Remember me
▼ Content

Hank Samler's Model


Hank Samler's Model10-02-2016 21:30
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4936)
Hank Samler wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
The earth can neither "store" nor "trap" energy any more than a spaghetti strainer "stores" or "traps" water.

On the average, the sun is shining with 171 billion watts of energy on the Earth, 24hrs a day, every day.

In order to keep the Earth at a generally constant temperature, 171 billion watts of energy need to constantly be leaving the earth as well.

The surface area of the Earth is 502 million km2, meaning that *on the average* each m2 needs to emit 341W/m2. Day side and night side, poles and equator, etc..

Incoming = Outgoing, just like with your sieve.

Would you agree with that?


I'm going to simplify/generalize the model a bit.

But first, you bring up a valid point worth embellishment. Fossil fuels are certainly a form of stored energy. Plants definitely store solar energy.

So technically, yes, the earth does store some of the sun's energy in the form of chemical energy (an instance of potential energy) that is converted from solar electromagnetic radiation.

At the same time we recognize that we are talking about negligible, non-zero quantities that can effectively be treated as zero. For such values, mathematicians often use epsilons to show that they are not forgetting to include the negligible amounts. For stored converted chemical energy I will use the variable "epsilon(scce)" which will carry the value of "essentially zero."

Ae = Albedo of the earth. No one knows what this value is.

E(sol) = Total solar energy incident to earth.

E(abs) = E(sol)*(1-Ae) = Total energy absorbed by the earth

E(rad) = E(abs) - epsilon(scce) [per 1st LoT], written hereafter asjust E(rad) = E(abs)

Hank Samler wrote: On the average, the sun is shining with 171 billion watts of energy on the Earth, 24hrs a day, every day.

In order to keep the Earth at a generally constant temperature, 171 billion watts of energy need to constantly be leaving the earth as well.


OK, so if we go with your values then we have:

E(rad) = E(abs) = 171 billion watts.

Hank Samler wrote:The surface area of the Earth is 502 million km2, meaning that *on the average* each m2 needs to emit 341W/m2. Day side and night side, poles and equator, etc..

Incoming = Outgoing, just like with your sieve.

Would you agree with that?

With the exception that it is a spaghetti strainer and not exactly a sieve, let's presume your math is correct and press forward.

.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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

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

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
10-02-2016 22:32
Hank Samler
☆☆☆☆☆
(45)
WOW.
Now I am really honored, given my own thread by a future Nobel laureate -
right up there with the likes of Barack Obama!-)

Now I really have to pay attention to my own comments:-(

Let me think here a couple of minutes..
10-02-2016 23:37
Hank Samler
☆☆☆☆☆
(45)
It really doesn't have to do with the math, but that we are talking about the same thing.

First the Earth:
I am going to go into a bit of science fiction. Please bear with me..
Imagine that the year is 2030 and the Left propaganda machine has convinced everyone that the average temperature has increased another 0.3°C and that the oceans are 30cm higher, even though we have reached a mauder Minimum.

Some overzealous GW FANATIC convinces the government-paid geoengineers to send up 100 rockets full of mirrors to the Lagrange gravitational spot L1 between the sun and the earth to block about 0.6% of the sunlight heading to earth.

Little does the world know that this GW Fanatic is a true believer and quite zealous. At the last Minute the true believer replaces the objects, which are supposed to diffuse the light a bit, with black non-transparent objects which form together to form a perfect wall in space, once the signal comes from the earth. His calculations show him that 5% of sunlight will be blocked.

Well.

The reflectors are in place and receive the signal from the mad zealot GW apostle, but something goes wrong. Instead of blocking off 5% of the sun's radiation, is is in the perfect spot to create a total eclipse, blocking off 100% of the sun's light!

The earth is suddenly in total darkness!

Like the story so far?

Now the question for the punch line:
How Long does it take for the earth, in darkness, to freeze over?
How Long does it take for the earth's surface, only receiving light from the moon and the stars, to stop cooling down any further?

I'm to bed. Good night!
11-02-2016 02:01
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4936)
Hank Samler wrote: How Long does it take for the earth, in darkness, to freeze over?

This is a variation of the "sun goes out" scenario.

The answer is: Not long. After ~24 hours the equator would reach otherwise polar temperature. The atmosphere would be the vehicle for redistributing the remaining thermal energy around, but that will be little enough for water to freeze all over the planet. The oceans would take longer to freeze through but geothermal vents would maintain pockets of liquid water.

Hank Samler wrote: How Long does it take for the earth's surface, only receiving light from the moon and the stars, to stop cooling down any further?

Good question. Not sure. I suppose if I were inclined I could run some rough estimates.

I'm not inclined. I would guesstimate ~168 hours.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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

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

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
11-02-2016 10:30
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
Hank Samler wrote:
How Long does it take for the earth, in darkness, to freeze over?

It depends exactly what you mean by freeze over (how thick ice? whole globe?) but we could do some sums to get a ballpark figure.

Consider one square metre of average ocean surface at 17 C. How long would it take the top metre or so to cool to freezing point?

Well, the energy released by a cubic metre of water cooling from 17 C to 0 C will be its specific heat capacity * the temperature difference * its mass:

4.2 kJ/(kg K) * 17 K * 1000 kg = 71,400 kJ

If the sun suddenly switched off, the Earth would, in the first instant at least, continue to emit about 240 W per square metre of thermal radiation, though this would obviously drop rapidly as it cooled. For now though, I'll assume it keeps emitting at this rate to get a lower bound valve.

So the minimum time taken for the top metre of ocean to cool from 17 C to 0 C would be:

71,400,000 J / 240 W = 297,500 seconds = about 3.5 days.

Obviously this is very much a rough estimate with a lot of assumptions!

How Long does it take for the earth's surface, only receiving light from the moon and the stars, to stop cooling down any further?

This would take much longer, many years I'd imagine. The entire ocean would first have to cool to freezing point, freeze, and continue cooling to whatever temperature would be maintained by the Earth's internal radioactivity. External sources of heat would be negligible in comparison.
11-02-2016 12:26
Hank Samler
☆☆☆☆☆
(45)
IBdaMann wrote:
This is a variation of the "sun goes out" scenario.

Hmmm. ...
I thought the Story was a bit better than just "sun goes out".
Okay, I admit that it wasn't as good as Crichton or anything..
Would you have liked it better if I would have called the villain a GW-Jihad-Wonkie?

Surface Detail wrote:
71,400,000 J / 240 W = 297,500 seconds = about 3.5 days.

Thanks for doing the math.

Let's pretend (I mean we are pretending that the sun goes out, right?) that the earth could continue to emit 341W -- say, as an upper limit. And that the oceans are a bit cooler, just for argument's sake (oceans are only about 3/4th of the surface area, some are frozen already, etc..) say 14°C, dann:

58,800,000 J / 341 W = 172,434 seconds = about 2 days.

But did you notice something, Surface? You didn't talk about the atmosphere at all - simply because air is not very good at storing heat. (Just as an aside..)

Now for the question of how fast it would freeze. Water at the freezing point has a phase change heat of ca. 336kJ/(kg K). Assuming that the equation remains the same, it would take another 11 days for the Earth to freeze a meter thick of fresh water.

At that rate we would already be at 13 days.

Salt water? Takes another day or so, so that we're already over two weeks.

Now, since I can't imagine (but who cares what I can imagine?) that the earth can radiate heat so quickly, I could imagine that it takes a month completely without the sun (and without circulation in the oceans and without considering geothermic sources, which both make things take longer) for the earth to "freeze over", becoming snowball earth like it was about 700million years ago.

So, IB, what do you think? Are we on the same planet?-)
11-02-2016 17:29
Buildreps
★☆☆☆☆
(100)
Aren't we forgetting something? What about heat transfer from within?
11-02-2016 17:58
Hank Samler
☆☆☆☆☆
(45)
Buildreps wrote:
What about heat transfer from within?


We're trying to keep this simple. I wrote that we calculate: "without circulation in the oceans and without considering geothermic sources (yes, heat transfers), which both make things take longer" ...

Deep ocean temperatures lie between 0°-3°C and would probably stay that way for a long time. Measurably cooling down of the Earth would take probably years. But like I said, we're leaving that out of the equation for now.
12-02-2016 02:31
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4936)
Hank Samler wrote: So, IB, what do you think? Are we on the same planet?-)

The short answer is yes. All my estimates specifically include a " ~ " because, truth be told, I've never personally witnessed a sun-going-out event so I just apply verifiable comparisons.

The sun is very, very hot. It is providing a crapload of energy to the earth and to the solar system. Let's keep in mind what the daytime surface temperature is on the moon because of the sun.

Then let's remember that space is otherwise very, very cold (without going into what that means exactly). If the earth were to suddenly stop getting its constant blow-torch treatment, it would instantly be in a colder environment that Neptune is at present. It would only be a matter of hours before the earth's surface at the equator dropped below the freezing point of water. I can't see how the top couple of centimeters of the world's lakes and oceans would not have frozen over after 24 hours.


Hank Samler wrote: I thought the Story was a bit better than just "sun goes out".

I enjoyed the story as well. I merely wished to express that I have discussed just such a scenario before. It is common in Global Warming discussions to compare current conditions with a sun-free environment to focus on the physics going on outside the sun's influence.
Hank Samler wrote: Would you have liked it better if I would have called the villain a GW-Jihad-Wonkie?

A more realistic/plausible scenario would be one in which a warmizombie multi-billionaire takes it upon himself to build a network of orbiting geoengineering systems to flood the atmosphere with sulpher to save the world from "climate change." His intentions are philanthropic but his engineering, based on religious devotion to bogus techno-babble, causes a blackout of solar energy, certainly halting all global warming in its tracks...and the earth freezes.

Hank Samler wrote: But did you notice something, Surface? You didn't talk about the atmosphere at all - simply because air is not very good at storing heat. (Just as an aside..)
I don't mean to quibble but this is a discussion forum and words are all we have. Nothing "stores" or "traps" thermal energy. Energy radiates freely out of all substances like water out of a spaghetti strainer. Water will freely drain out of a spaghetti strainer at a rate directly proportional to the amount of water. Thermal energy will freely drain (radiate) out of any substance at a rate dependent upon the temperature. No substance can "store" or "trap" thermal energy any better than a spaghetti strainer can "stor" or "trap" water.

[quote]Hank Samler wrote: Now for the question of how fast it would freeze. Water at the freezing point has a phase change heat of ca. 336kJ/(kg K). Assuming that the equation remains the same, it would take another 11 days for the Earth to freeze a meter thick of fresh water.

I personally think that's a little long for just one meter of ice, imho. In a colder-than-Neptune environment, my money is on it taking just a few days...maybe three should be more than adequate. Remember, the earth's temperature is going to plunge immediately. The equator is at 29degC because of direct solar input. The moment the sun goes out, there is no difference between the equator and the poles. The equator will quickly cease to be 29degC and will soon be falling below 0degC, and it will just keep dropping. Even with the sun, on a cold winter day lakes can freeze a meter thick in a few days. Without a sun, every square meter of surface will be much colder. Yeah, three days should be enough for just one meter.

Nonetheless, three days, eleven days...you and I are both guessing on similar scales.

.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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

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

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
12-02-2016 03:15
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
IBdaMann wrote:
Hank Samler wrote: So, IB, what do you think? Are we on the same planet?-)

The short answer is yes. All my estimates specifically include a " ~ " because, truth be told, I've never personally witnessed a sun-going-out event so I just apply verifiable comparisons.

The sun is very, very hot. It is providing a crapload of energy to the earth and to the solar system. Let's keep in mind what the daytime surface temperature is on the moon because of the sun.

Then let's remember that space is otherwise very, very cold (without going into what that means exactly). If the earth were to suddenly stop getting its constant blow-torch treatment, it would instantly be in a colder environment that Neptune is at present. It would only be a matter of hours before the earth's surface at the equator dropped below the freezing point of water. I can't see how the top couple of centimeters of the world's lakes and oceans would not have frozen over after 24 hours.


Hank Samler wrote: I thought the Story was a bit better than just "sun goes out".

I enjoyed the story as well. I merely wished to express that I have discussed just such a scenario before. It is common in Global Warming discussions to compare current conditions with a sun-free environment to focus on the physics going on outside the sun's influence.
Hank Samler wrote: Would you have liked it better if I would have called the villain a GW-Jihad-Wonkie?

A more realistic/plausible scenario would be one in which a warmizombie multi-billionaire takes it upon himself to build a network of orbiting geoengineering systems to flood the atmosphere with sulpher to save the world from "climate change." His intentions are philanthropic but his engineering, based on religious devotion to bogus techno-babble, causes a blackout of solar energy, certainly halting all global warming in its tracks...and the earth freezes.

Hank Samler wrote: But did you notice something, Surface? You didn't talk about the atmosphere at all - simply because air is not very good at storing heat. (Just as an aside..)
I don't mean to quibble but this is a discussion forum and words are all we have. Nothing "stores" or "traps" thermal energy. Energy radiates freely out of all substances like water out of a spaghetti strainer. Water will freely drain out of a spaghetti strainer at a rate directly proportional to the amount of water. Thermal energy will freely drain (radiate) out of any substance at a rate dependent upon the temperature. No substance can "store" or "trap" thermal energy any better than a spaghetti strainer can "stor" or "trap" water.

[quote]Hank Samler wrote: Now for the question of how fast it would freeze. Water at the freezing point has a phase change heat of ca. 336kJ/(kg K). Assuming that the equation remains the same, it would take another 11 days for the Earth to freeze a meter thick of fresh water.

I personally think that's a little long for just one meter of ice, imho. In a colder-than-Neptune environment, my money is on it taking just a few days...maybe three should be more than adequate. Remember, the earth's temperature is going to plunge immediately. The equator is at 29degC because of direct solar input. The moment the sun goes out, there is no difference between the equator and the poles. The equator will quickly cease to be 29degC and will soon be falling below 0degC, and it will just keep dropping. Even with the sun, on a cold winter day lakes can freeze a meter thick in a few days. Without a sun, every square meter of surface will be much colder. Yeah, three days should be enough for just one meter.

Nonetheless, three days, eleven days...you and I are both guessing on similar scales.

tl;dr. Where are the calculations?
12-02-2016 05:42
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4936)
IBdaMann wrote: so I just apply verifiable comparisons.


Surface Detail wrote:tl;dr. Where are the calculations?


I said they were comparisons. I said I was roughly estimating.

Are you aware that Neptune is really cold? -200 degC?

Are you aware that if the sun were to go out, Neptune would get even colder? ...and that the earth would become just like it?

... but no, there are no calculations. Would you like to do some?


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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

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

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
12-02-2016 10:39
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
IBdaMann wrote:
IBdaMann wrote: so I just apply verifiable comparisons.


Surface Detail wrote:tl;dr. Where are the calculations?


I said they were comparisons. I said I was roughly estimating.

Are you aware that Neptune is really cold? -200 degC?

Are you aware that if the sun were to go out, Neptune would get even colder? ...and that the earth would become just like it?

... but no, there are no calculations. Would you like to do some?

If you don't do any calculations to back up your claims, then they are just guesses, not estimates. No amount of blather, bold or underlined text would get you any marks in a physics exam.

Anyway, since you seem to be incapable of working it out, here goes. It's just a minor variation of my calculation above, but including the latent heat of fusion of ice (the energy given off by water at 0 C freezing to ice at 0 C).

We know that each square metre of the Earth is struck by, on average, 340 W of solar radiation. About 100 W of this is reflected straight back into space. This means that, on average, each square metre of the Earth emits about 240 W in order to balance the 240 W absorbed.

It the sun suddenly went out, the Earth would immediately start to cool and would gradually emit less and less radiation. For now, though, we'll assume it keeps radiating at 240 W to give the shortest possible cooling time. Note that we are assuming no incoming radiation at all, i.e. that the external temperature is absolute zero. 0 K. -273 C. Colder than Neptune.

The average temperature Ta of the oceans is 17 C. The specific heat capacity of water Cw is 4.2 kJ/(kg K) and the latent heat of fusion Fw of water ice is 334 kJ/kg. The amount of energy that one square metre of ocean must give off in order to freeze to ice at 0 C Tf to a depth of 1 metre i.e. a mass Mw of 1000 kg of ice is then:

(Ta - Tf) * Mw * Cw + Mw * Fw

Plugging in the numbers gives:

(17 K - 0 K) * 1000 kg * 4.2 kJ/(kg K) + 1000 kg * 334 kJ/kg = 405,400 kJ

This is the amount of energy that each square metre of ocean must release in order to freeze to a depth of 1 metre. Given a maximum emission rate of 240 W (see earlier), the time taken would then be:

405,400,000 J / 240 W = 1,689,000 seconds = 19.5 days.

This, remember, is a lower bound. In reality, it would take substantially longer since the rate of radiation emission would fall as the surface cooled, the formation of the initial layer of ice would hinder further losses and there would be heat conduction and convection from the deeper ocean.

This estimate is an order of magnitude greater than your guess, which just goes to show that a little calculation goes a lot further than your heaps of underlined and bolded bullshit.
Edited on 12-02-2016 10:59
12-02-2016 17:19
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4936)
Surface Detail wrote: If you don't do any calculations to back up your claims, then they are just guesses, not estimates.

Sure, I'll go with that. I'm guessing.


I'm guessing that you're calculations have errors, basically in the assumptions. But all that means is that if I were to wager on the results of an actual sun-out event wrt earth, I would bet on a smaller point spread and that you would gladly accept the bet.


Surface Detail wrote:Anyway, since you seem to be incapable of working it out..,

I can do math. I just hold higher confidence in my assumptions. I fully admit that it still all amounts to guessing.

Surface Detail wrote: It the sun suddenly went out, the Earth would immediately start to cool and would gradually emit less and less radiation

It would not be "gradual" at the beginning. Temperature would plummet initially. The rate of decrease would not become "gradual" until temperatures are well below freezing, like dark-side-of-the-moon cold...ish.

Surface Detail wrote: The average temperature Ta of the oceans is 17 C.

This would be your guess.



Surface Detail wrote:
405,400,000 J / 240 W = 1,689,000 seconds = 19.5 days.

Entirely fair.

Surface Detail wrote: This estimate is an order of magnitude greater than your guess, which just goes to show that a little calculation goes a lot further than your heaps of underlined and bolded bullshit.


Wow! You really resent disagreement with your viewpoint. It makes one wonder why you picked such a WACKY religion then...a dying one at that.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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

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

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
12-02-2016 18:55
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
IBdaMann, I've set out my assumptions and calculations. Which do you disagree with and why?
12-02-2016 21:25
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4936)
Surface Detail wrote:
IBdaMann, I've set out my assumptions and calculations. Which do you disagree with and why?


I think your assumed rate of thermal radiation is too low, but I admit that I have other things that I'd rather do than devote time to calculating a good "estimate."

So I am not declaring you to be mistaken. I am "guessing" that your assumptions about rate of heat loss are off. I'm also not asking you change what you believe. If I decide to run numbers through a model I'll let you know what I get.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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

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

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
12-02-2016 22:06
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
IBdaMann wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
IBdaMann, I've set out my assumptions and calculations. Which do you disagree with and why?


I think your assumed rate of thermal radiation is too low, but I admit that I have other things that I'd rather do than devote time to calculating a good "estimate."

So I am not declaring you to be mistaken. I am "guessing" that your assumptions about rate of heat loss are off. I'm also not asking you change what you believe. If I decide to run numbers through a model I'll let you know what I get.


.

Considering your 1320 posts on this forum to date, I'd say you have plenty of time to do a little math. But, as usual, you've said what you disagree with but not why. Unless you can actually present some logic or numbers to back up what you say, your opinion is worthless.

That's the thing about science - you have to show your working (or refer to someone else's working) if you want anyone to take notice of you. And so far you've shown precious little of anything apart from bluster and unreasoned denial.
Edited on 12-02-2016 22:06
13-02-2016 00:09
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9602)
Surface Detail wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
IBdaMann, I've set out my assumptions and calculations. Which do you disagree with and why?


I think your assumed rate of thermal radiation is too low, but I admit that I have other things that I'd rather do than devote time to calculating a good "estimate."

So I am not declaring you to be mistaken. I am "guessing" that your assumptions about rate of heat loss are off. I'm also not asking you change what you believe. If I decide to run numbers through a model I'll let you know what I get.


.

Considering your 1320 posts on this forum to date, I'd say you have plenty of time to do a little math. But, as usual, you've said what you disagree with but not why. Unless you can actually present some logic or numbers to back up what you say, your opinion is worthless.

Let's take this statement to it's logical conclusion. Since you didn't provide a math formula to make this statement, it is utterly worthless.

You should know the difference between describing one model vs another model.

Surface Detail wrote:
That's the thing about science - you have to show your working (or refer to someone else's working) if you want anyone to take notice of you. And so far you've shown precious little of anything apart from bluster and unreasoned denial.

This is an utter denial of what has been written in the past on numerous threads and forums.


The Parrot Killer
13-02-2016 00:12
Hank Samler
☆☆☆☆☆
(45)
IBdaMann wrote:

I think your assumed rate of thermal radiation is too low ...


May I guess at what you see but can't calculate (which means on this site of course not communicate) or don't want to?

We worked out how much heat (upper limit) the earth can radiate away, because that is what it is doing now with its 99,5% heat source still going strong. If that source is taken away, the 171 billion watts will most certainly and very quickly diminish over time.

And then we (thanks, Surface) worked out how much heat the oceans would lose and how long it would take to build a global ice sheet.

But think of the daily oscillations in temperature as they occur nowadays around the globe: Yes, it takes weeks and months for heat to be built up (or cool off) in the oceans. Living in Europe is a living experiment in water's ability to carry heat. Guys, we're almost as high as Alaska over here! And we don't even have really cold winters. We've hardly gotten any snow this year. Gulf Stream, we love you!! (Does Devonshire ever get snow, btw??)

But what about open land? The deserts? "a cold land where the sun shines hot" up to 50°C in the day and down to freezing at night?! I'm sure that's more the image that IB has. There it would only take a couple days to cool down to Neptune temperatures (if it weren't for the oceans..).

So the question is, how is the earth to cool down. It certainly won't work at it one meter of ocean ice at a time until the average 5km are frozen through. The atmosphere will begin cooling from outside (exosphere first), the ozone layer will start to disappear and the "warm" layer in the stratosphere as well. The surface of the planet will become an ice sheet, taking perhaps the calculated 19.5days -- but that too very unevenly around the globe. But then what happens??

Once there is a thin ice sheet over the oceans, the ocean waters under the ice begin cooling much more slowly. But the already frozen surface (say 10cm to a meter deep), whether land or ice, will lose very much heat very quickly. A couple meters down into the "water" or ice it might still be a "toasty" 0°C, but the surface, not having any way to keep the heat stored any more, and the atmosphere (which hardly has the ability to store heat anyway), once the first layer of ice, however thin, is on the planet, will plunge.

My guess, within another week or so, to Neptunian frigidity.

Sorry, I don't know how to calculate heat migration through ice. But I bet ice is a very good isolator! Not as good as snow, of course..

So, could both of you guys agree with this?? (I mean, since we've made it this far already:-)
13-02-2016 06:35
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4936)
Hank Samler wrote:So, could both of you guys agree with this?? (I mean, since we've made it this far already:-)

The issue here is that we cannot know the true outcome without destroying the solar system. We are speculating. There is nothing to be gained by us "reaching an agreement."

Surface Detail is to be applauded for the numbers he crunched but in the end it is a simplistic model. He could very well be right on the money. I'm just guessing he's a bit short on the initial rate of loss.

I think we all acknowledge/agree that the ocean contains a lot of thermal energy. It would take a while for the better part to freeze. But just one meter? The ice forming on top at the surface wouldn't hover close to 0degC. It would be of the -150degC type. At that point conduction/convection really come into play in addition to the thermal radiation previously discussed.

But it seems that even though we disagree, we ae in the same ballpark of "several days." None of us are claiming "minutes" and none are claiming months or years.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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

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

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
13-02-2016 10:13
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9602)
IBdaMann wrote:
Hank Samler wrote:So, could both of you guys agree with this?? (I mean, since we've made it this far already:-)

The issue here is that we cannot know the true outcome without destroying the solar system. We are speculating. There is nothing to be gained by us "reaching an agreement."

Surface Detail is to be applauded for the numbers he crunched but in the end it is a simplistic model. He could very well be right on the money. I'm just guessing he's a bit short on the initial rate of loss.

I think we all acknowledge/agree that the ocean contains a lot of thermal energy. It would take a while for the better part to freeze. But just one meter? The ice forming on top at the surface wouldn't hover close to 0degC. It would be of the -150degC type. At that point conduction/convection really come into play in addition to the thermal radiation previously discussed.

But it seems that even though we disagree, we ae in the same ballpark of "several days." None of us are claiming "minutes" and none are claiming months or years.


.

The best conclusion reached yet in this whole discussion.


The Parrot Killer
13-02-2016 11:54
Hank Samler
☆☆☆☆☆
(45)
IBdaMann wrote:
We are speculating. There is nothing to be gained by us "reaching an agreement."


The question is only if you agree with the argumention - not necessarily of the specific values. Like you say, we're still in the same ball park and that's all that matters to me. If not, we'd have to go back and belabor the points..

IBdaMann wrote:
I think we all acknowledge/agree that the ocean contains a lot of thermal energy.

I wouldn't want to change that statement at all:-)

IBdaMann wrote:
It would take a while for the better part to freeze. But just one meter? The ice forming on top at the surface wouldn't hover close to 0degC.

When ice forms, yes, it hovers around 0°C until it is formed, simply because of the great amount of energy needed/given up by the phase change. (For water to ice it's 80 times that of having water change temperature 1°C. For water to steam it's over 500 times.)

My Point is simply that there will be an enormous difference in temperature between the topside of the ice sheet, however thick, since the atmosphere doesn't offer much insulation nor does it "store" much heat.

So: Above the ice (once a crust, however thick, has formed!) Neptunian temperatures. Below the crust it's still liquid water and won't lose its heat very fast at all.
IBdaMann wrote:
It would be of the -150degC type. At that point conduction/convection really come into play in addition to the thermal radiation previously discussed.

I don't get your point here. Are we trying to say the same thing?
13-02-2016 20:54
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4936)
Hank Samler wrote:I don't get your point here. Are we trying to say the same thing?

I think we are. Wrt the ocean, the top will freeze quickly, forming a crust and the liquid water below will take much longer to become ice.

The first meter would be quick. Geothermal vents would ensure pockets of liquid water remain in perpetuity.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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

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

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
14-02-2016 04:22
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
In my part of the world, the sun's been gone from the sky for about 6 hours now, and the temperature's already dropped by about 4 degrees C!
14-02-2016 12:11
still learning
★★☆☆☆
(244)
Anybody else experienced a total solar eclipse?
An amazing thing. Even though you know full well what's happening, though you've driven hundreds of miles to get to where you could experience it, still amazing. Hair raising experience, literally.
Partial eclipses are interesting, but that last bit of Sun disappearing with the odd illumination, the chill and the bits of fog appearing as totality approaches are somehow surprising.

Next total eclipse in the US is in August of next year.
14-02-2016 18:02
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
still learning wrote:
Anybody else experienced a total solar eclipse?
An amazing thing. Even though you know full well what's happening, though you've driven hundreds of miles to get to where you could experience it, still amazing. Hair raising experience, literally.
Partial eclipses are interesting, but that last bit of Sun disappearing with the odd illumination, the chill and the bits of fog appearing as totality approaches are somehow surprising.

Next total eclipse in the US is in August of next year.

Yes! I saw the August 1999 European eclipse in a small village in France. I was living in Germany at the time, and we decided at the last minute that the weather conditions would be best in France and drove over there. It was still cloudy in the morning, but luckily cleared in time for the eclipse.

It was absolutely the most amazing thing - an utterly eerie experience. It is so strange, especially as you say in the last few minutes before totality as the shadows sharpen and everything goes quiet. And then there is just nothing to compare with spectacular view of a black sun in the sky. It's something that everyone should experience at least once in their lives.

I now live in the UK, but I'm hoping to fly to the US to see the 2017 one with my son. The path of totality crosses right across the US, so I'm still wondering where the best place to see it will be. The longest totality time and best weather conditions would tend to indicate the mid-west, but I need to do a bit more research first.
14-02-2016 22:56
Hank Samler
☆☆☆☆☆
(45)
IBdaMann wrote:
Hank Samler wrote:I don't get your point here. Are we trying to say the same thing?

I think we are.

(Sorry, been having to entertain my mother in law, etc.., No time to take care of the more important parts of life like a web forum..)

This brings us to the point of the thread:

IBdaMann wrote:
Hank Samler wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
The earth can neither "store" nor "trap" energy any more than a spaghetti strainer "stores" or "traps" water.

As we see from the above excursion, the earth can very, very well trap and store energy from the sun. How much can be stored by the atmosphere, I'm not really up to figuring it out right now (maybe on some snowed-in day, which certainly hasn't happened in Europe this year), but it's not a whole lot (Maybe 2-3 days worth of sunshine?). And what's in the lower atmosphere, at least, is "stored" because of evaported water (the heat of phase change). The oceans, on the other hand, hold what I would call an enormous amount of energy. It's like a battery that is being recharged every day by the sun. *And* it's losing energy every day. For the most part, it has become a perfect balance between incoming and outgoing radiation. Over a 24-hr. period and over the variations during the year, your fomula makes great sense:

E(rad) = E(abs)

Except that there are small variations in both the incoming and the outgoing which makes it change all the time. Rubio's non-statement, "the climate is always changing" points (although for his politics it's a cop-out statement) to this fact.

If I may change your equation, I will enter the element of time, simply because this is not true at any given point in time. Sunshine over the Sahara? More is emitted/reflected than average. Sunshine over the Pacific? More is retained than the average 24 hours. Sunshine in (northern) winter? More reaches the globe, because we're closer to the sun. Which means:

E(rad)/T=E(rad)/T

T is time, can be used for a day, but should more accurately be used for a year.

Remember, Surface pointed out that in the top meter of ocean alone, almost 3 weeks of sunshine are retained (let me please call it "stored") to keep it above freezing!

So yes, I do see a huge problem with your spaghetti colander, sieve, strainer or-whatever-it-is model. Basically, yes, water comes in as fast as it leaves. But there is an enormous buffer between incoming and outgoing water.

It's more like a river which flows into a lake, which "holds" the water for a while, only to flow out the other end. Like the Sea of Galilee.

Or the lake near to where I live:


Here, too, there is water in and water out. But in between?

So, what do you think?
Would you take back your comment that the earth does not "store" or "trap" energy?
15-02-2016 01:52
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4936)
Hank Samler wrote: As we see from the above excursion, the earth can very, very well trap and store energy from the sun.

Absolutely not. We have clearly shown that any body or substance can at most have thermal energy that it is losing beyond its control, at at rate determined solely by its tmperature. There is absolutely nothing any body or substance can do to trap or contain the thermal energy it is going to lose.

AND ...I'm going to ding you for misplaying semantic games in this manner.

If I trap a fox in a cage, it cannot escape. The words "trap" and "contain" imply a permanent state (until the state itself is changed) If a fox is otherwise in a room from which it can leave at its leisure then the fox is neither trapped nor contained, especially if someone is there to shoo it out.. If you pour water into a spaghetti strainer you would not speak in terms of the water being trapped or contained as it pours out at a rate determined by its quantity. Thermal energy pours out of all matter at a rate determined by temperature.

So when the argument is that "greenhouse gas" traps heat in ways that oxygen and nitrogen do not, causing Global Warming then it's game on, baby. The violations of physics are in play. The challenge at that point is to isolate the particular violation in the scenario given.

If you get an admission up front that what is meant by "trap" and "contain" is merely that it has thermal energy that it is radiating then "greenhouse gas" is no longer special in any way. No substance is at absolute zero. All substances have thermal energy and lose/radiate per their respective temperatures.

Note: same for the words "store," "hold," "pack away," etc.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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

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

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
15-02-2016 12:05
Hank Samler
☆☆☆☆☆
(45)
IBdaMann wrote:
AND ...I'm going to ding you for misplaying semantic games in this manner.

It's called looking for a common ground. If you don't want a common ground, then why do you bother discussing?

IBdaMann wrote:
There is absolutely nothing any body or substance can do to trap or contain the thermal energy it is going to lose.

Note: same for the words "store," "hold," "pack away," etc.


Then please, PLEASE tell me, what we just described, if those terms are not accurate. For when the lights go off, Earth's heat is NOT emitted immediately. What do you call this delay?? Give this phenomenon a definition!

My house has insulation, so that it takes much longer to radiate its heat. No, the heat is not "trapped", but it sure is bottle-necked. Likewise, the fox may not be trapped, but it sure takes a while to find its way out, especially when there are a number of doors (for the earth, layers) to get through.

Earth's water as described radiates thermal energy at an easily definable rate. A statistical value, if you will. All we did was define the upper limit.

I definitely reject outright the model/analogy with the strainer. It goes staight against my experience of reality and any measurements that have ever been taken.

Do you reject the model with the lake? If so, why?
How about a river: Between any two points on the river, there is an amount of water "stored" or "held back" by the resistence in front of it. How much it is, how high the water is between those points is measurable - but always changing! More input, more volume of water there. More resistence, also more volume of water there.

Until you provide an alternative term for what's happening, I will stick to "the earth stores energy from the sun". The moon as well -- just not as much.

...
15-02-2016 17:51
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4936)
Hank Samler wrote:It's called looking for a common ground.

No, it's called playing semantic games. Physics is expressed formally not in natural language, specifically to prohibited these kinds of semantic games.

In math and science, all terms must be formally defined. So pony up. If you want to continue in English rather than strictly math, specify up front: What do you mean by "store," "contain" and "trap"?

1. Merely "has and is losing at a rate determined by present quantity (temperature)" or

2. A permanent state of posession?

Answer the above question and we can answer yours.

Hank Samler wrote:If you don't want a common ground, then why do you bother discussing?

Are you implying that I am being unreasonable for insisting on clarity and lack of ambiguity? Are you trying pressure me into allowing you semantic "wiggle room"?

Expect me to insist on clarity. If that's a deal breaker then so be it.

Hank Samler wrote:Then please, PLEASE tell me, what we just described,

All matter is always losing thermal energy. All matter is a spaghetti strainer for thermal energy. No matter can store, trap or keep contained the thermal energy it has. Thermal energy pours out of matter per its quantity (temperature)..

And you are fighting tooth and nail to present a model that says otherwise.

Temperature alone drives the rate of loss from the thermal energy spaghetti strainer.

Hank Samler wrote:. For when the lights go off, Earth's heat is NOT emitted immediately. What do you call this delay?? Give this phenomenon a definition.

Sure. Temperature alone drives the rate of loss from the thermal energy spaghetti strainer.

Hank Samler wrote:My house has insulation, so that it takes much longer to radiate its heat.

Please don't take this the wrong way but you just committed the clasic scientifically-illiterate warmizombie errror. You need to learn the difference between thermal radiation and thermal convection/conduction. Insulation applies to thermal convection/conduction. Insulation does not affect thermal radiation; nothing applies to thermal radiation. Only temperature determines loss.

The insulation in your house reduces your house's rate of loss from thermal conduction/convection but whatever temperature your house is, it is radiating per that temperature. Insulation is a good thing for homes with internal heating/cooling.

Hank Samler wrote: I definitely reject outright the model/analogy with the strainer.

So be it. Go learn physics, especially thermal radiation.

Hank Samler wrote: Until you provide an alternative term for what's happening, I will stick to "the earth stores energy from the sun". The moon as well -- just not as much.

You should be using the words "the earth is radiating/losing thermal energy per its temperature, " ...then you would be correct.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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

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

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
15-02-2016 18:26
EarthlingProfile picture★☆☆☆☆
(107)
Many years ago (1960s), my friend had storage heaters installed in his bungalow.
They're metal boxes with concrete blocks inside that are heated overnight by (cheaper) electricity.
The heat radiates continually until the blocks attain the ambient temperature.
No, they don't 'trap' heat, they temporarily store it, just as Earth does with heat from the sun.

It's warmer on cloudy nights because the heat loss slows down.

My word, this could explain the greenhouse effect.

Note to IBduMb, this post isn't for your benefit, so please don't respond.
Thanks.
Edited on 15-02-2016 18:28
15-02-2016 20:34
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4936)
Earthling wrote:Note to IBduMb, this post isn't for your benefit, so please don't respond.
Thanks.

Note to Earthling-1, this response is not for you. You shouldn't be trying to bungle your way through science in the first place, seeing as how it is a disaster every time you try. So of course I won't waste my time responding to you.

If Earthling(-1) is on your side, it's time to hang it up.



.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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

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

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
15-02-2016 20:42
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9602)
Earthling wrote:
Many years ago (1960s), my friend had storage heaters installed in his bungalow.
They're metal boxes with concrete blocks inside that are heated overnight by (cheaper) electricity.
The heat radiates continually until the blocks attain the ambient temperature.
No, they don't 'trap' heat, they temporarily store it, just as Earth does with heat from the sun.

It's warmer on cloudy nights because the heat loss slows down.

My word, this could explain the greenhouse effect.

Note to IBduMb, this post isn't for your benefit, so please don't respond.
Thanks.

Ya post in a public forum...a member of the public is gonna respond.

You are doing the same thing with the classic 'insulation' argument. The concrete blocks are using internally generated thermal energy to get hot. They lose heat, which is why they return to ambient temperature when the electricity is shut off. That rate of loss is determined by the temperature difference between the hot block and the outside world.

It's warmer on cloudy nights because the cloud, being water, takes more time to lose heat. During the day, this same cloud takes longer to be heated, leaving the land cooler below.

Clouds do not create energy. They cannot raise the temperature of the land. The land gains or loses heat more slowly because the effective difference between cloud and land is small.

The rate of loss of cloud and land combined (or gain) is the same as anywhere else on Earth. All the cloud does is moderate temperature swing on the land below it. It cannot increase it. You should remember the difference between instantaneous temperature and mean temperature over a 24 hour period.


The Parrot Killer
15-02-2016 22:53
Hank Samler
☆☆☆☆☆
(45)
IBdaMann wrote:
You need to learn the difference between thermal radiation and thermal convection/conduction

Point taken.

Are you willing to do the exercise again, dividing each point between thermal radiation, convection and conduction?
16-02-2016 03:16
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4936)
Hank Samler wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
You need to learn the difference between thermal radiation and thermal convection/conduction

Point taken.

Are you willing to do the exercise again, dividing each point between thermal radiation, convection and conduction?


Sure.

Convection/Conduction is based on temperature differential and the coefficient of heat transfer for the materials involved. Insulation provides a low coefficient of heat transfer and really reduces the effect of conduction/convection, i.e. you definitely want it in your house.

Thermal radiation is electromagnetic radiation based on the temperature of the material. No substance is at absolute zero, so every substance has thermal energy that it received from some energy source and that it is currently in the process of losing. If it is hot then the rate of loss is rapid. If it is cold then the rate is slow. As matter approaches absolute zero then the rate of loss grinds almost to a halt. If you put insulation over a substance, it will still radiate into the insulation based on its temperature.

No substance can "hold" "trap" "contain" thermal energy because it is always losing thermal energy. I know you don't like the spaghetti strainer analogy but it is a direct parallel. Without an energy source to replenish lost energy then any given substance will only cool and will always cool; thermal energy loss will never be zero.

So what exercise did you wish to review?


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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

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

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
16-02-2016 15:38
Hank Samler
☆☆☆☆☆
(45)
IBdaMann wrote:
I know you don't like the spaghetti strainer analogy but it is a direct parallel.

Exactly there is where I disagree. A strainer has no "stickiness" about it, demonstrating that the process of any object emitting heat through thermal radiation is *not* instantaneous. Energy, also that transmitted as light, tends to go through many steps or phases before it becomes "heat".

Visible light (a much more energetic type of radiation than "heat") is no different. The portion that is not directly reflected (also usually with a wave-length change) passes energy to the material itself -- here the earth's surface, the atmosphere (albeit in most layers not much) and the oceans (which we talked about in terms of radiation), which passes it on to lower layers of the ocean through beloved convection.

Going through different forms (motion / wind, evaporation, upper atmosphere: ionisation, ozone layer: reaction between o2 and o3), the energy from sunlight does a lot before it is sooner or later radiates in what we call heat wave-lengths.

This is the reason that I reject the strainer. It is no way near "sticky" enough. Now, if your stainless steal were traded in for a spongy material, I wouldn't object, because:

IBdaMann wrote:
Without an energy source to replenish lost energy then any given substance will only cool and will always cool; thermal energy loss will never be zero.

..and it will never reach absolute zero. Just like it will never stop giving up energy (albeit approaching zero), it will also in absolutely no way give up 100% of the energy received by the sun. Therefore:

Radiation in = Radiation out

only describes a condition/process generally in balance and over time. It does not describe anything close to the instantaneous passage of sunlight. Sorry.
16-02-2016 16:22
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4936)
still learning wrote: Anybody else experienced a total solar eclipse?

I have. It didn't get as dark as I imagined it would. It was interesting nonetheless.

A few years ago I watched a total lunar eclipse in Asia and another one a couple of years later in the States. Those you can watch without the issue of looking into the sun. I think those are rather nifty as well.

still learning wrote: Next total eclipse in the US is in August of next year.

It appears it will be best watched from Savannah, Georgia, St. Louis, Missouri and/or Boise, Idaho. Shall we coordinate a tailgate party?


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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

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

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




Join the debate Hank Samler's Model:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
High carbon dioxide could suppress cooling clouds, climate change model warns127-02-2019 20:54
GreenMan's Climate Model4001-03-2018 21:16
Climate model projections compared to observations2512-11-2017 18:58
The Global Temperature Model4023-07-2016 10:22
Goddard Institute Tide model GOT4.8031-12-2014 15:03
▲ 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 © 2009-2019 Climate-Debate.com | About | Contact