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

[SSDD]

Actually pressure alone is not work since nothing is moving. An isolated system at equilibrium is not doing work or receiving work.

Work (thermodynamics) - Wikipedia

There are several ways of doing work, each in some way related to a force acting through a distance.​

Second Law of Thermodynamics, heat always flows from cold to warm and never vice versa.

heat and energy always flow SPONTANEOUSLY from cold to warm...if you apply work, you can make heat and energy flow from cool to warm...as in an air conditioner.

I don't know much about it but got in an argument about the Third Law of Thermodynamics with my mom and in particular, entropy. I was asking her about how life emerged from chaos, she said there are small pockets of order in disorder.

The first consideration in such an argument is that the Earth is not a closed system...it receives energy and matter from outside itself and loses energy and matter to locations outside itself...

Secondly...the second law doesn't claim that the entropy of any, or all particular parts of a system must increase. If it did, ice could never form or vapor would never condense into liquid...

And yet...there were the temperature gradients..repeatable experiments demonstrating them.....and there was plenty of movement...do you think that the air in those columns was actually static?..

The random movement of a gas in a closed container is not work. The paper you cited claims it is a perpetual motion device of the second kind. Do you believe perpetual motion can be achieved?

Gravity exerts pressure...exerted pressure is work...like it or not, it is how it is. And the fact of the temperature gradients is still there and still repeatable...it gives far more credibility to the atmospheric thermal effect which warmer wackos claim can't exist..than the unobservable, untestable, unmeasurable mechanism buy which you claim the greenhouse effect works.

Please read my posts again where I clearly defined the difference between the Second and Third Law. I have a lot of questions that I need answered. How does gravity escape a black hole when light cannot and both travel at the same speed? You will probably say Frame Dragging.which will boggle my mind.

Any claims regarding black holes...and what they do or do not do is at best, a claim about the accuracy of a mathematical model based on hypothetical conditions...nothing more.

 

[SSDD]

So you say...and yet, backradition can not be measured at ambient temperature even though your claim is that it is more than twice the amount of incoming solar radiation.

So I say? It is what every scientist says. There is no principle that says radiation from any gas is not isotropic.

And still not a single measurement of all this back radiation with an instrument at ambient temperature.....more than twice the amount of energy coming in from the sun

 

[Billy_Bob]

Ok, but the heat that is exchanged immediately by the GHG and then transferred to the o2 and n2 is lost to space the exact same way as the temperature from convection was lost to space, right?

Right. It doesn't matter how the heat originally was transformed, but in the end it is radiated to space as EM energy.

And you said that the heating of o2 and n2 from convection did not warm the planet because that energy was lost to space, right?

That's right. Actually the planet heats O2 and N2, but the O2 and N2 don't back-radiate to earth.

Aren't the odds of CO2 "back radiating" toward Earth extremely small in the first place and decrease proportionally as the molecules are higher in the atmosphere? Does CO2 have some magical redirectional beam that only radiates back toward Earth surface. Most of the other potential vectors are AWAY from Earth

If your doing simple odds calculations, using a rounded body, the LOG of diminishing return becomes near zero at about 20,000 feet. Taking into account ppm of the molecular make up of the atmosphere from CO2. Remember were talking a very narrow band 16-21um of LWIR that has no ability to penetrate.

 

[Crick]

Your comment about the temperature of the receiver is, of course, based on your asinine interpretation of the 2nd law. This is a direct measurement of radiation coming down from the night sky by Evans 2006.

 

[Wuwei]

Earlier I asked you if the co2 was warmer than the o2 and n2. You said that they were not that the warmer co2 would heat the o2 and n2, right?

Yes, any CO2 that gains energy will be immediately absorbed by the atmosphere. It is confusing to separate the heat of GHG's from the heat of the rest of the atmosphere. Since they are all intermixed there is only one temperature or heat to consider.

That energy or heat that would be transferred to the o2 and n2 would be quickly lost to space, right?

Not quickly. The heat that the sun gives earth takes a long time to reach the top of the atmosphere.

So what percentage of the heat from the co2 is transfered to o2 and n2?

I think you asked this before. All heat that the GHG's acquire are immediately transferred to the atmosphere.

 

[Wuwei]

And still not a single measurement of all this back radiation with an instrument at ambient temperature.....more than twice the amount of energy coming in from the sun

Crick showed you the measurements dozens of times.

 

[ding]

Earlier I asked you if the co2 was warmer than the o2 and n2. You said that they were not that the warmer co2 would heat the o2 and n2, right?

Yes, any CO2 that gains energy will be immediately absorbed by the atmosphere. It is confusing to separate the heat of GHG's from the heat of the rest of the atmosphere. Since they are all intermixed there is only one temperature or heat to consider.

That energy or heat that would be transferred to the o2 and n2 would be quickly lost to space, right?

Not quickly. The heat that the sun gives earth takes a long time to reach the top of the atmosphere.

So what percentage of the heat from the co2 is transfered to o2 and n2?

I think you asked this before. All heat that the GHG's acquire are immediately transferred to the atmosphere.

Right and when I brought up heat from convection you seemed to say it was lost quickly. So if heat from co2 immediately heats up the surrounding atmosphere how would that loss be any different?

 

[Wuwei]

So you say that the pressure of gravity does not result in the movement of the molecules in the air?...interesting...got any actual evidence to support that claim?...because the temperature gradients that have been shown experimentally to exist in columns of air say otherwise....if the pressure is not resulting in movement, why would the air at the bottom of the column be warmer than the air at the top?

The force of gravity is not work. A rock falling to the ground can provide work. A rock laying on the ground can't.
I already told you the experiment is corrupt. The authors believe that they can provide perpetual motion of the second kind.

Both references have the following statement.

Contrary to the statement by Clausius, the reported results show that in an isolated system under the influence of a force field like gravity heat can flow from a reservoir at a given temperature to a reservoir at a higher temperature.

​

 

[ding]

So can you ballpark how much heat is immediatly transferred to o2 and n2? What percent?

Almost all of it is transferred from the warm earth to the O2 and N2, if I understand your question.

Earlier I asked you if the co2 was warmer than the o2 and n2. You said that they were not that the warmer co2 would heat the o2 and n2, right?

That energy or heat that would be transferred to the o2 and n2 would be quickly lost to space, right?

So what percentage of the heat from the co2 is transfered to o2 and n2?

You know the formula and just show it rather than making silly remarks.

I'm not making silly remarks. I am asking valid question. Just trying to gain a better understanding.

 

[Wuwei]

Right and when I brought up heat from convection you seemed to say it was lost quickly. So if heat from co2 immediately heats up the surrounding atmosphere how would that loss be any different?

What I said was the heat from convection is quickly lost to the rest of the atmosphere. I didn't mean it was lost to outer space. CO2 heat from IR absorption is also quickly mixed with the atmosphere.

 

[ding]

Right and when I brought up heat from convection you seemed to say it was lost quickly. So if heat from co2 immediately heats up the surrounding atmosphere how would that loss be any different?

What I said was the heat from convection is quickly lost to the rest of the atmosphere. I didn't mean it was lost to outer space. CO2 heat from IR absorption is also quickly mixed with the atmosphere.

Ok. I'll come back to rates in a bit. Is all of the energy transfered from the co2 to o2 and n2 or does some go directly into land an ocean without heating o2 and n2? If so, how much, what percentage? Btw, I appreciate this discussion as it is helping me understand this process in simple terms.

 

[Billy_Bob]

And still not a single measurement of all this back radiation with an instrument at ambient temperature.....more than twice the amount of energy coming in from the sun

Crick showed you the measurements dozens of times.

A graph of spectral range is not a measurement of energy output..

 

[Billy_Bob]

Right and when I brought up heat from convection you seemed to say it was lost quickly. So if heat from co2 immediately heats up the surrounding atmosphere how would that loss be any different?

What I said was the heat from convection is quickly lost to the rest of the atmosphere. I didn't mean it was lost to outer space. CO2 heat from IR absorption is also quickly mixed with the atmosphere.

Ok. I'll come back to rates in a bit. Is all of the energy transfered from the co2 to o2 and n2 or does some go directly into land an ocean without heating o2 and n2? If so, how much, what percentage? Btw, I appreciate this discussion as it is helping me understand this process in simple terms.

The length of the wave determines what will be absorbed or reflected. As CO2 itself will not warm, the surrounding atmosphere is what warms CO2 by conduction. {no atmospheric hot spot} tells the tale about this.

 

[Wuwei]

Right and when I brought up heat from convection you seemed to say it was lost quickly. So if heat from co2 immediately heats up the surrounding atmosphere how would that loss be any different?

What I said was the heat from convection is quickly lost to the rest of the atmosphere. I didn't mean it was lost to outer space. CO2 heat from IR absorption is also quickly mixed with the atmosphere.

Ok. I'll come back to rates in a bit. Is all of the energy transfered from the co2 to o2 and n2 or does some go directly into land an ocean without heating o2 and n2? If so, how much, what percentage? Btw, I appreciate this discussion as it is helping me understand this process in simple terms.

The CO2 (and other GHG's including H2O) very close to the surface of earth radiate exactly half their energy downward to land. The other half radiates up. O2 and N2 and the rest of the atmosphere will quickly capture the upward energy.

CO2 that is a few meters higher will also radiate half their energy up to O2 and N2. It will also radiate half its energy downward, but not all that radiation will hit earth. Some will be captured by other CO2 molecules and immediately transferred to the O2 and N2 before it hits earth. The higher you go, the less CO2 radiation will actually reach the earth, but it will be absorbed by the atmosphere. A few dozen meters off the ground, none of the CO2 will reach the earth. So half the radiation will be absorbed in the atmosphere above, and the other half in the atmosphere below.

 

[Wuwei]

A graph of spectral range is not a measurement of energy output..

It was output of a detector aimed directly upward and therefore was a measurement of energy.

 

[Billy_Bob]

A graph of spectral range is not a measurement of energy output..

It was output of a detector aimed directly upward and therefore was a measurement of energy.

It was not a measurement of energy. It was a measurement of the downward wavelength converted into a number which represents POTENTIAL ENERGY. A Thermopylae, aimed upward, can not differentiate the difference between POTENTIAL and Realized energy.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Right and when I brought up heat from convection you seemed to say it was lost quickly. So if heat from co2 immediately heats up the surrounding atmosphere how would that loss be any different?

What I said was the heat from convection is quickly lost to the rest of the atmosphere. I didn't mean it was lost to outer space. CO2 heat from IR absorption is also quickly mixed with the atmosphere.

Ok. I'll come back to rates in a bit. Is all of the energy transfered from the co2 to o2 and n2 or does some go directly into land an ocean without heating o2 and n2? If so, how much, what percentage? Btw, I appreciate this discussion as it is helping me understand this process in simple terms.

The CO2 (and other GHG's including H2O) very close to the surface of earth radiate exactly half their energy downward to land. The other half radiates up. O2 and N2 and the rest of the atmosphere will quickly capture the upward energy.

CO2 that is a few meters higher will also radiate half their energy up to O2 and N2. It will also radiate half its energy downward, but not all that radiation will hit earth. Some will be captured by other CO2 molecules and immediately transferred to the O2 and N2 before it hits earth. The higher you go, the less CO2 radiation will actually reach the earth, but it will be absorbed by the atmosphere. A few dozen meters off the ground, none of the CO2 will reach the earth. So half the radiation will be absorbed in the atmosphere above, and the other half in the atmosphere below.

It is far from half. At best it is below 31% at just 10 meters. That is the kind of error which would render all of your calculations useless.

 

[Wuwei]

Right and when I brought up heat from convection you seemed to say it was lost quickly. So if heat from co2 immediately heats up the surrounding atmosphere how would that loss be any different?

What I said was the heat from convection is quickly lost to the rest of the atmosphere. I didn't mean it was lost to outer space. CO2 heat from IR absorption is also quickly mixed with the atmosphere.

Ok. I'll come back to rates in a bit. Is all of the energy transfered from the co2 to o2 and n2 or does some go directly into land an ocean without heating o2 and n2? If so, how much, what percentage? Btw, I appreciate this discussion as it is helping me understand this process in simple terms.

The CO2 (and other GHG's including H2O) very close to the surface of earth radiate exactly half their energy downward to land. The other half radiates up. O2 and N2 and the rest of the atmosphere will quickly capture the upward energy.

CO2 that is a few meters higher will also radiate half their energy up to O2 and N2. It will also radiate half its energy downward, but not all that radiation will hit earth. Some will be captured by other CO2 molecules and immediately transferred to the O2 and N2 before it hits earth. The higher you go, the less CO2 radiation will actually reach the earth, but it will be absorbed by the atmosphere. A few dozen meters off the ground, none of the CO2 will reach the earth. So half the radiation will be absorbed in the atmosphere above, and the other half in the atmosphere below.

It is far from half. At best it is below 31% at just 10 meters. That is the kind of error which would render all of your calculations useless.

By "very close to the surface" I meant fractions of an inch. That should have been obvious to you. If you think "very close to the surface" is 10 meters, yes it would be quite obvious that less than half the energy would actually reach the surface.

 

[ding]

Right and when I brought up heat from convection you seemed to say it was lost quickly. So if heat from co2 immediately heats up the surrounding atmosphere how would that loss be any different?

What I said was the heat from convection is quickly lost to the rest of the atmosphere. I didn't mean it was lost to outer space. CO2 heat from IR absorption is also quickly mixed with the atmosphere.

Ok. I'll come back to rates in a bit. Is all of the energy transfered from the co2 to o2 and n2 or does some go directly into land an ocean without heating o2 and n2? If so, how much, what percentage? Btw, I appreciate this discussion as it is helping me understand this process in simple terms.

The CO2 (and other GHG's including H2O) very close to the surface of earth radiate exactly half their energy downward to land. The other half radiates up. O2 and N2 and the rest of the atmosphere will quickly capture the upward energy.

CO2 that is a few meters higher will also radiate half their energy up to O2 and N2. It will also radiate half its energy downward, but not all that radiation will hit earth. Some will be captured by other CO2 molecules and immediately transferred to the O2 and N2 before it hits earth. The higher you go, the less CO2 radiation will actually reach the earth, but it will be absorbed by the atmosphere. A few dozen meters off the ground, none of the CO2 will reach the earth. So half the radiation will be absorbed in the atmosphere above, and the other half in the atmosphere below.

It is far from half. At best it is below 31% at just 10 meters. That is the kind of error which would render all of your calculations useless.

By "very close to the surface" I meant fractions of an inch. That should have been obvious to you. If you think "very close to the surface" is 10 meters, yes it would be quite obvious that less than half the energy would actually reach the surface.

Does that mean the vast amount never reaches the earth and remains in the atmosphere which then eventually is lost to space?

 

[Wuwei]

A graph of spectral range is not a measurement of energy output..

It was output of a detector aimed directly upward and therefore was a measurement of energy.

It was not a measurement of energy. It was a measurement of the downward wavelength converted into a number which represents POTENTIAL ENERGY. A Thermopylae, aimed upward, can not differentiate the difference between POTENTIAL and Realized energy.

That doesn't make any sense at all. EM radiation can never be potential energy. Please clearly define what you mean by potential and realized energy with regard to long wave radiation.