Remember me
▼ Content

Do I have the CO2 calamity math right? (help from an expert please)



Page 2 of 6<1234>>>
26-09-2019 20:55
HarveyH55
★★★★★
(2399)
The only real test to find out, would be to either continue adding CO2, and see if we all actually die in a few hundred years, by the prophesied 2 C rise in average global temperature, since the industrial revolution. Or, we can scrap everything we've accomplished, spend lots of money, exhaust our resources, trying to rebuild the world, enjoying all the hardships, starvation, and so on, by removing as much CO2 as we can. Personally, I like adding more CO2, and see how it turns out. Plants are going to use more CO2, as the do a lot better with more food. The other part of photosynthesis is sun's energy. That's less CO2, and less solar energy to warm the planet right there naturally. And as a bonus, we get more food, cheaper and easier to produce, building materials, fibers for clothes, rope, paper, and many other things. We can see actual benefits of more CO2, it's guaranteed. We can't be 100% sure any warming actually exists, or CO2 is the key. From the Al Gore movie timeline, we have already passed the point-of-no-return, and the science was declared 'settled', set in stone. If it was a lie back then, then they are lying now, giving us more time to get in on the wonderful 'green' new world, they want to create for us. Nature will make it actually green for us, if we let it. Let's face it, 2030 ain't happening, 2050 goal, unrealistic, and a little painful, and unlikely. The world is just too unsettled, no large scale cooperation on anything. No one is going to give up air travel, or large boats, high dependency, and many rely heavily on them as machines of war. We've been successful as a species, by moving forward, building on what we've learn and created, not tearing it all down, and starting over.
26-09-2019 21:22
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(3375)
IBdaMann wrote:
Ooops, apparently tmiddles doesn't understand that you can't treat the atmosphere like it's a separate body.
Any two separate bodies can be treated as separate bodies. Stop making stuff up.
Into the Night wrote:
Visible light produces very little heating.
This demonstrates your ignorance. Reflected light doesn't but all radiance will produce heat if it's absorbed (if it doesn't produce electricity or chemical changes instead).
Into the Night wrote:
Heat is not energy.
Yes it is. Let's have Max Planck debunk you some more:
Max Planck wrote:Pg.188 "...iron heated...plunge it into...cold water. The heat of the iron will pass to the water until ...thermal equilibrium"
"Heat could flow in the reverse process from cold water to hot iron, and the Principle of Conservation of Energy still hold good because heat itself is a form of energy, and the principle only demands that the quantity of heat given up by water be equal to that absorbed by the iron...

Into the Night wrote:Putting a blanket on a rock does not make it warm.
What about insulating a home with the fire place going?
IBdaMann wrote:
VernerHornung wrote:The fact that atmospheres result in warmer planet surfaces isn't disputed.

It is disputed.
By who? Explain Venus.
VernerHornung wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
....There is no frequency term in emissivity ...
....the frequency terms are found in Planck's radiation law
I have bad news Verner, ITN/IBD have decided that Max Planck himself, due to a visit by some Warmazombies with a time machine, is now officially, a warmazombie. Tragic I know. Your assertion of the real laws of physics will be falling on deaf ears.
IBdaMann wrote:...No one cares what Max Planck said....

VernerHornung wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
The answer could be that the other gases and the total mass/pressure of the atmosphere are more important then they are given credit in many CO2 focused calculations.

Yup. It's the pressure after all. Nitrogen and oxygen have a role,
So this is a big issue. Note that my math doesn't involve N2 O2 at all in this topic. The more they are involved the more the suspected influence of CO2 must be reduced in an calculation on past events.
VernerHornung wrote:
While they don't exert any significant radiative forcing by themselves,
But why not? Why wouldn't they radiate at 15C along side any other matter? Doesn't radiance not care what is radiating?
I had to look up spectral broadening "Thermal Doppler broadening
The higher the temperature of the gas, the wider the distribution of velocities in the gas. Since the spectral line is a combination of all of the emitted radiation, the higher the temperature of the gas, the broader the spectral line emitted from that gas."
VernerHornung wrote:
nitrogen and oxygen certainly radiate because they're above absolute zero. Yet if we assume they're not blocking many rays from the ground, then they're not slowing the escape of radiant energy. They're just radiating energy they got by conduction or convection.
But they are slowing the escape of thermal energy none the less as they absorb it by conduction and delay it's departure playing hot potato with it. They also reduce the heat of the ground for other conduction.

I still don't understand why this isn't repeatable in the lab. Four boxes, one a near vacuum, one pure O2, one Pure CO2, one our atmospheric mix (room air). 4 heat lamps, ect.

IBdaMann wrote:
Clue: "radiative forcing" is not physics or geophysics terminology.
How do you know that? Guy on the street tell you? How about just one book to back you up bucko?

VernerHornung wrote:
I hate lecturing on this,
You shouldn't you're good at it. I think one fruit of this forum can be boiled down, clarified lessons that regular folks can digest.
VernerHornung wrote:
each layer of air at its own temperature and pressure–must be analyzed separately
VernerHornung wrote:
With a planet, there's something else to consider: temperature near the ground, where we live, versus temperatures aloft where we fly United.
Well said. It's as useless to point a refridgerator and tell someone that it's creating heat (techinically true) when all they care about is that the food stays cold. Venus has an outer atmosphere so cold that CO2 ice forms. This does little for the poor probe on the surface being destroyed by the scorching temp there. Human, Icebergs, Plants all care about ground level temperature.

HarveyH55 wrote:....Plants are going to use more CO2, as the do a lot better with more food. ...No one is going to give up air travel...
Maybe there will be a point at which plant growth boost enough we can just grow all our fuel without anyone starving!


"Good tests kill flawed theories; we remain alive to guess again." - Karl Popper
ITN/IBD Fraud exposed:  The 2nd LTD add on claiming radiance from cooler bodies can't be absorbed Max Planck debunks, they can't explain:net-thermal-radiation-you-in-a-room-as-a-reference & Proof: no data is ever valid for them.
Edited on 26-09-2019 21:25
26-09-2019 21:46
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(7463)
VernerHornung wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
This is a clear violation of the 1st law of thermodynamics.

Energy is conserved.

Energy is clearly depicted as being destroyed.

VernerHornung wrote:Do you think those diagrams are mine?

I am certain that you mindlessly propogate erroneous warmizombie church material aimed at the gullible and the scientifically illiterate.

I am neither gullible nor scientifically illiterate. Those charts don't work on me.

VernerHornung wrote: They're not. They're based on work by top-flight people in meteorology, chemistry ...

You are the type of gullible person at whom those graphics are aimed.

VernerHornung wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Stefan-Boltzmann says that a reduced radiance implies a reduced temperature, because radiance and temperature move in the same direction.

And they do move in the same direction.

Sorry. Your graphic clearly depicts a temperature increase at the hands of a radiance decrease.

Your graphic is summarily dismissed.

VernerHornung wrote: The Earth is currently getting warmer if the model's numbers are correct.

Ergo, by Logic 101, the model's numbers are not correct.


tmiddles wrote:340 in and 339 out (1 representing the lack of equilibrium as Earth absorbs a bit more radiance than it gives as CO2 has been added, a temporary imbalance). No energy is being created.

The graphic does not indicate this. You are desperately trying to rationalize the errors that were pointed out, ... errors you were hoping were never spotted.

VernerHornung wrote: I hate lecturing on this,

... so please don't ...

VernerHornung wrote: but it's the only way to punch through all the obfuscation on thermodynamics milling around the forum.

I'd like to know who doesn't realize that you are one of the sources of the obfuscation.

VernerHornung wrote: When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS.

I'm seriously considering putting this in my signature. At this point, however, I will probably have to think about dropping some of the quotes. My signature is getting a bit too long.

Yours is the standard warmizombie attempt to render physics invalid, being the science denier that you are. You have resigned yourself to the realization that the WACKY Global Warming dogma that you were fed as "settled science" doesn't actually hold up to science ... but since your faith is too important to you now, it's the science that has to go, not your faith.

VernerHornung wrote: While it's true the Earth and its atmosphere radiate together toward space, the components—surface, and each layer of air at its own temperature and pressure–must be analyzed separately as each interacts with the other components.

Nope. Indivisible bodies, remember? There are no layers that need, or even should, be analyzed separately. If you are creating or destroying data as you suggest in your stupid graphics then you are wrong and summarily dismissed.

VernerHornung wrote: That's the only way you can find T for the surface.

Incorrect. If you want to know the temperature at a point on the surface, you use a thermometer.

You should learn the difference between a temperature at a point on the surface of the earth (of which there are bajillions) and the average global temperature (of which there is only one). You will remain utterly confused until you get that sorted out in your mind.

In order to one day arrive at the average global temperature you will need the earth's emissivity, which no one has at the moment. If you want to know the temperature at an airport then you can probably get that on the internet.

VernerHornung wrote:The models geophysics and climate people use for this are sophisticated,

It's hilarious how you say this like you've somehow seen them.

Where can I get any of these models? I'm a programmer. I want to code up one of them and see what numbers I get.

VernerHornung wrote: In the "Alka-Seltzer" setup, I believe the lamp heats the CO2 directly; thus the dramatic rise in temp. To a small extent, this also happens in our atmosphere.

Are you saying that, to a small extent, sunlight heats the atmosphere?

OK. Of course this represents a huge semantic shift in your assertion. Is this the entirety of what you mean by Global Warming?

VernerHornung wrote: With a planet, there's something else to consider:

Does physics work the same universally throught the universe ... except for planets because planets have special exceptions? ... or only planets that have humans? Help me out.


VernerHornung wrote: temperature near the ground, where we live, versus temperatures aloft where we fly United. A global warming scenario might raise temperatures aloft without raising them very much at the surface when convection and latent heat are involved.

Can you say "violation of thermodynamics"? It really doesn't matter how you slice it, your scenario here violates physics in some way, depending on how you are defining your scenario.

Anyway, you can't just raise the temperature of just one part of the atmosphere while leaving everything else the same. Stop trying to subdivide the body and you won't create so many errors.

If I turn on my oven so it can "pre-heat" ... what areas inside actually decrease in temperature? What areas inside simply don't increase in temperature while others do? Do we need to divide the oven into "zones" and "layers" in order to understand what is going on?

[(spoiler) Answer: no, we do NOT need to subdivide the oven; all of it increases in temperature]

VernerHornung wrote: Question is, with all the complexity—we've got snow and ice, reflection by clouds, forests, storage of energy in oceans—where will the warmth appear, and how soon?

Did you just use the word "warmth"? How technical! How specific! ... and you want to know where it will all "appear" ... as if by Global Warming miracle? ... er, I mean "forcing"?

All the complexity— snow and ice, reflection by clouds, forests, birds in the sky, blue agave in Tequila, ... all make it impossible (today) to know the earth's emissivity.

tmiddles wrote: Also Trump is intent on instigating conflict in this area so having solid, well grounded arguments that others can understand is critical.

Could you provide the link to the YouTube video in which Trump states this?


VernerHornung wrote:Having all of Europe hate us is probably a greater threat in the near term than any amount of warming...

When was the last time you interviewed NATO officers on this topic? I'd like to find out if it was more recent than my such interview.

VernerHornung wrote:Arguments that anyone can understand may be impossible with advanced physics topics like weather & climate;

I have no trouble explaining to children the basic concepts. It is not difficult to understand the problems with Global Warming dogma, unless you have Greta Thunberg-type affliction.

VernerHornung wrote: I think what needs emphasis is the models are the best science has to offer,

Judging by the zero models you have presented, science has nothing to support Global Warming.

VernerHornung wrote: I'm amenable to accepting them as conceptually sound unless or until later science disproves them.

In fact, you don't even require proof that any such models exist; you will believe whatever anyone tells you as long as it begins with the words "Climate models say ....". It usually ends with "when I snap my fingers, you will wake up."


.


A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles

Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
26-09-2019 21:55
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(3375)
IBdaMann wrote:
VernerHornung wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
This is a clear violation of the 1st law of thermodynamics.

Energy is conserved.

Energy is clearly depicted as being destroyed.
He would tell you why he thinks that Verner, but that would be far less annoying.

IBdaMann wrote:
Your graphic clearly depicts a temperature increase at the hands of a radiance decrease.

The out going radiance is decrease, by 1, not the incoming. It's called radiative heat transfer. 239 years ago Pierre Provost had that figured out. The graph, which depicts GLOBAL WARMING, does not have the Earth in equilibrium but heating up. You can refute that but the graph isn't wrong or violating physics in some way just because you don't believe it depicts what actually going on.

Once again you're just dead wrong about the laws of thermodynamics. Maybe you should find a new oral tradition to follow or grab a text book.

IBdaMann wrote:
tmiddles wrote: Also Trump is intent on instigating conflict in this area so having solid, well grounded arguments that others can understand is critical.

Could you provide the link to the YouTube video in which Trump states this?
Wouldn't matter. I link to a video entirely produced by TRUMP and you say I'm lying:
tmiddles wrote:OK as it's only a 30 sec spot I'm going to give the whole transcript:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2UoQff8MMVM
"I'm Donald Trump and I approve this message.
The politicians can pretend it's something else but Donald Trump calls it radical islamic terrorism.
That's why he's calling for a temporary shut down of Muslim's entering the United States until we can figure out what's going on.
He'll quickly cut the heads off ISIS and take their oil.
And he'll stop illegal imigration by building a wall on our southern border that Mexico will pay for.
We will make america great again."

That's everything exactly as it's said in the 30 second spot.
So I'm ready! Lay it on me. What do you see there that somehow changes the message "Ban on Muslims" ??

IBdaMann wrote:
tmiddles wrote:Let's recap: I've been called a LIAR for stating that Trump called for a ban on Muslim's entering the country.

Let's recap: you are a LIAR ....



"Good tests kill flawed theories; we remain alive to guess again." - Karl Popper
ITN/IBD Fraud exposed:  The 2nd LTD add on claiming radiance from cooler bodies can't be absorbed Max Planck debunks, they can't explain:net-thermal-radiation-you-in-a-room-as-a-reference & Proof: no data is ever valid for them.
Edited on 26-09-2019 21:59
26-09-2019 21:58
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(7463)
tmiddles wrote:The out going radiance is decrease, by 1,

That is the decrease in radiance.

tmiddles wrote:The graph, which depicts GLOBAL WARMING,

... caused by a decrease in radiance.

Radiance decrease. Temperature increase. They're moving in opposite directions. Dismissed.

.


A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles

Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
26-09-2019 22:01
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(3375)
IBdaMann wrote:
tmiddles wrote:The out going radiance is decrease, by 1,

That is the decrease in radiance.
.
Are you under the impression that when one body absorbs radiance from another it is required to emit everything it absorbs? That equilibrium is always the case for everything? How exactly would something heat up due to radiance if it were NOT absorbing more than it emitted?

You think an ice cube emits as much as it absorbs while it's melting?

"Good tests kill flawed theories; we remain alive to guess again." - Karl Popper
ITN/IBD Fraud exposed:  The 2nd LTD add on claiming radiance from cooler bodies can't be absorbed Max Planck debunks, they can't explain:net-thermal-radiation-you-in-a-room-as-a-reference & Proof: no data is ever valid for them
Edited on 26-09-2019 22:02
26-09-2019 22:13
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(7463)
tmiddles wrote: Are you under the impression that when one body absorbs radiance from another it is required to emit everything it absorbs?

Are you asking if bodies radiate all the energy absorbed, specifically per Stefan-Boltzmann?

Yes they do.

Oooops, does this render physics invalid?

tmiddles wrote: The equilibrium is always the case for everything? How exactly would something heat up due to radiance if it were NOT absorbing more than it emitted?

Are you referring to scenarios that are clearly identified as being "not in thermal equilibrium" and that depict the lack of thermal equilibrium in the model because otherwise thermal equilibrium is the default assumption?


.


A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles

Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
26-09-2019 22:22
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(3375)
IBdaMann wrote:
tmiddles wrote: Are you under the impression that when one body absorbs radiance from another it is required to emit everything it absorbs?

Are you asking if bodies radiate all the energy absorbed, specifically per Stefan-Boltzmann?

Yes they do.
No they don't. Thermal equilibrium is sometimes the case but not always. You are wrong.

Go eat some fruit and think it over (where oh where did those sweet sugars come from IBD, if it wasn't because some energy was absorbed and not re-emitted).

And "_______ warming" would indicate a lack of equilibrium wouldn't it?


"Good tests kill flawed theories; we remain alive to guess again." - Karl Popper
ITN/IBD Fraud exposed:  The 2nd LTD add on claiming radiance from cooler bodies can't be absorbed Max Planck debunks, they can't explain:net-thermal-radiation-you-in-a-room-as-a-reference & Proof: no data is ever valid for them
Edited on 26-09-2019 22:23
26-09-2019 23:14
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13293)
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Ooops, apparently tmiddles doesn't understand that you can't treat the atmosphere like it's a separate body.
Any two separate bodies can be treated as separate bodies. Stop making stuff up.

Denying Kirchoff's law again. You are also denying both the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics by changing the boundaries of the system. Goalposts fallacy.
tmiddles wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Visible light produces very little heating.
This demonstrates your ignorance. Reflected light doesn't but all radiance will produce heat if it's absorbed (if it doesn't produce electricity or chemical changes instead).

Nope. Absorption of visible light does not produce much heat at all. It is infrared light that converts to thermal energy when absorbed, not visible light.
tmiddles wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Heat is not energy.
Yes it is. Let's have Max Planck debunk you some more:
Max Planck wrote:Pg.188 "...iron heated...plunge it into...cold water. The heat of the iron will pass to the water until ...thermal equilibrium"
"Heat could flow in the reverse process from cold water to hot iron, and the Principle of Conservation of Energy still hold good because heat itself is a form of energy, and the principle only demands that the quantity of heat given up by water be equal to that absorbed by the iron...


Heat is not energy. Heat is the transfer of thermal energy. You are now misquoting Planck.
tmiddles wrote:
Into the Night wrote:Putting a blanket on a rock does not make it warm.
What about insulating a home with the fire place going?

Irrevelance fallacy.
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
VernerHornung wrote:The fact that atmospheres result in warmer planet surfaces isn't disputed.

It is disputed.
By who? Explain Venus.

Who just disputed it, dumbass?

RQAA.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
26-09-2019 23:17
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13293)
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
tmiddles wrote: Are you under the impression that when one body absorbs radiance from another it is required to emit everything it absorbs?

Are you asking if bodies radiate all the energy absorbed, specifically per Stefan-Boltzmann?

Yes they do.
No they don't. Thermal equilibrium is sometimes the case but not always. You are wrong.


Has the output of the Sun changed?


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
26-09-2019 23:38
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(3375)
Into the Night wrote:
Denying Kirchoff's law again.
Once again you make up laws that don't exist. Kirchoff says nothing about having to lump everything together. You can if you want treat the entire universe as one object.

Into the Night wrote:
Has the output of the Sun changed?

Nope

Into the Night wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Heat is not energy.
Yes it is. Let's have Max Planck debunk you some more:
Max Planck wrote:Pg.188 " because heat itself is a form of energy,


Heat is not energy. Heat is the transfer of thermal energy. You are now misquoting Planck.
Now here a normal person would clarify just how I misquoted Planck. His words are there in bold for you to admire you debunking.


"Good tests kill flawed theories; we remain alive to guess again." - Karl Popper
ITN/IBD Fraud exposed:  The 2nd LTD add on claiming radiance from cooler bodies can't be absorbed Max Planck debunks, they can't explain:net-thermal-radiation-you-in-a-room-as-a-reference & Proof: no data is ever valid for them[/quote]
27-09-2019 02:46
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13293)
tmiddles wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Denying Kirchoff's law again.
Once again you make up laws that don't exist. Kirchoff says nothing about having to lump everything together. You can if you want treat the entire universe as one object.

Into the Night wrote:
Has the output of the Sun changed?

Nope

Into the Night wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Heat is not energy.
Yes it is. Let's have Max Planck debunk you some more:
Max Planck wrote:Pg.188 " because heat itself is a form of energy,


Heat is not energy. Heat is the transfer of thermal energy. You are now misquoting Planck.
Now here a normal person would clarify just how I misquoted Planck. His words are there in bold for you to admire you debunking.

No, YOUR words. Max Planck is dead.
RDCF


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
27-09-2019 03:23
James___
★★★★★
(3170)
Into the Night wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Denying Kirchoff's law again.
Once again you make up laws that don't exist. Kirchoff says nothing about having to lump everything together. You can if you want treat the entire universe as one object.

Into the Night wrote:
Has the output of the Sun changed?

Nope

Into the Night wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Heat is not energy.
Yes it is. Let's have Max Planck debunk you some more:
Max Planck wrote:Pg.188 " because heat itself is a form of energy,


Heat is not energy. Heat is the transfer of thermal energy. You are now misquoting Planck.
Now here a normal person would clarify just how I misquoted Planck. His words are there in bold for you to admire you debunking.

No, YOUR words. Max Planck is dead.
RDCF




Heat is not energy. Heat is the transfer of thermal energy.

Let me get this straight. Heat isn't energy but heat is thermal energy. Isn't the word thermal in this context an adjective? How does thermal describe a transfer of something? For such a statement to be true, thermal would describe a transfer.
Prisoners are often thermaled from one prison to another. This allows for prisoners to be determined by their thermal (adjective) quality.
Or drugs were bought by a thermaler. The THC was thermaled into the lungs of the user. This allowed for the anticipated response to being thermaled.
Does thermaled have 1 or 2 Ls?
27-09-2019 04:30
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13293)
James___ wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Denying Kirchoff's law again.
Once again you make up laws that don't exist. Kirchoff says nothing about having to lump everything together. You can if you want treat the entire universe as one object.

Into the Night wrote:
Has the output of the Sun changed?

Nope

Into the Night wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Heat is not energy.
Yes it is. Let's have Max Planck debunk you some more:
Max Planck wrote:Pg.188 " because heat itself is a form of energy,


Heat is not energy. Heat is the transfer of thermal energy. You are now misquoting Planck.
Now here a normal person would clarify just how I misquoted Planck. His words are there in bold for you to admire you debunking.

No, YOUR words. Max Planck is dead.
RDCF




Heat is not energy. Heat is the transfer of thermal energy.

Let me get this straight. Heat isn't energy but heat is thermal energy.

No. Heat is not thermal energy. Heat is the TRANSFER of thermal energy. It is not the thermal energy itself. Heat is not energy.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
27-09-2019 04:35
VernerHornungProfile picture★☆☆☆☆
(133)
tmiddles wrote:
But why not? Why wouldn't they radiate at 15C along side any other matter? Doesn't radiance not care what is radiating?

From what I understand, diatomic molecules aren't good infrared absorbers/emitters. For IR, the molecule needs a third atom in the middle that wiggles back and forth to produce changes in the molecule's dipole moment. Almost like radio transmitter antennas, except at much higher frequency. See

properties of a greenhouse gas
Amer. Chem. Soc.
https://www.acs.org/content/acs/en/climatescience/greenhousegases/properties.html

Nitrogen will emit thermally because of its temperature, but only by inelastic collisions between the molecules. Radiation phenomena do care what's radiating, and the ground, radiating mostly around wave number 1000, won't transmit much energy to N2 by radiation.

What happens with the N2 is this:



The N2 takes some heat from the ground by conduction, expands and rises (convection), and finally radiates at altitude. But it can't receive and re-emit rays from the ground at WNs near 1000. And the ground emits very little at wavenumbers the N2 does absorb, which are in microwaves and extreme ultraviolet, I think. So the N2 is just radiating what it got from the ground by conduction.

What happens with the CO2 is this:



Same thing again. Heat from ground by conduction, rises, radiates this conducted heat. But it's absorbing rays at WNs near 1000 as well, additional energy the nitrogen wasn't getting. It re-emits this as well. (CO2's big spectral line is actually centered on WN 667, but that's close enough, still within the ground's strong emitting range.)

Now the difference between these scenarios and an airless Earth: You're right. The N2 delays radiation of energy from the ground to space, yet it also delays the sun's warming of the ground by carrying much heat aloft in convection. (Think thermals on a hot day.) So there's really no net delay at all, only moderation, a lessening of the contrast between day and night. N2 won't work as a greenhouse gas on Earth.

Yet again, the pressure the N2 and O2 exert on the CO2 and H2O broaden the latter's spectral lines and "boosts" their greenhouse effects. Complications what makes radiative transfer theory in planetary science so hard for me to understand. The way a gas behaves, greenhouse-wise, will depend on temperature and pressure. Venus is only twice as hot as we are, 730K versus 288, and it has tons of CO2 to make up for the loss of greenhouse efficiency involved.

I've pushed it to the limit for me, though. I'm not a "radiation guy" and none too spectral.
~


tmiddles wrote:
I still don't understand why this isn't repeatable in the lab. Four boxes, one a near vacuum, one pure O2, one Pure CO2, one our atmospheric mix (room air).


The absorption part was repeated in that YouTube ditty. The CO2 bottle got warmer than the air bottle did. Bottles of N2 or O2 would act similar to the air bottle. You can't heat those gases with a restaurant heat lamp. (Nuclear bombs heat them with X-rays to make a fireball.)

tmiddles wrote:
Venus has an outer atmosphere so cold that CO2 ice forms. This does little for the poor probe on the surface being destroyed by the scorching temp there. Human, Icebergs, Plants all care about ground level temperature.

Yeah, does little for Venera, which probably looks like a blackened rock you pull out of your campfire by now. But the CO2 ice is 50 miles up in the air there. There's little convection near the surface; it's stagnant. Cold air on Earth is close by. Planes need a heater before they need to be pressurized. And cold air helps speed convection, which I believe tends to shift "global warming" toward the poles. The Arctic ends up 10˚C warmer while the temps at the equator may hardly change.

IBdaMann wrote:
Clue: "radiative forcing" is not physics or geophysics terminology. It's religious dogma. You've been tooled.

As tmiddles noted, the term geophysicists use is "radiative transfer theory." Radiative forcing, a newer term, was introduced by climatologists to express the radiative power equivalent—in W/m^2—of various perturbations in the climate system so they're easier to compare with one another. Sorry, IBdaMann, but you're not the man in this area of study and it's not a religious dogma. IPCC gave a careful definition:

"RF is the net change in the energy balance of the Earth system due to some imposed perturbation. It is usually expressed in watts per square meter averaged over a particular period of time and quantifes the energy imbalance that occurs when the imposed change takes place."
—Anthropogenic and Natural Radiative Forcing, Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis, p. 664.

This of course applies to systems exchanging radiation with an environment but not at thermal equilibrium with that environment. Note the words "energy imbalance."

Thing is, you're spewing one-liners at someone who harbors real doubts concerning the level of reliance policymakers should invest in IPCC's assessment reports and related materials produced by academic facilities. Especially if they're gonna rely on this stuff as filtered for them by panicky climate change lobbies as AOC in Congress relishes. The science itself is conservative, under review by hundreds of people in that field. IPCC had to get an international consensus for everything it published. The issues I see have more to do with the projections, as I suspect climate may be less predictable than we suppose.

IBdaMann wrote:
Energy is clearly depicted as being destroyed.

No, all the energy's still there. The diagram shows power, not energy, anyway. I'll leave balancing it an exercise for you. (Hint: incoming = outgoing at equilibrium, incoming > outgoing if warming.)

IBdaMann wrote:
You are the type of gullible person at whom those graphics are aimed.

I don't use that diagram by itself. See for instance the paper I've cited twice while you kept breezing by it as if it weren't on the board:

Infrared Radiation & Planetary Temperature
Raymond Pierrehumbert
Department of Geophysical Sciences
University of Chicago
https://geosci.uchicago.edu/~rtp1/papers/PhysTodayRT2011.pdf

This has our lovely term "radiative transfer theory." It does not have the word "forcing" at all. And Pierrehumbert does not work for a warmazombie climate institute of any kind. He teaches physics at the University of Oxford now.

IBdaMann wrote:
Nope. Indivisible bodies, remember? There are no layers that need, or even should, be analyzed separately.

There are indeed. The Earth is not a blackbody. It's not even a grey body you can treat using Stefan-Boltzmann with an emissivity constant. It's more like a grey body with a partially transparent shell around it, and this shell must radiate at its own temperature. The outgoing rays from this shell, plus the fraction of the rays from the surface which pass through the shell, then become what balances the incoming from the sun.

IBdaMann wrote:
Where can I get any of these models? I'm a programmer. I want to code up one of them and see what numbers I get.

You can download one of them here:
http://www.cesm.ucar.edu/models/

IBdaMann wrote:
Anyway, you can't just raise the temperature of just one part of the atmosphere while leaving everything else the same.

I'm not raising the temperature of one part of the atmosphere while leaving everything else the same. The air is in fact warmer at its base than it is two miles up. If you don't believe that, take a ride in a biplane someday. The air two miles up must be radiating because it's not at absolute zero. Heat isn't temperature. The temperature at one spot in the atmosphere will not change as long as convection and radiation proceed in pace with the heat this spot receives from elsewhere.

IBdaMann wrote:
If I turn on my oven so it can "pre-heat"

And the atmosphere is not a kitchen oven.
~


IBdaMann wrote:
...they are engineers like Into the Night, and you are not.

Neither you nor ITN has put up a single equation or analytical item on this forum as far as I can tell; what I see is you jumping in to troll conversations beginning four years ago, on and on about socialism and climate goddesses:

There is still no global warming science
https://www.climate-debate.com/forum/there-is-still-no-global-warming-science--d10-e507.php

If that's what floats your boat, no offense taken. You're free to your own opinions and I've no pretense to know what you or ITN do for a living. But if ITN's an engineer, he could help us out instead of being cryptic.



Never try to solve an NP-complete problem on your own with pencil & paper.
Edited on 27-09-2019 04:46
27-09-2019 05:44
HarveyH55
★★★★★
(2399)
The issues I see have more to do with the projections, as I suspect climate may be less predictable than we suppose.


You think? I read in a few places around the internet, that 'climate' is defined as weather. over long periods of time... I don't particularly buy that, it might be similar to weather, but it's something different, more an environmental observation. Weather changes frequently, which can last minutes, hours, days, or even much longer, but there is sort of a 'normal', that a location will return to, if there are no weather events. I can't really see how a global average climate really applies to anything. To many areas around the world, that never experience anywhere near similar climates, ever. That global average would never apply to all areas. Weather isn't very predictable at all, maybe a day or two, with reasonable confidence, but still fails often enough. We've been trying to understand, and predict weather, well... Long before we burned fossil fuels, and still haven't gotten it nailed down yet. We've even tried many times to influence and control weather. Rainmaking has a rich history, though we don't seem to have much interest in pursuing that any more. I really find it insane, that we can only make reasonable predictions about weather, a couple days in advance, mostly a coin toss beyond. Yet, the IPCC is 100% sure about the weather/climate, decades in advance.
27-09-2019 06:26
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(7463)
VernerHornung wrote:Nitrogen will emit thermally because of its temperature, but only by inelastic collisions between the molecules.

No, dumbass ... It radiates thermally because it is matter.

All matter radiates per Stefan-Boltzmann.

VernerHornung wrote: The N2 delays radiation of energy from the ground to space, yet it also delays the sun's warming of the ground by carrying much heat aloft in convection. (Think thermals on a hot day.) So there's really no net delay at all, only moderation, a lessening of the contrast between day and night. N2 won't work as a greenhouse gas on Earth.

All of this subdividing of the earth gets you nothing ... and you don't sound "smart."

VernerHornung wrote:As tmiddles noted,

So you admit that you're being dishonest as well.


VernerHornung wrote: Radiative forcing, a newer term, was introduced by climatologists to express

"Climatologists" are nothing but rabid Marxist political activists who target the stupid and the gullible. Yes, it's their term to profess the miracle of Global Warming.

Anytime the word "forcing" appears, the argument is summarily dismissed.


VernerHornung wrote: Note the words "energy imbalance."

This isn't physics either. This term also identifies religious dogma.

Energy does not "balance" and thus is never "out of balance." Argument dismissed.

VernerHornung wrote:Thing is, you're spewing one-liners at someone who harbors real doubts concerning the level of reliance policymakers should invest in IPCC's assessment reports and related materials produced by academic facilities.

You merely "harbor doubts." This means you put SOME credence in that crap. That strips you of any credibility on the matter.

... and it doesn't help your understanding of physics any.

VernerHornung wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Energy is clearly depicted as being destroyed.

No, all the energy's still there.

Learn to subtract.

All anyone needs to do to see that your graphic is crap is to realize that all of the attempts to subdivide the planet are bogus and that the amount in is not the amount out.

Done.

I realize that you are exactly the gullible type of moron that Marxists target because this kind of stuff works on you, but for that reason you need to understand that your bogus church material isn't going to work on me.

VernerHornung wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Nope. Indivisible bodies, remember? There are no layers that need, or even should, be analyzed separately.

There are indeed.

Great, you stick with that and we'll see how that works out for you. Report back to the board the next time you fall for another stupid graphic.

VernerHornung wrote:The Earth is not a blackbody. It's not even a grey body you can treat using Stefan-Boltzmann with an emissivity constant.

Warmizombies are forever insisting that physics doesn't apply to earth. I wish you the best of luck with that one.

VernerHornung wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Where can I get any of these models? I'm a programmer. I want to code up one of them and see what numbers I get.

You can download one of them here:
http://www.cesm.ucar.edu/models/

I really wish you had learned English at some point. It would have sped up communication.

Learn what a model is, and then learn what a computer program is that implements a model.

I clearly asked you for a model, not for computer code.

I was clear that I wanted to write my own code to implement the model.

Would you kindly get me one of the Climate MODELS used so I can analyze it and write my own program?

IBdaMann wrote:
Anyway, you can't just raise the temperature of just one part of the atmosphere while leaving everything else the same.

I'm not raising the temperature of one part of the atmosphere while leaving everything else the same. [/quote]
That is what you wrote and I cited it.

VernerHornung wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
If I turn on my oven so it can "pre-heat"

And the atmosphere is not a kitchen oven.
~

That's all you've got? That's your answer? Is this all part of your lame "physics doesn't apply to the earth" dogma?

VernerHornung wrote: what I see is you jumping in to troll conversations beginning four years ago, on and on about socialism and climate goddesses:

Aaahh, the "troll" word comes out. It's all the confirmation I needed to see. I can't wait to "troll" you when you start pretending to discuss economics. I'm ready when you are.


VernerHornung wrote:But if ITN's an engineer, he could help us out instead of being cryptic.

He's not cryptic. He is clear. Have you tried asking him a direct question? You've been allowing tmiddles to lead you around on a leash and you just jumped in here with the pre-judging without reading.

Try engaging in a rational, honest manner and yes, Into the Night has a lot to share ... and he's a lot nicer than I am.


.


A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles

Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
27-09-2019 07:59
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(3375)
Into the Night wrote:
tmiddles wrote:...Planck. His words are there in bold for you to admire you debunking.
No, YOUR words. Max Planck is dead.
RDCF
Oh no, your wacky approach at reinventing science is not something I'll be adopting. I trust Planck completely until he's proven wrong. You on the other hand are just a noisy joke.

James___ wrote:Heat isn't energy but heat is thermal energy
ha ha, nice, I wish I'd thought of quoting ITN's absurdity so succinctly.
How's this. ITN says:
Into the Night wrote:
Heat is not energy. Heat is the transfer of thermal energy.
Ergo:
Mechanical "energy" isn't really energy, it's just the transfer of matter
Chemical "energy" isn't energy either, ha! It's just a change in chemistry
Electrical energy, you guessed it, just the transfer of current

That warmazombie Max Planck almost had us fooled. But ITN saved us!
Into the Night wrote:Heat is not energy.
You see James, Heat is a 4 letter word and Energy is 6 letters. Totally different words

VernerHornung wrote:
tmiddles wrote:...Why wouldn't they radiate...
...diatomic molecules aren't good infrared absorbers/emitters..
But since 99% of the atmosphere needs has a temperature it has no option but to radiate out into space right? Whether they are good at it or not they don't have a choice do they?

The graphs are very clear. The fact that we're talking about so much N2 and O2 seems to make event heir poor performance as a radiator relevant to the story. Again the calculation I did ignored their radiance entirely.

VernerHornung wrote:Venus is only twice as hot as we are, 730K versus 288, and it has tons of CO2 to make up for the loss of greenhouse efficiency involved.
Did you consider Huffman's theory yet? That's all about the pressure?: there is no greenhouse effect at all, and you can prove it for yourself.
He makes a good case. Your observation of Mars not seeming to own up to CO2's power is consistent with his theory.

VernerHornung wrote:
.. cold air helps speed convection, which I believe tends to shift "global warming" toward the poles. The Arctic ends up 10˚C warmer while the temps at the equator may hardly change...

Ah, did not know that. Seems like an unlucky fact.

VernerHornung wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Clue: "radiative forcing" is not physics or geophysics terminology. It's religious dogma. You've been tooled.
... you're spewing one-liners at someone who harbors real doubts concerning the level of reliance policymakers should invest in IPCC's assessment reports...
I've had similar frustration Verner. ITN/IBD are gods gift to the Bill Nye's of the world who want to call all the "deniers" lunatics. I came on here trying to get into some real analysis of the credible and well researched skepticism from scientists like Huffman and Pat Frank.

VernerHornung wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Nope. Indivisible bodies, remember? There are no layers that need, or even should, be analyzed separately.

There are indeed. The Earth is not a blackbody. It's not even a grey body you can treat using Stefan-Boltzmann with an emissivity constant.
Wouldn't it not matter if it was a perfect black body? You analyze whatever you want. There is no rule that things which are interacting cannot be subdivided, analyzed in relation to one another. IBD's objection is just weird and dumb. We were talking about balls with shells around them in the past and there was no suggestion that you couldn't analyze the interaction. IBD I know you always wants to end any debate but try harder man.

VernerHornung wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
...they are engineers like Into the Night, and you are not.

Neither you nor ITN has put up a single equation or analytical item...
They have also disqualified everything anyone else brought to the table.

I think it's the clumsy logic that you are guaranteed to win if the other team is disqualified and not permitted to take the field.

HarveyH55 wrote:I can't really see how a global average climate really applies to anything.
I think if you're comparing Earth's locations to each other it seem erratic. Compare it to just our solar system and it looks like club med. The all time extreme temperature readings ever on Earth are 58C and -126C, which is 147 to 331 Kelvin. The moon goes from 100 to 400 normally. The ice age, which was a globally significant event I think we can agree, was with temperatures only about 10 degrees cooler than today. The Earth is about 30 degrees warmer than it would be simply calculating what we get from the sun (yes atmosphere's do make it warmer).

IBdaMann wrote:
"Climatologists" are nothing but rabid Marxist political activists...
Try science IBD. You're just a bad psychologist (very repetitive). A debate means that if someone is wrong you prove it. You don't try to disqualify them from having anything to say.

IBdaMann wrote:
VernerHornung wrote:But if ITN's an engineer, he could help us out instead of being cryptic.
He's not cryptic. He is clear. Have you tried asking him a direct question?

Ha ha ha ha ha. I'll ask you both!! What happens to the radiance from the room you're in when it reaches your skin?

Be warned Verner. You will be told you already got a clear answer, that it's somewhere and you're too lazy to look for it : )

I guess that's not hide the ball but more like the phantom ball.




"Good tests kill flawed theories; we remain alive to guess again." - Karl Popper
ITN/IBD Fraud exposed:  The 2nd LTD add on claiming radiance from cooler bodies can't be absorbed Max Planck debunks, they can't explain:net-thermal-radiation-you-in-a-room-as-a-reference & Proof: no data is ever valid for them
27-09-2019 15:21
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(7463)
tmiddles wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Heat is not energy. Heat is the transfer of thermal energy.

Ergo: Mechanical "energy" isn't really energy, it's just the transfer of matter
Chemical "energy" isn't energy either, ha! It's just a change in chemistry
Electrical energy, you guessed it, just the transfer of current

Once again you are lashing out in confusion per your profound ignorance ... and assigning bogus positions to someone else.

Into the Night was entirely correct. You, however, were not.

Had you been a rational, honest person I would explain to you your error, but as it stands, I'll enjoy letting you go on record exposing your death-struggle for understanding.


.


A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles

Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
27-09-2019 19:51
VernerHornungProfile picture★☆☆☆☆
(133)
HarveyH55 wrote:
I read in a few places around the internet, that 'climate' is defined as weather over long periods of time... I don't particularly buy that, it might be similar to weather, but it's something different, more an environmental observation. Weather changes frequently...

It changes in 10 minutes around here! Normals in newspaper forecasts are rolling 30-year averages. The normal high temp in a US town for Sept. 27 is the sum of all the Sept. 27 high temps from 1981 to 2010, divided by 30. In a couple years they'll start using 1991 to 2020 for the normals. The current set of normals where I live has January nights 4˚ warmer than the 1951-80 set they were using when I moved here. Summer temps haven't changed. (I looked them up.) Main thing is climate is based on history.

HarveyH55 wrote:
That global average would never apply to all areas.

In fact it doesn't apply to any place on the globe. It applies only to the globe as a whole, day and night at all seasons, with the current figure at 58.5˚F, plus or minus ½ degree. Quito, Ecuador matches this pretty close since it's in a cool mountain valley near the Equator. Where I live the year-round average is just 52, but summers are 78 and winters 27.

HarveyH55 wrote:
Weather isn't very predictable at all, maybe a day or two, with reasonable confidence, but still fails often enough.

And climate isn't predictable, either. That's why I have some doubts about all those models. It is more consistent than daily weather; if there's a change it will be much smaller and occur over a longer period of time. The only thing the models shows is given current knowledge of climate, it's more likely that most places on Earth will have warmer average temps in 2100 than have colder temps then. The predictions run between ½˚ and 9˚F warmer for the globe, according to

IPCC Synthesis Report, 2014 (see p. 10)
https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/SYR_AR5_FINAL_full.pdf

Since 2007, there's been a shift of topic emphasis from prediction to observation of recent changes. That's why you keep hearing how this year is the hottest on record and so on. But the amount CO2 people have sent up the flue is remarkable, apparently 2 trillion tons since 1750, most of this in the last 50 years (p. 3 in same report). That would make one hell of an Alka-Seltzer fizz.


Never try to solve an NP-complete problem on your own with pencil & paper.
27-09-2019 22:45
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13293)
VernerHornung wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
But why not? Why wouldn't they radiate at 15C along side any other matter? Doesn't radiance not care what is radiating?

From what I understand, diatomic molecules aren't good infrared absorbers/emitters. For IR, the molecule needs a third atom in the middle that wiggles back and forth to produce changes in the molecule's dipole moment. Almost like radio transmitter antennas, except at much higher frequency. See

properties of a greenhouse gas
Amer. Chem. Soc.
https://www.acs.org/content/acs/en/climatescience/greenhousegases/properties.html

By this definition, there must be 'greenhouse solids' as well. How much does a frozen lake warm the Earth by? What about all that dry ice used on Halloween?
VernerHornung wrote:
Nitrogen will emit thermally because of its temperature, but only by inelastic collisions between the molecules. Radiation phenomena do care what's radiating, and the ground, radiating mostly around wave number 1000, won't transmit much energy to N2 by radiation.

There is no such thing as a 'wave number'. Energy is not 'transmitted'.
VernerHornung wrote:
What happens with the N2 is this:

The N2 takes some heat from the ground by conduction, expands and rises (convection), and finally radiates at altitude.

There is no sequence. N2 is always radiating light no matter wherein the atmosphere it happens to be.
VernerHornung wrote:
But it can't receive and re-emit rays from the ground

True. No material re-emits rays at all. Absorption destroys photons.
VernerHornung wrote:
at WNs near 1000.

There is no such thing as a 'wave number'. You mean 'wavelength'. Earth doesn't radiate at a single frequency.
VernerHornung wrote:
And the ground emits very little at wavenumbers the N2 does absorb, which are in microwaves and extreme ultraviolet, I think.

N2 absorbs infrared light.
VernerHornung wrote:
So the N2 is just radiating what it got from the ground by conduction.

N2 also absorbs infrared light.
VernerHornung wrote:
What happens with the CO2 is this:

Same thing again. Heat from ground by conduction, rises, radiates this conducted heat.

There is no sequence.
VernerHornung wrote:
But it's absorbing rays at WNs near 1000 as well,

CO2 also absorbs infrared light.
VernerHornung wrote:
additional energy the nitrogen wasn't getting.

No. You can't create energy out of nothing.
VernerHornung wrote:
It re-emits this as well.

Absorption destroys photons. They are not 're-emitted'. All materials will emit NEW photons (it creates them!) according to the Stefan-Boltzmann law.
VernerHornung wrote:
(CO2's big spectral line is actually centered on WN 667, but that's close enough, still within the ground's strong emitting range.)

Absorption of surface infrared light does not warm the Earth.
VernerHornung wrote:
Now the difference between these scenarios and an airless Earth: You're right. The N2 delays radiation of energy from the ground to space, yet it also delays the sun's warming of the ground by carrying much heat aloft in convection. (Think thermals on a hot day.) So there's really no net delay at all, only moderation, a lessening of the contrast between day and night. N2 won't work as a greenhouse gas on Earth.

* You cannot trap or slow heat
* You cannot trap light
* You cannot create energy out of nothing.
VernerHornung wrote:
Yet again, the pressure the N2 and O2 exert on the CO2 and H2O broaden the latter's spectral lines and "boosts" their greenhouse effects.

Pressures makes no difference.
* You cannot warm the surface using a colder gas
* You cannot create energy out of nothing.
VernerHornung wrote:
Complications what makes radiative transfer theory in planetary science so hard for me to understand.

It's not complicated. You also refuse to understand. It goes against your religion.
VernerHornung wrote:
The way a gas behaves, greenhouse-wise, will depend on temperature and pressure.

No. The effect is zero, zip, nada.

No gas or vapor has the capability to warm the Earth using IR from the Earth's surface.
VernerHornung wrote:
Venus is only twice as hot as we are, 730K versus 288, and it has tons of CO2 to make up for the loss of greenhouse efficiency involved.

There is no 'efficiency'. No gas or vapor is capable of warming a planet using the IR emitted from the planet surface.
VernerHornung wrote:
I've pushed it to the limit for me, though. I'm not a "radiation guy" and none too spectral.

Obviously.
VernerHornung wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
I still don't understand why this isn't repeatable in the lab. Four boxes, one a near vacuum, one pure O2, one Pure CO2, one our atmospheric mix (room air).


The absorption part was repeated in that YouTube ditty. The CO2 bottle got warmer than the air bottle did. Bottles of N2 or O2 would act similar to the air bottle. You can't heat those gases with a restaurant heat lamp.

Yes you can. Restaurant heat lamps put out IR.
VernerHornung wrote:
(Nuclear bombs heat them with X-rays to make a fireball.)

WRONG. Nuclear bombs convert nuclear energy into thermal energy and electromagnetic energy. The initial flash you see is the conversion to electromagnetic energy. The fireball you see is burning material and plasma (thermal energy radiating at a hot enough temperature to include visible light. See Planck's law and Wien's law.

A thermonuclear bomb does the same thing, only hotter.

X rays don't heat anything. Absorption of X rays causes chemical reactions or direct ionization.

VernerHornung wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
Venus has an outer atmosphere so cold that CO2 ice forms. This does little for the poor probe on the surface being destroyed by the scorching temp there. Human, Icebergs, Plants all care about ground level temperature.

Yeah, does little for Venera, which probably looks like a blackened rock you pull out of your campfire by now. But the CO2 ice is 50 miles up in the air there. There's little convection near the surface; it's stagnant. Cold air on Earth is close by.

Cold air on Venus is close by as well. Go straight up, just like on Earth.
VernerHornung wrote:
Planes need a heater before they need to be pressurized.

Oddly enough, aircraft such as the 737 or other similar passenger aircraft have NO heaters on them!

Hot air for the cabin comes from the same source as the pressurization for the cabin: the engine compressors.

Older WW2 bomber aircraft have heaters on them...for the pilot only! That's why the WW2 'bomber' jacket was so popular! Many of these things could be plugged into the aircraft electrical system and incorporated heating coils right in the jacket! Great for waist gunners!

Even a good leather jacket (what a lot of people today call 'bomber' jackets') were pretty helpful.
VernerHornung wrote:
And cold air helps speed convection, which I believe tends to shift "global warming" toward the poles.

Define 'global warming' You can't shift a meaningless buzzword with convection.
VernerHornung wrote:
The Arctic ends up 10˚C warmer while the temps at the equator may hardly change.

Warmer than what? Base rate fallacy.
VernerHornung wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Clue: "radiative forcing" is not physics or geophysics terminology. It's religious dogma. You've been tooled.

As tmiddles noted, the term geophysicists use is "radiative transfer theory." Radiative forcing, a newer term,

Radiance isn't a force. It is not transfer either. Radiance is simply radiance.
VernerHornung wrote:
was introduced by climatologists

'Nuff said. Climate 'scientists' deny science and mathematics.
VernerHornung wrote:
to express the radiative power equivalent—in W/m^2—of various perturbations in the climate system so they're easier to compare with one another. Sorry, IBdaMann, but you're not the man in this area of study and it's not a religious dogma.

It's religious dogma. Quoting the High Priests of the Church of Global Warming doesn't change any of it.
VernerHornung wrote:
IPCC gave a careful definition:

"RF is the net change in the energy balance of the Earth system due to some imposed perturbation. It is usually expressed in watts per square meter averaged over a particular period of time and quantifes the energy imbalance that occurs when the imposed change takes place."
—Anthropogenic and Natural Radiative Forcing, Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis, p. 664.

Base rate fallacy. Circular argument (religion).
VernerHornung wrote:
This of course applies to systems exchanging radiation with an environment but not at thermal equilibrium with that environment. Note the words "energy imbalance."

There is no such thing as 'energy imbalance'. Energy is simply energy. It doesn't balance or imbalance. Redefinition fallacy (difference<->balance).
VernerHornung wrote:
Thing is, you're spewing one-liners at someone who harbors real doubts concerning the level of reliance policymakers should invest in IPCC's assessment reports and related materials produced by academic facilities. Especially if they're gonna rely on this stuff as filtered for them by panicky climate change lobbies as AOC in Congress relishes.

The IPCC 'assessment' reports ARE panicky climate change dogma. Define 'climate change'.
VernerHornung wrote:
The science itself is conservative,

There is no science. Science has no theories about undefined words. Define 'climate change'.
VernerHornung wrote:
under review by hundreds of people in that field.

Science isn't consensus. It does not use consensus at all.
VernerHornung wrote:
IPCC had to get an international consensus for everything it published.

Science does not use consensus. The IPCC does not have to get anyone's permission to publish. Redefinition fallacy (consensus<->permission).
VernerHornung wrote:
The issues I see have more to do with the projections, as I suspect climate may be less predictable than we suppose.

Climate is a subjective word. It has no predictive qualities. It is not quantifiable. A desert climate is always a desert climate. It makes no predictions about 'desert climate'. You might as well predict 'tasty'.
VernerHornung wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Energy is clearly depicted as being destroyed.

No, all the energy's still there. The diagram shows power, not energy, anyway. I'll leave balancing it an exercise for you. (Hint: incoming = outgoing at equilibrium, incoming > outgoing if warming.)

Circular argument (religion). What is causing the warming? You are simply using an assumption as a predicate.
VernerHornung wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
You are the type of gullible person at whom those graphics are aimed.

I don't use that diagram by itself.

True. You seem to collect them. A hobby of yours?
VernerHornung wrote:
See for instance the paper I've cited twice while you kept breezing by it as if it weren't on the board:

Infrared Radiation & Planetary Temperature
Raymond Pierrehumbert
Department of Geophysical Sciences
University of Chicago
https://geosci.uchicago.edu/~rtp1/papers/PhysTodayRT2011.pdf

Why?
VernerHornung wrote:
This has our lovely term "radiative transfer theory." It does not have the word "forcing" at all. And Pierrehumbert does not work for a warmazombie climate institute of any kind. He teaches physics at the University of Oxford now.

Ah. Another religious nut denying science and making up buzzwords that happens to be teaching at Oxford.
VernerHornung wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Nope. Indivisible bodies, remember? There are no layers that need, or even should, be analyzed separately.

There are indeed. The Earth is not a blackbody. It's not even a grey body you can treat using Stefan-Boltzmann with an emissivity constant.

Yes it is. All real bodies are grey bodies, whether they are the Earth, or whether they are your shoes. All emit according to the Stefan-Boltzmann law.

You already said that they do. Now you say that they don't. Which is it, dude?
VernerHornung wrote:
It's more like a grey body with a partially transparent shell around it, and this shell must radiate at its own temperature.

There is no shell.
VernerHornung wrote:
The outgoing rays from this shell, plus the fraction of the rays from the surface which pass through the shell, then become what balances the incoming from the sun.

* You can't create energy out of nothing.
* You can't treat separate energy nodes as if they were the whole (Kirchoff's law).
VernerHornung wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
...they are engineers like Into the Night, and you are not.

Neither you nor ITN has put up a single equation or analytical item on this forum as far as I can tell;

Argument of ignorance fallacy. I have posted all of the equations for the 1st and 2nd law of thermodynamics and the Stefan-Boltzmann law several times.

Again:
1st law: U(t+1)=U(t)-W where U is energy, t is time, and W is work.
Where no work is performed: U(t+1)=U(t). You can neither create nor destroy energy.

2nd law: e(t+1)>=e(t) where e is entropy and t is time. This gives a direction for heat flow. Between two coupled regions of thermal energy, heat will flow until thermal energy is evenly distributed across both regions. Heat never flows from cold to hot, for entropy would be decreased.

Stefan-Boltzmann law:
r=SBconstant * emissivity * temperature ^ 4
where r is radiance (of all combined frequencies) in watts/m^2, emissivity is the ability of a material to radiate, expressed as a percentage (0% is perfectly reflective, 100% is the ideal black body, a reference point), and temperature is in degK.

Radiance always moves in the same direction as temperature. Never the reverse. Emissivity is a measured constant. The SBconstant is a constant of nature. It essentially converts the relation to our units of measurement.
VernerHornung wrote:
what I see is you jumping in to troll conversations beginning four years ago, on and on about socialism and climate goddesses:

Now the 'troll' name calling comes out. Insult fallacy.
Talking about socialism here is not being a troll.
Talking about climate goddesses here is not being a troll.

Bulverism fallacy.
VernerHornung wrote:
If that's what floats your boat, no offense taken.

Lie. You just stated your offense! You just called him a 'troll'!
VernerHornung wrote:
You're free to your own opinions

Lie. You just called him a 'troll'. The 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics and the Stefan-Boltzmann law are not his opinions. They are not opinions at all. They are theories of science.
VernerHornung wrote:
and I've no pretense to know what you or ITN do for a living. But if ITN's an engineer, he could help us out instead of being cryptic.

I have been perfectly clear.

I use acrnonyms with idiot repetitive people, such as:
YALIF (Yet another lame insult fallacy).
RDCF (Repetitious distortions and contextomy fallacies).
YALSA (Yet another lame sock accusation).

They save typing the same thing over and over and over and over and over with such people (such as tmiddles).


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
Edited on 27-09-2019 23:36
28-09-2019 00:06
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13293)
The following post is making a redefinition fallacy (climate<->global temperature). I will assume the use of 'global temperature' wherever I see 'climate'.

VernerHornung wrote:
HarveyH55 wrote:
I read in a few places around the internet, that 'climate' is defined as weather over long periods of time... I don't particularly buy that, it might be similar to weather, but it's something different, more an environmental observation. Weather changes frequently...

It changes in 10 minutes around here! Normals in newspaper forecasts are rolling 30-year averages.

Why is a 30 year interval considered a 'normal' to begin with? Why is a point 30 years ago considered significant? Why is now considered significant? Why are any other points in time NOT significant?
VernerHornung wrote:
The normal high temp in a US town for Sept. 27 is the sum of all the Sept. 27 high temps from 1981 to 2010, divided by 30.

In a couple years they'll start using 1991 to 2020 for the normals. The current set of normals where I live has January nights 4˚ warmer than the 1951-80 set they were using when I moved here.

So 'normal' is a number that is constantly abnormal. Got it.
VernerHornung wrote:
Summer temps haven't changed. (I looked them up.)

How do you know? It is not possible to measure 'summer temperatures'. No boundary specified.
VernerHornung wrote:
Main thing is climate is based on history.

No, global temperatures are pure conjecture. They are random numbers.
VernerHornung wrote:
HarveyH55 wrote:
That global average would never apply to all areas.

In fact it doesn't apply to any place on the globe. It applies only to the globe as a whole, day and night at all seasons, with the current figure at 58.5˚F, plus or minus ½ degree.

Argument from randU fallacy.

Since you claim a margin of error of only 1/2 a degF, please show me:
* The raw unbiased data.
* The instrument tolerance.
* The authority collecting that data (not collecting it from another authority).
* The source of variance used.
* The margin of error calculation.
* How data was selected from the raw data by randN.
* How that data was normalized against a paired randR.
* The number of thermometers used.
* The placement of those thermometers uniformly across the area to be measured (the Earth).
* The times that all thermometers were read simultaneously.
* The relevance of those times chosen as significant.
* The irrelevance of any other times that were not chosen.

These are required for any statistical summary, or the summary is meaningless.

VernerHornung wrote:
Quito, Ecuador matches this pretty close since it's in a cool mountain valley near the Equator.

Argument from randU fallacy. We have no records of global temperatures of Earth.
VernerHornung wrote:
Where I live the year-round average is just 52, but summers are 78 and winters 27.

You mean the weather station in your area has those averages. That does not mean the entire area in question is the same temperature. I have regularly observed temperature gradients of as much as 20 degF per mile.
VernerHornung wrote:
HarveyH55 wrote:
Weather isn't very predictable at all, maybe a day or two, with reasonable confidence, but still fails often enough.

And climate isn't predictable, either.

Statistical math is not capable of prediction due to it's use of random numbers.
VernerHornung wrote:
That's why I have some doubts about all those models. It is more consistent than daily weather; if there's a change it will be much smaller and occur over a longer period of time. The only thing the models shows is given current knowledge of climate, it's more likely that most places on Earth will have warmer average temps in 2100 than have colder temps then. The predictions run between ½˚ and 9˚F warmer for the globe, according to
IPCC Synthesis Report, 2014 (see p. 10)
https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/SYR_AR5_FINAL_full.pdf

The IPCC is under the same requirements as you are. Show me. The IPCC has no global temperature data either.
VernerHornung wrote:
Since 2007, there's been a shift of topic emphasis from prediction to observation of recent changes.

Bad math is not an observation.
VernerHornung wrote:
That's why you keep hearing how this year is the hottest on record and so on.

Bad math is not capable of prediction.
VernerHornung wrote:
But the amount CO2 people have sent up the flue is remarkable, apparently 2 trillion tons since 1750, most of this in the last 50 years (p. 3 in same report).

It is not possible to measure how much CO2 has been created, either by nature or by man. Argument from randU fallacy.
VernerHornung wrote:
That would make one hell of an Alka-Seltzer fizz.

Alka Seltzer contains no carbon dioxide.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
28-09-2019 02:30
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(3375)
IBdaMann wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Heat is not energy.
Ergo: Mechanical "energy" isn't really energy, it's just the transfer of matter
Into the Night was entirely correct..
Uh huh, just like you said he was right here:
tmiddles wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
tmiddles wrote:Ah, nope. "Rabbits are not native to Australia"
Yes they are. As much as any critter there.
Once again making up your own definition for things?
It is ENTIRELY a waste of time (ITN's objective in the first place) so don't bother.

VernerHornung wrote:
HarveyH55 wrote:
That global average would never apply to all areas.

In fact it doesn't apply to any place on the globe. It applies only to the globe as a whole,
And this applies to the temperature of anything. Planck points this out. Even a block of iron or an otherwise seemingly uniform solid has a mix of energies among it's molecules. This is why ITN/IBD dodge agreeing that the temperature of anything can be determined.

The real world is complex and defies our metal abstractions and simplifications. But here we are and we have to make due. So far we are doing pretty well I think.

Into the Night wrote:
VernerHornung wrote:
But it can't receive and re-emit rays from the ground

True. No material re-emits rays at all. Absorption destroys photons.
Classic ITN deceoption and waste of space. We all understand that radiance is absorbed, turns into thermal energy, and then new radiance can leave.
Argue with my man the warmazombie Max Planck:
Max Planck wrote: Pg. 184 "...all the heat rays that a body absorbs it can also give out..."  


Into the Night wrote:
I have posted all of the equations for the 1st and 2nd law of thermodynamics and the Stefan-Boltzmann law several times.
You've made up your own formulas and laws and they are found nowhere else. Try doing a calculation on something. When you fail to get a plausible answer I'd like to see you explain it away.



"Good tests kill flawed theories; we remain alive to guess again." - Karl Popper
ITN/IBD Fraud exposed:  The 2nd LTD add on claiming radiance from cooler bodies can't be absorbed Max Planck debunks, they can't explain:net-thermal-radiation-you-in-a-room-as-a-reference & Proof: no data is ever valid for them
28-09-2019 03:05
VernerHornungProfile picture★☆☆☆☆
(133)
IBdaMann wrote:
No, dumbass ... It radiates thermally because it is matter.

I thought they taught Christians not to cuss. At least they did when I went to Sunday school, unless things have changed, but you have a second cussword in your ouvre known as the T-word. I can almost see Oliver Wendell Holmes writing "the most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting temperature in a theatre and causing a panic." And what better sign of the clear and present danger in a fire than that it's radiating thermally?
~


IBdaMann wrote:
You merely "harbor doubts." This means you put SOME credence in that crap. That strips you of any credibility on the matter...and it doesn't help your understanding of physics any.

You're acting as if I had a red phone on my desk where IPCC picks up at the other end. I would love to understand the physics more clearly. In case you haven't noticed, it's not as simple as putting a lump of coal under a heat lamp and sticking a thermometer in.

IBdaMann wrote:
I realize that you are exactly the gullible type of moron that Marxists target because this kind of stuff works on you...

The Marxists have been targeting me ever since Khrushchev debated kitchen ovens with Nixon.

IBdaMann wrote:
I clearly asked you for a model, not for computer code.

Then find a book that discusses such models and implement them. You're a programmer. You have the skills to search online for book titles and order one or get it through interlibrary loan. I'm not here to spoon-feed links on demand.

IBdaMann wrote:
Aaahh, the "troll" word comes out.

Yes, although "gnome" might have been a better choice.

IBdaMann wrote:
So you admit that you're being dishonest as well.

Yes, and now you're about see how devious I can be:

Into the Night wrote:
There is no such thing as a 'wave number'. Energy is not 'transmitted'.

The power company had no problem transmitting 260 kWh to my house last month, or billing me for it. Wave number in cm^(-1) is the number of wavelengths of a monochromatic light in a centimeter. It is proportional to the frequency; just multiply the wave number by the speed of light, 3x10^10 cm/sec, to get the frequency.

Into the Night wrote:
The IPCC has no global temperature data either.

Four sets of temperature records used by IPCC or researchers at its national focus groups, all of which can be downloaded.



Into the Night wrote:
Pressures makes no difference.

Yes, they do make a difference:

"Diatomic molecules like N2 which are transparent to IR in Earthlike conditions have collisional continua that become important in cold, dense atmospheres. For example, the continuum makes N2 one of the most important greenhouse gases on Saturn's largest moon, Titan."

Infrared Radiation & Planetary Temperature
Raymond Pierrehumbert
Department of Geophysical Sciences
University of Chicago
https://geosci.uchicago.edu/~rtp1/papers/PhysTodayRT2011.pdf
(see p. 3 in pdf file)

Pressure and temperature matter. Increasing pressure at constant temperature makes gases denser, which increases frequency of collisions between molecules. Higher temps increase the speed of the collisions. The ideal gas law, pV = nRT where R is the ideal gas constant (8.31 Joules per Kelvin per mole) and n is the number of moles in your sample, is a good way to relate these quantities. For a diatomic gas like N2, the internal energy is (5/2)nRT.

Third time I've cited this paper and the "experts" on the forum seem to be ignoring it. It will reward a careful reading. Now for the exam review. Remember this from yesterday?

VernerHornung wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Some are. That is not the temperature of the planet. There is no frequency term in emissivity (which is the same as absorptivity). There is no frequency term in albedo.

The Veneras had thermometers. Emissivity and albedo are dimensionless constants and the frequency terms are found in Planck's radiation law

B(f,T) = (8πh/c^4) f^5 (e^(hf/kT) – 1)^(-1),

where f is the frequency, T the temperature, h is Planck's constant, k is Boltzmann's constant and c the speed of light. What a nice piece of physics! It puts the fundamental constants behind relativity, quantum mechanics and the classical kinetic theory of gases all in one formula.

I took a gamble posting that equation because, you see, it's wrong. And no one's noticed yet. In essence, a little FBI sting operation aimed at rooting out ignorance.

The correct formula is

B(f,T) = (2h/c^2) f^3 (e^(hf/kT) – 1)^(-1),

in units of Watts per sq. meter per second per steradian.

Introduction to the Theory of Atmospheric Radiative Transfer
NASA, 1986
https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19860018367.pdf



Never try to solve an NP-complete problem on your own with pencil & paper.
Edited on 28-09-2019 03:07
28-09-2019 03:15
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(3375)
VernerHornung wrote:
I took a gamble posting that equation because, you see, it's wrong. And no one's noticed yet. In essence, a little FBI sting operation aimed at rooting out ignorance.

The correct formula is

B(f,T) = (2h/c^2) f^3 (e^(hf/kT) – 1)^(-1),
Nicely done!

The guy IBD learns physics from on the street may have been at lunch. Devotion to the oral tradition of science and living without books will sure handicap your ability to verify anything.


"Good tests kill flawed theories; we remain alive to guess again." - Karl Popper
ITN/IBD Fraud exposed:  The 2nd LTD add on claiming radiance from cooler bodies can't be absorbed Max Planck debunks, they can't explain:net-thermal-radiation-you-in-a-room-as-a-reference & Proof: no data is ever valid for them
28-09-2019 05:33
VernerHornungProfile picture★☆☆☆☆
(133)
tmiddles wrote:
Mechanical "energy" isn't really energy, it's just the transfer of matter
Chemical "energy" isn't energy either, ha! It's just a change in chemistry
Electrical energy, you guessed it, just the transfer of current...

Ah, what a discovery, tmiddles. That heavy pot I need to move indoors for the winter will transfer through the door with no expenditure of energy on my part. But my car won't start because the battery can't produce energy to run the starter motor with its changes in chemistry. And my kitchen oven won't heat. Should I call the power company and have 'em shut off the juice since it's just current?
~


tmiddles wrote:
Atmosphere needs has a temperature it has no option but to radiate out into space right? Whether they are good at it or not they don't have a choice do they? The graphs are very clear...

My charts have the disadvantage of not being movies. It would be nicer to show the photons zipping up from the surface, banging into molecules, vanishing in process, and then the atmospheric radiation coming out. The charts do sort of give an impression of energy being created over at the right edge. But the energy for the rays going up and down out of the atmosphere are powered by energy the air gets from the ground by conduction and radiation, plus whatever the air absorbs directly from the sun.

My last post mentioned the collisional continuum. This is energy of molecules knocking one another about in a gas, and some of this energy appears as radiation from the air. But the mechanism differs from spectral absorption and re-emission as seen with H2O and CO2. On Earth, the continuum absorbs few rays from the ground; instead it broadens the spectral lines of H2O and CO2. Titan, the big moon of Saturn with N2 in its atmosphere, is cold enough that the surface emits mostly microwaves. These can be blocked by N2, which has microwave bands in its spectrum, so N2 acts directly as a greenhouse gas there, making Titan's surface warmer than if it were airless.

On Earth, N2 and O2 act indirectly, by providing pressure to broaden CO2 and H2O lines. At least that's what I think. Mie scattering of light in a dense atmosphere also makes it more likely that a photon passing through it will encounter a greenhouse molecule. (Its zig-zag path length through the air is longer.) Dust in the air causes Mie scattering of infrared.

To tell you the truth, the topic's advanced. The NASA paper in my last post describes radiative transfer theory. Work on this started with spectroscopy in the 19th century, when astronomers wanted to understand how the air affected infrared spectra of stars and planets, which arrive here distorted or missing wavelength bands altogether. The theory was also used by Eddington, Chandrasekhar and others to understand how energy propagates from the core of a star to its surface. It was never a dogma for whatever "church" IBdaMann is attacking. Application to keeping the Earth warm goes back a long ways, too, but climate change wasn't political in 1896.

tmiddles wrote:
Did you consider Huffman's theory yet?

I really dunno. It would make things a lot simpler if he's right. There's a limit to how far light penetrates an absorbing gas, however. You can heat CO2 in a plastic bottle with a heat lamp; the gas in the bottle is thick enough to absorb most of the lamp's rays. It seems to that very little light of infrared wavelengths CO2 absorbs should even make it down to the 200-millibar level on Venus. And visible light doesn't heat small-molecule gases like N2, O2, H2O or CO2 by much.



Notice the thermocline on Venus. Temps drop as you go up, but above a certain level, the temps rise with altitude. This is the stratosphere. If simple density of air determines temp, this shouldn't happen. Huffman's honest enough to admit he doesn't know why planets have stratospheres. Finally, the drop at low altitudes means heating from below. Even with Venus's sluggish convection, hot air does rise there.

Huffman's coincidence is striking. I don't believe mainstream science is incompetent. If it were, we wouldn't have the high-tech society we enjoy. But it's always possible science is wrong despite consensus. We had the "four humors" theory of disease from Greek times all the way up to Koch's discovery of anthrax bacteria in 1876. They rewrote Big Bang cosmology to have an accelerating expansion not seen in earlier versions of it. The heating of planets by stars may simply not work the way NCAR and Tyndall think it does.

tmiddles wrote:
I've had similar frustration Verner. ITN/IBD are gods gift to the Bill Nye's of the world who want to call all the "deniers" lunatics.

It's a Circus Maximus nowadays. When we had the Yellowstone fires in 1988 and they started talking about "global warming," I thought it would peter out after a few years. Instead, Extinction Rebellion kids glue themselves to the highway and we've a Congressional caucus in the stadium. A bit of perspective should tell us Venus II isn't on the way.

If tipping points leading to runaway greenhouse existed, it would have already happened way back in geological time. To manufacture Venus II, we'd have to get the CO2 out of the piles of limestone locking it up on Earth. Those piles are ten miles thick. Earth experienced periods with CO2 thought to be 2000ppm or higher, with dinosaurs walking around.

tmiddles wrote:
There is no rule that things which are interacting cannot be subdivided, analyzed in relation to one another. IBD's objection is just weird and dumb.

Indeed. The subdividing is done so we can get things we can treat more like blackbodies. The composite system has parts and we must account for those parts.


Never try to solve an NP-complete problem on your own with pencil & paper.
Edited on 28-09-2019 05:34
28-09-2019 06:17
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(3375)
VernerHornung wrote:
Huffman's coincidence is striking. I don't believe mainstream science is incompetent.
So you've got a much better handle and depth to your scientific understanding than I do so I'm especially interested in your take on Huffman. I think the simplistic cliff notes on his theory is that Venus, with almost all CO2, has the same warming from it's atmosphere that Earth does at the same pressure. So the measurements taken by the probes as they descended, when they reached the atmospheric pressure of Earth, showed that the temperature on/in Venus at that level was equivalent to Earth (adjusting for the distance to the Sun of course).

He has:

....1000 millibars, which is the sea level pressure of Earth, ..Venusian atmosphere is 339K.Earth ...is about 15ºC = 288K. Venus receives ...1.91 times the power per unit area that Earth receives, ...so the corresponding temperature on Venus, WITHOUT ANY GREENHOUSE EFFECT, should be 1.176 times that, or 339K And as the graph shows the temperature track on up from 1000 millibars.

Now if mainstream science is "wrong" or "right" relative to what Huffman is saying, then asking "where is an example of that" is a good question. Is it 2 liter soda bottle guy? Is that really the cutting edge of confirming our calculations on CO2's impact? Look further and it's like a kid in the 8th grade failing to confirm anything and the infamous Bill Nye video where an experiment he now apologizes for is presented.

I still don't get why you can't do what they did on Mythbusters, boxes with lamps on them and gas mixes, to confirm this stuff.

Huffman's theory should be testable shouldn't it? To prove or disprove.

I know I'm asking "us" a question "we" can't answer as we don't build experimental test setups.


"Good tests kill flawed theories; we remain alive to guess again." - Karl Popper
ITN/IBD Fraud exposed:  The 2nd LTD add on claiming radiance from cooler bodies can't be absorbed Max Planck debunks, they can't explain:net-thermal-radiation-you-in-a-room-as-a-reference & Proof: no data is ever valid for them
28-09-2019 06:32
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(7463)
tmiddles wrote:The guy IBD learns physics from on the street may have been at lunch. Devotion to the oral tradition of science and living without books will sure handicap your ability to verify anything.

Aaah, so your intention all along was to come to this site, preach Global Warming, search for dissenters and call them "thhhtoopid."

That's good to know. This is going to be a whole lot easier.


.


A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles

Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
28-09-2019 06:39
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(3375)
IBdaMann wrote:
...for dissenters and call them "thhhtoopid."...

No IBD, you might be crazy but you're not stupid. That's what makes you such a tool, you know you're lying, working against understanding and here to kill debate. You're seriously a horrible person. You should be ashamed of yourself.

"Good tests kill flawed theories; we remain alive to guess again." - Karl Popper
ITN/IBD Fraud exposed:  The 2nd LTD add on claiming radiance from cooler bodies can't be absorbed Max Planck debunks, they can't explain:net-thermal-radiation-you-in-a-room-as-a-reference & Proof: no data is ever valid for them
28-09-2019 15:10
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(7463)
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
...for dissenters and call them "thhhtoopid."...

No IBD, you might be crazy but you're not stupid.

I was clearly stupid for trying to help you even though I had recognized you as a dishonest scientifically illiterate warmizombie who had only come here to preach a WACKY religion.

Fortunately, the only other poster to lend you any credence is himself a dishonest warmizombie. I see that you both take turns bending each other over furniture.

Enjoy!


.


A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles

Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
29-09-2019 05:11
VernerHornungProfile picture★☆☆☆☆
(133)
tmiddles wrote:
So you've got a much better handle and depth to your scientific understanding than I do so I'm especially interested in your take on Huffman.

Don't be so sure. The stuff's confusing as hell.
~


I'm still trying to understand why Planck's law uses 3rd power of frequency but negative 5th power of wavelength, if frequency & wavelength are related by f = c/λ. I'll post something on it later if I can. The equation is stated in several formats, which boil down to four:

by frequency
B(f,T) = (2h/c^2) f^3 (e^(hf/kT) – 1)^(-1), intensity of radiation along a ray
B(f,T) = (8πh/c^2) f^3 (e^(hf/kT) – 1)^(-1), radiation over whole sphere

by wavelength
B(λ,T) = (2hc) λ^(-5) (e^(hc/λkT) – 1)^(-1), intensity of radiation along a ray
B(λ,T) = (8πhc) λ^(-5) (e^(hc/λkT) – 1)^(-1), radiation over whole sphere

The ratio of 8π to 2 is just 4π, the area of a sphere of radius 1. That's easy. The exponents hf/kT and hc/λkT are easy, too: You change one to the other by substituting f = c/λ.

hf/kt = h(c/λ)/kT = hc/λkT.

But you can't do this with 2hf^3/c^2 in the top formula to get 2hc/λ^5 by wavelength. If you try, you get

2hf^3/c^2 = 2h(c/λ)^3 / c^2 = 2hc/λ^3.

We're off by two powers of λ. Why? Mystery to me. Something about "density of states." The letters in the formulas are

h = Planck constant = 6.67 x 10^(-34) Joule seconds
k = Boltzmann constant = 1.38 x 10^(-23) Joules per Kelvin
c = speed of light = 3.00 x 10^8 meters per second

T is temperature, Kelvins is just ˚C + 273.

tmiddles wrote:
2 liter soda bottle guy?

Let's make sure we have the right video; Bill Nye turns science into snake oil. The 2-liter hat I've in mind intros his channel as Erik Christensen, a physics/astronomy teacher at Florida Keys Community College.

CO2 & heat lamp demo
YouTube https://youtu.be/kwtt51gvaJQ

This experiment's on the level, I'm pretty sure. They didn't do it when I took chem, but all the triatomic gases—H2O, CO2, N2O, NO2, SO2—are strong absorbers in the near infrared, so you should be able to heat any of them with a lamp. (A heat lamp is an ordinary incandescent bulb with a thicker filament for a somewhat lower emitting temperature.) The diatomic ones—H2, N2 and O2—are not.

N2, O2 and air are transparent, so direct heating ala Huffman by visible light is out, and the 2-liter bottle here shows a heat lamp won't do it, either: One of the bottles was air, the other air enriched by CO2 from the fizzing Alka-Seltzer. (The tablets contain citric acid & baking soda that react when wetted and release CO2.) So we've disproved direct heating of air in the case of carbonated 2-liter soda bottles.

But wait! Why is the CO2 bottle so bright when the air bottle is not? Is it just reflection off the outside of the left bottle hitting the camera lens while reflection from the other bottle misses the lens? If so, we're okay. But if that glow is the heat lamp lighting up fizz droplets, then we may have "Venusian clouds" in that bottle. Let's check further:

tmiddles wrote:
I still don't get why you can't do what they did on Mythbusters, boxes with lamps on them and gas mixes, to confirm this stuff. Huffman's theory should be testable shouldn't it? To prove or disprove.

Huffman said only that "the Venusian atmosphere is heated mainly by incident infrared radiation from the Sun, which is not reflected but absorbed by Venus's clouds, rather than by warming first of the planetary surface..."

Clouds absorb infrared, which is how the Weather Service makes those nighttime satellite cloud images. (The clouds are dark in infrared, so they publish the negative image to make the clouds look more normal to people.)

Then he continues, "...the temperature profile, or lapse rate, for any planetary atmosphere is relatively oblivious to how the atmosphere is heated, whether from above or below. This denies any possibility of a greenhouse effect on Venus (or on Earth), much less a runaway one."

Whether oblivious depends on how opaque the gases are. If they're opaque, the atmosphere will be heated at its top. If transparent, at its bottom. If partially transparent, as in real life, it's being heated in both places. Opacity depends on wavelength. Glass is clear in visible light yet black in ultraviolet, which is why people don't sunburn from exposure to sun coming through a window.

Huffman concludes: "This has already been pointed out recently by physicists Gerlich and Tscheuschner, who have written succinctly, '...since the Venusian atmosphere is opaque to visible light, the central assumption of the greenhouse hypotheses is not obeyed.'"

Almost true, since only 4 or 5% of the visible sunlight impinging on the top of Venus's atmosphere wends its way down to the Veneras, enough to permit photography but hardly full sun. Venus orbits at 0.72 AU from the sun and Earth is at 1 AU. By the inverse square law, Venus thus gets (1/0.72)^2 = 1.93 times as intense a sunlight as we do. Stefan-Boltzmann says radiance is proportional to fourth power of temperature, so absent other influences the temps should be

T(Venus) = (4th root of 1.93) times T(Earth)
T(Earth at 1 bar) = 288K observed.
T(Venus at 1 bar) = 1.18 times 288K = 339K calculated.



Huffman noted that at Venus's 1-bar pressure level (about 50 km above the surface), the air, if you can call a choking sulfuric acid soup by that word, is indeed close to 339K. The temperature profiles continue to match fairly well with Venus at 1.18 times Earth up to the 200-millibar level, where Earth's stratosphere begins. Huff's right about the globus therma people dismissing alternative theories, and what's worse, we never hear much about Venus at all from the IPCC. Such a remarkable coincidence deserves investigation, and explanation if those advocating greenhouse effect know why it should be discounted.

Finally, Huffman cites a dissent from greenhouse mechanism by Gerhard Gerlich, a mathematical physicist at Karl Wilhelm Tech Braunschweig. This is at

On the Barometric Formulas and their Derivation
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1003.1508.pdf

I downloaded it but the vector calculus is way over my head. The Navier-Stokes equations involve compressibility, turbulence & vorticity while intro students like me are taught only the special case of laminar, incompressible flow, Bernoulli's equation, which works for water in pipes. Gerlich uses these to show that winds are mostly horizontal on planets. Convection is analyzed as pressure-volume work with the ideal gas law. That's where we get "adiabatic lapse rate" in weather, where the temp drops about 10˚C for every 1000 meters you ascend in a plane.

Gerlich's objection was, "...the greenhouse models are all based on simplistic pictures of radiative transfer and their obscure relation to thermodynamics, disregarding the other forms of heat transfer such as thermal conductivity, convection, latent heat exchange, etc."

Thermal conductivity of air is very low (winter coats work because they trap air spaces) but convection is important on a planet, with rising warm air in the troposphere. It could be the whole damn thing's so complex the experts are flummoxed. Even if greenhouse effects are real, which I suppose they are, they might not be the only player in the game of keeping a planet from freezing. Gerlich feels the horizontal winds are important, and these are neglected in the IPCC diagram on the Earth's radiation budget.

The defect in Huffman's analysis was his need to ignore the hotter, lower Venusian atmosphere which can't be compared to anything on Earth, and Mars is out because it's surface pressure corresponds to stratosphere on Earth. Huffman acknowledged these problems.

In short, they're making political decisions while the science is still on the drawing board. Far from settled. All the theoretical mechanisms are settled, of course; we've had Planck's law since 1900 and "Clausius refrigerators" even longer. But the way basic theories work in a bustling atmosphere is liable to be filled with mousetraps to stick your toe into.
~


Gerlich has another paper I wanna see; I'll cover it later to best of my ability.


Never try to solve an NP-complete problem on your own with pencil & paper.
Edited on 29-09-2019 05:16
29-09-2019 06:11
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(3375)
IBdaMann wrote:...the only other poster to lend you any credence is himself a dishonest warmizombie.
____Max Planck________


Those dang warmazombies with their time machines! Who will they get to next!!!

IBdaMann wrote:
No one cares what Max Planck said...
Just us warmazombies IBD, just us.

"Good tests kill flawed theories; we remain alive to guess again." - Karl Popper
ITN/IBD Fraud exposed:  The 2nd LTD add on claiming radiance from cooler bodies can't be absorbed Max Planck debunks, they can't explain:net-thermal-radiation-you-in-a-room-as-a-reference & Proof: no data is ever valid for them
Edited on 29-09-2019 06:14
29-09-2019 06:55
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(7463)
tmiddles wrote:Those dang warmazombies with their time machines! Who will they get to next!!!

Nope, you don't get to speak for Max Planck. I know that your Climate clergy assured you that belief in Global Warming would make you a scientific genius and that you would get to speak for all the smart people who ever lived ... but you wer tooled.

You are not Max Planck. You are a dishonest psychopath.

Oooops, I'm sorry. I have no excuse. I used a nine-letter word followed by a ten-letter word knowing full well who my audience was.

tmiddles wrote: Just us warmazombies IBD, just us.

Well of course you live by what others say. You need to be told who to follow, what ideas to believe, who to hate on any given day, and generally who to obey in lieu of thinking for yourself.

Today you are obeying the people who have ordered you to hate Trump, that you get to speak for dead people, that you get to assign bogus positions to others and that you yourself are a fugging genius.

I bet that whoever that happens to be is just laughing his evil laugh at you right now.


.


A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles

Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
29-09-2019 07:12
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(3375)
VernerHornung wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
So you've got a much better handle ....

I'm still trying to understand why Planck's law uses 3rd power of frequency but negative 5th power of wavelength

So I'm working on this first to learn.

f = c/λ
frequency (number of waves per second) = The speed of light / the wavelength.

The speed of light is meters per second is 299,792,458

Wavelength is in nanometers (say infra red at 700 nanometers) a nanometer is one billionth of a meter. So 700 nanometer wavelength is 700/1,000,000,000 or
0.0000007 meters.

So the relationship between frequency and wavelength is.

299792458/0.0000007 = 4,282,749,400,000

The frequency of infrared light is given as: 430 THz

Terahertz (THz) is 1 trillion hertz

So that works with: 4,282,749,400,000 = 4.3 Trillion

So the asci format is a bit tough with fractions like this.

https://physics.info/planck/

So the key bits are:

So frequency is a huge number and wavelength a tiny number. f is in the numerator and λ in the denominator so they are achieving the same effect of imbiggening the number (science lingo). As far as I got for now.


"Good tests kill flawed theories; we remain alive to guess again." - Karl Popper
ITN/IBD Fraud exposed:  The 2nd LTD add on claiming radiance from cooler bodies can't be absorbed Max Planck debunks, they can't explain:net-thermal-radiation-you-in-a-room-as-a-reference & Proof: no data is ever valid for them
29-09-2019 10:58
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(3375)
OK so I plugged f=1/λ in for Ef and you get: 8πhc/λ3 for the first term with the 2nd term comming out the same as Eλ. So seems fair to say they are not equivalent. Then I noted that to the right is shows that Ef gives you W/m2Hz while Eλ give you W/m2m so they are in fact not giving the same result.

In the link it states that they are "the power per area per frequency or the power per area per wavelength". So frequency is the number of times per second and wavelength is the length of wave. So per frequency would be much larger than per wavelength for infrared at 700nm. It would be exactly c/700nm larger in fact, or c/λ larger.

So if Ef is Eλ*λ/c, then 8πhc/λ3 becomes 8πhc2/λ4

but not to the λ^5th! arggh! So close.


"Good tests kill flawed theories; we remain alive to guess again." - Karl Popper
ITN/IBD Fraud exposed:  The 2nd LTD add on claiming radiance from cooler bodies can't be absorbed Max Planck debunks, they can't explain:net-thermal-radiation-you-in-a-room-as-a-reference & Proof: no data is ever valid for them
29-09-2019 11:49
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(3375)
VernerHornung wrote:
Let's make sure we have the right video...
CO2 & heat lamp demo
YouTube https://youtu.be/kwtt51gvaJQ

This experiment's on the level, I'm pretty sure.

Yes that's the one. I'm not saying he did a bad job but could someone have a budget over $40 on this? It just opens itself up to a lot of answerable questions:
- Gas pressure confirmed for each bottle
- CO2 concentration in the CO2 bottle
- The temperature of a surface at the back of the bottles for each (equivalent of our ground)

The Mythbusters video seemed a bit more precise with accurate measurements of the gas concentrations but with 1 degree after 4 hours and 183x the CO2 concentration of today it again asks questions more than answers them.

And I'm sure more from those more capable than myself. How is one of the most important scientific issue in history come up with so little in the way of demonstration?

VernerHornung wrote:
Then he continues, "...the temperature profile, or lapse rate, for any planetary atmosphere is relatively oblivious to how the atmosphere is heated, whether from above or below. This denies any possibility of a greenhouse effect on Venus (or on Earth), much less a runaway one."

Yeah I don't think it matters if it's actually acting like a greenhouse. Hotter is hotter. Bit of a moot point from him there.

VernerHornung wrote:
Huff's right about the globus therma people dismissing alternative theories, and what's worse, we never hear much about Venus at all from the IPCC. Such a remarkable coincidence deserves investigation,...
Venus is inconvenient for either side trying to pretend the science is simple and settled one way or the other.

VernerHornung wrote:
Huff's right about the globus therma people dismissing alternative theories, and what's worse, we never hear much about Venus at all from the IPCC. Such a remarkable coincidence deserves investigation,...
I'm still confused as to why it's so hard to model but not being able to match the convection and other players does seem like a real problem.

The Gerlich paper math is well outside my ability at this point.

VernerHornung wrote:...the hotter, lower Venusian atmosphere which can't be compared to anything on Earth, ....

If you take our current atmosphere, and compress the gas to match the pressure on Venus, wouldn't you get that same extreme temperatures?
Since the heat can't escape downward it still seems like a greenhouse-esque situation even if the absorption is happening before it hit's the ground.


"Good tests kill flawed theories; we remain alive to guess again." - Karl Popper
ITN/IBD Fraud exposed:  The 2nd LTD add on claiming radiance from cooler bodies can't be absorbed Max Planck debunks, they can't explain:net-thermal-radiation-you-in-a-room-as-a-reference & Proof: no data is ever valid for them
29-09-2019 19:28
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13293)
tmiddles wrote:
Venus is inconvenient for either side trying to pretend the science is simple and settled one way or the other.


Yet you try to do so all the time.

Which is it, dude?


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
RE: The exponents30-09-2019 03:49
VernerHornungProfile picture★☆☆☆☆
(133)
tmiddles wrote:
So the asci format is a bit tough with fractions like this.

Ja. Typing equations here sucks.
~


tmiddles wrote:
So frequency is a huge number and wavelength a tiny number. f is in the numerator and λ in the denominator so they are achieving the same effect of imbiggening the number (science lingo).

Ja. If the frequency goes up or the wavelength gets smaller, the fraction in the equation grows larger. Numbers get unwieldy in Planck's law. The Planck constant,

h = 0.00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 000667 Joule seconds

is usually written as 6.67 x 10^-34 so they don't have to mess with 33 zeros after the decimal point. The smallness of h is why people don't notice quantum effects in daily life; mostly it affects atoms or molecules.

The units on your equations are correct, and they matter. The square meters and π tell us it's for energy radiated over a whole sphere. As for why f is upstairs to the 3rd power and λ downstairs to the 5th power, I think I have a clue. The Phys. Prof. had two of us young'uns hold the ends of a jump rope and excite it into a standing wave. Pair with the most nodes won, and nobody achieved more than three since you have jiggle the rope faster—the frequency—to get a higher number of nodes.

tmiddles wrote:
...but not to the λ^5th! arggh! So close.

Getting the exponents is tough; it took me a while to arrive at a schema for it. Light was still viewed as a wave in Planck's day. So he proposed the radiation in a cavity radiator was a standing wave; it's convenient to assume a cubical shape. Let's start with a one-dimensional standing wave confined between walls, like this:



The following derivation's extreme slop (glad there's no real physicists here), but it's meant for concept only. The energy in a classical standing wave is proportional to the amplitude (how tall the up and down swings are) and to the number of nodes, so we model the cavity radiator as a hollow box with standing waves inside:



In the last part, I'll just put in Einstein's photon energy to get numbers that correspond to the energy of the standing waves near a particular frequency or wavelength:



This isn't the correct derivation; it just explains the exponents on f and λ. The numeral 3 emerged because I used a box. When a cubical box of L x L x L inches expands a small amount ΔL, the increase in volume is about 3L^2 ΔL. We can check that. Suppose the box is 30 inches on a side and expands by ΔL of 1 inch. Then

initial volume: 27000 in^3
estimated increase: 3 x (30 in)^2 x 1 in = 2700 in^3
estimated final volume: 29700 in^3

exact final volume: (31 in)^3 = 29791 in^3

Pretty close, and the approximation gets better the smaller ΔL is. We speak of an "instantaneous rate of volume increase" for boxes,

dV = 3L^2 dL,

which is 2700 cubic inches per inch for a 30-inch box. The shape of the cavity doesn't matter very much, and we're interested in the rays outside the cavity, the ones that come out through the little hole. For that I'll need to derive the stuff I have above for a spherical shell, like the skin of a basketball. The numeral 3 should disappear, with 4π in its place instead.

I'm slow, though, and they didn't spend much time on Planck's law in school. I'd forgotten about it until now. Max was a smart cookie.

The whole point of the exercise is the "Stefan-Boltzmann" scream coming from that pair of ITN-IBdaMann speakers on the bookcase. With CO2, we have something basically like a Planck spectrum with a slot cut out in the infrared, like



The sunlight comes down with most of its energy in the slot where CO2 is transparent. Rays from the Earth come up near the right end where CO2 absorbs. The asymmetry is crucial to making the greenhouse work; otherwise the CO2 would just be blocking solar energy before it got to the surface.


Never try to solve an NP-complete problem on your own with pencil & paper.
30-09-2019 04:33
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(3375)
VernerHornung wrote:This isn't the correct derivation; it just explains the exponents on f and λ. The numeral 3 emerged because I used a box. ...With CO2, we have something basically like a Planck spectrum with a slot cut out in the infrared, like



The sunlight comes down with most of its energy in the slot where CO2 is transparent. Rays from the Earth come up near the right end where CO2 absorbs...
I figured you would go further with it, thank you. Beyond my ability at the moment but I can revisit this later. Derivation is a great way to really understand so it's time well spent.

So the classic greenhouse concept is the frequency valve: High frequency get's past, low frequency get's interrupted on the way out.

Are there filters, like you'd put on a light or camera lens, that have this same property of transmitting high frequency and absorbing low frequency?



"Good tests kill flawed theories; we remain alive to guess again." - Karl Popper
ITN/IBD Fraud exposed:  The 2nd LTD add on claiming radiance from cooler bodies can't be absorbed Max Planck debunks, they can't explain:net-thermal-radiation-you-in-a-room-as-a-reference & Proof: no data is ever valid for them
30-09-2019 05:55
VernerHornungProfile picture★☆☆☆☆
(133)
tmiddles wrote:
If you take our current atmosphere, and compress the gas to match the pressure on Venus, wouldn't you get that same extreme temperatures?

That's the $93 trillion question. I really don't know. Arthur P. Smith put out a rebuttal to Gerlich and both whitecoats can do the Planck law on a thumbnail with a ball point pen. To show reality of effect, no exact value for average temp need be supplied unless the equations are sensitive to small differences in the figure. One puts in a figure close to the surface average and shows that an air (or CO2) envelope raises it.

Gerlich's objection here is that order of operations matters: Integrating before taking a root leads to a factor 5√2/4 = 1.77 difference in mean temperature versus taking the root first and then integrating. Quite blatant: 279K instead of 158, greater than the difference between Florida and dry ice. This supposedly renders the averaging method worthless.

Smith answers that "the average temperature is always less than or equal to the effective thermal radiation temperature" computed by Gerlich. Head-scratch time! The papers are at

Falsification of the Atmospheric CO2 Greenhouse Effects
Gerhard Gerlich
https://arxiv.org/pdf/0707.1161.pdf
(see pp. 63-64)

Proof of the Atmospheric Greenhouse Effect
Arthur P. Smith
https://arxiv.org/pdf/0802.4324.pdf
(see p. 3)

tmiddles wrote:
Are there filters, like you'd put on a light or camera lens, that have this same property of transmitting high frequency and absorbing low frequency?

There are various filters for telescopes & cameras. Visible light spectrometry uses diffraction gratings; I'm not sure how they do IR spectra. Error in my last post by the way—the slot in the CO2 is in the visible, not IR.


Never try to solve an NP-complete problem on your own with pencil & paper.
Edited on 30-09-2019 06:02
Page 2 of 6<1234>>>





Join the debate Do I have the CO2 calamity math right? (help from an expert please):

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
The NCOVID Lock Down Prove CO2 Emission Do Not Cause Global Warming Climate Change1215-09-2020 04:37
The ACTUAL Percentage of Atmospheric CO26403-09-2020 05:12
CO2 sensor112-08-2020 19:10
Less CO21022-07-2020 02:16
CO2 level to cause harm1813-07-2020 22:08
▲ Top of page
Public Poll
Who is leading the renewable energy race?

US

EU

China

Japan

India

Brazil

Other

Don't know


Thanks for supporting Climate-Debate.com.
Copyright © 2009-2020 Climate-Debate.com | About | Contact