Questions.....RE: The Greenhouse Effect

[Toddsterpatriot]

Can a colder object cause a warmer object to cool more slowly?

Typical that you would ask, rather than answer the question for yourself. Refer to the SB equation for an object radiating into something other than a vacuum. Here....let me help you.

Lets make the radiator 1 square meter with an emissivity of 1 for simplicity's sake and lets make the temperature of the radiator 75F

If it is radiating into a background that is 73F then P = 65.1 watts
If it is radiating into a background that is 45F then P = 92.06 watts
If it is radiating into a background that is 25F then P = 107.46 watts

So clearly, as the background temperature drops, the amount of energy the radiator emits increases, and conversely, as the background temperature increases, the amount of energy that the radiator emits decreases till such time as the temperature of the background and the emitter are the same and the amount of energy the radiator is emitting is zero.

If it is radiating into a background that is 73F then P = 65.1 watts
If it is radiating into a background that is 45F then P = 92.06 watts
If it is radiating into a background that is 25F then P = 107.46 watts

Dimmer switch!!!

Its called rate of release in comparison with its surroundings. The greater the differential the faster the release..

Its called rate of release in comparison with its surroundings.

Yup, it's a dimmer switch.

So how does the emitter know the temperature of the surroundings?
You know, so it can adjust the rate.......

 

[Billy_Bob]

Can a colder object cause a warmer object to cool more slowly?

Typical that you would ask, rather than answer the question for yourself. Refer to the SB equation for an object radiating into something other than a vacuum. Here....let me help you.

Lets make the radiator 1 square meter with an emissivity of 1 for simplicity's sake and lets make the temperature of the radiator 75F

If it is radiating into a background that is 73F then P = 65.1 watts
If it is radiating into a background that is 45F then P = 92.06 watts
If it is radiating into a background that is 25F then P = 107.46 watts

So clearly, as the background temperature drops, the amount of energy the radiator emits increases, and conversely, as the background temperature increases, the amount of energy that the radiator emits decreases till such time as the temperature of the background and the emitter are the same and the amount of energy the radiator is emitting is zero.

If it is radiating into a background that is 73F then P = 65.1 watts
If it is radiating into a background that is 45F then P = 92.06 watts
If it is radiating into a background that is 25F then P = 107.46 watts

Dimmer switch!!!

Its called rate of release in comparison with its surroundings. The greater the differential the faster the release..

Its called rate of release in comparison with its surroundings.

Yup, it's a dimmer switch.

So how does the emitter know the temperature of the surroundings?
You know, so it can adjust the rate.......

All matter vibrates according to its temperature.

Its not that hard to figure out..

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Can a colder object cause a warmer object to cool more slowly?

Typical that you would ask, rather than answer the question for yourself. Refer to the SB equation for an object radiating into something other than a vacuum. Here....let me help you.

Lets make the radiator 1 square meter with an emissivity of 1 for simplicity's sake and lets make the temperature of the radiator 75F

If it is radiating into a background that is 73F then P = 65.1 watts
If it is radiating into a background that is 45F then P = 92.06 watts
If it is radiating into a background that is 25F then P = 107.46 watts

So clearly, as the background temperature drops, the amount of energy the radiator emits increases, and conversely, as the background temperature increases, the amount of energy that the radiator emits decreases till such time as the temperature of the background and the emitter are the same and the amount of energy the radiator is emitting is zero.

If it is radiating into a background that is 73F then P = 65.1 watts
If it is radiating into a background that is 45F then P = 92.06 watts
If it is radiating into a background that is 25F then P = 107.46 watts

Dimmer switch!!!

Its called rate of release in comparison with its surroundings. The greater the differential the faster the release..

Its called rate of release in comparison with its surroundings.

Yup, it's a dimmer switch.

So how does the emitter know the temperature of the surroundings?
You know, so it can adjust the rate.......

All matter vibrates according to its temperature.

Its not that hard to figure out..

All matter vibrates according to its temperature.

How does the emitter measure the vibration of the target?

 

[SSDD]

CO2 doesn't warm when it absorbs IR? Does that make it unique?
Does that mean all CO2 is at absolute zero?

Of course it doesn't.....neither do any of the other so called greenhouse gasses except for water vapor...that is why I routinely ask for some actual evidence that absorption and emission equals warming...got any? Of course you don't because there is no such evidence because absorption and emission do not equal warming.

Of course it doesn't.

So dry ice.....of course.

Does dry ice form at atmospheric temperautres and pressures? How many times have I pointed out that none of the so called greenhouse gasses can hold energy at atmospheric temperatures and pressures? Now, can you provide any evidence that absorption and emission of IR by a gas results in warming in the atmosphere? Of course you can't.....

 

[SSDD]

Can a colder object cause a warmer object to cool more slowly?

Typical that you would ask, rather than answer the question for yourself. Refer to the SB equation for an object radiating into something other than a vacuum. Here....let me help you.

Lets make the radiator 1 square meter with an emissivity of 1 for simplicity's sake and lets make the temperature of the radiator 75F

If it is radiating into a background that is 73F then P = 65.1 watts
If it is radiating into a background that is 45F then P = 92.06 watts
If it is radiating into a background that is 25F then P = 107.46 watts

So clearly, as the background temperature drops, the amount of energy the radiator emits increases, and conversely, as the background temperature increases, the amount of energy that the radiator emits decreases till such time as the temperature of the background and the emitter are the same and the amount of energy the radiator is emitting is zero.

Just stating what the law says...and predicts every time it is tried...if dimmer switch is how you explain it to yourself in your mind, then call it whatever you like...dimmer switch...smart photons...throttle...you guys have all sorts of names for what you can't explain. Myself, I simply accept the physical law...The mechanism remains unknown.....I don't need to put a name to it to accept that every time it is tested, it is right.

If it is radiating into a background that is 73F then P = 65.1 watts
If it is radiating into a background that is 45F then P = 92.06 watts
If it is radiating into a background that is 25F then P = 107.46 watts

Dimmer switch!!!

 

[SSDD]

Funny that you make silly claims about "Smart Photons" when it is actually the physical attributes of the matter, at its temperature, which are doing what you claim doesn't happen..

Apparently these guys believe that objects must be smart in order to obey the laws of physics...they don't seem to grasp that they obey the laws of physics because there is no option....obeying the laws of physics is not an option...the laws of physics don't dictate what objects must do, the laws of physics simply describe what is going to happen every single time because of the nature of the objects themselves. if their nature were different, then they would behave differently and the laws of physics would predict that behavior as well.

Apparently these guys believe that objects must be smart in order to obey the laws of physics...

SB and the 2nd Law don't require smart objects, your misinterpretation does.......

The equation above accurately predicts how much radiation an emitter will put out given the temperature of its surroundings...I accept that number...you must apply some interpretation in order to make it jibe with your beliefs...I accept the number,,,that is not interpretation....you only accept the number with caveats'. That is interpretation.

 

[SSDD]

Can a colder object cause a warmer object to cool more slowly?

Typical that you would ask, rather than answer the question for yourself. Refer to the SB equation for an object radiating into something other than a vacuum. Here....let me help you.

Lets make the radiator 1 square meter with an emissivity of 1 for simplicity's sake and lets make the temperature of the radiator 75F

If it is radiating into a background that is 73F then P = 65.1 watts
If it is radiating into a background that is 45F then P = 92.06 watts
If it is radiating into a background that is 25F then P = 107.46 watts

So clearly, as the background temperature drops, the amount of energy the radiator emits increases, and conversely, as the background temperature increases, the amount of energy that the radiator emits decreases till such time as the temperature of the background and the emitter are the same and the amount of energy the radiator is emitting is zero.

Power is the net radiation per the defined area, in that equation. The distributive law makes it simple to calculate the gross radiation coming from each object. Subtracting one from the other gives the net amount.

Net is an interpretation...net is a caveat'...net is not what the equation says....nor is it supported by observation or measurement.

 

[SSDD]

Of course you don't because there is no such evidence because absorption and emission do not equal warming

Absorption and emission do not equal cooling. Is that what you are trying to say? Hahahaha.

According to your logic GHGs can neither warm nor cool the atmosphere. Utter nonsense.

And you still haven't explained how water vapour can absorb and retain radiation energy in a way that CO2 cannot.

Of course they can't...with the exception of water vapor...as I have said...IR does not warm the air. Radiation is a more efficient means of cooling than conduction...radiative gasses increase the emissivity of the atmosphere allowing it to shed energy more efficiently...resulting in cooling.

And I am surprised and disappointed that you don't know how water vapor manages to hold on to energy till such time as it is in the upper atmosphere. Water vapor absorbs energy when it changes phases.....it holds that energy till such time as it changes phases again...in this case, the upper atmosphere when it changes to ice crystals...at that time it releases exactly as much energy as it took to change it from water to water vapor...that energy then radiates on into space. How could you not know such a simple thing ian?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

CO2 doesn't warm when it absorbs IR? Does that make it unique?
Does that mean all CO2 is at absolute zero?

Of course it doesn't.....neither do any of the other so called greenhouse gasses except for water vapor...that is why I routinely ask for some actual evidence that absorption and emission equals warming...got any? Of course you don't because there is no such evidence because absorption and emission do not equal warming.

Of course it doesn't.

So dry ice.....of course.

Does dry ice form at atmospheric temperautres and pressures? How many times have I pointed out that none of the so called greenhouse gasses can hold energy at atmospheric temperatures and pressures? Now, can you provide any evidence that absorption and emission of IR by a gas results in warming in the atmosphere? Of course you can't.....

Does dry ice form at atmospheric temperautres and pressures?

CO2 never holds onto energy.......I read it on USMB.

Are you claiming it can hold enough energy long enough to be a gas at atmospheric temperatures and pressures?

Now, can you provide any evidence that absorption and emission of IR by a gas results in warming in the atmosphere?

If a gas absorbs IR, like you claim, that IR isn't instantly escaping into space.
Anything else I can do to increase your understanding, let me know.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Funny that you make silly claims about "Smart Photons" when it is actually the physical attributes of the matter, at its temperature, which are doing what you claim doesn't happen..

Apparently these guys believe that objects must be smart in order to obey the laws of physics...they don't seem to grasp that they obey the laws of physics because there is no option....obeying the laws of physics is not an option...the laws of physics don't dictate what objects must do, the laws of physics simply describe what is going to happen every single time because of the nature of the objects themselves. if their nature were different, then they would behave differently and the laws of physics would predict that behavior as well.

Apparently these guys believe that objects must be smart in order to obey the laws of physics...

SB and the 2nd Law don't require smart objects, your misinterpretation does.......

The equation above accurately predicts how much radiation an emitter will put out given the temperature of its surroundings...I accept that number...you must apply some interpretation in order to make it jibe with your beliefs...I accept the number,,,that is not interpretation....you only accept the number with caveats'. That is interpretation.

The equation above accurately predicts how much radiation an emitter will put

Does the equation say what it "puts out" or what it loses?
I've never seen anyone claim matter above 0 K ever stops emitting, except you. Weird.

 

[Wuwei]

The equation above accurately predicts how much radiation an emitter will put out given the temperature of its surroundings...I accept that number...you must apply some interpretation in order to make it jibe with your beliefs...I accept the number,,,that is not interpretation....you only accept the number with caveats'. That is interpretation.

No, it's the other way around. Let me remind you again how the SB law acquired it's subtracted form.

http://www.dartmouth.edu/~physics/l...oltzmann.law/stefan.boltzmann.law.writeup.pdf

Quantitatively,

Rₑ = εσT₁⁴ , . . . . . (1)

where Rₑ is the rate at which energy is emitted per unit area, ε is called the emissivity (a number between 0 and 1 depending on the material of which the object is made and on the temperature), σ is Stefan's constant (= 5.67 x 10-8 watts/m² K⁴ ) and T₁ is the Kelvin temperature of the body. Equation (1) was first suggested by Josef Stefan and is called the Stefan-Boltzmann law. The rate of absorption also depends on the nature of the object and on the temperature of its surroundings,

Rₐ =εσT₂⁴, . . . . . (2)

where Rₐ is the rate at which energy is absorbed per unit area and T₂ is the Kelvin temperature of the surroundings. Thus

Rnet = Rₑ - Rₐ = εσT₁⁴ - εσT₂⁴ = εσ(T₁⁴ – T₂⁴) . . . . . (3)

 

[SSDD]

Let me remind you of how easy it is to find a university teaching the bastardized version of the SB law in an attempt to justify the bullshit claim of back radiation.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Let me remind you of how easy it is to find a university teaching the bastardized version of the SB law in an attempt to justify the bullshit claim of back radiation.

Still waiting for you to find a university teaching one-way only flow of radiation.

 

[Wuwei]

Let me remind you of how easy it is to find a university teaching the bastardized version of the SB law in an attempt to justify the bullshit claim of back radiation.

That is pretty darn silly. A justification for back radiation? The SB law was published in 1879. Stefan wasn't claiming back radiation.

 

[SSDD]

Let me remind you of how easy it is to find a university teaching the bastardized version of the SB law in an attempt to justify the bullshit claim of back radiation.

That is pretty darn silly. A justification for back radiation? The SB law was published in 1879. Stefan wasn't claiming back radiation.

And he misses the point again...

That idiotic alteration of the SB formulary applying the distributive property to an already reduced equation in an attempt to create two way energy flow where none exists was not always taught in physics departments...and still isn't in many.

Here are some physics textbooks in use around the world and an indication of whether they teach the bastardized version of the SB equation in an attempt to make spontaneous two way energy flow real. I will let you guess which ones are in use for physics taught in the hard sciences such as physics, chemistry, engineering, etc., and which are used to teach the soft science of climate.

Atmospheric Radiation: Theoretical Basis by Goody and Yung: NoRadiative Heat

Transfer by Modest: No

Radiative Transfer by Chandrasekhar: No

3D Radiative Transfer in Cloudy Atmospheres by Marshak-Davis: No

An Introduction to Radiative Transfer by Peraiah: No

The Greenhouse Effect by Lindzen: Yes

Advancing the Science of Climate Change 2010, NRC: Yes

Assessing Climate Change by Rapp: Yes

An Introduction to Atmospheric Physics by Fleagle-Businger: Yes

 

[Wuwei]

Let me remind you of how easy it is to find a university teaching the bastardized version of the SB law in an attempt to justify the bullshit claim of back radiation.

That is pretty darn silly. A justification for back radiation? The SB law was published in 1879. Stefan wasn't claiming back radiation.

And he misses the point again...

That idiotic alteration of the SB formulary applying the distributive property to an already reduced equation in an attempt to create two way energy flow where none exists was not always taught in physics departments...and still isn't in many.

Here are some physics textbooks in use around the world and an indication of whether they teach the bastardized version of the SB equation in an attempt to make spontaneous two way energy flow real. I will let you guess which ones are in use for physics taught in the hard sciences such as physics, chemistry, engineering, etc., and which are used to teach the soft science of climate.

Atmospheric Radiation: Theoretical Basis by Goody and Yung: NoRadiative Heat

Transfer by Modest: No

Radiative Transfer by Chandrasekhar: No

3D Radiative Transfer in Cloudy Atmospheres by Marshak-Davis: No

An Introduction to Radiative Transfer by Peraiah: No

The Greenhouse Effect by Lindzen: Yes

Advancing the Science of Climate Change 2010, NRC: Yes

Assessing Climate Change by Rapp: Yes

An Introduction to Atmospheric Physics by Fleagle-Businger: Yes

There you go, shooting yourself in the foot again. I looked at two books and found that not only did they contradict your sense of the "reality" of thermodynamics, but they supported the view of physics that I have been telling you. I didn't look at the other books, but I will review them if you point out excerpts that support your view of one way energy flow, or discard two way equilibrium flow. It is most amazing that you can't even correctly argue your viewpoint, but end up arguing mine. Excerpts of two books follow:

Radiative Transfer by Chandrasekhar:
Excerpt from Preface:

Karl Schwarzschild introduced in 1906 the concept of radiative equilibrium in stellar atmospheres.​

Chapter XI Section 75

… the stellar atmosphere is in radiative equilibrium... [their italics, not mine.]​

Equation 8 is the usual T⁴ derivation but there is no mention of the subtracted form of the SB equation that I could find.

Radiative Heat Transfer, M. Modest
In the introduction to the book:

All materials continuously emit and absorb electromagnetic waves, or photons, by lowering or raising their molecular energy levels.​

Look at Figure 1.2 It shows simultaneous absorption and emission between surfaces in an enclosure.

There are four chapters dealing with purely radiative exchange...
For example, Chapter 4 is titled Radiative exchange between gray, diffuse surfaces

.

Conclusion: I have no idea how you even think anymore.

 

[IanC]

Let me remind you of how easy it is to find a university teaching the bastardized version of the SB law in an attempt to justify the bullshit claim of back radiation.

That is pretty darn silly. A justification for back radiation? The SB law was published in 1879. Stefan wasn't claiming back radiation.

And he misses the point again...

That idiotic alteration of the SB formulary applying the distributive property to an already reduced equation in an attempt to create two way energy flow where none exists was not always taught in physics departments...and still isn't in many.

Here are some physics textbooks in use around the world and an indication of whether they teach the bastardized version of the SB equation in an attempt to make spontaneous two way energy flow real. I will let you guess which ones are in use for physics taught in the hard sciences such as physics, chemistry, engineering, etc., and which are used to teach the soft science of climate.

Atmospheric Radiation: Theoretical Basis by Goody and Yung: NoRadiative Heat

Transfer by Modest: No

Radiative Transfer by Chandrasekhar: No

3D Radiative Transfer in Cloudy Atmospheres by Marshak-Davis: No

An Introduction to Radiative Transfer by Peraiah: No

The Greenhouse Effect by Lindzen: Yes

Advancing the Science of Climate Change 2010, NRC: Yes

Assessing Climate Change by Rapp: Yes

An Introduction to Atmospheric Physics by Fleagle-Businger: Yes

There you go, shooting yourself in the foot again. I looked at two books and found that not only did they contradict your sense of the "reality" of thermodynamics, but they supported the view of physics that I have been telling you. I didn't look at the other books, but I will review them if you point out excerpts that support your view of one way energy flow, or discard two way equilibrium flow. It is most amazing that you can't even correctly argue your viewpoint, but end up arguing mine. Excerpts of two books follow:

Radiative Transfer by Chandrasekhar:
Excerpt from Preface:

Karl Schwarzschild introduced in 1906 the concept of radiative equilibrium in stellar atmospheres.​

Chapter XI Section 75

… the stellar atmosphere is in radiative equilibrium... [their italics, not mine.]​

Equation 8 is the usual T⁴ derivation but there is no mention of the subtracted form of the SB equation that I could find.

Radiative Heat Transfer, M. Modest
In the introduction to the book:

All materials continuously emit and absorb electromagnetic waves, or photons, by lowering or raising their molecular energy levels.​

Look at Figure 1.2 It shows simultaneous absorption and emission between surfaces in an enclosure.

There are four chapters dealing with purely radiative exchange...
For example, Chapter 4 is titled Radiative exchange between gray, diffuse surfaces

.

Conclusion: I have no idea how you even think anymore.

Yup, every time SSDD actually gives a link it works against him.

Of course how could it not?

 

[Wuwei]

Yup, every time SSDD actually gives a link it works against him.

Of course how could it not?

The funny thing is that I didn't recently ask for references. Tod did four posts ago.

Still waiting for you to find a university teaching one-way only flow of radiation.

I suppose Tod is still waiting.

 

[SSDD]

And the wait continues for a single observation and measurement of spontaneous two way energy movement....got anything yet?

 

[SSDD]

Equation 8 is the usual T⁴ derivation but there is no mention of the subtracted form of the SB equation that I could find.

And you think that proves what? That

is an invalid equation?