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

[Foxfyre]

LOL, there is no such thing as "passive" in regards to entropy dumbass. Jesus man.. Everything is effected. Absolute zero is an idealized temperature where entropy stops. IDEALIZED, meaning it is a hypothetical, hypothetical as in not real or at least we haven't been able to prove it's existence yet.

You have some wacky concept of entropy or black-body radiation that not only is not true, but complete make-believe.

Black-body radiation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



Or is it your concept of thermal equilibrium that is nonsense?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermal_equilibrium



So you are discussing equilibrium? Fine then I assume you know the difference between thermal and thermodynamic equilibrium then?



Now as you can see there is more to this than pulling random numbers off a AGW blog and shouting...

I did some checking and found where you got your numbers from... It's part of Boltzmann's work and you are incorrectly trying to get it across. LOL, no idea what you're actually talking about are you?

That's why all the vague circle talk. ROFL,it's okay socko we didn't expect anything more from you..

BOTLZMANN numbnuts...

Stefan?Boltzmann law - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



Idiot..LOL, it gets better...



Does that look familiar? It should it's what you just tried to say but unlike you it was accurately used.. Here's the first line of what you just tried to cut and paste incorrectly as your own..



Yes approximation, meaning its a best guess using what we currently believe based on current knowledge...

Next time you want to cite somebody else's work cite them accurately, and if you aren't at least try and use it correctly socko...

Damn you internet fake scientists get dumber and dumber every day..

My experience with people is that those who don't understand the big picture love to wallow in the details, hoping to cover their tracks.

Two distant bodies in a vacuum. One radiates energy at a wavelength proportional to its absolute temperature. The other absorbs some of the energy and reflects some. It's stable temperature is a function of it's reflectivity and it's size, and will be that temperature at which it reflects exactly as much energy as it absorbs.

If the reflectivity is lowered, a new higher stable temperature will be reached to maintain the energy balance.

High school science. For those who stayed awake.

If you can't agree with that, you are not in a position to understand the complicated stuff.

It is my understanding that those who know nothing only speak in generalities because they don't understand the complex inter-relations of the various chemical and physical operations that occur in this amazingly complex world.

That way when they fuck up let's say thousands of water wells in CA in a misbegotten attempt to clean the air, they can throw their hands up in the air and say "well our goal was good but the details were so complex no one could understand them"....which is patently ridiculous because we SCIENTISTS told them MTBE was bad.

They ignored us and did more environmental damage in 10 years than all the oil companies have in the last 40.

GOOD JOB MORONS!

And the damage done in California via flawed science is miniscule to what the current Administration and global governments intend to do to us if they can gain the control over all of us that they want. And if it in fact turns out that they used flawed or intentionally bogus science to do it, the long range bad results from that are simply too immense to even contemplate.

You'll notice that the siamese triplets and a few other tweedle dums and tweedle dees are not in any way interested in policy in this dicussion. While I don't begrudge them flaunting the science they know or that some pretend to know, I think we are wise not to fo allow the focus to be diverted from the policies that could change the rest of our ives. And not in a good way.

(I stole that from SgtOllieSFC, but it is so appropriate.)

 

[PMZ]

Wow man.. Nuff said there. we can just pack up USMB at this point and replace it all with your Leftist mantra..

Hope your pets understand the concept of a jury or science...

There is the ESSENCE of condescencing, tyrannical want-to-beism that is my political opponent who will NEVER understand choice and liberty and who would never hesitate to use science as a weapon to meet out the justice that they envision they are entitled to...

Good job Dude or Dudette.. You made my day... I finally got the evidence I needed without even waterboarding..

As is typical, I have no idea what you are thinking. So, I will search for some clarity through a couple of simple questions.

Do you think that part of our contract with government is protection from others (foreign or domestic) who would like their freedom at our expense?

I assume that you consider the military and law enforcement legitimate duties of government, right?

We pay them to, by force if necessary, protect our freedom from those who would by force take it away. By invasion, tyranny, slavery, murder, theft, reckless disregard for life, kidnapping, terrorism, etc.

I need to know if we are on the same page still at this point.

Point is ---- by your words, we are not and never will be in the SAME BOOK.. Never mind the same page.. I told you CLEARLY how offensive I find your political point of view to be. When children, pets and citizens are lumped into your same prescription for the justification of government power.

And how badly you mangle the Intent and Meaning of the Bill of Rights (for example).

Answer to your contorted questioning.. You as a citizen are welcome to try and sue me for using the wrong lightbulbs.. But you have no right to commandeer the power of the Federal govt to prevent me from buying them thru force of law until you can consistently win law suits confirming your direct harm.. Or even a class action law suit or two...

There are many, many laws on the books that prevent you from appropriating what's mine to your use. One of those things are the earths resources. You can't, for instance, dispose of toxic resources into the nations water or air. Not even on your land because they will contaminate the resources of others. When you choose to waste electricity thereby throwing away the fuel from our resources to generate it, and dumping the waste heat and products into our atmosphere we certainly can prohibit it. Neither criminal nor civil lawsuite is necessary.

I'm sorry that you have so little respect for our system of government, our Constitution and our country. But that's your bad not ours.

Your freedom cannot come at my or anyone else's expense. That's tyranny.

 

[mamooth]

And the damage done in California via flawed science is miniscule to what the current Administration and global governments intend to do to us if they can gain the control over all of us that they want.

Total control! <cue ominous music>

You'll notice that the siamese triplets

... talk about science, instead of constantly going off on kook political rants. That's because the science isn't political, until right wing fringe cranks try to make it so.

and a few other tweedle dums and tweedle dees are not in any way interested in policy in this dicussion.

Due to the cult brainwashing you've received, you fail at policy as well as science. Instead of beginning with the facts, like we do, you begin with your political cult's whackaloon conclusions about how the socialists are out to get you, and then work back from there. Given you start with crazy, your conclusions end up crazy.

But please, keep explaining. Tell everyone more about this total control over your life that the vast global conspiracy is plotting. Be specific about what this control will consist of. I mean, total control, sounds pretty chilling, so you must have some really good evidence.

 

[PMZ]

Not in terms of laws of THERMAL energy transfer. It's a definition for the fraction of heat energy that is ejected from a blackbody under ElectroMagnetic rules of propagation.. Of course -- it's gonna get mentioned and accounted for --- but does not obey the rules of thermal energy propagation.

My Thermo professors are going to be sorry to hear that. They considered it equal in importance to conduction and convection in accounting for the dynamics of heat transfer.

Naww.. They're quite happy to let the Fields and Waves professor handle all the details of that energy once it's left the surface.. Doesn't need to be analyzed. Just accounted for in the overall energy budget...

How do you "account for it" without understanding it?

If you think that a colder body can warm a hotter body without the consumption of intervening energy, like refrigeration, you obviously never took Thermodynamics

 

[PMZ]

And the damage done in California via flawed science is miniscule to what the current Administration and global governments intend to do to us if they can gain the control over all of us that they want.

Total control! <cue ominous music>

You'll notice that the siamese triplets

... talk about science, instead of constantly going off on kook political rants. That's because the science isn't political, until right wing fringe cranks try to make it so.

and a few other tweedle dums and tweedle dees are not in any way interested in policy in this dicussion.

Due to the cult brainwashing you've received, you fail at policy as well as science. Instead of beginning with the facts, like we do, you begin with your political cult's whackaloon conclusions about how the socialists are out to get you, and then work back from there. Given you start with crazy, your conclusions end up crazy.

But please, keep explaining. Tell everyone more about this total control over your life that the vast global conspiracy is plotting. Be specific about what this control will consist of. I mean, total control, sounds pretty chilling, so you must have some really good evidence.

The boogieman is a high ranking Republican.

 

[PMZ]

My experience with people is that those who don't understand the big picture love to wallow in the details, hoping to cover their tracks.

Two distant bodies in a vacuum. One radiates energy at a wavelength proportional to its absolute temperature. The other absorbs some of the energy and reflects some. It's stable temperature is a function of it's reflectivity and it's size, and will be that temperature at which it reflects exactly as much energy as it absorbs.

If the reflectivity is lowered, a new higher stable temperature will be reached to maintain the energy balance.

High school science. For those who stayed awake.

If you can't agree with that, you are not in a position to understand the complicated stuff.

It is my understanding that those who know nothing only speak in generalities because they don't understand the complex inter-relations of the various chemical and physical operations that occur in this amazingly complex world.

That way when they fuck up let's say thousands of water wells in CA in a misbegotten attempt to clean the air, they can throw their hands up in the air and say "well our goal was good but the details were so complex no one could understand them"....which is patently ridiculous because we SCIENTISTS told them MTBE was bad.

They ignored us and did more environmental damage in 10 years than all the oil companies have in the last 40.

GOOD JOB MORONS!

And the damage done in California via flawed science is miniscule to what the current Administration and global governments intend to do to us if they can gain the control over all of us that they want. And if it in fact turns out that they used flawed or intentionally bogus science to do it, the long range bad results from that are simply too immense to even contemplate.

You'll notice that the siamese triplets and a few other tweedle dums and tweedle dees are not in any way interested in policy in this dicussion. While I don't begrudge them flaunting the science they know or that some pretend to know, I think we are wise not to fo allow the focus to be diverted from the policies that could change the rest of our ives. And not in a good way.

(I stole that from SgtOllieSFC, but it is so appropriate.)

You are certainly welcome to any opinion that you'd like, and I appreciate that you let us know what you wish was true. That way the informed electorate can accurately position you and yours on the scale from cost to benefit.

The future will be different than the past. That's a given. We either act in ways consistent with what we can predict about that future or the reality of it will push us aside. Remember how tough and stuff dinosauers were? Gone, every one, because they didn't adapt when the environment changed.

Right now billions of private and public dollars are flowing to sustainable energy. Virtually nothing towards fossil fuels except natural gas as a temporary step in our withdrawal.

Adaption or extinction is the choice. Science has told us where continued fossil fuel addiction leads. I think that the informed electorate is wise enough to choose adaptation.

What do you think?

 

[flacaltenn]

My Thermo professors are going to be sorry to hear that. They considered it equal in importance to conduction and convection in accounting for the dynamics of heat transfer.

Naww.. They're quite happy to let the Fields and Waves professor handle all the details of that energy once it's left the surface.. Doesn't need to be analyzed. Just accounted for in the overall energy budget...

How do you "account for it" without understanding it?

If you think that a colder body can warm a hotter body without the consumption of intervening energy, like refrigeration, you obviously never took Thermodynamics

In my thermo class, it was easy.. That fraction of energy that disappeared into EM radiation was calculated from the ASSUMPTION of a black body radiator (Boltzman equation) or by telling us what was ejected or absorbed. NEVER was there a discussion of the EM once it left the surface. Nothing on how it propagated, very little even on how much EM energy got absorbed into material as heat..

NOW -- then there was Thermodynamics Properties of Materials (that I didn't take) and some advanced Chemistry courses (which I DID take) that went into exact detail about EM absorption and emission properties and how to model radiative losses and gains.. This stuff doesn't appear in basic Thermo because there needs to be chemical or materials prereqs to getting it across comprehensively...

If you think that a colder body can warm a hotter body without the consumption of intervening energy, like refrigeration, you obviously never took Thermodynamics

No one said anything about intervening energy. A laser diode can be cooler than the surface it impinges on and contribute to thermal energy in that warmer surface. Even the IR energy from a cloud of gas that's COOLER than the surface that the IR impinges on can contribute energy to that hot surface. Got a problem with that?

Any EM radiation from ANYTHING can contribute energy to the material it impinges on..

PHOTONS DON'T CARE ABOUT THE TEMPERATURE OF WHAT THEY ARE DIRECTED AT or the temperature of the medium they are traveling through (other than speed changes and lensing due to thermal distortion of the medium)... THAT'S THE POINT....

Otherwise -- Captain Kirk would have to measure the Hull temperature of the Klingon vessel before firing...

And some of the confusion about the GreenHouse.

The effect is due to BLACK BODY radiation (surface of earth) of IR being converted to heat in an otherwise cooler gas. (that's the EM part) The 2nd part of that is --- that incremental rise in temperature of the tropo acts to reduce the thermal gradient -- thus reducing heat loss from the lower atmosphere and hence the surface. (that's the Thermo part)

GHGs DON'T CONTRIBUTE TO HEAT ENERGY ---- They merely impede thermal conduction cooling thru the atmosphere by retaining heat that previously WAS surface generated InfraRed ((and should have,,, barring the interference of man-made gas guzzling SUVs, simply gone out into the cosmos)). The energy source is the big bank of Energy that is the Earth.

 

[numan]

There are many, many laws on the books that prevent you from appropriating what's mine to your use. One of those things are the earths resources. You can't, for instance, dispose of toxic resources into the nations water or air. Not even on your land because they will contaminate the resources of others.

How quaintly, endearingly naive of you! I'll bet you're really cute.

I certainly don't want to spoil your illusions by telling you that those with money and power can do pretty much what they want without worrying about the Constitution or the laws.

The birds fly through the webs that catch the little flies.
---Old Roman Proverb

I'm sorry that you have so little respect for our system of government, our Constitution and our country. But that's your bad not ours.

If they want my respect, they'd bloody well have to earn it first!

Your freedom cannot come at my or anyone else's expense. That's tyranny.

Welcome to the world as we know it.
.

 

[PMZ]

There are many, many laws on the books that prevent you from appropriating what's mine to your use. One of those things are the earths resources. You can't, for instance, dispose of toxic resources into the nations water or air. Not even on your land because they will contaminate the resources of others.

How quaintly, endearingly naive of you! I'll bet you're really cute.

I certainly don't want to spoil your illusions by telling you that those with money and power can do pretty much what they want without worrying about the Constitution or the laws.

The birds fly through the webs that catch the little flies.
---Old Roman Proverb

I'm sorry that you have so little respect for our system of government, our Constitution and our country. But that's your bad not ours.

If they want my respect, they'd bloody well have to earn it first!

Your freedom cannot come at my or anyone else's expense. That's tyranny.

Welcome to the world as we know it.
.

I was lucky to be born in, and have chosen to continue to live in, a country that has no tolerance for tyranny.

Easy choice as I've been in countries that aren't as specific as ours is about that.

 

[PMZ]

Naww.. They're quite happy to let the Fields and Waves professor handle all the details of that energy once it's left the surface.. Doesn't need to be analyzed. Just accounted for in the overall energy budget...

How do you "account for it" without understanding it?

If you think that a colder body can warm a hotter body without the consumption of intervening energy, like refrigeration, you obviously never took Thermodynamics

In my thermo class, it was easy.. That fraction of energy that disappeared into EM radiation was calculated from the ASSUMPTION of a black body radiator (Boltzman equation) or by telling us what was ejected or absorbed. NEVER was there a discussion of the EM once it left the surface. Nothing on how it propagated, very little even on how much EM energy got absorbed into material as heat..

NOW -- then there was Thermodynamics Properties of Materials (that I didn't take) and some advanced Chemistry courses (which I DID take) that went into exact detail about EM absorption and emission properties and how to model radiative losses and gains.. This stuff doesn't appear in basic Thermo because there needs to be chemical or materials prereqs to getting it across comprehensively...

If you think that a colder body can warm a hotter body without the consumption of intervening energy, like refrigeration, you obviously never took Thermodynamics

No one said anything about intervening energy. A laser diode can be cooler than the surface it impinges on and contribute to thermal energy in that warmer surface. Even the IR energy from a cloud of gas that's COOLER than the surface that the IR impinges on can contribute energy to that hot surface. Got a problem with that?

Any EM radiation from ANYTHING can contribute energy to the material it impinges on..

PHOTONS DON'T CARE ABOUT THE TEMPERATURE OF WHAT THEY ARE DIRECTED AT or the temperature of the medium they are traveling through (other than speed changes and lensing due to thermal distortion of the medium)... THAT'S THE POINT....

Otherwise -- Captain Kirk would have to measure the Hull temperature of the Klingon vessel before firing...

And some of the confusion about the GreenHouse.

The effect is due to BLACK BODY radiation (surface of earth) of IR being converted to heat in an otherwise cooler gas. (that's the EM part) The 2nd part of that is --- that incremental rise in temperature of the tropo acts to reduce the thermal gradient -- thus reducing heat loss from the lower atmosphere and hence the surface. (that's the Thermo part)

GHGs DON'T CONTRIBUTE TO HEAT ENERGY ---- They merely impede thermal conduction cooling thru the atmosphere by retaining heat that previously WAS surface generated InfraRed ((and should have,,, barring the interference of man-made gas guzzling SUVs, simply gone out into the cosmos)). The energy source is the big bank of Energy that is the Earth.

How much heat do you calculate that the earth adds to the sun?

 

[flacaltenn]

How do you "account for it" without understanding it?

If you think that a colder body can warm a hotter body without the consumption of intervening energy, like refrigeration, you obviously never took Thermodynamics

In my thermo class, it was easy.. That fraction of energy that disappeared into EM radiation was calculated from the ASSUMPTION of a black body radiator (Boltzman equation) or by telling us what was ejected or absorbed. NEVER was there a discussion of the EM once it left the surface. Nothing on how it propagated, very little even on how much EM energy got absorbed into material as heat..

NOW -- then there was Thermodynamics Properties of Materials (that I didn't take) and some advanced Chemistry courses (which I DID take) that went into exact detail about EM absorption and emission properties and how to model radiative losses and gains.. This stuff doesn't appear in basic Thermo because there needs to be chemical or materials prereqs to getting it across comprehensively...

If you think that a colder body can warm a hotter body without the consumption of intervening energy, like refrigeration, you obviously never took Thermodynamics

No one said anything about intervening energy. A laser diode can be cooler than the surface it impinges on and contribute to thermal energy in that warmer surface. Even the IR energy from a cloud of gas that's COOLER than the surface that the IR impinges on can contribute energy to that hot surface. Got a problem with that?

Any EM radiation from ANYTHING can contribute energy to the material it impinges on..

PHOTONS DON'T CARE ABOUT THE TEMPERATURE OF WHAT THEY ARE DIRECTED AT or the temperature of the medium they are traveling through (other than speed changes and lensing due to thermal distortion of the medium)... THAT'S THE POINT....

Otherwise -- Captain Kirk would have to measure the Hull temperature of the Klingon vessel before firing...

And some of the confusion about the GreenHouse.

The effect is due to BLACK BODY radiation (surface of earth) of IR being converted to heat in an otherwise cooler gas. (that's the EM part) The 2nd part of that is --- that incremental rise in temperature of the tropo acts to reduce the thermal gradient -- thus reducing heat loss from the lower atmosphere and hence the surface. (that's the Thermo part)

GHGs DON'T CONTRIBUTE TO HEAT ENERGY ---- They merely impede thermal conduction cooling thru the atmosphere by retaining heat that previously WAS surface generated InfraRed ((and should have,,, barring the interference of man-made gas guzzling SUVs, simply gone out into the cosmos)). The energy source is the big bank of Energy that is the Earth.

How much heat do you calculate that the earth adds to the sun?

Now you're getting facetious.. And I don't have enough free time to play guru to your rope-a-dope. You might go ask those idiot moron cousins of yours that want to harness the EM energy from our Moon to power their homes at night with photovoltaics.. Its got to do with our Boltzman radiation that leaves the atmosphere and an exercise in geometry.. You can even do it.. ((in a week or so))

If the light arrives there and is absorbed --- it contributes to heating.. Got it???? Good...

 

[PMZ]

In my thermo class, it was easy.. That fraction of energy that disappeared into EM radiation was calculated from the ASSUMPTION of a black body radiator (Boltzman equation) or by telling us what was ejected or absorbed. NEVER was there a discussion of the EM once it left the surface. Nothing on how it propagated, very little even on how much EM energy got absorbed into material as heat..

NOW -- then there was Thermodynamics Properties of Materials (that I didn't take) and some advanced Chemistry courses (which I DID take) that went into exact detail about EM absorption and emission properties and how to model radiative losses and gains.. This stuff doesn't appear in basic Thermo because there needs to be chemical or materials prereqs to getting it across comprehensively...



No one said anything about intervening energy. A laser diode can be cooler than the surface it impinges on and contribute to thermal energy in that warmer surface. Even the IR energy from a cloud of gas that's COOLER than the surface that the IR impinges on can contribute energy to that hot surface. Got a problem with that?

Any EM radiation from ANYTHING can contribute energy to the material it impinges on..

PHOTONS DON'T CARE ABOUT THE TEMPERATURE OF WHAT THEY ARE DIRECTED AT or the temperature of the medium they are traveling through (other than speed changes and lensing due to thermal distortion of the medium)... THAT'S THE POINT....

Otherwise -- Captain Kirk would have to measure the Hull temperature of the Klingon vessel before firing...

And some of the confusion about the GreenHouse.

The effect is due to BLACK BODY radiation (surface of earth) of IR being converted to heat in an otherwise cooler gas. (that's the EM part) The 2nd part of that is --- that incremental rise in temperature of the tropo acts to reduce the thermal gradient -- thus reducing heat loss from the lower atmosphere and hence the surface. (that's the Thermo part)

GHGs DON'T CONTRIBUTE TO HEAT ENERGY ---- They merely impede thermal conduction cooling thru the atmosphere by retaining heat that previously WAS surface generated InfraRed ((and should have,,, barring the interference of man-made gas guzzling SUVs, simply gone out into the cosmos)). The energy source is the big bank of Energy that is the Earth.

How much heat do you calculate that the earth adds to the sun?

Now you're getting facetious.. And I don't have enough free time to play guru to your rope-a-dope. You might go ask those idiot moron cousins of yours that want to harness the EM energy from our Moon to power their homes at night with photovoltaics.. Its got to do with our Boltzman radiation that leaves the atmosphere and an exercise in geometry.. You can even do it.. ((in a week or so))

If the light arrives there and is absorbed --- it contributes to heating.. Got it???? Good...

When will you notify the science world that you've repealed the Second Law of Thermodynamics?

 

[gslack]

Simply the fact that the science isn't complete and politics grabs on anything to attack a issue. You can see even people like Hansen admitting that maybe we didn't understand it like we once thought with this Aerosol debate or the ocean one....

This is a opening for people to attack the issue very hard. Science evolves within a way that invites this.

We should just admit that co2 is a driver within the climate system that helps bring on a positive within it. No more or less should state the issue. We should then point it out clearly to the public that there's many negative ones too. Educating them on why the temperature chart looks like it does is very important within context is where we're lacking. Only then can we bring up the bads of this positive.

The conservative movement doesn't give a damn about the science as it is a economic movement.

Two bodies in a vacuum. One radiates energy. The other is passive. When the passive body reflects as much as it absorbs, it remains at constant temperature. If its reflectance lowers, it must, must, must move to a higher temperature in order to achieve and maintain energy balance.

There are simply no other possibilities. Everything else is about the details of the process to restore balance.

Greenhouse gas concentration in our atmosphere have the affect of lowering our reflectance.

Pretty severely mangled, but better than the combative crap that I've seen on this thread so far..

My gosh folks -- its not that hard once you realize there are SEVERAL different text books required here. The laws of EM propagation have NOTHING to do with laws of Thermodynamics.

EM energy in the form of light or IR or UV CAN AND DO propagate from cooler to hotter objects.

I can't imagine why Polar and SSDD want to deny the role of GHGases in warming the planet. And I abhor your inference that religious people can't comprehend or practice science.

It's actually quite simple and most of the errors I've seen here is because of the confusion between EM radiation and heating. They follow different rules. And YOU are only partly right about CO2 "lowering our reflectance". It is not a great reflector reflector of the INCIDENT sunlight which comes into the surface in a broad band of wavelengths, but it does ABSORB the longer wave IR radiation that is generated by the Black Body effect of the earth's surface. Not as good as dominating water vapor, and it does saturate in its ability to convert long wave IR to heat, but nonetheless, this conversion of long wave to heat in the troposphere DOES heat the troposphere. EVEN IF the troposphere is cooler than the surface.

I could heat hamburgers with IR thru a vacuum tube with no Thermodynamics involved in the transfer. Just as the Sun heats the earth thru the cold vacuum of space. Furthermore, I COULD lower the emitter temperature of the IR heater to near Zero and still use it efficiently to heat burgers at a distance. You are just spoiled because most EM emitters "self-heat" and end up being quite hot because of the materials involved and the inefficiencies of converting electrical power in EM radiation.. But it's not REQUIRED that an EM emission source be "warmer than the impinged surface" in order to contribute to thermal energy in that material.. No science at all says that...

I could blast nitrogen with long wave IR all night long and not raise it's temperature. But because of the absorption bands in GHGases, it will HEAT if radiated at the earth's Black Body frequencies. That's the GreenHouse. It's NOT a material like glass that's preventing convection or conduction heating. That's a disservice in the naming of the effect. It's a change in the THERMAL RESISTANCE of that thin layer of atmosphere caused by the mater4ial composition of that layer.

All the rest you need to know comes from the Thermo book which defines that the AMOUNT of heat energy flow is proportional to the Temp diffs between the surfaces. If you raise a thermal barrier ANYWHERE in the trop. , then the heat transfer to space will slow down the THERMAL energy flow towards space. ((Thus the confusion about detecting a cooler or warmer Stratosphere in the presence of warming. It's not clear that a couple degree barrier in the Trop will have a distinct and detectable fingerprint farther up because its too small and the heat paths and mixing are too complex))

That's it.. and there are good and valid reasons to discount the hysteria about CO2 forced heating of the earth surface. But in THEORY, and in real life, it DOES what the "GreenHouse" theory says it does. Only not as a prime driver of the climate as the wacky believers declare...

THIMK a little about the diff between your Field and Wave class and your Thermo class and then we'll all be on a better track here..

The issue isn't if GH gases can react to long wave IR, and shed some of that heat back out. The problem is whether or not that IR radiated from the GH Gases can warm the already warmer surface, its source. The second laws states no, but the warmers seem to think it can anyway without violating the 2nd law, or with bending it somehow depending on who you ask.

 

[gslack]

Did you agree or not?

Yes we agree you're a posturing buffon, and a sock.. A bad one...

Mamooth? Saigon? come get little brother he's too ignorant to be left alone..

Most people understand why the Faithful Believe. They've been promised a place in Heaven and, with no proof either way, they go with the preferable future.

Why do conservatives believe then in what is certainly, according to prevailing science, wrong?

They've been promised the heaven of lower costs now and outside of their lifespan, nothing else matters?

The same argument that keeps people smoking. Pleasure now, consequences later.

Responsible people have to put up with paying the consequences of smokers and science deniers.

Wrong certainly, but what saves us is democracy. We can render impotent in government those who prefer irresponsibility.

That will certainly not change their minds but will change their impact on us.

Parents sometimes call that "time out".

BLAH, BLAH, BLAH... Any chance of you making any sense on this subject?

You have inaccurately cited Boltzmann and pretended it was your own work, you have shown you do not understand the difference between thermodynamic, and thermal interactions, you have inaccurately tried to use various other concepts all of which you show to have little if any actual knowledge on, and when it's outed you ramble vague general statements that do not address anything...

LOL, socko you're really not very good at this..

 

[PMZ]

Yes we agree you're a posturing buffon, and a sock.. A bad one...

Mamooth? Saigon? come get little brother he's too ignorant to be left alone..

Most people understand why the Faithful Believe. They've been promised a place in Heaven and, with no proof either way, they go with the preferable future.

Why do conservatives believe then in what is certainly, according to prevailing science, wrong?

They've been promised the heaven of lower costs now and outside of their lifespan, nothing else matters?

The same argument that keeps people smoking. Pleasure now, consequences later.

Responsible people have to put up with paying the consequences of smokers and science deniers.

Wrong certainly, but what saves us is democracy. We can render impotent in government those who prefer irresponsibility.

That will certainly not change their minds but will change their impact on us.

Parents sometimes call that "time out".

BLAH, BLAH, BLAH... Any chance of you making any sense on this subject?

You have inaccurately cited Boltzmann and pretended it was your own work, you have shown you do not understand the difference between thermodynamic, and thermal interactions, you have inaccurately tried to use various other concepts all of which you show to have little if any actual knowledge on, and when it's outed you ramble vague general statements that do not address anything...

LOL, socko you're really not very good at this..

Don't forget that you are in political time out. Don't call us, we'll call you when we need you.

 

[PMZ]

Two bodies in a vacuum. One radiates energy. The other is passive. When the passive body reflects as much as it absorbs, it remains at constant temperature. If its reflectance lowers, it must, must, must move to a higher temperature in order to achieve and maintain energy balance.

There are simply no other possibilities. Everything else is about the details of the process to restore balance.

Greenhouse gas concentration in our atmosphere have the affect of lowering our reflectance.

Pretty severely mangled, but better than the combative crap that I've seen on this thread so far..

My gosh folks -- its not that hard once you realize there are SEVERAL different text books required here. The laws of EM propagation have NOTHING to do with laws of Thermodynamics.

EM energy in the form of light or IR or UV CAN AND DO propagate from cooler to hotter objects.

I can't imagine why Polar and SSDD want to deny the role of GHGases in warming the planet. And I abhor your inference that religious people can't comprehend or practice science.

It's actually quite simple and most of the errors I've seen here is because of the confusion between EM radiation and heating. They follow different rules. And YOU are only partly right about CO2 "lowering our reflectance". It is not a great reflector reflector of the INCIDENT sunlight which comes into the surface in a broad band of wavelengths, but it does ABSORB the longer wave IR radiation that is generated by the Black Body effect of the earth's surface. Not as good as dominating water vapor, and it does saturate in its ability to convert long wave IR to heat, but nonetheless, this conversion of long wave to heat in the troposphere DOES heat the troposphere. EVEN IF the troposphere is cooler than the surface.

I could heat hamburgers with IR thru a vacuum tube with no Thermodynamics involved in the transfer. Just as the Sun heats the earth thru the cold vacuum of space. Furthermore, I COULD lower the emitter temperature of the IR heater to near Zero and still use it efficiently to heat burgers at a distance. You are just spoiled because most EM emitters "self-heat" and end up being quite hot because of the materials involved and the inefficiencies of converting electrical power in EM radiation.. But it's not REQUIRED that an EM emission source be "warmer than the impinged surface" in order to contribute to thermal energy in that material.. No science at all says that...

I could blast nitrogen with long wave IR all night long and not raise it's temperature. But because of the absorption bands in GHGases, it will HEAT if radiated at the earth's Black Body frequencies. That's the GreenHouse. It's NOT a material like glass that's preventing convection or conduction heating. That's a disservice in the naming of the effect. It's a change in the THERMAL RESISTANCE of that thin layer of atmosphere caused by the mater4ial composition of that layer.

All the rest you need to know comes from the Thermo book which defines that the AMOUNT of heat energy flow is proportional to the Temp diffs between the surfaces. If you raise a thermal barrier ANYWHERE in the trop. , then the heat transfer to space will slow down the THERMAL energy flow towards space. ((Thus the confusion about detecting a cooler or warmer Stratosphere in the presence of warming. It's not clear that a couple degree barrier in the Trop will have a distinct and detectable fingerprint farther up because its too small and the heat paths and mixing are too complex))

That's it.. and there are good and valid reasons to discount the hysteria about CO2 forced heating of the earth surface. But in THEORY, and in real life, it DOES what the "GreenHouse" theory says it does. Only not as a prime driver of the climate as the wacky believers declare...

THIMK a little about the diff between your Field and Wave class and your Thermo class and then we'll all be on a better track here..

The issue isn't if GH gases can react to long wave IR, and shed some of that heat back out. The problem is whether or not that IR radiated from the GH Gases can warm the already warmer surface, its source. The second laws states no, but the warmers seem to think it can anyway without violating the 2nd law, or with bending it somehow depending on who you ask.

I suspect this is way above your pay grade, but here is why "the warmers" are correct.

The Amazing Case of ?Back Radiation? ? Part Three | The Science of Doom

 

[PMZ]

Yes we agree you're a posturing buffon, and a sock.. A bad one...

Mamooth? Saigon? come get little brother he's too ignorant to be left alone..

Most people understand why the Faithful Believe. They've been promised a place in Heaven and, with no proof either way, they go with the preferable future.

Why do conservatives believe then in what is certainly, according to prevailing science, wrong?

They've been promised the heaven of lower costs now and outside of their lifespan, nothing else matters?

The same argument that keeps people smoking. Pleasure now, consequences later.

Responsible people have to put up with paying the consequences of smokers and science deniers.

Wrong certainly, but what saves us is democracy. We can render impotent in government those who prefer irresponsibility.

That will certainly not change their minds but will change their impact on us.

Parents sometimes call that "time out".

BLAH, BLAH, BLAH... Any chance of you making any sense on this subject?

You have inaccurately cited Boltzmann and pretended it was your own work, you have shown you do not understand the difference between thermodynamic, and thermal interactions, you have inaccurately tried to use various other concepts all of which you show to have little if any actual knowledge on, and when it's outed you ramble vague general statements that do not address anything...

LOL, socko you're really not very good at this..

Where did I "cite Boltzmann"?

 

[flacaltenn]

How much heat do you calculate that the earth adds to the sun?

Now you're getting facetious.. And I don't have enough free time to play guru to your rope-a-dope. You might go ask those idiot moron cousins of yours that want to harness the EM energy from our Moon to power their homes at night with photovoltaics.. Its got to do with our Boltzman radiation that leaves the atmosphere and an exercise in geometry.. You can even do it.. ((in a week or so))

If the light arrives there and is absorbed --- it contributes to heating.. Got it???? Good...

When will you notify the science world that you've repealed the Second Law of Thermodynamics?

Haven't repealed the thermal direction of transfer part of the 2nd law. NET energy transfers will be from Hot to Cold. But that's a THERMAL gradient. Photons don't obey thermal gradients. You on the other hand might find me a Thermo textbook that says """"when RADIATIVE (that's key) energy flows from a cold body to a hot body, the warmer body MUST REJECT the radiation from the colder body or be cited for violating the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics"""

Happy hunting son...

In the meantime, you better inform your AGW pals that there is no such as "down dwelling regenerated IR" in the TrenBerth analysis. Because last time I checked --- there it was --- 333W/m2. IR from the cool sky being redirected to the warmer surface of earth contributing to dreaded global warming. Care to explain that to me??

 

[flacaltenn]

Two bodies in a vacuum. One radiates energy. The other is passive. When the passive body reflects as much as it absorbs, it remains at constant temperature. If its reflectance lowers, it must, must, must move to a higher temperature in order to achieve and maintain energy balance.

There are simply no other possibilities. Everything else is about the details of the process to restore balance.

Greenhouse gas concentration in our atmosphere have the affect of lowering our reflectance.

Pretty severely mangled, but better than the combative crap that I've seen on this thread so far..

My gosh folks -- its not that hard once you realize there are SEVERAL different text books required here. The laws of EM propagation have NOTHING to do with laws of Thermodynamics.

EM energy in the form of light or IR or UV CAN AND DO propagate from cooler to hotter objects.

I can't imagine why Polar and SSDD want to deny the role of GHGases in warming the planet. And I abhor your inference that religious people can't comprehend or practice science.

It's actually quite simple and most of the errors I've seen here is because of the confusion between EM radiation and heating. They follow different rules. And YOU are only partly right about CO2 "lowering our reflectance". It is not a great reflector reflector of the INCIDENT sunlight which comes into the surface in a broad band of wavelengths, but it does ABSORB the longer wave IR radiation that is generated by the Black Body effect of the earth's surface. Not as good as dominating water vapor, and it does saturate in its ability to convert long wave IR to heat, but nonetheless, this conversion of long wave to heat in the troposphere DOES heat the troposphere. EVEN IF the troposphere is cooler than the surface.

I could heat hamburgers with IR thru a vacuum tube with no Thermodynamics involved in the transfer. Just as the Sun heats the earth thru the cold vacuum of space. Furthermore, I COULD lower the emitter temperature of the IR heater to near Zero and still use it efficiently to heat burgers at a distance. You are just spoiled because most EM emitters "self-heat" and end up being quite hot because of the materials involved and the inefficiencies of converting electrical power in EM radiation.. But it's not REQUIRED that an EM emission source be "warmer than the impinged surface" in order to contribute to thermal energy in that material.. No science at all says that...

I could blast nitrogen with long wave IR all night long and not raise it's temperature. But because of the absorption bands in GHGases, it will HEAT if radiated at the earth's Black Body frequencies. That's the GreenHouse. It's NOT a material like glass that's preventing convection or conduction heating. That's a disservice in the naming of the effect. It's a change in the THERMAL RESISTANCE of that thin layer of atmosphere caused by the mater4ial composition of that layer.

All the rest you need to know comes from the Thermo book which defines that the AMOUNT of heat energy flow is proportional to the Temp diffs between the surfaces. If you raise a thermal barrier ANYWHERE in the trop. , then the heat transfer to space will slow down the THERMAL energy flow towards space. ((Thus the confusion about detecting a cooler or warmer Stratosphere in the presence of warming. It's not clear that a couple degree barrier in the Trop will have a distinct and detectable fingerprint farther up because its too small and the heat paths and mixing are too complex))

That's it.. and there are good and valid reasons to discount the hysteria about CO2 forced heating of the earth surface. But in THEORY, and in real life, it DOES what the "GreenHouse" theory says it does. Only not as a prime driver of the climate as the wacky believers declare...

THIMK a little about the diff between your Field and Wave class and your Thermo class and then we'll all be on a better track here..

The issue isn't if GH gases can react to long wave IR, and shed some of that heat back out. The problem is whether or not that IR radiated from the GH Gases can warm the already warmer surface, its source. The second laws states no, but the warmers seem to think it can anyway without violating the 2nd law, or with bending it somehow depending on who you ask.

Remember that independent of RE-RADIATED IR to the surface, these gases have warmed themselves from the up-going long wave IR.. This alone is enough to reduce the thermal gradient thru the Tropo. But also, there is Thermodynamic convection going on causing warm air at the surface to rise and colder air to sink creating a TRUE thermal path for heat to conduct directly.

What I'm saying is that RADIATED IR CAN AND DOES flow independent of the temp diff. So there is a "back-radiation" going on..

But the NET ENERGY EXCHANGE will be from warmer to colder. Which is LARGELY the direct thermal path due to convection/conduction and the more plentiful IR generated by the warmer Black Body Earth.. No Thermo law violated or harmed.

Realize also because of the complexity of convection in the Tropo, the air aloft is not ALWAYS colder than the surface. Our ability to peg the numbers in the TrenBerth diagram is HIGHLY suspect. Particularly when Trenberth has all of the re-radiated IR reaching the surface and none reflected. In fact, someone needs to explain to me where EXACTLY is the direct THERMAL exchange due to convection/conduction in that diagram...

 

[IanC]

My Thermo professors are going to be sorry to hear that. They considered it equal in importance to conduction and convection in accounting for the dynamics of heat transfer.

Naww.. They're quite happy to let the Fields and Waves professor handle all the details of that energy once it's left the surface.. Doesn't need to be analyzed. Just accounted for in the overall energy budget...

How do you "account for it" without understanding it?

If you think that a colder body can warm a hotter body without the consumption of intervening energy, like refrigeration, you obviously never took Thermodynamics

radiation between two bodies is a composite between radiation in and radiation out. the cooler body still radiates. you can compute the radiation from the warm body { kTh^4 } and the amount from the cooler body { kTc^4 } but you cannot just examine one side or the other of the equation because both are happening at the same time. the warmer body always radiates more, and at a slightly higher avg energy wavelength therefore the second law is always in effect.