Questions.....RE: The Greenhouse Effect

[SSDD]

Speaking of releasing that stored heat via El Nino...I see that yet another El Nino may be on the horizon and approaching quickly...the ocean ejecting yet another huge bundle of heat. That is a problem because whether you warmers like it or not, it is the sun that warms the ocean and at present, the sun is very quiet. Great gouts of heat escaping the ocean that aren't going to be replaced due to a quiet sun...tell me warmer...what do you think that portends? Does it worry you? Would you rather live in a warm world or die in a cold one?

 

[RollingThunder]

Accidental post...

 

[RollingThunder]

Accidental post...

 

[RollingThunder]

Hey Tink !!!

Hey Fecalhead !!!

If you don't see the difference between the OFFICIAL UAH chart.

And the "daily caller" graph -----

And a shorter Pause version of that data from WUWT ----

Every NOAA chart I've seen in the thread doesn't agree with the others. THERE'S a problem for ya !!!

Idiotic nonsense!

WUWT and 'daily caller' are denier cult propaganda outlets so anything you get from them is almost certainly biased, twisted and at least somewhat fraudulent.

Rational, sane people would naturally rather trust the information from the world scientific community, including NOAA and NASA.....

In the real world.....

• • Link to source image

Global mean surface temperature change from 1880 to 2016, relative to the 1951–1980 mean. The black line is the global annual mean and the red line is the five-year lowess smooth. The blue uncertainty bars show a 95% confidence limit. Source: NASA GISS.

 

[Olde Europe]

Global mean surface temperature change from 1880 to 2016, relative to the 1951–1980 mean. The black line is the global annual mean and the red line is the five-year lowess smooth. The blue uncertainty bars show a 95% confidence limit. Source: NASA GISS.

Just for the fun of it, with a polynomial trend line that fits nicely:

 

[Wuwei]

Just for the fun of it, with a polynomial trend line that fits nicely:

Did you compute the trend line yourself on a spread sheet? If so it would be fun to also compute an exponential trend line. All you have to do is take the logs of the data as input to a linear regression. You can then get the coefficients and plot the exponential fit with the data.

 

[Olde Europe]

Did you compute the trend line yourself on a spread sheet? If so it would be fun to also compute an exponential trend line. All you have to do is take the logs of the data as input to a linear regression. You can then get the coefficients and plot the exponential fit with the data.

An exponential trend line? Naw, you're not really thinking that would be a good fit for what is, and awaits us, don't you? We'd all be cooked by 2020, or so. I felt slightly shady with that polynomial fit, and I think we are having more than enough problems on our hands if the future follows a linear path towards a hotter earth during the next years. Moreover, negative numbers as input to a log? That results in imaginary numbers, which I find slightly unpleasant, and they probably would not work that well in a linear regression.

 

[IanC]

Hi IanC
Yesterday in your post 325 you said:
"At present the Earth's surface receives radiation from both the Sun and the atmosphere. These two quantities are added together because they are separate sources."
"Adding them together" as in a+b=c [W/m^2] is the mathematical equivalent of warming up the jug of milk in the icebox by adding more ice cubes...
Why do you think it`s necessary to do this addition?
The StB equation σ (T1^4 - T2^4) already accounts for the amount by which the ambient T2 lessens the heat loss via radiation of a body at T1 is lessened.
It seems that everybody goes down that path, adding watts/m^2 because they think that they can use the sum after that to conveniently solve for temperature.
But that is a pitfall,not a valid shortcut. The only way to get the temperature is to use the StB equation with the 2 temperatures as it is written and then specify the time and the mass & specific heat while allowing for the changes of T1 and T2 during the specified time interval.

Sorry polarbear, I missed your post earlier.

There are various 'classes' of calculations when applying the S-B equations.

The simplest is one object radiating into void, where there is no returning radiation.

The next simplest is when one object is enclosed by another. The diffuse nature of radiation can be cancelled out at the boundary (assuming spherical shapes). Eg. object into environment and vice versa.

The third is much more complex. Two objects embedded in an environment which is typically ignored because it affects both objects equally. In this case the line-of-sight faces must take into consideration angle/distance of the radiation. Most of the radiation produced by the objects misses the other and escapes to the environment.

The Earth/Sun belongs in the third class, dominated by the inverse square law.

The surface/atmosphere is in the second class. No radiation is directly lost at the boundary. No inverse square loss.

SSDD'S graph shows a highly simplified scenario. First, how warm the surface would be with no atmosphere. Input and output are equal. Then they add a shell (already at equilibrium) and input and output are still equal but because radiation is released in all directions then the same amount escaping to space is also returned to the surface. The new surface temperature must be enough to provide the energy output plus the energy returned. If another shell were added then the surface radiation would double again and the temperature would rise.

Most people find it hard to believe that an input of 300w can raise the (insulated) surface to 600w or higher (to a maximum of the source) but the explanation is the energy not released to space as the system moves to equilibrium. Which of course would be emitted if the source was cut off.

There is a huge amount of energy stored in our atmosphere keeping its mass aloft via potential and kinetic energy. That is the source of the returning energy that makes the surface warm enough to live on. GHGs contribute to warming the atmosphere, which in turn warms the surface.

This is my reply to 'adding temperatures together'.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

"Photons can see the location and temperature of their targets and aren't emitted if they'll hit warmer matter, even if the targets are millions of light years away"

This isn't your theory?

Of course not...that is just the best explanation that you wack jobs could come up with as a reason that energy doesn't move spontaneously from cool to warm...We know so little about the fundamental mechanism...scratch that..we know nothing about the fundamental mechanism of energy change...we don't know what makes it happen...so we have no idea what is going on there...but there is a reason that we never observe energy moving spontaneously from cool to warm...perhaps some day we will know...

Does it mean that your original theory is wrong?

First, I have no theory...and my position has always been that energy doesn't move spontaneously from cool to warm...it is your lack of reading skills that have left you thinking that my position is otherwise...

Are you saying that the Sun does work and the Sun can emit photons that are allowed to hit warmer matter?
If that's the case, which photons are not originally caused by work?

Are you claiming that MHD waves and plasma jets aren't work?

I guess that means most photons in the Universe aren't restricted in any way?

The key word in that sentence is guess....which is precisely where science is in its statements regarding energy exchange...it is all guessing...and I can't help but wonder why you wackos want to guess that something is happening that we can't, and never will observe over guessing that something is happening that supports every observation ever made.

Of course not...that is just the best explanation that you wack jobs could come up with as a reason that energy doesn't move spontaneously from cool to warm

No, that was your explanation for the directions photons moved and why.

First, I have no theory

Your theory is that photons are prevented from moving from the cool atmosphere of Earth, to the warmer surface, because the 2nd Law, which doesn't mention photons, requires photons to know their course and the temperature of matter around them.

Are you claiming that MHD waves and plasma jets aren't work?

For at least the 4th time, the corona and the reason for its high temperature don't matter.
What matters is your claim that the cooler surface CANNOT emit toward warmer matter.

The key word in that sentence is guess

It's true, we have to guess about your theory, because you can't provide any source that agrees with your claims......how else can we flesh out your silly "theory" without guessing?

Try again?

Photons can't move from cool to warm, but they do when they move from the Sun's surface to the corona
because ________________.

(Love these old threads)

 

[IanC]

"Photons can see the location and temperature of their targets and aren't emitted if they'll hit warmer matter, even if the targets are millions of light years away"

This isn't your theory?

Of course not...that is just the best explanation that you wack jobs could come up with as a reason that energy doesn't move spontaneously from cool to warm...We know so little about the fundamental mechanism...scratch that..we know nothing about the fundamental mechanism of energy change...we don't know what makes it happen...so we have no idea what is going on there...but there is a reason that we never observe energy moving spontaneously from cool to warm...perhaps some day we will know...

Does it mean that your original theory is wrong?

First, I have no theory...and my position has always been that energy doesn't move spontaneously from cool to warm...it is your lack of reading skills that have left you thinking that my position is otherwise...

Are you saying that the Sun does work and the Sun can emit photons that are allowed to hit warmer matter?
If that's the case, which photons are not originally caused by work?

Are you claiming that MHD waves and plasma jets aren't work?

I guess that means most photons in the Universe aren't restricted in any way?

The key word in that sentence is guess....which is precisely where science is in its statements regarding energy exchange...it is all guessing...and I can't help but wonder why you wackos want to guess that something is happening that we can't, and never will observe over guessing that something is happening that supports every observation ever made.

Of course not...that is just the best explanation that you wack jobs could come up with as a reason that energy doesn't move spontaneously from cool to warm

No, that was your explanation for the directions photons moved and why.

First, I have no theory

Your theory is that photons are prevented from moving from the cool atmosphere of Earth, to the warmer surface, because the 2nd Law, which doesn't mention photons, requires photons to know their course and the temperature of matter around them.

Are you claiming that MHD waves and plasma jets aren't work?

For at least the 4th time, the corona and the reason for its high temperature don't matter.
What matters is your claim that the cooler surface CANNOT emit toward warmer matter.

The key word in that sentence is guess

It's true, we have to guess about your theory, because you can't provide any source that agrees with your claims......how else can we flesh out your silly "theory" without guessing?

Try again?

Photons can't move from cool to warm, but they do when they move from the Sun's surface to the corona
because ________________.

(Love these old threads)

Hahahaha, yes indeedy. Earlier on you did yeoman's work trying to get Polarbear to acknowledge SSDD'S bizarre theory of photon emission as well. He dodged the questions just as adeptly as SSDD dodges making an explanation. Strawmen and topic changes allllll the way down.

 

[SSDD]

Hahahaha, yes indeedy. Earlier on you did yeoman's work trying to get Polarbear to acknowledge SSDD'S bizarre theory of photon emission as well. He dodged the questions just as adeptly as SSDD dodges making an explanation. Strawmen and topic changes allllll the way down.

What a hypocrite....how many times have I asked you explicitly whether or not you have any actual measurements of discrete energy frequencies made with instruments at ambient temperature of energy moving from cool to warm? Do you answer the question honestly?...of course you don't...you go into mind experiments and models.

I don't have to have an explanation for a mechanism that is observed 100% of the time it is looked at..I only need to know that it is never wrong. You, on the other hand believe that energy moves from cool to warm spontaneously even though the phenomenon has never been observed.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Hahahaha, yes indeedy. Earlier on you did yeoman's work trying to get Polarbear to acknowledge SSDD'S bizarre theory of photon emission as well. He dodged the questions just as adeptly as SSDD dodges making an explanation. Strawmen and topic changes allllll the way down.

What a hypocrite....how many times have I asked you explicitly whether or not you have any actual measurements of discrete energy frequencies made with instruments at ambient temperature of energy moving from cool to warm? Do you answer the question honestly?...of course you don't...you go into mind experiments and models.

I don't have to have an explanation for a mechanism that is observed 100% of the time it is looked at..I only need to know that it is never wrong. You, on the other hand believe that energy moves from cool to warm spontaneously even though the phenomenon has never been observed.

I don't have to have an explanation for a mechanism that is observed 100% of the time it is looked at.

That reminds me, did you ever provide at least a couple of examples of observations of matter at equilibrium ceasing all radiating?

You, on the other hand believe that energy moves from cool to warm spontaneously

Of course, because photons don't measure the temperature of their targets.
Did you ever explain how you think they do?
Or how the cooler surface of the Sun decides that it's allowed to radiate toward the hotter corona?

Or you could admit that no scientist agrees with your twisted misinterpretation........
What else explains your lack of observed examples?

 

[IanC]

Hahahaha, yes indeedy. Earlier on you did yeoman's work trying to get Polarbear to acknowledge SSDD'S bizarre theory of photon emission as well. He dodged the questions just as adeptly as SSDD dodges making an explanation. Strawmen and topic changes allllll the way down.

What a hypocrite....how many times have I asked you explicitly whether or not you have any actual measurements of discrete energy frequencies made with instruments at ambient temperature of energy moving from cool to warm? Do you answer the question honestly?...of course you don't...you go into mind experiments and models.

I don't have to have an explanation for a mechanism that is observed 100% of the time it is looked at..I only need to know that it is never wrong. You, on the other hand believe that energy moves from cool to warm spontaneously even though the phenomenon has never been observed.

Now I am confused. How did my words get attributed to Todd? And why does the quote arrow go back to a post that he made before I wrote those words?

Todd, feel free to report this to USMB. I couldn't be bothered, it is just another example of how SSDD fucks up quotes of mine. Although it is hard to imagine how this was just a harmless mistake.



I will answer SSDD'S accusations. I, and others here, have presented data taken by instruments at ambient temperature. I have also provided photographs. I even produced an industry report describing the precision and accuracy of one of the instruments, which described in detail how the instrument worked.

I have given evidence that most instruments that are cooled do so because they want to clean up the signal from stray radiation or to allow quicker response times.

Every object above absolute zero emits radiation according to its temperature and emmisivity, all the time. The CHANGE in temperature of an object results from the net flow of energy, as most objects are receiving energy from their surroundings as well as giving up energy.

You have been shown many examples of this process being described in textbooks, etc. Instead of believing these descriptions, you have invented your own implausible theory that objects throttle down or cease their radiation output. By unknown mechanism, and unknown information transfer.

You imbue mystical meanings into words and equations that the authors never intended.

Your theory gives the right answer to a few macroscopic questions but gives wrong answers to microscopic ones.

My theory gives the right answer to both macroscopic and microscopic questions. And doesn't need knowledge of everything in the universe, or secret mechanisms to decide what is allowed or not.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Hahahaha, yes indeedy. Earlier on you did yeoman's work trying to get Polarbear to acknowledge SSDD'S bizarre theory of photon emission as well. He dodged the questions just as adeptly as SSDD dodges making an explanation. Strawmen and topic changes allllll the way down.

What a hypocrite....how many times have I asked you explicitly whether or not you have any actual measurements of discrete energy frequencies made with instruments at ambient temperature of energy moving from cool to warm? Do you answer the question honestly?...of course you don't...you go into mind experiments and models.

I don't have to have an explanation for a mechanism that is observed 100% of the time it is looked at..I only need to know that it is never wrong. You, on the other hand believe that energy moves from cool to warm spontaneously even though the phenomenon has never been observed.

Now I am confused. How did my words get attributed to Todd? And why does the quote arrow go back to a post that he made before I wrote those words?

Todd, feel free to report this to USMB. I couldn't be bothered, it is just another example of how SSDD fucks up quotes of mine. Although it is hard to imagine how this was just a harmless mistake.



I will answer SSDD'S accusations. I, and others here, have presented data taken by instruments at ambient temperature. I have also provided photographs. I even produced an industry report describing the precision and accuracy of one of the instruments, which described in detail how the instrument worked.

I have given evidence that most instruments that are cooled do so because they want to clean up the signal from stray radiation or to allow quicker response times.

Every object above absolute zero emits radiation according to its temperature and emmisivity, all the time. The CHANGE in temperature of an object results from the net flow of energy, as most objects are receiving energy from their surroundings as well as giving up energy.

You have been shown many examples of this process being described in textbooks, etc. Instead of believing these descriptions, you have invented your own implausible theory that objects throttle down or cease their radiation output. By unknown mechanism, and unknown information transfer.

You imbue mystical meanings into words and equations that the authors never intended.

Your theory gives the right answer to a few macroscopic questions but gives wrong answers to microscopic ones.

My theory gives the right answer to both macroscopic and microscopic questions. And doesn't need knowledge of everything in the universe, or secret mechanisms to decide what is allowed or not.

Yes, I've noticed his stupidity extends to screwing up the quote function.
As long as he doesn't misattribute his or one of his fellow idiots comments as mine, I ignore it.

 

[IanC]

A C&P from Todd responding to SSDD-

.
You, on the other hand believe that energy moves from cool to warm spontaneously

Of course, because photons don't measure the temperature of their targets.
Did you ever explain how you think they do?

I will, for simplicity's sake, go along with SSDD'S claim that photons can test the suitability of the receiving particle before the virtual photon becomes real. Although I actually only believe this happens to photons passing electric and magnetic forces, not simple radiative photons.

Can the photon discern temperature? No, it cannot. Temperature is average kinetic speed of a large number of particles, some faster and some slower. Any individual particle may be fast or slow.

There is no temperature label on the emitter, photon, or receiver. Only internal conditions inside the emitter or receiver that allow it to produce or absorb a nondescript photon that could have come from an object with a very wide range of temperatures.

 

[SSDD]

That reminds me, did you ever provide at least a couple of examples of observations of matter at equilibrium ceasing all radiating?

Considering the fact that you can't show a single observed, measured example of two way energy flow, I would say that all you need do is pick any example and there you go.

Of course, because photons don't measure the temperature of their targets.

Do you believe every thing in the universe that obeys the laws of physics "tests the water" before they obey? Is that really the limit of your intellectual capacity?

Or how the cooler surface of the Sun decides that it's allowed to radiate toward the hotter corona?

Still waiting for you to claim that that energy movement is spontaneous. Do you really think that is a spontaneous energy movement?

What else explains your lack of observed examples?

Sorry toddster...every example supports me while you have no observed measured examples in support of you.

 

[SSDD]

I will answer SSDD'S accusations. I, and others here, have presented data taken by instruments at ambient temperature. I have also provided photographs. I even produced an industry report describing the precision and accuracy of one of the instruments, which described in detail how the instrument worked.

As I have said, the only measurements you have provided made with an instrument at ambient temperature are those where the instrument is doing nothing more than measuring the temperature change in an internal thermopile...you have no idea where the energy is coming from or which direction it is traveling.

All you have done is proved that you are so blinded by your belief that you are easily fooled by instrumentation.

I have given evidence that most instruments that are cooled do so because they want to clean up the signal from stray radiation or to allow quicker response times.

No ian, they are cooled so that energy will move from the atmosphere to the cooler instrument so that a signal can be measured.

Every object above absolute zero emits radiation according to its temperature and emmisivity, all the time. The CHANGE in temperature of an object results from the net flow of energy, as most objects are receiving energy from their surroundings as well as giving up energy.

No ian, that only applies if the object is a black body all alone in a vacuum...add other matter and that claim no longer holds true. And there is no net flow of energy...all energy movements are one way gross energy movements...but do feel free to show an example made with an instrument at ambient temperature.

You have been shown many examples of this process being described in textbooks, etc. Instead of believing these descriptions, you have invented your own implausible theory that objects throttle down or cease their radiation output. By unknown mechanism, and unknown information transfer.

All models and mind experiments...all the way down.

My theory gives the right answer to both macroscopic and microscopic questions. And doesn't need knowledge of everything in the universe, or secret mechanisms to decide what is allowed or not.

All your theory does is provide a story to tell till such time as we learn a whole lot more about energy movement, its basic mechanisms, and nature.

 

[SSDD]

Can the photon discern temperature? No, it cannot. Temperature is average kinetic speed of a large number of particles, some faster and some slower. Any individual particle may be fast or slow.

There is no temperature label on the emitter, photon, or receiver. Only internal conditions inside the emitter or receiver that allow it to produce or absorb a nondescript photon that could have come from an object with a very wide range of temperatures.

For honesty's sake you should add a disclaimer to all such statements that the claims being made are based on unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable mathematical models.

 

[polarbear]

Can the photon discern temperature? No, it cannot. Temperature is average kinetic speed of a large number of particles, some faster and some slower. Any individual particle may be fast or slow.

There is no temperature label on the emitter, photon, or receiver. Only internal conditions inside the emitter or receiver that allow it to produce or absorb a nondescript photon that could have come from an object with a very wide range of temperatures.

For honesty's sake you should add a disclaimer to all such statements that the claims being made are based on unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable mathematical models.

IanC has no hands on experience, let alone any technical or academic qualifications to make these statements. The same goes for these so called climate "scientists" that stack cold on top of hot and make it even hotter with photons. As if that would work. If it would then it should not matter at all what kind of flame temperature settings an AA is using:

how the can detector measure only the intensity of light that does not get absorbed and not measure the light emitted by the same atoms in the flame. Both sources of light are present and are of the same wavelength. The light is "chopped" with a rotating half-mirror so that the detector sees alternating light intensities. At one moment, only the light emitted by the flame is read since the light from the source is cut off, while at the next moment, the light from both the flame emission and the transmission of the source's light is measured since the source's light is allowed to pass. The emission signal is subtracted from the total signal and the measured difference is the Absorbance, A, what is displayed on the readout.
Forget about the chopper mirror. Older AA`s were single beam and we had to use the strip chart recorder trace as the baseline...and the same thing happens. If you make the flame hot enough less and less light is absorbed from the source.
So if as IanC claims that photons from a colder source add energy to a much hotter one it should not matter how hot you set the atomizer flame. It should still absorb as much light from the source as before.
But it won`t. Matter of fact all of the light from the source goes right through the sample path and you get a big fat zero on the Absorbance read-out. It is IanC that needs these "intelligent photons" mocking.

 

[IanC]

Can the photon discern temperature? No, it cannot. Temperature is average kinetic speed of a large number of particles, some faster and some slower. Any individual particle may be fast or slow.

There is no temperature label on the emitter, photon, or receiver. Only internal conditions inside the emitter or receiver that allow it to produce or absorb a nondescript photon that could have come from an object with a very wide range of temperatures.

For honesty's sake you should add a disclaimer to all such statements that the claims being made are based on unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable mathematical models.

IanC has no hands on experience, let alone any technical or academic qualifications to make these statements. The same goes for these so called climate "scientists" that stack cold on top of hot and make it even hotter with photons. As if that would work. If it would then it should not matter at all what kind of flame temperature settings an AA is using:

how the can detector measure only the intensity of light that does not get absorbed and not measure the light emitted by the same atoms in the flame. Both sources of light are present and are of the same wavelength. The light is "chopped" with a rotating half-mirror so that the detector sees alternating light intensities. At one moment, only the light emitted by the flame is read since the light from the source is cut off, while at the next moment, the light from both the flame emission and the transmission of the source's light is measured since the source's light is allowed to pass. The emission signal is subtracted from the total signal and the measured difference is the Absorbance, A, what is displayed on the readout.
Forget about the chopper mirror. Older AA`s were single beam and we had to use the strip chart recorder trace as the baseline...and the same thing happens. If you make the flame hot enough less and less light is absorbed from the source.
So if as IanC claims that photons from a colder source add energy to a much hotter one it should not matter how hot you set the atomizer flame. It should still absorb as much light from the source as before.
But it won`t. Matter of fact all of the light from the source goes right through the sample path and you get a big fat zero on the Absorbance read-out. It is IanC that needs these "intelligent photons" mocking.

Why are you changing the topic to methods of technology when you ran away from a discussion of natural heat flows?

I asked you pointed questions about how energy redistributes itself, for two cases. One where there is no further input of energy, and one where the warm object has an outside energy source.

You fled back to your igloo and ignored my repeated prompts for an answer. You are a coward and a blowhard.