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

[ding]

When comes to the atmosphere and earth, the hotter earth radiates energy out at around 400 watts/m^2. And the radiation from the cooler atmosphere radiates back to earth around 330 watts/m^2. So the net radiation is from the earth outward. The atmosphere does not warm the earth at all. What it does is keeps the earth from loosing as much heat as it would if the atmosphere wasn't there.

Another important concept to keep in mind is that both the Earth and atmosphere are being warmed by the Sun. It is not the much simpler case of both cooling as fast as they can.

Agreed. GHG don't add energy. They retain/slow the transfer of energy, right?

 

[mamooth]

No problem, but first let`s not move the goal posts as you just did (as usual):

Please don't project your specialty tactic on to me.

In post #247 you said"Heat has no meaning on the level of single atoms and photons. They are free to exchange energy however they want."
And now you are trying to load in temperature:"No, I said "heat" and "temperature" have no such meaning for a single atom. It's only your claim I said "energy".

In another post on this thread I say

"Again, "heat" and "temperature" have no meaning at the atomic level,"

So it's very clear that has been my position all along, and that you're incorrect when you say I attempted to "load it in". Don't tell me what I supposedly believe, especially when what I write says the opposite.

Why? Because there is no way to deny that heat=energy. I never said that you said that heat=energy.

This bores me, your endless attempts to deflect with meaningless word games. I'm not going to play such games. I'll talk about science, and you can either choose to join me, or not.

I did and you damn well know that, but for some reason that fact can`t fit that into your AliceGoestoWonderland theory where you have "hot" and "cold" atoms.
I have never seen any physics text book that calls an atom in the excited state a "hot atom" and one that is in the ground state a "cold atom".

If there is, they probably have pictures of little atoms in there that look like Walt Disney cartoon characters, some are sweating and the cold ones are shivering.

Seriously how would one of your "cold" atoms emit a photon?
It can only do that when it`s not in the ground state, but only if it is in the excited state, like one of your Disney World "hot atoms"

I should care about that deflection ... why? It's part of SSDD's crazy theory. Ask him.

The topic here is that some people here are claiming that a colder atmosphere is incapable of radiating IR energy back down to earth. So, try talking about that. Let's start simple. Does backradiation exist? Yes or no. Then we'll take it from there.

And yes, I remember your bad telescope experiment. It was meaningless because lenses and parabolic dishes don't focus diffuse radiation, and therefore the telescope should not have focused the diffuse backradiation, which is exactly what happened.

 

[mamooth]

I think I get that. What I don't understand is does he believe it requires heat to spontaneously move from cold to warmer objects to do so. Or if he is proposing something else. It seems like everyone is agreeing that heat cannot spontaneously move from cold to warmer objects. So what else am I missing?

"Heat" is a macro statistical quality. "Heat" must go from warm-to-cold.

However, "energy" is a quantum-level quality, and is not subject to that restriction. Cold-to-warm, warm-to-cold, both are possible.

"Heat flow" is sort of a sum of "energy flow". With gazillions of quantum-level energy exchange events happening, the cold-to-warm quantum-level energy flow events will always be outnumbered by warm-to-cold quantum-level energy flow events, so on the macro scale, the net heat flow will always be warm-to-cold.

Welcome to the physics discipline of Statistical Mechanics.

 

[ding]

I think I get that. What I don't understand is does he believe it requires heat to spontaneously move from cold to warmer objects to do so. Or if he is proposing something else. It seems like everyone is agreeing that heat cannot spontaneously move from cold to warmer objects. So what else am I missing?

"Heat" is a macro statistical quality. "Heat" must go from warm-to-cold.

However, "energy" is a quantum-level quality, and is not subject to that restriction. Cold-to-warm, warm-to-cold, both are possible.

"Heat flow" is sort of a sum of "energy flow". With gazillions of quantum-level energy exchange events happening, the cold-to-warm quantum-level energy flow events will always be outnumbered by warm-to-cold quantum-level energy flow events, so on the macro scale, the net heat flow will always be warm-to-cold.

Welcome to the physics discipline of Statistical Mechanics.

Agreed. So how does back radiation add energy to the system?

 

[IanC]

When comes to the atmosphere and earth, the hotter earth radiates energy out at around 400 watts/m^2. And the radiation from the cooler atmosphere radiates back to earth around 330 watts/m^2. So the net radiation is from the earth outward. The atmosphere does not warm the earth at all. What it does is keeps the earth from loosing as much heat as it would if the atmosphere wasn't there.

I agree with this too. So what is you guys disagreement?

CAGW science has put forward a simplified explanation that is deceptive. They say CO2 captures CO2 specific surface radiation and returns half of it to the surface, imply that it is an infinite series so that the energy multiplies.

This is wrong of course. Unfortunately some people have used the real mistakes to deny any warming influence at all for CO2.

CO2 intercepts surface radiation before it escapes to space. Molecular collision converts this energy into a warmer atmosphere. The warmer atmosphere has a smaller temperature differential with the surface which reduces heat loss, which in turn allows solar insulation to warm the surface to a higher temperature.

The energy required to do this comes from radiation NOT LOST TO SPACE.

 

[ding]

When comes to the atmosphere and earth, the hotter earth radiates energy out at around 400 watts/m^2. And the radiation from the cooler atmosphere radiates back to earth around 330 watts/m^2. So the net radiation is from the earth outward. The atmosphere does not warm the earth at all. What it does is keeps the earth from loosing as much heat as it would if the atmosphere wasn't there.

I agree with this too. So what is you guys disagreement?

CAGW science has put forward a simplified explanation that is deceptive. They say CO2 captures CO2 specific surface radiation and returns half of it to the surface, imply that it is an infinite series so that the energy multiplies.

This is wrong of course. Unfortunately some people have used the real mistakes to deny any warming influence at all for CO2.

CO2 intercepts surface radiation before it escapes to space. Molecular collision converts this energy into a warmer atmosphere. The warmer atmosphere has a smaller temperature differential with the surface which reduces heat loss, which in turn allows solar insulation to warm the surface to a higher temperature.

The energy required to do this comes from radiation NOT LOST TO SPACE.

I agree. As near as I can tell his post #295 agrees with this too. I guess I'll have to wait to see what he says.

 

[IanC]

Crap!!! 2017 is starting badly. I peeked at Mamooth's last post and I agree with him.

Scary.

 

[IanC]

When comes to the atmosphere and earth, the hotter earth radiates energy out at around 400 watts/m^2. And the radiation from the cooler atmosphere radiates back to earth around 330 watts/m^2. So the net radiation is from the earth outward. The atmosphere does not warm the earth at all. What it does is keeps the earth from loosing as much heat as it would if the atmosphere wasn't there.

I agree with this too. So what is you guys disagreement?

CAGW science has put forward a simplified explanation that is deceptive. They say CO2 captures CO2 specific surface radiation and returns half of it to the surface, imply that it is an infinite series so that the energy multiplies.

This is wrong of course. Unfortunately some people have used the real mistakes to deny any warming influence at all for CO2.

CO2 intercepts surface radiation before it escapes to space. Molecular collision converts this energy into a warmer atmosphere. The warmer atmosphere has a smaller temperature differential with the surface which reduces heat loss, which in turn allows solar insulation to warm the surface to a higher temperature.

The energy required to do this comes from radiation NOT LOST TO SPACE.

I agree. As near as I can tell his post #295 agrees with this too. I guess I'll have to wait to see what he says.

???

The main disagreement here is with SSDD's bizarroland version of physics. I thought that was what you were talking about.

 

[Wuwei]

I agree. As near as I can tell his post #295 agrees with this too. I guess I'll have to wait to see what he says.

Yes, as far as my post 295, I think IanC post 296 and 299 are in agreement. And Mamooth #303 is in agreement.

 

[Wuwei]

CAGW science has put forward a simplified explanation that is deceptive. They say CO2 captures CO2 specific surface radiation and returns half of it to the surface, imply that it is an infinite series so that the energy multiplies.

This is wrong of course. Unfortunately some people have used the real mistakes to deny any warming influence at all for CO2.

I agree that it is wrong of course, but I did not realize that CAGW science thought there was an infinite series. Who thinks that on this board. Even if you find a way to think of it as an infinite series, it would converge very rapidly to a finite number. Is this what they mean by accelerations?

I thought accelerations were related to a warming which melts more ice, thereby reducing reflections of short wave EM, and increasing darker patches that absorb more short wave EM.

 

[ding]

When comes to the atmosphere and earth, the hotter earth radiates energy out at around 400 watts/m^2. And the radiation from the cooler atmosphere radiates back to earth around 330 watts/m^2. So the net radiation is from the earth outward. The atmosphere does not warm the earth at all. What it does is keeps the earth from loosing as much heat as it would if the atmosphere wasn't there.

I agree with this too. So what is you guys disagreement?

CAGW science has put forward a simplified explanation that is deceptive. They say CO2 captures CO2 specific surface radiation and returns half of it to the surface, imply that it is an infinite series so that the energy multiplies.

This is wrong of course. Unfortunately some people have used the real mistakes to deny any warming influence at all for CO2.

CO2 intercepts surface radiation before it escapes to space. Molecular collision converts this energy into a warmer atmosphere. The warmer atmosphere has a smaller temperature differential with the surface which reduces heat loss, which in turn allows solar insulation to warm the surface to a higher temperature.

The energy required to do this comes from radiation NOT LOST TO SPACE.

I agree. As near as I can tell his post #295 agrees with this too. I guess I'll have to wait to see what he says.

???

The main disagreement here is with SSDD's bizarroland version of physics. I thought that was what you were talking about.

No. I'm just trying to understand what the disagreement is all about. It seems to me that we should all be able to find the common ground then step out and identify where the real differences lie. I could not imagine that we could not all get on the same page if we went back and worked through the simple stuff first. Which it seems like we did and are all in agreement. Now the fun starts, but at least we are now working from a common starting point. I am no expert in this but I do have enough knowledge that I can spot incongruities that can be discussed to make sure there is not a communication gap. I think that has been the biggest problem with discussions like this which are more scientific in nature. It is real easy to misunderstand the position of another. The thing that helps me the most is the fact that whatever we say here won't make a hill of beans difference. CO2 emissions will continue to climb as long as population continues to climb and we will eventually find out who's right in due time. I don't buy into the catastrophic fate argument and am more than willing to let nature and science take its course. Everything will resolve itself as it always does.

 

[polarbear]

When comes to the atmosphere and earth, the hotter earth radiates energy out at around 400 watts/m^2. And the radiation from the cooler atmosphere radiates back to earth around 330 watts/m^2. So the net radiation is from the earth outward. The atmosphere does not warm the earth at all. What it does is keeps the earth from loosing as much heat as it would if the atmosphere wasn't there.

Well finally you got something right even if it`s only partially right.
But I can`t let you get away with this:
In your post # 201 you wrote:
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.
and later you denied it in your post #291 in an exchange with SSDD:
That is absolutely false. Why are you lying. I know you know better. You are just being a troll.
Only people who have no idea what "heat" is would make non sensible statements like that.
"heat" is energy and can only "flow" from a warmer object to a colder one, because in that circumstance the only thing under consideration is heat conduction.
Heat conduction needs a conduit so that heat can flow and then can only do so from a warm to cold. In contrast heat radiation does not need a conduit to transfer heat from one body to another.
But both use the same units to define the energy that is being transfered
It took many years and much effort to establish the "SI", the international system of units we use to express energy in joules as a base unit.
The only people that have a problem with it are those who have no idea of the entire concept.
Like saying it`s not energy it`s heat....only to deny later that they said it.

 

[Wuwei]

Well finally you got something right even if it`s only partially right.
But I can`t let you get away with this:
In your post # 201 you wrote:
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.
and later you denied it in your post #291 in an exchange with SSDD:
That is absolutely false. Why are you lying. I know you know better. You are just being a troll.
Only people who have no idea what "heat" is would make non sensible statements like that.
"heat" is energy and can only "flow" from a warmer object to a colder one, because in that circumstance the only thing under consideration is heat conduction.
Heat conduction needs a conduit so that heat can flow and then can only do so from a warm to cold. In contrast heat radiation does not need a conduit to transfer heat from one body to another.
But both use the same units to define the energy that is being transfered
It took many years and much effort to establish the "SI", the international system of units we use to express energy in joules as a base unit.
The only people that have a problem with it are those who have no idea of the entire concept.
Like saying it`s not energy it`s heat....only to deny later that they said it.

This is what you don't understand in the discussion:
All heat is energy. Not all energy is heat.
Read it again with that distinction in mind.

 

[polarbear]

CAGW science has put forward a simplified explanation that is deceptive. They say CO2 captures CO2 specific surface radiation and returns half of it to the surface, imply that it is an infinite series so that the energy multiplies.

This is wrong of course. Unfortunately some people have used the real mistakes to deny any warming influence at all for CO2.

I agree that it is wrong of course, but I did not realize that CAGW science thought there was an infinite series. Who thinks that on this board. Even if you find a way to think of it as an infinite series, it would converge very rapidly to a finite number. Is this what they mean by accelerations?

I thought accelerations were related to a warming which melts more ice, thereby reducing reflections of short wave EM, and increasing darker patches that absorb more short wave EM.

IanC is right and this is exactly what Crick was arguing when I was talking about the IPCC`s idea to use 1/2 of the watts/m^2 CO2 radiates down regardless of the angle of incidence.
He figures since the reflected portion has to go somewhere it is used again after that going up, then down, up again and so on...by definition an infinite series where E= ∑ of a harmonic series 1/x

 

[Wuwei]

No. I'm just trying to understand what the disagreement is all about. It seems to me that we should all be able to find the common ground then step out and identify where the real differences lie. I could not imagine that we could not all get on the same page if we went back and worked through the simple stuff first. Which it seems like we did and are all in agreement. Now the fun starts, but at least we are now working from a common starting point.

Since you understand that CO2 back-radiates to the surface and causes the earth to lose less heat because of that blanketing effect, you should now understand that SSDD, and a number of his minions do not believe that back-radiation exists. They got that conclusion from a faulty understanding of thermodynamics. It should also be understood that water vapor is the major GHG and has the major blanket effect.

That is where the real differences lie, and makes it impossible to get to step 1 with SSDD et al, let alone step 2, where the "fun begins".

As far as step 2, I generally don't get into arguments with others. I think the CO2 rise is definitely not trivial, but I have no idea of what it's warming effect will be in the future. I have not read the IPCC documents.

 

[IanC]

When comes to the atmosphere and earth, the hotter earth radiates energy out at around 400 watts/m^2. And the radiation from the cooler atmosphere radiates back to earth around 330 watts/m^2. So the net radiation is from the earth outward. The atmosphere does not warm the earth at all. What it does is keeps the earth from loosing as much heat as it would if the atmosphere wasn't there.

Well finally you got something right even if it`s only partially right.
But I can`t let you get away with this:
In your post # 201 you wrote:
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.
and later you denied it in your post #291 in an exchange with SSDD:
That is absolutely false. Why are you lying. I know you know better. You are just being a troll.
Only people who have no idea what "heat" is would make non sensible statements like that.
"heat" is energy and can only "flow" from a warmer object to a colder one, because in that circumstance the only thing under consideration is heat conduction.
Heat conduction needs a conduit so that heat can flow and then can only do so from a warm to cold. In contrast heat radiation does not need a conduit to transfer heat from one body to another.
But both use the same units to define the energy that is being transfered
It took many years and much effort to establish the "SI", the international system of units we use to express energy in joules as a base unit.
The only people that have a problem with it are those who have no idea of the entire concept.
Like saying it`s not energy it`s heat....only to deny later that they said it.

English has multiple meanings for the same words. Energy is a very general term, as is heat. Heat transfer in solids is different than in liquids, or gases.

Much of the energy in oceans is stored in currents. Air not only has currents but much of its total energy is stored as potential in the gravity field.

Temperature is a tricky concept because it is not only just a macroscopic feature but also is an incomplete indicator of total energy.

 

[SSDD]

The only contribution CO2 makes to the temperature of the planet is the additional mass it adds to the atmosphere...there is no greenhouse effect as described by climate science...there is an atmospheric thermal effect, but it is not dependent on the composition of the atmosphere beyond what the individual components add to the mass...and it is no coincidence that the calculations for the atmospheric thermal effect, combined with incoming solar radiation accurately predict the temperature of every planet in the solar system while the calculations for the greenhouse effect only work here and then only with an ad hoc fudge factor.

 

[polarbear]

Well finally you got something right even if it`s only partially right.
But I can`t let you get away with this:
In your post # 201 you wrote:
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.
and later you denied it in your post #291 in an exchange with SSDD:
That is absolutely false. Why are you lying. I know you know better. You are just being a troll.
Only people who have no idea what "heat" is would make non sensible statements like that.
"heat" is energy and can only "flow" from a warmer object to a colder one, because in that circumstance the only thing under consideration is heat conduction.
Heat conduction needs a conduit so that heat can flow and then can only do so from a warm to cold. In contrast heat radiation does not need a conduit to transfer heat from one body to another.
But both use the same units to define the energy that is being transfered
It took many years and much effort to establish the "SI", the international system of units we use to express energy in joules as a base unit.
The only people that have a problem with it are those who have no idea of the entire concept.
Like saying it`s not energy it`s heat....only to deny later that they said it.

This is what you don't understand in the discussion:
All heat is energy. Not all energy is heat.
Read it again with that distinction in mind.

WhatTF !
I said heat is energy !!! I never said that all energy is heat.
I also said that energy is expressed in SI units [joules] as the base unit, including heat radiation. Because you and your cronies here kept insisting that "it`s heat, not energy"
Talk about lying and denying. You should have done like H.Clinton and use bleachbit to wipe your posts. So now after you got cornered with your weird definition what heat is you resort to other forms of energy because you don`t have the foggiest notion what they might be....and think you found a fog bank to hide from exposure.
Coming here to read the stuff you,crick etc write here is just as amusing as watching the likes of Madonna freaking out after the election.
IanC wondered once why I don`t go after SSDD. I never answered him but now might be the right time I do. It`s because he is a weed up your asses better than you and the rest of the AGW freaks aspire to, can ever hope to be to the rest of us..and I hope he never quits !!

 

[IanC]

The only contribution CO2 makes to the temperature of the planet is the additional mass it adds to the atmosphere...there is no greenhouse effect as described by climate science...there is an atmospheric thermal effect, but it is not dependent on the composition of the atmosphere beyond what the individual components add to the mass...and it is no coincidence that the calculations for the atmospheric thermal effect, combined with incoming solar radiation accurately predict the temperature of every planet in the solar system while the calculations for the greenhouse effect only work here and then only with an ad hoc fudge factor.

You need to articulate your ideas. I somewhat agree with you that the mass of gas in a gravity field is the framework for a range of surface temperatures. The composition of individual gases also affect the energy stored.

 

[IanC]

Well finally you got something right even if it`s only partially right.
But I can`t let you get away with this:
In your post # 201 you wrote:
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.
and later you denied it in your post #291 in an exchange with SSDD:
That is absolutely false. Why are you lying. I know you know better. You are just being a troll.
Only people who have no idea what "heat" is would make non sensible statements like that.
"heat" is energy and can only "flow" from a warmer object to a colder one, because in that circumstance the only thing under consideration is heat conduction.
Heat conduction needs a conduit so that heat can flow and then can only do so from a warm to cold. In contrast heat radiation does not need a conduit to transfer heat from one body to another.
But both use the same units to define the energy that is being transfered
It took many years and much effort to establish the "SI", the international system of units we use to express energy in joules as a base unit.
The only people that have a problem with it are those who have no idea of the entire concept.
Like saying it`s not energy it`s heat....only to deny later that they said it.

This is what you don't understand in the discussion:
All heat is energy. Not all energy is heat.
Read it again with that distinction in mind.

WhatTF !
I said heat is energy !!! I never said that all energy is heat.
I also said that energy is expressed in SI units [joules] as the base unit, including heat radiation. Because you and your cronies here kept insisting that "it`s heat, not energy"
Talk about lying and denying. You should have done like H.Clinton and use bleachbit to wipe your posts. So now after you got cornered with your weird definition what heat is you resort to other forms of energy because you don`t have the foggiest notion what they might be....and think you found a fog bank to hide from exposure.
Coming here to read the stuff you,crick etc write here is just as amusing as watching the likes of Madonna freaking out after the election.
IanC wondered once why I don`t go after SSDD. I never answered him but now might be the right time I do. It`s because he is a weed up your asses better than you and the rest of the AGW freaks aspire to, can ever hope to be to the rest of us..and I hope he never quits !!

That's why I have never even considered putting him on ignore. He may be wrong but he causes me to think and defend my ideas. That is rare around here.