Trenberth's Energy Budget

[polarbear]

thats odd. where did your last post go wirebender? do you mind putting that link up again, my phone doesnt have a history on the browser.

its an interesting idea but I am not really sure that it is fair to compare emissivity of CO2 over a large range when we are interested in IR that the earth gives off. CO2 has a couple of fat bands right in the middle of earth's radiation, with the 15 micron band practically to itself.

judging from the big bite taken out of the 15 micron portion of TOA outward radiation it appears that CO2 does a pretty good job of absorbing that band of radiation. actually I would like to read a paper on how much more energy can even be stopped because it looks like most already has been. I suppose that is why we are in the low slope portion of the log scale for doubling CO2 concentration.

Well if You want to read a paper on it here it is, these are ACTUAL MEASUREMENTS,...:
The Climate Catastrophe - A Spectroscopic Artifact

[FONT=Arial, Geneva]A 10 cm glass cylinder (150 cm[SIZE=-2]3[/SIZE], with IR-transparent window) was filled with synthetic CO[SIZE=-2]2[/SIZE]-free and vapour-free air. Then a microlitre syringe was used to add CO[SIZE=-2]2[/SIZE] so that the concentration was 357 ppm (concentration in 1993). Moreover 2.6% water vapour was added. Applying the IR beam source (a so-called Globar , an electrically heated silicon carbide bar at 1000 to 1200 degC and an adjustable interference filter) on one side, the absorption spectrum arriving at the other end was recorded. Then CO[SIZE=-2]2[/SIZE] was added to make 714 ppm. The equipment was an FTIR spectrometer "Bruker IFS 48" coupled to a PC. The program OPUS was used as analyzing software. A zero bias measurement was made to be subtracted later.[/FONT]

and here are the results:

[FONT=Arial, Geneva]Crucial is the relative increment of greenhouse effect . This is equal to the difference between the sum of slope integrals for 714 and 357 ppm, related to the total integral for 357 ppm. Considering the n[SIZE=-2]3[/SIZE] band alone (as IPCC does) we get[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Geneva](9.79[SIZE=+1]*[/SIZE]10[SIZE=-2]-4[/SIZE] cm[SIZE=-2]-1[/SIZE] - 1.11[SIZE=+1]*[/SIZE]10[SIZE=-2]-4[/SIZE] cm[SIZE=-2]-1[/SIZE]) / 0.5171 cm[SIZE=-2]-1[/SIZE] = 0.17 %[/FONT]

[FONT=Arial, Geneva] Conclusions[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Geneva]It is hardly to be expected that for CO[SIZE=-2]2[/SIZE] doubling an increment of IR absorption at the 15 µm edges by 0.17% can cause any significant global warming or even a climate catastrophe.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Geneva]The radiative forcing for doubling can be calculated by using this figure. If we allocate an absorption of 32 W/m[SIZE=-2]2[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1][14][/SIZE] over 180º steradiant to the total integral (area) of the n[SIZE=-2]3[/SIZE] band as observed from satellite measurements [SIZE=-1](Hanel et al., 1971)[/SIZE] and applied to a standard atmosphere, and take an increment of 0.17%, the absorption is 0.054 W/m[SIZE=-2]2[/SIZE] - and not 4.3 W/m[SIZE=-2]2[/SIZE].[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Geneva]This is roughly 80 times less than IPCC's radiative forcing.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Geneva]If we allocate 7.2 degC as greenhouse effect for the present CO[SIZE=-2]2[/SIZE] (as asserted by Kondratjew and Moskalenko in J.T. Houghton's book The Global Climate [SIZE=-1][14][/SIZE]), the doubling effect should be 0.17% which is 0.012 degC only. If we take 1/80 of the 1.2 degC that result from Stefan-Boltzmann's law with a radiative forcing of 4.3 W/m[SIZE=-2]2[/SIZE], we get a similar value of 0.015 degC.[/FONT]

 

[IanC]

I am simply describing how CO2 slows the shedding of heat from the earth's surface.

Like the difference between heat sinks and insulators, you also don't seem to grasp what "slowing down" means. IR radiates away from the earth at, or very near the speed of light and doesn't slow down and none of it is beamed back towards the earth by CO2 molecules.

it obviously untrue that none of the radiation makes it back to the surface. a great many CO2 molecules near the surface absorb a photon and then randomly reemit it, sometimes directly back to the surface. it is inconceivable that none of the photons reach the surface. photons dont cancel out. calculations can derive net flows but no photons actually disappear because of calculations.

heat sinks operate by conduction and convection. the radiation aspect is so low it is usually ignored. without conduction and convection heat sinks have insulating properties because they decrease the efficiency of radiation loss by lowering the temperature differential.

 

[IanC]

thats odd. where did your last post go wirebender? do you mind putting that link up again, my phone doesnt have a history on the browser.

its an interesting idea but I am not really sure that it is fair to compare emissivity of CO2 over a large range when we are interested in IR that the earth gives off. CO2 has a couple of fat bands right in the middle of earth's radiation, with the 15 micron band practically to itself.

judging from the big bite taken out of the 15 micron portion of TOA outward radiation it appears that CO2 does a pretty good job of absorbing that band of radiation. actually I would like to read a paper on how much more energy can even be stopped because it looks like most already has been. I suppose that is why we are in the low slope portion of the log scale for doubling CO2 concentration.

Well if You want to read a paper on it here it is, these are ACTUAL MEASUREMENTS,...:
The Climate Catastrophe - A Spectroscopic Artifact

[FONT=Arial, Geneva]A 10 cm glass cylinder (150 cm[SIZE=-2]3[/SIZE], with IR-transparent window) was filled with synthetic CO[SIZE=-2]2[/SIZE]-free and vapour-free air. Then a microlitre syringe was used to add CO[SIZE=-2]2[/SIZE] so that the concentration was 357 ppm (concentration in 1993). Moreover 2.6% water vapour was added. Applying the IR beam source (a so-called Globar , an electrically heated silicon carbide bar at 1000 to 1200 degC and an adjustable interference filter) on one side, the absorption spectrum arriving at the other end was recorded. Then CO[SIZE=-2]2[/SIZE] was added to make 714 ppm. The equipment was an FTIR spectrometer "Bruker IFS 48" coupled to a PC. The program OPUS was used as analyzing software. A zero bias measurement was made to be subtracted later.[/FONT]

and here are the results:

[FONT=Arial, Geneva]Crucial is the relative increment of greenhouse effect . This is equal to the difference between the sum of slope integrals for 714 and 357 ppm, related to the total integral for 357 ppm. Considering the n[SIZE=-2]3[/SIZE] band alone (as IPCC does) we get[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Geneva](9.79[SIZE=+1]*[/SIZE]10[SIZE=-2]-4[/SIZE] cm[SIZE=-2]-1[/SIZE] - 1.11[SIZE=+1]*[/SIZE]10[SIZE=-2]-4[/SIZE] cm[SIZE=-2]-1[/SIZE]) / 0.5171 cm[SIZE=-2]-1[/SIZE] = 0.17 %[/FONT]

[FONT=Arial, Geneva] Conclusions[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Geneva]It is hardly to be expected that for CO[SIZE=-2]2[/SIZE] doubling an increment of IR absorption at the 15 µm edges by 0.17% can cause any significant global warming or even a climate catastrophe.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Geneva]The radiative forcing for doubling can be calculated by using this figure. If we allocate an absorption of 32 W/m[SIZE=-2]2[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1][14][/SIZE] over 180º steradiant to the total integral (area) of the n[SIZE=-2]3[/SIZE] band as observed from satellite measurements [SIZE=-1](Hanel et al., 1971)[/SIZE] and applied to a standard atmosphere, and take an increment of 0.17%, the absorption is 0.054 W/m[SIZE=-2]2[/SIZE] - and not 4.3 W/m[SIZE=-2]2[/SIZE].[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Geneva]This is roughly 80 times less than IPCC's radiative forcing.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Geneva]If we allocate 7.2 degC as greenhouse effect for the present CO[SIZE=-2]2[/SIZE] (as asserted by Kondratjew and Moskalenko in J.T. Houghton's book The Global Climate [SIZE=-1][14][/SIZE]), the doubling effect should be 0.17% which is 0.012 degC only. If we take 1/80 of the 1.2 degC that result from Stefan-Boltzmann's law with a radiative forcing of 4.3 W/m[SIZE=-2]2[/SIZE], we get a similar value of 0.015 degC.[/FONT]

thanks for the link polarbear. the whole idea of absorbtion to extinction was my first impression before I started looking into the whole global warming thing. I assumed total absorbance of 15 microns, with enough swappings to convert the energy into photons that can escape through atmospheric windows. there is not enough information available, and it seems that most scientists on either side of the debate find an increase of ~1C for doubling of CO2. perhaps they are all idiots who refuse to listen to the visionaries like Hug, or perhaps Hug is looking at a restricted range that gives a false impression of the overall picture. I dont know, I am not a physicist. I do know that CO2 absorbs and slows down radiation from the earth from escaping therefore it warms the earth. I do not believe the positive feedback numbers though, I have a strong impression that they are physically improbable.

 

[wirebender]

it obviously untrue that none of the radiation makes it back to the surface.

Of course it is true. How do you suppose a massless photon which is nothing more than a bit of energy manages to get to the surface of the earth against the current, so to speak, of the EM field emitted by the earth which is hundreds of orders of magnitude more powerful?

a great many molecules near the surface absorb a photon and then randomly reemit it, sometimes directly back to the surface.

None make it to the surface ian, even one being absorbed by the surface of the earth woudl violate the second law of thermodynamics which states explicitly that it is not possible for heat to spontaneously flow from cool objects to warm objects without some work having been done to accomplish the task. Absorption and emission do not constitute work.

it is inconceivable that none of the photons reach the surface. photons dont cancel out. calculations can derive net flows but no photons actually disappear because of calculations.

If you believe the 2nd law of thermodynamics to be true, it is perfectly concievable. What is inconcievable is that someone would believe that the 2nd law of thermodynamics is being broken by a trace gas in the atmosphere.

heat sinks operate by conduction and convection.

Really? Your lack of knowledge just keeps expressing itself more clearly as you go on ian. Perhaps you should read a bit on the topic of vacuum tubes, specifically internal heat sinks. If heat sinks operate only by conduction and convection, some electrical engineers wasted a great deal of money putting heat sinks into vacuum tubes. Heat sinks work via conduction, convection, and radiation ian. How might they know the difference?

the radiation aspect is so low it is usually ignored. without conduction and convection heat sinks have insulating properties because they decrease the efficiency of radiation loss by lowering the temperature differential.

Sorry ian, but you couldn't be more wrong. Again, refer to internal heat sinks in the design and manufacture of vacuum tubes. For that matter look at space itself. Space acts as a heat sink for the earth and radiation is how heat finally gets into cold space. Conduction and convection are the primary means of moving heat to the upper atmosphere, but from there it radiates into the heat sink of space. You have, however, hit on the reason that the two bars will eventually reach thermal equilibrium or very close to it and radiate as a single object. I don't guess you will grasp that either.

 

[wirebender]

I do know that CO2 absorbs and slows down radiation from the earth from escaping therefore it warms the earth. I do not believe the positive feedback numbers though, I have a strong impression that they are physically improbable.

I believe that you genuinely believe you know that to be true, but alas, it just doesn't happen ian.

Tell me ian, which law(s) of physics do you beleive support and predict such an idea?

 

[polarbear]

thanks for the link polarbear. the whole idea of absorbtion to extinction was my first impression before I started looking into the whole global warming thing. I assumed total absorbance of 15 microns, with enough swappings to convert the energy into photons that can escape through atmospheric windows. there is not enough information available, and it seems that most scientists on either side of the debate find an increase of ~1C for doubling of CO2. perhaps they are all idiots who refuse to listen to the visionaries like Hug, or perhaps Hug is looking at a restricted range that gives a false impression of the overall picture. I dont know, I am not a physicist. I do know that CO2 absorbs and slows down radiation from the earth from escaping therefore it warms the earth. I do not believe the positive feedback numbers though, I have a strong impression that they are physically improbable.

No, they are not all idiots and neither are You.
But they all have one thing in common, You included..and how could I possibly exclude myself....and that is that each and every one has "overlooked" something,...not just You, but Yes Heinz Hug also.
But then the only process which does not "overlook" anything would be a thoroughly and COMPLETE representation of each and every process that affects this so called "energy budget"...
And as it becomes very very clear, this is a far cry from the "simple" examples, like Spencer`s and Trenberth`s.

All people like Heinz (Hug), many others and I are doing is pointing out what has been "overlooked" in these "simple" examples that conclude with some rather non-sensible if not outright ridiculous results in absolute numerical terms.

No matter who does what calculation, nobody would be able to proceed even on the first step without Beer Lambert`s laws of absorption.

So let`s take a look how many ways You can violate this law with "overlooking" something, before we start going beyond it and go on to "black bodies"...:

Beer

Prerequisites

There are at least six conditions that need to be fulfilled in order for Beer’s law to be valid. These are:

1. The absorbers must act independently of each other;
2. The absorbing medium must be homogeneous in the interaction volume
3. The absorbing medium must not scatter the radiation - no turbidity;
4. The incident radiation must consist of parallel rays, each traversing the same length in the absorbing medium;
5. The incident radiation should preferably be monochromatic, or have at least a width that is narrower than that of the absorbing transition; and
6. The incident flux must not influence the atoms or molecules; it should only act as a non-invasive probe of the species under study. In particular, this implies that the light should not cause optical saturation or optical pumping, since such effects will deplete the lower level and possibly give rise to stimulated emission.

If any of these conditions are not fulfilled, there will be deviations from Beer’s law.

Well as You can see it will be rather hard to find anybody who was innocent,...and has not violated at least one if not all of #1 to # 6,...
Would You not agree...?


Wirebender, I hope he does not mind discussing his private message, which was a Link to an extremely interesting paper which I would like to mention in context with the above. Here is the Link he sent me:

Mean Free Path Length of Photons in the Earth's Atmosphere

This publication has more or less the same numbers in it when we discussed how due to the wave properties of a photon, the "absorption" of energy as observed by Beer Lambert is really a matter of how much of the incident light as mentioned in condition # 4 above has been diverted from the "radiation must consist of parallel rays'

I did stress this point and have stated that each time there was a "photon encounter"...in Your examples that each and every time the energy quantum (the photon) is no longer on this path and thus manifests itself as a "darkened" absorption band in the spectrum.


The paper which is doing it the other way around...calculating a "mean free path" using the molecular cross section and # of molecules per volume, is thus considering the remaining transmittance of IR, which is the residual after the absorption...

The author of this paper is by no standard an idiot...
Yet he "overlooked" some pretty important things also...

I have nothing at all against "examples"...no matter, even if an example has been using photons like Newtonian particles with a momentum, velocity or directional / a "resting" Mass....and is ignoring the wave duality properties altogether....I`m still willing to apply the math walking through such examples..

But then I should also be allowed the use of examples...
Although the author of this paper has performed proper math,.. it is not entirely free of oversights.
Consider this question:
If a photon has to traverse a gas in which the sum of all absorbing molecular cross sections is say X...or using the "free path" Y= Total area-X ...
Do they have the same number of "encounters" as You put it,.... if these absorbing CO2 Molecules stand still...as opposed to Molecules in "molecular motion"..???
Or are there more of these "photon-CO2" encounters if we consider the well known fact that stored heat is in the final analysis increased Molecular motion...in random directions

So does the wind shield of a parked (CO2 molecule" car "encounter" as many photon "snow-flakes" as it would when it moves.

Would it encounter more snow flakes if the (molecular motion) speed increases...or does none of that matter and it stays the same as when the (molecular) car is parked...and it`s only a matter of cross section area which "blocks" or "catches" the photon (snow flakes)...

But by not considering this rather important detail, ...in no way would this make an idiot out of the author of this paper...

The main thrust of his publication was to compare the magnitudes of the CO2 absorption process with the rest of the absorption process not attributable to CO2 and he came to this conclusion:

[FONT=Georgia, Times, serif]Conclusions
[/FONT]
[FONT=Georgia, Times, serif]
[/FONT]
[FONT=Georgia, Times, serif]The results obtained by experimentation coincide with the results obtained by applying astrophysics formulas. Therefore, both methodologies are reliable to calculate the total emissivity/absorptivity of any gas of any planetary atmosphere.
[/FONT]
[FONT=Georgia, Times, serif]
[/FONT]
[FONT=Georgia, Times, serif]At an average density, the atmospheric water vapor allows quantum/waves to cross the troposphere to the tropopause in 0.0245 [/FONT][FONT=Georgia, Times, serif]s[/FONT][FONT=Georgia, Times, serif], i.e. 2.45 [/FONT][FONT=Georgia, Times, serif]cs[/FONT][FONT=Georgia, Times, serif] ([/FONT][FONT=Georgia, Times, serif]centiseconds[/FONT][FONT=Georgia, Times, serif]). By comparing the ability of water vapor to avoid that quantum/waves escape towards the outer space (0.5831 [/FONT][FONT=Georgia, Times, serif]s[/FONT][FONT=Georgia, Times, serif]) with the ability of CO2 (0.0049 [/FONT][FONT=Georgia, Times, serif]s[/FONT][FONT=Georgia, Times, serif]), I can affirm that the role of CO2 on warming the atmosphere or the surface is not possible according to Physics Laws.
[/FONT]
[FONT=Georgia, Times, serif]
[/FONT]
[FONT=Georgia, Times, serif]The water vapor is five times more efficient on intercepting quantum/waves than the carbon dioxide. Therefore, the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere works like a coolant of the atmospheric water vapor.
[/FONT]
[FONT=Georgia, Times, serif]
[/FONT]
[FONT=Georgia, Times, serif]By considering also that the carbon dioxide has by far a lower total emissivity than the water vapor I conclude that the carbon dioxide has not an effect on climate changes or warming periods on the Earth.
[/FONT]
[FONT=Georgia, Times, serif]
[/FONT]
[FONT=Georgia, Times, serif]The low thermal diffusivity of carbon dioxide makes of it to be an inefficient substance to adjust its temperature to the temperature of its surroundings. Consequently, the carbon dioxide can never reach the thermal equilibrium with respect to the remainder molecules of the air.
[/FONT]
[FONT=Georgia, Times, serif]
[/FONT]

And what he said + factoring in what I added, that would not just apply for "departing" photons, but more so to "back-radiation" photons...
because on the way back down the CO2 molecular motion & temperature increases progressively ...
and for the so called "obstructed" way out...or the "escape" path, I think You called, the exact opposite applies


I would also like to add, that it would be a monumental task to express in mathematical terms,...that is to say, perform a "climate energy budget" calculation which has not "overlooked" anything or has considered each and every process that in reality is involved...

That would not be a "simple" thing, like "climatology" would like to have it with how "simple" it is to proof their hypothesis and these "simple" examples

But back to You...You are on the right track now....
please do keep reading and discussing what You have been reading.

Thank You for starting this thread...
It motivated me to think about physics while I am re-painting the interior walls of my house...instead of letting TV news background noise entertain me

And Thanks to You also, wirebender for that link..
It was by far more interesting than this morning`s daily news papers






[FONT=Georgia, Times, serif]
[/FONT]

 

[IanC]

a great many molecules near the surface absorb a photon and then randomly reemit it, sometimes directly back to the surface.

None make it to the surface ian, even one being absorbed by the surface of the earth woudl violate the second law of thermodynamics which states explicitly that it is not possible for heat to spontaneously flow from cool objects to warm objects without some work having been done to accomplish the task. Absorption and emission do not constitute work.



If you believe the 2nd law of thermodynamics to be true, it is perfectly concievable. What is inconcievable is that someone would believe that the 2nd law of thermodynamics is being broken by a trace gas in the atmosphere.

the 2nd law states that there can be no net flow of heat from colder to warmer. the cancelling out of radiation flow going in both directions is a mathematical calculation, not a physical obliteration of photons. and it certainly doesnt happen without the presence of matter. you have put up zero evidence of this magical destructions of photons. you wont even pinpoint where this is supposed to happen. I have asked you dozens of times whether it happens at the surface, CO2 molecule or just in space but you refuse to give an answer.

the closest I have come to finding something that supports your view is Claes Johnson's discussion on how he thinks the back radiation is reversed at the surface, much like reflection. no cancelling out, and the 'resonated reemission' is part of the radiation calculated for the earth's surface, not some extra bit. this calculation works out to exactly the same numbers as the 'corrupted version' of the S-B formula.

one of the biggest problems in physics is being able to resolve what happens on a micro scale to the reality of the macro scale. you are trying to switch back and forth from large to small scale. heat flow only goes in one direction but radiation flow goes in both. an excited molecule doesnt check to see if it is allowed to emit energy by radiation, it just emits. the photon doesnt care which direction it is heading in, it just goes. the photon doesnt care whether it has enough energy to warm a body or just cancel out radiation in the other direction leading to a 'net flow'. CO2 doesnt care if it is a good emitter and absorber at certain wavelengths and a poor one at others, it just is what it is regardless.

do I like the surface radiation and atmospheric back radiation components in Trenberth's diagram? no, I think it should just show ~60W/m2 going up, perhaps with a side diagram showing the the calculation of radiation in both directions. do I think Trenberth has the right figures for the energy coming in and going out? I dont think it is exactly right but it is probably reasonably close.

CO2 stops most of the 15 micron radiation from leaving directly. H2O stops many other bands and also carries latent heat aloft, water droplets reflect microwaves, and a hundred other things happen. perhaps the CO2 portion will be reassigned a different number in the future, maybe not. But there is a physical explanation for what physicists say is happening. until there is proof that that explanation is wrong, and accepted by more than a few fringe crackpots, I will continue to believe that CO2 is a factor in atmospheric processes but I will also continue to be sceptical of the high feedback values which lead to global warming alarmism.

wirebender, care to explain where and how all these photons magically disappear? in the real world and not in some calculation?

 

[IanC]

I finally found a nice diagram of blackbody radiation for two temperatures in the range of earth/atmosphere interactions. do you notice how they almost perfectly overlap? how can a body tell the difference between a photon radiated from 10C or at -10C? how can a 0C body only accept radiation from 10C but refuse the same photon from -10C?

not only did I find the diagram but the article that goes along with it is outstanding.

The Amazing Case of “Back Radiation” – Part Three « The Science of Doom

the upwards and downwards radiation was measured...

and compared to the theoretical radiation that should have been emitted that day for the daily temperatures.

 

[gslack]

Ian please stop using science of doom as a reference.. he is a 7th grade teacher who was let go from his job as a PR man for the NOAA.. And he routinely does the same crap spencer does using half-science mixed with speculation and twisted logic..

Seriously, He is a PR man cashing in..

 

[polarbear]

The Amazing Case of “Back Radiation” – Part Three « The Science of Doom

the upwards and downwards radiation was measured...

and compared to the theoretical radiation that should have been emitted that day for the daily temperatures.

When academics discuss a subject they can afford to use "simple examples" and can even afford to "overlook" things while experimenting.
Engineers may not have the amount of academic schooling to win such purely academic discussions, but on the
other hand they cannot afford any oversights or justify their decisions, should they result in a disaster with "simple examples" that in theory sounded "logical" or that an "experiment showed"...or that "almost all agreed that blah blah" etc etc.
Engineers do not experiment, lives depend on it that they don`t .
So we have to be dead sure,...just boasting that the silenced critics had no counter argument never got any fuck up engineer off the hook


While purely academic people do concern themselves with the laws of physics, they are not involved in applying these
to a real world scenario which is the realm of engineering..

Engineers must understand the laws of physics not just in the abstract, but also all the implications that go with these.
To carry out their task they do use certain principles and the numbers that go with it all the time on an almost daily basis....

I have been an academic first and turned engineer later...so I would be the last one to ridicule one or the other
but I do know the limitations of any person who chose to be ONLY either one or the other.

So the first thing I noticed in Trenberth`s energy Budget and all the other "examples" was this gaping hole which
remained when trying to bridge the gap from paper based theory to a real world scenario:

Engineers measure Heat conductivity...
"Standard" air as it is ( the exact CO2 was not specified) has a heat conductivity of 0.025 Watts per meter per degree K
That was most likely measured in this century...so let`s plug in 370 ppm (Molar) CO2

pure CO2 has under the same conditions a heat conductivity of 14.65 milli watts per meter and per deg Kelvin temperature
difference between the "hotter" and the "colder" .


So we can calculate that the loss in heat conductivity the climatologists like to refer to as the insulation effect of
CO2...but since they want to avoid going into heat convection etc they prefer to put the this word "insulation"
inside quote marks and keep on talking about "black body back radiation" that has manifested itself as an
"insulation effect"...."blanketing the earth" and so on...


Well when engineers do measure the heat conductivity of a gas such as CO2, they do not install an optical
barrier which blocks heat radiation, be that back or forward radiation...
Engineers measure the entire heat energy flow in watts that can pass through CO2.

So let`s do the math for how much a gas that has a heat conductivity of 14.65 milli watts / (m*K)
can reduce the heat conductivity of air with no CO2

We can also say that A (Air) + 370 ppm C (CO2) = 0.025

that A without any CO2 has a thermal conductivity of

A = 0.025 -(0.0145*370*10^-6) =0.024994635.

In the final analysis over the distance of 1 meter and over a Temp differential of 1 Kelvin the heat conductivity dropped by only 0.005365 milli-watts
which is the amount of "extra heat energy" per second the 370 molar ppm CO2 can "insulate."

And I do want to re-iterate that in all the actual measurements for heat conductivity the radiation component is not blocked out
but is included...
The only thing that is excluded as much as it is possible in these measurements is convection.
And that`s the way we design the insulation we do use...in the so called "Fiber glass insulation"
the role of the fiberglass is to suppress convection, the air it traps is the insulator...
and don`t even think for one second that aside from common air no other gas has not thoroughly been tested.
They have been, especially in the design of "thermal windows"...
Last year I made a joke that window any manufacturer knows a lot more about CO2 and "back-radiation"
than any of these climatologist...the sad part is, that it was`nt a joke

So my argument against academics like Trenberth is not just purely academic, ...

Let me put this in other terms.
Suppose an engineer is commissioned to design a greenhouse for very expensive & exotic plants and
uses the climatology "back-radiation" numbers + the "back radiation examples" .

Then trying to use the extra CO2 "back radiation-("insulation") effect" to save fossil fuel , or to save energy in a general sense this engineer under designed the Greenhouse heat requirements
by the wattages climatology keeps coming up with.
There is no way this engineer would get another job, no matter how often he quotes Trenberth or anybody else.

 

[IanC]

Ian please stop using science of doom as a reference.. he is a 7th grade teacher who was let go from his job as a PR man for the NOAA.. And he routinely does the same crap spencer does using half-science mixed with speculation and twisted logic..

Seriously, He is a PR man cashing in..

as usual you add nothing to the conversation. the only thing different is that you insult someone other than me.

do you have some sort of explanation as to how photons of the same wavelength and energy are sometimes absorbed and sometimes not, depending on the temperature of the object radiating them?

it sure makes things a lot easier to imagine with both objects radiating towards each other and heat flowing in the direction of net radiation.

 

[IanC]

The Amazing Case of “Back Radiation” – Part Three « The Science of Doom

the upwards and downwards radiation was measured...

and compared to the theoretical radiation that should have been emitted that day for the daily temperatures.

When academics discuss a subject they can afford to use "simple examples" and can even afford to "overlook" things while experimenting.
Engineers may not have the amount of academic schooling to win such purely academic discussions, but on the
other hand they cannot afford any oversights or justify their decisions, should they result in a disaster with "simple examples" that in theory sounded "logical" or that an "experiment showed"...or that "almost all agreed that blah blah" etc etc.
Engineers do not experiment, lives depend on it that they don`t .
So we have to be dead sure,...just boasting that the silenced critics had no counter argument never got any fuck up engineer off the hook


While purely academic people do concern themselves with the laws of physics, they are not involved in applying these
to a real world scenario which is the realm of engineering..

Engineers must understand the laws of physics not just in the abstract, but also all the implications that go with these.
To carry out their task they do use certain principles and the numbers that go with it all the time on an almost daily basis....

I have been an academic first and turned engineer later...so I would be the last one to ridicule one or the other
but I do know the limitations of any person who chose to be ONLY either one or the other.

So the first thing I noticed in Trenberth`s energy Budget and all the other "examples" was this gaping hole which
remained when trying to bridge the gap from paper based theory to a real world scenario:

Engineers measure Heat conductivity...
"Standard" air as it is ( the exact CO2 was not specified) has a heat conductivity of 0.025 Watts per meter per degree K
That was most likely measured in this century...so let`s plug in 370 ppm (Molar) CO2

pure CO2 has under the same conditions a heat conductivity of 14.65 milli watts per meter and per deg Kelvin temperature
difference between the "hotter" and the "colder" .


So we can calculate that the loss in heat conductivity the climatologists like to refer to as the insulation effect of
CO2...but since they want to avoid going into heat convection etc they prefer to put the this word "insulation"
inside quote marks and keep on talking about "black body back radiation" that has manifested itself as an
"insulation effect"...."blanketing the earth" and so on...


Well when engineers do measure the heat conductivity of a gas such as CO2, they do not install an optical
barrier which blocks heat radiation, be that back or forward radiation...
Engineers measure the entire heat energy flow in watts that can pass through CO2.

So let`s do the math for how much a gas that has a heat conductivity of 14.65 milli watts / (m*K)
can reduce the heat conductivity of air with no CO2

We can also say that A (Air) + 370 ppm C (CO2) = 0.025

that A without any CO2 has a thermal conductivity of

A = 0.025 -(0.0145*370*10^-6) =0.024994635.

In the final analysis over the distance of 1 meter and over a Temp differential of 1 Kelvin the heat conductivity dropped by only 0.005365 milli-watts
which is the amount of "extra heat energy" per second the 370 molar ppm CO2 can "insulate."

And I do want to re-iterate that in all the actual measurements for heat conductivity the radiation component is not blocked out
but is included...
The only thing that is excluded as much as it is possible in these measurements is convection.
And that`s the way we design the insulation we do use...in the so called "Fiber glass insulation"
the role of the fiberglass is to suppress convection, the air it traps is the insulator...
and don`t even think for one second that aside from common air no other gas has not thoroughly been tested.
They have been, especially in the design of "thermal windows"...
Last year I made a joke that window any manufacturer knows a lot more about CO2 and "back-radiation"
than any of these climatologist...the sad part is, that it was`nt a joke

So my argument against academics like Trenberth is not just purely academic, ...

Let me put this in other terms.
Suppose an engineer is commissioned to design a greenhouse for very expensive & exotic plants and
uses the climatology "back-radiation" numbers + the "back radiation examples" .

Then trying to use the extra CO2 "back radiation-("insulation") effect" to save fossil fuel , or to save energy in a general sense this engineer under designed the Greenhouse heat requirements
by the wattages climatology keeps coming up with.
There is no way this engineer would get another job, no matter how often he quotes Trenberth or anybody else.

I am sorry but I dont quite understand what I am supposed to take away from your comment. CO2 is a greybody absorber and emitter. are you saying that we should ignore its good emission/absorbance at 15 microns because of its poor emission/absorbance at other wavelengths? the 15 micron band is where it has an effect because other substances in the atmosphere dont react strongly there. the TOA emission measured from satellites show that the 15 micron band has been strongly reduced by passing through the atmosphere. obviously the 15 micron band has been transformed into some other type/wavelength of radiation before the energy escaped.

 

[polarbear]

I finally found a nice diagram of blackbody radiation for two temperatures in the range of earth/atmosphere interactions. do you notice how they almost perfectly overlap? how can a body tell the difference between a photon radiated from 10C or at -10C? how can a 0C body only accept radiation from 10C but refuse the same photon from -10C?

not only did I find the diagram but the article that goes along with it is outstanding.

The Amazing Case of “Back Radiation” – Part Three « The Science of Doom

Well IanC I have had the time to read this publication and the only thing I can find which is outstanding is how ignorant of physics the author is.

Notice the similarity between the 10°C and the -10°C radiation curves.
Think of individual photons as anonymous – a 10μm photon from a 2,000K source has exactly the same energy as a 10μm photon from a 200K source. No one can tell them apart.

So not only are all thermodynamic laws "imaginary", but so is Wien`s displacement law:

where λmax is the peak wavelength, T is the absolute temperature of the black body, and b is a constant of proportionality called Wien's displacement constant, equal to 2.8977685(51)×10−3 m·K (2002 CODATA recommended value).

This diagram where this guy says :

Notice the similarity between the 10°C and the -10°C radiation curves.
Alert readers who have pieced together these basics will already be able to see why the imaginary second law is not the real second law.

You can see Wien`s and the other "imaginary laws"...
did You not notice how the +10 T total emitted energy peak has been shifted by ~ 3[microns] to the left...the shorter wavelength..!!!

I won`t fault You if You did not spot it, especially not when You allowed this physics tourist guide to give you a tour like he does.


Even "Wikipedia" would have been a better tourist guide, at least they point it out to their physics tourist visitors coming to their web site:

Wien's displacement law - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Wien's law is not obvious in the picture, because the total emission includes a geometrical factor of 1/λ2 which counts the number of fourier modes of wavelength λ, and a second factor of 1/λ2 to convert intensities per-unit-frequency to intensities per-unit-wavelength

So since as this goof ball claims these are just "imaginary laws" all of this must also be merely an illusion:

Near, Mid and Far-Infrared

The wavelength at which an object radiates most intensely depends on its temperature. In general, as the temperature of an object cools, it shows up more prominently at farther infrared wavelengths. This means that some infrared wavelengths are better suited for studying certain objects than others.

As we move from the near-infrared into mid and far-infrared regions of the spectrum, some celestial objects will appear while others will disappear from view.

And on top of that this I am searching for a proper word here...has the nerve to use the "Wien down-shift" on solar radiation to the wave length where CO2 can "absorb"...actually You should know by now, that is really just a dispersal in other directions rather than having "absorbed" energy and storing it as heat...but on the way up he is trying to tell you that there is no "Wien up-shift" when a body gets hotter.

And thus according to him :

Notice that there is no dependence on the temperature of the source. Think of individual photons as anonymous – a 10μm photon from a 2,000K source has exactly the same energy as a 10μm photon from a 200K source.

And goes on to use this as "proof" that the photons from a "colder body" can heat a "hotter body"
I live in Canada, and I wish I could heat my house by hanging a few large ice cubes outside my windows.

So what would be the proper word (???) to attribute to somebody who publishes garbage like he does...I let You pick it

 

[IanC]

You can see Wien`s and the other "imaginary laws"...
did You not notice how the +10 T total emitted energy peak has been shifted by ~ 3[microns] to the left...the shorter wavelength..!!!

why wouldnt the peak be more intense and at a higher wavelength for a warmer temp? I dont follow your reasoning.

the point that the author was making is that there is a spread of wavelengths for any temperature and that the overlap between close temps is very close to complete. there is no way to tell whether any individual photon is from the warmer or cooler object.

the flawed 2nd law-

It (the flawed theory) goes like this:

1.the atmosphere emits “a photon”
2.the photon reaches the surface of the earth
3.because the temperature of the surface of the earth is higher the photon cannot be absorbed – therefore it gets “bounced”.
Except it’s not physics in any shape or form – it just sounds like it might be.

Let’s review a few basics. It’s important to grasp these basics because they will ensure that you can easily find the flaw in the many explanations of the imaginary second law of thermodynamics.

and the point of the two curves-

Alert readers who have pieced together these basics will already be able to see why the imaginary second law is not the real second law.

If a 0°C surface can absorb radiation from 10°C radiation, it must be able to absorb radiation from -10°C radiation. And yet this would violate the imaginary second law of thermodynamics.

edit- I meant to say higher energy wavelength, which means a shorter wavelength, shifted to the left on the graph

 

[IanC]

and just to be clear, he is not saying the 2nd law of thermodynamics is imaginary. he is saying that some people's interpretation of the 2nd law is imaginary. I believe he is referring to Claes Johnson, who has been parroted in an even crazier form by wirebender who claims the photons are not just bounced but actually obliterated in space without the need of matter to be present.

 

[polarbear]

You can see Wien`s and the other "imaginary laws"...
did You not notice how the +10 T total emitted energy peak has been shifted by ~ 3[microns] to the left...the shorter wavelength..!!!

why wouldnt the peak be more intense and at a higher wavelength for a warmer temp? I dont follow your reasoning.

the point that the author was making is that there is a spread of wavelengths for any temperature and that the overlap between close temps is very close to complete. there is no way to tell whether any individual photon is from the warmer or cooler object.

the flawed 2nd law-

It (the flawed theory) goes like this:

1.the atmosphere emits “a photon”
2.the photon reaches the surface of the earth
3.because the temperature of the surface of the earth is higher the photon cannot be absorbed – therefore it gets “bounced”.
Except it’s not physics in any shape or form – it just sounds like it might be.

Let’s review a few basics. It’s important to grasp these basics because they will ensure that you can easily find the flaw in the many explanations of the imaginary second law of thermodynamics.

and the point of the two curves-

Alert readers who have pieced together these basics will already be able to see why the imaginary second law is not the real second law.

If a 0°C surface can absorb radiation from 10°C radiation, it must be able to absorb radiation from -10°C radiation. And yet this would violate the imaginary second law of thermodynamics.

Look again closely at the diagram. The peak where the highest output from the "hotter body" is, has been shifted to the shorter wave-length... by about 3 microns.
And the peak is higher at this higher frequency..!!!

If You can`t understand how an IDEAL "black body" radiates then read up on the theory again. A "black body" is assumed to consist of a material that can in THEORY oscillate over the entire frequency range...but it is the AMPLITUDE You get at a higher frequency that makes the difference.

You fell for it again...!
That tells me that You still don`t understand Plancks`s law, because You are trying to do so studying only the kind of "material" that comes from sources that probably don`t understand it either.

Here, read some more about it:

Planck's law - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In terms of frequency (&#957 or wavelength (λ), Planck's law is written:

or

Limitations of Planck's Law

Planck's formula predicts that a black body will radiate energy at all frequencies, but its intensity rapidly tends to zero at both high and low frequencies (short and long wavelengths). For example, a black body at room temperature (300 K) with one square meter of surface area will emit a photon in the visible range once every minute or so, meaning that for most practical purposes a black body at room temperature does not emit in the visible range

Look again at this diagram

This guy has sold You the con, that there is no frequency shift and that "photons" coming from a colder source are indistinguishable from colder source photons...

Even in his diagram where he collapsed the scale to mask the frequency shift You can still see it
I don`t have the time right now to go back and read his silly web page..but as far as I remember he used these words:
"photons coming from a 2000 K source are the same as photons coming from a 200 K source"...

How exactly has he established this astonishing feat...
On that web-page there is a picture of a calibrated thermal imaging device which for all intents and purposes is just a stage prop.
He is not MEASURING with that anything we did not know, or which shows that photons from a "colder source" can add heat energy to a hotter source.
The only thing they have measured in this farmer`s field was incident and outgoing IR...which is specific to the temperature, they did not even bother to record and what kind of dirt & plants the thermal detector was looking at...NOTHING ELSE...and NOTHING NEW...

If a 0°C surface can absorb radiation from 10°C radiation, it must be able to absorb radiation from -10°C radiation.

What kind of reasoning is that..???
of course a 0°C surface can absorb heat energy from a + 10 °C source..
How do You get from that to :

...it must be able to absorb radiation from -10°C radiation.

and have allowed yet again allowed some quack to present photons to You as if they were particles that You could somehow accumulate and save like pebbles, till You have enough "photon/heat energy" from the colder source to raise the temp. of the hotter source where these photons came from....and he is trying to use a Planck "black-body radiation" versus Temperature graph trying to establish this...

You also continue to foist the burden to de-bunk this kind of crap on me...!
Why don`t You study up on the physics which are involved ;

Second law of thermodynamics - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Clausius statement

German scientist Rudolf Clausius is credited with the first formulation of the second law, now known as the Clausius statement:[4]
No process is possible whose sole result is the transfer of heat from a body of lower temperature to a body of higher temperature.[note 1] Spontaneously, heat cannot flow from cold regions to hot regions without external work being performed on the system, which is evident from ordinary experience of refrigeration, for example. In a refrigerator, heat flows from cold to hot, but only when forced by an external agent, a compressor.

So that settles it for HEAT FLOW...if You want to rule out heat flow, and want to show me an experiment + the measurement that makes the case for back-radiation then You have to come up with something better than this silly stage prop setup:

Because the first thing You`ld have to do is to disallow HEAT FLOW, and disallow any contact of the air above the farmer`s field and the ground below.


So then let`s go from HEAT FLOW to radiation:

Kelvin statement

Lord Kelvin expressed the second law in another form. The Kelvin statement expresses it as follows:[4]
No process is possible in which the sole result is the absorption of heat from a reservoir and its complete conversion into work. This means it is impossible to extract energy by heat from a high-temperature energy source and then convert all of the energy into work. At least some of the energy must be passed on to heat a low-temperature energy sink. Thus, a heat engine with 100% efficiency is thermodynamically impossible. This also means that it is impossible to build solar panels that generate electricity solely from the infrared band of the electromagnetic spectrum without consideration of the temperature on the other side of the panel

But if these climatology photons, the ones Your physics mentor claims are no different if they come from a "hot" source or a "cold source" then these should work just fine on solar panels..
Unitarity (physics)

In quantum field theory one usually uses a mathematical description which includes unphysical fundamental particles, such as a longitudinal photons. These particles must not appear as the end-states of a scattering process.

And as You should know by now that these IR light (photons) are not really absorbed by a transparent medium like air or CO2 and heat this medium, they are merely SCATTERED as an electro-magnetic wave in all possible directions...and are as a consequence "missing" at the detector which is in line of sight with the source-emitter..

But You have not been reading any of this and keep coming back with yet another photon "back radiation" re-appearance example which are in gross violation of all quantum physics...and as an end product "add heat" from a colder receiver to the hotter source...

There are no "simple examples" to help explain quantum physics to somebody that has only a spotty knowledge of physics.

But that should not be viewed as some sort of insult,..after all You were not the author of the web-page that published this nonsense
The Amazing Case of “Back Radiation” – Part Three « The Science of Doom

and all the other physics laws including quantum physics laws are "imaginary laws" I think are the words he used...
But never mind that,...look at this spin doctor twist quantum physics with curves that to him look perfectly "similar"

Notice that there is no dependence on the temperature of the source. Think of individual photons as anonymous – a 10μm photon from a 2,000K source has exactly the same energy as a 10μm photon from a 200K source.
Notice the similarity between the 10°C and the -10°C radiation curves.


No one can tell them apart.

And if any radiation is absorbed it must change the surface temperature and therefore violate the (imaginary) second law of thermodynamics.

and then uses this as some sort of "proof"...You did not notice this at all..?

How about what he says here..::

If you can afford an FT-IR to do a spectral analysis you will be able to prove your theory beyond a shadow of doubt – as the spectrum will have those characteristic CO2, O3 and water vapor peaks that were shown in DLR spectra in Part Two.

That he did not even bother to do a spectral analysis, which could have singled out his "DLR" (Downward Longwave Radiation) if it existed in the entire IR frequency range his Hollywood like stage prop setup was looking at.

Where exactly did he measure anything that excluded any of the incoming solar radiation and the wavelength associated with his so called "DLR measurement"

He could have at least made the effort that this silly Schulze Daeke radiometer Experiment, EBEX 2000 was looking at it`s own shadow instead of a spot below hit by the glaring sun from above..as it does in the photo and according to the graphed data he posts on his web site...
or picked a time when there was partial overcast obscuring the sun, according to his "DLR" delirium there should be a shitload of more "back-radiation" heating the part of this field which is under the cloud to higher temperatures than a section of the same field where the sun is not obscured..

How hard could it be to set up such an experiment,...???... this time not just with a Schulze Daeke radiometer, but a radiometer with spectro-analysis capability and non-partisan observers who are schooled in physics instead of just a major "climatology" and a minor in physics as "climatologists" who claim they have a degree in physics so often do (!!!) ...that`s why everything in physics is always so "simple" in their so called explanations...

Not a single one of these "explanations" & interpretation of physics is directed at the professional physics community..which they shun...this brain wash crap is is squarely aimed at the public at large

 

[IanC]

this graph shows that practically all of the radiation from both the +10C and -10C bodies is radiated from 4-50 microns. the average wavelength for the warmer body is shifted towards 4 microns side(more energetic), and the warmer body is radiating more at every wavelength.

the type of radiation is almost exactly the same! 4,5,6,7....49,50. both bodies emit the same types of radiation! the warmer body just radiates more at every wavelength. if both bodies radiate a portion of their energy at 12 microns how is a 0C body supposed to know that it can accept the 12 micron photon from the warmer body but not the 12 micron photon from the colder body? there are no tags on radiation saying what temperature body they were emitted from!

the warmer body gives off MORE radiation, and at a slightly higher average energy levels. the graphs for any temperature have the same shape (within reason). the reason why heat always flows from warm to cold is because there is always MORE radiation coming from the warmer body. the warmer body always has the same amount of radiation as the colder body (both in wavelength and intensity) PLUS the extra radiation above the colder body's graph( which is shifted to a higher average energy=lower wavelength).

the 2nd law is derived from how bodies radiate. a body's radiation is not derived by the 2nd law

 

[IanC]

The Amazing Case of “Back Radiation” – Part Three « The Science of Doom

and all the other physics laws including quantum physics laws are "imaginary laws" I think are the words he used...
But never mind that,...look at this spin doctor twist quantum physics with curves that to him look perfectly "similar"

the only thing he called 'imaginary' was the faulty interpretation of the 2nd law. but I will go back and reread it to make sure.

 

[IanC]

In this article we will consider what happens when this radiation reaches the ground. The reason we want to consider it is because so many people are confused about “back radiation” and have become convinced that either it doesn’t exist – covered in the previous two parts – or it can’t actually have any effect on the temperature of the earth’s surface.

The major reason that people give for thinking that DLR can’t affect the temperature is (a mistaken understanding of) the second law of thermodynamics, and they might say something like:

A colder atmosphere can’t heat a warmer surface

There are semantics which can confuse those less familiar with thermal radiation.

If we consider the specific terminology of heat we can all agree and say that heat flows from the warmer to the colder. In the case of radiation, this means that more is emitted by the hotter surface (and absorbed by the colder surface) than the reverse.

However, what many people have come to believe is that the colder surface can have no effect at all on the hotter surface. This is clearly wrong. And just to try and avoid upsetting the purists but without making the terminology too obscure I will say that the radiation from the colder surface can have an effect on the warmer surface and can change the temperature of the warmer surface.

Here is an example from a standard thermodynamics textbook:

his reason for writing the article. with a scanned in page of a physics text.

One commenter on an earlier post asked this question:

But if at the surface the temperature is higher than in the atmospheric source then might the molecules which might have absorbed such a photon be in fact unavailable because they have already moved to a higher energy configuration due to thermal collisions in the material which contains them?

Many people have some vague idea that this kind of approach is how the second law of thermodynamics works down at the molecular level.

It (the flawed theory) goes like this:

the atmosphere emits “a photon”
the photon reaches the surface of the earth
because the temperature of the surface of the earth is higher the photon cannot be absorbed – therefore it gets “bounced”.
Except it’s not physics in any shape or form – it just sounds like it might be.

Let’s review a few basics. It’s important to grasp these basics because they will ensure that you can easily find the flaw in the many explanations of the imaginary second law of thermodynamics.

first utterance of imaginary---in reference to a distorted view of the 2nd law.

Of course, radiation from different temperature sources do have significant differences – in aggregate. What most, or all, believers in the imaginary second law of thermodynamics haven’t appreciated is how similar different temperature Planck curves can be:

second use of imaginary---again in reference to the distorted definition of the 2nd law.

Notice the similarity between the 10°C and the -10°C radiation curves.

Alert readers who have pieced together these basics will already be able to see why the imaginary second law is not the real second law.

If a 0°C surface can absorb radiation from 10°C radiation, it must be able to absorb radiation from -10°C radiation. And yet this would violate the imaginary second law of thermodynamics.

third and fourth use of 'imaginary'----again in reference to the mistaken interpretation of the 2nd law.

So from basic physics and basic material properties it should be clear that radiation from a colder surface cannot be all reflected while at the same time radiation from a warmer surface is absorbed.

And if any radiation is absorbed it must change the surface temperature and therefore violate the (imaginary) second law of thermodynamics.

You have to ditch something. I would recommend ditching the imaginary second law of thermodynamics. But you can choose – instead you could ditch the first law of thermodynamics, or the basic equation for the energy of a photon (make up your own), or invent some new surface properties.

fifth and sixth utterances. still aimed at the twisted version of the 2nd law that wirebender espouses.

that seems to be all of them.

 

[polarbear]

In this article we will consider what happens when this radiation reaches the ground. The reason we want to consider it is because so many people are confused about “back radiation” and have become convinced that either it doesn’t exist – covered in the previous two parts – or it can’t actually have any effect on the temperature of the earth’s surface.

The major reason that people give for thinking that DLR can’t affect the temperature is (a mistaken understanding of) the second law of thermodynamics, and they might say something like:

A colder atmosphere can’t heat a warmer surface

There are semantics which can confuse those less familiar with thermal radiation.

If we consider the specific terminology of heat we can all agree and say that heat flows from the warmer to the colder. In the case of radiation, this means that more is emitted by the hotter surface (and absorbed by the colder surface) than the reverse.

However, what many people have come to believe is that the colder surface can have no effect at all on the hotter surface. This is clearly wrong. And just to try and avoid upsetting the purists but without making the terminology too obscure I will say that the radiation from the colder surface can have an effect on the warmer surface and can change the temperature of the warmer surface.

Here is an example from a standard thermodynamics textbook:

his reason for writing the article. with a scanned in page of a physics text.

One commenter on an earlier post asked this question:

But if at the surface the temperature is higher than in the atmospheric source then might the molecules which might have absorbed such a photon be in fact unavailable because they have already moved to a higher energy configuration due to thermal collisions in the material which contains them?

Many people have some vague idea that this kind of approach is how the second law of thermodynamics works down at the molecular level.

It (the flawed theory) goes like this:

the atmosphere emits “a photon”
the photon reaches the surface of the earth
because the temperature of the surface of the earth is higher the photon cannot be absorbed – therefore it gets “bounced”.
Except it’s not physics in any shape or form – it just sounds like it might be.

Let’s review a few basics. It’s important to grasp these basics because they will ensure that you can easily find the flaw in the many explanations of the imaginary second law of thermodynamics.

first utterance of imaginary---in reference to a distorted view of the 2nd law.



second use of imaginary---again in reference to the distorted definition of the 2nd law.

Notice the similarity between the 10°C and the -10°C radiation curves.

Alert readers who have pieced together these basics will already be able to see why the imaginary second law is not the real second law.

If a 0°C surface can absorb radiation from 10°C radiation, it must be able to absorb radiation from -10°C radiation. And yet this would violate the imaginary second law of thermodynamics.

third and fourth use of 'imaginary'----again in reference to the mistaken interpretation of the 2nd law.

So from basic physics and basic material properties it should be clear that radiation from a colder surface cannot be all reflected while at the same time radiation from a warmer surface is absorbed.

And if any radiation is absorbed it must change the surface temperature and therefore violate the (imaginary) second law of thermodynamics.

You have to ditch something. I would recommend ditching the imaginary second law of thermodynamics. But you can choose – instead you could ditch the first law of thermodynamics, or the basic equation for the energy of a photon (make up your own), or invent some new surface properties.

fifth and sixth utterances. still aimed at the twisted version of the 2nd law that wirebender espouses.

that seems to be all of them.

It`s a little bit taxing for me to explain the same thing over and over again, what the
difference between Energy and Power is...
Yet here we are again...
In addition to that it`s my turn to stand vigil at my daughters bed-side in the ICU
She has been scheduled for an operation to stop severe internal bleedings

But I`m going to humor You in the short time I have before I have to leave my house.
I wish You`ld read a real physics book instead of me having to read it for You.

Perhaps You don`t have any such book, ...and in my hurry, for now this is just a little substitute I could find for You in the
Internet

Quantum energy

In Planck's assumption, radiant energy is emitted in small bursts, known as "quanta". Each of the bursts called a "quantum" has energy E that depends on the frequency f of the electromagnetic radiation by the equation:


In classical physics, energy of electromagnetic (EM) radiation was thought to be absorbed or emitted continuously. It wasn't until late 1900 the German scientist Max Planck (1858-1947) made a radical assumption in explaining the black body radiation spectrum, the idea of discrete energy arose.

In Planck's assumption, radiant energy is emitted in small bursts, known as "quanta". Each of the bursts called a "quantum" has energy E that depends on the frequency f of the electromagnetic radiation by the equation:
E=h*f

where h is a fundamental constant of nature, the "Planck constant".
Planck constant

This equation is later found to be true for all EM radiant energy emitted or absorbed.

Planck's equation implies the higher the frequency of a radiation, the more energetic are its quanta.
It for example explains why you can never get brown from visible light ((f1=4*10^14Hz to f2=8.2*10^14Hz), but from ultraviolet light (from to ). The quanta of visible light don't carry enough energy to start the chemical reaction in your skin!


The quantum energy is not to compare with the power of the light! The Power of light (Luminosity) is the total energy per second, that means the number of quanta per second times the quantum energy. Therefore even if visible light carrys a lot more Energy per second than UV-light, you won't get any browner from it.

http://library.thinkquest.org/C007571/images/visible_spectrum.jpg

>>>>>>
Well they are using skin as the body that absorbs these photons which according to Your climatology physics mentor
are all the same,...no matter how hot or cold the source was that emitted them...and there are much better examples
but right now I`m a little pressed for time and my thoughts are with my daughter...as I already told You in a private message..

But if You still don`t understand the difference between the frequency dependent energy quantum of light and
and the power, no matter if expressed as watts or luminosity ....You will never be able to understand it
reading the kind of crap like the the stuff You Google for on the Internet.


I wish I had the time to go yet again through every idiotic statement the author of the publication You cited.
"photons" are all the same no matter how hot or cold the emitting source was....and uses Planck`s curves
to sell You this lunacy...
all the while Planck was trying to explain why they are not..:

Quantum - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The concept of quantization of radiation was discovered in 1900 by Max Planck, who had been trying to understand the emission of radiation from heated objects, known as black body radiation.
By assuming that energy can only be absorbed or released in tiny, differential, discrete packets he called "bundles" or "energy elements,",[8]
Planck accounted for the fact that certain objects change colour when heated

>>>>>>
Since as You and the "climatologist" keep claiming that all photons are the same, then
it should also not be possible to observe a "color"...which is a frequncey change...which is
also a quantum energy change of the light emitted by any such body as the temperature goes up.

So if You wish to ignore the quantum nature of a photon , how do photons get absorbed by anything...if not by orbital jump
of an electron to a higher energy level...(speak potential)

The difference in the energy level of the orbital jump shows up as a higher frequency of the light that
has been emitted.
But once again I remind You, that any such photon that has initiated the jump must have
a sufficiently high ENERGY QUANTUM to do so.

But You still believe, "all photons" are the same and then You wind up in a bind
and I am supposed to explain to You why a photon that packs an energy quantum which is
too low can not move the electron orbital to the higher orbital ...

Show me where exactly in physics does it say that many more low energy quantums
can do the same thing as a (short wave) photon high energy quantum....

If that was so then the entire field of atomic absorption spectroscopy would seize to exist.
Any atom in the ground state could get it`s electrones "pumped up" to a higher orbital and
absorb light, no matter what the wavelength...

If photons were "all the same" as this author is claiming then it would not be necessary to
supply photons at very specific wavelength that pack the sufficiently high energy where light can be
absorbed.....

And no, You can`t add these "photons which are all the same" and pack them up as a new and higher photon
ENERGY quantum....if You could then You could also convert low energy Infrared to a high energy X-ray quantum.

And You continue to fall for the same con these cliamtologists "explain" photons while totally ignoring ALL OF QUANTUM PHYSICS..
They do just that....they are accumulating enough photons as low energy watt seconds till in their
strange minds they have according to Planck enough ENERGY in watt seconds to have a "black-body" emitt light at a shorter wavelength
i.e....then go on claim that they have managed to heat a hotter body with a colder one using the
low frequency "back-radiation"...


Unfortunately I have to go to the hospital now and leave it as that.

And whatever differences You have with wirebender You have to sort out with wirebender.
I don`t have the time to do this.