Physics and why LWIR can not warm oceans... Info for a Clueless Senator Markey and alarmists..

[IanC]

Heat only flows from warm to cool...correct.

But radiation energy is produced by every object above zero degrees Kelvin, in all directions, including towards warmer objects. This is caused by collisions, hence its random nature.

Heat only flows in one direction because warmer object give off higher energy photons on average, and more of them, because there are more collisions and at higher speeds. The net energy transfer is always more from the warm object than it receives back from the cool one.

SSDD is nuts.

ok, let me step in for a moment here, where I agree that all objects radiate, where does it go? you say the IR makes it to the surface, I say it doesn't and it doesn't because there are pressures that keep it from getting there.

BTW, Judith Curry doesn't believe in back radiation.

Link to the Curry quote. I believe you have misunderstood something.

Explain this 'pressure' thing. Photons can only be absorbed or reflected. Either way there is a transfer of momentum, a la entropy. One of the thermodynamic laws that SSDD chooses to ignore.

wator vapor, clouds, barometric pressure.

You're not making any sense. How do those things stop radiation?

most likely temperature. The thing is it is not understood. Can you show how it works or is your answer that it radiates in all directions therefore it is?

BTW, I was in error it is she is still trying to understand it.

Here's a link for Judith:

Physics of the atmospheric greenhouse(?) effect

"There is a big gap between the simple explanations and the radiative transfer texts. The blogosphere has stepped in to fill the gap. Good explanations that I have come across are:

• scienceofdoom
• Real Climate
• Chris Colose
• Skeptical Science
• presumably there are others that I’ve missed?

However, a gap remains in terms of explaining the actual physical mechanisms. Yes, these sites give good explanations of the basic physics of radiative transfer and the Earth’s radiative energy balance, and provide empirical evidence for the existence of the greenhouse effect. But a good mechanistic explanation of the physical processes occurring seems absent, including an explanation of how local thermodynamic equilibrium is established in response to the absorption of infrared radiation by a small number of molecules. I don’t have a full understanding of what the actual issues are with the greenhouse effect skeptics (I suspect that Roy Spencer is painfully aware), but I have just received a copy of Slaying the Greenhouse Dragon, which I will read this weekend."

jc - I think you should read at least the first few Science of Doom articles. It would help you get a grasp of the basics.

 

[jc456]

ok, let me step in for a moment here, where I agree that all objects radiate, where does it go? you say the IR makes it to the surface, I say it doesn't and it doesn't because there are pressures that keep it from getting there.

BTW, Judith Curry doesn't believe in back radiation.

Link to the Curry quote. I believe you have misunderstood something.

Explain this 'pressure' thing. Photons can only be absorbed or reflected. Either way there is a transfer of momentum, a la entropy. One of the thermodynamic laws that SSDD chooses to ignore.

wator vapor, clouds, barometric pressure.

You're not making any sense. How do those things stop radiation?

most likely temperature. The thing is it is not understood. Can you show how it works or is your answer that it radiates in all directions therefore it is?

BTW, I was in error it is she is still trying to understand it.

Here's a link for Judith:

Physics of the atmospheric greenhouse(?) effect

"There is a big gap between the simple explanations and the radiative transfer texts. The blogosphere has stepped in to fill the gap. Good explanations that I have come across are:

• scienceofdoom
• Real Climate
• Chris Colose
• Skeptical Science
• presumably there are others that I’ve missed?

However, a gap remains in terms of explaining the actual physical mechanisms. Yes, these sites give good explanations of the basic physics of radiative transfer and the Earth’s radiative energy balance, and provide empirical evidence for the existence of the greenhouse effect. But a good mechanistic explanation of the physical processes occurring seems absent, including an explanation of how local thermodynamic equilibrium is established in response to the absorption of infrared radiation by a small number of molecules. I don’t have a full understanding of what the actual issues are with the greenhouse effect skeptics (I suspect that Roy Spencer is painfully aware), but I have just received a copy of Slaying the Greenhouse Dragon, which I will read this weekend."

jc - I think you should read at least the first few Science of Doom articles. It would help you get a grasp of the basics.

That's okay, if what you believe were true, we'd have run away temps. That isn't happening so explain why not?

 

[IanC]

Link to the Curry quote. I believe you have misunderstood something.

Explain this 'pressure' thing. Photons can only be absorbed or reflected. Either way there is a transfer of momentum, a la entropy. One of the thermodynamic laws that SSDD chooses to ignore.

wator vapor, clouds, barometric pressure.

You're not making any sense. How do those things stop radiation?

most likely temperature. The thing is it is not understood. Can you show how it works or is your answer that it radiates in all directions therefore it is?

BTW, I was in error it is she is still trying to understand it.

Here's a link for Judith:

Physics of the atmospheric greenhouse(?) effect

"There is a big gap between the simple explanations and the radiative transfer texts. The blogosphere has stepped in to fill the gap. Good explanations that I have come across are:

• scienceofdoom
• Real Climate
• Chris Colose
• Skeptical Science
• presumably there are others that I’ve missed?

However, a gap remains in terms of explaining the actual physical mechanisms. Yes, these sites give good explanations of the basic physics of radiative transfer and the Earth’s radiative energy balance, and provide empirical evidence for the existence of the greenhouse effect. But a good mechanistic explanation of the physical processes occurring seems absent, including an explanation of how local thermodynamic equilibrium is established in response to the absorption of infrared radiation by a small number of molecules. I don’t have a full understanding of what the actual issues are with the greenhouse effect skeptics (I suspect that Roy Spencer is painfully aware), but I have just received a copy of Slaying the Greenhouse Dragon, which I will read this weekend."

jc - I think you should read at least the first few Science of Doom articles. It would help you get a grasp of the basics.

That's okay, if what you believe were true, we'd have run away temps. That isn't happening so explain why not?

Hahahaha, when have I ever said there would be runaway warming?

Dude! I have debunked claim after claim from the warmers. And a few from the skeptical extreme. Do you not read my stuff, or do you just not understand it?

The Science of Doom stuff is just basic physics but tailored to global warming. Everyone should read it, just to fill in any gaps.

You may also find some of the measured evidence that you guys scream for all the time. Like actual measured downward radiation.

 

[Billy_Bob]

First, of all wiki is crap as a source for anything..

Wiki is reliable on math and the hard sciences. Rather that broadly dismissing wiki, show me a source that substantially disagrees with the wiki article.

Second, pure water was used in the experiment. Sea water is not pure and has minerals along with living organisms which do not allow penetration of the oceans by wave lengths above 10um. This means that it is a poor absorber as well as emitter.

Emissivity of non-reflective surfaces are generally above 0.90 in the thermal radiation range. There is no reason to believe that ocean water is much different. This source contains many examples of materials, some reflective.
ThermoWorks Emissivity Table

Third, the heat required to warm even that 50 micron layer is 4/1 ratio. The ambient air above the surface of the ocean would have to be 4 times greater to warm the surface layer alone.

CO2 or colder air or any other greenhouse gas does not warm the ocean. GHG's prevent the ocean from loosing as much heat as they would otherwise.

To put it bluntly, your a left wing drone posting crap! I gave you a link up thread about how this all works and you failed to read it or you dismissed it because you disagree with it. Your not here to debate your here to push your agenda.

Cool down. I think I answered your questions.

Wiki is prone to unreliable changes and is therefore suspect at all times. No student I teach is allowed to use WIKI as it is prone to exaggerations and mathematical gross errors. One need only look to William Connelly and his abuses of changing "facts" in relation to all things dealing with AGW, any science or math related to it or climate change in general. His fabrications and changing of facts, posting half truths, and outright lies is legendary. Wiki is not a reliable source for ANYTHING!

As Sea water is not a BLACK BODY it does not Emmit sufficient heat to the atmosphere through LWIR release to heat anything. In the opposing direction, sea water can only emit LWIR from the first 5-50 microns of the surface rendering it incapable of warming anything. Evaporation is how sea water cools and that is not inhibited by CO2. Winds, mixing, waves, sea spray (water forced into an evaporative state) are all ways water vapor is created and how the majority of heat escapes the oceans.

 

[jc456]

wator vapor, clouds, barometric pressure.

You're not making any sense. How do those things stop radiation?

most likely temperature. The thing is it is not understood. Can you show how it works or is your answer that it radiates in all directions therefore it is?

BTW, I was in error it is she is still trying to understand it.

Here's a link for Judith:

Physics of the atmospheric greenhouse(?) effect

"There is a big gap between the simple explanations and the radiative transfer texts. The blogosphere has stepped in to fill the gap. Good explanations that I have come across are:

• scienceofdoom
• Real Climate
• Chris Colose
• Skeptical Science
• presumably there are others that I’ve missed?

However, a gap remains in terms of explaining the actual physical mechanisms. Yes, these sites give good explanations of the basic physics of radiative transfer and the Earth’s radiative energy balance, and provide empirical evidence for the existence of the greenhouse effect. But a good mechanistic explanation of the physical processes occurring seems absent, including an explanation of how local thermodynamic equilibrium is established in response to the absorption of infrared radiation by a small number of molecules. I don’t have a full understanding of what the actual issues are with the greenhouse effect skeptics (I suspect that Roy Spencer is painfully aware), but I have just received a copy of Slaying the Greenhouse Dragon, which I will read this weekend."

jc - I think you should read at least the first few Science of Doom articles. It would help you get a grasp of the basics.

That's okay, if what you believe were true, we'd have run away temps. That isn't happening so explain why not?

Hahahaha, when have I ever said there would be runaway warming?

Dude! I have debunked claim after claim from the warmers. And a few from the skeptical extreme. Do you not read my stuff, or do you just not understand it?

The Science of Doom stuff is just basic physics but tailored to global warming. Everyone should read it, just to fill in any gaps.

You may also find some of the measured evidence that you guys scream for all the time. Like actual measured downward radiation.

I didn't say you said that. I said if back radiation exists as you claim, then there'd be runaway temperatures.

 

[Wuwei]

Wiki is prone to unreliable changes and is therefore suspect at all times. No student I teach is allowed to use WIKI as it is prone to exaggerations and mathematical gross errors. One need only look to William Connelly and his abuses of changing "facts" in relation to all things dealing with AGW, any science or math related to it or climate change in general. His fabrications and changing of facts, posting half truths, and outright lies is legendary. Wiki is not a reliable source for ANYTHING!

As Sea water is not a BLACK BODY it does not Emmit sufficient heat to the atmosphere through LWIR release to heat anything. In the opposing direction, sea water can only emit LWIR from the first 5-50 microns of the surface rendering it incapable of warming anything. Evaporation is how sea water cools and that is not inhibited by CO2. Winds, mixing, waves, sea spray (water forced into an evaporative state) are all ways water vapor is created and how the majority of heat escapes the oceans.

These are emissivities of the ocean not from wiki. My prediction that the ocean would have a high emissivity is verified in the following reference.
http://www.terrapub.co.jp/journals/JO/pdf/5001/50010017.pdf

0.993 Buettner and Kern (1965) not considering the skin layer
0.986 Saunders (1967b, 1968) observation of the reflectance from the air plane
0.9875 Mikhaylov and Zolotarev (1970) calculation from the optical constant
0.992 (11 µm) Masuda et al. (1988) calculation of the reflectance using the numerical model surface
0.972 Davies et al. (1971) observation of sheltered water surface from the sky

Note that the emissivitys of the ocean are much closer to black body radiation than pure water. Nobody should claim that CO2 or any other greenhouse gas warms the ocean, the land or anything else. GHG's prevent the ocean and land from loosing as much heat as it would lose otherwise.

 

[Billy_Bob]

You are just as bad as Old Rocks.

Radiation is one of the most thoroughly investigated subjects in science. Much of our technology is based on odd results at the edge that are seldom, if ever, found in nature.

Heat is an amorphous concept heavily dependent on how you define it, or what you're studying. If I say one thing you will simply reframe the question. You make a declarative statement first, and then I will respond.

Shuck and jive...bob and weave..duck and cover....answer the question...is heat a form of energy in and of itself, or is it merely what happens when energy moves from one place to another....if radiation is the most thoroughly investigated subject in science...and as well understood as you seem to believe...then you should be able to answer such a fundamental question...why can't you? If you were half as sure of yourself as you seem to believe you are, you wouldn't need to wait for me...you could provide information from a perfectly credible source stating whether heat is itself a form of energy or whether it is just what happens when energy moves from one place to another.

Lemme take a whack and you tell me where I go wrong.. K??

Heat is a form of energy and it moves by only conduction or convection in MATERIAL MATTER... However, all matter is capable is capable of generating radiative energy as a function of their temperature in the form of IR photons at wavelengths particular to their atomic structure.

These photons obey different laws of propagation and are not heat. But if ABSORBED by another material that is capable of being excited at their wavelength -- will be directly converted to heat and ring the atomic lattice of the receiving matter. That will RAISE the temperature of the accepting matter.. Now this last part is confused even by some physicists who just take the pansy approach and call Radiative energy in the IR --- another form of heat. Because it's the EFFECT of the impinging energy that matters. ((some simple elemental gases and materials are completely incapable of being excited by IR transfer because of the simplicity of their atomic lattice))

The study of RADIATIVE thermal transfer is kept quite separately from elementary Thermo physics curriculums and gets just a passing mention.. Leaving many semi-educated people to believe that Radiative heat transfers don't obey the laws of thermo.. But they DO..

If you take the advanced course -- you'll find that even tho this photon energy PROPAGATES differently -- and has more complex equations for it's distribution and "thermal flow". Because it propagates in any direction available to it from the source and the amount accepted by the receiver is determined by 3 dimensional geometry - the exchanges that occur obey conservation of energy and the fundamental laws of thermo..

Thus the NET FLOW of radiative heating between matter depends on geometry and the temperature of the objects and ALL objects are radiating IR in some fashion --- And the exchanges between items depend simply on "line of sight".. Any 2 objects exchanges radiative energy will have a net flow in favor of the HOTTER object.

You're welcome.. Simply acknowledge this new knowledge and I will sign for a 2 hour credit in your name at the University of your choice....

The atomic structure of water, in a vapor state, does not slow heat retention (absorption and emittance back towards the surface) by CO2. It infact, the convection cycle is speed up by a thinner (lighter) atmosphere, which it would be if CO2 levels rose. The potential retardation of heat loss is offset by convection increase. Quite the opposite of the failed IPCC/EPA's GCM's which use water vapor as a positive feedback.

 

[Crick]

The atomic structure of water, in a vapor state, does not slow heat retention (absorption and emittance back towards the surface) by CO2. It infact, the convection cycle is speed up by a thinner (lighter) atmosphere, which it would be if CO2 levels rose. The potential retardation of heat loss is offset by convection increase. Quite the opposite of the failed IPCC/EPA's GCM's which use water vapor as a positive feedback.

Boy, it's easy to tell who's got the degree in atmospheric physics. ; -}

"thinner (lighter) atmosphere"?!?!?!?!

HAHAHAAHAHAHAHaaaaaa

FCT, good explanation but don;t let SSDD off the hood. He still hasn't given you the declarative statement you requested.

I disagree with your comments about thermodynamics courses. How many thermodynamics classes do you claim to have seen? I took two semesters of thermo and one of heat transfer. Radiative transfer was brought up in semester one and was discussed and used throughout all three classes, particularly the third. You may be thinking of the strong tendency in initial classes to only look at equilibrium scenarios and not move into dynamic situation until later courses, coinciding with students working their way through the diff eq required to examine non-equilibrium problems.

 

[flacaltenn]

The atomic structure of water, in a vapor state, does not slow heat retention (absorption and emittance back towards the surface) by CO2. It infact, the convection cycle is speed up by a thinner (lighter) atmosphere, which it would be if CO2 levels rose. The potential retardation of heat loss is offset by convection increase. Quite the opposite of the failed IPCC/EPA's GCM's which use water vapor as a positive feedback.

Boy, it's easy to tell who's got the degree in atmospheric physics. ; -}

"thinner (lighter) atmosphere"?!?!?!?!

HAHAHAAHAHAHAHaaaaaa

FCT, good explanation but don;t let SSDD off the hood. He still hasn't given you the declarative statement you requested.

I disagree with your comments about thermodynamics courses. How many thermodynamics classes do you claim to have seen? I took two semesters of thermo and one of heat transfer. Radiative transfer was brought up in semester one and was discussed and used throughout all three classes, particularly the third. You may be thinking of the strong tendency in initial classes to only look at equilibrium scenarios and not move into dynamic situation until later courses, coinciding with students working their way through the diff eq required to examine non-equilibrium problems.

I've seen a lot of thermo courses. I know the curriculum. I never saw an Thermo Intro course that got into examples of the geometry issues of IR light propagation. (strangely -- ScienceofDoom found some very old thermo books that did all that - but since academics writing the texts got lazy or the semesters got shorter or some damn thing) So it's impossible to calculate or give numeric calculations of radiative transfers in the basic courses anymore. It was usually a chapter on definitions and explanations and black body basics.

Now the 200 level courses -- went in several directions. For electrical engineers -- it was "fields and waves". Which is the entirety of EMagnetic propagation. Not truely a "thermo" course.. And in there -- Radiative transfers WERE set up in terms of the geometry of the transmitter and receiver and calculations were made. And the special case of IR heat transfers was handled.

But in other cases (material science, aerospace, mechanical eng, advanced specialized physics) you would get into modeling IR "heating" in any number of different courses. "Thermal Properties of Materials" for example..

Because of the time I spent in Optical Computing -- I also have a background in optics and optical modulators, filters and detectors which helps a lot in understanding LWIR issues.

I always let SSDD "off the hook" because I have no intention of a fight to the death over any of these things. Not my responsibility for wiping out every science misconception that exists out there. If it was -- you'd already be on my score card..

 

[IanC]

You're not making any sense. How do those things stop radiation?

most likely temperature. The thing is it is not understood. Can you show how it works or is your answer that it radiates in all directions therefore it is?

BTW, I was in error it is she is still trying to understand it.

Here's a link for Judith:

Physics of the atmospheric greenhouse(?) effect

"There is a big gap between the simple explanations and the radiative transfer texts. The blogosphere has stepped in to fill the gap. Good explanations that I have come across are:

• scienceofdoom
• Real Climate
• Chris Colose
• Skeptical Science
• presumably there are others that I’ve missed?

However, a gap remains in terms of explaining the actual physical mechanisms. Yes, these sites give good explanations of the basic physics of radiative transfer and the Earth’s radiative energy balance, and provide empirical evidence for the existence of the greenhouse effect. But a good mechanistic explanation of the physical processes occurring seems absent, including an explanation of how local thermodynamic equilibrium is established in response to the absorption of infrared radiation by a small number of molecules. I don’t have a full understanding of what the actual issues are with the greenhouse effect skeptics (I suspect that Roy Spencer is painfully aware), but I have just received a copy of Slaying the Greenhouse Dragon, which I will read this weekend."

jc - I think you should read at least the first few Science of Doom articles. It would help you get a grasp of the basics.

That's okay, if what you believe were true, we'd have run away temps. That isn't happening so explain why not?

Hahahaha, when have I ever said there would be runaway warming?

Dude! I have debunked claim after claim from the warmers. And a few from the skeptical extreme. Do you not read my stuff, or do you just not understand it?

The Science of Doom stuff is just basic physics but tailored to global warming. Everyone should read it, just to fill in any gaps.

You may also find some of the measured evidence that you guys scream for all the time. Like actual measured downward radiation.

I didn't say you said that. I said if back radiation exists as you claim, then there'd be runaway temperatures.

Give a short explanation why you think there would be runaway temps. I already explained why we need some GHE for life to exist. Why do you think there is a tipping point for back radiation?

 

[Crick]

I've seen a lot of thermo courses.

Where?

I know the curriculum.

You didn't teach them and unless you failed one and took another, you didn't attend more than one. So, why would you "know the curriculum"?

I never saw an Thermo Intro course that got into examples of the geometry issues of IR light propagation.

"Thermo intro course"? Where would you find a thermo intro course? Do you perhaps mean Thermo I?

(strangely -- ScienceofDoom found some very old thermo books that did all that

Maybe that's because its quite common to do so.

- but since academics writing the texts got lazy or the semesters got shorter or some damn thing)

The authors didn't get lazy and the semesters didn't get shorter.

So it's impossible to calculate or give numeric calculations of radiative transfers in the basic courses anymore.

That's simply untrue. Radiative transfer is commonly covered in college physics classes and is probably given short shrift in basic thermo (ie, not heat transfer) because so much more time is required to handle materials and flowing liquids.

It was usually a chapter on definitions and explanations and black body basics.

Yes, Boltzmann is a common topic

Now the 200 level courses -- went in several directions. For electrical engineers -- it was "fields and waves". Which is the entirety of EMagnetic propagation. Not truely a "thermo" course.. And in there -- Radiative transfers WERE set up in terms of the geometry of the transmitter and receiver and calculations were made. And the special case of IR heat transfers was handled.

Why do you think the geometry is such a problem?

But in other cases (material science, aerospace, mechanical eng, advanced specialized physics) you would get into modeling IR "heating" in any number of different courses. "Thermal Properties of Materials" for example..

Because of the time I spent in Optical Computing -- I also have a background in optics and optical modulators, filters and detectors which helps a lot in understanding LWIR issues.

I always let SSDD "off the hook" because I have no intention of a fight to the death over any of these things. Not my responsibility for wiping out every science misconception that exists out there. If it was -- you'd already be on my score card..

You've tried to "put me on your score card for several years now and failed. I don't see any changes going forward.

 

[flacaltenn]

I've seen a lot of thermo courses.

Where?

I know the curriculum.

You didn't teach them and unless you failed one and took another, you didn't attend more than one. So, why would you "know the curriculum"?

I never saw an Thermo Intro course that got into examples of the geometry issues of IR light propagation.

"Thermo intro course"? Where would you find a thermo intro course? Do you perhaps mean Thermo I?

(strangely -- ScienceofDoom found some very old thermo books that did all that

Maybe that's because its quite common to do so.

- but since academics writing the texts got lazy or the semesters got shorter or some damn thing)

The authors didn't get lazy and the semesters didn't get shorter.

So it's impossible to calculate or give numeric calculations of radiative transfers in the basic courses anymore.

That's simply untrue. Radiative transfer is commonly covered in college physics classes and is probably given short shrift in basic thermo (ie, not heat transfer) because so much more time is required to handle materials and flowing liquids.

It was usually a chapter on definitions and explanations and black body basics.
[//quote]

Yes, Boltzmann is a common topic

Now the 200 level courses -- went in several directions. For electrical engineers -- it was "fields and waves". Which is the entirety of EMagnetic propagation. Not truely a "thermo" course.. And in there -- Radiative transfers WERE set up in terms of the geometry of the transmitter and receiver and calculations were made. And the special case of IR heat transfers was handled.

Why do you think the geometry is such a problem?

But in other cases (material science, aerospace, mechanical eng, advanced specialized physics) you would get into modeling IR "heating" in any number of different courses. "Thermal Properties of Materials" for example..

Because of the time I spent in Optical Computing -- I also have a background in optics and optical modulators, filters and detectors which helps a lot in understanding LWIR issues.

I always let SSDD "off the hook" because I have no intention of a fight to the death over any of these things. Not my responsibility for wiping out every science misconception that exists out there. If it was -- you'd already be on my score card..

You've tried to "put me on your score card for several years now and failed. I don't see any changes going forward.

Folks that have been part of Eng faculties should know about the curriculum and pre-reqs and those sort of things --- dontchathink??? What a wieny response. Especially the ending where you agree about the absence of any in-depth treatment of radiative heating in Intro Thermo...

You're a real ankle-biter.. I'll give ya that Catfish....

 

[Crick]

What part of an engineering faculty were you?

You seem to have missed my message re radiative heat transfer: that it was simpler than that of solid and liquids and needed less time to explain. Your claim that it is more complex than the rest of thermo is what doesn't fly, catfish.

 

[flacaltenn]

What part of an engineering faculty were you?

You seem to have missed my message re radiative heat transfer: that it was simpler than that of solid and liquids and needed less time to explain. Your claim that it is more complex than the rest of thermo is what doesn't fly, catfish.

Oh but it IS far more complex than understanding conduction or convection.. Every transfer problem is a 3D geometry exercise.. And setting them up requires a lot of smart assumptions to get close to the correct answer..

Maybe you slept thru those parts..

 

[jc456]

most likely temperature. The thing is it is not understood. Can you show how it works or is your answer that it radiates in all directions therefore it is?

BTW, I was in error it is she is still trying to understand it.

Here's a link for Judith:

Physics of the atmospheric greenhouse(?) effect

"There is a big gap between the simple explanations and the radiative transfer texts. The blogosphere has stepped in to fill the gap. Good explanations that I have come across are:

• scienceofdoom
• Real Climate
• Chris Colose
• Skeptical Science
• presumably there are others that I’ve missed?

However, a gap remains in terms of explaining the actual physical mechanisms. Yes, these sites give good explanations of the basic physics of radiative transfer and the Earth’s radiative energy balance, and provide empirical evidence for the existence of the greenhouse effect. But a good mechanistic explanation of the physical processes occurring seems absent, including an explanation of how local thermodynamic equilibrium is established in response to the absorption of infrared radiation by a small number of molecules. I don’t have a full understanding of what the actual issues are with the greenhouse effect skeptics (I suspect that Roy Spencer is painfully aware), but I have just received a copy of Slaying the Greenhouse Dragon, which I will read this weekend."

jc - I think you should read at least the first few Science of Doom articles. It would help you get a grasp of the basics.

That's okay, if what you believe were true, we'd have run away temps. That isn't happening so explain why not?

Hahahaha, when have I ever said there would be runaway warming?

Dude! I have debunked claim after claim from the warmers. And a few from the skeptical extreme. Do you not read my stuff, or do you just not understand it?

The Science of Doom stuff is just basic physics but tailored to global warming. Everyone should read it, just to fill in any gaps.

You may also find some of the measured evidence that you guys scream for all the time. Like actual measured downward radiation.

I didn't say you said that. I said if back radiation exists as you claim, then there'd be runaway temperatures.

Give a short explanation why you think there would be runaway temps. I already explained why we need some GHE for life to exist. Why do you think there is a tipping point for back radiation?

Well I don't believe in back radiation. If there was, IR would be in a loop as reradiation would be infinite

 

[Billy_Bob]

The atomic structure of water, in a vapor state, does not slow heat retention (absorption and emittance back towards the surface) by CO2. It infact, the convection cycle is speed up by a thinner (lighter) atmosphere, which it would be if CO2 levels rose. The potential retardation of heat loss is offset by convection increase. Quite the opposite of the failed IPCC/EPA's GCM's which use water vapor as a positive feedback.

Boy, it's easy to tell who's got the degree in atmospheric physics. ; -}

"thinner (lighter) atmosphere"?!?!?!?!

HAHAHAAHAHAHAHaaaaaa

FCT, good explanation but don;t let SSDD off the hood. He still hasn't given you the declarative statement you requested.

I disagree with your comments about thermodynamics courses. How many thermodynamics classes do you claim to have seen? I took two semesters of thermo and one of heat transfer. Radiative transfer was brought up in semester one and was discussed and used throughout all three classes, particularly the third. You may be thinking of the strong tendency in initial classes to only look at equilibrium scenarios and not move into dynamic situation until later courses, coinciding with students working their way through the diff eq required to examine non-equilibrium problems.

You have no understanding of atomic weights? Or gravity? Or the spinning of the earth?

 

[Old Rocks]

Guess what, jc, back radiation does not give a damn about what you believe.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Guess what, jc, back radiation does not give a damn about what you believe.

Get back to us when you have empirical evidence to support your assumption.

 

[flacaltenn]

jc - I think you should read at least the first few Science of Doom articles. It would help you get a grasp of the basics.

That's okay, if what you believe were true, we'd have run away temps. That isn't happening so explain why not?

Hahahaha, when have I ever said there would be runaway warming?

Dude! I have debunked claim after claim from the warmers. And a few from the skeptical extreme. Do you not read my stuff, or do you just not understand it?

The Science of Doom stuff is just basic physics but tailored to global warming. Everyone should read it, just to fill in any gaps.

You may also find some of the measured evidence that you guys scream for all the time. Like actual measured downward radiation.

I didn't say you said that. I said if back radiation exists as you claim, then there'd be runaway temperatures.

Give a short explanation why you think there would be runaway temps. I already explained why we need some GHE for life to exist. Why do you think there is a tipping point for back radiation?

Well I don't believe in back radiation. If there was, IR would be in a loop as reradiation would be infinite

Nope.. The effect only slows the inevitable and overwhelming loss of heat to the sky... Net effect is still a loss.

 

[Crick]

The atomic structure of water, in a vapor state, does not slow heat retention (absorption and emittance back towards the surface) by CO2. It infact, the convection cycle is speed up by a thinner (lighter) atmosphere, which it would be if CO2 levels rose. The potential retardation of heat loss is offset by convection increase. Quite the opposite of the failed IPCC/EPA's GCM's which use water vapor as a positive feedback.

Boy, it's easy to tell who's got the degree in atmospheric physics. ; -}

"thinner (lighter) atmosphere"?!?!?!?!

HAHAHAAHAHAHAHaaaaaa

FCT, good explanation but don;t let SSDD off the hood. He still hasn't given you the declarative statement you requested.

I disagree with your comments about thermodynamics courses. How many thermodynamics classes do you claim to have seen? I took two semesters of thermo and one of heat transfer. Radiative transfer was brought up in semester one and was discussed and used throughout all three classes, particularly the third. You may be thinking of the strong tendency in initial classes to only look at equilibrium scenarios and not move into dynamic situation until later courses, coinciding with students working their way through the diff eq required to examine non-equilibrium problems.

You have no understanding of atomic weights? Or gravity? Or the spinning of the earth?

I appear to have a better understanding of every topic that might even loosely fall under the rubric of physics than do you. The idea that you have a degree in atmospheric physics is absolutely laughable.