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

[SSDD]

To my knowledge, SSDD is unique in his failure to understand the idea of net radiative flow. He's adamant. The absurdity of his contention has been demonstrated to him a dozen different ways but, of course, he cannot back down now. When I (and others) asked him sometime back what mechanism was throttling IR emissions from some piece of matter facing a (corr) hotter piece of matter on the other side of the universe, his only answer was that "we" don't know and it is something we will "probably never know".

I understand the idea perfectly crick...I also know that it is fiction...you demonstrated the fiction with your "alternative" version of the SB law in an attempt to demonstrate two way energy flow...at least one of us knows that SB never wrote the equation that way....and the alternative version of the equation can not be valid for a couple of reasons...first and foremost is that there is no two way Planck Law to integrate...second, it violates the assumption that T>Tc...third, you can apply no physical meaning or proof to rationalize the application of the distributive law of algebra to an equation that is already simplified...why would you do that?

 

[il Tupe]

This thread is so scientific. The situation is evident. Global Warming is a conspiracy. No wait it's a hoax. Well... it's either a conspiracy or hoax. Perpetrated by the people of Maldives.

 

[Wuwei]

Your second equation is not how SB wrote the equation.....applying the distributive property does not alter the fact that the energy exchange is a one way street...

Energy exchange is actually a "two way street" according to every scientist that knows thermodynamics:

This is an excerpt of the original paper by Stefan. He says the same thing. You can't by any stretch of your imagination say that the subtracted form is all there is to the SB equation.

These papers verify what Crick posted.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Frank, you need to stop lying about what other people say. No one said that was "the new normal". Try to get this through your head. AGW does not mean an end to variation - an end to WEATHER - it means the climate - the long term average of weather - is going to get warmer and that extra warmth is going to make the long term average of that weather more energetic. And the ocean will soon be lapping at your front door and when you scream and cry about the cost of moving since all the insurance companies will have reneged on any coverage, you may find that your government has been listening to you and citizens like you and is unable to help. Won't that be... special. But, hey, those oil company stocks will still be worth...maybe the paper they're printed on.

So you are predicting that winters in NY will be warmer and less snowy or are you waiting to see whats on the Weather Channel next week? I'm betting we'll just have to wait for the top story on the Weather Channel to catch your next prediction about "Climate" in the NE.

In any event, the AGWCult just told us that the oceans absorb 93% of this "excess energy" so how is that heating the NE? Or is excess heat and "Extra warmth" 2 different things?

You do read AR5 and your other Cult literature, right?

Oh, and these imaginary "rising oceans" seem to have by passed Guam

 

[Billy_Bob]

As the east coast prepares for the warmest Christmas Eve ever, the prequel promises to be warmer still. Today, Washington, D.C., is expected to break existing high temperature records by a full 10 degrees.

So the AGWCult is on record that the new normal winter in NY is 65-70 degrees, or are they once again attributing whatever top story is on the Weather Channel to AGW?

Boy are these fools in for a surprise...

Take a look at the global temp drop in just the last week or so. During the last week there has been a dramatic drop in temperature anomaly, globally by about 0.5degC (black line) and NH by nearly 1degC (blue line).

Say good by to El Nino... The shift to cold is upon us.. One Degree C in a week of cooling in the Northern hemisphere... You wont see this information on any lib infested AGW station.

 

[Old Rocks]

Oh Silly Billy, perhaps you haven't noticed? It is winter.

2015 December Quick Look

Since for the whole of this year, the scientists have been batting 100% correct, while Silly Billy has been batting 100% incorrect, I think that I will go with the scientists predictions. Note on the Plume model predictions, there is one model that predicts the El Nino dropping only to 1.4 in JJA, then going back up again. Should that happen, Katy bar the door.

 

[Crick]

Frank, you need to stop lying about what other people say. No one said that was "the new normal". Try to get this through your head. AGW does not mean an end to variation - an end to WEATHER - it means the climate - the long term average of weather - is going to get warmer and that extra warmth is going to make the long term average of that weather more energetic. And the ocean will soon be lapping at your front door and when you scream and cry about the cost of moving since all the insurance companies will have reneged on any coverage, you may find that your government has been listening to you and citizens like you and is unable to help. Won't that be... special. But, hey, those oil company stocks will still be worth...maybe the paper they're printed on.

So you are predicting that winters in NY will be warmer and less snowy or are you waiting to see whats on the Weather Channel next week?

I am not actually making predictions. I am accepting of those being produced by the world's climate scientists. They tell us that the entire world is going to get warmer. They do not tell us that it will never snow again or that Winters are gone forever or any of the other red herring bullshit you, Frank, have a strong tendency to toss about.

I'm betting we'll just have to wait for the top story on the Weather Channel to catch your next prediction about "Climate" in the NE.

I don't get cable TV Frank and therefore do not have access to The Weather Channel. I get my local weather from Weather Underground website. You should try them. I pay very little attention to other people's weather unless it makes the CNN/CBS/BBC/ABC/NBC/Fox websites as news items. I do not go to weather sources for climate information. You shouldn't either.

In any event, the AGWCult just told us that the oceans absorb 93% of this "excess energy" so how is that heating the NE?

The increased deep ocean heating has fueled a very large el Nino. The el Nino is releasing that heat to the atmosphere and accelerating warming worldwide but, of course, with regional variations. That and the normal variations of our chaotic climate have given you (I presume) a warm winter in the NE.

Or is excess heat and "Extra warmth" 2 different things?

Jesus, Frank, the limited value in being a one-trick pony is completely dependent on the assumption that the one-trick actually works. For the umpteenth time, "excess heat" is not a unique or specific thing. It does not have the sort of fixed and constant definition that for reasons beyond my ken, you believe "warmists" maintain for it. If I put a pot on to boil and it explodes into vapor, I've probably applied excess heat. If I go out to cut the grass but collapse from heat prostation, I've probably suffered from excess heat. If the radiator of my car boils over and leaves me in a steaming heap on the side of the road, it's probably suffered from excess heat. If the Earth had been in thermal equilibrium but increasing GHG levels cause the temperature to rise, that rise is being driven by excess heat. Is any of this getting through to you Frank. I was tired of holding your hand on this ten posts back.

You do read AR5 and your other Cult literature, right?

Golly you are funny... and SO clever!

Oh, and these imaginary "rising oceans" seem to have by passed Guam

What are you trying to say here Frank? Is this a seriously dated gibe regarding Congressman Johnson's question to COMPACFLT Admiral Willard? Or do you actually believe that sea levels are not rising?

A few points that seem to have shot right over your head: Johnson's question didn't concern global warming or sea level rise whatsoever. Johnson was talking to Willard about the Navy's plan to move an additional 8,000 servicemen and their 17,000 dependents to Guam and the "capsizing" comment - addressed to an admiral - was an obvious jest. That YOU and your denier buddies didn't seem to catch either point tells us a great deal more about you than Johnson and says absolutely nothing about the science that tells us, unequivocallly, that sea level is rising.

PS: The day you find someone that you actually can belittle for scientific ignorance will be a red-letter day Frank

 

[IanC]

obvious jest? really?

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

According to Alden Meyer of the Union of Concerned Scientists, "We don't call them skeptics, because they are not putting forward alternatives ideas and having them tested in peer review journals

 

[SSDD]

According to Alden Meyer of the Union of Concerned Scientists, "We don't call them skeptics, because they are not putting forward alternatives ideas and having them tested in peer review journals

According to Kenji, a full fledged, bonified voting member of the Union of Concerned Scientists, Alden Meyer is full of shit. Here is a photo of Kenji. The fact that Kenji is a multiple year member of the Union of Concerned Scientists, and retains full voting rights, casts aspersions upon the credibility of said organization...would't you say?

Old Rocks and Kenji have much in common...they are both members of the Union of Concerned Scientists.

 

[Wuwei]

According to Alden Meyer of the Union of Concerned Scientists, "We don't call them skeptics, because they are not putting forward alternatives ideas and having them tested in peer review journals

According to Kenji, a full fledged, bonified voting member of the Union of Concerned Scientists, Alden Meyer is full of shit.

Meyer is right. Why don't you try to submit your idea that the CMB does not strike antenna dishes for peer review. Why don't you submit your idea that thermal radiation exchange only happens in one direction between any two bodies at any temperatures.

 

[SSDD]

According to Alden Meyer of the Union of Concerned Scientists, "We don't call them skeptics, because they are not putting forward alternatives ideas and having them tested in peer review journals

According to Kenji, a full fledged, bonified voting member of the Union of Concerned Scientists, Alden Meyer is full of shit.

Meyer is right. Why don't you try to submit your idea that the CMB does not strike antenna dishes for peer review. Why don't you submit your idea that thermal radiation exchange only happens in one direction between any two bodies at any temperatures.

No need...you and a select few goobers on the board are the only ones who believe such nonsense...the people who built the instrument now that in order to actually receive such radiation the instrument has to be cooooooooollllllllllllddddddddd.

 

[Wuwei]

No need...you and a select few goobers on the board are the only ones who believe such nonsense...the people who built the instrument now that in order to actually receive such radiation the instrument has to be cooooooooollllllllllllddddddddd.

So it is nonsense that the CMB was detected after it hit an antenna 300 K warmer? Why don't you try to publish that.

Why don't you submit your idea that thermal radiation exchange only happens in one direction from a hot body to a colder body. Or do you believe that radiation is exchanged between two bodies no matter what the temperatures are.

 

[jc456]

"That is only in the case of refrigerators. A counterexample is that thermal radiation energy can can move from an object at any temperature to an object at any other temperature. If you disagree please cite a source on radiation physics not refrigerator phyisics."

Please post evidence of such a thing. Now you're out there bubba.

I already did. The cold CMB at 2.7 K can hit a radio antenna 300 degrees warmer. That has been show to have happened.

I don't buy it, sorry.

 

[SSDD]

No need...you and a select few goobers on the board are the only ones who believe such nonsense...the people who built the instrument now that in order to actually receive such radiation the instrument has to be cooooooooollllllllllllddddddddd.

So it is nonsense that the CMB was detected after it hit an antenna 300 K warmer? Why don't you try to publish that.

Why don't you submit your idea that thermal radiation exchange only happens in one direction from a hot body to a colder body. Or do you believe that radiation is exchanged between two bodies no matter what the temperatures are.

CMB was detected by an instrument cooled to a temperature of less than 2.75k

The second law says that neither heat nor energy will move spontaneously from cool to warm...It isn't my idea, and I didn't think of it, but every observation ever made bears it out. That's why the call it a law.

 

[Wuwei]

"That is only in the case of refrigerators. A counterexample is that thermal radiation energy can can move from an object at any temperature to an object at any other temperature. If you disagree please cite a source on radiation physics not refrigerator phyisics."

Please post evidence of such a thing. Now you're out there bubba.

I already did. The cold CMB at 2.7 K can hit a radio antenna 300 degrees warmer. That has been show to have happened.

I don't buy it, sorry.

I really don't care if you want to disagree with every astronomer. I'ts your problem not mine.

 

[Wuwei]

CMB was detected by an instrument cooled to a temperature of less than 2.75k

Nope. None of the antennas of the detector system were cooled. They were at an ambient outdoor temperature.

The second law says that neither heat nor energy will move spontaneously from cool to warm...It isn't my idea, and I didn't think of it, but every observation ever made bears it out. That's why the call it a law.

Nope, the SB law states that thermal radiation energy is bidirectional. Here, I will post this again.
Energy exchange is actually a "two way street" according to every scientist that knows thermodynamics:

This is an excerpt of the original paper by Stefan. He says the same thing. You can't by any stretch of your imagination say that the subtracted form is all there is to the SB equation.

 

[SSDD]

I really don't care if you want to disagree with every astronomer. I'ts your problem not mine.

The astronomers know that CMB was detected by an instrument cooled to a temperature lower than 2.75K.

 

[Wuwei]

I really don't care if you want to disagree with every astronomer. I'ts your problem not mine.

The astronomers know that CMB was detected by an instrument cooled to a temperature lower than 2.75K.

Not the original experiment.
The astronomers know that CMB was detected by an instrument with an antenna at around 300K.

 

[SSDD]

CMB was detected by an instrument cooled to a temperature of less than 2.75k

Nope. None of the antennas of the detector system were cooled. They were at an ambient outdoor temperature.

The second law says that neither heat nor energy will move spontaneously from cool to warm...It isn't my idea, and I didn't think of it, but every observation ever made bears it out. That's why the call it a law.

Nope, the SB law states that thermal radiation energy is bidirectional. Here, I will post this again.
Energy exchange is actually a "two way street" according to every scientist that knows thermodynamics:

This is an excerpt of the original paper by Stefan. He says the same thing. You can't by any stretch of your imagination say that the subtracted form is all there is to the SB equation.

Sorry guy, you just keep failing. This is the proper form for the SB law when the radiator is not an ideal radiator...that is to say when the object is real

.

When the object is radiating energy to cooler surroundings, the equation takes the form

which describes a one way energy transfer. Had you posted the entire page from the paper by SB, the first equation would have been shown....what you provided was a form of it. The paper above that shows an invalid version of the SB equation as used when the radiator is radiating into its cooler surroundings....not the use of the SB constant twice in one equation....although they do, in the end reduce the equation to reflect the actual SB equation

which is a description of a one way energy flow. I would be interested to see how you get a two way energy flow out of that equation. It clearly states that the energy emitted by the radiator (P) is equal to the emissivity of the radiator times the SB constant times the area of the radiator times the difference between the temperature of the radiator to the 4th power and its surroundings to the 4th power. How do you manage to see a two way flow in that equation?