Remember me
▼ Content

The Stench from the EPA, NASA and NOAA

Page 3 of 3<123
10-11-2017 05:08
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote: WRONG. Most of the sunlight is right in the range of those frequencies absorbed by CO2. Most sunlight is infrared light. Fortunately, CO2 only absorbs a very narrow range of those frequencies, so most of the infrared light goes into heating the surface. Visible light does not generally cause heating. Ultraviolet light causes almost none at all.

Yes something like 55% of the sun's energy striking the Earth is in the NEAR infra-red. But like UV it is simply a component of visible light.

While most of the Sun's energy is in the so-called 'near' infrared band, the Sun puts out light frequencies all the way down to the lower radio bands.

Infrared and UV are NOT visible light.

Wake wrote:
This IR is far different than that emitted from the warmed Earth which is in the FAR infrared and CO2 does not absorb the frequencies in the near IR.

The Sun DOES put out 'far' infrared. Some of that incoming light IS absorbed by CO2 or water vapor and never reaches the surface to warm it.
Wake wrote:
So the Sun's energy almost entirely strikes the Earth except for Tyndall effect scattering which is what makes the sky blue and isn't an absorption effect but a reflection.

Yes. It's amazing how you point this out now, when you deny it later.
Wake wrote:
Please stop trying, like James, to use a single tools to explain the world about you.

I don't.

Your problem is that you are illiterate in statistical math, probability math, and random number math. You also don't seem to understand either the laws of thermodynamics nor the Stefan-Boltzmann law.

Instead, you depend on claims of credentials, which are useless on forums, and on magick capabilities of satellite systems (I guess you like satellites), and on bad math.

You haven't the slightest clue what you're talking about. Would you please stop pretending that you do?

The EARTH has to rid itself of that ENTIRE energy band and it does it ONLY in the far infrared.

So reflected light is not ridding itself of energy, is it?

Since you want to concentrate only on Planck emissions (that due to temperature), then yes, the Earth emits mostly in the so called 'far' infrared band. CO2 absorption is only a narrow set of frequencies in that band though. Same with water vapor.

The absorption of light by CO2 is simply another way for the surface to rid itself of energy, much like thermal conductivity does.

Wake wrote:
The Sun's addition to the far infrared is something like 0.01% of it's energy. That makes the Sun's addition to that band immeasurably small.

It's more than that, but the number is immaterial to my statement. It is there. It is greater than zero.
Wake wrote:
"Improbability math"? Exactly WHAT do you know about quantum mechanics?

While quantum mechanics does use probability math, probability math is not quantum mechanics.

Probability math is simply about the effects of random numbers on events. A great branch of mathematics for gamblers to learn. Damn few know it, even among casino owners in Las Vegas. Those that do can stand to make quite a bit of money from some casino owner that introduces a game where the odds favor the gambler. That does happen, usually as a promotion of some kind.
Wake wrote:
You don't even know the first thing about statistics. Any ass would know that whether or not the actual measured temperatures are correct that you could use statistical analysis to arrive at a MGT. And that statistically the errors would average out. But not the nut case from Seattle.

Nope. Statistical errors do not 'self correct'. That concept is an error known as a preconceived conclusion. Each summary is independent of any other summary. All summaries must begin with raw data.

A simple average is not statistical math, although statistical math does use the simple average as part of its calculations. This is where most of the confusion about statistical math lies.
Wake wrote:
Tell is all - what is random number math?

The mathematics that describes how to calculate randR (the repeatable random number, such as dice), just exactly how random it is (no, it doesn't use statistics), and with it, all the other forms of random numbers including randN (the non-repeatable random number, such as cards), and randU (the 'predictable' random number, such as when someone grabs a number out of their head to describe <insert large number here> scientists say...).

Random number mathematics does not operate in the Real Math Domain (the kind taught in high school and most university courses), but it to a certain extent is translatable to that Domain. It operates in the Full Boolean Math Domain (which differs from the Real Domain by the modification of a couple of axioms). You can translate things between the two Domains, so long as you don't hit one of these differences in axioms.

Wake wrote:
And perhaps you should stop talking about the Stefan-Boltzmann Law and then saying that you can't tell the temperature by looking at a color since you are only showing your own ignorance.

The Stefan-Boltzmann law does not look at color. It is color-blind, both for emissivity and for radiance.

If you want to try to use Wien's law to determine temperature, you must remember that only works for a rough comparison with things that are energy sources such as the Sun or hot coals, where reflection and translucency is not considered a significant factor. They are always there, however, and so such estimates and comparisons are naturally very rough.

It's good enough to get a general gauge of whether a steel is ready to weld, or how hot a star is compared to an equivalent 'coal' that bright. It is not precise by any means. It is useless for reflective bodies, like the Earth, since Earth is lit by a star that is a very different temperature than Earth itself.

Wien's law produces a smooth curve, which must be combined with the domain of the substance emitting the light. In other words, the spectral lines of individual frequencies are still there, but if you measure the intensity of them and compare that to the natural intensify of them, you will see the difference follows the Wien curve and is indeed dependent on temperature. Wien's law gives the peak frequency of the curve, but it does not give overall intensity. The peak light emitted may not even be the same as that predicted by Wien's law, since substances emit along their spectral lines according to their own characteristic intensity for each line, and the line may not match the calculated peak frequency.

The emissivity of the surface of the Earth varies greatly over the space of even just fractions of an inch. To measure emissivity, you must first determine accurately the temperature of what you are trying to measure. According to the Stefan-Boltzmann law, then, you can compare the measured temperature and radiance and work backwards through the law, coming up with an emissivity value. For that surface, then, you can accurately determine the temperature from radiance using the known emissivity.

Since emissivity varies so greatly in such a short distance, it is not possible to determine an overall emissivity without first accurately determining the temperature of the Earth in the first place.

Thus a satellite is operating in a vacuum (in more ways than one!). While a satellite is great at relative differences of temperatures, assuming the same overall emissivity, they simply can't provide an absolute temperature measurement, since we don't know the emissivity of Earth.

So the satellites we send up that look at 'temperature' are really looking at differences in radiance and using assumed values for the unknowns, such as emissivity. All they see is that one place is hotter than another, and to a very rough guess, by how much. That guess is again determined by assumed values of emissivity.

They are great at tracking storms, looking for hot spots in oceans or on land, and for locating generally where warmer air is.

They just can't tell is how much warmer, or what the temperature of anything actually IS. We need ground thermometers for that. They are the only thing in contact with the air and the Earth that we are trying to measure. They are the reference, even to the point of being used to correct the 'guess' of the satellite.

Here we have you playing your word games again - You have denied the existence of any web site talking about the energy balance of the Earth.

That is EXACTLY what I am doing.

Energy out = energy in. Earth is in equilibrium. The only thing that can change that is changing the output of the Sun or the Earth's distance from the Sun.
Wake wrote:
And now your playing your game that somehow every erg of energy is actually reflected from the earth and not radiated from the stratosphere after being carried there via conduction.

I never said all energy is reflected. Pay attention.
Wake wrote:
If you think that UV and IR aren't visible light you might want to talk to a large part of the animal kingdom or the insects that see almost entirely in these wavelengths.

Insects can see slightly into the ultraviolet from our normal range of vision. There are a few people that can also see slightly into the ultraviolet. I am one of them. I found out during a spectral eye exam. I also have a dropout in a few frequencies in the green area. That's normal for most people.

Pit vipers can see slightly into the infrared. These pits are located on the front of the viper like two hunting eyes. They are good for picking out the heat of a mouse from the background. We need infrared goggles (instruments) for that.

Can YOU see UV? No. It is not visible light. What is visible light to an insect is NOT visible light to you. Visible light is visible...get it?
Wake wrote:
I note with a great deal of humor that you cannot answer questions

I have answered every question you have asked.
Wake wrote:
and so decide to say that I'm implying that somehow CO2 has ANY effect.

You have said as much. You continue to say as much. I'm not implying anything. You continue to make the argument that CO2 somehow warms the Earth. There. I said it as plainly as I could. I am not implying anything.
Wake wrote:
Does that make your day do that you can ignore the fact that there is no such thing as Random Number mathematics

There certainly is. It can be used to describe just exactly why a die roll is a very good random number generator, and a stacked deck of cards isn't. That branch of mathematics is used to improve the random number generators in computer systems, which as you know, are stuck in a determinate world. A computer processor is really nothing much more than a pocket calculate attached to a washing machine timer.
Wake wrote:
nor do you understand statistical analysis

I do understand it. It is YOU that is illiterate in it. Inversion fallacy.
Wake wrote:
and probability mathematics is quantum mechanics

Mathematics is not quantum mechanics.
Wake wrote:
which you probably can't even spell.

Since I already did, that's just being an argument of the Stone.
Wake wrote:
I have news for you - it doesn't MATTER what the emissivity of the Earth is.

It does if you're a satellite using radiance to measure temperature.
Wake wrote:
Conduction and convection mixes the emitted energy in the atmosphere so well that you can see half the Earth looks like it is emitting the same.

The current temperature in Seattle is 46 degF. The current temperature at the same time in Honolulu is 80 degF. Meanwhile, the temperature in the tropopause over Seattle (just 35000 ft away) is a nice balmy -86 degF.

Guess that air doesn't mix so well, does it?

Wake wrote:
You seem to be under the impression that it is the EARTH that is radiating into space and not the energy carried into the stratosphere by the atmosphere.

BOTH are radiating into space. Most radiance from the Earth is from the surface directly. It is the warmest and also the more dense than the atmosphere is. According to the Stefan-Boltzmann law (which you are ignoring yet again), the surface is the highest temperature, so produces the highest radiance in W/m^2. The atmosphere is quite thin compared to the material of the surface, so a meter square of radiating surface is spread out over a large area. The atmosphere just above the surface is roughly the same temperature as the surface itself, but it's radiance is far lower over the same geographical area. You can see this too, if you use an infrared camera. It's why you can get an image of a house on the camera and not just a bunch of fog.
Wake wrote:
I've got news for you - you as usual are wrong.

Argument of the Stone...coupled with Bulverism.

The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan

While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
Page 3 of 3<123

Join the debate The Stench from the EPA, NASA and NOAA:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
Real Perspective on Warming - NASA Data1727-04-2024 04:30
The EPA's ambitious plan to cut auto emissions to slow climate change runs into skepticism106-08-2023 20:31
Google and NASA achieved quantum supremacy in 20195020-11-2022 23:20
NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory4206-05-2022 20:55
NASA1507-12-2021 08:21
▲ Top of page
Public Poll
Who is leading the renewable energy race?








Don't know

Thanks for supporting
Copyright © 2009-2020 | About | Contact