In Support of the A in AGW

[SSDD]

The problem is that you overestimate the importance of radiation...it is a bit player down here where we live...and CO2 is not even a walk on...

How can radiation be a bit player when the earth is radiating out 400 W/m2 on average, and the sun is only radiating in 160 W/m2. I wouldn't call that a bit player when it's out-radiating the sun.

You seem to be unable to grasp the fact that the incoming is short wave...high energy radiation while the outgoing is long wave radiated after the high energy short wave has been absorbed.

Get a clue guy....really.

 

[IanC]

There have been two interesting concepts brought up in the last couple of pages.

Equipartition theory is useful to highlight how molecular collisions drive the creation of radiation but it does not describe reality because there is a temperature gradient in the atmosphere.

The surface radiating more energy than the solar input it receives makes it obvious that there are more conditions that need to be examined than just solar input equals surface output. A very poor analogy is that GHGs are like a dam on a river that causes water to back up and pool. Yes there is more water (read energy) available but after the dam is filled the same amount of water spills over as before the dam.

Another related concept is that solar input is both high energy and highly ordered. It is capable of doing work. Surface IR is much less ordered and lower energy. Atmospheric IR is less energetic still, and almost completely unordered and diffuse. Entropy has increased as solar input has performed work on the Earth and waste heat has been discharged into space.

One of the main problems with the models is that they treat waste heat as the equivalent to solar input. It is not. The potential to create entropy has been used up. The work has already been done.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

And why is Sun's corona 200 times hotter than the surface?

Why isn't the much hotter corona heating the Sun's surface?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

And why is Sun's corona 200 times hotter than the surface?

Why isn't the much hotter corona heating the Sun's surface?

Why isn't the much hotter corona heating the Sun's surface?

Any photons emitted by the corona and hitting the surface would heat the surface.

 

[jc456]

And why is Sun's corona 200 times hotter than the surface?

Why isn't the much hotter corona heating the Sun's surface?

Why isn't the much hotter corona heating the Sun's surface?

Any photons emitted by the corona and hitting the surface would heat the surface.

LOL, dude again, it would mean that the sun would blow up if that indeed was happening. Holy crap the stuff you just can't make up.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

And why is Sun's corona 200 times hotter than the surface?

Why isn't the much hotter corona heating the Sun's surface?

Why isn't the much hotter corona heating the Sun's surface?

Any photons emitted by the corona and hitting the surface would heat the surface.

LOL, dude again, it would mean that the sun would blow up if that indeed was happening. Holy crap the stuff you just can't make up.

The Sun would blow up if photons from the corona hit the surface of the Sun?

Wow, the things you learn on USMB.

Derp.

 

[jc456]

And why is Sun's corona 200 times hotter than the surface?

Why isn't the much hotter corona heating the Sun's surface?

Why isn't the much hotter corona heating the Sun's surface?

Any photons emitted by the corona and hitting the surface would heat the surface.

LOL, dude again, it would mean that the sun would blow up if that indeed was happening. Holy crap the stuff you just can't make up.

The Sun would blow up if photons from the corona hit the surface of the Sun?

Wow, the things you learn on USMB.

Derp.

well it seems you believe in perpetual motion.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

And why is Sun's corona 200 times hotter than the surface?

Why isn't the much hotter corona heating the Sun's surface?

Why isn't the much hotter corona heating the Sun's surface?

Any photons emitted by the corona and hitting the surface would heat the surface.

LOL, dude again, it would mean that the sun would blow up if that indeed was happening. Holy crap the stuff you just can't make up.

The Sun would blow up if photons from the corona hit the surface of the Sun?

Wow, the things you learn on USMB.

Derp.

well it seems you believe in perpetual motion.

Photons hitting the Sun's surface is perpetual motion?

Did you make it through 8th grade science?
It's clear you retained nothing higher, if you even took it.

 

[jc456]

And why is Sun's corona 200 times hotter than the surface?

Why isn't the much hotter corona heating the Sun's surface?

Why isn't the much hotter corona heating the Sun's surface?

Any photons emitted by the corona and hitting the surface would heat the surface.

LOL, dude again, it would mean that the sun would blow up if that indeed was happening. Holy crap the stuff you just can't make up.

The Sun would blow up if photons from the corona hit the surface of the Sun?

Wow, the things you learn on USMB.

Derp.

well it seems you believe in perpetual motion.

Photons hitting the Sun's surface is perpetual motion?

Did you make it through 8th grade science?
It's clear you retained nothing higher, if you even took it.

It would be a grade further than you

 

[IanC]

And why is Sun's corona 200 times hotter than the surface?

Why isn't the much hotter corona heating the Sun's surface?

I'm pretty sure if you did even the most cursory search you would find out that the corona is hot because of ions in a magnetic field rather than direct heating from the surface.

 

[Wuwei]

You seem to be unable to grasp the fact that the incoming is short wave...high energy radiation while the outgoing is long wave radiated after the high energy short wave has been absorbed.

Exactly right. The earth absorbs 160 W/m2 short wave radiation and emits 400 W/m2 long wave radiation. All climate scientist can explain that imbalance. Can you explain that energy imbalance too?

 

[Wuwei]

There have been two interesting concepts brought up in the last couple of pages.

Equipartition theory is useful to highlight how molecular collisions drive the creation of radiation but it does not describe reality because there is a temperature gradient in the atmosphere.

You will have to explain your thinking more. If there is a gradient, a small local volume of air at any height will be largely at the same temperature, and the equipartition of energy will hold for that volume. Equipartition was brought up only to show the mechanism of how an ensemble of atoms behaves, and that it is not a failure if a molecule absorbing IR is not the same to emit IR.

Another related concept is that solar input is both high energy and highly ordered. It is capable of doing work. Surface IR is much less ordered and lower energy. Atmospheric IR is less energetic still, and almost completely unordered and diffuse. Entropy has increased as solar input has performed work on the Earth and waste heat has been discharged into space.

One of the main problems with the models is that they treat waste heat as the equivalent to solar input. It is not. The potential to create entropy has been used up. The work has already been done.

In thermodynamics, work means mechanical energy, like the movement of a piston. I don't see that sun energy directly causes work.

The sun's energy is not highly ordered since it is BB radiation. It is ordered only in the sense that the rays are almost parallel, but I don't see how that would affect things.

Yes the surface and atmosphere are less energetic insofar as individual photon energy. The important issue is the total energy of the sun directly warming earth, and the larger total energy leaving the surface as BB radiation.

In thermodynamics waste heat only has meaning when there is a transfer of heat to mechanical energy, such as the wasted thermal energy out of your exhaust in a car. Mechanical energy does not have a major involvement in climate physics, except maybe for hail stones, heavy rain, or wind moving something.

 

[IanC]

There have been two interesting concepts brought up in the last couple of pages.

Equipartition theory is useful to highlight how molecular collisions drive the creation of radiation but it does not describe reality because there is a temperature gradient in the atmosphere.

You will have to explain your thinking more. If there is a gradient, a small local volume of air at any height will be largely at the same temperature, and the equipartition of energy will hold for that volume. Equipartition was brought up only to show the mechanism of how an ensemble of atoms behaves, and that it is not a failure if a molecule absorbing IR is not the same to emit IR.

Another related concept is that solar input is both high energy and highly ordered. It is capable of doing work. Surface IR is much less ordered and lower energy. Atmospheric IR is less energetic still, and almost completely unordered and diffuse. Entropy has increased as solar input has performed work on the Earth and waste heat has been discharged into space.

One of the main problems with the models is that they treat waste heat as the equivalent to solar input. It is not. The potential to create entropy has been used up. The work has already been done.

In thermodynamics, work means mechanical energy, like the movement of a piston. I don't see that sun energy directly causes work.

The sun's energy is not highly ordered since it is BB radiation. It is ordered only in the sense that the rays are almost parallel, but I don't see how that would affect things.

Yes the surface and atmosphere are less energetic insofar as individual photon energy. The important issue is the total energy of the sun directly warming earth, and the larger total energy leaving the surface as BB radiation.

In thermodynamics waste heat only has meaning when there is a transfer of heat to mechanical energy, such as the wasted thermal energy out of your exhaust in a car. Mechanical energy does not have a major involvement in climate physics, except maybe for hail stones, heavy rain, or wind moving something.

How is that different than what I said? It is useful in a general way, but not for any reasonable sized slabs of the atmosphere. What goes into the atmosphere at the surface and what comes out at the top are not similar in quantity or quality.

Yes solar is BBR but we are not talking about near Sol interactions. We are talking about collimated energy from a hot source in comparison to Earth temperatures. Can Earth's BBR be useful to do work in space? Yes, but it is highly inefficient on Earth.

 

[Wuwei]

How is that different than what I said? It is useful in a general way, but not for any reasonable sized slabs of the atmosphere. What goes into the atmosphere at the surface and what comes out at the top are not similar in quantity or quality.

I agree. The physics principles at the top and bottom of the atmosphere involve an equal partition of energies although the energies involved are different.

Yes solar is BBR but we are not talking about near Sol interactions. We are talking about collimated energy from a hot source in comparison to Earth temperatures. Can Earth's BBR be useful to do work in space? Yes, but it is highly inefficient on Earth.

As I said before, (mechanical) work plays a very small part (if at all) in the solar incoming radiation. The solar radiation heats the earth. How do you define work?

I don't agree with you that the earth's BBR does any work in space efficient or not. How do you define work in the earth's output BBR?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

And why is Sun's corona 200 times hotter than the surface?

Why isn't the much hotter corona heating the Sun's surface?

I'm pretty sure if you did even the most cursory search you would find out that the corona is hot because of ions in a magnetic field rather than direct heating from the surface.

Every source that comes up on googling "why is the suns Corona hotter than its surface" talks about its still a mystery and maybe there's a theory

 

[jc456]

And why is Sun's corona 200 times hotter than the surface?

Why isn't the much hotter corona heating the Sun's surface?

I'm pretty sure if you did even the most cursory search you would find out that the corona is hot because of ions in a magnetic field rather than direct heating from the surface.

Every source that comes up on googling "why is the suns Corona hotter than its surface" talks about its still a mystery and maybe there's a theory

hey Frank, now that's a hot spot, eh?

 

[SSDD]

And why is Sun's corona 200 times hotter than the surface?

Why isn't the much hotter corona heating the Sun's surface?

I'm pretty sure if you did even the most cursory search you would find out that the corona is hot because of ions in a magnetic field rather than direct heating from the surface.

Every source that comes up on googling "why is the suns Corona hotter than its surface" talks about its still a mystery and maybe there's a theory

These guys stand in awe of science...they believe science knows everything right now and can't conceive of the idea that at this point science remains unsure as to even what it doesn't know that it doesn't know....I guess they fail to notice the abject failure of science in every discipline all around them every day....retractions of papers....finding out that what science has thought it knew for decades is actually wrong...seeing science bought by money and power...and now, science by consensus...they are worse than religious zealots...worse than the most ignorant deep south bible thumping preacher with big hair and a bad polyester suit.

 

[IanC]

And why is Sun's corona 200 times hotter than the surface?

Why isn't the much hotter corona heating the Sun's surface?

I'm pretty sure if you did even the most cursory search you would find out that the corona is hot because of ions in a magnetic field rather than direct heating from the surface.

Every source that comes up on googling "why is the suns Corona hotter than its surface" talks about its still a mystery and maybe there's a theory

Hahahaha perhaps I should have done a cursory search.

You are absolutely right and I was wrong. Please accept my apology

 

[IanC]

And why is Sun's corona 200 times hotter than the surface?

Why isn't the much hotter corona heating the Sun's surface?

I'm pretty sure if you did even the most cursory search you would find out that the corona is hot because of ions in a magnetic field rather than direct heating from the surface.

Every source that comes up on googling "why is the suns Corona hotter than its surface" talks about its still a mystery and maybe there's a theory

Hahahaha perhaps I should have done a cursory search.

You are absolutely right and I was wrong. Please accept my apology

Have you accepted my apology? I was wrong to condescendingly tell you to Google corona when in fact the mechanism is not actually fully understood. My bad. I have a lot more to say on the subject but I don't want to seem insincere in my apology.

 

[SSDD]

And why is Sun's corona 200 times hotter than the surface?

Why isn't the much hotter corona heating the Sun's surface?

I'm pretty sure if you did even the most cursory search you would find out that the corona is hot because of ions in a magnetic field rather than direct heating from the surface.

Every source that comes up on googling "why is the suns Corona hotter than its surface" talks about its still a mystery and maybe there's a theory

Hahahaha perhaps I should have done a cursory search.

You are absolutely right and I was wrong. Please accept my apology

So long as you are going to actually do some cursory research...perhaps you could take a minute to confirm the fact that there isn't a single shred of observed, measured, quantified data that supports the A in AGW....then ask yourself why the models fail so miserably if they are, in fact, based on sound physics....