back-radiation...LOL

WTHell man... It measures IR radiation PERIOD.. What is this "flowing back to it's warmer source" crap? The meter is recieving radiation energy FROM A COOLER SOURCE. The cooler source IS THE SOURCE of the radiation.. Doesn't MATTER where the cooler source got the energy from.. It could be from conduction or convection or radiation.. Are you trying to imply that bodies have a memory of the thermal properties that they recieved their energy from?? I THINK you're saying that the cooler REMEMBERS where it got every morsel of its thermal energy from and if the source was WARMER --- it's NOT ALLOWED to radiate towards it? Is THAT your contention?

The TEMPERATURE of radiative source doesn't prohibit it from RADIATING towards a warmer body. The net flow obeys the 2nd law because the total thermal flow is the subtraction of the energy from the cooler body from the energy originating in the warmer body.. It's a SIMPLE SUBTRACTION.. Some people call the weaker stream "back radiation".



The simple subtraction I just referenced is ALL OVER those textbooks. It's ACCEPTED that the cooler body by DEFINITION is radiating in all possible directions (as dictated by its geometry) in proportion to the 4th power of its temp.. If you do the subtraction properly -- there is no violation of anything.. EIGHT PAGES of Thermo texts says so --- I gave you the link.. Every TEXT on Radiative Thermal Transfer says so..

But to understand ANY of them you have to accept..

1) EVERY body (regardless of temp) radiates some amount of IR EM in every available direction. That is derived from BBody laws and Stephan Boltzmann..

2) WHERE the energy of that ejected photon originally CAME FROM is irrelevent.

3) Cooler bodies radiate towards warmer bodies and vice versa. The NET FLOW subtracts this amount from the thermal flux of the warmer body and obeys the 2nd law.

4) My warmer IR thermometer is reading photons from a COOLER BODY.. Which demonstrates that direction of exchange.

5) The term "back radiation" is a particular construct of the GreenHouse crowd describing the heat flux from the cooler atmos
to the ground. It is NOT USED in classical derivations of radiative heat exchange but it is describing the T2 flux that gets subtracted from the blackbody radiation of the earth.

6) If cooler objects were NOT radiating towards warmer objects, two objects in proximity, having acheived a thermal equilibrium T1 == T2 would have to STOP radiating towards each other according to your view because there is NO NET FLOW. This doesn't happen.. What really happens in the language of GreenHouse theory is that under this condition.. The back-radiation would equal the forward-radiation.. ((T1 - T2) == 0) Totally consistent with the fact that both objects still HAVE a temp and that they are radiating EQUALLY at each other..

((NOTE -- I am not suggesting that the atmos would ever equal the BBody temp of the earth surface. Merely using that terminology to describe another set of general bodies in thermal equilibrium))

Which ones of those six are you denying??



A body will absorb ALL radiation impinging on its surface that isn't reflected. Where is it written that an IR photon from ANYWHERE "doesn't effect change in it's source"? Are you making that up or can you tell me how SOME photons don't contain energy?

I think you are caught in the same spot Ian ends up in everytime he tries to sneak a new spencer thought experiment in on us. He talks and claims it fact until he's asked toprove it, or show it in a text book and BOOM! he stops and resorts to playing dumb or deaf, or both... Repeating the same things, whether answered, addressed, or not, he repeats or vanishes to lick his wounds for a while. He will not accept the fact his hero is wrong, or selling his latest book or website. And he certainly will not accept QM as anything but fact, despite the rest of the world calling it theory..

You two are on the same page.. The same page, in a piece fiction that you are convinced is fact...

I'm not caught in any spot.. I have a comfortable acquaintance with Radiation Heat Physics that doesn't cause me to have EXCUSE some photons from doing their job or remember where they came from.. It's a lot simpler and more consistent than the excuses you're making for denying that ALL OBJECTS (above abs Zero) radiate IR EM heat.

Just wth do you think back-radiation is? Seriously you just tried to claim radiation proof of back-radiation and it's not the first time... So please what do you think back-radiation is if not radiation flowing back to it's source? I said it time and again and yet now you suddenly notice it? LOL, how much of these posts do you actually read?

Your own words answer defy your logic... "The meter is recieving radiation energy FROM A COOLER SOURCE."

Yes receiving radiation, not back-radiation. Or more specifically radiation that has been emitted by and object, say the ground, and then absorbed by the cooler atmosphere or air, and then re-radiated back to the ground where it warms it further.. That's the nutshell version of AGW theory's claim on it... See the problem yet? You trying to claim the fact all things radiate, to mean they all can effect change in their warmer source. Again just because something radiates, and mathematically it can be shown it happens in all directions at once, it does not mean that cooler body's radiation can effect change in the warmer body or source..

You assumed an insulator is backradiating, well science says otherwise. Now you assume since everything radiates, if it's cooler and still radiates, it's proof of back radiation, and again there is no scientific real world proof that happens.

I think you need to get a grasp on what back-radiation is first, You seem to think a cooler body radiating at all is back-radiation and that's just patently silly..

BTW, the silly Ian-esque nonsense regarding "EXCUSE some photons from doing their job or remember where they came from." is a bit annoying now.. Seriously you keep avoiding the question and dancing..

I ask it again, please try and answer it....

Just because something radiates, why do you think that radiation can effect change in a warmer object or it's source?

I made it big because you keep missing it somehow...

This would be easier if you had told me WHICH of the six items I listed above you are rejecting.. But clearly you're bugged by #2 because of the size of you font... Here's the six..

But to understand ANY of them you have to accept..

1) EVERY body (regardless of temp) radiates some amount of IR EM in every available direction. That is derived from BBody laws and Stephan Boltzmann..

2) WHERE the energy of that ejected photon originally CAME FROM is irrelevent.

3) Cooler bodies radiate towards warmer bodies and vice versa. The NET FLOW subtracts this amount from the thermal flux of the warmer body and obeys the 2nd law.

4) My warmer IR thermometer is reading photons from a COOLER BODY.. Which demonstrates that direction of exchange.

5) The term "back radiation" is a particular construct of the GreenHouse crowd describing the heat flux from the cooler atmos
to the ground. It is NOT USED in classical derivations of radiative heat exchange but it is describing the T2 flux that gets subtracted from the blackbody radiation of the earth.

6) If cooler objects were NOT radiating towards warmer objects, two objects in proximity, having acheived a thermal equilibrium T1 == T2 would have to STOP radiating towards each other according to your view because there is NO NET FLOW. This doesn't happen.. What really happens in the language of GreenHouse theory is that under this condition.. The back-radiation would equal the forward-radiation.. ((T1 - T2) == 0) Totally consistent with the fact that both objects still HAVE a temp and that they are radiating EQUALLY at each other..

Let's do #2.. For IR EM radiation, the total amount of RADIATED energy depends only on the AMOUNT of thermal energy possessed by that object. NOT where it came from. When addressing this "back-radiation" term.. The molecules of CO2 don't know whether the energy came from direct sunlight or the Ground OR from a fellow CO2 or H2O molecule.

If ANY object RECEIVES and ABSORBS an IR photon -- it WILL effect change in that body. It will RAISE the thermal energy of that body.. Again, in the specific argument about "back-radiation", this means that the surface heat loss is calculated by finding it's gray body emission rate and then SUBTRACTING FROM THAT all the incident Absorbed IR coming from ANYWHERE.. The net result will be a REDUCTION in the loss rate (cooling rate) of the surface. NO VIOLATION of the direction of flow. If there IS ONE --- please tell me where.

It's a simple subtraction man.. If the GHGases were not there, the cooling rate of the planet's surface would be determined by SOLELY by the BBody loss rate.

As for your screaming at me above --- The SOURCE of that energy usually is MULTIPLE sources and furthermore -- it doesn't MATTER what the source was when a photon is ejected. The GHGase is only providing a radiation stream in the back direction that is WEAKER than what it is recieving from the surface. THerefore the CHANGE THAT IT IS EFFECTING is only a reduction in the magnitude of the cooling rate of the planet.. Doesn't violate the 2nd law, Doesn't change direction of net flow.. The reason this causes the surface of the planet to eventually equalize and slightly rise is --- nobody turned down the thermostat when they restricted the cooling rate..

If photons are being aimed at the surface from the cooler atmos (and they are) --- what makes you think they have NO EFFECT?

Give me an example of a mostly ABSORBING surface being hit with IR photons and NOT having its thermal storage raised.. We cannot go to the textbooks if you REJECT everything in the first chapter...

We can forget the thermo textbooks for now until we get the First Chapter definitions of Radiative Heat Transfer down.. So --- Have we resolved #2 ??? Which other ones need addressing?

If we continue this --- you should realize that I believe the TrenBerth diagram of this thermal exchange is ENTIRELY F-ed up for back-radiation.. No freaking way the 'back-radiation' is that high a % of the surface radiation... There is still plenty of room TO DOUBT the MAGNITUDE of numbers asserted by AGW....

We'd do more good for the cause spending time CALCULATING the emission rate of the planet and the emission rate of the GHGas layer --- than arguing about the simple rules for the GHouse effect..

 

[flacaltenn]

Why is understanding the GreenHouse from a physics standpoint so hard?

I don't get it..

1) You take a warm blue ball (like God did) and put it in a heat-sucking near abs Zero, vacuum..
It has a cooling rate that FAR exceeds any ability of the Sun to warm it to life..

ElectroM cooling rate = Trate_earth (as calculated by gray body analysis, excluding convection)

2) To reduce that fatal cooling rate you add a layer of gases capable of retaining heat around it.
(That and you've created convection cooling effects at the same time)..

3) The gases have the property of allowing BROADBAND radiation from the sun to heat the earth (while absorbing primarily in the IR)
The earth converts this EM radiation to heat. Heat causes the earth to glow in PRIMARILY the IR bands.
The gases retard outward flux in these bands.

4) The cooling rate is NOW REDUCED by the IR radiation from those gases that hits the surface acting to simply reduce the magnitude of heat outflow from the earth.. Calculate the body emission from the gaseous layer and call Trate_atmos_toground. Or as demigods called it --- backradiation...

ElectroM cooling rate = Trate_earth - Trate_atmos_toground

5) Final step is to calculate the new stable surface temp.. Since the solar engine for all this is at the same warming rates --- the surface will warm.

You just taken the surface temp from about -15degC to +18degC.. Life is good. Whatzza problem eh?

You wantta get out of the space ship and see what YOUR cooling rate would be in space??

I pretty much guarantee the LACK of back-radiation would EFFECT CHANGE on your core body temp...

 

[gslack]

NOW can you please explain how it is you think that because an object can radiate in any and all directions at once, that it automatically means it can and will effect change in its greater source???

this is the question you have been ranting for the last few pages. let's analyze it.

because an object can radiate in any and all directions at once

are you talking about a CO2 molecule or the atmosphere? one molecule can only emit one radiative photon at a time, in a random direction. where would the energy come from to radiate in every direction, all at the same time? needless to say, I dont think that. even if you are talking about the atmosphere, there is not an infinite amount of radiation, which is what your statement implied. perhaps you are still confused by wirebender's bizarre ranting of a few years ago.

means it can and will effect change in its greater source

what is it? what is its greater source?

OK, enough of making fun of your incoherence. I will shrewdly piece together a likely scenario and question from your disjointed words. did you mean....

even if the atmosphere sends radiation back to the surface, how can you be sure that it will raise the temperature?

excellent question, if I say so myself. radiation returning from the atmosphere is low energy and highly disordered therefore it has little capacity to do work. just about the only thing it is capable of is to cancel out energy that would have escaped from the surface. because this escape route is somewhat blocked, the solar input has to find extra ways to bypass this bottleneck so that the output still matches the input. while the IPCC and CO2 theorists believe that all of the extra returning radiation goes into raising the surface (edit-surface temperature) of the earth (incredibly they even think it has positive feedbacks which triple the effect) to increase outgoing radiation, and thus having more radiation escape even though the percentage escaping is lower than before , but I disagree.

the world has a heat pump system composed of water, vapour, clouds, and precipitation. the sun's input heats the water, evaporation takes place causing the air to become lighter, this causes convection which lifts the water laden air until the adbiatic lapse rate cools the water enough to form clouds, release latent heat, and return the water to the surface as precipitation. any extra surface energy (heat) simply turns on the heat pump sooner. not only this, but there are other systems as well that pump heat into areas that are more favourable for energy loss.

got that? change of equilibrium from back radiation simply shunts solar input into other avenues of escape. of course there will still be some increase of surface temperature, otherwise that energy would already be making more use of the alternate routes.

LOL, Ian you keep altering the your claim.. WHy is that? ROFL.. Your previous defense for back-radiation was all things radiate. When asked how that fact shows backradiation, you claimed it does.. WHY? Who knows you think it does anyway.. LOL.

You just don't understand anything BUT an equation do you.. The reality behind it or what it means is lost to you..

Energy radiated from the sun warms the surface, then that surface radiates which warms the atmosphere, and then the atmosphere radiates back to the surface warming it further. Is the AGW/GH theory claim... You ask whats the source? Well the surface source is the sun, while the atmospheres source is partially the sun but also and predominately the surface. SO in the case of back-radiation as claimed by your pet theory, the surface would be the source and the back-radiation would be from the atmosphere to the surface.. Surface would be warmer in most cases, and the atmosphere cooler, of course we consider all things being equal as far as weather and so forth.

Want to play obtuse now Ian? Knock yourself out, we expected it from you. Now you don't know what back-radiation is fine... You're an imbecile, or a child who can't stand being wrong, either way..

ROFL,you're a moron Ian..

Your list answers your own questions and shoiws how little you actually understand...

1. Yes we know that no shock...And no backraidation needed..

2. Again Known and still doesn't prove back-radiation...

3. Yes and radiating bodies do not have to effect change in warmer bodies. No matter how you try and rationalize it and how many theoretical concepts you pull out of spencers butt...They don't have to because first IF they did we would have perfect machines.. OR in the very least a simple heat engine would almost automatically be better than 99% efficient. Think... If you can reuse radiation from a heated object, by simply placing another object next to it, and allowing that objects radiation to further fuel the other or source object, what would stop you from adding more objects and creating an infinite heat source at the source object? LOL, dude! It's a silly concept.. Mathematically possible but in observation and practice Completely false..

4. LOL, no it shows the amount of IR coming from that object alone. Not the amount of energy re-radiated to an object that is warmer. It's the object's internal state which causes the radiation you read. Damn man how ignorant are you.. It's reading radiation from an object dues to the internal temperature or state of that object. Dude it's silly to claim it does anything else. If it did it wouldn't function like it's supposed to and give false readings constantly. It's retarded Ian ...

5.Yes we know and the fact it's not taught in physics should be a lesson to you.. Idiot...

6. And if cooler objects could add to the temperature of warmer objects we would have infinite heat... LOL, it's silly..The warmer objects don't use the radiated energy from cooler objects so back-radiation is not warming anything.. Jesus dude, use your damn head.. That concept would mean infinite heat from finite sources..

 

[gslack]

Why is understanding the GreenHouse from a physics standpoint so hard?

I don't get it..

1) You take a warm blue ball (like God did) and put it in a heat-sucking near abs Zero, vacuum..
It has a cooling rate that FAR exceeds any ability of the Sun to warm it to life..

ElectroM cooling rate = Trate_earth (as calculated by gray body analysis, excluding convection)

2) To reduce that fatal cooling rate you add a layer of gases capable of retaining heat around it.
(That and you've created convection cooling effects at the same time)..

3) The gases have the property of allowing BROADBAND radiation from the sun to heat the earth (while absorbing primarily in the IR)
The earth converts this EM radiation to heat. Heat causes the earth to glow in PRIMARILY the IR bands.
The gases retard outward flux in these bands.

4) The cooling rate is NOW REDUCED by the IR radiation from those gases that hits the surface acting to simply reduce the magnitude of heat outflow from the earth.. Calculate the body emission from the gaseous layer and call Trate_atmos_toground. Or as demigods called it --- backradiation...

ElectroM cooling rate = Trate_earth - Trate_atmos_toground

5) Final step is to calculate the new stable surface temp.. Since the solar engine for all this is at the same warming rates --- the surface will warm.

You just taken the surface temp from about -15degC to +18degC.. Life is good. Whatzza problem eh?

You wantta get out of the space ship and see what YOUR cooling rate would be in space??

I pretty much guarantee the LACK of back-radiation would EFFECT CHANGE on your core body temp...

Yes, yes and not one part of that relies on back-radiation.. Not a single point... The mere act of the gases slowing heat loss does not require back-radiation, nor does it prove it.. LOL you two are funny now.. You assume it's back radiation and why? Because you were told so by people who need it to prove a false theory...

 

[gslack]

f you want me to answer anymore questions will you at least return the courtesy?

perhaps you could start with why the earth's surface isn't cooling dramatically because of the large discrepancy between solar input and surface output.


gslack- will you answer the question or do I have to put it in an extra large font, or perhaps all-caps?

ALready did several times, you are the one dancing schmuck... Your theory is flawed Ian, and you can't accept it. We know already. You can claim your thermometer proves it all you want but thankfully science knows better, hence it's not being in text books.. Your thermometer measures IR radiation from an object, nothing else... But hey you know better so go and publish this brilliant find and have all the text books changed.. ROFL

 

[SSDD]

Why is understanding the GreenHouse from a physics standpoint so hard?

I don't get it..

1) You take a warm blue ball (like God did) and put it in a heat-sucking near abs Zero, vacuum..
It has a cooling rate that FAR exceeds any ability of the Sun to warm it to life..

ElectroM cooling rate = Trate_earth (as calculated by gray body analysis, excluding convection)

2) To reduce that fatal cooling rate you add a layer of gases capable of retaining heat around it.
(That and you've created convection cooling effects at the same time)..

3) The gases have the property of allowing BROADBAND radiation from the sun to heat the earth (while absorbing primarily in the IR)
The earth converts this EM radiation to heat. Heat causes the earth to glow in PRIMARILY the IR bands.
The gases retard outward flux in these bands.

4) The cooling rate is NOW REDUCED by the IR radiation from those gases that hits the surface acting to simply reduce the magnitude of heat outflow from the earth.. Calculate the body emission from the gaseous layer and call Trate_atmos_toground. Or as demigods called it --- backradiation...

ElectroM cooling rate = Trate_earth - Trate_atmos_toground

5) Final step is to calculate the new stable surface temp.. Since the solar engine for all this is at the same warming rates --- the surface will warm.

You just taken the surface temp from about -15degC to +18degC.. Life is good. Whatzza problem eh?

You wantta get out of the space ship and see what YOUR cooling rate would be in space??

I pretty much guarantee the LACK of back-radiation would EFFECT CHANGE on your core body temp...

Yes, yes and not one part of that relies on back-radiation.. Not a single point... The mere act of the gases slowing heat loss does not require back-radiation, nor does it prove it.. LOL you two are funny now.. You assume it's back radiation and why? Because you were told so by people who need it to prove a false theory...

Guess he hasn't considered the ideal gas laws. Miles deep column of air....wonder why it would be warmer closer to the surface?

 

[gslack]

Why is understanding the GreenHouse from a physics standpoint so hard?

I don't get it..

1) You take a warm blue ball (like God did) and put it in a heat-sucking near abs Zero, vacuum..
It has a cooling rate that FAR exceeds any ability of the Sun to warm it to life..

ElectroM cooling rate = Trate_earth (as calculated by gray body analysis, excluding convection)

2) To reduce that fatal cooling rate you add a layer of gases capable of retaining heat around it.
(That and you've created convection cooling effects at the same time)..

3) The gases have the property of allowing BROADBAND radiation from the sun to heat the earth (while absorbing primarily in the IR)
The earth converts this EM radiation to heat. Heat causes the earth to glow in PRIMARILY the IR bands.
The gases retard outward flux in these bands.

4) The cooling rate is NOW REDUCED by the IR radiation from those gases that hits the surface acting to simply reduce the magnitude of heat outflow from the earth.. Calculate the body emission from the gaseous layer and call Trate_atmos_toground. Or as demigods called it --- backradiation...

ElectroM cooling rate = Trate_earth - Trate_atmos_toground

5) Final step is to calculate the new stable surface temp.. Since the solar engine for all this is at the same warming rates --- the surface will warm.

You just taken the surface temp from about -15degC to +18degC.. Life is good. Whatzza problem eh?

You wantta get out of the space ship and see what YOUR cooling rate would be in space??

I pretty much guarantee the LACK of back-radiation would EFFECT CHANGE on your core body temp...

Yes, yes and not one part of that relies on back-radiation.. Not a single point... The mere act of the gases slowing heat loss does not require back-radiation, nor does it prove it.. LOL you two are funny now.. You assume it's back radiation and why? Because you were told so by people who need it to prove a false theory...

Guess he hasn't considered the ideal gas laws. Miles deep column of air....wonder why it would be warmer closer to the surface?

He's a perfect example of why there is a problem with knowledge without guidance. He knows the math well enough, can even spout off correct theories and tidbits regarding the thing, but he cannot understand what it means in reality.

To him the math says so, so it's correct. Sure if the math's correct, and if our understanding of that math is correct. How can we know the math's correct if the we can't prove the theory is correct?

In science math is used as one tool, to him it's the only tool needed ever.. To him physical proof isn't even a factor, or if it is, it's secondary to the math. Modern education at it's finest..

 

[flacaltenn]

Why is understanding the GreenHouse from a physics standpoint so hard?

I don't get it..

1) You take a warm blue ball (like God did) and put it in a heat-sucking near abs Zero, vacuum..
It has a cooling rate that FAR exceeds any ability of the Sun to warm it to life..

ElectroM cooling rate = Trate_earth (as calculated by gray body analysis, excluding convection)

2) To reduce that fatal cooling rate you add a layer of gases capable of retaining heat around it.
(That and you've created convection cooling effects at the same time)..

3) The gases have the property of allowing BROADBAND radiation from the sun to heat the earth (while absorbing primarily in the IR)
The earth converts this EM radiation to heat. Heat causes the earth to glow in PRIMARILY the IR bands.
The gases retard outward flux in these bands.

4) The cooling rate is NOW REDUCED by the IR radiation from those gases that hits the surface acting to simply reduce the magnitude of heat outflow from the earth.. Calculate the body emission from the gaseous layer and call Trate_atmos_toground. Or as demigods called it --- backradiation...

ElectroM cooling rate = Trate_earth - Trate_atmos_toground

5) Final step is to calculate the new stable surface temp.. Since the solar engine for all this is at the same warming rates --- the surface will warm.

You just taken the surface temp from about -15degC to +18degC.. Life is good. Whatzza problem eh?

You wantta get out of the space ship and see what YOUR cooling rate would be in space??

I pretty much guarantee the LACK of back-radiation would EFFECT CHANGE on your core body temp...

Yes, yes and not one part of that relies on back-radiation.. Not a single point... The mere act of the gases slowing heat loss does not require back-radiation, nor does it prove it.. LOL you two are funny now.. You assume it's back radiation and why? Because you were told so by people who need it to prove a false theory...

Guess he hasn't considered the ideal gas laws. Miles deep column of air....wonder why it would be warmer closer to the surface?

Last try here. You say the gases are slowing heat loss...

Tell me the rationale GSlack style for that change of effective rate of cooling...

BTW: I read you comments to Ian ridiculing the way that Radiation Physics actually works and claiming that it borders on belief on perpetual motion. This is not true.. It's possible to slow the heat loss of a body to a flow approaching zero.. That's just good materials design. That's NOT perpetual motion.. And I don't see anything ridiculous about retaining heat. If you then attempted to do that AND put the heat to work at the same time --- call the patent office in the morning..

I'm breathlessly awaiting the physics of atmos gases slowing the earths cooling rate. Remember -- it's accepted that radiative flow is the primary mechanism here -- so if you use the words convection or conduction -- please cite the justification for ignoring such evidence as in Trenberth work or classic views of the relative contributions of the conductive, convective and radiative components of heating the lower atmos..

 

[flacaltenn]

Here's a very interesting gem that I previously filed.. Seems like the Federation of American Scientists ought to get this simple radiative heating thing correct --- RIGHT???? When I rediscovered this... I was thinking that it sounded pretty much like what I've been writing (fruitlessly) here for a couple days now..

https://www.fas.org/spp/military/docops/afwa/atmos-U1.htm

Radiative equilibrium temperature

If we say that the Earth and Sun are black bodies and therefore absorb and emit radiation equally, a state of radiative equilibrium is achieved. The average at which this occurs is called the radiative equilibrium temperature. Because of the Earth�s distance from the Sun (93 million miles), its radiative equilibrium temperature is about -4degF! This is much lower than the observed average temperature on Earth of 59DegF. What could cause this difference?

One factor that we haven�t discussed yet is the Earth�s atmosphere and its ability to absorb and emit radiation. Unlike the Earth and Sun, the atmosphere does not behave like a black body. It is considered a selective absorber because it selectively absorbs and emits radiation. In other words, it is a good absorber at certain wavelengths but may not be a good absorber of all wavelengths. There is a law in physics that speaks specifically about this phenomenon. Let�s discuss it now.

Kirchoff�s law

Kirchoff�s law says that good absorbers of a certain wavelength are good emitters at that wavelength. Some gases in the atmosphere are selective absorbers. The ozone is a good example of this. We�ve all heard of ozone depletion due to added chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) in the atmosphere. The reason why the ozone is so important is that it protects the Earth from harmful ultraviolet radiation because it selectively absorbs this wavelength.

Carbon dioxide (CO2) and water vapor are also both selective absorbers and emitters. These gases are abundant in the lower atmosphere of the Earth. As the Earth radiates its energy at far-infrared wavelengths, CO2 and water vapor absorb a large portion of this radiation. This absorption increases the kinetic energy (energy of motion) of these gases. These gases (CO2 and water vapor) collide with oxygen and nitrogen molecules which increase the average kinetic energy of the air. The net result of this absorption is that the lower atmosphere warms.

As CO2 and water vapor selectively absorb infrared radiation, they also selectively emit infrared radiation in all directions. Some of this energy is radiated back toward the Earth�s surface where it is absorbed and heats the ground. At this point, the process of the Earth radiating infrared wavelengths continues.

<< RUh ROh.. Sounds like back-radiation don't it? >>

This cycle is popularly known as the greenhouse effect. The addition of cloud cover enhances this effect as the associated tiny cloud droplets are also selective absorbers of infrared wavelengths. This is why calm, cloudy nights are usually warmer than calm, clear nights whereas, calm, cloudy days are cooler than calm, sunny days. If these selective absorbers were not present in the atmosphere, Earth&#65533;s mean radiative equilibrium temperature would be closer to the &#65533;4&#65533;F stated earlier!

Now before you whine about the format of that FAS study brief --- it's part of an active FAS project with the cooperation of military to educate personnel working on space systems.. Mostly Air Force.. The link for the program is at ----

Space Policy Project

Would be totally embarrassing if FAS was passing off bogus educational material wouldn't it????

 

[gslack]

Yes, yes and not one part of that relies on back-radiation.. Not a single point... The mere act of the gases slowing heat loss does not require back-radiation, nor does it prove it.. LOL you two are funny now.. You assume it's back radiation and why? Because you were told so by people who need it to prove a false theory...

Guess he hasn't considered the ideal gas laws. Miles deep column of air....wonder why it would be warmer closer to the surface?

Last try here. You say the gases are slowing heat loss...

Tell me the rationale GSlack style for that change of effective rate of cooling...

BTW: I read you comments to Ian ridiculing the way that Radiation Physics actually works and claiming that it borders on belief on perpetual motion. This is not true.. It's possible to slow the heat loss of a body to a flow approaching zero.. That's just good materials design. That's NOT perpetual motion.. And I don't see anything ridiculous about retaining heat. If you then attempted to do that AND put the heat to work at the same time --- call the patent office in the morning..

I'm breathlessly awaiting the physics of atmos gases slowing the earths cooling rate. Remember -- it's accepted that radiative flow is the primary mechanism here -- so if you use the words convection or conduction -- please cite the justification for ignoring such evidence as in Trenberth work or classic views of the relative contributions of the conductive, convective and radiative components of heating the lower atmos..

NO radiation physics doesn't border on belief in perpetual motion, his interpretation of it does.. See the difference?

ANd the slowing of heat loss is due to the constant transfer of that energy as it is transferred through the gas.. Your own link in your next post gives an example just before it turns into a "climate science" bit of nonsense..

 

[gslack]

Here's a very interesting gem that I previously filed.. Seems like the Federation of American Scientists ought to get this simple radiative heating thing correct --- RIGHT???? When I rediscovered this... I was thinking that it sounded pretty much like what I've been writing (fruitlessly) here for a couple days now..

https://www.fas.org/spp/military/docops/afwa/atmos-U1.htm

Radiative equilibrium temperature

If we say that the Earth and Sun are black bodies and therefore absorb and emit radiation equally, a state of radiative equilibrium is achieved. The average at which this occurs is called the radiative equilibrium temperature. Because of the Earth&#65533;s distance from the Sun (93 million miles), its radiative equilibrium temperature is about -4degF! This is much lower than the observed average temperature on Earth of 59DegF. What could cause this difference?

One factor that we haven&#65533;t discussed yet is the Earth&#65533;s atmosphere and its ability to absorb and emit radiation. Unlike the Earth and Sun, the atmosphere does not behave like a black body. It is considered a selective absorber because it selectively absorbs and emits radiation. In other words, it is a good absorber at certain wavelengths but may not be a good absorber of all wavelengths. There is a law in physics that speaks specifically about this phenomenon. Let&#65533;s discuss it now.

Kirchoff&#65533;s law

Kirchoff&#65533;s law says that good absorbers of a certain wavelength are good emitters at that wavelength. Some gases in the atmosphere are selective absorbers. The ozone is a good example of this. We&#65533;ve all heard of ozone depletion due to added chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) in the atmosphere. The reason why the ozone is so important is that it protects the Earth from harmful ultraviolet radiation because it selectively absorbs this wavelength.

Carbon dioxide (CO2) and water vapor are also both selective absorbers and emitters. These gases are abundant in the lower atmosphere of the Earth. As the Earth radiates its energy at far-infrared wavelengths, CO2 and water vapor absorb a large portion of this radiation. This absorption increases the kinetic energy (energy of motion) of these gases. These gases (CO2 and water vapor) collide with oxygen and nitrogen molecules which increase the average kinetic energy of the air. The net result of this absorption is that the lower atmosphere warms.

As CO2 and water vapor selectively absorb infrared radiation, they also selectively emit infrared radiation in all directions. Some of this energy is radiated back toward the Earth&#65533;s surface where it is absorbed and heats the ground. At this point, the process of the Earth radiating infrared wavelengths continues.

<< RUh ROh.. Sounds like back-radiation don't it? >>

This cycle is popularly known as the greenhouse effect. The addition of cloud cover enhances this effect as the associated tiny cloud droplets are also selective absorbers of infrared wavelengths. This is why calm, cloudy nights are usually warmer than calm, clear nights whereas, calm, cloudy days are cooler than calm, sunny days. If these selective absorbers were not present in the atmosphere, Earth&#65533;s mean radiative equilibrium temperature would be closer to the &#65533;4&#65533;F stated earlier!

Now before you whine about the format of that FAS study brief --- it's part of an active FAS project with the cooperation of military to educate personnel working on space systems.. Mostly Air Force.. The link for the program is at ----

Space Policy Project

Would be totally embarrassing if FAS was passing off bogus educational material wouldn't it????

Your link,interesting.. Now can you tell me why it's from this site... Air Force Weather Agency Doctrine

Yes a climatological reference.. As we said it ONLY appears or applies to climate science, hence the problem..

But hey fine, you say it's factual, fine then show it in a text book and we can end this... Still waiting on that... And by text book we mean standard physics text book, not a climate science online blog or whatever...

Please, we both know by now it's not a fact by any measure.. It's a theory that doesn't hold water in observation..