Remember me
▼ Content

man made or natural



Page 4 of 8<<<23456>>>
13-01-2020 22:16
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(6646)
nemodawson wrote: Okay. I get the very distinct impression that I have to educate you guys on thermal radiation dynamics.

They aren't going to understand anything you write and it's not because they are stupid ... it's because you write gibberish.

Let's take a look.

nemodawson wrote: Let us start with the comment that 15 µ peak thermal radiation is a temperature of 193 °K (-112° F) and temperatures in this range have only been recorded in Antarctica.


How about "Let us start with the comment that 15 µ is a wavelength, not a temperature or range of temperatures"

nemodawson wrote: This curve has been integrated by Planck Constant energy values for each wavelength under the curve.

Only someone who is mathematically incompetent would butcher otherwise easy and straightforward wording to the extent that you have.

Check the wording and feel free to take notes:

Planck's function is integrated over all wavelengths to render the Stefan-Boltzmann law.





nemodawson wrote: That integration confirmed the Stefan-Boltzmann formula for Watts per meter squared.

It didn't confirm Stefan-Boltzman ... it derived it.

nemodawson wrote: ... is completely credible to define CO2's capacity to absorb thermal radiation emitted from the earth during the night.

What is CO2's capacity to absorb thermal radiation, beyond which it is presumably "full" and cannot absorb any more?


.


Sea level varies from place to place in the world - keepit

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
13-01-2020 23:43
nemodawson
☆☆☆☆☆
(30)
James___ wrote:
nemodawson wrote:
James___ wrote:
Harry C wrote:
nemodawson wrote:
Okay. I'll buy it that the current unproved explanation for CO2 causing global warming has changed to some kind of atmospheric nonsense. I will stick however with what we know about the dynamics of thermal radiation, using hard data and solid mathematics. I will not enter into the "gooey" current unproven speculations which ignore actual blackbody thermal radiation Science. I am pushing well-founded knowledge, not speculation.


I would love to hear your falsification of GHG theory, if that's where you are going.

Everything I've read about GHG, the actual physical process and properties are never explained. There's a great deal of people that are taking advantage of what has long been accepted as the function of GHGs.


I think he's actually on your side. His opinion is that because CO2 is only sensitive to a wavelength of 15 angstroms so it doesn't matter. If I were an emperor penguin watching over an egg, this might matter. If CO2 wasn't as sensitive then that wouldn't be good for the chick or would it?
In reality, emperor penguins incubate their chicks when it's about 193º kelvin. After I saw neo mention 193º kelvin I've been wanting to say that. Thank You.
If CO2 behaved differently then that could affect the mating habits and incubation of penguins. I am being totally serious here. Some animals can't mate or incubate their chicks unless environmental conditions allow for it.
In here I am hated for being an environmentalist. I try to keep quiet about that.

Harry, you'll need to forgive me for this. I doubt few people associate 15 angstroms, 193 kelvins with something other than CO2. Anyone can check and they'll probably find out that the only place on Earth that cold is Antarctica in the middle of winter and that male emperor penguins will be incubating eggs that will become chicks. It seems no one else in here is aware of that. (as an environmentalist I am laughing my ass of on that one, do you know what is 193º kelvins and creates methane? A penguin farting!!!). That's friggin hilarious!!!
I am thinking that right now neo is thinking (I wasn't talking about the south pole). But it does help with perspective.
Still, the south pole during winter gives a perspective of CO2. Does that agree with warmer climates? I don't know if it does. The information is lacking.


Okay. I get the very distinct impression that I have to educate you guys on thermal radiation dynamics. Let us start with the comment that 15 µ peak thermal radiation is a temperature of 193 °K (-112° F) and temperatures in this range have only been recorded in Antarctica. While this is true it misses the fact that 15 µ thermal radiation is a curve under which many other temperatures are covered. Please consult a black body thermal radiation graph for multiple temperatures. You will notice that the area under the 15 µ curve contains the range of typical earth night temperatures from 12 µ to 9.5 µ (-25° F to 90° F). This curve has been integrated by Planck Constant energy values for each wavelength under the curve. That integration confirmed the Stefan-Boltzmann formula for Watts per meter squared. The 15 µ peak wavelength thermal radiation curve incorporates typical earth thermal radiation temperatures as well. Therefore using measurements in W/cm^2 for 15 µ thermal radiation emissions (indicating CO2) is completely credible to define CO2's capacity to absorb thermal radiation emitted from the earth during the night.



If we accept what you say as being correct, then 15 µ is about 200 w/m^2, right? https://www.itacanet.org/the-sun-as-a-source-of-energy/part-2-solar-energy-reaching-the-earths-surface/#2.4.-The-Solar-Spectrum
Then if we consider a value of 0.04% of say 200 w/m^2 then we have an effect of about 8 w/m^2. That's actually an insignificant amount of heat.
Of course if that is added on to natural warming, then it intensifies that some.
From here we would need to associate w/m^2 with temperature which could include relative humidity or humiture as it's called any more if you live in some place like Florida. Then we could establish the significance or lack there of of the 8 w/m^2 increase.


Actually using Stefan Boltzmann for 15 µ /193 °K we get 78.68 W/m^2. S-B Constant times temperature to the fourth power equals Watts per meter squared.(5.670373E-8)(193^4)=78.6757 W/m^2. Since our measurements are in "W/cm^2" not "W/m^2" we must divide the "78.68 W/m^2" by "100^2." This returns a value of "0.007868 W/cm^2. The Evans study used two FTIR cameras to measure IR thermal radiation coming from the night sky. After filtering out for water vapor, the cameras recorded thermal radiation emitted by atmospheric trace gases. The measured "W/cm^2" peaked at 15 µ, clearly indicating the CO2 contribution. 15µ/CO2 peak measured "8x10^6 W/cm^2." If one divides this measured value by the Stefan-Boltzmann
calculation for "193 °K" in "W/cm^2" the result is the emissivity of Carbon dioxide. The emissivity is the amount a thermal radiation which CO2 can absorb. The emissivity rate for CO2 is calculated, using the Evans measurement, as "0.00102" or 1/10 of 1%. CO2 only has the capacity to absorb 1/10 of 1% of thermal radiation from the earth. You can draw your own conclusion as to CO2's capacity to be a real greenhouse gas.
14-01-2020 00:16
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(12374)
nemodawson wrote:
James___ wrote:
nemodawson wrote:
James___ wrote:
Harry C wrote:
[quote]nemodawson wrote:
Okay. I'll buy it that the current unproved explanation for CO2 causing global warming has changed to some kind of atmospheric nonsense. I will stick however with what we know about the dynamics of thermal radiation, using hard data and solid mathematics. I will not enter into the "gooey" current unproven speculations which ignore actual blackbody thermal radiation Science. I am pushing well-founded knowledge, not speculation.


I would love to hear your falsification of GHG theory, if that's where you are going.

Everything I've read about GHG, the actual physical process and properties are never explained. There's a great deal of people that are taking advantage of what has long been accepted as the function of GHGs.


I think he's actually on your side. His opinion is that because CO2 is only sensitive to a wavelength of 15 angstroms so it doesn't matter. If I were an emperor penguin watching over an egg, this might matter. If CO2 wasn't as sensitive then that wouldn't be good for the chick or would it?
In reality, emperor penguins incubate their chicks when it's about 193º kelvin. After I saw neo mention 193º kelvin I've been wanting to say that. Thank You.
If CO2 behaved differently then that could affect the mating habits and incubation of penguins. I am being totally serious here. Some animals can't mate or incubate their chicks unless environmental conditions allow for it.
In here I am hated for being an environmentalist. I try to keep quiet about that.

Harry, you'll need to forgive me for this. I doubt few people associate 15 angstroms, 193 kelvins with something other than CO2. Anyone can check and they'll probably find out that the only place on Earth that cold is Antarctica in the middle of winter and that male emperor penguins will be incubating eggs that will become chicks. It seems no one else in here is aware of that. (as an environmentalist I am laughing my ass of on that one, do you know what is 193º kelvins and creates methane? A penguin farting!!!). That's friggin hilarious!!!
I am thinking that right now neo is thinking (I wasn't talking about the south pole). But it does help with perspective.
Still, the south pole during winter gives a perspective of CO2. Does that agree with warmer climates? I don't know if it does. The information is lacking.


Okay. I get the very distinct impression that I have to educate you guys on thermal radiation dynamics. Let us start with the comment that 15 µ peak thermal radiation is a temperature of 193 °K (-112° F) and temperatures in this range have only been recorded in Antarctica. While this is true it misses the fact that 15 µ thermal radiation is a curve under which many other temperatures are covered. Please consult a black body thermal radiation graph for multiple temperatures. You will notice that the area under the 15 µ curve contains the range of typical earth night temperatures from 12 µ to 9.5 µ (-25° F to 90° F). This curve has been integrated by Planck Constant energy values for each wavelength under the curve. That integration confirmed the Stefan-Boltzmann formula for Watts per meter squared. The 15 µ peak wavelength thermal radiation curve incorporates typical earth thermal radiation temperatures as well. Therefore using measurements in W/cm^2 for 15 µ thermal radiation emissions (indicating CO2) is completely credible to define CO2's capacity to absorb thermal radiation emitted from the earth during the night.



If we accept what you say as being correct, then 15 µ is about 200 w/m^2, right? https://www.itacanet.org/the-sun-as-a-source-of-energy/part-2-solar-energy-reaching-the-earths-surface/#2.4.-The-Solar-Spectrum
Then if we consider a value of 0.04% of say 200 w/m^2 then we have an effect of about 8 w/m^2. That's actually an insignificant amount of heat.
Of course if that is added on to natural warming, then it intensifies that some.
From here we would need to associate w/m^2 with temperature which could include relative humidity or humiture as it's called any more if you live in some place like Florida. Then we could establish the significance or lack there of of the 8 w/m^2 increase.


Actually using Stefan Boltzmann for 15 µ /193 °K we get 78.68 W/m^2.
nemodawson wrote:
S-B Constant times temperature to the fourth power equals Watts per meter squared.(5.670373E-8)(193^4)=78.6757 W/m^2. Since our measurements are in "W/cm^2" not "W/m^2" we must divide the "78.68 W/m^2" by "100^2." This returns a value of "0.007868 W/cm^2.

Math error. There is no frequency term in the Stefan-Boltzmann law.
nemodawson wrote:[/b
The Evans study used two FTIR cameras to measure IR thermal radiation coming from the night sky. After filtering out for water vapor,

Not possible.
[b]nemodawson wrote:
the cameras recorded thermal radiation emitted by atmospheric trace gases.

Nope. They recorded IR from the atmosphere.
nemodawson wrote:
The measured "W/cm^2" peaked at 15 µ, clearly indicating the CO2 contribution. 15µ/CO2 peak measured "8x10^6 W/cm^2." If one divides this measured value by the Stefan-Boltzmann
calculation for "193 °K" in "W/cm^2" the result is the emissivity of Carbon dioxide.

WRONG. You cannot measure emissivity that way. Math error. There is no frequency term in the Stefan-Boltzmann law or in emissivity.
nemodawson wrote:
The emissivity is the amount a thermal radiation which CO2 can absorb.

WRONG. Emissivity is how well a surface emits light according to the Stefan-Boltzmann law.
nemodawson wrote:
The emissivity rate for CO2 is calculated, using the Evans measurement, as "0.00102" or 1/10 of 1%.

Bad math. Emissivity is not calculable. It must be measured. This is now how you measure it.
nemodawson wrote:
CO2 only has the capacity to absorb 1/10 of 1% of thermal radiation from the earth. You can draw your own conclusion as to CO2's capacity to be a real greenhouse gas.

Absorption of surface emitted IR by the atmosphere does not warm the Earth. You cannot create energy out of nothing.


The Parrot Killer
14-01-2020 00:42
James___
★★★★★
(2628)
neo, Stefan-Boltzmann doesn't apply to CO2. A gas is not a solid. If you check your math, you did not account for CO2 being 0.04% of the surface area in question. An example is if you had a gaseous cube 1 cm tall with a 1 m^2 surface area, then that is what you calculated, that surface area. When the 0.04% of atmospheric gases is taken into consideration then it's about 3.12 w/m^2 which is less than the 8 w/m^2 that I came up with.
And with gases, the ideal gas law would work just fine and it's PV = nRT. Why this matters is that gases will radiate heat proportional to how excited they are. Why the tubes. And if CO2 is refracting 15 µ which we know it does, this should heat the wall of the tube even more.
This is where a relationship between incoming IR and the composition of atmospheric gases could be calculated. It would be a variable in the ideal gas law to allow for refraction of solar radiation. I don't think this has been done yet.
Edited on 14-01-2020 00:43
14-01-2020 01:21
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(12374)
James___ wrote:
neo, Stefan-Boltzmann doesn't apply to CO2.

It applies to all matter, including CO2.
James___ wrote:
A gas is not a solid.

Irrelevant.
James___ wrote:
If you check your math, you did not account for CO2 being 0.04% of the surface area in question.

Not all gas molecules are the same size.
James___ wrote:
An example is if you had a gaseous cube 1 cm tall with a 1 m^2 surface area, then that is what you calculated, that surface area. When the 0.04% of atmospheric gases is taken into
consideration then it's about 3.12 w/m^2 which is less than the 8 w/m^2 that I came up with.

Surface area is not measured in watts.
James___ wrote:
And with gases, the ideal gas law would work just fine and it's PV = nRT. Why this matters is that gases will radiate heat proportional to how excited they are.

Heat is not radiance.
James___ wrote:
Why the tubes. And if CO2 is refracting 15 µ which we know it does, this should heat the wall of the tube even more.

Refraction is not radiance.
James___ wrote:
This is where a relationship between incoming IR and the composition of atmospheric gases could be calculated.

No relationship.
James___ wrote:
It would be a variable in the ideal gas law to allow for refraction of solar radiation.

The ideal gas law has no term for refraction.
James___ wrote:
I don't think this has been done yet.

Because the ideal gas law has no term for refraction.


The Parrot Killer
RE: reacting to claim Stefan-Boltzmann math wrong.14-01-2020 02:29
nemodawson
☆☆☆☆☆
(30)
Into the Night wrote:
James___ wrote:
neo, Stefan-Boltzmann doesn't apply to CO2.

It applies to all matter, including CO2.
James___ wrote:
A gas is not a solid.

Irrelevant.
James___ wrote:
If you check your math, you did not account for CO2 being 0.04% of the surface area in question.

Not all gas molecules are the same size.
James___ wrote:
An example is if you had a gaseous cube 1 cm tall with a 1 m^2 surface area, then that is what you calculated, that surface area. When the 0.04% of atmospheric gases is taken into
consideration then it's about 3.12 w/m^2 which is less than the 8 w/m^2 that I came up with.

Surface area is not measured in watts.
James___ wrote:
And with gases, the ideal gas law would work just fine and it's PV = nRT. Why this matters is that gases will radiate heat proportional to how excited they are.

Heat is not radiance.
James___ wrote:
Why the tubes. And if CO2 is refracting 15 µ which we know it does, this should heat the wall of the tube even more.

Refraction is not radiance.
James___ wrote:
This is where a relationship between incoming IR and the composition of atmospheric gases could be calculated.

No relationship.
James___ wrote:
It would be a variable in the ideal gas law to allow for refraction of solar radiation.

The ideal gas law has no term for refraction.
James___ wrote:
I don't think this has been done yet.

Because the ideal gas law has no term for refraction.


I am reacting to the claim that I made a math mistake because there is no frequency in Stefan-Boltzmann. This claim again shows a complete ignorance of thermal radiation dynamics. Are you aware of the Wien's displacement law which has been shown to be a quantum formula relating peak wavelength to temperature for a blackbody thermal radiation curve. Using Wien's displacement law the 15 µ peak wavelength is displaced by an 193 °K temperature for the 15 µ blackbody thermal radiation curve. For thermal radiation the peak wavelength identifies the temperature and the temperature identifies the peak wavelength. Thus, the wavelength identified on the Evans graph as 15 µ also identifies a temperature which can be used in the Stefan-Boltzmann formula. As to the FTIR camera not being able to be used to collect thermal-radiation data, your argument is with Evans et.al. Below is a link to the Evans paper:

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=2ahUKEwiS4JqN4szmAhXhJzQIHYluCF4QFjAAegQIBhAI&url=https://ams.confex.com/ams/pdfpapers/100737.pdf&usg=AOvVaw1elFd05VoWIA3AteN-fp4S
Edited on 14-01-2020 02:42
14-01-2020 02:50
James___
★★★★★
(2628)
MarcusR wrote:
James___ wrote:
Heat is not contained in anything. It has no content.

Heat can be conserved. This was one of Wake's arguments with CO2. Because of it's "k" value (https://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/thermal-conductivity-d_429.html) that CO2 actually cooled the atmosphere. Basically it doesn't propagate heat very well.

This is kind of why myself and some others think that empirical testing needs to be done. Then we wouldn't have these questions. Instead we would have answers.


Actually, the greenhouse effect is strictly speaking a radiative effect and empirical testing has been done. The latter was made by i.e Feldman et al., 2015 "Observational determination of surface radiative forcing by CO2 from 2000 to 2010"
https://www.nature.com/articles/nature14240
It was published in Nature so there is a paywall..... But if You want to read more abouth the tech used for the meassurement take a look here:
https://www.arm.gov/capabilities/instruments/aeri



Actually, it isn't. When they say >> together with ancillary measurements and thoroughly corroborated radiative transfer calculations <<
That's not a direct observation.
14-01-2020 05:46
James___
★★★★★
(2628)
neo, your application is wrong and your math might be as well. CO2 is only 0.04% of the atmosphere. You haven't shown where your calculations reflect that. When you say x w/m^2 you should be saying x * 0.04 w/m^2.
I'd rather stick with Boltzmann's ideal gas law. As I mentioned previously, when the mixture of atmospheric gases are modified, then that would need to be added as a variable to Boltzmann's work. When you use the Stefan-Boltzmann equation, you're ignoring what % of atmospheric gases are CO2. You're not adding that variable.
With what I think would be interesting and this is with Boltzmann's work, if N2 levels were decreased by 20% and O2 levels increased by 20%, that would show where a variable is needed in his work to allow for how the composition of gases changes their ability to retain or release heat.
Then when discussing how decreasing O2 levels and increasing CO2 levels influence our atmosphere, there would be a better understanding of it. At present though the debate tells me that there's much left to be understood. It is like Dr. Pederson (Denmark) said about CO2, we believe. Why does someone with a Ph.D. use a conditional term like "believe" for when discussing CO2?
Is it okay if I agree with Dr. Pederson?
Edited on 14-01-2020 06:02
14-01-2020 14:06
MarcusRProfile picture★☆☆☆☆
(111)
James___ wrote:
Is it okay if I agree with Dr. Pederson?


You may ofcourse agree with him, but in order to move forward on the matter we need to enter quite a few more definitions and facts into the equation than just peak wavelength of EMR, how a emission/absortion curve looks like for any given substance/molecule and most importantly - apply that to our atmosphere since that is where all the "action" takes place regarding the greenhouse effect.

I still recomend anyone really interested in this to read Grant W Petty's - A first Course in Atmospheric radiation.

If we jump forward rather quickly (and skip properties of radiation, EM spectrum, reflection and refraction, thermal emission etc) we start with atmospehric transmission. The intensity of a given wavelength (I) falls off exponentially with distance.
[img][/img]

That is not just valid for the atmopshere, but how EM propagates through any (homogenous) medium. For now that is. There are a few complications before:
1. There are more than absortion that's able to attenuate EM. Scattering has to come into the equation, and to be precise in the "beta" variable above.
2. It is quite likely that the strength of the absortion or attenuation will vary signifficantly along it's path. We will need to start with a differential equation to the formula above.
Besides that we also have to take inte radiation can be scattered INTO the direction of propagation. So strangely enough, at any given point in the atmosphere the intensity for a wavelength can increase.

Now we are starting to have the basics.

If we then look on extinction over a finite path, we will end up with the general form of Beer's law:
[img][/img]
From that several quite important definitions. I can post photos of them aswell, but that would make this post quite long.

Now fast forward through atmospheric emission and absortion by atmospehric gasses (ok, they are very important for the discussion), BUT, lets enter Broadband fluxes and heating rates. Afterall, we are not in a monocromatic situation and we are kindoff interested in the basics of heating rates, right ?

So:
[img][/img]
As You can see it is NOT just a matter of looking at a single wavelength, or a single distance for that matter either. Part A in the equation represents net heating/cooling thorugh radiative exchange with the lower boundary in the atmospehere. Part B is the same but with reference to TOA (Top of the Atmosphere). Part C and D are collectively representing radiative exchange with level z and all other levels in the atmosphere (z-prime).

I think I will leave it at that for now. Take a short moment to think about the part A-D in the equation, and the consequences when you apply all the data that has to go into it. Just part C & D is mind boggling at first, but gives a hint why the devil is in the details.
14-01-2020 14:07
MarcusRProfile picture★☆☆☆☆
(111)
MarcusR wrote:
James___ wrote:
Is it okay if I agree with Dr. Pederson?


You may ofcourse agree with him, but in order to move forward on the matter we need to enter quite a few more definitions and facts into the equation than just peak wavelength of EMR, how a emission/absortion curve looks like for any given substance/molecule and most importantly - apply that to our atmosphere since that is where all the "action" takes place regarding the greenhouse effect.

I still recomend anyone really interested in this to read Grant W Petty's - A first Course in Atmospheric radiation.

If we jump forward rather quickly (and skip properties of radiation, EM spectrum, reflection and refraction, thermal emission etc) we start with atmospehric transmission. The intensity of a given wavelength (I) falls off exponentially with distance.
[img][/img]

That is not just valid for the atmopshere, but how EM propagates through any (homogenous) medium. For now that is. There are a few complications before:
1. There are more than absortion that's able to attenuate EM. Scattering has to come into the equation, and to be precise in the "beta" variable above.
2. It is quite likely that the strength of the absortion or attenuation will vary signifficantly along it's path. We will need to start with a differential equation to the formula above.
Besides that we also have to take inte radiation can be scattered INTO the direction of propagation. So strangely enough, at any given point in the atmosphere the intensity for a wavelength can increase.

Now we are starting to have the basics.

If we then look on extinction over a finite path, we will end up with the general form of Beer's law:
[img][/img]
From that several quite important definitions. I can post photos of them aswell, but that would make this post quite long.

Now fast forward through atmospheric emission and absortion by atmospehric gasses (ok, they are very important for the discussion), BUT, lets enter Broadband fluxes and heating rates. Afterall, we are not in a monocromatic situation and we are kindoff interested in the basics of heating rates, right ?

So:
[img][/img]
As You can see it is NOT just a matter of looking at a single wavelength, or a single distance for that matter either. Part A in the equation represents net heating/cooling thorugh radiative exchange with the lower boundary in the atmospehere. Part B is the same but with reference to TOA (Top of the Atmosphere). Part C and D are collectively representing radiative exchange with level z and all other levels in the atmosphere (z-prime).

I think I will leave it at that for now. Take a short moment to think about the part A-D in the equation, and the consequences when you apply all the data that has to go into it. Just part C & D is mind boggling at first, but gives a hint why the devil is in the details.



Ok, it looks like none of the images from the book made it into the post... Anyone can PM me to explain how that works ??
14-01-2020 15:59
James___
★★★★★
(2628)
MarcusR wrote:


Ok, it looks like none of the images from the book made it into the post... Anyone can PM me to explain how that works ??


Just above the reply button is a browse button. When you click on that, then it opens up the folder on your computer. I about always add a link from where I have that image stored online. I know sometimes it won't let me attach an image to include in the post.
14-01-2020 16:46
James___
★★★★★
(2628)
MarcusR wrote:
James___ wrote:
Is it okay if I agree with Dr. Pederson?


You may ofcourse agree with him, but in order to move forward on the matter we need to enter quite a few more definitions and facts into the equation than just peak wavelength of EMR, how a emission/absortion curve looks like for any given substance/molecule and most importantly - apply that to our atmosphere since that is where all the "action" takes place regarding the greenhouse effect.

I still recomend anyone really interested in this to read Grant W Petty's - A first Course in Atmospheric radiation.

If we jump forward rather quickly (and skip properties of radiation, EM spectrum, reflection and refraction, thermal emission etc) we start with atmospehric transmission. The intensity of a given wavelength (I) falls off exponentially with distance.
[img][/img]

That is not just valid for the atmopshere, but how EM propagates through any (homogenous) medium. For now that is. There are a few complications before:
1. There are more than absortion that's able to attenuate EM. Scattering has to come into the equation, and to be precise in the "beta" variable above.
2. It is quite likely that the strength of the absortion or attenuation will vary signifficantly along it's path. We will need to start with a differential equation to the formula above.
Besides that we also have to take inte radiation can be scattered INTO the direction of propagation. So strangely enough, at any given point in the atmosphere the intensity for a wavelength can increase.

Now we are starting to have the basics.

If we then look on extinction over a finite path, we will end up with the general form of Beer's law:
[img][/img]
From that several quite important definitions. I can post photos of them aswell, but that would make this post quite long.

Now fast forward through atmospheric emission and absortion by atmospehric gasses (ok, they are very important for the discussion), BUT, lets enter Broadband fluxes and heating rates. Afterall, we are not in a monocromatic situation and we are kindoff interested in the basics of heating rates, right ?

So:
[img][/img]
As You can see it is NOT just a matter of looking at a single wavelength, or a single distance for that matter either. Part A in the equation represents net heating/cooling thorugh radiative exchange with the lower boundary in the atmospehere. Part B is the same but with reference to TOA (Top of the Atmosphere). Part C and D are collectively representing radiative exchange with level z and all other levels in the atmosphere (z-prime).

I think I will leave it at that for now. Take a short moment to think about the part A-D in the equation, and the consequences when you apply all the data that has to go into it. Just part C & D is mind boggling at first, but gives a hint why the devil is in the details.



Marcus, one of the issues is if the incoming IR is only about 200 w/m^2 at 15 µ which is CO2's absorption spectrum. That means the maximum amount of solar IR that CO2 can interact with is about 8 w/m"2. To increase that amount then we would have to show where the incoming solar IR that CO2 interacts with stays in the atmosphere.
What is interesting is when the 2 images in the link are considered. Scientists also say that ozone doesn't cool the troposphere by preventing solar IR from entering the atmosphere. Yet the stratosphere cooled as O3 levels decreased. But that was blamed on CO2.
https://photos.app.goo.gl/E2aNFARUmcz6KLML9
Solar spectrum peaks is within the O3 (ozone) absorption spectrum. This link is about solar energy reaching the Earth's surface, where the 2nd graph came from. https://www.itacanet.org/the-sun-as-a-source-of-energy/part-2-solar-energy-reaching-the-earths-surface/#2.4.-The-Solar-Spectrum.

I'm starting to think the basis for saying CO2 warms the atmosphere above what it can is because either an incremental or exponential increase is being claimed.
The same claim can be made for ozone in the stratosphere. With CO2 is the claim that if CO2 1 km above the Earth's surface absorbs and emits emr then when a CO2 molecule at 0.9 km above the Earth's surface absorbs solar IR that both values are added together or create a greater increase?
If such a claim is made, then observing how solar IR heats 2 different volumes of atmospheric gases exposed directly to solar IR. And with different levels of CO2, a difference in their ability to heat a black body (the container around them) then that wouldn't require accepting the work by different people who are in disagreement.
Competing arguments

There have been a number of theories as to why the rise in emissions from CO2 and other gases has not been mirrored in temperatures since the late 1990s.
https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-24874060

That is from 2013. Scientists then went and changed how they collected data from ocean temperatures, and then different claims on where the heat in the ocean is. People would have to search "missing heat" because there are too many competing claims to post in here.
Edited on 14-01-2020 17:15
14-01-2020 18:09
MarcusRProfile picture★☆☆☆☆
(111)
James___ wrote:

Marcus, one of the issues is if the incoming IR is only about 200 w/m^2 at 15 µ which is CO2's absorption spectrum. That means the maximum amount of solar IR that CO2 can interact with is about 8 w/m"2. To increase that amount then we would have to show where the incoming solar IR that CO2 interacts with stays in the atmosphere.
What is interesting is when the 2 images in the link are considered. Scientists also say that ozone doesn't cool the troposphere by preventing solar IR from entering the atmosphere. Yet the stratosphere cooled as O3 levels decreased. But that was blamed on CO2.

I'm starting to think the basis for saying CO2 warms the atmosphere above what it can is because either an incremental or exponential increase is being claimed.
The same claim can be made for ozone in the stratosphere. With CO2 is the claim that if CO2 1 km above the Earth's surface absorbs and emits emr then when a CO2 molecule at 0.9 km above the Earth's surface absorbs solar IR that both values are added together or create a greater increase?




I hope I will manage to post a link to the book, because the answer to both Your questions lies partly in the 4 different parts I named A-D above (or that Petty named).

If You think about that, thoose partial derivates (it shows in the picture...) contains the coupling between layer z and different layers in the atmopshere. So it will deal with both how EM is emitted by one component in the atmopshere and absorbed at level z in the atmosphere - AND vice versa. The process goes two-ways !

I am not quite sure what You wanted to show given the curves You referenced to. Yes, incoming EM from the sun will be affected in the same way that the EM emitted by earth or the atmosphere is. The absortivity of a CO2 molecule can't tell the difference of the origin of propagating EM. The same conditions will apply in part A-D of the partial derivates regardless of origin of the propagating EM.

I will try to upload the photos according to the tip I got from You.
14-01-2020 18:15
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(12374)
nemodawson wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
James___ wrote:
neo, Stefan-Boltzmann doesn't apply to CO2.

It applies to all matter, including CO2.
James___ wrote:
A gas is not a solid.

Irrelevant.
James___ wrote:
If you check your math, you did not account for CO2 being 0.04% of the surface area in question.

Not all gas molecules are the same size.
James___ wrote:
An example is if you had a gaseous cube 1 cm tall with a 1 m^2 surface area, then that is what you calculated, that surface area. When the 0.04% of atmospheric gases is taken into
consideration then it's about 3.12 w/m^2 which is less than the 8 w/m^2 that I came up with.

Surface area is not measured in watts.
James___ wrote:
And with gases, the ideal gas law would work just fine and it's PV = nRT. Why this matters is that gases will radiate heat proportional to how excited they are.

Heat is not radiance.
James___ wrote:
Why the tubes. And if CO2 is refracting 15 µ which we know it does, this should heat the wall of the tube even more.

Refraction is not radiance.
James___ wrote:
This is where a relationship between incoming IR and the composition of atmospheric gases could be calculated.

No relationship.
James___ wrote:
It would be a variable in the ideal gas law to allow for refraction of solar radiation.

The ideal gas law has no term for refraction.
James___ wrote:
I don't think this has been done yet.

Because the ideal gas law has no term for refraction.


I am reacting to the claim that I made a math mistake because there is no frequency in Stefan-Boltzmann. This claim again shows a complete ignorance of thermal radiation dynamics.

No, it shows you don't understand the math or the Stefan-Boltzmann law. You can't just add terms to the law.
nemodawson wrote:
Are you aware of the Wien's displacement law which has been shown to be a quantum formula relating peak wavelength to temperature for a blackbody thermal radiation curve.

I am aware of Wein's law.
nemodawson wrote:
Using Wien's displacement law the 15 µ peak wavelength is displaced by an 193 °K temperature for the 15 µ blackbody thermal radiation curve.

For thermal radiation the peak wavelength identifies the temperature and the temperature identifies the peak wavelength.

Thus, the wavelength identified on the Evans graph as 15 µ also identifies a temperature which can be used in the Stefan-Boltzmann formula.

Math error. Conversion of curve to point. Use of dependent variable as independent variable. Use of dependent variable as independent variable. Wein's law describes a curve, not a point. You cannot invert the law and apply that inversion to the Stefan-Boltzmann law.
nemodawson wrote:
As to the FTIR camera not being able to be used to collect thermal-radiation data, your argument is with Evans et.al. Below is a link to the Evans paper:

Never made that argument.


The Parrot Killer
14-01-2020 18:25
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(12374)
MarcusR wrote:
James___ wrote:
Is it okay if I agree with Dr. Pederson?


You may ofcourse agree with him, but in order to move forward on the matter we need to enter quite a few more definitions and facts into the equation than just peak wavelength of EMR, how a emission/absortion curve looks like for any given substance/molecule and most importantly - apply that to our atmosphere since that is where all the "action" takes place regarding the greenhouse effect.

No gas or vapor has the capability to warm the Earth. You cannot create energy out of nothing.
MarcusR wrote:
I still recomend anyone really interested in this to read Grant W Petty's - A first Course in Atmospheric radiation.

If we jump forward rather quickly (and skip properties of radiation, EM spectrum, reflection and refraction, thermal emission etc) we start with atmospehric transmission. The intensity of a given wavelength (I) falls off exponentially with distance.
[img][/img]

That is not just valid for the atmopshere, but how EM propagates through any (homogenous) medium. For now that is. There are a few complications before:

No complication necessary. You can and should treat the Earth as a whole.
As You can see it is NOT just a matter of looking at a single wavelength, or a single distance for that matter either. Part A in the equation represents net heating/cooling thorugh radiative exchange with the lower boundary in the atmospehere. Part B is the same but with reference to TOA (Top of the Atmosphere). Part C and D are collectively representing radiative exchange with level z and all other levels in the atmosphere (z-prime).

I think I will leave it at that for now. Take a short moment to think about the part A-D in the equation, and the consequences when you apply all the data that has to go into it. Just part C & D is mind boggling at first, but gives a hint why the devil is in the details.
[/quote]
There is no frequency term in the 1st or 2nd laws of thermodynamics or the Stefan-Boltzmann law. No matter how you try, you can't introduce one without denying these laws.


The Parrot Killer
14-01-2020 18:27
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(6646)
nemodawson wrote: I am reacting to the claim that I made a math mistake because there is no frequency in Stefan-Boltzmann.

Anyone who has claimed to have done his research shouldn't have to be told this on this site.

nemodawson wrote: This claim again shows a complete ignorance of thermal radiation dynamics.

Nope. The claim shows an understanding of Stefan-Boltzmann and it shows a courtesy being extended to you to inform you of the extent to which you are embarrassing yourself.

nemodawson wrote: Are you aware of the Wien's displacement law which has been shown to be a quantum formula relating peak wavelength to temperature for a blackbody thermal radiation curve.

Yes, I have heard of it. Now, are you ready for a little bit more of the education that you missed?

Wien's is not Stefan-Boltzmann. Stefan-Boltzmann is the law governing radiance per temperature ... and it has no frequency term. Wien's governs peak frequency per temperature and has no emissivity term.

One more time in case you missed it:

Wien's is not Stefan Boltzmann. Please don't confuse them. Please don't conflate them. Please don't try to use them interchangeably.


.


Sea level varies from place to place in the world - keepit

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
Edited on 14-01-2020 18:28
14-01-2020 18:49
James___
★★★★★
(2628)
nemodawson wrote:

I am reacting to the claim that I made a math mistake because there is no frequency in Stefan-Boltzmann. This claim again shows a complete ignorance of thermal radiation dynamics.

Into the Night wrote:
No, it shows you don't understand the math or the Stefan-Boltzmann law. You can't just add terms to the law.



I'm confused ITN. This is the same argument that you've used for the last 5+ years. This is why response to his initial post was because now we have another ITN/IBDM individual in this forum.
Edited on 14-01-2020 19:02
14-01-2020 19:01
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(6646)
James___ wrote: I'm confused ITN. This is the same argument that you've used for the last 5+ years.

James__, are you confused because you expect science to change more frequently than every five years?


.


Sea level varies from place to place in the world - keepit

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
14-01-2020 21:40
James___
★★★★★
(2628)
IBdaMann wrote:
James___ wrote: I'm confused ITN. This is the same argument that you've used for the last 5+ years.

James__, are you confused because you expect science to change more frequently than every five years?


.



Nah, it's just that neo gets the application wrong like you and isn't.
When they realized their work, it wasn't applied to everything the way it is today.
Steel was the original black body and current was passed THROUGH it. And then it radiated.
By the way, can you explain why the mesopause is about -100º C.? Then if we consider that heat coming from there is warming the tropopause.....
Then the tropopause is -51º C., and the heat from that is warming the Earth.
2 excellent sources of heat. Maybe heat isn't properly measured?
14-01-2020 21:45
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(12374)
James___ wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
James___ wrote: I'm confused ITN. This is the same argument that you've used for the last 5+ years.

James__, are you confused because you expect science to change more frequently than every five years?


.



Nah, it's just that neo gets the application wrong like you and isn't.
When they realized their work, it wasn't applied to everything the way it is today.
Steel was the original black body and current was passed THROUGH it. And then it radiated.
By the way, can you explain why the mesopause is about -100º C.? Then if we consider that heat coming from there is warming the tropopause.....
Then the tropopause is -51º C., and the heat from that is warming the Earth.
2 excellent sources of heat. Maybe heat isn't properly measured?


Word salad. There is no original black body. Steel was not made by passing current through it. Even today, it is largely made by a fire, typically coal, oil, or natural gas. All matter radiates. It never stops radiating. It never begins to radiate. It is always radiating. You cannot warm the surface using a colder gas. You cannot warm a warmer gas using a colder gas.


The Parrot Killer
Edited on 14-01-2020 21:46
14-01-2020 22:38
James___
★★★★★
(2628)
Into the Night wrote:
James___ wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
James___ wrote: I'm confused ITN. This is the same argument that you've used for the last 5+ years.

James__, are you confused because you expect science to change more frequently than every five years?


.



Nah, it's just that neo gets the application wrong like you and isn't.
When they realized their work, it wasn't applied to everything the way it is today.
Steel was the original black body and current was passed THROUGH it. And then it radiated.
By the way, can you explain why the mesopause is about -100º C.? Then if we consider that heat coming from there is warming the tropopause.....
Then the tropopause is -51º C., and the heat from that is warming the Earth.
2 excellent sources of heat. Maybe heat isn't properly measured?


Word salad. There is no original black body. Steel was not made by passing current through it. Even today, it is largely made by a fire, typically coal, oil, or natural gas. All matter radiates. It never stops radiating. It never begins to radiate. It is always radiating. You cannot warm the surface using a colder gas. You cannot warm a warmer gas using a colder gas.



Your head must be in a fog...oops, you live in Seattle, it is. See the Sun lately?

It's ironic but O3 might cool the tropopause the way CO2 cools the mesopause. And yet when the ozone layer became less "is", the stratosphere cooled because of insufficient "is". I think we've fücked the atmosphere the way you've föcked up Seattle.It used to be a nice place to live but now it's just another S.F.
14-01-2020 23:39
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(12374)
James___ wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
James___ wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
James___ wrote: I'm confused ITN. This is the same argument that you've used for the last 5+ years.

James__, are you confused because you expect science to change more frequently than every five years?


.



Nah, it's just that neo gets the application wrong like you and isn't.
When they realized their work, it wasn't applied to everything the way it is today.
Steel was the original black body and current was passed THROUGH it. And then it radiated.
By the way, can you explain why the mesopause is about -100º C.? Then if we consider that heat coming from there is warming the tropopause.....
Then the tropopause is -51º C., and the heat from that is warming the Earth.
2 excellent sources of heat. Maybe heat isn't properly measured?


Word salad. There is no original black body. Steel was not made by passing current through it. Even today, it is largely made by a fire, typically coal, oil, or natural gas. All matter radiates. It never stops radiating. It never begins to radiate. It is always radiating. You cannot warm the surface using a colder gas. You cannot warm a warmer gas using a colder gas.



Your head must be in a fog...oops, you live in Seattle, it is. See the Sun lately?

It's ironic but O3 might cool the tropopause the way CO2 cools the mesopause. And yet when the ozone layer became less "is", the stratosphere cooled because of insufficient "is". I think we've fücked the atmosphere the way you've föcked up Seattle.It used to be a nice place to live but now it's just another S.F.

Word salad. Seattle area is still a nice place to live. I don't live in the city. It's not a nice place to live.


The Parrot Killer
15-01-2020 03:25
James___
★★★★★
(2628)
Harvey, this is for you. The issue that I had with neo was he said what isn't and ib not damann said, Stefan-Boltzmann. The Earth lacks a satisfactory surface for such calculations. The desert would be different than the ocean than Antarctica. Even the mountains would have a different value just as cities and urban jungles would. And I'm fairly certain that if they checked the outgoing IR, they'd find that it's all within the limits of plants, trees, rocks, water, etc. They'd find out most of it's refracted solar R on the surface and not from within the Earth.
The incoming solar IR would have to heat some part of the interior of the planet for it to emit IR.
With a person's skin, it's refracted unless it's coming from a person's core. 2 different things. About all heat signatures picked up from people are what is radiating from their core.
Kind of why I'm willing to be dismissive of the Stefan-Boltzmann constant with regards to atmospheric chemistry and physics.


@neo, water is about 1,000 times denser than atmospheric gasses and steel is about 7.8 times denser than water and dirt is about 150% (1.5x) denser than water. The Earth actually emits very little IR of it's own. About all of it is refracted.
And that would be very difficult to get right. An extraordinarily difficult thing to do unless you guesstimate. Or use GooglEarth and go over the planets surface in detail. Accuracy does matter. Kind of why I support modifying Boltzmann's work.
It could show how the composition of atmospheric gases matter in the atmosphere. And a little item often neglected, I think Mauna Loa is where they monitor global CO2 levels. I'll do some searching to see specifically how they come up with a global average. But when I read that's where they take their readings from, I find that concerning because it's down wind from Los Angeles, California. And if I am wrong, then someone can correct me.
Edited on 15-01-2020 03:48
15-01-2020 04:08
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(12374)
James___ wrote:
Harvey, this is for you. The issue that I had with neo was he said what isn't and ib not damann said, Stefan-Boltzmann. The Earth lacks a satisfactory surface for such calculations.

The Earth doesn't have a surface???? What are YOU standing on???
James___ wrote:
The desert would be different than the ocean than Antarctica.

Even the mountains would have a different value just as cities and urban jungles would.[/quote]
Emissivity changes dramatically in the space of a few inches.
James___ wrote:
And I'm fairly certain that if they checked the outgoing IR, they'd find that it's all within the limits of plants, trees, rocks, water, etc. They'd find out most of it's refracted solar R on the surface and not from within the Earth.

Refraction is not reflection.
James___ wrote:
The incoming solar IR would have to heat some part of the interior of the planet for it to emit IR.

Nope. Not possible or necessary.
James___ wrote:
With a person's skin, it's refracted unless it's coming from a person's core.

Nope. Not possible or necessary.
James___ wrote:
2 different things. About all heat signatures picked up from people are what is radiating from their core.

Nope. Not possible or necessary.
James___ wrote:
Kind of why I'm willing to be dismissive of the Stefan-Boltzmann constant with regards to atmospheric chemistry and physics.

You just ignore it. You deny science.
James___ wrote:
@neo, water is about 1,000 times denser than atmospheric gasses and steel is about 7.8 times denser than water and dirt is about 150% (1.5x) denser than water. The Earth actually emits very little IR of it's own.

Wrong. All matter emits light. On Earth, that light is typically infrared.
James___ wrote:
About all of it is refracted.

Nope. Reflection is not refraction.
James___ wrote:
And that would be very difficult to get right.

You've been eating too much of your word salad. Try English. It works better.
James___ wrote:
An extraordinarily difficult thing to do unless you guesstimate.

Guesstimate is guessing.
James___ wrote:
Or use GooglEarth and go over the planets surface in detail.

They don't have Earth's surface in detail.
James___ wrote:
Accuracy does matter. Kind of why I support modifying Boltzmann's work.

No, you are DENYING the Stefan-Boltzmann law completely.
James___ wrote:
It could show how the composition of atmospheric gases matter in the atmosphere. And a little item often neglected,

Nope. No gas or vapor has the capability to warm the Earth. You can't create energy out of nothing.
James___ wrote:
I think Mauna Loa is where they monitor global CO2 levels.

Nope. They don't even monitor CO2 levels at Mauna Loa. Their data is cooked. It is useless.

It is not possible to measure global CO2 concentrations using only a few stations. CO2 is not uniformly distributed in the atmosphere.
James___ wrote:
I'll do some searching to see specifically how they come up with a global average.

They don't.
James___ wrote:
But when I read that's where they take their readings from, I find that concerning because it's down wind from Los Angeles, California.

Prevailing winds are from Hawaii to California.
James___ wrote:
And if I am wrong, then someone can correct me.

Prevailing winds are from Hawaii to the West Coast of the United States and Canada.

With only a few notable exceptions, prevailing winds move from west to east.


The Parrot Killer
15-01-2020 06:49
James___
★★★★★
(2628)
You missed it ITN, I am sitting. With the surface of the earth, let's talk solid surface, okay? It's like a geodesic dome. We can consider any body of water a filter. Maybe even a transducer?
Can emitted IR be converted by another medium? At the same time, does the Marian Trench emit the same IR as Pike's Peak or Mount Everest?
And what if the IR isn't emitted perpendicular to the tangent of the earth's surface, what then?
Hopefully you'll understand this that this isn't personal because you live in Tacoma and not Ruston, but WTF do you base your reasoning for Stefan-Boltzmann on?
The next thing I know is that you'll tell me that Point No Point is a point.
15-01-2020 06:58
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(12374)
James___ wrote:
You missed it ITN, I am sitting. With the surface of the earth, let's talk solid surface, okay? It's like a geodesic dome. We can consider any body of water a filter. Maybe even a transducer?
Can emitted IR be converted by another medium? At the same time, does the Marian Trench emit the same IR as Pike's Peak or Mount Everest?
And what if the IR isn't emitted perpendicular to the tangent of the earth's surface, what then?
Hopefully you'll understand this that this isn't personal because you live in Tacoma and not Ruston, but WTF do you base your reasoning for Stefan-Boltzmann on?
The next thing I know is that you'll tell me that Point No Point is a point.


Try English. It works better.


The Parrot Killer
15-01-2020 17:58
James___
★★★★★
(2628)
Into the Night wrote:
James___ wrote:
You missed it ITN, I am sitting. With the surface of the earth, let's talk solid surface, okay? It's like a geodesic dome. We can consider any body of water a filter. Maybe even a transducer?
Can emitted IR be converted by another medium? At the same time, does the Marian Trench emit the same IR as Pike's Peak or Mount Everest?
And what if the IR isn't emitted perpendicular to the tangent of the earth's surface, what then?
Hopefully you'll understand this that this isn't personal because you live in Tacoma and not Ruston, but WTF do you base your reasoning for Stefan-Boltzmann on?
The next thing I know is that you'll tell me that Point No Point is a point.


Try English. It works better.



Что Я только сказать нет? Что тогда?
16-01-2020 07:52
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(2922)
MarcusR wrote:
tmiddles wrote:Pat Franks ...I'd love your take on him Marcus.
From the link:
"...extra energy from excess CO2—the annual anthropogenic greenhouse gas contribution—is far smaller, according to Frank, at 0.036 Wm–2,"
https://www.hoover.org/research/flawed-climate-models"...-0.035 Wm(-2)" Quite a difference......Anyone using sources like this will find it difficult to be published...

The difference between 0.035 and 0.036 is quite a difference? I think I misunderstood your objection.

Frank's is not as I understand it coming up with that number himself but presenting the accepted figure.

The 0.036 Wm-2 he presents is, to my understanding and his, the accepted number for the CHANGE per year, just the increase, in CO2 forcing.

This conversational link may be more interesting:
https://www.econlib.org/archives/2016/12/hooper_and_hend_2.html

"Pat FrankDec 17 2016 at 3:27pmChip, that 0.035 Wm^-2 is the average annual change in CO2 forcing since 1979, as calculated a couple of years ago.The annual change in CO2 forcing is far more relevant a number than the total change since 1900 (1.68W/m2)"

So the 0.036 is the change per year and his whole premise is that this is a really small thing to claim you can actually measure with a high degree of accuracy. His premise is not where that 0.036 number comes from.

It's like if you said you heard a mouse fart across the river and were presented with a calculation showing the scale of just how small a sound that is as compared with other sounds that can drowned it out, using the accepted numbers for a mouse fart at approximately the distance across the river. It is entirely an argument about the confidence you can have in your measurements.

So for example:
MarcusR wrote:...empirical testing has been done. ...Feldman
https://www.nature.com/articles/nature14240
Franks would ask what is the confidence interval for this study?

MarcusR wrote:
So what GHG's such as Water Vapour, CO2, CH4 etc does is just to keep more of the energy here in the earth/atmosphere system.
A simplified but Good explanation of the green house effect and the role of GHG's can be found here:
https://scied.ucar.edu/longcontent/greenhouse-effect
Really nice post Marcus.

nemodawson wrote:This new view of alleged greenhouse gases as somehow absorbing solar radiation within the "troposphere" and warming the Earth is your latest Scientific fraud..."Emissivity," which some of you claim doesn't exist,...
And how is that? Don't all atmosphere's contribute to a higher ground level temperature? Shouldn't you back that up and not just say it? And as far as I know no one has ever claimed emissivity doesn't exist at all on this board (and we get REALLY stupid sh#t here too).

Harry C wrote:I'd like to pull my chair up to the big boys table and hear all the stories about the science to defeat this hoax.
You will get there if that's your goal. Anyone who goes online to seek a predetermined conclusion to a question will find it in the end, even if it's dead wrong.
watch flat earthers "debate" scientists
Harry C wrote:
Everything I've read about GHG, the actual physical process and properties are never explained.
Let me give it a shot. When radiance reaches matter, say a molecule of gas, it is either absorbed, reflected or transmitted. Water vapor will absorb the radiance coming from the ground of Earth. Nitrogen will transmit it (it'll pass right through). Do you believe that is happening or that that is a hoax?
Do you believe that it's warmer at night at ground level with clouds in the sky (lots of water vapor) as opposed to a clear night (only a little water vapor)?
I'm not a scientist either and I find the examples I personally experience to be the easiest to wrap my head around.

"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
16-01-2020 08:51
MarcusRProfile picture★☆☆☆☆
(111)
tmiddles wrote:
MarcusR wrote:
tmiddles wrote:Pat Franks ...I'd love your take on him Marcus.
From the link:
"...extra energy from excess CO2—the annual anthropogenic greenhouse gas contribution—is far smaller, according to Frank, at 0.036 Wm–2,"
https://www.hoover.org/research/flawed-climate-models"...-0.035 Wm(-2)" Quite a difference......Anyone using sources like this will find it difficult to be published...



The difference between 0.035 and 0.036 is quite a difference? I think I misunderstood your objection.

Frank's is not as I understand it coming up with that number himself but presenting the accepted figure.

The 0.036 Wm-2 he presents is, to my understanding and his, the accepted number for the CHANGE per year, just the increase, in CO2 forcing.

This conversational link may be more interesting:
https://www.econlib.org/archives/2016/12/hooper_and_hend_2.html

"Pat FrankDec 17 2016 at 3:27pmChip, that 0.035 Wm^-2 is the average annual change in CO2 forcing since 1979, as calculated a couple of years ago.The annual change in CO2 forcing is far more relevant a number than the total change since 1900 (1.68W/m2)"


No, my objections was that he did not say it is the rate of change. That is obviously an incorrect use of source.

That we still are an increase in RF the to our emissions of CO2 is ofcourse really, really bad.

BUT, it is not the increase that is really yroublesome, because that we can change. The double is that we are at 1.95 W/m2 AND counting.
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/2016GL071930
That figure we will have to live with for a long, time. And the sun is right now in it's low over the 11 year cycle, well you get the point
16-01-2020 09:15
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(2922)
MarcusR wrote:
No, my objections was that he did not say it is the rate of change.

Well it's the change for one year but no matter WE know what he means so we can comment on it.

MarcusR wrote:
That we still are an increase in RF the to our emissions of CO2 is ofcourse really, really bad.
I didn't understand that. RF = Radiative Forcing. That increased CO2 means increase radiative forcing has two general outcomes in this scenario:
1- It poses a problem
2- It's insignificant
Right? It's not necessarily a problem just because it is happening.

MarcusR wrote:...we will have to live with for a long, time. And the sun is right now in it's low over the 11 year cycle, well you get the point
I get that it COULD be really bad. I also get that the science is relying heavily on it's empirical evidence to confirm future models and the point Pat Fanks makes is that specifically that piece, the "I can tell you we've had an temperature increase of ___ " might be grossly overstated in it's confidence.

This matters for two important reasons as I see it.
1- You create problems for future scientific work when you overstate the accuracy of past data
2- You allow those who wish to the opportunity to fairly easily discredit the entire enterprise.
Edited on 16-01-2020 09:20
16-01-2020 09:44
MarcusRProfile picture★☆☆☆☆
(111)
MarcusR wrote:
James___ wrote:
Is it okay if I agree with Dr. Pederson?


You may ofcourse agree with him, but in order to move forward on the matter we need to enter quite a few more definitions and facts into the equation than just peak wavelength of EMR, how a emission/absortion curve looks like for any given substance/molecule and most importantly - apply that to our atmosphere since that is where all the "action" takes place regarding the greenhouse effect.

I still recomend anyone really interested in this to read Grant W Petty's - A first Course in Atmospheric radiation.

If we jump forward rather quickly (and skip properties of radiation, EM spectrum, reflection and refraction, thermal emission etc) we start with atmospehric transmission. The intensity of a given wavelength (I) falls off exponentially with distance.
[img][/img]

That is not just valid for the atmopshere, but how EM propagates through any (homogenous) medium. For now that is. There are a few complications before:
1. There are more than absortion that's able to attenuate EM. Scattering has to come into the equation, and to be precise in the "beta" variable above.
2. It is quite likely that the strength of the absortion or attenuation will vary signifficantly along it's path. We will need to start with a differential equation to the formula above.
Besides that we also have to take inte radiation can be scattered INTO the direction of propagation. So strangely enough, at any given point in the atmosphere the intensity for a wavelength can increase.

Now we are starting to have the basics.

If we then look on extinction over a finite path, we will end up with the general form of Beer's law:
[img][/img]
From that several quite important definitions. I can post photos of them aswell, but that would make this post quite long.

Now fast forward through atmospheric emission and absortion by atmospehric gasses (ok, they are very important for the discussion), BUT, lets enter Broadband fluxes and heating rates. Afterall, we are not in a monocromatic situation and we are kindoff interested in the basics of heating rates, right ?

So:
[img][/img]
As You can see it is NOT just a matter of looking at a single wavelength, or a single distance for that matter either. Part A in the equation represents net heating/cooling thorugh radiative exchange with the lower boundary in the atmospehere. Part B is the same but with reference to TOA (Top of the Atmosphere). Part C and D are collectively representing radiative exchange with level z and all other levels in the atmosphere (z-prime).

I think I will leave it at that for now. Take a short moment to think about the part A-D in the equation, and the consequences when you apply all the data that has to go into it. Just part C & D is mind boggling at first, but gives a hint why the devil is in the details.


Link to picture of how intensity of EM falls with distance:
https://ibb.co/St55rcj

Picture of the general form of Beers law
https://ibb.co/Ln2hVSq
This is not just important as it is - not just for describing extinction ove a finite path, buth from several definitions from it.

Radiative heating:
https://ibb.co/1nqpNPJ
Now, this is the big one and it will perhaps require a bit more of an explination, but the different parts of it (A-D) is what I described above. This is why You can not just look at a single wavelength of a propagating EM wave, nor just look at the atmosphere as a "slab".
16-01-2020 09:57
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(2922)
MarcusR wrote:
IMGGUR'd for you:

how intensity of EM falls with distance:


Picture of the general form of Beers law:


Radiative heating:


Sadly I personally can't do much with these. My math skills aren't up to it.
Edited on 16-01-2020 09:58
16-01-2020 10:02
MarcusRProfile picture★☆☆☆☆
(111)
tmiddles wrote:
It's not necessarily a problem just because it is happening.


I think that subject should be another thread. What I post in this thread is just the scientific basis of why the current warming we are experiencing is caused by us humans, and not due to natural causes (such as changes in W/m2 from the sun).
16-01-2020 10:23
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(2922)
MarcusR wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
It's not necessarily a problem just because it is happening.
...this thread is just the scientific basis of why the current warming we are experiencing is caused by us humans, and not due to natural causes (such as changes in W/m2 from the sun).
True True, that's what the thread is about.
jboy751 wrote:
are there any papers by well reputed experts that state that the climate chage is man made?

This is the thread about accuracy of temperature measurements where I brought up Franks: Earth surface temperature measurements
16-01-2020 13:06
MarcusRProfile picture★☆☆☆☆
(111)
tmiddles wrote:
MarcusR wrote:
IMGGUR'd for you:

how intensity of EM falls with distance:


Picture of the general form of Beers law:


Radiative heating:


Sadly I personally can't do much with these. My math skills aren't up to it.


Basically, theese are only the formulas - You need to fill them with proper values as well in order to do something with them.

Look at the first equation just as a explination HOW any GHG affects a propagating EM waves in the atmosphere (or in any other substance/material for that matter).

If we have a propagating EM wave of a specific wavelength (lambda) that travels through the atmosphere where NO gas neither absorbs nor scatters, the the Beta variable will be 0, so regardless of the distance (x) the EM wave is neither absorbed (conversion of the enery of the radiation to heat or chemical energy) or scattered (redirection of radiation out of the original direction of propagation). Therefore, if the Beta-value is 0 - the intensity of the propagating wave will be the same at distance x. (exp(0) = 1)

Now if we have absortion at a specific wavelength (just look here for instance)
https://webbook.nist.gov/cgi/cbook.cgi?ID=C124389&Type=IR-SPEC&Index=0#IR-SPEC
you will see that CO2 absorbs at certain wavelengths. If You want to have a number, go to HITRAN instead:
https://hitran.org/

Then you can (after a bit of manipulation) find the Beta-value (which is possitive, hence the negative in the parenthesis). Then just add distance and vioala - You have found the intensity of the propagating EM-wave at the distance x, given a certain absortion at the given wavelength and the intensity at the origin.
Edited on 16-01-2020 13:07
16-01-2020 15:28
Harry CProfile picture★☆☆☆☆
(140)
tmiddles wrote:
Let me give it a shot. When radiance reaches matter, say a molecule of gas, it is either absorbed, reflected or transmitted. Water vapor will absorb the radiance coming from the ground of Earth. Nitrogen will transmit it (it'll pass right through). Do you believe that is happening or that that is a hoax?

Thanks for taking a shot but that's a simplified summary which I have found all over the net rather than the level of detail I'm looking for. If they can model climate, surely they can model what the carbon dioxide molecule does, and I'm not talking about an animation. I want to see that.


You learn something new every day if you are lucky!
Edited on 16-01-2020 15:29
16-01-2020 16:17
MarcusRProfile picture★☆☆☆☆
(111)
Harry C wrote:
If they can model climate, surely they can model what the carbon dioxide molecule does, and I'm not talking about an animation. I want to see that.


This page is a good start
http://www.wag.caltech.edu/home/jang/genchem/infrared.htm
16-01-2020 16:55
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(6646)
tmiddles wrote:Frank's is not as I understand it coming up with that number himself but presenting the accepted figure.

Going back to how you aren't a scientist, there is no such thing as science that is based on a democratic vote. There is no such thing as science that is determined by any sort of consensus. There are no constants in science that are simply "the accepted figure."

tmiddles wrote: The 0.036 Wm-2 he presents is, to my understanding and his, the accepted number for the CHANGE per year, just the increase, in CO2 forcing.

So you have transitioned to religious dogma ... preferring to discuss "forcings," i.e. miracles that, by definition, violate physics, based on consensus.

Great. As long as we are clear.


tmiddles wrote:
MarcusR wrote:A simplified but Good explanation of the green house effect and the role of GHG's can be found here:
https://scied.ucar.edu/longcontent/greenhouse-effect
Really nice post Marcus.

This article is absolutely fabulous from a fundamentalist warmizombie's perspective. From a science perspective, however, the article describes the standard violation of Stefan-Boltzmann that forms the basis for much of the WACKY Global Warming dogma. From a fundamentalist warmizombie's perspective, the article uses the very appealing subjunctive to draw the worshiper into imaginary realms of how the earth would be without God's grace ... er, um, I mean how the earth would be without greenhouse gases, i.e. a freezing cold hell on earth. From a science perspective, well, the subjunctive is not permitted except to show a theory false.

tmiddles wrote: And how is that? Don't all atmosphere's contribute to a higher ground level temperature?

Do the earth's oceans boil away? Your absolute denial makes you a perfect Global Warming dupe.

tmiddles wrote:
Harry C wrote:
Everything I've read about GHG, the actual physical process and properties are never explained.
Let me give it a shot. When radiance reaches matter, say a molecule of gas, it is either absorbed, reflected or transmitted. Water vapor will absorb the radiance coming from the ground of Earth. Nitrogen will transmit it (it'll pass right through). Do you believe that is happening or that that is a hoax?

I think Harry C and others owe you a healthy round of applause for nicely filling out the second half of the Greenhouse Effect science-denial. You artfully set the stage for thermodynamics to be egregiously violated by claiming that earth's temperature increases (i.e. additional energy is produced) via a sequence of energy form-changes. Brilliant.

tmiddles wrote: Do you believe that it's warmer at night at ground level with clouds in the sky (lots of water vapor) as opposed to a clear night (only a little water vapor)?

It's a good thing you asked if he "believes" this.

I have a theory. Tell me what you think.

I believe that you should see a correlation between colder air flowing into a region and a decrease in the average temperature for that region.

I believe that you should see a correlation between warmer air flowing into a region and an increase in the average temperature for that region.

I firmly believe that if colder air brings clouds into a region then you will see a correlation between increased clouds and colder temperatures in that region.

I firmly believe that if warmer air brings clouds into a region then you will see a correlation between increased clouds and warmer temperatures in that region.

Do you agree or disagree?

tmiddles wrote: I'm not a scientist either and I find the examples I personally experience to be the easiest to wrap my head around.

To wrap your head around what? Clearly not science. You would rather die than accept any idea/concept/notion that threatens your religious faith. You have convinced yourself that the moon's surface never gets hotter than the earth's surface. It takes a special type of dumbass to do that to oneself, like getting a swastika tattooed on your face. At least with the tattoo you can claim that you were young and stupid.


.


Sea level varies from place to place in the world - keepit

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
16-01-2020 17:12
MarcusRProfile picture★☆☆☆☆
(111)
IBdaMann wrote:
From a science perspective, however, the article describes the standard violation of Stefan-Boltzmann
.


Exactly WHAT do you mean by that statement ? If you could describe that I could look it up and try to clearify it.

But don't go into 2nd law argument because that is answered in the Third equation I posted above. Among others....
Edited on 16-01-2020 17:13
16-01-2020 17:38
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(6646)
MarcusR wrote: Exactly WHAT do you mean by that statement ?

Science has already answered these questions that you are trying to address.

Temperature and radiance always move in the same direction. Period. If you tell me that the earth's radiance has decreased then you are telling me that the earth's temperature has decreased. Period. You can't get around physics.

If anyone tells you that "greenhouse gases" or any substance whatsoever causes an increase in earth's average global temperature with a corresponding decrease in earth's radiance (e.g. because it "slows" its escape into space), then you can pull out Stefan-Boltzmann and call "BOOLSCHIT!" If anyone tells you that the earth's radiance remains the same but with an increased average global temperature then you can likewise pull out Stefan-Boltzmann and call "BOOLSCHIT!"

So let's answer your question thoroughly. How do you believe the earth's average global temperature increases because of greenhouse gas or any other substance that is not additional energy?


.


Sea level varies from place to place in the world - keepit

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
Page 4 of 8<<<23456>>>





Join the debate man made or natural:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
Empirical Evidence for Man-made Global Warming15729-05-2020 06:56
Made a graph of low equilibrium climate sensitivity estimates to show that the IPCC's best estimate o203-03-2020 02:17
22 Reasons to be Skeptical of Man-Made Global Warming21629-01-2020 05:52
The Only Way To End The Economic Trade War Is Avoid The "Currency Middle Man"120-01-2020 06:06
A Part of Natural Climate Variation?827-11-2019 22:29
▲ 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