Tropospheric Hot Spot- Why it does not exist...

[Wuwei]

And while you are at it, tell us why they say that the above physical law PRECLUDES a perfect refrigerator rather than stating that it only applies to refrigerators....

Of all the things you have said on this board...making the claim that that statement only applied to refrigerators was perhaps the silliest.

I did not make that claim. It's the hyperphysics site - your link - that makes that claim.

Read your link. In very large letters it says Refrigerator. Look at the diagram on the right. It clarifies it by referring to "spontaneous flow of heat from a cold area to a hot area" is forbidden. Not energy, it's heat. Furthermore radiatitive heat transfer by EM energy was totally unknown at the time Clausius formulated his law.

The Clausius understanding was later broadened to define the second law in terms of Entropy. Entropy says nothing about the flow of energy one way or another.

How could you be so naive about misunderstanding something so important.

 

[Wuwei]

Apparently he thinks it states that energy can flow from cool to warm if it damned well wants to.

How many times to I have to tell you that it's not just me. All scientists understand that radiation can flow anywhere. It's heat energy that can only flow one way.

 

[SSDD]

And while you are at it, tell us why they say that the above physical law PRECLUDES a perfect refrigerator rather than stating that it only applies to refrigerators....

Of all the things you have said on this board...making the claim that that statement only applied to refrigerators was perhaps the silliest.

I did not make that claim. It's the hyperphysics site - your link - that makes that claim.
View attachment 104599
Read your link. In very large letters it says Refrigerator. Look at the diagram on the right. It clarifies it by referring to "spontaneous flow of heat from a cold area to a hot area" is forbidden. Not energy, it's heat. Furthermore radiatitive heat transfer by EM energy was totally unknown at the time Clausius formulated his law.

The Clausius understanding was later broadened to define the second law in terms of Entropy. Entropy says nothing about the flow of energy one way or another.

How could you be so naive about misunderstanding something so important.

Clearly you can't read and comprehend words...Think hard now....what do you think the words "this precludes a perfect refrigerator" mean.

here...let me offer you a clue...preclude means: to prevent the presence, existence, or occurrence of; make impossible:

They are saying that because it is not possible for heat to flow from a colder body to a warmer body without any work having been done to accomplish this flow....and because
energy will not flow spontaneously from a low temperature object to a higher temperature object..it is not possible to build a perfect refrigerator....it is called applied physics...they are trying to give you an example so that you can apply the knowledge to your daily life....they also explain how the second law applies to heat engines...I guess you think there is a separate set of physics that only apply to heat engines as well.

If you are this easily confused...and find this very basic level of scientific explanation difficult to follow, then I understand perfectly why you have fallen for the AGW scam and are one of the true believers.

 

[Wuwei]

The bulk of it never gets re-emitted...it gets passed along to an oxygen or nitrogen molecule via convection. Here...again...I don't expect the explanation to make any more sense to you this time than it has any of the other times but never let it be said that I didn't try to explain the real world to you.

Q: What is the mean time between molecular collisions through which an excited CO2 molecule might transfer its energy to another atom (usually N2) out in the open atmosphere?

A: About 1 nanosecond

Q: Can you tell me how many times longer the mean decay time for an excited CO2 molecule to emit an IR photon is than the mean time between molecular collisions through which an excited CO2 molecule might transfer its energy to another atom?

A: The mean decay time for an excited CO2 molecule to emit an IR photon is around 1 second....how much longer is that than the mean time between molecular collisions through which unexcited CO2 molecule might transfer its energy to another atom...why its about a billion times as long.

Q: Can you tell me what the ramifications of the difference between those times is for the idea of CO2 molecules absorbing and emitting IR photons in all directions?

A: Well, since the mean time between molecular collisions is so much shorter than the decay time for an excited CO2 molecule to emit an IR photon, the CO2 molecule will transfer its energy to another atom or molecule 99.9999999% of the time... This means that the popular mental image of a CO2 molecules emitting IR photons off in all directions which is the basis for the AGW hypothesis only happens once in every billion energy exchanges...Direct energy exchange between the CO2 and another atom or molecule happens the other 999,999,999 times. In other words; insofar as moving energy out of the atmosphere, convection rules....radiation is a bit player of such minute proportions that it hardly rates mention.

That Q-A unreferenced post is right for the one narrow aspect of it covered. Yes, a CO2 molecule will probably loose its excited vibration state through a collision rather than an emission.

What the dialog didn't cover is the equipartition theorem as it involves the energy states of CO2 and H2O and other GHGs. For a simple explanation see
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/kinetic/eqpar.html

There will be equal amounts of energy divided among all the GHG vibration states, rotation states and kinetic energy. Most of the vibration states will arise from the churning energy of the atmospheric molecules hitting the GHGs and not from the earth's upward LWIR. The upward IR will increase the population of the GHG vibration part of the total energy, and that energy will dissipate through collisions and some LWIR in arbitrary directions.

One way of looking at it is that CO2 can absorb IR, but CO2 excited by collisions will emit most of the IR.

In short, a single CO2 molecule absorbing IR and emitting the same energy is rare. In reality an large statistical ensemble CO2 molecules will absorb IR and the statistical ensemble will emit IR, although an individual molecule most likely won't do both in a small time window. Remember through the equipartition theorm there is a tremendous amount of energy in the vibrational states that scatter the LWIR.

 

[Wuwei]

it is not possible for heat to flow from a colder body to a warmer body without any work having been done to accomplish this flow....and because
energy will not flow spontaneously from a low temperature object to a higher temperature object.

Look at the hyperphysics picture I posted. It is obvious they were referring to heat energy, not radiation energy.

 

[Wuwei]

Clearly you can't read and comprehend words...Think hard now....what do you think the words "this precludes a perfect refrigerator" mean.

here...let me offer you a clue...preclude means: to prevent the presence, existence, or occurrence of; make impossible:

Yes, I agree, heat flow constraints by the second law precludes a perfect refrigerator. But the subject here is EM radiation flow, not freon flow. Radiation direction is not constrained.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Thermodynamics is a series of physical laws...and the second one states that neither heat nor energy EVER move spontaneously from cool to warm.

That's right thermodynamics is a series of laws. Yes, neither heat nor thermal energy can move spontaneously from cool to warm objects.

Neither heat, nor any sort of energy...the second law is universal...it applies to all sorts of energy whether it be stored potential energy created by holding a rock up above the ground or IR radiation emitted from a CO2 molecule...

poor SSDD has some serious misconceptions about physics. basic laws are fundamental but they are still only single factors that need to be taken in combination with all the factors involved.

The Sun is a huge source of highly ordered energy that does work on Earth systems. Our atmosphere is only present because of stored solar energy that is constantly being refreshed to replace energy lost to space.

The radiation produced by the atmosphere (some of which returns to the surface) comes directly and indirectly from the Sun. It is not just an object at a defined temperature. Likewise the surface is also producing radiation from energy received directly and indirectly provided by the Sun.

Both the surface and the atmosphere produce radiation according to their temperature and emissivity. All the time, in all directions. If the surface is warmer than the atmosphere then heat (net energy) moves towards the air. If the atmosphere is warmer than the surface then heat moves towards the surface, but the radiation is always there. No exceptions, no throttling down, no restricted directions.

There is nothing special about the temperature of any object or environment. Sometimes they are a heat source, sometimes they absorb heat. But they always radiate according to their temperature and emissivity. Heat moves to the cooler object whether the differential is 50C-40C, or 20C-10C.

The part that seems to confuse most people is when the radiation from each object is considered individually. An object at 16C radiates about 400W, 15C at 395W, 17C at 405W. The 16C object would be losing 5W to the 15W object, gaining 5W from the 17C object. As long as any of the objects remain at their original temperature their radiation output remains the same.

I do not necessarily agree with Trenberth's numbers but it is illustrative. The Sun adds ~160W to the surface directly
(and an unknown amount of energy has already been stored in the atmosphere). But the surface radiates at ~ 400W. The deficit must be made up from somewhere. It comes from radiation returning from the atmosphere. Trenberth says that ~60W is radiated away, ~100W is carried upwards by the water cycle, which balances out the ~160W received from the Sun. We can argue the numbers endlessly but the general explanation is correct. The surface cannot fully shed energy by radiation because the temperature differential between the surface and atmosphere is much smaller than surface directly to space. The atmosphere is warm because it absorbs a considerable fraction of the surface radiation (indirect sunlight energy).

You do know that AR5 in Table9.5 of Chapter9 points out the feedbacks they consider for the models? See how many say n/a, see how some feedbacks vary by a factor of 4 and 5. They are simply not credible.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Ian;

The balance between incoming and outgoing energy at the top of the atmosphere determines the Earth’s average temperature. The ability of greenhouses gases to change the balance by reducing how much thermal energy exits is what global warming is all about.

ToA is 100 km or 62 miles.

The GHE/GHG loop as shown on Trenberth Figure 10 is made up of three main components: upwelling of 396 W/m^2 which has two parts: 63 W/m^2 and 333 W/m^2 and downwelling of 333 W/m^2.

The 396 W/m^2 is determined by inserting 16 C or 279K in the S-B BB equation. This result produces 55 W/m^2 of power flux more than ISR entering ToA, an obvious violation of conservation of energy created out of nothing. That should have been a warning.

ISR of 341 W/m^2 enter ToA, 102 W/m^2 are reflected by the albedo, leaving a net 239 W/m^2 entering ToA. 78 W/m^2 are absorbed by the atmosphere leaving 161 W/m^2 for the surface. To maintain the energy balance and steady temperature 160 W/m^2 rises from the surface (0.9 residual in ground) as 17 W/m^2 convection, 80 W/m^2 latent and 63 W/m^2 LWIR (S-B BB 183 K, -90 C or emissivity = .16) = 160 W/m^2. All of the graphic’s power fluxes are now present and accounted for. The remaining 333 W/m^2 are the spontaneous creation of an inappropriate application of the S-B BB equation violating conservation of energy.

The troposphere is not ideal. The S-B equation must consider emissivity. Nasif Nahle suggests CO2 emissivity could be around 0.1 or 5 to 8 W/m^2 re-radiated back to the surface. Light years from 333, just 1.5% to 2.4% of.

The 333 W/m^2 up-welling/down-welling constitutes a 100% efficient perpetual energy loop violating thermodynamics. There is no net energy left at the surface to warm the earth and there is no net energy left in the troposphere to impact radiative balance at ToA.

The 333 W/m^2, 97% of ISR, upwells into the troposphere where it is allegedly absorbed/trapped/blocked by a miniscule 0.04% of the atmosphere. That’s a significant heat load for such a tiny share of atmospheric molecules and they should all be hotter than two dollar pistols.

Except they aren’t. No Tropospheric hot spot has manifested itself or exists by empirical evidence.

The troposphere is cold, -40 C at 30,000 ft, 9 km, < -60 C at ToA. Depending on how one models the troposphere, average or layered from surface to ToA, the S-B BB equation for the tropospheric temperatures ranges from 150 to 250 W/m^2, a considerable, 45% to 75% shortfall from 333.

(99% of the atmosphere is below 32 km where energy moves by convection/conduction/latent/radiation & where ideal S-B does not apply. Above 32 km the low molecular density does not allow for convection/conduction/latent and energy moves by S-B ideal radiation et. al.)

The math, simply put, does not add up.

 

[Billy_Bob]

The surface of the earth is warm for the same reason a heated house is warm in the winter: Q = U * A * dT, the energy flow/heat resisting blanket of the insulated walls. The composite thermal conductivity of that paper thin atmosphere, conduction, convection, latent, LWIR, resists the flow of energy, i.e. heat, from surface to ToA and that requires a temperature differential, 213 K ToA and 288 K surface = 75 C.

The flow through a fluid heat exchanger requires a pressure drop. A voltage differential is needed to push current through a resistor. Same for the atmospheric blanket. A blanket works by Q = U * A * dT, not S-B BB. The atmosphere is just a basic HVAC system boundary analysis.

 

[SSDD]

The bulk of it never gets re-emitted...it gets passed along to an oxygen or nitrogen molecule via convection. Here...again...I don't expect the explanation to make any more sense to you this time than it has any of the other times but never let it be said that I didn't try to explain the real world to you.

Q: What is the mean time between molecular collisions through which an excited CO2 molecule might transfer its energy to another atom (usually N2) out in the open atmosphere?

A: About 1 nanosecond

Q: Can you tell me how many times longer the mean decay time for an excited CO2 molecule to emit an IR photon is than the mean time between molecular collisions through which an excited CO2 molecule might transfer its energy to another atom?

A: The mean decay time for an excited CO2 molecule to emit an IR photon is around 1 second....how much longer is that than the mean time between molecular collisions through which unexcited CO2 molecule might transfer its energy to another atom...why its about a billion times as long.

Q: Can you tell me what the ramifications of the difference between those times is for the idea of CO2 molecules absorbing and emitting IR photons in all directions?

A: Well, since the mean time between molecular collisions is so much shorter than the decay time for an excited CO2 molecule to emit an IR photon, the CO2 molecule will transfer its energy to another atom or molecule 99.9999999% of the time... This means that the popular mental image of a CO2 molecules emitting IR photons off in all directions which is the basis for the AGW hypothesis only happens once in every billion energy exchanges...Direct energy exchange between the CO2 and another atom or molecule happens the other 999,999,999 times. In other words; insofar as moving energy out of the atmosphere, convection rules....radiation is a bit player of such minute proportions that it hardly rates mention.

That Q-A unreferenced post is right for the one narrow aspect of it covered. Yes, a CO2 molecule will probably loose its excited vibration state through a collision rather than an emission.

What the dialog didn't cover is the equipartition theorem as it involves the energy states of CO2 and H2O and other GHGs. For a simple explanation see
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/kinetic/eqpar.html

There will be equal amounts of energy divided among all the GHG vibration states, rotation states and kinetic energy. Most of the vibration states will arise from the churning energy of the atmospheric molecules hitting the GHGs and not from the earth's upward LWIR. The upward IR will increase the population of the GHG vibration part of the total energy, and that energy will dissipate through collisions and some LWIR in arbitrary directions.

One way of looking at it is that CO2 can absorb IR, but CO2 excited by collisions will emit most of the IR.

In short, a single CO2 molecule absorbing IR and emitting the same energy is rare. In reality an large statistical ensemble CO2 molecules will absorb IR and the statistical ensemble will emit IR, although an individual molecule most likely won't do both in a small time window. Remember through the equipartition theorm there is a tremendous amount of energy in the vibrational states that scatter the LWIR.

You might have a point that mattered if CO2 emitted across a wide range of frequencies....it doesn't therefore, your point is moot.

 

[SSDD]

it is not possible for heat to flow from a colder body to a warmer body without any work having been done to accomplish this flow....and because
energy will not flow spontaneously from a low temperature object to a higher temperature object.

Look at the hyperphysics picture I posted. It is obvious they were referring to heat energy, not radiation energy.

Then why do you think they took the time and effort to say that energy will not flow spontaneously from a low temperature object to a higher temperature object?

That is energy period...

 

[SSDD]

Clearly you can't read and comprehend words...Think hard now....what do you think the words "this precludes a perfect refrigerator" mean.

here...let me offer you a clue...preclude means: to prevent the presence, existence, or occurrence of; make impossible:

Yes, I agree, heat flow constraints by the second law precludes a perfect refrigerator. But the subject here is EM radiation flow, not freon flow. Radiation direction is not constrained.

Once again....why do you think that after they spoke to heat, they specifically stated that ENERGY won't spontaneously flow from a cool object to a higher temperature object? You have to look at all of the words....not just the ones that support your belief.

 

[polarbear]

And while you are at it, tell us why they say that the above physical law PRECLUDES a perfect refrigerator rather than stating that it only applies to refrigerators....

Of all the things you have said on this board...making the claim that that statement only applied to refrigerators was perhaps the silliest.

I did not make that claim. It's the hyperphysics site - your link - that makes that claim.
View attachment 104599
Read your link. In very large letters it says Refrigerator. Look at the diagram on the right. It clarifies it by referring to "spontaneous flow of heat from a cold area to a hot area" is forbidden. Not energy, it's heat. Furthermore radiatitive heat transfer by EM energy was totally unknown at the time Clausius formulated his law.

The Clausius understanding was later broadened to define the second law in terms of Entropy. Entropy says nothing about the flow of energy one way or another.

How could you be so naive about misunderstanding something so important.

WTF are you talking about? Heat is energy, it is measured in Joules. If it isn`t energy then what is it ?
And then "Furthermore radiatitive heat transfer by EM energy ". The adjective for radiate is radiative not "radiatitive".
Typical gibberish which clearly indicates that you are pretentious and have no idea what any of the terms you re-defined here actually mean.
Like this nonsense:"Entropy says nothing about the flow of energy one way or another"
Really?
That shows that you have no clue whatsoever.
Entropy is about the transfer of energy, as opposed to enthalpy which is the energy content of a system and not about the transfer of energy
Typical indicators that you are one of the science impostors grand standing here ! I bet anything that the moment your WiFi gets cut your "expertise" in physics goes poof in an instant.

 

[Wuwei]

You might have a point that mattered if CO2 emitted across a wide range of frequencies....it doesn't therefore, your point is moot.

It's not moot. If you think it's moot why did you raise the point in the first place?

 

[SSDD]

You might have a point that mattered if CO2 emitted across a wide range of frequencies....it doesn't therefore, your point is moot.

It's not moot. If you think it's moot why did you raise the point in the first place?

You really don't think about this much do you? You just go about grabbing bits from the web and posting them as if you had a clue....

the whole point was that the AGW hypothesis is based on radiation from CO2...and it is built entirely on radiation and assumes that CO2 radiates all the energy it absorbs...it doesn't take convection or conduction even into consideration.....and the amount of energy that CO2 actually radiates as opposed to losing to conduction is about one billionth the amount of energy that the AGW hypothesis assumes that CO2 is radiating in all directions.

Use your brain sometime...and try to actually think.

 

[Wuwei]

Once again....why do you think that after they spoke to heat, they specifically stated that ENERGY won't spontaneously flow from a cool object to a higher temperature object? You have to look at all of the words....not just the ones that support your belief.

I did look at all the words especially the caption of the drawing on the right. You didn't look at all of the words:

Spontaneous flow of heat from a cold area to a hot area would constitute a perfect refigerator, forbidden by the second law.
​

Furthermore they label the energy as Q. That means heat energy in thermodynamics. So you are incorrect.

 

[Wuwei]

the whole point was that the AGW hypothesis is based on radiation from CO2...and it is built entirely on radiation and assumes that CO2 radiates all the energy it absorbs...it doesn't take convection or conduction even into consideration.....and the amount of energy that CO2 actually radiates as opposed to losing to conduction is about one billionth the amount of energy that the AGW hypothesis assumes that CO2 is radiating in all directions.

Water vapor is also triatomic and has the same type of vibration states as CO2. Do you use the same "logic" for water too? If it weren't for water vapor the entire earth would be near freezing.

 

[Wuwei]

Then why do you think they took the time and effort to say that energy will not flow spontaneously from a low temperature object to a higher temperature object?

because they were referring to heat energy.

 

[SSDD]

Once again....why do you think that after they spoke to heat, they specifically stated that ENERGY won't spontaneously flow from a cool object to a higher temperature object? You have to look at all of the words....not just the ones that support your belief.

I did look at all the words especially the caption of the drawing on the right. You didn't look at all of the words:

Spontaneous flow of heat from a cold area to a hot area would constitute a perfect refigerator, forbidden by the second law.
​

Furthermore they label the energy as Q. That means heat energy in thermodynamics. So you are incorrect.

You are a f'ing idiot.....did you not read what polar bear posted for you? Heat is energy...it is measured in joules...radiant exposure...which is, in fact, exposure to IR radiation is expressed in terms of joules per square meter....energy is energy you doofus...and all energy is governed by the second law of thermodynamics which says that it won't move spontaneously from cooler objects to warmer objects...

even when it is given to you in explicit terms, your mind won't allow you to read and understand the words.

 

[SSDD]

Then why do you think they took the time and effort to say that energy will not flow spontaneously from a low temperature object to a higher temperature object?

because they were referring to heat energy.

You mean IR..which is exactly what radiative heat is..which is measured in joules and exposure to it is expressed in terms of joules per square meter?

If you were half as sharp as you believe yourself to be, you would stop digging...but will you?...not no but HELL no...you will dig to china rather than acknowledge that you are just wrong...