Remember me
▼ Content

Points of Agreement


Points of Agreement26-04-2017 20:30
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
OK, shall we try to pick our points of agreement and discuss those we are not in agreement on?

1. The laws of thermodynamics are supposedly only expressed for "closed systems". Don - do you understand that you can proclaim the universe a closed system? Into the night - do you understand that you cannot express energy as a singularity?

2. CO2 - I think that the disagreements mostly have to do with the separate means by which gases lose heat in the atmosphere. Firstly there is the problem of getting the energy to the Earth's surface. This is the phase which Leitwolf is discussing. Then there is the effects of that energy on the surface once it has arrived and has been absorbed (and not reflected). This is what Intothenight is trying to use mass effects and to discount details of the 2nd law. The sum effect of his ideas is the same but the details differ slightly. Then there is the actual radiation of energy from the Earth's surface which is also a problem since it is being treated as a Bell Curve but is not. Therefore it is NOT a perfect black body radiator. Then there is the actual measured method by which heat is lost through the Troposphere that the True Believers deny 100% despite the fact that even NASA and NOAA are in total agreement with the rest of us "deniers".

3. The actual effects of man. This is the sum total effect that was generated originally by "environmentalists" whose basic idea is to blame everything from floods and tornados to droughts on man. This group is generally young losers that want to blame their non-success in life on others. The trouble is that they too often age and become somewhat if not totally successful and have to be replaced with other losers.

4. What the future holds. Well, it isn't death by fire and we all know that.
26-04-2017 22:55
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10270)
Wake wrote:
OK, shall we try to pick our points of agreement and discuss those we are not in agreement on?

1. The laws of thermodynamics are supposedly only expressed for "closed systems". Don - do you understand that you can proclaim the universe a closed system? Into the night - do you understand that you cannot express energy as a singularity?

Never said it was. You seem to think I am for some reason.
Wake wrote:
2. CO2 - I think that the disagreements mostly have to do with the separate means by which gases lose heat in the atmosphere. Firstly there is the problem of getting the energy to the Earth's surface. This is the phase which Leitwolf is discussing. Then there is the effects of that energy on the surface once it has arrived and has been absorbed (and not reflected).
This is what Intothenight is trying to use mass effects and to discount details of the 2nd law.

I am not attempting any such thing. What makes you think I am? What 'detail' of the 2nd law do you think I am ignoring?
Wake wrote:
The sum effect of his ideas is the same but the details differ slightly. Then there is the actual radiation of energy from the Earth's surface which is also a problem since it is being treated as a Bell Curve but is not.

Only you are treating it as a curve of any kind. The radiance of Earth is just a scalar value.
Wake wrote:
Therefore it is NOT a perfect black body radiator.

Nobody is saying it is.
Wake wrote:
Then there is the actual measured method by which heat is lost through the Troposphere that the True Believers deny 100% despite the fact that even NASA and NOAA are in total agreement with the rest of us "deniers".

Love a good storm! Gliders have to be one of the prettiest aircraft in the sky.
Wake wrote:
3. The actual effects of man. This is the sum total effect that was generated originally by "environmentalists" whose basic idea is to blame everything from floods and tornados to droughts on man. This group is generally young losers that want to blame their non-success in life on others. The trouble is that they too often age and become somewhat if not totally successful and have to be replaced with other losers.

Man does not affect the 2nd law of thermodynamics. This is a theory of science, and does not involve people at all.
Wake wrote:
4. What the future holds. Well, it isn't death by fire and we all know that.

As they say...past performance does not guarantee future performance.

Statistics does not have the power of prediction. It loses that power as a result of the use of probability and random numbers. It can only summarize the past. It cannot predict the future.


The Parrot Killer
Edited on 26-04-2017 22:56
26-04-2017 23:14
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
OK, shall we try to pick our points of agreement and discuss those we are not in agreement on?

1. The laws of thermodynamics are supposedly only expressed for "closed systems". Don - do you understand that you can proclaim the universe a closed system? Into the night - do you understand that you cannot express energy as a singularity?

Never said it was. You seem to think I am for some reason.
Wake wrote:
2. CO2 - I think that the disagreements mostly have to do with the separate means by which gases lose heat in the atmosphere. Firstly there is the problem of getting the energy to the Earth's surface. This is the phase which Leitwolf is discussing. Then there is the effects of that energy on the surface once it has arrived and has been absorbed (and not reflected).
This is what Intothenight is trying to use mass effects and to discount details of the 2nd law.

I am not attempting any such thing. What makes you think I am? What 'detail' of the 2nd law do you think I am ignoring?
Wake wrote:
The sum effect of his ideas is the same but the details differ slightly. Then there is the actual radiation of energy from the Earth's surface which is also a problem since it is being treated as a Bell Curve but is not.

Only you are treating it as a curve of any kind. The radiance of Earth is just a scalar value.
Wake wrote:
Therefore it is NOT a perfect black body radiator.

Nobody is saying it is.
Wake wrote:
Then there is the actual measured method by which heat is lost through the Troposphere that the True Believers deny 100% despite the fact that even NASA and NOAA are in total agreement with the rest of us "deniers".

Love a good storm! Gliders have to be one of the prettiest aircraft in the sky.
Wake wrote:
3. The actual effects of man. This is the sum total effect that was generated originally by "environmentalists" whose basic idea is to blame everything from floods and tornados to droughts on man. This group is generally young losers that want to blame their non-success in life on others. The trouble is that they too often age and become somewhat if not totally successful and have to be replaced with other losers.

Man does not affect the 2nd law of thermodynamics. This is a theory of science, and does not involve people at all.
Wake wrote:
4. What the future holds. Well, it isn't death by fire and we all know that.

As they say...past performance does not guarantee future performance.

Statistics does not have the power of prediction. It loses that power as a result of the use of probability and random numbers. It can only summarize the past. It cannot predict the future.


As a point of discussion you denied that a colder point could emit energy to a warmer. The 2nd law explicitly allows that on the condition that in the process both source and sink lose energy.

I thought that we had gone through this and you had grudgingly admitted so? This was not any sort of major point but one that can be used by opposition to claim that you don't understand what you're talking about. Better to know the details as well as the overall effects.

I am treating the theoretical emissivity of the Earth as a Bell Curve. We both know that it is nothing of the sort in reality. But energy in = energy out.

So despite the fact that dinosaurs roamed the Earth with atmospheric CO2 levels of 24% and temperatures very close to what we have had for most of the time there has been life on Earth that you think that past history doesn't predict future performance?
27-04-2017 02:19
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
Wake wrote:
So despite the fact that dinosaurs roamed the Earth with atmospheric CO2 levels of 24% and ...

That'll be another Wake "fact"
27-04-2017 02:24
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10270)
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
OK, shall we try to pick our points of agreement and discuss those we are not in agreement on?

1. The laws of thermodynamics are supposedly only expressed for "closed systems". Don - do you understand that you can proclaim the universe a closed system? Into the night - do you understand that you cannot express energy as a singularity?

Never said it was. You seem to think I am for some reason.
Wake wrote:
2. CO2 - I think that the disagreements mostly have to do with the separate means by which gases lose heat in the atmosphere. Firstly there is the problem of getting the energy to the Earth's surface. This is the phase which Leitwolf is discussing. Then there is the effects of that energy on the surface once it has arrived and has been absorbed (and not reflected).
This is what Intothenight is trying to use mass effects and to discount details of the 2nd law.

I am not attempting any such thing. What makes you think I am? What 'detail' of the 2nd law do you think I am ignoring?
Wake wrote:
The sum effect of his ideas is the same but the details differ slightly. Then there is the actual radiation of energy from the Earth's surface which is also a problem since it is being treated as a Bell Curve but is not.

Only you are treating it as a curve of any kind. The radiance of Earth is just a scalar value.
Wake wrote:
Therefore it is NOT a perfect black body radiator.

Nobody is saying it is.
Wake wrote:
Then there is the actual measured method by which heat is lost through the Troposphere that the True Believers deny 100% despite the fact that even NASA and NOAA are in total agreement with the rest of us "deniers".

Love a good storm! Gliders have to be one of the prettiest aircraft in the sky.
Wake wrote:
3. The actual effects of man. This is the sum total effect that was generated originally by "environmentalists" whose basic idea is to blame everything from floods and tornados to droughts on man. This group is generally young losers that want to blame their non-success in life on others. The trouble is that they too often age and become somewhat if not totally successful and have to be replaced with other losers.

Man does not affect the 2nd law of thermodynamics. This is a theory of science, and does not involve people at all.
Wake wrote:
4. What the future holds. Well, it isn't death by fire and we all know that.

As they say...past performance does not guarantee future performance.

Statistics does not have the power of prediction. It loses that power as a result of the use of probability and random numbers. It can only summarize the past. It cannot predict the future.


As a point of discussion you denied that a colder point could emit energy to a warmer. The 2nd law explicitly allows that on the condition that in the process both source and sink lose energy.

Are you seriously suggesting that the Sun is somehow putting in the work to make heat flow the 'wrong way' (the classic Clausius refrigeration model)? How does carbon dioxide reach to sunlight to push thermal energy 'uphill'?
Wake wrote:
I thought that we had gone through this and you had grudgingly admitted so? This was not any sort of major point but one that can be used by opposition to claim that you don't understand what you're talking about. Better to know the details as well as the overall effects.
Heat flows from hot to cold. You need work from a larger context to produce the illusion that heat flows from cold to hot. That larger context still means heat flows from hot to cold. Always...always...always.
Wake wrote:
I am treating the theoretical emissivity of the Earth as a Bell Curve. We both know that it is nothing of the sort in reality. But energy in = energy out.
Why are you using a curve at all? Emissivity AND radiance are both specifically color-blind. They are scalars.
Wake wrote:
So despite the fact that dinosaurs roamed the Earth with atmospheric CO2 levels of 24% and temperatures very close to what we have had for most of the time there has been life on Earth that you think that past history doesn't predict future performance?

We really don't know the conditions the dinosaurs had. We weren't there to see. All we have is speculations out of the data that we have collected. It isn't science or history. It is speculation.

You are making a compositional error (a fallacy) in what I said. Let me clarify.

Historical events cannot predict. Only closed systems have the power of prediction. History and science are open systems. History, because it has no 'start point', and science, because there is no limitation on what subject a theory may be built for.

Closed systems are like mathematics. We define what it is, how it works, and its boundaries. It is locked in those boundaries and definitions. There is more than one Domain of mathematics, each with its own founding axioms. Each contains the power of prediction within them. The Domain we commonly use in science is also known as the Real Math Domain. It is the one most often taught in schools and university science curriculums.

Science only gains the power of prediction by formalizing a theory into mathematical form.

History has no such formalizing. It's power to 'predict' is actually a probability problem, which has no power of prediction due to the use of random numbers and the math behind their generation.

Statistics, which is a summarizing tool for existing data (past events), is also dependent on probability math and random numbers. It also does not have the power of prediction.

The power of prediction in math is simple to illustrate:

If A = 4 and B = 7, and C=20, and C = A * B + C, what is D? This formula is useful for any A, B, or C. We can predict what D will be in each case. This is the kind of thing science theories are formalized into. The formalization assigns meanings to A, B, C, and D, and any other necessary variables and constants for the formula being devised.

The upshot of all this is simply that history has no 'formula' that we can use to predict with. We only have probabilities, which have no power of prediction at all. It is the random number and how it is generated and transposed into the Real Domain that kills any power of prediction in probabilities and statistics.


The Parrot Killer
27-04-2017 04:28
Frescomexico
★★☆☆☆
(179)
Wake wrote:
OK, shall we try to pick our points of agreement and discuss those we are not in agreement on?

1. The laws of thermodynamics are supposedly only expressed for "closed systems". Don - do you understand that you can proclaim the universe a closed system? Into the night - do you understand that you cannot express energy as a singularity?

2. CO2 - I think that the disagreements mostly have to do with the separate means by which gases lose heat in the atmosphere. Firstly there is the problem of getting the energy to the Earth's surface. This is the phase which Leitwolf is discussing. Then there is the effects of that energy on the surface once it has arrived and has been absorbed (and not reflected). This is what Intothenight is trying to use mass effects and to discount details of the 2nd law. The sum effect of his ideas is the same but the details differ slightly. Then there is the actual radiation of energy from the Earth's surface which is also a problem since it is being treated as a Bell Curve but is not. Therefore it is NOT a perfect black body radiator. Then there is the actual measured method by which heat is lost through the Troposphere that the True Believers deny 100% despite the fact that even NASA and NOAA are in total agreement with the rest of us "deniers".

3. The actual effects of man. This is the sum total effect that was generated originally by "environmentalists" whose basic idea is to blame everything from floods and tornados to droughts on man. This group is generally young losers that want to blame their non-success in life on others. The trouble is that they too often age and become somewhat if not totally successful and have to be replaced with other losers.

4. What the future holds. Well, it isn't death by fire and we all know that.


You have done an excellent job of summarizing the debate, and long overdue. I do understand that the universe is a closed system, an said so in an earlier post. What I had trouble with was how two open systems, the earth and the tropospheric gases, could still be governed by the second law of thermodynamics, which supposedly only applies to isolated systems.
Edited on 27-04-2017 04:29
27-04-2017 17:58
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
Frescomexico wrote:
Wake wrote:
OK, shall we try to pick our points of agreement and discuss those we are not in agreement on?

1. The laws of thermodynamics are supposedly only expressed for "closed systems". Don - do you understand that you can proclaim the universe a closed system? Into the night - do you understand that you cannot express energy as a singularity?

2. CO2 - I think that the disagreements mostly have to do with the separate means by which gases lose heat in the atmosphere. Firstly there is the problem of getting the energy to the Earth's surface. This is the phase which Leitwolf is discussing. Then there is the effects of that energy on the surface once it has arrived and has been absorbed (and not reflected). This is what Intothenight is trying to use mass effects and to discount details of the 2nd law. The sum effect of his ideas is the same but the details differ slightly. Then there is the actual radiation of energy from the Earth's surface which is also a problem since it is being treated as a Bell Curve but is not. Therefore it is NOT a perfect black body radiator. Then there is the actual measured method by which heat is lost through the Troposphere that the True Believers deny 100% despite the fact that even NASA and NOAA are in total agreement with the rest of us "deniers".

3. The actual effects of man. This is the sum total effect that was generated originally by "environmentalists" whose basic idea is to blame everything from floods and tornados to droughts on man. This group is generally young losers that want to blame their non-success in life on others. The trouble is that they too often age and become somewhat if not totally successful and have to be replaced with other losers.

4. What the future holds. Well, it isn't death by fire and we all know that.


You have done an excellent job of summarizing the debate, and long overdue. I do understand that the universe is a closed system, an said so in an earlier post. What I had trouble with was how two open systems, the earth and the tropospheric gases, could still be governed by the second law of thermodynamics, which supposedly only applies to isolated systems.


As I wrote elsewhere - there is a completely closed system when you show energy in and energy out. The emissions from the Sun move energy from the source to the sink - Earth - and Earth moves that same energy into empty space - also a source to a sink.

The argument really boils down to not if this occurs but if the CO2 delays this movement of energy and so warms the Earth due to this delay.

Well, the motion of the energy that we are talking about is in the Troposphere and 2/3rds of this energy is dispatched into the Tropopause via conduction. This means that there is absolutely no difference between CO2 and other gases. As for radiation this occurs in other gases that have absorption bands in the spectrum of the Sun's emissions and not CO2 which absorbs energy only from the far lower end of the Sun's emissions and the far upper end of the IR emissions of the Earth. In short the is a dearth of energy in the absorption bands of CO2. If you look at this chart you can see that virtually none of the energy of the sun in the absorption bands of CO2 make it to the Earth's surface.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_irradiance#/media/File:Solar_Spectrum.png

Above the Tropopause in the lower Stratosphere the gases are so thin that the only way that anything can release energy into space is via radiation and so again there is extremely little difference between CO2 and the other gases. In fact, since atmospheric CO2 holds far less energy than say H2O (by an order of something like 100,000:1) there is almost no way that this rare gas can affect the atmosphere in any measureable manner.
27-04-2017 19:43
litesong
★★★★★
(2297)
"old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner wake-me-up" woofed:... atmospheric CO2 holds far less energy than say H2O (by an order of something like 100,000:1).....

Good you mention increasing phase-change infra-red energy absorbing water vapor, since water vapor increases are feedback mechanisms to increasing amounts of numerous man-made non-phase change infra-red energy absorbing GHG emissions....& their feedbacks.
& here I thot ya was one of dem AGW denier liar whiners who only talked 'bout lowly CO2 only & never mentioned feedbacks & other man-made GHGs.... & their feedbacks.
Good fer ya!
27-04-2017 23:02
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10270)
Frescomexico wrote:
Wake wrote:
OK, shall we try to pick our points of agreement and discuss those we are not in agreement on?

1. The laws of thermodynamics are supposedly only expressed for "closed systems". Don - do you understand that you can proclaim the universe a closed system? Into the night - do you understand that you cannot express energy as a singularity?

2. CO2 - I think that the disagreements mostly have to do with the separate means by which gases lose heat in the atmosphere. Firstly there is the problem of getting the energy to the Earth's surface. This is the phase which Leitwolf is discussing. Then there is the effects of that energy on the surface once it has arrived and has been absorbed (and not reflected). This is what Intothenight is trying to use mass effects and to discount details of the 2nd law. The sum effect of his ideas is the same but the details differ slightly. Then there is the actual radiation of energy from the Earth's surface which is also a problem since it is being treated as a Bell Curve but is not. Therefore it is NOT a perfect black body radiator. Then there is the actual measured method by which heat is lost through the Troposphere that the True Believers deny 100% despite the fact that even NASA and NOAA are in total agreement with the rest of us "deniers".

3. The actual effects of man. This is the sum total effect that was generated originally by "environmentalists" whose basic idea is to blame everything from floods and tornados to droughts on man. This group is generally young losers that want to blame their non-success in life on others. The trouble is that they too often age and become somewhat if not totally successful and have to be replaced with other losers.

4. What the future holds. Well, it isn't death by fire and we all know that.


You have done an excellent job of summarizing the debate, and long overdue. I do understand that the universe is a closed system, an said so in an earlier post. What I had trouble with was how two open systems, the earth and the tropospheric gases, could still be governed by the second law of thermodynamics, which supposedly only applies to isolated systems.


The universe isn't a system. It is neither an open nor a closed system. It just is.

An isolated system is basically what you define it to be. As long as you are not considering anything but the surface and troposphere for heat flow, that can be considered an isolated system.

The instant you start considering anything beyond the surface and the troposphere, you have changed context. That old isolated system isn't isolated anymore and can't be used as such.


The Parrot Killer
Edited on 27-04-2017 23:03
27-04-2017 23:07
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10270)
Wake wrote:
Frescomexico wrote:
Wake wrote:
OK, shall we try to pick our points of agreement and discuss those we are not in agreement on?

1. The laws of thermodynamics are supposedly only expressed for "closed systems". Don - do you understand that you can proclaim the universe a closed system? Into the night - do you understand that you cannot express energy as a singularity?

2. CO2 - I think that the disagreements mostly have to do with the separate means by which gases lose heat in the atmosphere. Firstly there is the problem of getting the energy to the Earth's surface. This is the phase which Leitwolf is discussing. Then there is the effects of that energy on the surface once it has arrived and has been absorbed (and not reflected). This is what Intothenight is trying to use mass effects and to discount details of the 2nd law. The sum effect of his ideas is the same but the details differ slightly. Then there is the actual radiation of energy from the Earth's surface which is also a problem since it is being treated as a Bell Curve but is not. Therefore it is NOT a perfect black body radiator. Then there is the actual measured method by which heat is lost through the Troposphere that the True Believers deny 100% despite the fact that even NASA and NOAA are in total agreement with the rest of us "deniers".

3. The actual effects of man. This is the sum total effect that was generated originally by "environmentalists" whose basic idea is to blame everything from floods and tornados to droughts on man. This group is generally young losers that want to blame their non-success in life on others. The trouble is that they too often age and become somewhat if not totally successful and have to be replaced with other losers.

4. What the future holds. Well, it isn't death by fire and we all know that.


You have done an excellent job of summarizing the debate, and long overdue. I do understand that the universe is a closed system, an said so in an earlier post. What I had trouble with was how two open systems, the earth and the tropospheric gases, could still be governed by the second law of thermodynamics, which supposedly only applies to isolated systems.


As I wrote elsewhere - there is a completely closed system when you show energy in and energy out. The emissions from the Sun move energy from the source to the sink - Earth - and Earth moves that same energy into empty space - also a source to a sink.

The argument really boils down to not if this occurs but if the CO2 delays this movement of energy and so warms the Earth due to this delay.


Such a delay would involve effectively reducing radiance while increasing temperature. That violates the Stefan-Boltzmann law.


The Parrot Killer
27-04-2017 23:15
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
Frescomexico wrote:
Wake wrote:
OK, shall we try to pick our points of agreement and discuss those we are not in agreement on?

1. The laws of thermodynamics are supposedly only expressed for "closed systems". Don - do you understand that you can proclaim the universe a closed system? Into the night - do you understand that you cannot express energy as a singularity?

2. CO2 - I think that the disagreements mostly have to do with the separate means by which gases lose heat in the atmosphere. Firstly there is the problem of getting the energy to the Earth's surface. This is the phase which Leitwolf is discussing. Then there is the effects of that energy on the surface once it has arrived and has been absorbed (and not reflected). This is what Intothenight is trying to use mass effects and to discount details of the 2nd law. The sum effect of his ideas is the same but the details differ slightly. Then there is the actual radiation of energy from the Earth's surface which is also a problem since it is being treated as a Bell Curve but is not. Therefore it is NOT a perfect black body radiator. Then there is the actual measured method by which heat is lost through the Troposphere that the True Believers deny 100% despite the fact that even NASA and NOAA are in total agreement with the rest of us "deniers".

3. The actual effects of man. This is the sum total effect that was generated originally by "environmentalists" whose basic idea is to blame everything from floods and tornados to droughts on man. This group is generally young losers that want to blame their non-success in life on others. The trouble is that they too often age and become somewhat if not totally successful and have to be replaced with other losers.

4. What the future holds. Well, it isn't death by fire and we all know that.


You have done an excellent job of summarizing the debate, and long overdue. I do understand that the universe is a closed system, an said so in an earlier post. What I had trouble with was how two open systems, the earth and the tropospheric gases, could still be governed by the second law of thermodynamics, which supposedly only applies to isolated systems.


As I wrote elsewhere - there is a completely closed system when you show energy in and energy out. The emissions from the Sun move energy from the source to the sink - Earth - and Earth moves that same energy into empty space - also a source to a sink.

The argument really boils down to not if this occurs but if the CO2 delays this movement of energy and so warms the Earth due to this delay.


Such a delay would involve effectively reducing radiance while increasing temperature. That violates the Stefan-Boltzmann law.


What this does is increase the temperature differential in order to increase the speed at which it sheds energy.

In other words - the longer you delay the energy in the lower atmosphere the faster you have to get rid of it in the upper atmosphere so that you balance the in-out
27-04-2017 23:18
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10270)
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
Frescomexico wrote:
Wake wrote:
OK, shall we try to pick our points of agreement and discuss those we are not in agreement on?

1. The laws of thermodynamics are supposedly only expressed for "closed systems". Don - do you understand that you can proclaim the universe a closed system? Into the night - do you understand that you cannot express energy as a singularity?

2. CO2 - I think that the disagreements mostly have to do with the separate means by which gases lose heat in the atmosphere. Firstly there is the problem of getting the energy to the Earth's surface. This is the phase which Leitwolf is discussing. Then there is the effects of that energy on the surface once it has arrived and has been absorbed (and not reflected). This is what Intothenight is trying to use mass effects and to discount details of the 2nd law. The sum effect of his ideas is the same but the details differ slightly. Then there is the actual radiation of energy from the Earth's surface which is also a problem since it is being treated as a Bell Curve but is not. Therefore it is NOT a perfect black body radiator. Then there is the actual measured method by which heat is lost through the Troposphere that the True Believers deny 100% despite the fact that even NASA and NOAA are in total agreement with the rest of us "deniers".

3. The actual effects of man. This is the sum total effect that was generated originally by "environmentalists" whose basic idea is to blame everything from floods and tornados to droughts on man. This group is generally young losers that want to blame their non-success in life on others. The trouble is that they too often age and become somewhat if not totally successful and have to be replaced with other losers.

4. What the future holds. Well, it isn't death by fire and we all know that.


You have done an excellent job of summarizing the debate, and long overdue. I do understand that the universe is a closed system, an said so in an earlier post. What I had trouble with was how two open systems, the earth and the tropospheric gases, could still be governed by the second law of thermodynamics, which supposedly only applies to isolated systems.


As I wrote elsewhere - there is a completely closed system when you show energy in and energy out. The emissions from the Sun move energy from the source to the sink - Earth - and Earth moves that same energy into empty space - also a source to a sink.

The argument really boils down to not if this occurs but if the CO2 delays this movement of energy and so warms the Earth due to this delay.


Such a delay would involve effectively reducing radiance while increasing temperature. That violates the Stefan-Boltzmann law.


What this does is increase the temperature differential in order to increase the speed at which it sheds energy.

In other words - the longer you delay the energy in the lower atmosphere the faster you have to get rid of it in the upper atmosphere so that you balance the in-out


Sorry. You don't get to suspend the Stefan-Boltzmann law to accomplish a sequence.


The Parrot Killer
27-04-2017 23:44
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
Frescomexico wrote:
Wake wrote:
OK, shall we try to pick our points of agreement and discuss those we are not in agreement on?

1. The laws of thermodynamics are supposedly only expressed for "closed systems". Don - do you understand that you can proclaim the universe a closed system? Into the night - do you understand that you cannot express energy as a singularity?

2. CO2 - I think that the disagreements mostly have to do with the separate means by which gases lose heat in the atmosphere. Firstly there is the problem of getting the energy to the Earth's surface. This is the phase which Leitwolf is discussing. Then there is the effects of that energy on the surface once it has arrived and has been absorbed (and not reflected). This is what Intothenight is trying to use mass effects and to discount details of the 2nd law. The sum effect of his ideas is the same but the details differ slightly. Then there is the actual radiation of energy from the Earth's surface which is also a problem since it is being treated as a Bell Curve but is not. Therefore it is NOT a perfect black body radiator. Then there is the actual measured method by which heat is lost through the Troposphere that the True Believers deny 100% despite the fact that even NASA and NOAA are in total agreement with the rest of us "deniers".

3. The actual effects of man. This is the sum total effect that was generated originally by "environmentalists" whose basic idea is to blame everything from floods and tornados to droughts on man. This group is generally young losers that want to blame their non-success in life on others. The trouble is that they too often age and become somewhat if not totally successful and have to be replaced with other losers.

4. What the future holds. Well, it isn't death by fire and we all know that.


You have done an excellent job of summarizing the debate, and long overdue. I do understand that the universe is a closed system, an said so in an earlier post. What I had trouble with was how two open systems, the earth and the tropospheric gases, could still be governed by the second law of thermodynamics, which supposedly only applies to isolated systems.


As I wrote elsewhere - there is a completely closed system when you show energy in and energy out. The emissions from the Sun move energy from the source to the sink - Earth - and Earth moves that same energy into empty space - also a source to a sink.

The argument really boils down to not if this occurs but if the CO2 delays this movement of energy and so warms the Earth due to this delay.


Such a delay would involve effectively reducing radiance while increasing temperature. That violates the Stefan-Boltzmann law.


What this does is increase the temperature differential in order to increase the speed at which it sheds energy.

In other words - the longer you delay the energy in the lower atmosphere the faster you have to get rid of it in the upper atmosphere so that you balance the in-out


Sorry. You don't get to suspend the Stefan-Boltzmann law to accomplish a sequence.


Then you won't mind telling us what in the hell you're talking about.
28-04-2017 00:59
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10270)
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:

What this does is increase the temperature differential in order to increase the speed at which it sheds energy.

In other words - the longer you delay the energy in the lower atmosphere the faster you have to get rid of it in the upper atmosphere so that you balance the in-out


Sorry. You don't get to suspend the Stefan-Boltzmann law to accomplish a sequence.


Then you won't mind telling us what in the hell you're talking about.


The energy leaving Earth is in the form of light. This light is emitted by all substances that are above zero deg K according to the Stefan-Boltzmann law.

'Delaying' light means reducing it (temporarily). This effectively reduces radiance of the Earth. At the same time this 'delay' is being used to increase the temperature.

The Stefan-Boltzmann law states that radiance and temperature are proportional to each other. They are never inversely proportional to each other, not even temporarily.


The Parrot Killer
Edited on 28-04-2017 01:02
28-04-2017 16:53
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:

What this does is increase the temperature differential in order to increase the speed at which it sheds energy.

In other words - the longer you delay the energy in the lower atmosphere the faster you have to get rid of it in the upper atmosphere so that you balance the in-out


Sorry. You don't get to suspend the Stefan-Boltzmann law to accomplish a sequence.


Then you won't mind telling us what in the hell you're talking about.


The energy leaving Earth is in the form of light. This light is emitted by all substances that are above zero deg K according to the Stefan-Boltzmann law.

'Delaying' light means reducing it (temporarily). This effectively reduces radiance of the Earth. At the same time this 'delay' is being used to increase the temperature.

The Stefan-Boltzmann law states that radiance and temperature are proportional to each other. They are never inversely proportional to each other, not even temporarily.


So you're telling us that the Sahara isn't hot. Very good analysis.
28-04-2017 20:34
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10270)
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:

What this does is increase the temperature differential in order to increase the speed at which it sheds energy.

In other words - the longer you delay the energy in the lower atmosphere the faster you have to get rid of it in the upper atmosphere so that you balance the in-out


Sorry. You don't get to suspend the Stefan-Boltzmann law to accomplish a sequence.


Then you won't mind telling us what in the hell you're talking about.


The energy leaving Earth is in the form of light. This light is emitted by all substances that are above zero deg K according to the Stefan-Boltzmann law.

'Delaying' light means reducing it (temporarily). This effectively reduces radiance of the Earth. At the same time this 'delay' is being used to increase the temperature.

The Stefan-Boltzmann law states that radiance and temperature are proportional to each other. They are never inversely proportional to each other, not even temporarily.


So you're telling us that the Sahara isn't hot. Very good analysis.

?


The Parrot Killer
Edited on 28-04-2017 20:34
28-04-2017 20:44
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:

What this does is increase the temperature differential in order to increase the speed at which it sheds energy.

In other words - the longer you delay the energy in the lower atmosphere the faster you have to get rid of it in the upper atmosphere so that you balance the in-out


Sorry. You don't get to suspend the Stefan-Boltzmann law to accomplish a sequence.


Then you won't mind telling us what in the hell you're talking about.


The energy leaving Earth is in the form of light. This light is emitted by all substances that are above zero deg K according to the Stefan-Boltzmann law.

'Delaying' light means reducing it (temporarily). This effectively reduces radiance of the Earth. At the same time this 'delay' is being used to increase the temperature.

The Stefan-Boltzmann law states that radiance and temperature are proportional to each other. They are never inversely proportional to each other, not even temporarily.


So you're telling us that the Sahara isn't hot. Very good analysis.

?


You have been continuously misusing the Stefan-Boltzmann law. Energy-in = Energy-out has to time contraints on it.

The very fact that we have an atmosphere and that atmosphere slows down the excretion of heat shows that.

Why are you running around in circles crying "Stephan-Boltzmann" and "Planck" for? These ONLY are applicable for an ideal radiator. No surface that does not meet the requirements of radiating heat at 5.67 x 10 -8 watt per meter squared per kelvin meets this law.

How did you go from being an intelligent analyst to acting whacko?
28-04-2017 20:47
spot
★★★★☆
(1233)
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:

What this does is increase the temperature differential in order to increase the speed at which it sheds energy.

In other words - the longer you delay the energy in the lower atmosphere the faster you have to get rid of it in the upper atmosphere so that you balance the in-out


Sorry. You don't get to suspend the Stefan-Boltzmann law to accomplish a sequence.


Then you won't mind telling us what in the hell you're talking about.


The energy leaving Earth is in the form of light. This light is emitted by all substances that are above zero deg K according to the Stefan-Boltzmann law.

'Delaying' light means reducing it (temporarily). This effectively reduces radiance of the Earth. At the same time this 'delay' is being used to increase the temperature.

The Stefan-Boltzmann law states that radiance and temperature are proportional to each other. They are never inversely proportional to each other, not even temporarily.


So you're telling us that the Sahara isn't hot. Very good analysis.

?


You have been continuously misusing the Stefan-Boltzmann law. Energy-in = Energy-out has to time contraints on it.

The very fact that we have an atmosphere and that atmosphere slows down the excretion of heat shows that.

Why are you running around in circles crying "Stephan-Boltzmann" and "Planck" for? These ONLY are applicable for an ideal radiator. No surface that does not meet the requirements of radiating heat at 5.67 x 10 -8 watt per meter squared per kelvin meets this law.

How did you go from being an intelligent analyst to acting whacko?


When was he an intelligent analyst?


IBdaMann wrote:
"Air" is not a body in and of itself. Ergo it is not a blackbody.


Planck's law describes the spectral density of electromagnetic radiation emitted by a black body in thermal equilibrium at a given temperature T.
28-04-2017 21:23
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10270)
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:

What this does is increase the temperature differential in order to increase the speed at which it sheds energy.

In other words - the longer you delay the energy in the lower atmosphere the faster you have to get rid of it in the upper atmosphere so that you balance the in-out


Sorry. You don't get to suspend the Stefan-Boltzmann law to accomplish a sequence.


Then you won't mind telling us what in the hell you're talking about.


The energy leaving Earth is in the form of light. This light is emitted by all substances that are above zero deg K according to the Stefan-Boltzmann law.

'Delaying' light means reducing it (temporarily). This effectively reduces radiance of the Earth. At the same time this 'delay' is being used to increase the temperature.

The Stefan-Boltzmann law states that radiance and temperature are proportional to each other. They are never inversely proportional to each other, not even temporarily.


So you're telling us that the Sahara isn't hot. Very good analysis.

?


You have been continuously misusing the Stefan-Boltzmann law. Energy-in = Energy-out has to time contraints on it.

The very fact that we have an atmosphere and that atmosphere slows down the excretion of heat shows that.

Why are you running around in circles crying "Stephan-Boltzmann" and "Planck" for? These ONLY are applicable for an ideal radiator. No surface that does not meet the requirements of radiating heat at 5.67 x 10 -8 watt per meter squared per kelvin meets this law.

How did you go from being an intelligent analyst to acting whacko?


Stefan-Boltzmann applies to all bodies. You are confusing a reference point with the equation.

You also seem to be convinced the effects of mass on heat somehow disproves Stefan-Boltzmann. It doesn't.

The atmosphere doesn't slow down the 'excretion' of heat. It is mass, just like the surface. It takes time to heat it and cool it. That is not 'slowing down' heat. It simply means the same heat causes a slower or faster change in temperature for a given unit of time.

Liquid water has a very high specific heat compared to dry air. Deserts can get very hot and very cold because they don't have as much liquid water nearby or in the air.

Nothing about this changes the Stefan-Boltzmann law and how it applies. The higher the temperature, the higher the radiance of the material. It is never inversely proportional.


The Parrot Killer
Edited on 28-04-2017 21:25
28-04-2017 23:45
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
Into the Night wrote:
Stefan-Boltzmann applies to all bodies. You are confusing a reference point with the equation.

You also seem to be convinced the effects of mass on heat somehow disproves Stefan-Boltzmann. It doesn't.

The atmosphere doesn't slow down the 'excretion' of heat. It is mass, just like the surface. It takes time to heat it and cool it. That is not 'slowing down' heat. It simply means the same heat causes a slower or faster change in temperature for a given unit of time.

Liquid water has a very high specific heat compared to dry air. Deserts can get very hot and very cold because they don't have as much liquid water nearby or in the air.

Nothing about this changes the Stefan-Boltzmann law and how it applies. The higher the temperature, the higher the radiance of the material. It is never inversely proportional.


You do not appear to understand math.

{\displaystyle T=\left({\frac {1120{\text{ W/m}}^{2}}{\sigma }}\right)^{1/4}\approx 375{\text{ K}}}

Do you follow that? For ANY given temperature AND any given area - the Stefan-Boltzmann constant is the ONLY constant both of the others are variables. If you have less area T goes up. If you have MORE area T goes down.

And also if you fix the emission of energy to any known surface and CHANGE the Constant since that is a calculated constant ONLY FOR A BLACK BODY then the temperature changes.

For crying out loud: A body that does not absorb all incident radiation (sometimes known as a grey body) emits less total energy than a black body and is characterized by an emissivity, {\displaystyle \varepsilon <1} \varepsilon < 1:
{\displaystyle j^{\star }=\varepsilon \sigma T^{4}.} j^{\star} = \varepsilon\sigma T^{4}.
29-04-2017 00:06
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10270)
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Stefan-Boltzmann applies to all bodies. You are confusing a reference point with the equation.

You also seem to be convinced the effects of mass on heat somehow disproves Stefan-Boltzmann. It doesn't.

The atmosphere doesn't slow down the 'excretion' of heat. It is mass, just like the surface. It takes time to heat it and cool it. That is not 'slowing down' heat. It simply means the same heat causes a slower or faster change in temperature for a given unit of time.

Liquid water has a very high specific heat compared to dry air. Deserts can get very hot and very cold because they don't have as much liquid water nearby or in the air.

Nothing about this changes the Stefan-Boltzmann law and how it applies. The higher the temperature, the higher the radiance of the material. It is never inversely proportional.


You do not appear to understand math.

{\displaystyle T=\left({\frac {1120{\text{ W/m}}^{2}}{\sigma }}\right)^{1/4}\approx 375{\text{ K}}}

Do you follow that? For ANY given temperature AND any given area - the Stefan-Boltzmann constant is the ONLY constant both of the others are variables. If you have less area T goes up. If you have MORE area T goes down.
The Stefan-Boltzmann constant is a constant of nature in the units of area that radiance is. This is per square meter in SI units.

Temperature is the independent variable.

Radiance is the dependent variable.

Emissivity is a constant.

Wake wrote:
And also if you fix the emission of energy to any known surface and CHANGE the Constant since that is a calculated constant ONLY FOR A BLACK BODY then the temperature changes.
The emissivity for an ideal black body is not calculated. It is defined...as one. It is just a reference point.
Wake wrote:
For crying out loud: A body that does not absorb all incident radiation (sometimes known as a grey body) emits less total energy than a black body and is characterized by an emissivity,

That's what I've been trying to tell you. Stefan-Boltzmann applies to all bodies...all the time. It is never suspended, not even temporarily.


The Parrot Killer
29-04-2017 00:41
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
For crying out loud: A body that does not absorb all incident radiation (sometimes known as a grey body) emits less total energy than a black body and is characterized by an emissivity,

That's what I've been trying to tell you. Stefan-Boltzmann applies to all bodies...all the time. It is never suspended, not even temporarily.


And you've lost me again. Change the surface and you change the radiance. So what do you mean by "dependent variable"? If you do not have a black body you do not have an exact response as a Stefan-Boltzmann constant.

This is what we're talking about remember?

Change the composition of the atmosphere - add or subtract clouds in the lower atmosphere (clouds being 99% water) - and you do two things - 1) you delay the response by the clouds absorbing energy and 2) the temperature rises to the level that gives it more or less a black body response.

What in the hell is peculiar about this? A heavier atmosphere causes it to be warmer. A warmer atmosphere enhances radiation of all of it's components. (which doesn't make any difference because it equally enhances conduction and convection) And CO2 is pertinent to none of it.
29-04-2017 01:29
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10270)
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
[quote]Wake wrote:
For crying out loud: A body that does not absorb all incident radiation (sometimes known as a grey body) emits less total energy than a black body and is characterized by an emissivity,

That's what I've been trying to tell you. Stefan-Boltzmann applies to all bodies...all the time. It is never suspended, not even temporarily.


And you've lost me again. Change the surface and you change the radiance. So what do you mean by "dependent variable"? If you do not have a black body you do not have an exact response as a Stefan-Boltzmann constant.
Yes you do, once compensated for emissivity. This is a a constant that is measured by using a contact thermometer on a substance and comparing its radiation to an ideal reference. In other words, you need to know the temperature of the object to know its emissivity (or albedo).
Wake wrote:
This is what we're talking about remember?
Yes I do.
Wake wrote:
Change the composition of the atmosphere - add or subtract clouds in the lower atmosphere (clouds being 99% water) - and you do two things - 1) you delay the response by the clouds absorbing energy and 2) the temperature rises to the level that gives it more or less a black body response.

Here is where it gets interesting. Clouds are not solid objects. They are fluid, like air. Stefan-Boltzmann appears to not work for them, but it does.

Fluid substances move thermal around using convection. It's hard to get a good bead on the radiance of air because it's constantly changing. The same is true with clouds.

Using Wien's law, if you heat a solid object to a certain temperature, it will begin to glow, first red, then yellow, then white, as the energy emitted reaches further into the visible band.

The radiance (a scalar) is also increasing. The object is brighter when considering all frequencies combined.

If you heat a fluid such as air to a similar temperature, no glow. Why?

Convection simply disburses the energy to some part that has not yet heated so high. The part that you are heating just 'spreads the wealth'. Radiance still goes up, but the energy in any one part of air never seems to get hot enough to glow like a solid object.

It IS possible to get air that hot. It must be contained in some way so that convection cannot carry away the energy. Conduction is a big factor too. It should be limited.

If you look inside a closed boiler furnace (like on an old locomotive), the air has indeed become a visible glow. Another example is in the Sun, in the form of the corona, the glowing 'atmosphere' of the Sun.

Clouds are the same way. Because they are liquid water, they also are VERY effective conductors of heat. It is just too easy for them to get rid of their thermal energy. It is also just too easy for them to gain thermal energy.
Wake wrote:
What in the hell is peculiar about this?
First, that clouds are a fluid, and second, that clouds are liquid water (or ice) and have a high conductivity and a high specific heat. It takes a LOT of heat to warm a cloud. It takes a LOT of heat to cool one too. They are like thermal 'anvils' floating in the sky.
Wake wrote:
A heavier atmosphere causes it to be warmer.
Seemingly true. This is because there is more mass in contact with the surface, which heats it via conduction. Descending air also is being compresssed, warming it. Compressed air is heavier and will tend to settle in lower places.

You are also mass. There is more air in contact with YOU. You feel it's effect more than air at thermosphere, which is actually quite hot, but you can't feel it. To you the thermosphere feels very cold (ignoring breathing problems, lack of pressure, and the like).
Wake wrote:
A warmer atmosphere enhances radiation of all of it's components. (which doesn't make any difference because it equally enhances conduction and convection) And CO2 is pertinent to none of it.

This is absolutely true. The Holy Magick Gas of the Church of Global Warming is no different than any other gas. They all radiate the same depending on their temperature. They all conduct heat about the same (excepting liquid water in clouds, which conducts heat much better).


The Parrot Killer
Edited on 29-04-2017 01:31
29-04-2017 17:02
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
[quote]Wake wrote:
For crying out loud: A body that does not absorb all incident radiation (sometimes known as a grey body) emits less total energy than a black body and is characterized by an emissivity,

That's what I've been trying to tell you. Stefan-Boltzmann applies to all bodies...all the time. It is never suspended, not even temporarily.


And you've lost me again. Change the surface and you change the radiance. So what do you mean by "dependent variable"? If you do not have a black body you do not have an exact response as a Stefan-Boltzmann constant.
Yes you do, once compensated for emissivity. This is a a constant that is measured by using a contact thermometer on a substance and comparing its radiation to an ideal reference. In other words, you need to know the temperature of the object to know its emissivity (or albedo).
Wake wrote:
This is what we're talking about remember?
Yes I do.
Wake wrote:
Change the composition of the atmosphere - add or subtract clouds in the lower atmosphere (clouds being 99% water) - and you do two things - 1) you delay the response by the clouds absorbing energy and 2) the temperature rises to the level that gives it more or less a black body response.

Here is where it gets interesting. Clouds are not solid objects. They are fluid, like air. Stefan-Boltzmann appears to not work for them, but it does.

Fluid substances move thermal around using convection. It's hard to get a good bead on the radiance of air because it's constantly changing. The same is true with clouds.

Using Wien's law, if you heat a solid object to a certain temperature, it will begin to glow, first red, then yellow, then white, as the energy emitted reaches further into the visible band.

The radiance (a scalar) is also increasing. The object is brighter when considering all frequencies combined.

If you heat a fluid such as air to a similar temperature, no glow. Why?

Convection simply disburses the energy to some part that has not yet heated so high. The part that you are heating just 'spreads the wealth'. Radiance still goes up, but the energy in any one part of air never seems to get hot enough to glow like a solid object.

It IS possible to get air that hot. It must be contained in some way so that convection cannot carry away the energy. Conduction is a big factor too. It should be limited.

If you look inside a closed boiler furnace (like on an old locomotive), the air has indeed become a visible glow. Another example is in the Sun, in the form of the corona, the glowing 'atmosphere' of the Sun.

Clouds are the same way. Because they are liquid water, they also are VERY effective conductors of heat. It is just too easy for them to get rid of their thermal energy. It is also just too easy for them to gain thermal energy.
Wake wrote:
What in the hell is peculiar about this?
First, that clouds are a fluid, and second, that clouds are liquid water (or ice) and have a high conductivity and a high specific heat. It takes a LOT of heat to warm a cloud. It takes a LOT of heat to cool one too. They are like thermal 'anvils' floating in the sky.
Wake wrote:
A heavier atmosphere causes it to be warmer.
Seemingly true. This is because there is more mass in contact with the surface, which heats it via conduction. Descending air also is being compresssed, warming it. Compressed air is heavier and will tend to settle in lower places.

You are also mass. There is more air in contact with YOU. You feel it's effect more than air at thermosphere, which is actually quite hot, but you can't feel it. To you the thermosphere feels very cold (ignoring breathing problems, lack of pressure, and the like).
Wake wrote:
A warmer atmosphere enhances radiation of all of it's components. (which doesn't make any difference because it equally enhances conduction and convection) And CO2 is pertinent to none of it.

This is absolutely true. The Holy Magick Gas of the Church of Global Warming is no different than any other gas. They all radiate the same depending on their temperature. They all conduct heat about the same (excepting liquid water in clouds, which conducts heat much better).


The discussion is about AGW and not whether convection causing an air mass to fall because it is colder than the rising mass of warmer air from conduction will be further compressed by the increase in pressure as it falls.

You cannot wave your hands about and use Planck or Stefan-Boltzmann as the superman that will prove you correct. Since these laws are only for idealized cases you cannot argue that they are the same constants in each case.
29-04-2017 21:45
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10270)
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
[quote]Wake wrote:
For crying out loud: A body that does not absorb all incident radiation (sometimes known as a grey body) emits less total energy than a black body and is characterized by an emissivity,

That's what I've been trying to tell you. Stefan-Boltzmann applies to all bodies...all the time. It is never suspended, not even temporarily.


And you've lost me again. Change the surface and you change the radiance. So what do you mean by "dependent variable"? If you do not have a black body you do not have an exact response as a Stefan-Boltzmann constant.
Yes you do, once compensated for emissivity. This is a a constant that is measured by using a contact thermometer on a substance and comparing its radiation to an ideal reference. In other words, you need to know the temperature of the object to know its emissivity (or albedo).
Wake wrote:
This is what we're talking about remember?
Yes I do.
Wake wrote:
Change the composition of the atmosphere - add or subtract clouds in the lower atmosphere (clouds being 99% water) - and you do two things - 1) you delay the response by the clouds absorbing energy and 2) the temperature rises to the level that gives it more or less a black body response.

Here is where it gets interesting. Clouds are not solid objects. They are fluid, like air. Stefan-Boltzmann appears to not work for them, but it does.

Fluid substances move thermal around using convection. It's hard to get a good bead on the radiance of air because it's constantly changing. The same is true with clouds.

Using Wien's law, if you heat a solid object to a certain temperature, it will begin to glow, first red, then yellow, then white, as the energy emitted reaches further into the visible band.

The radiance (a scalar) is also increasing. The object is brighter when considering all frequencies combined.

If you heat a fluid such as air to a similar temperature, no glow. Why?

Convection simply disburses the energy to some part that has not yet heated so high. The part that you are heating just 'spreads the wealth'. Radiance still goes up, but the energy in any one part of air never seems to get hot enough to glow like a solid object.

It IS possible to get air that hot. It must be contained in some way so that convection cannot carry away the energy. Conduction is a big factor too. It should be limited.

If you look inside a closed boiler furnace (like on an old locomotive), the air has indeed become a visible glow. Another example is in the Sun, in the form of the corona, the glowing 'atmosphere' of the Sun.

Clouds are the same way. Because they are liquid water, they also are VERY effective conductors of heat. It is just too easy for them to get rid of their thermal energy. It is also just too easy for them to gain thermal energy.
Wake wrote:
What in the hell is peculiar about this?
First, that clouds are a fluid, and second, that clouds are liquid water (or ice) and have a high conductivity and a high specific heat. It takes a LOT of heat to warm a cloud. It takes a LOT of heat to cool one too. They are like thermal 'anvils' floating in the sky.
Wake wrote:
A heavier atmosphere causes it to be warmer.
Seemingly true. This is because there is more mass in contact with the surface, which heats it via conduction. Descending air also is being compresssed, warming it. Compressed air is heavier and will tend to settle in lower places.

You are also mass. There is more air in contact with YOU. You feel it's effect more than air at thermosphere, which is actually quite hot, but you can't feel it. To you the thermosphere feels very cold (ignoring breathing problems, lack of pressure, and the like).
Wake wrote:
A warmer atmosphere enhances radiation of all of it's components. (which doesn't make any difference because it equally enhances conduction and convection) And CO2 is pertinent to none of it.

This is absolutely true. The Holy Magick Gas of the Church of Global Warming is no different than any other gas. They all radiate the same depending on their temperature. They all conduct heat about the same (excepting liquid water in clouds, which conducts heat much better).


The discussion is about AGW and not whether convection causing an air mass to fall because it is colder than the rising mass of warmer air from conduction will be further compressed by the increase in pressure as it falls.

You want to talk about this now? Yes. the air mass compresses. It is heated too because of it, just like the rising air is expanding and cooling. That's just the ideal gas law in action.

It is also why places like Death Valley can get so hot.

Wake wrote:
You cannot wave your hands about and use Planck or Stefan-Boltzmann as the superman that will prove you correct. Since these laws are only for idealized cases you cannot argue that they are the same constants in each case.

Back to the original discussion?

No, Planck's law and the Stefan-Boltzmann law do NOT operate only in idealized cases. They apply to all bodies everywhere and all the time. The ideal black body and the ideal white body are simply reference points for the Stefan-Boltzmann law.

The S-B constant is a constant of nature. It never changes. It converts the S-B law into the units of measurement that we use.

The emissivity constant is a measured value ranging from zero to one, or 0% to 100%. You measure the emissivity of a substance using a contact thermometer, measure the radiance, and compare it to the ideal reference.

This is, incidentally, how infrared thermometers are more or less calibrated. They are never accurate for anything other than a material that has an emissivity similar to the calibration standard used.

We just don't know the emissivity of Earth (or any other planet).


The Parrot Killer




Join the debate Points of Agreement:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
Tipping points423-10-2019 04:23
Live: The US-Japan Trade Agreement508-10-2019 02:47
Arctic ice hit one of its lowest points on record1105-10-2018 22:22
Hasn't Donald Trump pulling the US out of the Paris agreement scuppered hopes of progress?1020-11-2017 20:11
The Paris Agreement: A deficient solution to a non-problem?2429-03-2017 23:02
▲ 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