Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
SSDD wrote: Bottleneck, by definition, demands a hot spot...where is it?
El Nino
El Nino is NOT caused by CO2... The shear ignorance of this post is hilarious..
Please provide evidence for your assumption...
Thats the good thing about assumptions...you don't need no steeenking evidence.....like the assumption that energy spontaneously transfers from cool to warm.
SSDD wrote: Thats the good thing about assumptions...you don't need no steeenking evidence.....like the assumption that energy spontaneously transfers from cool to warm.
Granny says, "Dat's right...
... ever take a cold one outta the refrigerator an' leave it out?...
... Dat's right - it gets warm...
... it don't get colder...
.if you had an example of energy moving from cool to warm, that bottle would just keep getting colder and colder till it finally got to about absolute zero when at last, it would have no more energy to move to the warmer surroundings.
.if you had an example of energy moving from cool to warm, that bottle would just keep getting colder and colder till it finally got to about absolute zero when at last, it would have no more energy to move to the warmer surroundings.
Not true. There are lots of examples of radiant energy moving from colder to warmer. For example a star at 45 thousand degrees will radiate energy to a star at 50 thousand degrees. However the hotter star radiates even more energy the other way. So the net heat flow is from the hotter to the colder as it should be. In short it's a two way energy flow, but a one way heat flow.
About the OP. There's just something basically wrong with the scientific process when "models" are used that aren't fully discussed and vetted. I know that you can inspect any one of a number of them. But here's what I mean.
You look at other areas that use modeling extensively. For instance in Neurobiology.. You'll find THOUSANDS of papers discussing methodologies, different math treatments, the nuisances of feedbacks, storage and gain specific to that field. Same deal as the Artificial Intell. field I was in. Again THOUSANDS of papers on just the modeling techniques.
Yet -- Climate models are kept close to the vest with VERY little sharing and review and collaboration. Am I wrong? Or is that community now and have been very sensitive to perhaps their shortcomings in modeling expertise?
Here is a reference from Dartmouth on the SB equation that says that there is a two way flow and it derives the net energy as the difference between the energy emitted minus the energy absorbed..Easy to say....now prove it. The SB equation for energy flow is an equation describing a one way flow off energy....and so far as I know...neither the second law of thermodynamics nor the SB equations say anything about net energy flow....energy movement is a gross movement from warm to cool....but if you want to prove otherwise in some observable way, I am sure that there is a nobel in it for you and a rewriting of the second law of thermodynamics.
Here is a reference from Dartmouth on the SB equation that says that there is a two way flow and it derives the net energy as the difference between the energy emitted minus the energy absorbed..Easy to say....now prove it. The SB equation for energy flow is an equation describing a one way flow off energy....and so far as I know...neither the second law of thermodynamics nor the SB equations say anything about net energy flow....energy movement is a gross movement from warm to cool....but if you want to prove otherwise in some observable way, I am sure that there is a nobel in it for you and a rewriting of the second law of thermodynamics.
http://www.dartmouth.edu/~phys17/labs/lab1.pdf
View attachment 52350
I have been arguing a similar type of explanation for years. a bottleneck at the surface with only 10 micron radiation getting out
Bottleneck, by definition, demands a hot spot...where is it?
obviously at the surface.
are you confusing the predicted mid trophospheric hotspot caused by extra evaporation, hence the positive feedback assumed, for something else? (its not there, btw)
The satellite data shows no surface hot spot..
Here is a reference from Dartmouth on the SB equation that says that there is a two way flow and it derives the net energy as the difference between the energy emitted minus the energy absorbed..Easy to say....now prove it. The SB equation for energy flow is an equation describing a one way flow off energy....and so far as I know...neither the second law of thermodynamics nor the SB equations say anything about net energy flow....energy movement is a gross movement from warm to cool....but if you want to prove otherwise in some observable way, I am sure that there is a nobel in it for you and a rewriting of the second law of thermodynamics.
http://www.dartmouth.edu/~phys17/labs/lab1.pdf
View attachment 52350
I have been arguing a similar type of explanation for years. a bottleneck at the surface with only 10 micron radiation getting out
Bottleneck, by definition, demands a hot spot...where is it?
obviously at the surface.
are you confusing the predicted mid trophospheric hotspot caused by extra evaporation, hence the positive feedback assumed, for something else? (its not there, btw)
The satellite data shows no surface hot spot..
you claim to be 'all scienced up' but your words say the opposite.
I say there is a radiation bottleneck at the surface-atmosphere boundary. what is my proof?
if the Earth had no atmosphere it would warm up and cool off more quickly as it revolves but the average surface temperature would be lower than it is presently.
if the Earth had an atmosphere of only non-GHGs, the temperature swings from day-to-night would be more moderate because the heatsink of the atmosphere would take up heat during the day and release it during the night. the average surface temp would be higher than the no atmosphere example. already the bottleneck has begun to form, as the atmosphere is returning some of the energy that the surface has imparted to it. at this point remember that all surface radiation is escaping directly into space. the atmosphere is only warming by conduction from the surface, a very limited amount of convection, and some absorption of solar.
now add GHGs, especially H2O, but CO2 and others also have an effect. 90% of the surface radiation is absorbed with only 10% escaping freely. that energy becomes part of the total atmospheric energy and much of it is available as kinetic energy, also known as temperature. we truly have a large bottleneck now. the surface temperature is much higher than the no atmosphere or the non-GHG atmosphere examples. note well that rudimentary equilibrium all three examples have the same amount of energy coming in as going out. the energy to fill the heatsinks has been 'borrowed' from radiation out while moving towards equilibrium.
I say there is a very large bottleneck at the surface/atmosphere boundary, with about 90% of surface radiation used to heat the atmosphere within the first few tens of metres, which in turn returns some of that energy to the surface.
I have said all this many times before. I havent even touched on water vapour and the convection/phase change cycles. Dont believe me? explain how else the surface radiates 400W while only receiving 160W solar input.
SSDD wrote: Thats the good thing about assumptions...you don't need no steeenking evidence.....like the assumption that energy spontaneously transfers from cool to warm.
Granny says, "Dat's right...
... ever take a cold one outta the refrigerator an' leave it out?...
... Dat's right - it gets warm...
... it don't get colder...
I have been arguing a similar type of explanation for years. a bottleneck at the surface with only 10 micron radiation getting out
Bottleneck, by definition, demands a hot spot...where is it?
obviously at the surface.
are you confusing the predicted mid trophospheric hotspot caused by extra evaporation, hence the positive feedback assumed, for something else? (its not there, btw)
The satellite data shows no surface hot spot..
you claim to be 'all scienced up' but your words say the opposite.
I say there is a radiation bottleneck at the surface-atmosphere boundary. what is my proof?
if the Earth had no atmosphere it would warm up and cool off more quickly as it revolves but the average surface temperature would be lower than it is presently.
if the Earth had an atmosphere of only non-GHGs, the temperature swings from day-to-night would be more moderate because the heatsink of the atmosphere would take up heat during the day and release it during the night. the average surface temp would be higher than the no atmosphere example. already the bottleneck has begun to form, as the atmosphere is returning some of the energy that the surface has imparted to it. at this point remember that all surface radiation is escaping directly into space. the atmosphere is only warming by conduction from the surface, a very limited amount of convection, and some absorption of solar.
now add GHGs, especially H2O, but CO2 and others also have an effect. 90% of the surface radiation is absorbed with only 10% escaping freely. that energy becomes part of the total atmospheric energy and much of it is available as kinetic energy, also known as temperature. we truly have a large bottleneck now. the surface temperature is much higher than the no atmosphere or the non-GHG atmosphere examples. note well that rudimentary equilibrium all three examples have the same amount of energy coming in as going out. the energy to fill the heatsinks has been 'borrowed' from radiation out while moving towards equilibrium.
I say there is a very large bottleneck at the surface/atmosphere boundary, with about 90% of surface radiation used to heat the atmosphere within the first few tens of metres, which in turn returns some of that energy to the surface.
I have said all this many times before. I havent even touched on water vapour and the convection/phase change cycles. Dont believe me? explain how else the surface radiates 400W while only receiving 160W solar input.
Why is the temperature on the surface not steadily increasing....even a little with the ever growing atmospheric CO2....if CO2 created a bottleneck as you claim....even a little one, by definition the temperature would be increasing with the increasing CO2....I might also ask how, if CO2 creates a bottleneck, even a little one how the present ice age ever began with CO2 levels in excess of 1000pm....and previous ice ages began with CO2 levels even higher?
I have been arguing a similar type of explanation for years. a bottleneck at the surface with only 10 micron radiation getting out
Bottleneck, by definition, demands a hot spot...where is it?
obviously at the surface.
are you confusing the predicted mid trophospheric hotspot caused by extra evaporation, hence the positive feedback assumed, for something else? (its not there, btw)
The satellite data shows no surface hot spot..
you claim to be 'all scienced up' but your words say the opposite.
I say there is a radiation bottleneck at the surface-atmosphere boundary. what is my proof?
if the Earth had no atmosphere it would warm up and cool off more quickly as it revolves but the average surface temperature would be lower than it is presently.
if the Earth had an atmosphere of only non-GHGs, the temperature swings from day-to-night would be more moderate because the heatsink of the atmosphere would take up heat during the day and release it during the night. the average surface temp would be higher than the no atmosphere example. already the bottleneck has begun to form, as the atmosphere is returning some of the energy that the surface has imparted to it. at this point remember that all surface radiation is escaping directly into space. the atmosphere is only warming by conduction from the surface, a very limited amount of convection, and some absorption of solar.
now add GHGs, especially H2O, but CO2 and others also have an effect. 90% of the surface radiation is absorbed with only 10% escaping freely. that energy becomes part of the total atmospheric energy and much of it is available as kinetic energy, also known as temperature. we truly have a large bottleneck now. the surface temperature is much higher than the no atmosphere or the non-GHG atmosphere examples. note well that rudimentary equilibrium all three examples have the same amount of energy coming in as going out. the energy to fill the heatsinks has been 'borrowed' from radiation out while moving towards equilibrium.
I say there is a very large bottleneck at the surface/atmosphere boundary, with about 90% of surface radiation used to heat the atmosphere within the first few tens of metres, which in turn returns some of that energy to the surface.
I have said all this many times before. I havent even touched on water vapour and the convection/phase change cycles. Dont believe me? explain how else the surface radiates 400W while only receiving 160W solar input.
good questions. I believe CO2 has had an impact on the temperature of the surface. difficult to discern or tease out of the background of natural variability but it is there. according to Trenberth's cartoon only 25W gets through from the surface to the cloud tops via radiation other than the 10% that leaves directly, unimpeded by GHGs. estimates for CO2's role in the greenhouse effect are about 5-25%. 1W to 6W for the TOTAL CO2 effect from surface to cloudtop. now you have to figure out how much was caused by the previous CO2 concentration and how much by the extra manmade CO2. how much was the original bolus that caused the first 1C increase? are we in the fifth doubling or the tenth?
water, in all its forms, is the joker here. remember the last time you flew to Maui or Barbados? do you recall all the fluffy evenly spaced clouds making shadows on the ocean? Nature's sunglasses. you dont even need to have more of them, just altering the timing of when they form is enough is more than enough to overwhelm any puny change in forcing caused by CO2. Trenberth's cartoon has about 5/8ths of the surface energy getting to the cloudtops via water based routes. they are obviously the most variable and even entities like the IPCC admits they have very little 'certainty' on how they react.
yes or no.....do GHGs retard in any way the IR radiation given off by the earth's surface?
yes or no.....do GHGs retard in any way the IR radiation given off by the earth's surface?
No. Radiatively active gasses are holes in the "blanket" that keeps the earth warm....not the blanket itself. Radiation is a quicker way out than conduction or convection and the simple fact its that radiation is going to move towards cooler...it isn't going to back radiate towards a warmer surface and it isn't going to side radiate and create warmth...it is going to move in the direction of greatest entropy...which is up.
Like it or not, observation bears this out.
In your version, you must set T=0 which violates the basic assumption of the SB law which is that T>Tc...
Switching the roles alters the description of the physics.. In your version the radiator must become the background. Describe how that might look. Those terms in the equation have actual physical meanings....the radiator simply can not be the radiator and then become the background which is what must happen for your equation to be correct.
The difference form of the equation simply means that when the two temperatures are the same, the absorption has the same magnitude as the emission. That idea is in countless physics books.In physics, when you apply an algebraic law to an equation describing a thing that is happening in reality, one must define a physical meaning associated with the application of the property
And finally applying an algebraic property to an already simplified equation is simply poor application of mathematics ...when you have a correct form of the equation why would you unnecessarily recomplicate it by writing it as . Planck received a nobel for proving the correct version of the SB law when a radiator is radiating into its surroundings...I would imagine that there would also be a prize for proving the altered version of it. Maybe you can prove it yourself or maybe someone has already proven it. Such an accomplishment would be a big deal and would be very easy to look up. So here we stand....me with an equation which has been proven, and you with one which has not and violates the intent of the actual SB Law. Who is more likely right?
Both equations are valid and have been used to define the SB law, as long as you correctly understand what each form means. So, if you want to think that way, both forms of the equation should support both alarmism and skepticism.I might ask you to answer a couple of questions if I thought you were capable of anything like an honest answer...Hell, lets ask them anyway just to see how honest you are
Which version of the SB equation supports CO2 alarmism?
I can provide Planck's proof of the version of the SB law that describes a gross 1 way energy flow....Can you provide proof of the version that you provide which supposedly describes a net two way flow...we are, after all talking about an equation describing a physical law...proof is necessary if you are going to alter the equation in any way. Got proof?
As I said earlier setting T=0 is not valid. Not in any application in this galaxy.How do you suppose sting T=0 is valid when the law assumes that the temperature of the radiator is greater than that of the background?
How is applying the SB law twice in the equation (which is what is happening there) either valid physically (the equation is describing a thing that is happening in reality and if you change the equation, you change the reality to unreality without proof) or mathematically?
