Solar Flux is not Q’
This was touched on in the last post, but the steel greenhouse deserves a full logical physics treatment of heat flow to explain what actually happens and why the radiative greenhouse effect believers have it wrong.
First I just want to repeat something. The radiative heat flow equation
Q’ = A*σ(Th4 – Tc4)
does not stand for conservation of energy where Q’ is the solar energy, and the hot term is the Earth’s surface and the cool one the atmosphere. Conservation of solar energy does not occur between the surface and the atmosphere. Why would solar energy be conserved as a difference in flux, as a heat flow, between the surface and atmosphere? This reinterpretation of the equation has no logical or physical basis. Solar energy is conserved to the outside of the system, not inside between the surface and atmosphere. I just don’t know why this reinterpretation of the heat flow equation would have been invented. The hot and cool term represent sources of energy, and Q’ is the local difference between them resulting in heat flow; the solar heating has to be one of the sources, on the right hand side of the equation, because it is a source, and the energy from the Sun is not dependent upon the difference between two other arbitrary and undefined sources.
You see, one of the ways to create science sophistry, is to simply misinterpret or worse lie about what the physics equations mean. It is as simple as that is all they have to do, is lie about what an equation means, because most people don’t have the physics training to be able to know what the equation actually means and what the terms actually refer to. If you want the heat flow equation with solar energy as a term, then you have to write
Q’ = A*(I*(1-α) – ε*σ*TS4)
where I*(1-α) is the local energy from the Sun impinging on a local surface with temperature TS.
Steel “Greenhouse”
I’m not going to bother showing the diagram. This and the last post is for people who can follow the math and I presume you can imagine well enough in your mind what the scenario looks like. The scenario is a heated sphere at temperature Tsp concentrically trapped inside a passive shell who’s temperature is denoted as Tsh. The interior sphere is the only thing with power with constant output. The interior sphere has radius rsp and the enclosing shell has radius rsh.
The most general statement of the radiative heat flow equation is
Q’ = A*(F1 – F2)
where F1 and F2 are a local flux from the two different sources. That is, the fluxes correspond to a specific single location, not their own locations independently. By convention, the location which the fluxes correspond to are that at the location represented by F2. That way, if Q’ is positive, then it denotes positive heat flow into the location specified by F2, and so that location would rise in temperature. If Q’ is negative, it denotes heat flow out of the location F2, and so if F2 is not a powered source of heat, then it will fall in temperature. However, whether or not the heat flow out of F2 towards F1 can actually cause an increase in temperature at location F1, requires its own analysis with all of the terms switched to the new location F1. We will work through this for the steel greenhouse.
For the heat flow at the interior of the shell, we have
Q’sh = Ash*(Fsp – Fsh).
The flux from the sphere is reduced by its distance from the shell, while the shell has the local flux, and so
Q’sh = Ash*σ*[Tsp4 * (rsp/rsh)2 – Tsh4].
For the heat flow at the interior sphere, we have
Q’sp = Asp*(Fsh – Fsp).
The flux from the shell is isotropic and symmetric at any location inside the shell, and so it doesn’t reduce with distance from the shell to the sphere, and so
Q’sp = Asp*σ*(Tsh4 – Tsp4).
Now since the interior sphere is the thing providing power, the passive shell will eventually come to thermal equilibrium with the sphere which means that, locally, at the location of the shell, the heat flow will be zero, i.e. Q’sh = 0 and so
Tsh = Tsp * (rsp/rsh)1/2
Since rsp < rsh the temperature of the shell will be less than the sphere.
Now that we know the equilibrium temperature of the shell, we can calculate the heat flow at the sphere,
Q’sp = Asp*σ*(Tsp4 * (rsp/rsh)2 – Tsp4)
= Asp*σ*Tsp4*((rsp/rsh)2 – 1).
Since rsp < rsh the heat flow will be negative, meaning away from the sphere, towards the shell. Thus, the shell can not heat the sphere.
At equilibrium, at the shell, the interior heat flow is zero; however, the exterior of the shell also emits radiation and it emits according to its temperature:
Psh = Ash*σ*Tsh4
= Ash*σ*Tsp4*(rsp/rsh)2
For conservation of energy this has to be equal to the power supplied by the interior sphere, so
Ash*σ*Tsp4*(rsp/rsh)2 = Asp*σ*Tsp4
4*π*rsh2*σ*Tsp4*(rsp/rsh)2 = 4*π*rsp2*σ*Tsp4
which is 1 = 1 which means that energy is indeed conserved.
So you see what happening there. The exterior shell is passive, it is a passive medium. Nothing passive raises the temperature of the thing heating it. The passive medium simply passes the energy through it, to its exterior.
Now this is where we immediately get the objection that a passive blanket makes you warmer. This is a problem with the typical psychological profile of the majority of humans but scientists especially: the dominant sensing rather than intuitive mental profile. Your physical senses do not determine truth; physical senses do not determine physics or tell you much at all about the underlying mathematics of a process. Putting on a blanket is not what the radiative greenhouse effect is about. A physical blanket stops convective heat loss, exactly like how a real greenhouse operates. Just because being warmed by a coat is something you sense with your animal nature, does not mean that it logically or mathematically translates to the radiative redefinition of the greenhouse effect. Logical thinking is associated with the intuitive psychological profile, not the sensing. A blanket is doing the physical greenhouse effect, not the radiative greenhouse effect (as distinguished here). If you want to use your animal physical sense perception to “empirically” test for the radiative redefinition of the greenhouse effect, then the correct way to do that has only ever been to arrange a situation which produces only the supposed radiative effect, not some mix-up with the physical convection-blocking effect. Sensing personalities have a hard time appreciating that logic; intuitives do not.
That is, look at your face in a mirror, and feel the heat being returned. Your face can detect temperature changes as small as 0.1 degrees centigrade, or about 1/5 of a degree Fahrenheit. You should feel a huge warming effect from all that facial infrared radiation being returned, but there is nothing sensed larger than 0.1 K. You should feel it instantaneously given the speed of light with a mirror inches from your face, but you feel nothing. If you want a sense-perception based experiment to test for the radiative version of the greenhouse effect of climate science, that is it, and it fails the test once again.
Just be logical! What would happen if you shrunk the outer shell until it simply became the new surface for the interior sphere? Then you just have a sphere with a slightly larger surface, depending on how thick the shell became as it reduced its radius while conserving its total mass. A sphere with a slightly larger surface area than before simply has a slightly lower energy flux density at the surface, and hence lower temperature.
You see, what Willis Eschenbach and all these radiative greenhouse schemes are trying to do is to conserve temperature. When Willis’ steel greenhouse is set up to conserve 240 W/m2, Willis is trying to conserve temperature. If you don’t like putting energy flux density in terms of temperature, then just put it in terms of density: Willis was trying to conserve energy density. Energy density / temperature does not need to be conserved, and is not the meaning of conservation of energy. The energy density of 240 W/m2 can not be conserved when it radiates out to a larger surface area; by definition the density has to decrease, and hence the temperature associated with it as well, while energy is conserved. Willis tried to get around this by shrinking the shell area to as close as possible to the sphere area, but again this just makes the shell the new surface for the sphere, and the original energy density still always has to decrease with any distance at all from the sphere. If the shell is shrunk to zero thickness and sits on the sphere, then you just have the surface of the sphere. Willis’ steel greenhouse is the perfect example of violating conservation of energy, because by radiating 240 W/m2 out of a larger surface than from which it originated, this is automatically more energy than the source is emitting.
If they would just apply logical physics and math to the problem it would be clear how to correctly conserve energy. Of course it has always seemed that there is a predisposition to protect the belief in this alternative radiative reinterpretation of the greenhouse effect for climate science.
Consider what Willis’ steel greenhouse analysis contained: did it lay out the heat flow equation, describe the heat flow at the interior of the shell, and then at the surface of the sphere, make a point about how total energy needs to be conserved, and did it have all the physics math you see above? Did the flux from the source even decrease with distance as per the inverse square law, the most fundamental relationship that exists over distances in space? No it didn’t have any of that. It should have. All it had was that Willis wanted 240 W/m2 to be emitted from the outside of the shell – that was the predetermined result Willis desired to show; he didn’t work it out and find it, he wanted it to force it that way. The interior sphere surface had a temperature of -180C, and Willis wanted the outside of the shell surface to be -180C also. Is there any reason for desiring this? Does it follow conservation of energy and the laws of heat flow? Is temperature or density a conserved quantity in physics? No, and Willis was able to get around that simply by not performing the mathematical analysis of the heat flow that should have been performed. Of course, this was much like the later light bulb experiment by Curt Wilson and Anthony Watts, who simply invented a predetermined interpretation of their results specifically by avoiding performing the mathematical heat flow energy conservation analysis that should have been performed. This is how easy it is to create science sophistry and belief in the climate science version of the greenhouse effect.
Energy Conservation and Work and Heat
Recall that at equilibrium, no heat flows at the interior of the shell
Q’sh = 0
while the heat at the sphere is given by
Q’sp = Asp*σ*Tsp4*((rsp/rsh)2 – 1).
In fact, at any location between the sphere and the shell the heat flow from the sphere is given by
Q’sp = Asp*σ*Tsp4*((r/rsh)2 – 1)
where rsp ≤ r ≤ rsh; when r = rsh then Q’sp = 0.
On the outside of the shell, of course,
Psh = Ash*σ*Tsp4*(rsp/rsh)2
which conserves energy, and this would be equal to the heat flow from the exterior of the shell in an environment at 0K. Note that the heat flux and temperature is not a conserved quantity – only total energy is. Heat flow is just the thing we call Q’, while the total energy is represented by the terms Q’ is dependent upon. This is of course the distinction that flux/temperature and energy are different things – we do not conserve energy by conserving flux/temperature, in fact we conserve energy because flux and temperature are not conserved…that is the only way it can work. It is in fact the only mathematical solution and the only way to avoid it is to not perform the mathematical solution, and just make up other things instead, not based on applying the heat flow equation, at least in the correct way.
Note that the interior of the shell readily radiates according to its temperature,
Psh = Ash*σ*Tsh4,
however, the heat flow this is capable of is equal to zero, because it is in equilibrium with the energy from the interior sphere. The heat and energy from the interior sphere is obviously conserved on the outside of the shell, where the emission from the shell is translated as heat to the cooler exterior
Q’sh = Ash*σ*Tsh4
if the exterior is 0K. This is not a doubling of the available energy from the sphere emitted by the shell, because the shell is not capable of performing any work in its interior; only the sphere is. Of course, if the exterior outside the shell is some other temperature, and lets assume it is a cooler one so that we don’t have to re-do the heat flow analysis with heat flowing from the exterior through the shell back inside(!), say it is like a cosmic background temperature, then
Q’sh = Ash*σ*(Tsh4 – TCMB4).
Since the σ*TCMB4 basically comes from a source infinitely far away, then the shell heat flow eventually ends up as zero, i.e. heat death. As a function of distance from the shell, its flux is given by σ*Tsh4*(rsh/r)2 where r is the distance from the shell, and rsh ≤ r ≤ ∞. Then as a function of distance the heat flow from the shell is
Q’sh = 4*π*r2*σ*(Tsh4*(rsh/r)2 – TCMB4)
and so the shell heat merges with the background when Q’sh = 0, at
r = rsh*Tsh2/TCMB2.
For the Earth and its blackbody temperature of 255K and the real CMB of 2.7K, then the ‘r’ is 56.8 million kilometers; beyond that the Earth can’t provide heating above what the CMB would be providing (of course the Sun is still around and significant at this distance in any direction from the Earth). The energy gets lost to the entropy of the universe, though of course it is conserved.
Climate of Sophistry 
I mean look at all the text reading and the equations. As Greg always points out: TARGET AUDIENCE! TARGET AUDIENCE! I get more and more the feeling that while some of these people can actually do algebra, they can’t actually understand what the algebraic terms mean and what the physics is behind them. I mean they really just don’t understand. I mean these are people with PhD’s that can’t follow the reading here…it means the material is Greek gibberish for the average person and the average person might as well just believe the radiative version of the greenhouse effect of climate science…because look at how angry it makes people at you if you don’t believe it. I mean there’s just no criterion possible here for osmosis of truth. And that’s why they get to be so angry and hatey and say that cavitation from a boat propeller underwater is evidence of the greenhouse effect…because WHY NOT? Who the heck besides 20 people can tell that that is a ridiculously stupid thing to say and has no basis in reality, and who besides 3 people care? Unicorns exist because Cherenkov radiation makes water glow! Why? Why not! Do you dare refute that boat propellers can cavitate, and do you dare refute that Cherenkov radiation glows? Do you, you tool that everyone hates and thinks you’re stupid? Just shut up! Shut up your face! Make your face shut up! (hehehe) Am I the bigger fool for engaging in such a debate? It might not matter that I’m right, when I’m arguing with a horse. “Seriously, Horse, 1+1 = 2, it is true.” … “Neigheigheigheigh!!!!” … “D’OHHP – I said TWO!!! Now you say it!” … “Neigheigheigheigh!!!!” 🙂
Willis, the steel greenhouse genius, is a gifted, but gullible story teller. One of his WUWT anecdotes involves his arrest in the KIDNAPPING OF GOVERNOR REAGAN as part of a war protest. Reagan was trapped in a university auditorium dressing room while Willis and his gang pounded on the door. Willis did time in county jail while the magnanimous Reagan got all charges dismissed against the wayward college kids. If you a gullible enough to fall for felony kidnapping of a governor, then MAYBE you can be fooled by Faux Science Sophistry.
It would be in the true spirit of traditional scientific dialogue if WUWT would post this steel sphere rebuttal and conduct a real debate on fundamental flaws of AGW & GHE. But that might force a wider retraction of this feeble fraud and those TOO gullible to see Truth.
Joe, your rather long discourse on the subject is perhaps correct, but it would be more effective if you just started with the equation where flux and energy are equated in the “radiation equation”. Frankly, I was not aware that that equation is what the climate alamists use, it is unbelievable. And I also wanted to bring it to your attention that when you describe the issue of conservation of energy, you state “For conservation of energy this has to be equal to the power supplied by the interior sphere, so …. (followed by equations.). You know as well as anybody that energy and power are dimensionally not the same and can not be equated as such.
You should write and publish a concise version of what you presented in this email, and hammer hard on the misconceptions that apparently exist. The math is really not that complicated, and could be augmented by stating clearly when you use the Stefan-Bolzmann emission equation for radiated energy of a perfectly black surface substance (let’s not forget). Good luck!
Henri Suyderhou
(I am an ardent foe of climate nonsense, as you may suspect)
This:
is an interesting random factoid, and I am all about those.
I recall I had been trying to get across the error being made where people on tb’s were saying that “since the sphere has a constant power source, and max argues that the inward emissions should be subtracted from the sphere emissions, then clearly the sphere has to heat up and emit more because we said it has a constant power source” or some such nonsense.
Finally got informed that tb had enough of my bullshit because I wouldn’t ignore that I wouldn’t just quietly let them say I am wrong and move on.
Went over the inverse square effects, was told they wouldn’t change things because the shell could be assumed to be arbitrarily close to the sphere, pointed out that if this were the case then you could have a tiny gap, raise the temperature of the sphere, then fill the gap, and let the shell radiate more energy than it receives.
Thanks Henri, will do and keep in mind.
Max, you’ll like the factoid for the Sun: (5778/2.7)^2*695500km = 123 light days. Beyond 123 light days the Sun can’t warm up you any more than the CMB can.
Now think of how interesting that is right? Because the radiative greenhouse schemers would bark and say that this must mean that energy is not being conserved or something. I mean it is a basic equation of course…if they could understand math and steady state thermal systems. But here’s the interesting thing: YOU CAN SEE STARS like the sun much further away than this of course. Which means you do not need heat flow in order for photons to “do stuff”. Chemical and electronic processes of course, doing work, not just simple thermal heating. There are other processes than heat, and certainly beyond a certain distance, heat can’t heat you, nor can you heat the source of heat, etc. It’s like we are all islands of the potential for work, because we provide thermal gradients in space-time. Beyond our thermal gradient is heat death. Someone should do the calculation for the heat radius of a human body.
That’s a funny recount of your time at TB on this topic. I mean did they apply the basic equation AT ALL? This is elementary math. Here’s the heat flow equation, we all agree on it. Now, just apply it where it needs to be applied! Why can’t we do that? Well, because if you do that then the steel greenhouse claims are debunked. So they just MAKE UP the result they want, and don’t use the equation at all. Oh, they use some math alright, they just don’t use the math that should be used or use it correctly.
If I calculate a rough value for my surface area converted to a sphere, then I have a heat radius of 7km. Such a calculation would be more accurate for fat people who are more spherical.
Joseph E Postma says: 2013/12/09 at 3:50 AM
“If I calculate a rough value for my surface area converted to a sphere, then I have a heat radius of 7km. Such a calculation would be more accurate for fat people who are more spherical”.
Radiative, radiative, radiative With the aqueous vapour in the air that is reduced to 7 Meters.
with convection it is less than a millimeter, (millimetre), clothes are more than ornamental
Good article Joe, Some comments:
Your use of entropy once a the end is good folk have heard of that. If someone mentions that all thermal radiation is entropy do not argue.
“Q = A*(F1 – F2)”, Two fluxes (fluxi?) Nah! One flux from hot to cold! No “back radiation”. Explain that the “inside parenthesis” is a vector sum of two different opposing potentials of flux. You are trying to proving “No back radiation”, do not use such in your proof..
“The energy density of 240 W/m2”? That would be energy density of 240 W*seconds/m3! The power density is W/m3. Just use flux, flux also decreases with distance in the direction of “the” flux!. You can normalize out distance by using radiance and Stefan’s constant divided by PI. For a sphere, the solid angle is 4PI, the surface area is now the cross sectional area. The spherical shape is isotropic and goes away. All vector addition is preserved Even Dr. (hic) Shore must agree, horse that he is. http://s0.wp.com/wp-includes/images/smilies/icon_smile.gif?m=1129645325g
Joe, just a suggestion. It would be useful and would avoid any confusion if you gave the units of each term the first time it is used.
OK I could go through and do that when I get a moment.
I have long been a fan of having a verbal walk through of any equation. It can be most illuminating. It seems not enough do that, yet, if one does not, then one does not understand what the equation does.
btw Joe, I sent you an email a couple of days back with a word document attached, have you had chance to look at it yet?
Thanks for this post
I think many of the incorrect assumptions in climate science thermodynamics stem from what Claes Johnson called the True Stefan-Bolztmann law vs the False Stefan-Boltzman law used by climate scientists. The False SB law assumes
sigma (T^4 – T_b^4) = sigma T^4 – sigma T_b^4
which although true algebraically, isn’t true or stable in a physical sense
Here’s a couple of his posts explaining why:
http://claesjohnson.blogspot.com/2011/10/climate-alarmism-based-on-false-stefan.html
http://claesjohnson.blogspot.com/2011/10/stability-of-true-sb-vs-false-sb.html
Would you agree?
I’m working outside of my home country right now Derek and am quite busy. Yes I did see it and think about it and will get back to you.
Joe, I have never heard any mentioning of the vast amount of energy expended to create electricity by burning coal, since lots of the heat from burning coal is escaping into the atmosphere, and truly heats up the air locally. Has anybody ever tried to calculate that lost energy , which obviously depends on the process efficiency of coal fired power plants? Some of the lost energy becomes over-heated steam, I personally have never attempted to do the calculation, and I am surprised the GW crowd has never mentioned it. Is it perhaps negligible? The gas expelled day in day out contains the well heated CO2 and adds to its molecular behavior which may well include the higher state of absorption by long-wave radiation. Clearly, if anything like this is happening, the whole argument of LW absorption becomes even weaker than it already is. I believe this should be investigated, don’t you?
I think the analysis and discussion here is more clear and simple and straightforward than what Claes is doing in those posts. For heat flow, we need to factor in the areas and fluxes appropriate to the locality in question.
Well Henri I think if you calculate how much power is generated/consumed by humans every second, and compare that to the input from the sun, 1.22×10^17 Joules per second, then the human energy production is found to be negligible. Wiki says 5TW so 5×10^12 / 1.22×10^17 = 0.004%.
Also Joe, this paper was published today,
http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/ngeo2020.html
finding ““A minimum atmospheric temperature, or tropopause, occurs at a pressure of around 0.1 bar in the atmospheres of Earth1, Titan2, Jupiter3, Saturn4, Uranus and Neptune4, despite great differences in atmospheric composition, gravity, internal heat and sunlight.” “A common dependence of infrared opacity on pressure, arising from the shared physics of molecular absorption, sets the 0.1 bar tropopause.”
http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/ngeo2020.html
Suggesting atmospheric composition is a minor player in atmospheric temperature profiles
I’d be interested in your comments, thanks!
Joe, I never doubted that fact which you mention. My main point is what I stated at the end. The state of the CO2 that they are concerned about is very likely already such that any LW radiation during the nights will have no influence on it. The argument of the GW crowd, wrong as it is, becomes even more ridiculous given the circumstances of the released CO2. Plain, pure and simple.
Dear Joe,
It’s come to this: http://cnsnews.com/video/cnsnews/santa-says-global-warming-may-cancel-christmas
Hockey Schtick says: 2013/12/09 at 10:47 AM
“Also Joe, this paper was published today,
http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/ngeo2020.html”
Interesting, but from NASA. Conventional wisdom and F. Moskolczi claim that in an atmosphere at a pressure lower than 0.1 bar the molecules stop acting like they are in a pressure vessel and start acting like they are in an elliptical orbit around the center of mass of the planet. Moskolczi was a subcontractor for NASA Goddard and tried to publish this so was fired by the subcontractor. Your government dollars at work. His papers “are” difficult to read. best reviews http://www.eike-klima-energie.eu/uploads/media/EE_21-4_paradigm_shift_output_limited_3_Mb.pdf
“at a pressure lower than 0.1 bar the molecules stop acting like they are in a pressure vessel and start acting like they are in an elliptical orbit around the center of mass of the planet.”
Interesting! Notice the 0.1 bar transition common to every planet.
It’s a pattern too obvious to ignore.
Joel Shore is still trying to tell me that photons build up like water behind a damn.
Photons don’t behave like water. Stick a hose of photons (flashlight) into a silvered bag of some sort, and see if it does the same thing as if you you used a water hose. It doesn’t. Quickly look into the light bag and see if it is way brighter than the flashlight…it isn’t.
The steel greenhouse and all related radiative GHE schemes of climate science has been deunked.
Yes that is really really neat about the 0.1 bar thing. Why? Because one thing I’ve always found curious is that, given all the differences in insolation at the surface (Venus has hardly any direct insolation at its ground surface) and other atmospheric differences, if you combine the radiative surface with the atmosphere’s lapse rate, you always calculate the near-surface-air temperature correctly. So if IR opacity is largely dependent simply on pressure, then bang, that defines where the radiative surface is going to be and then it automatically follows what the air temperature at the surface will be given the particular lapse rate. Great stuff.
@Charles O’Connor
OH MY GOODNESS. Like seriously. Well you know, threatening your children in some way or other has ALWAYS been the first step of the argumentation. We need ice for Santa! I recall when I first encountered alarmism in 1999 in the 2nd year of undergrad, from one of my proff’s. I asked him a skeptical question about the environmental alarm he was espousing, and he immediately responded by threatening my children “Do you want your children to DIE?”. I didn’t have children at the time. I also was impressionable and so adopted his position.
Anyway, yes, how can they be so stupid? The proof is in the pudding as it were – using a fairy tale to argue for another fairy tale! lol
Alan Siddons says: 2013/12/09 at 2:28 PM
‘Interesting! Notice the 0.1 bar transition common to every planet.
It’s a pattern too obvious to ignore’.
Thanks for the jpeg ref. Interesting that Mars surface is above the tropopause.
You have to try to read the paper to get the orbiting stuff. The PDF I refered to, has the most informative graph on page 280. It is a log/log graph of flux vs altitude that indicates both the from 1) the Sun flux and where it is absorbed, 2) the total, not just radiative,, flux, from the surface to some level in the atmosphere or to space, and 3) The radiative flux to space and what level in the atmosphere that it radiated from with total flus increasing all the way up to 200 Km.
There is ne radiant flux from atmosphere to surface just like 2LTD demands.Iit shows that there is no BB radiative temperature at all, The atmosphere absorbs and radiates to space at “every” temperatute it has.
Van Andel likely was the only person thet ever did understand what Miscolczi was about.
Google” Noors van Andel, F. Miskolczi” for much more I never accepted “back radiation”, but I love “no blackbody either”.
I debunked Willis’s “steel greenhouse” on this thread without any maths:
Two days later he suffered a heart attack. I hope I was not a contributory factor.
Wow is Willis ever deluded is his responses to you. He seriously doesn’t realize that surface area has to be multiplied by SURFACE flux to get the total power, and so if a larger radius is emitting at the same flux of a smaller radius, the larger radius is by definition radiating more power than available from the smaller radius. Just amazing.
He accuses you of argument by assertion yet that’s what his ENTIRE steel greenhouse argument is…lol!
Yes Joe, it beggars belief.
Thanks Joe, accuracy and truth go hand in hand.
Maths is logic. Science requires logic.
You don’t necessarily need the maths but you cannot bypass the logic.
Yes but when they think that temperature & flux should be conserved is logical, then everything gets thrown out the window… You DO NOT conserve the energy when radiating 240 W/m^2 from a small surface, over a larger surface, Willis.
That thread might still be open at WUWT.
Someone should, because it is all that is required, post a comment:
Psphere = 4*pi*R2sphere*235 W/m2
Pshell = 4*pi*R2shell*235 W/m2
Given Rshell > Rsphere, then Pshell > Psphere, which violates conservation of energy. The power available is only 4*pi*R2sphere*235 W/m2. If you increase the area, by any amount, even an infinitesimal amount, then you emit more power than supplied if the flux is kept the same. It doesn’t even matter if the inner sphere warms up, there’s still more energy being emitted on the outside than was supplied from the inside.
Of course if you want to get around that by shrinking Rshell to Rsphere, then you just have the sphere.
Nahhgh…that’s far beyond what might be accepted there…no?
Which is why the following statement, understandable to scientist and layman alike:
“Remember the ice cube analogy I posted earlier Willis. That’s two ice cubes and therefore two lots of 314.94 W/m2 and yet no increase in temperature. Add as many ice cubes radiating 314.94 W/m2 as you like Willis, you know you won’t get more than 273 K”
…..is all that is required to debunk and at the same time expose, such sophistry.
Yes, true, right Will.
Yeah, queue heart attack!
I’m still waiting for Willis to respond on that thread. I’m sure he has recovered now.
Good job I’m not holding my breath. There is a common reaction with all those who have deliberately and publicly lied in support of the GHE hypothesis when you expose them for doing so……. utter silence.
Never do they ever concede their errors, nor do they correct their mistakes.
Silence is their stern reply.
Or just change the reference frame and topic entirely! {cough…lightbulbs…what challenge???…}
Joseph E Postma says: 2013/12/10 at 4:59 AM
“Yes, true, right Will”.
Yes true indeed!
Joe read again my reply ton Alan Siddons on : 2013/12/09
Then get that graph. It took me every day for a month to figure out “Graph of What?
Two weeks just for “Not a graph of what”? Answer: Temperature,, Temperature is not there, Only flux, that is allowed, up to cold and down from the Hot sun verses altitude. Have fun
Joseph E Postma says: 2013/12/10 at 4:56 AM
“Psphere = 4*pi*R2sphere*235 W/m2
Pshell = 4*pi*R2shell*235 W/m2”
I would put it as the flow or increase of entropy with “S” being the amount of such flow:
Action = 235W to be converted to entropy. Power integrated over time twice.
Ssphere =235 W/Tsphere.
Sshell = 235 W/Tshell.
Sbackground = 235 W/Tbackground.
The 235 Watts is “gone” (Entropy growth) at a lower temperature.
The 235 Watts cab be regained only if you “have” a lower temperature. that can provide an increase in entropy .Entropy is “gained” on every transfer to a lower temperature! Becoming NAN near 0 Kelvin. Never to become recoverable to a higher temperature, 2LTD.
Even if the universe starts shrinking, unless that creates negative temperatures..
So much for conservation of NAN.
Joe, You really want to go with the notion that an approximation that is good to about 0.2% for the physical system in question negates the whole argument?
One can easily correct for this if one wants to and one will find you get almost the exact same result that you get if you assume the same radius. Not surprising since the surface area of a spherical shell 5 km above the surface is less than 0.2% greater than the area of the sphere.
[JP: Good God Joel, 0.2% is 0.2% extra power coming from nowhere. Just because it’s small doesn’t mean its OK. Assume thee same radius? If you reduce the shell TO the radius of the sphere, then you have NO shell! lol How do you even function? Oh right…you do this on purpose. Even if we take Willis and your result, then:
Psh/Psp = 240/480 * (Rsh/Rsp)^2 = 0.5 * (Rsh/Rsp)^2
which does not even conserve energy when Rsp = Rsh…hahahah.]
Actually Joel, you will have more than twice the surface area of the sphere because a shell has two surfaces, an inside surface and an outside surface.
So it’s back to the drawing board for you mate!
Will Pratt says:
No.,.That part is taken into account. I was talking about the area on each side of the shell.
Joe Postma says:
Come on, Joe, Limits like this are taken all the time in physics…and I would expect most astrophysicists would understand them. As you make the shell closer and closer to the radius of the sphere, the error in assuming that they are the same radius becomes arbitrarily small.
[JP: OMG Joel! So the atmosphere is like an infinitely thin layer zero distance away from the surface! haha An infinitely thin layer on any surface will increase its temperature? lol]
You are not applying conservation of energy correctly there. The sphere emits (480 W/m*2)*(4*pi*R^2). The shell emits (240 W/m*2)*(4*pi*R^2) up and (240 W/m*2)*(4*pi*R^2) down.
[JP: Good…Lord…OMG. I was wondering if you would say this. OK, let’s use your new numbers:
Psh/Psp = 480/480 * (Rsh/Rsp)^2 = (Rsh/Rsp)^2
which means that energy is immediately not conserved as soon as Rsh > Rsp by an infitesimal amount. Your “taking limits” has NO relevance WHATSOEVER because what if the steel greenhouse scenario HAS a significant gap between the sphere and shell. You have to use your same numbers for it! hahah OK. You guys really are just complete frauds.]
So, yes, energy is conserved at the shell. It receives (480 W/m*2)*(4*pi*R^2) and emits 2*(240 W/m*2)*(4*pi*R^2).
Energy is also conserved at the sphere: It generates (240 W/m*2)*(4*pi*R^2) of thermal power, absorbs another (240 W/m*2)*(4*pi*R^2) from the shell and emits (480 W/m*2)*(4*pi*R^2).
“a shell has two surfaces”
If I may blow my own horn, please see Three Impossible Outcomes
http://www.principia-scientific.org/latest-news/400-greenhouse-gases-three-impossible-outcomes.html
Alan,
One usually doesn’t toot one’s own horn by demonstrating how little physics one actually understands.
[JP: Alan, do not respond in kind. I’m leaving this up to demonstrate the kind of jerk that Joel Shore is. The problem you lay out in your link is of course entirely logical and worth thinking about.]
No, Joe. In steady-state (the system is technically never in equilibrium), what has to be zero is the total heat flow at the shell. Your Qsh is only the heat flow on the interior.
[JP: Yes, that is exactly the same thing, Joel. You just said that the heat flow at the shell is not the heat flow at the shell. The statement is self-contradictory. Yes, you need to calculate the heat flow on the interior from the sphere to shell, which is what I did, not “what was done and not done”. ha]
How can the shell have no net heat coming to it from the inside and yet still be emitting that amount to the outside? Where is the energy coming from?
[JP: The energy is coming from the inner sphere. The heat flow on the inside of the shell is zero. Emission on the outside of the shell is immediately replaced by energy on the inside from the sphere. Steady state equilibrium temperatures with no net heat flow into the shell. Temperature is not changing but there IS energy flow through the shell. Basic stuff here. The inside is basically a heat bath.]
You’ve just determined that the NET power being supplied by the interior sphere is zero.
[JP: No, Joel, the heat flow at the interior of the shell is zero. The POWER from the sphere doesn’t disappear. The shell emits on the outside the power it gets from the sphere. It doesn’t lose energy on the inside.]
You’ve created an argument where you just freely bounce back and forth between NET and GROSS emissions when it suits your purposes. When you want the interior of the shell to have no net heat flow, you count the emissions in both directions and when you want the interior sphere to be supplying some power, you ignore this.
[JP: No Joel, the heat flow equation determines when thermal equilibrium occurs. This means no temperature change which means no heat flows, but it does not mean energy disappears. You’re claiming that if there’s no heat flow then all energy must disappear. This is of course quite silly. The interior sphere provides the power to shell, which then gets emitted on the outside of the shell at lower temperature due to increased surface area. There is zero net emission on the inside because anything emitted is immediately replaced by emission from the other side.]
Will Pratt says:
Recovered from what, exactly? Laughing or crying at the utter ridiculousness of this post?
Joe Postma says (to Alan Siddons):
Let’s take a look at all of this logic in Alan’s article:
Fallacy: The steady-state solution is for the Earth’s emissions to be reduced if greenhouse gases act like a heat-retaining blanket.
Reality: Let’s imagine that we magically instantaneously increase greenhouse gas concentrations from zero to current values. What happens? Yes, at first, the Earth’s emissions to space will be reduced. However, now you are in a situation where the Earth is emitting less energy out into space than it receives from the sun. That means its temperature will increase and continue to increase until it has reached a temperature where its emissions out into space once again equal the amount it is receiving from the sun. (There is an empirical difference, however, the original spectrum would look very nearly like a blackbody emitter while the new spectrum will look like this: http://www.barrettbellamyclimate.com/userimages/MODA.jpg )
Fallacy: If I say 2 + 2 = 4 and you can show that the solution to a completely different problem is 8, that must mean that I am wrong.
Reality: Yes, that is because that is the steady-state solution to the problem, something that any of us who can do these calculations could have provided for you if you had only asked. The plate is receiving 1367 W/m^2 from the source and hence it must emit the same amount, which it can do either by emitting from both sides and being at a temperature of 58 C or, if the emissions from one side are prevented, being at a higher temperature of 121 C which results in 1367 W/m^2 being emitted from one side.
However, this solution [of the shell being at a lower temperature where it emits half as much] clearly won’t work in the “steel greenhouse” case because if the shell is at half the temperature, then it won’t be emitting back out into space the amount of energy it has to emit out given the rate at which thermal energy is being generated. So, the shell being at half the temperature won’t work. The same basic point hold for the real atmospheric greenhouse case, albeit with the additional complication that “shell” is then opaque at some wavelengths and transparent at others. (In fact, at some wavelengths, it acts like multiple opaque shells.)
Fallacy: If no heat is transferred between two objects, their temperatures can’t change.
Reality: You also have to consider heat transfer from the rest of the universe. If the atmosphere and the surface were at the same temperature, then there would be no heat transfer between them but there would still be heat transfer from the sun to the Earth and from the atmosphere back out into space. As a result, the Earth would start to heat up…and the atmosphere would either heat or cool (depending on what initial temperature the two were at). Then, once the temperatures were different, there would be heat transfer and you would eventually reach a steady-state where the net heat transfer is that the sun transfers an amount of power P to the Earth, the Earth transfers an amount of power P to the atmosphere, and the atmosphere transfers an amount of power P to space. [Again, for simplicity, I am discussing this for a “steel greenhouse” of an atmosphere that acts as a single perfectly opaque shell to terrestrial radiation…and is perfectly transparent to radiation from the sun.]
Fallacy: Once again, the heat flow between two bodies interacting with the rest of the universe is sufficient to determine how their temperatures will change.
Reality: You also have to consider other heat flows. Only if the two are isolated from the rest of the universe can you figure out what is going to happen based just on the heat flow between them.
Fallacy: Bodies in physics “stay in character” rather than satisfying the laws of physics.
Reality: I recommend you try to learn as much as you can about solving steady-state problems. The steady-state solution is that the shell has to radiate as much back out into space as is being received by the system from the sun. The reason the sphere in the steel greenhouse has to radiate twice as much as it did originally is not because this is in its character but rather because this is the steady-state solution that satisfies the equations for radiative balance: The system as a whole is receiving a certain amount of energy from the sun and must radiate the same amount back into space. This determines the temperature of the shell. Then the temperature of the sphere is determined by the condition that the amount it radiates has to equal the amount it receives from the sun [or by its own thermal production if it is powered from within instead] and the amount it receives from the shell. (And, if you don’t believe in back-radiation from the shell, it doesn’t matter because you can still say mathematically that the temperature of the sphere has to be such that the net power that it radiates to the shell, A*sigma*[(T_sp)^4 – T_sh)^4] has to equal the power that it receives from the sun or its own power source and you’ll get the exact same answer.)
[JP Holy crap you are a complete moron. Temperature can change when there is no heat flow…right.
I’ll leave this up here for amusement, but Joel I think you might need a break soon since you can’t seem to understand midst all your angry ranting, that a ratio greater than 1, is a ratio greater than one. 1.0000001/1 = 1.0000001. Seriously it does Joel. And even, 4/2 = 2, not 1.
Learn the heat flow equation and the definition of temperature and heat flow. Start with
Q = A*s*(T1^4 – T2^4) which means heat flows from higher to lower density, obviously. Cold doesn’t raise the temperature of warm.]
Joe,
After reading your latest replies, I have realized once again the lesson that I keep learning and forgetting: that engagement with you on these things is an utter waste of time.
What will happen is that those with any ability to distinguish between physics and nonsense will be repelled away from you, as has happened with most of the “skeptic” community. And, those who don’t have this ability will continue to hang out here and have a grand old time listening to your latest bit of nonsense and thinking themselves more enlightened than the rest of the world.
[JP: Hey Joel: Q = A*s*(T1^4 – T2^4). Heat flows from hot to cold. Cold doesn’t send heat to hot, thus cold can not raise the temperature of hot. 1.1/1 = 1.1. The radiative greenhouse effect was disproven 100 years ago and can be readily disproven still today, and has been and is being so. Climate alarm and climate science is failing and those behind the curve will eventually catch up to realize that it was the fundamentals of the theory which made it all wrong in the first place. The laws of nature will eventually demonstrate to everybody that the radiative greenhouse effect is a fraud; those on the leading edge of the curve already know 🙂 ]
joeldshore says 2013/12/10 at 3:47 PM
Nothing really!
Will Pratt says:
“Actually Joel, you will have more than twice the surface area of the sphere because a shell has two surfaces, an inside surface and an outside surface. So it’s back to the drawing board for you mate!”
Outter surface has exit flux
Inner surface has no exit flux, onyt absorbance!
Joe Postma says:
If you reduce the shell TO the radius of the sphere, then you have NO shell! lol How do you even function?
You have a shell conductivly coupled to the sphere!
[JP: OMG Joel! So the atmosphere is like an infinitely thin layer zero distance away from the surface! haha An infinitely thin layer on any surface will increase its temperature? lol]
No! What you do have for (energy, power, flux transfer upward), is a partialy transmissive, partially absorptive atmosphere at high altitudes. Below that, the significance of radiative transfer decreases, while other forms, convection, latent heat, increase. Near the surface <50 cm, latent heat is the only method, as there is no temperature difference. Radiation and conduction are both forced to zero.!
joeldshore says foolishly "You are not applying conservation of energy correctly there. The sphere emits (480 W/m*2)*(4*pi*R^2). The shell emits (240 W/m*2)*(4*pi*R^2) up and [I](240 W/m*2)*(4*pi*R^2) down.[/I]
[B] WJ, Good…Lord…OMG. I was wondering if you would say this. OK, The radiative flux from hot to cold. has been measured most precisely. The sphere emits (240 W/m*2)*(4*pi*R^2) to some iintermediate temperature (Tshell). The shell emits (240 W/m*2)*(4*pi*R^2) up and [I](0 W/m*2)*(4*pi*R^2) down.[/I] [/B] All 240 Watts of power is "passed through the sphere and the shell" in an isentropic manner. Not you, nor anyone else can demonstrate otherwise.
Why is Dr. (hic) joeldshore or anyone else speaking of the "conservation of energy" in a radiative process? That is meaningless!
Will Janoschka says:
2013/12/10 at 9:04 PM
Outter surface has exit flux
Inner surface has no exit flux, onyt absorbance!
In Willis’ un-physical scenario there is a vacuum between the shell and the surface.
joeldshore says:
2013/12/10 at 3:47 PM
“No.,.That part is taken into account. I was talking about the area on each side of the shell.”
You mean double counted Joel. Planet emits 235 W/m2 to shell, shell emits 235 W/m2 out and back. That is double counting Joel.
joeldshore says:
2013/12/10 at 7:00 PM
“Recovered from what, exactly? Laughing or crying at the utter ridiculousness of this post?”
Recovered from his embarrassment at how easy it is to debunk his stupid “steel greenhouse” pseudoscience nonsense Joel.
This is what I said to him:
“Remember the ice cube analogy I posted earlier Willis. That’s two ice cubes and therefore two lots of 314.94 W/m2 and yet no increase in temperature. Add as many ice cubes radiating 314.94 W/m2 as you like Willis, you know you won’t get more than 273 K”
You carefully skipped around that when you called my post ridiculous. So go for it Joel, tell us all how ridiculous this point is.
Don’t skip around the point I was referring to and then deliberately take me out of context so you can call me ridiculous. What kind of deviant are you?
Address the point I made to Willis or keep quiet about it.
Joseph E Postma says: 2013/12/10 at 4:56 AM
“Psphere = 4*pi*R2sphere*235 W/m2.” Has no area = 235 Watts only outward.
“Pshell = 4*pi*R2shell*235 W/m2″, Has no area = 235 Watts only outward.
Like turtles 235 Watts,, all the way down, with “no work” ever done, isentropic!
joeldshore says:2013/12/10 at 7:00 PM
“No, Joe. In steady-state (the system is technically never in equilibrium), what has to be zero is the total heat flow at the shell. Your Qsh is only the heat flow on the interior.”.
What you call equilibrium is “isothermal, with no flux”. This It is truly academic bullshit, (any powered system is technically never in equilibrium), everything changes, but all systems ‘must”
tend to equilibrium., Thermodynamic equilibrium is the case where nothing changes not power, not flux, not any temperature. It is an isentropic process or iso-entropic process . Dr. (hic) Shore can only think thermostatics, which also has equilibrium, then calls The thermodynamic equivalent his “steady state”,, idiot!
Will Pratt says:2013/12/11 at 2:17 AM
Will Janoschka says:2013/12/10 at 9:04 PM
“Outer surface has exit flux, Inner surface has no exit flux, only absorptance!”
“In Willis’ un-physical scenario there is a vacuum between the shell and the surface.”
Yes, vacuum every where except between the inner and outer surfaces of the shell. The inner surface of the shell has “no” exit flux, (or specific exitance), as the whole interior has the same or higher temperature.
Can we get away from the Willis and Joel weasel words?
Most of the “ance” words are potential flux normalized for distance and a constant with distance. The actual flux is not so normalized and is a function of distance, Exception: Irradiance is not so normalized as there is no distance, It is potential flux “rai cheer”. Actual flux is always a function of everything that limits such potential flux. “Like the lower temperature of the radiated to absorber”!
“Come on, Joe, Limits like this are taken all the time in physics…and I would expect most astrophysicists would understand them. As you make the shell closer and closer to the radius of the sphere, the error in assuming that they are the same radius becomes arbitrarily small.” (Joeldshore, 2013/12/10 at 3:47 PM)
This is perhaps something of an aside, but it is quite revealing as to how astrophysics is also done by sophistry. And I couldn’t resist responding to the invocation of “astrophysicists”. Most astrophysicists don’t actually understand limits. In fact, they don’t understand much at all. Here are some examples.
(1) To get their black hole singularities they divide by zero, get infinity, and then assign a physical property to the result (infinite density).
“Once a body of matter, of any mass m, lies inside its Schwarzschild radius 2m it undergoes gravitational collapse . . . and the singularity becomes physical, not a limiting fiction.” (Dodson, C. T. J., and Poston, T., Tensor Geometry – The Geometric Viewpoint and its Uses, 2nd Ed., Springer–Verlag, 1991)
“A nonrotating black hole has a particularly simple structure. At the center is the singularity, a point of zero volume and infinite density where all of the black hole’s mass is located. Spacetime is infinitely curved at the singularity. . . . The black hole’s singularity is a real physical entity. It is not a mathematical artifact . . . ” (Carroll, B. W. and Ostlie, D. A., An Introduction to Modern Astrophysics, Addison–Wesley Publishing Company Inc., 1996)
(2) They don’t know what escape velocity is. On the one hand they assert that their black holes have an escape velocity, yet on the other hand they assert that nothing can even leave a black hole – the black hole event horizon is a one-way membrane – things go in but nothing can emerge. They mistakenly think that nothing can escape means that nothing can leave. They also think that if the escape speed is the speed of light, then light, which travels at the speed of light, can’t escape!
“A black hole is, ah, a massive object, and it’s something which is so massive that light can’t even escape. … some objects are so massive that the escape speed is basically the speed of light and therefore not even light escapes. … so black holes themselves are, are basically inert, massive and nothing escapes …”
(Bland-Hawthorn, J., 2013, http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-09-24/new-research-sheds-more-light-on-black-holes/4979088)
“I had already discussed with Roger Penrose the idea of defining a black hole as a set of events from which it is not possible to escape to a large distance. It means that the boundary of the black hole, the event horizon, is formed by rays of light that just fail to get away from the black hole. Instead, they stay forever hovering on the edge of the black hole.” Hawking, S. W., The Theory of Everything, The Origin and Fate of the Universe (New Millennium Press, Beverly Hills, CA, (2002).
(3) They claim that they can get “near infinite”, and attain “an almost infinite number”. Near infinite? An almost infinite number? How close to infinite must one get to be near infinite or to have almost an infinite number? Is it infinite – 1? Is it infinite – a billion? Is it infinite + 10? How can we ever be sure we are near infinite?
“One crucial assumption underlies the standard hot big-bang model: that the universe ‘began’ in a state of rapid expansion from a very nearly homogeneous, isotropic condition of infinite (or near infinite) density and pressure.”
[Misner, C. W., Thorne, K. S., Wheeler, J. A., Gravitation, W. H. Freeman and Company, New York, (1973)]
“But is that, in fact, because of discovering that empty space has energy, it seems quite plausible that our universe may be just one universe in what could be almost an infinite number of universes and in every universe the laws of physics are different and they come into existence when the universe comes into existence.”
(Krauss , L., 2013, http://www.abc.net.au/tv/qanda/txt/s3687812.htm)
(4) They tell us that matter is both present and absent by means of the very same mathematical constraint, as follows. R_{uv} = 0 contains a massive source (a ‘Schwarzschild’ black hole). Here energy-momentum tensor = 0. But R_{uv} = lambda(g_{uv}), where lambda is the so-called Cosmological Constant, contains no matter whatsoever (de Sitter’s empty universe). But energy-momentum tensor = 0 there too. So the astrophysicists assert that matter is both present and absent when energy-momentum tensor = 0.
(5) And here is how they actually fabricated their results for the Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB):
‘COBE and WMAP: Signal Analysis by Fact or Fiction?’
http://vixra.org/abs/1101.0009
There is no monopole at L2. The Planck satellite has not found it either. But the Planck team nonetheless generates images corresponding to WMAP, but at higher resolution. That’s actually comparison of noise to noise, at higher resolution!
Here is a comedy act. Smoot removed the galactic foreground and the dipole signal in his WMAP images, but did not find what he wanted to find (his predetermined outcome). So he decided to remove the quadrupole signal. Voila! Out popped his sought after CMB anisotropies, his “wrinkles in spacetime”. When he removed the quadrupole he actually introduced ghost signals due to his image processing methods. His “wrinkles in spacetime” are processing artefacts, but Smoot and astrophysicists galore take this as data!
So astrophysicists can’t be relied upon as credible sources, be it for limits, climate, or astrophysics.
4*pi*6371^2 = 510,064,471 @ 235 W/m^2 = 119,865,182,175,000,000
4*pi*6372^2 = 510,224,605 @ 235 W/m^2 = 119,902,782,175,000,000
It would be producing an extra 37,600,000,000,000 W/m^2 if the shell is 1 km above the Earth.
4*pi*6371.001 = 510,064,632 @ 235 W/m^2 = 119,865,188,527,000,000
You would only be producing an extra 6,352,000,000 W/m^2 if the shell is a meter above the Earth.
It’s ok though, because billions or trillions of W/m^2 can be written off like rounding errors?
A shell 1 km above the Earth would need to emit 234.926306~ W/m^2 to avoid MAKING EXTRA ENERGY FROM NOWHERE.
At 1 m above the surface it would need to emit 234.999987~ W/m^2 to avoid MAKING EXTRA ENERGY FROM NOWHERE.
Every time I brought this up over on tb’s site it got pushed aside or ignored, and I think someone actually tried to say that if the shell was only losing 234.926… etc W/m^2 it would have to heat up until it was losing 235 W/m^2 for some reason.
My befuddled mind is lost is the array of numbers plucked from regions unknown and placed into algebraic formulae that seemed quite straight forward at first. Ah, well.
Maybe someone can answer this simpleton’s question; How can IR in the range 13 to 17 micron warm up any surface already warmed to 15C? I hope for some explanation at the quantum level please.
Max it is just amazing that they’re trying to argue for conservation of energy, and then proceed to violate conservation of energy with angry vengeance. Yah they seem to think they can round down the errors!! hahaha What if the error rounds up, since there’s no reason the radii have to be similar? ha I mean the math SAYS energy isn’t conserved with any given radii…so they thought they could just make the radii similar as if any shell and sphere combo in the universe can NOT have an appreciable gap? It is impossible to have a shell and sphere NOT similar sizes? If you take any given sphere and any given shell in the universe they automatically resize themselves to be an infinitesimal difference in radii?
I think we’re arguing with complete idiots. I think that we’ve been giving them far far too much credit all this time, and we really are arguing with horses. I mean I think we don’t really need to bother…I think we can probably let them have their time, and simply wait until they die off. I guess the problem though is that their stupidity is malicious…
Well how about this Richard, instead: The radiative greenhouse postulate says that the temperature inside a greenhouse is not due just to the solar heating. The solar heating applied is not the limit of heating and temperature to be developed.
Rather…
The temperature inside a greenhouse is due to the solar heating…plus the temperature of the greenhouse.
Never mind that the statement is illogical and scientifically meaningless, and is empirically refuted in thousands of greenhouses everyday. Temperature is due to supplied heating, plus some of its own temperature.
Actually QM was derived by solving the “radiation trapped inside a cavity” problem. That is the origin of QM. The problem was in solving how EM energy would populate all available energy states given an enclosure – what would be the distribution of this EM population of energy states? Before it was solved they had the Rayleigh-Jeans Law and the old UV Catastrophe problem, etc. Then Planck thought of quantization, found that it gave a distribution which was finite, and subsequently this became the discovery of the blackbody spectrum and quantum mechanics as a field unto itself. So if you’re talking about a cooler spectrum (lower energy state population distribution) and a warmer spectrum (higher energy states population distribution), then the higher energy states always want to fill up the lower ones…because they’re available to. The lower energy state population distribution can’t fill up any more of the higher ones, because 1) the higher ones are already populated, 2) it doesn’t contain populated energy states that are higher in energy than the higher energy population, by definition. So, with the cooler spectrum unable to contribute any more “population” to the warmer spectrum, but the warmer spectrum can certainly do so for the cooler one, then heat flows hot to cold, where heat flow is the higher energy state population from the warmer spectrum going over and filling up the cooler one’s. The reason why this happens is called “spontaneous”, but it’s actually a rather simple statistical necessity – energy moves around, and there’s lots of it, like 10^32 photos per second from a 100W light, and so given such a large number of numbers, they find their way anywhere they can go. Like molecules finding their way into a vacuum. 10 photons or molecules distributions wouldn’t do much…but 10^32 simply necessitates that “the numbers go where there is a relative void of numbers”. The relative void doesn’t increase the numbers of the higher/denser number distribution.
Joe,
Something for your “Carbon positive campaign” …
Click to access 20_facts_about_CO2.pdf
Getting back to the Greenhouse Fraud (let’s stop using the term “Theory”) …
Click to access virtual_vs_reality_report.pdf
joeldshore says: 2013/12/10 at 5:27 PM
“Alan, One usually doesn’t toot one’s own horn by demonstrating how little physics one actually understands.”
So Dr. (hic) Joel D. Shore, Why do you do just that, in front of God and everybody? Are you really claiming that you have “any” understanding of physics or anything else? The (AAA) permits you to lecture (uninformed students). There are no unlearned students here. We all here have demonstrated that each can actually do something useful. You Joel Shore have again demonstrated that you can do nothing useful, only lecture to (poor defenceless students)!
Truthseeker says: 2013/12/11 at 4:34 PM
“Joe, Something for your “Carbon positive campaign” “…
Very nice references, Thank you!
Will, I will give you another one …
Click to access 1941-3955_4_2-3_19-db-paper.pdf
joeldshore says: 2013/12/10 at 8:07 PM
Let’s take a look at all of this logic in Alan Siddons ’s article:
[B]Allen{/B] [I] But here’s the snag: satellites report that the Earth emits to space the same amount of thermal energy as it receives from the sun. In other words, there is no evidence of radiative insulation, no physical sign of “greenhouse gases” acting like a heat-retaining blanket. [/I]
[B] Joel{/B] Fallacy: The steady-state solution is for the Earth’s emissions to be reduced if greenhouse gases act like a heat-retaining blanket.
[B] Will{/B] Reality:the Earth emits to space the same amount of thermal energy as it receives from the sun. The exitance spectrum will look like this: http://www.barrettbellamyclimate.com/userimages/MODA.jpg ), and has not changed With CO2 concentrations changing from 270 ppmv to 400 ppmv at the 4 KM mauna loa observatory. That same chart shows that the Earth is nowhere near a black-body,m It does not even have the same temperature at various wavelengths. The S-B equation can never be used.
[B]Allen{/B] [I] This is confirmed by a European Space Agency chart.European Space Agency Chart
The section I’ve highlighted in blue describes the radiative response of a fully-absorptive flat plate. With a radiant barrier affixed to its backside, the 1-s plate can only radiate in one direction. Stimulated by a 1367 W/m² light beam, then, this one-sided surface responds with a 1367 W/m² infrared emission, a 100% return. The same plate without a radiant barrier (2-s) is able to radiate from both surfaces, however. So, having twice the area to radiate with, it yields only a 50% response from each side. As you see, it’s simply a matter of dilution: the same bundle of energy has been spread over a larger surface area. Please observe that a larger area of emission also prevents the two-sided plate from getting as warm as a single surface target. In short, the standard greenhouse diagram depicts a two-sided atmospheric layer that is impossibly warm and radiating an impossibly large amount of energy. [/I]
[B] Joel{/B] Fallacy: If I say 2 + 2 = 4 and you can show that the solution to a completely different problem is 8, that must mean that I am wrong.
[B] Will{/B] Reality: A fixed amount of power radiating from a surface that doubles in area cuts the flux to 50% of its previous value. When the same environment the absolute temperature of the surface, will be reduced to 1/2^(1/4) its previous value, for all environments. The Earth has not increased its surface area or environment, space!
[B]Allen[/B] [I] Even if that hovering greenhouse layer did match the temperature of the surface whose radiation it is responding to, its own radiation would be unable to raise the surface’s temperature… for the simple fact that its temperature is the SAME as the surface. It is an axiom of physics that heat is only transferred when a temperature difference exists. Since the diagram has a minus 18° body (the greenhouse layer) facing a minus 18° body (the surface), therefore, neither body can make the other reach a higher temperature. [/I]
[B] Joel[/B] Fallacy: If no heat is transferred between two objects, their temperatures can’t change.
[B]Will[/B]Reality: No heat power is transferred either way between surfaces at the same temperature. Heat power is only transferred from an object to another at a lower temperature.
Heat power transfer requires a difference in thermal potential which determines the direction of the only flux.
[B]Allen[/B] It shouldn’t come as a surprise, moreover, that no one has ever demonstrated (let alone explained) how body X, which is as warm as body Y, can manage to raise the temperature of Y… while the now-warmer Y cannot manage to raise the temperature of X, even though thermal law dictates that it HAS TO because a temperature difference now exists.
[B] Joel{/B] Fallacy: Once again, the heat flow between two bodies interacting with the rest of the universe is sufficient to determine how their temperatures will change.
[B]Will[/B] Reality: As long as nothing measurably changes, nothing measurably changes. Adding a Fake Greenhouse theory, changes nothing. Nothing in the Fake Greenhouse theory is measurable, all fantasy.!!
[B]Allen[/B][I In greenhouse physics, the sky responds to the surface by matching its temperature and emission. The surface then responds to the sky by getting warmer and radiating twice as much as it would without the influence of “greenhouse gases.” But then, why is it that these gases cease to respond to the surface’s higher temperature and emission? Facing a body that’s radiating 478 W/m², this infrared-absorbing layer should supposedly stay in character and radiate 478 W/m² back to the surface and another 478 W/m² out to space. Yet it stubbornly remains at -18° although the surface it responds to has reached 30°. [I]
[B] Joel{/B] Fallacy: Bodies in physics “stay in character” rather than satisfying the laws of physics.
[B]Joel[/B] ” I recommend you try to learn as much as you can about solving steady-state problems.”
[B]Will[/B] Reality: No one cares of anything that Dr. (hic) Joel Shore may or may not say.
[B]Joel[/B] ” The steady-state solution is that the shell has to radiate as much back out into space as is being received by the system from the sun.
The reason the sphere in the steel greenhouse has to radiate twice as much as it did originally is not because this is in its character but rather because this is the steady-state solution that satisfies the equations for radiative balance:”
[B]Will[/B] Reality: The shell radiates outward exactly the amount of real heat power as it actually receives from the sphere this means that the shell has no effect on the actual heat power radiated from the sphere (all the heat power it has received from the Sun or elsewhere). There is no more actual heat power to be radiated anywhere except outward from both the sphere and the shell. There is no heat power to ever be radiated by the so called “back radiation”
[B]Joel[/B] The system as a whole is receiving a certain amount of energy from the sun and must radiate the same amount back into space. This determines the temperature of the shell. Then the temperature of the sphere is determined by the condition that the amount it radiates has to equal the amount it receives from the sun [or by its own thermal production if it is powered from within instead] and the amount it receives from the shell.
[B]Will[/B] Reality: The sphere It receives no radiative power back from the shell all power is radiated only to the colder temperature outside the shell and the sphere. Any claimed radiative power from the lower temperature shell to the higher temperature sphere is a claim that violates 2LTD and such a claim is simply invalidated, and is never demonstrated. It is only claimed by (AAA) members that have not a clue.
[B]Joel[/B](And, if you don’t believe in back-radiation from the shell, it doesn’t matter because you can still say mathematically that the temperature of the sphere has to be such that the net power that it radiates to the shell, A*sigma*[(T_sp)^4 – T_sh)^4] has to equal the power that it receives from the sun or its own power source and you’ll get the exact same answer.)
[B]Will[/B] Reality: Since the results are the same Why violate 2LTD by claiming “back radiation”? In your fictional sphere, shell, space non-thought experiment, the fictional sphere temperature did increase by 1/2^(1/4) as now it is radiating not to the temperature of space. The the fictional sphere is now radiating to the temperature of your fictional shell. The same result would occur if the emissivity of the sphere were reduced to 50%. Your (AAA) has no evidence that any increase in CO2 has produced such a reduction in emissivity of the Earth and its atmosphere, which are not radiatively coupled at all but only convectively coupled. Radiation between the surface and the atmosphere is non existent, Just like your non existent “Greenhouse Gas Theory”. That is not a theory, It is a fantasy, that rises not even to the level of “conjecture”? Are we having fun yet?
Truthseeker says: 2013/12/12 at 12:29 AM
Will, I will give you another one …
Click to access 1941-3955_4_2-3_19-db-paper.pdf
Thank you!
Who is Darko Butina, Chemomine Consultancy, Letchworth Garden
I like his/her work!
Joseph E Postma says: 013/12/10 at 5:18 AM
Or just change the reference frame and topic entirely! {cough…lightbulbs…what challenge???…}
Joseph, Through this whole thread, you have been insulting to horses. Any horse is much more intelligent than any earthling or Human! You have been trying to communicate with the wrong end!
Thanks for these invaluable references Truthseeker. They present real scientific information to make the global warming practitioners/ followers look like amateurs.
Will, to answer your question, from the website …
“Dr Darko Butina is a retired scientist with 20 years of experience in experimental side of Carbon-based chemistry and 20 years in pattern recognition and datamining of experimental data. He was part of the team that designed the first effective drug for treatment of migraine for which the UK-based company received The Queens Award. Twenty years on and the drug molecule Sumatriptan has improved quality of life for millions of migraine sufferers worldwide. During his computational side of drug discovery, he developed clustering algorithm, dbclus that is now de facto standard for quantifying diversity in world of molecular structures and recently applied to the thermometer based archived data at the weather stations in UK, Canada and Australia. The forthcoming paper clearly shows what is so very wrong with use of invented and non-existing global temperatures and why it is impossible to declare one year either warmer or colder than any other year. He is also one of the co-authors of the paper which was awarded a prestigious Ebert Prize as best paper for 2002 by American Pharmaceutical Association. He is peer reviewer for several International Journals dealing with modelling of experimental data and member of the EU grants committee in Brussels.”
Pratt: the double counting meme, isn’t that what this whole mess is about? No matter what concept or unit of measurement it comes down to?
Crothers: are those quotes from tier 2 scientists? Tier 3? This gets into the whole topic that if a science is important for humanity there seem to be ‘well established’ layers of disinfo players at work like outward expanding rings of pawns. The tier 3 scientists talk to the media and narrate programs, the tier 2 are consulted by government, and the tier 1 are listened to by the people who run things.
This is a rather scary statement from Stephen Mosher of the BEST team on a WUWT thread …
“Steven Mosher says:
December 12, 2013 at 10:37 pm
Reg.
You like satellite data?
Uah stitches together various satellites by making adjustments to data. For example orbital decay.
And uah doesnt measure temparature. Its raw data is a voltage. This gets turned into a temperature by applying a physics model. That model is also the same model that says co2 warms the planet. I bet you thought uah was data. Its not. Its adjusted modelled outputs. Go read the theory behind satellite data.”
Wow … I am speechless … even the satellite data is crap.
Uh, electricity isn’t magic.
If a receiver shows a certain voltage change and is properly designed then you can eliminate other causes for that voltage change until you can safely assume that there was a specific type of signal received.
Assuming then that people aren’t standing around outside with open microwave ovens trying to spoof your detector you can look at what sort of phenomenon can cause microwave emissions of that type and characterize said emissions accordingly.
If a randomized band of frequencies within certain parameters are typical of thermal emission by bodies at a certain temperature you can then point to a detection of that signal and say “there is a body within the view of this instrument at that temperature, or some jerk is going through a lot of effort to generate noise with certain properties to try and throw off our data collection, or the instrument is broken”, what you can’t do is say “oh that’s a load of crap because microwave sounding isn’t a direct detection, it’s just interpreting signals”… at least not with any sort of credibility.
You aren’t actually seeing these words on the screen, they’re just signals received by your retina and interpreted by the relevant structures in your brain which then pass a note to the homunculus sitting in your skull which says “hey jerk, you saw this” and you register it as an impression of light and dark patterns on a screen representing certain information, which again is interpreted secondhand by the relevant processing routines inside your head, which pass a note back to the homunculus in your head which says “hey jerk that stuff you saw means this”, and then you understand these signals and interpret it accordingly.
Truthseeker says:
2013/12/13 at 12:06 AM
Wow … I am speechless … even the satellite data is crap.
>>>>>>
Yup, seems to explain a lot.
Max™ says: 2013/12/13 at 6:23 AM
“Uh, electricity isn’t magic. If a receiver shows a certain voltage change and is properly designed then you can eliminate other causes for that voltage change until you can safely assume that there was a specific type of signal received”
That is correct, and those with electrical readout the most accurate when calibrated, and re-calibrated, A proper measurement would be, calibration data, time, location, direction, volts, re-calibration data, notes. the volts “may be the same thing’ as the calibration data or something else. The notes should indicate what something else. I.E wind shear rather air temperature.
Next more notes indicating differences in the measurement technique and the calibration technique, I.E. for sat data indicating temperature the calibration may the temperature of a black cavity giving that voltage. However the instrument is measuring irradiance, in some direction, over some wavelength interval, and over the acceptance angle(s). All of these drift with time, and are affected by many other things. I.E spectral emissivity of the source, or transmittance and temperature of the intervening media. Finally, the recalibration data that indicates the drift over time of each of the above parameters. If any step is missing or unavailable now, for re-interpretation, you have no measurement at all. If all is present you have the “only” measurement of something from a somewhere in that direction, at that time. It is up to you to decide what was measured and where the error bars should be. Please show your interpretation and why. From NASA JPL you will always have that whole data set. From NASA Goddard you will only get a misinterpretation by someone that does not even know what instrument or instrument type was used. Count on it.
^Most of what you mention falls under “proper design”, if that wasn’t clear.
I did understand that. Even with the best design data is often lost via mishandling. The rawest possible data “volts” must remain, unchanged in any way, for reinterpretation. The “volts” can mean anything, but they do mean something. Most of my measurements were reinterpreted until someone finally had some “idea” of what was actually measured! I still thunk on every reading , even on digital readouts, backed up by data loggers, others giggle! Measurement is easy! interpretation is hard! “Proper” design is damn near impossible!
Ai’nt gonna do it that way next time!
Perhaps, but turning the behavior of a resistor and antenna made of known materials with known properties into a temperature analogue is not in any way “damn near impossible”, there are no “raw data” measurements of temperature.
You’re measuring expansion of metals, expansion of fluids, electric signals indicating reception of certain wavelengths, and so forth.
We can’t go poke a material and say “Hey, exactly how much internal energy do you have in total?” and get an answer of any sort.
James says:
2013/12/13 at 12:00 AM
It’s Will or Mr Pratt if you prefer. The double counting issue is not to be dismissed as merely a “meme”. Either Willis Eschenbach has double counted or he has not. There is no “meme” about it.
The fact is that Willis has indeed double counted, twice. Once at the shell and again back at the sphere which then emits twice the W/m2 it did to begin with. In double counting, he creates a paradoxical doubling feedback loop without any form of cut-off mechanism. Yet in the absence of any specified feedback cut-off mechanism, his feedback loop magically and arbitrarily stops at one cycle.
The most obvious question is why does the shell not now return 470 W/m2 out and another 470 W/m2 back to the sphere and on into infinity?
It must be wonderful to be such a wizard and invent reality at a whim.
However back in the real world 235 W/m2 cannot and does not magically double itself and become 470 W/m2. You cannot add 235 W/m2 to 235 W/m2 itself and come up with 470 W/m2 anymore than you can add -18º C to -18º C.
As I said to Willis, and asked Joel to address :
“Remember the ice cube analogy I posted earlier Willis. That’s two ice cubes and therefore two lots of 314.94 W/m2 and yet no increase in temperature. Add as many ice cubes radiating 314.94 W/m2 as you like Willis, you know you won’t get more than 273 K”
Niether have responded because they both know that such simple logic entirely debunks the GHE pseudoscience hypothesis and exposes Willis Eschenbach, Joel Shore and indeed AGW, as frauds.
Will Pratt says:
Ah…Because energy balance between the sphere + shell requires that it be at a temperature such that it emits 235 W/m^2 out to space.
Your question is akin to someone telling you that if you take 1 and then start adding half and then half again of that and … (1 + 1/2 + 1/4 + 1/8 + 1/16 + …), then that goes to 2. And, you would then say, “Well, if it is capable of doubling it once, why doesn’t it double it again.”
I don’t know what to tell you except that that is not the solution to the equation.
It is kind of pathetic that the simple mathematics and physics of steady-state solutions has become controversial because some people are unable to understand them.
[JP: R1/R2 > 1 when R1 > R2. Therefore the steel greenhouse creates energy out of nowhere. Learn it. 🙂 lol]
Thanks for the reply Will, indeed the ice cube analogy is very strong, in the real world. I know Joseph has an allergy to analogies, but some really do transcend things, which we need.
Climate science is not only a fledgling science but one that has lost it’s way by being hijacked by corrupt oligarchy and PR merchants stroking the egos of the party faithful that essentially believe in double counting. Yes, meme is the wrong word. Double counting is an important concept because it is essentially how most monetary frauds against the public are perpetrated – by the same corrupt folks who are leveraging this fallacy now.
And I’ll trot out my question to all here, it’s a fundamental one. I’ve known for 5+ years that the GHE is the kernel of the AGW debacle, and of course it IS important to nail this down one way or the other – which HAS been done to this side’s satisfaction. The problem is at the moment how to convince the other side since they think differently.
So I say, step back from the problem – that of convincing those who can’t think that clearly about this issue. At what level will they start to get it? Personally I think there might be merit in considering the planet and atmosphere as one entity, just at different states. If a rock left in the sun or a hot potato from the oven were considered objectively, would the GHE believers also believe said objects were hotter than they should be? A damp rock is not a shell.
I think Huffman has several good points in that albedo may just be a correction factor on a wrong way of looking at the system – which ultimately is a waste of time. He also successfully proves CO2 meaningless as a warming gas or source of the magical / mystical / double counting GHE phenomena. since Venus has such high levels of CO2. Most importantly his simple ratio analysis which cancels out all the attendant variables could be grasped by the other side.
~
Does a burger on a grill experiencing a hot side and a surrounding atmosphere experience a similar heating boost as the Earth is (fraudulently) said to? Of course not, but creative physicists who lower themselves to ‘investigate’ this non-phenomena could successfully and simply come up with two models. By way of logical comparisons then, that analysis could convince some of the (smarter) members on the other side about climatic heating. Since macro models of the Earth should also at some level correspond to micro levels on the same planet.
Interestingly I haven’t seen a breakdown like this guy made here: http://www.l4patterns.com/uploads/virtual_vs_reality_report.pdf but given that he is a chemist with experience working with things like gas mixtures and pure gases and such, I was willing to see what he said… and he has made a few points I’ve tried to make in a far more succicnt manner.
The point he has in there about the heat capacity of the atmosphere and ocean, working out that it is roughly 10^18 kj to raise the temperature of the air by 1 degree, and 10^21 kj to raise the temperature of the oceans by 1 degree.
Compare that with the contribution appropriately calculated for something making up 0.04% of the total mixture and you find it hard to distinguish from instrumental error or noise.
Note that this is just discussing the actual heat capacity, a real measurable property of matter, not the imaginary back-radiating magic properties supposedly attributed to CO2 and entirely absent from the vast majority of the atmosphere.
Max™ says: 2013/12/13 at 4:38 PM
“Perhaps, but turning the behavior of a resistor and antenna made of known materials with known properties into a temperature analogue is not in any way “damn near impossible”, there are no “raw data” measurements of temperature.”
The “damn near impossible” Is the knowing what you are measuring! Yes the resistivity of some metals and the thermal noise of some resistors are a function of “temperature” but they both are functions of other things like current, and current itself may even change “:temperature”.
What is Temperature”? I like “temperature is a potential difference that determines the direction of spontaneous heat flux”. A measure of kinetic energy, no, heat is not Newtonian kinetic energy as it is not a vector. But what should be the reference?Absolute zero is not a temperature it is an asymptote, a location on a one dimensional graph that can never be used in any arithmetic, just like any pole or zero, I like Dan Fahrenheit’s zero as it is physical, both the lowest temperature water can be supercooled, and the radiative effective black body temperature of the Earth. Is there a connection? Is that why the Earth is located where it is? Did Fahrenheit know the connection?
Earthlings know nothing of temperature. The so called climate scientists claim they know, but have made a mockery of what the rest of us to understand, just so they can profit from their CO2 scam!
Max™ says: 2013/12/13 at 8:14 PM
“Interestingly I haven’t seen a breakdown like this guy made here: http://www.l4patterns.com/uploads/virtual_vs_reality_report.pdf but given that he is a chemist with experience working with things like gas mixtures and pure gases and such I was willing to see what he said.”
Isn’t Darko something else? From the atmospheric sensible and latent heat and themeasured temperature change from day to night, can the amount of flux the “atmosphere” itself radiates to space be estimated?
Will Pratt says: 2013/12/13 at 4:48 PM
It’s Will or Mr Pratt if you prefer. The double counting issue is not to be dismissed as merely a “meme”. Either Willis Eschenbach has double counted or he has not. There is no “meme” about it.
The fact is that Willis has indeed double counted, twice. Once at the shell and again back at the sphere which then emits twice the W/m2 it did to begin with. In double counting, he creates a paradoxical doubling feedback loop without any form of cut-off mechanism. Yet in the absence of any specified feedback cut-off mechanism, his feedback loop magically and arbitrarily stops at one cycle.
This whole thing of “back radiation” Comes from the fary/ faerie tale about “everything with a temperature radiates heat as tho it were radiating to absolute zero”. This is not possible! An object with emissivity and a temperature “may” thermally radiate to a colder object or to something that has no temperature “only”! No fake “back radiation” is ever needed to correctly evaluate any thermodynamic situation. The only evidence that the Earth surface radiates anything is the measured 20 watts/m2 radiated through the 8-13 micron window to space or to the bottom of clouds. All other heat transfer to the atmosphere is non radiative. Every molecule of aqueous vapor or CO2 at its own temperature then radiates some flux to space. The amount of such flux increases continuously all the way to an altitude of 200 Km where there is nothing left to radiate away. This atmospheric radiation is the only thing that cools the earth and more CO2 only cools it more! The so called climate scientists completely made up the concept of black body radiation applying to the Earth. The Earth has no constant temperature anywhere.
The Earth and its atmosphere do not even have a constant temperature with regard to wavelength. The so called Climate Scientists know all this. What they present is criminal fraud!
Will Janoschka says:
2013/12/14 at 3:21 AM
“This whole thing of “back radiation” Comes from the fary/ faerie tale about “everything with a temperature radiates heat as tho it were radiating to absolute zero”.”
Heat is the effect of radiation, right? Not the radiation itself.
And again here “thermally radiate to a colder object or to something that has no temperature. ”
I know the term “thermal radiation” is used an awful lot but actually kinetic thermal energy, heat, is not radiation. Heat and radiation are completely different as we all know.
However using the term “thermal radiation” interchangeably to mean both “heat” and “radiation” as you appear to be doing here, creates much ambiguity. For that reason I like to keep the words “thermal” and “radiation”, as far apart as possible at all times.
The table below indicates what the “steel greenhouse” could produce after about a dozen iterations. (A few more iterations and we could have a new Sun!)
SURFACE (out) SHELL (“Back”) SHELL (“To Space”)
235 117.5 117.5
352.5 176.25 176.25
528.75 264.38 264.38
793.13 396.56 396.56
1189.69 594.84 594.84
1784.53 892.27 892.27
2676.80 1338.40 1338.40
4015.20 2007.60 2007.60
6022.79 3011.40 3011.40
9034.19 4517.09 4517.09
13551.28 6775.64 6775.64
20326.93 10163.46 10163.46
30490.39 15245.19 15245.19
Just great, the columns didn’t make it through the “transporter”….
geran says:
2013/12/14 at 7:26 AM
You cannot add the “back” from the shell back to the sphere because the 117.5 W/m2 cannot induce any further warming at the sphere to take the sphere above the original 235 W/m2
So it doesn’t matter how many iterations you have, at each cycle the sphere is still only 235 W/m2.
Will, you get it!
I think he was showing the hypothetical results of said physical impossibilities, there is no reason it would just stop producing more energy if it could be induced to produce energy magically at first.
Max™ says:
2013/12/14 at 8:25 AM
>>>>
Exactly, Max. It is an example of how wrong an intuitive approach to science can sometimes be. Intuition is great, but if often fails in such areas as SB Law, and 2LoT. If your “model” (steel greenhouse, or GHE) can create energy out of nothing, you may need to revise your “model”.
Great, so now all we need to do is apply the same logic to the “GHE” via the K&T energy budget diagram.
A retraction from K&T for their egregious errors should therefore be a matter of formality.
Will Pratt says: 2013/12/14 at 6:51 AM
Will Janoschka says: 2013/12/14 at 3:21 AM
(“This whole thing of “back radiation” Comes from the fary/ faerie tale about “everything
with a temperature radiates heat as tho it were radiating to absolute zero”.”)
” Heat is the effect of radiation, right? Not the radiation itself “.
No! In coherent electromagnetic radiation The flux is Joules/(sec x .meter^2). Iit can have any brightness temperature (radiance) determined by the power source, (the temperatute required to produce that much flux with that antenna at that frequency band. at the proper frequencies this electromagnetic radiation, in plants, can result in photosynthesis (hydrocarbon mass, latent heat of reapportion and sometimes sensible heat.
“And again here “thermally radiate to a colder object or to something that has no temperature. ””
Thermal radiation is always chaotic. it is produced only by heat and it real flux is strictly limited as a function of T(abs)^3. That makes its flux have the units of Joules/(K x sec x .meter^2). This is an entropy flux known as photon flux, photons/(sec x .meter^2)! When absorbed at a lower temperature entropy increases as now the Joules are divided by a smaller K. This entropy can be converted back to useful energy by multiplying that flux by its new temperature. But only if there is a lower temperature to dump the entropy. That is the detail of how the earth gets its energy it is converted entropy from the Sun. The temperature^4 of the earth limits the flux from the Sun to that that can be converted back to energy. This is useful energy and can do work. Work can only be done with some lower temperature available to create even more entropy! (space).
“I know the term “thermal radiation” is used an awful lot but actually kinetic thermal energy, heat, is not radiation. Heat and radiation are completely different as we all know.”
Heat may be partially kinetic but not Newtonian kinetic as it is not a vector. Heat is best described as being electromagnetic. Some heat flux, conduction, is proportional to a difference in two heat potentials (temperature). Convection is conduction coupled with a mass flow. Thermal electromagnetic radiation is always an entropy flux proportional to the difference in thermal radiative potentials (temperature^4) reduced by the appropriate antenna loss (db).
“However using the term “thermal radiation” interchangeably to mean both “heat” and “radiation” as you appear to be doing here, creates much ambiguity. For that reason I like to keep the words “thermal” and “radiation”, as far apart as possible at all times.”
I was trying to reduce ambiguity! Perhaps calling it “radiation” at all is the culprit. I will try to use Thermal electromagnetic flux as what may be transferred with no transfer medium.
If I define such each time, can I call that TEF, that can go only from a higher temperature to a lower, for the thermodynamic reasons I stated. Perhaps that should be KEF or Kelvin electromagnetic flux, to prevent confusion with “total”, since you must use kelvins anyhow!
If such precision is required, perhaps we can force the so called climate scientists to define what “they” mean by the word radiation. I feel we should also force them to define “heating” or “warming”. Adding flux to, does not mean a necessary increase in temperature (boiling water).
Will Janoschka says:
2013/12/14 at 10:56 AM
Yes I am aware of the standard definition of thermal radiation. I just don’t accept it is what I am saying, any more than I accept your rather ambiguous interpretation.
It still looks and sounds like a conflation of two entirely different concepts. Electromagnetic radiation and kinetic molecular energy. Which ever way you try to frame it, you inevitably conflate two forms of energy, electromagnetic radiation and thermal energy, heat, in order to imply a third form of energy, “thermal radiation” or even “Thermal electromagnetic flux”, which I don’t accept actually exists.
No the word Radiation is not the problem at all. You do have access to a dictionary don’t you? The problem is definitely an issue with conflation.
Perhaps we can agree, to disagree.
Will Pratt says: 2013/12/14 at 12:25 PM
‘Yes I am aware of the standard definition of thermal radiation. I just don’t accept it is what I am saying, any more than I accept your rather ambiguous interpretation.’
“It still looks and sounds like a conflation of two entirely different concepts. Electromagnetic radiation and kinetic molecular energy. Which ever way you try to frame it, you inevitably conflate two forms of energy, electromagnetic radiation and thermal energy, heat, in order to imply a third form of energy, “thermal radiation” or even “Thermal electromagnetic flux”, which I don’t accept actually exists.”
I am not conflating an action with a thing (energy). Thermal radiation is one type of radiation.
Thermal electromagnetic flux is the type of energetic waves so radiated. This “what is radiated'” is properly called photon flux,, or entropy flux. It is a well defined and proper third form of energy,
that can do no work until converted to other forms of energy by the lower temperature absorber.
I do not want you to accept or believe me! I want you to look it up.
“No the word Radiation is not the problem at all. You do have access to a dictionary don’t you? The problem is definitely an issue with conflation. Perhaps we can agree, to disagree.”
I cannot agree. I cannot even decipher what it is that you are talking about.
WP ” Heat is the effect of radiation, right? Not the radiation itself “.
Heat can be a form of energy, it is not an effect. Radiation is a process not a thing, the two must not be linguistically conflated.
In physics, radiation is a process in which energetic particles or energetic waves travel through a vacuum, or through matter-containing media that are not required for their propagation.
WP And again here>> WJ “thermally radiate to a colder object or to something that has no temperature. ”
Here thermally is an adverb, creating a subset of “radiation”, a process, limited to “radiation” that is a function of temperature only, radiation that is chaotic, and seldom used for communication. Where is the conflation?
Will Janoschka says:
2013/12/14 at 1:54 PM
No, you are still doing it.
“Thermal electromagnetic flux is the type of energetic waves so radiated. This “what is radiated’” is properly called photon flux,, or entropy flux. It is a well defined and proper third form of energy, that can do no work until converted to other forms of energy by the lower temperature absorber.”
There you did it again, you conflate heat and radiation right there in that last sentence. You are talking about electromagnetic radiation until it get thermalised, yet you call it thermal. This is a conflation. It is done to produce a fallacy of logic.
Thermal or thermalised energy was electromagnetic radiation, as in “radiation is a process in which energetic particles or energetic waves travel through a vacuum, or through matter-containing media that are not required for their propagation.” that has since been converted to kinetic molecular energy where the matter-containing media is required for propagation. It may or may not be re-emitted again as electromagnetic radiation or light, but despite all the semantics there is no third form of energy “thermal radiation”.
There are five main forms of energy,
1. Electromagnetic
2. Thermal
3. Nuclear
4. Chemical
5. Mechanical
No “Thermal electromagnetic” sorry.
“Thermal radiation” is a logical fallacy which has been used to deliberately confuse to great effect.
I have just had a thought that I wanted someone to check for me. A “parcel” of energy can only be in one place, right? So if a surface has emitted energy as the inner sphere is doing in this thought bubble, then that surface must reduce in temperature by the equivalent amount. I mean energy cannot be emitted AND provide the kinetic energy to keep where it came from warm. It cannot do two things at once. So the essence of the double counting is that Eschenbach and co are not reducing the temperature of the surface of the inner sphere when the energy is emitted as radiation into the gap between the spheres. This also applies to the outer sphere as well.
Without the math, isn’t that the underlying fallacy of the whole proposition?
Henri Suyderhoud:
You don’t know me and vice versa, but I have read the arguments on both sides of this debate, and can quite agree with WP. However, it is important to recognize that there are well-established conversions between these energy categories. Otherwise, one could similarly become sloppy and speak of “visible radiation” when a glowing object radiates because of its extremely heated condition. “Thermal radiation” is definitely a misnomer, while “heat radiation” is acceptable scientifically. EM radiation can definitely cause objects to attain a higher form of energy, causing a substance to become warmer (higher T value) provided that the source of the said radiation is at a higher T value that the substance that receives it (2nd LOT). This is a tricky issue, and obviously not understood be those believing in “back radiation”. I hope that this is helpful, the way radiated energy is received can differ, between heating up or causing internal energy levels to increase without any increasing T values.
Henri Suyderhoud says:
2013/12/14 at 3:44 PM
Henri,
“Thermal radiation”, “heat radiation” all the same and both wrong. Its not a tricky issue at all, it’s perfectly simple. Radiation has no heat. Heat propagates through mass via thermalisation of electromagnetic energy.
Truthseeker says:
2013/12/14 at 3:36 PM
>>>>
Okay, this gets tough because we are into nuclear physics. We know nuclear physics really well, but we know very little about nuclear physics. Welcome to nuclear physics.
In general, when a photon is emitted from a surface, energy of the surface is reduced. (Note I wrote “in general”.) But, electromagnetic energy is tricky. It can appear as a particle (photon) or as a sinusoidal wave. However, there is no way a “returning” photon or wave can replace the energy it lost due to transmission from the originating surface. (Wien’s Law deals with the consequences.)
So, short answer, yes you are correct. An emitted photon, or wave, cannot heat both the surface it leaves and the surface it arrives.
Long answer involves much more such as change in frequency, which is too ugly for us on Saturday night.
Easy way to work with the term “heat”, try adding “flow” after it.
Saying “heat flow radiation” is stupid, so “heat radiation” is stupid.
Thermal emission of photons can be distinguished from various other types of emission, but the term “thermal” means “related to the temperature or internal energy of a body”, hence “emission of photons as a result of internal degrees of freedom being stimulated and relaxing” is the same as saying “thermal radiation”, it isn’t wrong necessarily, but it is easily confused for other things by laymen, probably best avoided.
There is no simple way to define thermal energy, generally that would be mechanical or kinetic energy on a microscopic scale representing the temperature of a body which has been heated through certain means. When some of this energy is lost as photons, that would be a thermal emission of radiation, and if it is received by a colder body it is part of the heat flow between those bodies.
The term “thermal energy” is troublesome because it is not a conserved quantity, the components of it are, but they can be transformed and cease to manifest as something measurable as temperature, and thus cease being thermal.
Will Pratt says:
Ah…Because energy balance between the sphere + shell requires that it be at a temperature such that it emits 235 W/m^2 out to space.
Your question is akin to someone telling you that if you take 1 and then start adding half and then half again of that and … (1 + 1/2 + 1/4 + 1/8 + 1/16 + …), then that goes to 2. And, you would then say, “Well, if it is capable of doubling it once, why doesn’t it double it again.”
I don’t know what to tell you except that that is not the solution to the equation.
It is kind of weird that the simple mathematics and physics of steady-state solutions has become controversial because some people are unable to understand them and prefer for ideological reasons not to even try to understand them.
[JP: How many times do we need to repeat a basic mathematical proof: r1/r2 > 1 when r1 > r2; hence the surface of the shell emits more energy than provided from the sphere. I mean lol.]
Will Pratt says: 2013/12/14 at 12:25 PM
“Perhaps we can agree, to disagree.”
I tried my own advice to “look it up”, I thought I did know.! My results:
Dictionary ra-di·a·tion n.
WJ “The dictionary inverts radiation a verb , into a noun by adding a prefix “the” to a verb so it can magically become a thing ”
1. “The” act or process of radiating: the radiation of heat and light from a fire.
2. Physics “(without the “the” so still a verb)”
a. Emission and propagation and emission of energy in the form of rays or waves.
b. Energy radiated or transmitted as rays, waves, in the form of particles.
c. A stream of particles or electromagnetic waves emitted by the atoms and molecules of a radioactive substance as a result of nuclear decay.
3.
a. “The” act of exposing or the condition of being exposed to such energy.
b. “The” application of such energy, as in medical treatment.
4. Anatomy Radial arrangement of parts, as of a group of nerve fibers connecting different areas of the brain.
5.
a. “The” spread of a group of organisms into new habitats.
b. Adaptive radiation.
radi·ation·al, radi·ative adj.
In physics, ra-di·a·tion v.
A process in which energetic particles or energetic waves travel through a vacuum, or through matter-containing media that are not required for their propagation.
I.E. it is a verb like walking is a verb..
These two only differ by the word “the” that changes a verb to a noun. “The walking” is way, way differen tfrom “walking”. What a wonderful way to sew confusion.
Correctly “radiation” is a process or action”. “The radiation” is that radiated, or the resulting act.
All the terms are precise in science, but mangled in the dictionary. Your so called “Climate Scientists” prefer the dictionary. as a way to confuse rather than enlighten all.
My KEF or Kelvin electromagnet flux is but an attempt to define what is radiated. It is entropy and cannot be radiated to a higher temperature. That would be a violation of 2LTD nomatter your interpretation of 2LTD. I guess your Climate Clowns can have “back radiation”‘ in their fantisy world . Who can argue with a process of doing nothing!
Please understand that thermal radiation is a small subset that must conform to all Maxwell’s equations, and all the laws of thermodynamics. It id not “conflate” it is “differentiate”.
I am an amateur at such verbage/garbage, but it seems to be important in the AGW nonsence.
Adding this comment to this thread too since it is relevant…
The laws of thermodynamics are not actually restricted to an analysis of the law of conservation of energy only. The laws of thermodynamics say that energy can neither be created nor destroyed, but it can only be changed from one form to another. And that’s important – the form of energy. Energy comes in forms. For example, kinetic: the energy of motion; potential: the energy of, say, altitude, or compression in a spring; etc. And all such forms of energy are relative, and can even be made to disappear – for example the kinetic energy of a bullet will become zero if you move at the same speed of the bullet. All of what we’re talking about, certainly what I’ve been talking about and what heat sphere/planes/greenhouse etc. has to do with, is the thermal form of energy, i.e. temperature, and flow of heat from that temperature. This form of energy is also relative because its potential for action, heat flow, like moving at the same speed of the bullet, disappears if you make yourself the same temperature as the thermal form of energy.
So when you talk of “increasing the power”, what are you really talking about? When you do that you go on to perform some simple “conservation of energy” analysis, but is that what you should be doing given the context? Do we find that kind of procedure in thermal texts such as this: http://www.kostic.niu.edu/352/_352-posted/Heat_4e_Chap13-Radiation_HT_lecture-PDF.pdf ?
No we don’t. We do not find the solution you are attempting to create in thermal physics. What you need to do, because what you are doing in the context of the form of energy, is manipulating temperature. Well, that is all figured out already, such as in the referenced link text, and in the equation I’ve been repeating, which is the energy (as form of heat) flow analysis which needs to be performed. Note that these examples never need to reference the power, they just reference the temperature, and it is implicit that the objects are emitting radiant power because that is precisely required for a radiant surface temperature; there is no distinction.
So when you increase “the power” by X amount, what you are doing? Well you’re changing something’s temperature, of course. This is the form of energy in question. The equation is already there to handle that for you, such as the one referenced here many times, and also in the linked thermal physics text. So, for the inner sphere and outer shell case example, if you increase the power of the sphere what you’re doing is increasing its temperature. Well, obviously the laws of thermodynamics now apply, and all of them of course, such as the ones which limit how and where heat energy flows, not just some simple analysis of scalar energy, but vector heat flow. The laws of thermodynamics specify limits to what energy can do – cold doesn’t raise the temperature of hot, because heat energy doesn’t flow from cold to hot, etc. A relatively simple equation comes out of all of this: Q = A*s*(T1^4 – T2^4).
So, you increase the power X Watts; great, what does that do to the surface temperature of the object? For the sphere, it will increase its temperature to an addition of that power over its surface area. There’s nothing wrong with that of course and of course that hasn’t been the subject of cold heating hot. However, whether the new temperature heats anything else is then still determined from an application of the Q equation, and that is your answer. And the answer is that if the other T is still larger, then the heat flow is still away from that other warmer object, and hence the other warmer object doesn’t increase in temperature due to the cooler temperature of the cooler object. If the outer shell is passive then the increased temperature of the sphere will adjust a new temperature for the shell as well. If the shell is itself heated and is at a warmer temperature, then the sphere will only heat the shell if the heat flow equation specifies that it should, which by definition requires the sphere to be warmer never cooler than the shell, with the appropriate factors applied for distance etc; otherwise the warmer shell will heat the cooler sphere until equilibrium is attained, and such a condition is specified by the heat flow equation via temperature, such that Q = 0 at the relevant position.
The way you are attempting to perform thermodynamics is incorrect, and you are not using the heat flow equation correctly, or if at all. Thermodynamics is performed by the heat flow analysis and its equation. Opposing heat flows like opposing forces subtract, not add.
Joel, for a sphere the size of the Earth, adding a shell 1 meter above the surface and having it warm until it emits 235 W/m^2 like the Earth did originally would involve creating BILLIONS of extra Joules.
A shell 1 km above the surface would need to create TRILLIONS of Joules to emit at the same power as the Earth-sized sphere within it.
Will Pratt says: 2013/12/14 at 2:42 PM
“No, you are still doing it.”
What bull shit! You are the one that is “conflating” electromagnetic radiation with what type of energy is being radiated.
I am only differentiating coherent radiation, from thermal radiation. Coherent radiates electrical energy. Thermal radiation is way different. What is radiated is entropy. Thermal radiation, a subset of electromagnetic radiation, is the only way an isolated body in space can rid itself of entropy. Otherwise the entropy would remain but the temperature would increase. The Sun radiates entropy at its own temperature. The earth intercepts some of that entropy and converts that back to useful energy at its own temperature. This energy is useful only if there is a lower temperature to transfer entropy thereto.
This is a self regulating “process” as the temperature increases the amount of entropy is radiated via the process “thermal electromagnetic radiation” with flux TEF or “kelvin electromagnetic flux” KEF. The process is always differentiated from that being processed. No “conflating” at all.
Will Janoschka says: 2013/12/14 at 1:54 PM
“Thermal electromagnetic flux is the type of energetic waves so radiated. This “what is radiated’” is properly called photon flux,, or entropy flux. It is a well defined and proper form of energy, that can do no work until converted to other forms of energy by the lower temperature absorber.”
WP >> “There you did it again, you conflate heat and radiation right there in that last sentence. You are talking about electromagnetic radiation until it get thermalised, yet you call it thermal. This is a conflation. It is done to produce a fallacy of logic.”
Not at all!! I am talking only about what form of energy is being “processed” via the process of electromagnetic radiation. It is entropy, with dimensions Joules/kelvins. The “kelvins” is the absolute temperature of the radiator.
WP >> Thermal or thermalised energy was electromagnetic radiation, as in “radiation is a process in which energetic particles or energetic waves travel through a vacuum, or through matter-containing media that are not required for their propagation.” that has since been converted to kinetic molecular energy where the matter-containing media is required for propagation. It may or may not be re-emitted again as electromagnetic radiation or light, but despite all the semantics there is no third form of energy “thermal radiation”.
All is correct except ‘there is no third form of energy “thermal radiation”.”
Thermal radiation is the process. Entropy is the form of energy processed
WP >> “(There are five main forms of energy,
1. Electromagnetic
2. Thermal
3. Nuclear
4. Chemical
5. Mechanical
No “Thermal electromagnetic” sorry.
(There are six main forms of energy, in order of discovery
1. Mechanical
2. Chemical
3. Thermal
4. Entropy
5. Electrical
6. Nuclear
Electromagnetic radiation is a process not a form of energy sorry!
Thermal electromagnetic radiation is a subset, that radiates the the form “entropy”
rather than the form “electrical”, it is powered completely by thermal energy!
WP >> “(“Thermal radiation” is a logical fallacy which has been used to deliberately confuse to great effect.)”
You are doing a great job at deliberately confusing!! Why not try to clarify instead?
I only wanted to demonstrate no “back radiation” from both an electromagnetic and thermodynamic POV. Now called QED.
Max™ says: 2013/12/15 at 2:14 AM
Joel, for a sphere the size of the Earth, adding a shell 1 meter above the surface and having it warm until it emits 235 W/m^2 like the Earth did originally would involve creating BILLIONS of extra Joules.
A shell 1 km above the surface would need to create TRILLIONS of Joules to emit at the same power as the Earth-sized sphere within it.
Max you are becoming confused intentionaly by Joel Shore The power remains the same
X Watts. The flux X Watts/m^2 deceases with distance squared as the m^2 increases with distance,, Power or its integral Joules, is conserved, radiative flux is not conserved it always decreases with distance. “Radiance” which is flux/steradian, which is but energy (Joules) normalized for all three linear dimensions, and time. remains constant, just like energy. for any location. This is a difficult but much more simple concept, than entropy or gravitational field.
I got burned on that too once…we of course know what ourselves mean. To emit the same flux, the larger shell would have to emit billions/trillions of more Watts (Joules…per second) than the smaller sphere is providing. If the smaller sphere provides Asphere*Fsphere Watts, then the larger sphere also has to emit the same Watts, but given the surface area Ashell is larger than Asphere then Fshell has to be smaller.
Joseph E Postma says: 2013/12/15 at 1:47 AM
Adding this comment to this thread too since it is relevant…
Thank you Joseph!
That is good but please consider a different POV. Miskolczi who has been paned by Roy Spencer, used temperature (of the atmosphere) only to indicate “thermal flux and its direction” His analysis of the atmosphere never used temperature again, He only used flux vs. altitude.
He was the only one at NASA Goddard Langley that ever used all types of heat flux, including latent heat of evaporation. All others used “only” radiative flux to try to describe the workings of the atmosphere. Guess who was correct!!
1 when r1 > r2; hence the surface of the shell emits more energy than provided from the sphere. I mean lol.]
Joe,
You’ve missed your calling in life, which is to be a magician. Magicians are gifted at misdirection, where they get their audience to focus on the wrong thing when the slight-of-hand is actually occurring elsewhere.
This issue of r1/r2 > 1 is a complete distraction. You would get the same conclusion if you set r1 = r2. The actual slight-of-hand has occurred when you have conveniently ignored some energy flows, so that you are not conserving energy at either the shell or the sphere…And, we are not talking about some approximation that gives conservation in the limit that r1 and r2 become equal; we are talking about complete nonsense that allows you to ignore the fact that your shell is absorbing essentially nothing in net from the inner sphere (exactly nothing in the limit that r1 goes to r2) and yet happily emitting out into space as if it were absorbing the full amount. The sphere has the opposite problem; it is receiving lots of energy from the sun but emitting essentially nothing in net to the shell.
It must be fun to have such a gullible audience.
I’ll leave this up for others to laugh at Joel…because holy F, that is completely incoherent.
For the rational, once again here are the end results:
The steel greenhouse has 235 W/m^2 being emitted by the core, then 235 W/m^2 being emitted by the shell. Therefore the ratio of the power emitted by the shell over that of the sphere is
Pshell/Psphere = 235/235 * (Rshell/Rsphere)^2 = (Rshell/Rsphere)^2
which is greater than 1 when Rshell > Rsphere. A ratio greater than 1 means that more energy is emitted than provided, thus violating conservation of energy.
On the other hand if you want to say that the sphere is emitting 470 W/m^2 by its vaunted magic, then the ratio of the energy is
Pshell/Psphere = 235/470 * (Rshell/Rsphere)^2 = 0.5 * (Rshell/Rsphere)^2
and this ratio becomes larger than 1 when (Rshell/Rsphere)^2 becomes larger than 2. It is smaller than one when less than 2 of course. So this assessment of the energies don’t conserve in general either, and only coincidentally does when (Rshell/Rsphere)^2 = 2.
Finally, if you want to say that both the sphere and the shell emit a total power of 470 W/m^2, then the ratio of power emitted to that supplied is,
Pshell/Psphere = 470/470 * (Rshell/Rsphere)^2 = (Rshell/Rsphere)^2
which doesn’t conserve energy as soon as Rshell > Rsphere.
The steel greenhouse by mathematical proof is a fraud. QED. 🙂
It would appear that Will Janoschka and Joel Shore are cut from the same cloth.
It makes no difference which side of the debate you are on, a sophist is a sophist.
I like the way Joel Shore calls you the magician Joe, when it is he who has made himself unwelcome all across the entire blogosphere with his relentless and blatantly deliberate lies.
These sophists, practiced liars, are worse than mere nuisances, in many cases they are the ones influencing Government policy resulting directly in AGW fraud.
Just take a look at some the fallacies flying out of the above post:
Will Janoschka says:
2013/12/15 at 3:04 AM
Breathtaking! Entropy a form of energy? I never heard that one before. Clearly they think that they are the inventors of reality.
One thing I have learnt from my efforts to expose AGW fraud is that there exists a cohesive international army of liars, sophists and sociopaths that transcend boarders, infecting and noxiously influencing every scientific and political institution around the world.
I refuse to accept anything that is claimed by such people. That means you Joel Shore and you Will Janoschka. Liars the pair of you.
“The steel greenhouse by mathematical proof is a fraud. QED.”
Clearly accurate. Well done!
The “greenhouse” pushers need to be able to use fraud to “prove” their false theory. Which kinda reminds me of the lightbulb experiment….
Joe, I am not laughing I am appalled. Dr. (hic) Joel D. Shore’s statements are not funny.
They are ludicrous (would be funny if not so serious). Dr. (hic) Joel D. Shore’s only purpose is to confuse. He must be well paid by some members of the (AAA). Arrogant Academic Ass-holes!
joeldshore says: 2013/12/15 at 8:06 AM
“Joe You’ve missed your calling in life, which is to be a magician. Magicians are gifted at misdirection, where they get their audience to focus on the wrong thing when the slight-of-hand is actually occurring elsewhere.”
Dr. (hic) Joel D. Shore You are not describing Joesph Postma, who is only trying to learn. You are describing yourself, a third rate magician, trying to misdirect, but failing badly. Here are not helpless students,. paying to be brainwashed by members of the (AAA).
This issue of r-shell/r-sphere > 1 is essential. It shows that flux is not conserved only the power supplied is a constant through the entire thermodynamic process. Please do this correctly i8n you can. Get rid of constant flux. A sphere with surface of 1 sq meter with a 235 watt power source at thermodynamic equilibrium must dissipate 235 Watts to something colder This is the shell the only thing colder That shell in turn must dissipate exactly 235 Watts to something at a lower temperature in this case an isotherm that can dissipate 235 Watts with no change in temperature (a definition of an isotherm).
The temperature of the isotherm can be any finite temperature. Consider the inside of a sphere in a bath of ice water. This is an isotherm as long as there is ice and water. If all surfaces are considered radiatively “black” The S-B equation may be used to determine the temperature of both the shell and the powered sphere.
The power radiated is always 235 Watts and always in the direction of outward. Your “back radiation” of the same 235 watts is an intentional lie and fabrication, by the (AAA), just to try to convince helpless students believe that everything radiates in every direction with a flux equal to that flux that would be the required flux to radiate 235 Watts to absolute zero You and anyone else cannot demonstrate such a flux because such a flux would require absolute zero to have energy equal to the time integral of the power. Zero Kelvin has no energy, such energy is forbidden by 2LTD. Zero Kelvin cannot dissipate such power to a colder temperature Zero Kelvin can have a near infinite amount of “entropy”. I do not know what Energy divided by zero might be. “It” is Lotsa’ entropy still.
Joseph I hope that you can recognize that I do not like Dr. (hic) Joel D. Shore. He must be placed in prison along with the likes of James Hanson, Michael Mann, and Gavin Schmidt, for the same criminal conspiracy, with intent to defraud the Government and the people of the United States. Is that good enough for “my” position? Will that make all the Clowns shut up?
Will Pratt says: 2013/12/15 at 9:49 AM
“It would appear that Will Janoschka and Joel Shore are cut from the same cloth.
It makes no difference which side of the debate you are on, a sophist is a sophist.”
I call you Will Pratt A luck-warmer and a lye-er! Please quote anything that I have written that you think is any attempt to lie rather an attempt rather an attempt to inform.
I like the way Joel Shore calls you the magician Joe, when it is he who has made himself unwelcome all across the entire blogosphere with his relentless and blatantly deliberate lies.
These sophists, practiced liars, are worse than mere nuisances, in many cases they are the ones influencing Government policy resulting directly in AGW fraud.
Just take a look at some the fallacies flying out of the above post:
Will Janoschka says:
2013/12/15 at 3:04 AM
(There are six main forms of energy, in order of discovery
1. Mechanical
2. Chemical
3. Thermal
4. Entropy
5. Electrical
6. Nuclear
“Breathtaking! Entropy a form of energy? I never heard that one before. Clearly they think that they are the inventors of reality.”
Entropy was discovered/invented By Rudy Clausius aka Rudolf Julius Emanuel Clausius (born Rudolf Gottlieb; In 1865 as a response to “Why does work have less energy than the energy expended doing the work” He hated that invention, as do I, It is exactly The missing energy divided by the temperature of that “energy” is called entrophy! The TERM IS Necessary. It is today the only concept of heat vs. temperature that prevents the UV catastrophe. With sensible heat, it is energy times temperature. With entropy it is energy divided by temperature as devised by Rudy. These two concepts define all of thermodynamics. Have you no reference to thermodynamics?
You claim, but obviously do not understand what you claim. Lukewarmer! Is it that you “believe” the warmist mantra that everything is done by “radiative” heat transfer? Discard that
concept and discover what is!
“The thing I have learnt from my efforts to expose AGW fraud is that there exists a cohesive international army of liars, sophists and sociopaths that transcend boarders, infecting and noxiously influencing every scientific and political institution around the world.” Go out and measure anything then try to explain the results you got. This is the physical not the conceptual
“I refuse to accept anything that is claimed by such people. That means you Joel Shore and you Will Janoschka. Liars the pair of you.”
Good!! I have no desire to have you accept anything I may write. Check it out for your one self.
I will gleefully admit that I know nothing! This is from a lifetime of learning, but always going backward in the amount of knowledge. The most knowledge I ever had was, at the age of of three months. Because of the damn physical, Knowlege has been going downhill ever since!
Joe,
You have my respect for your refusal to allow yourself to be bullied by people who are unable to see a truth for whatever their personal reason. I have witnessed some pathetic attempts – on several blogs – to ridicule anyone who disagrees with the consensus view. I know you won’t be swayed by any such falsities.
Kind regards,
Arfur
Joe,
May I address the ‘point’ Joel is trying to make in his last post?
He says: “The actual slight-of-hand has occurred when you have conveniently ignored some energy flows, so that you are not conserving energy at either the shell or the sphere (…) we are talking about complete nonsense that allows you to ignore the fact that your shell is absorbing essentially nothing in net from the inner sphere (exactly nothing in the limit that r1 goes to r2) and yet happily emitting out into space as if it were absorbing the full amount. The sphere has the opposite problem; it is receiving lots of energy from the sun but emitting essentially nothing in net to the shell.”
Joel,
It is not us that ignore energy flows. It is you that use the same energy twice in one go.
What happens when the energy from the sphere reaches the shell? It is absorbed and stored within the thermal mass (the molecular lattice) of the shell. The energy is spent warming the shell ever so slightly. It is not lost or ignored. It’s in the shell. The shell gets a temperature, low at first, because it has only received a little bit of energy so far. It emits a tiny bit of thermal radiation as heat loss (to space, the shell’s cold reservoir) as a result of its temperature. But this is not yet a steady state situation, the temperature of the shell is far, far lower than that of the sphere, its energy (heat) source. So it still gets a lot more energy IN from the sphere than what it manages to put OUT as heat loss to space. Hence, it continues to warm, rapidly at first, because the difference in energy IN vs. energy OUT per unit of time is large in these early stages, and internal energy correspondingly builds up quickly. More slowly as the shell gets progressively warmer from absorbing the energy (radiative heat) from the sphere, because the difference in energy IN vs. energy OUT per unit of time at the same time gets progressively smaller. Until the time when so much of the energy from the sphere has been stored inside the shell (yes, one can almost call it ‘captured’) that its temperature is in effect equal to the sphere’s temperature. At this point, the shell emits as much energy per unit of time from its outer surface (as heat loss to space) as it absorbs from the sphere (as heat gain). Its net heat is thus dynamically zero. But this doesn’t mean it’s no longer fed with as much energy per unit of time from the sphere (its hot reservoir) as ever. It has now simply reached the point where it is able to rid itself with an equal amount of energy to space (its cold reservoir) per unit of time. OUT finally matches IN. It never did until this point. Hence, the shell warmed. There has to be an imbalance between IN and OUT for there to be warming (or cooling). At this point it can no longer warm. And yet, it’s temperature still has to be maintained by the constant incoming energy from the sphere. Otherwise it starts cooling at once. That why the zero heat situation is a ‘dynamic’ one.
What you want to do is letting the shell be warmed by the incoming energy from the sphere, but then use this energy a second time to make its own source even warmer, while still maintaining the temperature of the shell. So one batch of energy makes both the shell and the sphere warmer. [JP’s emphasis]
Also, when you say that the shell first receives 235 W/m^2 from the sphere, but then immediately emits everything again ((117.5+117.5=) 235 W/m^2), how does the shell warm? In effect, it warms itself by recycling half the energy it receives the first time to receive it in addition to the sphere’s energy the second time. And this is after the sphere has also warmed itself, by recycling some of its emitted energy back from the shell onto itself.
Talk about magical tricks …!
Actually, it does. The Stefan-Boltzmann Equation tells us that there is no heat transfer between the sphere and the shell when the two are at the same temperature.
Creative try though.
[JP: The Stefan-Boltzmann equation does not tell you about heat transfer at the shell. That’s not what the S-B Equation does, says, or is for. The heat transfer equation says that the heat transfer is zero when the sphere and shell equilibrate. This doesn’t mean that the surfaces suddenly stop radiating! Energy is then emitted on the outside of the shell, energy which comes from the thermal bath between the sphere and shell. Creative sophistry though, trying to say that the S-B Equation is for heat flow.]
Kristian,
You have made the point I was trying to make earlier about the same energy not being able to do two things at the same time much more eloquently and with a great deal more clarity that I could.
Thank you.
Following up on Kristian’s comment, maybe I’ll write a whole new post on this, but here it is (if you see this in email give me a minute to check for formatting corrections once WP changes the code into text):
The shell starts off at zero and is heated by the sphere. The shell has a mass m and thermal capacity Cp. The thermal energy content of the shell is then:
Q = m*Cp*Tshell
The rate of change of thermal energy content of the shell, which is by definition the heat flow at the shell, is Qdot (Qdot means the time derivative)
Qdot = m*Cp*(dTshell/dt)
since m and Cp are constant.
This Qdot is also the same thing as the radiant heat flow from the sphere to shell, at the shell. Note here that typically I’ve been writing Q in my posts, which is poor accuracy for readers, because it is actually Qdot when I write the radiant heat flow equation. So then the radiant heat flow at the shell is:
Qdot = Asphere*s*(T4sphere * (Rsphere/Rshell)2 – T4shell)
So now, since these two equations are describing the same thing, one the energy flow IN the shell, which comes FROM the heat flow from the sphere, you set them equal:
m*Cp*(dTshell/dt) = Ashell*s*(T4sphere * (Rsphere/Rshell)2 – T4shell)
and so the differential equation is:
dTshell/dt = (Ashell*s/m*Cp)*(T4sphere * (Rsphere/Rshell)2 – T4shell)
Equilibrium is found when the dTshell/dt asymptotes to zero, because obviously that means that the temperature is no longer changing. So you can solve the solution that way if you like, by actually numerically computing the solution curve for Tshell, and I can show that in a future post, but obviously the simpler solution is just:
dTshell/dt = 0 = (Ashell*s/m*Cp)*(T4sphere * (Rsphere/Rshell)2 – T4shell)
0 = T4sphere * (Rsphere/Rshell)2 – T4shell
T4shell = T4sphere * (Rsphere/Rshell)2
Tshell = Tsphere * (Rsphere/Rshell)1/2
which is of course the solution as found in the OP up top.
You just said I’m becoming confused, and then used the same argument I did to show why Joel is wrong?
If the area emitting to space of the shell wasn’t greater than the area of the sphere he might have a point, but as stands now, the energy density must be reduced or energy must be produced.
The surface area of a sphere with the same radius as the Earth (6371 km*4pi^2) is less than the surface area of a shell with a radius 1 km greater than the Earth (6372 km*4pi^2), if the sphere emits 235 W/m^2 and the shell emits 235 W/m^2 then the shell is producing TRILLIONS of Watts from nowhere.
Reducing the radius difference to 1 meter and pegging the sphere and shell emissions at 235 W/m^2 still requires the shell to produce BILLIONS of Watts from nowhere.
It’s pretty basic math, it’s why the inverse square law is invoked in this type of discussion by those with a certain basic level of understanding.
Matlab:
I never said they did…although you have said that one of them does in the MATLAB code that you wrote.
Creative way to violate conservation of energy by putting big words like “thermal bath” into a sentence. I am sure it will fool those it is meant to fool.
Garbage in, garbage out.
Try
Qdot = A_sphere*sigma*(T^4_sphere * (R_sphere/R_shell)^2 – 2*T^4_shell),
an equation that acknowledges the fact that heat is radiated from both sides of the shell, and you will actually get the right answer. [Actually, in the case where the sphere and shell are different radii, you really have to take into account view factors: The shell “sees” itself in addition to the sphere…But, that is well beyond the level of discussion here. Let’s try to at least get things right for the case where the radii approach equality.]
[JP: Joel you can’t just magically insert an factor of two to the emission of the shell. It doesn’t lose any energy with internal emission because energy emitted inside gets reabsorbed, and the emission which strikes the sphere is replaced by greater emission (heat flow) from the sphere in any case. If you put the factor 2 into the equation this doesn’t result in a higher final temperature for the shell, but a lower one…because it is emitting twice as much energy. Here’s the plot:
Nice try. Thanks for the help.]
OK I’ll describe it in the most basic terms ever. As a layman, speaking in terms of pure common sense here, it’s impossible for the temperature of the Earth to ever be greater than the temperature which is attainable due to the energy supplied by the sun (given the distance of then Earth from the sun) plus the internal energy from inside the Earth’s surface, geothermal energy…and that’s it. This temperature has been calculated to be -18C as far as I know. Now according to climate science, the Earth’s SURFACE is 33K warmer because of the GHE…whereas I’ve read here that the “temperature of the Earth” (i.e. surface + atmosphere + oceans + ice etc) IS already -18C as measured from space…RIGHT NOW, as in, including the GHE even if there was one. That’s all I really needed to read. Argument over…IF the temp is -18C as seen from space already then clearly there is no “need” for the GHE. So if there is a GHE, then that effect is not actually to add any temperature to the system…i.e. doubling of CO2 = 0 degree temp rise.
Joe,
In all seriousness, it turns out that it is not that hard to solve the problem correctly with view factors and it corrects an error that you made that should have been obvious to me but I previously had missed:
Your equation for Q_sp is correct but your one for Q_sh is not, as should be obvious from the fact that, by conservation of energy, we must have Q_sp = -Q_sh.
[JP: That is incorrect. For conservation of energy the power emitted on the outside must be the same as coming from the inside. Since heat is flowing from the sphere to the shell, then the shell does not send any heat to the sphere. At equilibrium, emission from the sphere goes to the shell and then goes outside the shell to space; emission from the shell inside the shell doesn’t lose or send any heat anywhere…it stays with itself, inside, not escaping…it escapes on the outside of the shell only.]
The reason Q_sh is not correct is that you haven’t taken into account the radiation from other parts of the shell. If you use the reciprocity theorem for view factors (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/View_factor) and the fact that F_(sp->sh) = 1 then you can easily compute this term correctly and, as expected, it restores conservation of energy between the shell and the sphere.
With these corrected equations, one can then solve for the steady-state solution for the shell and the sphere with different radii. If we put in (240 W/m^2)*(4pi*R_sp^2) for the power being received by the shell from the sun (or internally produced), one gets the following solutions:
T_sh = (255 K) * (R_sp/R_sh)^(1/2)
[JP: Yes this is the solution I’ve written about which you’ve said is incorrect previously, and in which you denied the ratio of the radii had any effect.]
T_sp = (255 K) * [1+(R_sp/R_sh)^2]^(1/4)
[JP: This now contradicts the previous equation because 255K is supposed to be the temperature of the sphere. You now have 255K in both equations but nowhere is there a reference for what actually holds the 255K temperature. Neither the shell holds it nor the sphere holds it, so it is coming from nowhere. You’re just flailing around with arbitrary numbers and math now. If we take a look at any radiative thermal physics text, such as copied at this link, where the view factors are applied, the result is not the equation you have invented here with the temperature of the sphere going up as the temperature of itself times a factor starting at the fourth root of 2 and going down to 1 – that is a plainly illogical statement of math as it is, and for example it says that when the shell is the same radius as the sphere, which means no shell exists, then the sphere should make itself 1.189 times warmer for no reason. The final temperatures you invented do not conserve energy in any case because the power emitted by the shell over that of there sphere is
P_sh/P_sp = (R_sp/R_sh)^2 / (1+(R_sp/R_sh)^2) which does not equal 1 and is in general an inverse curve no matter if you put another factor of 2 up top. Consistently, none of what you come up with works out, or is found in radiative thermal texts etc.]
In the limit that R_sp -> R_sh, this gives the accepted solution for the model with equal radii, T_sh = 255 K and T_sp = (255 K)*(2)^(1/4) = 303 K.
[JP: If Rsp = Rsh then there is no shell. Taking limits is irrelevant when none of the math is correct in the first place, and when there’s no need to take a limit here anyway – the radii can be whatever they like.]
In the opposite limit that the radius of the sphere is much, much less than the radius of the shell, the solution is T_sh -> 0 and T_sp -> 255 K, i.e., the same solution one would have if the shell is not there.
[JP: Yes that was my solution already, although it is not that the shell isn’t there, it is just very distant, which reduces the flux from the sphere to zero at the infinite limit…correctly used term this time. However the shell is also not there when Rsh = Rsp.]
Of course, since the realistic situation is that R_sh / R_sp is about 1.001, the R_sp -> R_sh solution is, to a very good approximation, the correct result for this simple model of the radiative greenhouse effect.
[JP: Of course this math doesn’t conserve energy and was entirely nonsensical in any case, as demonstrated. And of course the radiative greenhouse effect is debunked by real greenhouses already. Again, thanks for the help in exposing the fraud.]
Graham W says:
Correct…Modulo the comment below.
You had the correct premises and exactly the wrong conclusion. The GHE is the only way that the Earth’s AVERAGE surface temperature can be greater than about 255 K and yet have it still radiate out into space the amount of radiation that a body at 255 K would.
[JP: The surface is simply where the warmest part of the average gets to be found because 1) that is where the heating mainly takes place from sunshine 2) the natural lapse creates a distribution from warm at the bottom to cold at the top, and hence the average is in the middle and the warmer surface-air is entirely expected by simple math.]
And, it is no surprise that the Earth emits the same amount of power, as measured from space, as a body at -18 C, since it has to in order to be in radiative balance (which it is, to a quite good approximation). Again, the GHE is the only explanation of how the Earth can emit this little radiation when its average surface temperature is so high.
[JP: No, the output from the Earth is a combination from all contributions, which all together average at -18C as an effective blackbody.]
Also, one correction, the Earth as measured from space, cannot really be said to look like a body at -18 C. What is true is that it radiates as much power as if it were a blackbody at -18 C. However, its spectrum differs markedly from that of a blackbody, and this is precisely because of the elements in the atmosphere (CO2, methane, water vapor, clouds, …) that can absorb (and emit) electromagnetic radiation in the IR.
[JP: It is called the effective blackbody temperature.]
Yes that is definitely correct Graham – the temperature of the Earth as seen from space is -18C. The near-surface-air temperature is simply the tiny portion of that whole ensemble (atmosphere with depth, naturally going from warm at bottom to cold at top, + oceans, + ice, etc) which has a higher temperature than the average. As anyone must know, an average is composed of higher and lower values than the average, the middle value, by definition. The near-surface-air is simply where the higher values are found, for natural reasons, not because of any radiative greenhouse effect because that effect of course doesn’t even exist in a real greenhouse, or anywhere else, since it has been empirically and theoretically refuted in every way.
I never denied that the ratio had any effect. I noted that the effect is very small in the case of interest, where the difference in radii is only about 0.1%.
[JP: It doesn’t matter if it is small or not small…the ratio indicates energy is not conserved…and that’s what Willis pretended he was doing in the first place, but clearly didn’t.]
Conservation of energy does not require that this equal 1. What conservation of energy requires in the steady-state is that at the sphere’s surface, energy absorbed = energy emitted and at the shell, energy absorbed = energy emitted, where energy emitted is emitted from BOTH sides of the shell.
[JP: Conservation of energy does not require that the energy in = energy out…? lol OK. Yes Joel, that’s exactly what the ratio is for showing, and it shows energy is not conserved…lol.]
The solution in Kittel and Kroemer can be viewed here: http://books.google.com/books?id=c0R79nyOoNMC&pg=115#v=onepage&q&f=false
As I noted, they get different numbers (280 K for the shell and 333 K for the sphere) because they neglect the Earth’s albedo for the purposes of this basic illustration.
[JP: The textbook link I provided is much more recent than yours. Plus yours is wrong. Empirical evidence debunks the radiative greenhouse effect and pretty much any context of theory in physics does as well. :)]
Radiation does not determine temperature. It is mass that determines temperature. And as the bulk of the tropospheres mass is at the bottom, that is where you will find the higher temperatures.
The average temperature of -18º C can also be confirmed by looking at the radiosonde data. By finding -18º C in a sounding it is possible to accurately predict the surface temperature to within 1-2º C from the given hight of -18º C and the normal lapse rate of 6.5 C per km.
This is not news in meteorology.
Where you have a surface estimate which comes out a few degrees lower than the actual measurements, the surface will be warmer than the air above it. Conversely, where the estimate is slightly higher by a few degrees than the actual measurement, which is generally the case for most of the Earths surface for most of the year round, then the surface is cooler than the air above it. This is one specific way to confirm with empirical evidence, that the Earths surface does not heat the atmosphere, which in reality, just like the surface, is actually heated by direct sunlight.
Right, so as the -18C is an overall average, like you say of course you can have higher values and lower values for temperatures of the different parts present within the system as a whole (i.e. surface, oceans, ice, all the different levels of the atmosphere), but it must always average out to that -18C figure when looking at the whole thing…because there isn’t enough energy available from the only energy sources (sun, geothermal) for the average temp to be any higher.
So if anyone is arguing that the GHE makes the surface temp warmer, if it were possible to do this, then somewhere else in the system would have to be getting colder, so that the average were still the same overall. So for surface temps to rise, oceans or atmosphere or ice would have to be getting colder…but this is not what is argued by those who argue for the GHE as far as I can tell.
Also, if they’re suggesting that this 33K figure (which we can already see is wrong because surface temps needn’t be the same as the overall average temp of the whole system anyway) is added entirely by GH gases, effectively that means they’re saying that density and pressure of the atmosphere near the surface contributes nothing to warming the surface. So even taking things in the terms of their own argument (the 33K) something is still definitely very wrong…!
Graham,
Correct, the whole “GHE” fraud has been built on the perception and false premise that the Earths solid surface is the emitting surface and this is where the temperature of -18º C should be found.
However as many of us have been pointing out for many years, the emitting surface of the Planet is nowhere near the ground. A three dimensional gas has a three dimensional surface at it’s central mass point. This is verified by empirical observation in the satellite data and radiosonde data as per my points above by finding the given altitude of -18º C above any geographic location on Earth for which radiosonde data exists.
There has been some serious goalpost shifting in recent years thanks to the efforts to make this point but the warmists are still clinging to the back-radiation fallacy, hence the likes of Willis Eschanbach’s pseudoscience ‘steel greenhouse’ thought experiment.
I pointed out to Willis that trying to verify an hypothesis with an impossible to reproduce thought experiment, is as far from the scientific method as you could possibly get. An hypothesis needs to be verified with empirical evidence. But the problem for the “GHE” hypothesis is that every form of empirical evidence relating to this hypothesis, as Joe keeps saying, show that it is false.
Well all I can say is, this blog and all regular contributors have helped no end with me “seeing the light” as it were so thanks so much for that! Keep up the good work and don’t let the bastards grind you down. Eventually logic will prevail.
P.S: I love Allen R Eltor’s/various pseudonyms posts with the “Backerdisms” and “Y’alls” and “m.a.g.i.c gais”, very funny. Some much-needed humour there as well as being unbelievably direct and to the point at the same time. The more hick-like the language of the climate scientists (the spellings are great) and the more angry the tone the funnier I find them. Many have made me genuinely laugh out loud.
Above you said “the realistic solution is when the ratio is about 1.001”, right?
What about when it is about 1.0001?
4*pi*6371^2 = 510,064,471 @ 235 W/m^2 = 119,865,182,175,000,000
4*pi*6372^2 = 510,224,605 @ 235 W/m^2 = 119,902,782,175,000,000
It would be creating an extra 37,600,000,000,000 Watts if the shell is 1 km above the Earth-sized sphere.
How about if the ratio is 1.0000001?
4*pi*6371.001 = 510,064,632 @ 235 W/m^2 = 119,865,188,527,000,000
It would be creating 6,352,000,000 extra Watts if the shell is 1 m above the Earth-sized sphere.
Before we even begin talking about or doing ANYTHING involving sending power back or any hypothetical heating, the facts and basic freaking geometry show that if you peg the sphere emissions at 235 W/m^2 and the shell emissions at 235 W/m^2 for ANY nonzero difference between sphere and shell radius, you are creating energy.
What magic method do you have which takes the energy supplied by the sphere and allows the energy received/emitted by the shell to utterly ignore the inverse square law?
James says: “I know Joseph has an allergy to analogies,”
======================================================
This is not true. If you mean “false analogies designed to fool people and drag the discussion away from the key point” then this is a different thing.
Graham W says: “OK I’ll describe it in the most basic terms ever. As a layman, speaking in terms of pure common sense here, it’s impossible for the temperature of the Earth to ever be greater than the temperature which is attainable due to the energy supplied by the sun (given the distance of then Earth from the sun) plus the internal energy from inside the Earth’s surface, geothermal energy…and that’s it. This temperature has been calculated to be -18C as far as I know. Now according to climate science, the Earth’s SURFACE is 33K warmer because of the GHE…”
======================================================
First of all, regardless of any calculations, right or wrong, the IPCC “greenhouse effect” is self-heating of the Earth surface by it’s own heat, the “greenhouse gases” serving only as passive reflectors. This is a clearly impossible absurd process, it does not exist.
Secondly, that means that since the Earth surface temperature is obviously significantly higher than -18°C on average and the Sun is the only source of energy, that number -18°C must be wrong. It is a result of a wrong calculation. If you look at the calculation closely, you can find the error.
Hi Greg,
On this page:
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stefan–Boltzmann_law
They show how they’ve calculated the Earth’s effective temperature under the “examples” section. Is this the calculation that you mean contains an error?
If so I have no idea where the error is, and not because I’m saying you’re wrong, it’s just that I don’t actually understand it to be honest.
Graham W says: “If so I have no idea where the error is,”
====================================================
Just go through each step thoroughly and question everything, then you’ll find it.
Will Pratt says, 2013/12/16 at 10:10 AM:
“Where you have a surface estimate which comes out a few degrees lower than the actual measurements, the surface will be warmer than the air above it. Conversely, where the estimate is slightly higher by a few degrees than the actual measurement, which is generally the case for most of the Earths surface for most of the year round, then the surface is cooler than the air above it. This is one specific way to confirm with empirical evidence, that the Earths surface does not heat the atmosphere, which in reality, just like the surface, is actually heated by direct sunlight.”
Say what?!
Greg House says:
2013/12/16 at 5:48 PM
“Secondly, that means that since the Earth surface temperature is obviously significantly higher than -18°C on average and the Sun is the only source of energy, that number -18°C must be wrong. It is a result of a wrong calculation. If you look at the calculation closely, you can find the error.”
The true surface of any planet with regards to radiation, is its effective emission height. Why is it called the “effective emission height”? Because it’s high, i.e. not on the ground!
“Just go through each step thoroughly and question everything, then you’ll find it.”
The Stefan-Boltzmann Law is wrong and therefore the satellite measurements are also wrong?
And the fact that you can actually accurately predict, to within 1-2º C, the surface temperature from the given altitude of -18º C, which is to be found at the effective emission height of the earth/atmosphere, using the normal lapse rate of 6.5º C per km, is also wrong?
Two extremely robust pieces of empirical evidence which confirm the Stefan-Boltzmann Law.
Which is precisely why it is referred to as a LAW and not an hypothesis.
The only possible reason or motive you could have for questioning a fundamental law of physics is to discredit yourself. As you have first questioned the “GHE” hypothesis and then follow up by questioning a fundamental law of physics, your only motive can be to discredit (by association) all those who question the “GHE” hypothesis.
It’s a bit lame Greg, don’t you think. A bit tired that one mate!
I think it would have been kinder to just point out to Greg that -18C is indeed a wrong number as applied to the ground surface, and in that context the calculation is indeed wrong. Greg did not say the S-B Law is wrong.
What -18C must refer to is the average of the radiative surface. For radiation, the surface is not the ground, but some place in the atmosphere. Greg did say that “if you look closely, you find the error”, and the answer to find would indeed be what you (and I) have discussed here. Also the standard calculation doesn’t make reference to the low emissivity of the atmosphere, etc. Basically nothing climate science does with the calculation and numbers is correct, and they leave out everything that is important about interpreting and understanding the numbers/calculations.
“Just go through each step thoroughly and question everything, then you’ll find it.”
In reference to the link to the S-B Law wiki-link given by Graham.
There is no doubt what Greg was saying. Yes he said that the -18º C is wrong but he also implied, that the calculation used, i.e. the S-B equation, is flawed.
It’s called gatekeeping Joe, and it is designed to hurt genuine sceptics. Not only has Greg made a deliberate and obvious error in implying that the effective emission height of a planet is its solid surface, he also implies quite undeniably, that the S-B equation is flawed.
This kind of deliberate obfuscation (I hate that word) should not be tolerated, let alone covered for Joe, particularly when you run a blog called “Climate of Sophistry”.
It is entirely your own interpretation of what was “implied”, Will.
Greg’s statement is logically true: If they’re doing some calculation that says that the surface must be -18C, then the calculation must be wrong. He did not actually refer to the S-B Law, and so you are making assumptions and putting words in his mouth, unnecessarily, and sophistically.
Will Pratt says, 2013/12/17 at 3:31 AM:
“The true surface of any planet with regards to radiation, is its effective emission height. Why is it called the “effective emission height”? Because it’s high, i.e. not on the ground!”
The ‘effective emission height’ concept is radiative GHE mumbo jumbo. I can’t believe you guys buy into it.
There is no connection whatsoever between the physical layer in our atmosphere that happens to hold a mean temperature of -18C and the total radiative flux from Earth to space.
It has only been arrived at like this: 1) we measure a radiative flux from planet Earth into space (we can only measure it from space), 2) the flux is on average ~239 W/m^2, 3) we apply the Stefan-Boltzmann law and find that IF the Earth were a black body in the vacuum of space, then its SOLID surface would be at a temperature of 255K, 4) we go look for a surface, any surface, within the Earth system (ocean, land, atmosphere), that holds the physical temperature of 255K, and then 5) we claim this thin dynamic gaseous layer to be Earth’s ‘blackbody emission surface’ (or ‘true surface with regards to radiation’, as you call it).
Well, it clearly isn’t. Joe himself stated the real situation just upthread: “(…) the output from the Earth is a combination from all contributions, which all together average at -18C as an effective blackbody.”
ALL layers within the Earth system, from surface to ToA, radiate to space. Some more, some less. The total of their contributions is Earth’s final radiative flux to space. Only at ToA (above the convection top) can this flux reach the full 239 W/m^2 that we measure, because below this level, some of the energy being transported upward from the surface will always be held within the air itself, convected upward, kept as sensible and latent heat. So it starts at around 50-60 W/m^2 at the surface and grows upward until its all radiation at the ToA, 239 W/m^2.
The 255K (-18C) number is just based on the (quite arbitrary) conversion from the measured total/final radiative flux from Earth to space into a blackbody temperature. It is not representative of a specific layer within the Earth system. The 239 W/m^2 don’t all ‘come from’ this tropospheric layer at 255K. As if it were a solid BB surface radiating directly into a perfect vacuum. This flux is not radiated freely and in full to space from some layer 5 kilometers up, in the middle of the convective troposphere, simply because this happens to be the layer where the average temperature is -18C. The S-B law doesn’t work on a gas.
This layer 5 kilometers up is at -18C simply because the surface mean temperature of the Earth is +15C and the lapse rate -6.5K/km.
On Mars, the planetary ‘blackbody emission temperature’ based on the measured average flux to space is -63C (210K). Based on physical surface temperature measurements (in situ and satellite), the real average global surface temperature of Mars is very likely lower than this, at least no higher. So in the case of Mars, there is no ‘effective emission height‘. It would be on or more likely below the actual surface. Mars’s final planetary radiative flux to space is not connected with the temperature of any gaseous layer, either at the bottom, the middle or at the top of the Martian atmosphere. And that’s in spite of all the CO2 it contains.
This is the easiest way to ‘debunk’ this particular version of the radiative GHE.
That paper I linked earlier, it includes a fascinating idea: the Karman line is the natural choice of a “surface” for the planet.
Below it lies almost all of the atmosphere, which is warmed directly by the Sun.
Below the entire atmosphere lies the surface of the oceans and land, which is warmed by the Sun as well.
Below that surface lies rocks or the subsurface ocean layers, which is the final direct store of energy from the Sun.
“If they’re doing some calculation that says that the surface must be -18C, then the calculation must be wrong”
The surface is -18º C Joe and it’s referred to as the effective emission height.
It is the AGW fraudsters and Greg, that have reinterpreted the surface, the effective emission height, to mean the solid surface.
Regarding IR, the earths surface is at the effective emission height, average 5km altitude and has a temperature of -18º C.
Like I said earlier, this is not news in the field of Meteorology.
Greg said to Graham:
” that means that since the Earth surface temperature is obviously significantly higher than -18°C on average and the Sun is the only source of energy, that number -18°C must be wrong.”
This statement is, incorrect, ambiguous and misleading. I therefore have to conclude that Greg House, who seriously out to know better, is trying lead Graham off into the weeds.
If Greg wanted to avoid any ambiguity he could have simply said that the surface of the planet with regards to IR is called the effective emission height and can be found at the average height of 5 km. Therefore the S-B calculation for the Earths surface is correct and confirmed by empirical evidence.
I don’t know about you Joe but I know which answer I prefer.
Well I liked Kristians response a little more, and you’re making a much bigger deal out of Gregs comment than is necessary.
Graham W says: 2013/12/16 at 6:20 PM
Hi Greg,On this page:
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stefan–Boltzmann_law
They show how they’ve calculated the Earth’s effective temperature under the “examples” section. Is this the calculation that you mean contains an error?
If so I have no idea where the error is, and not because I’m saying you’re wrong, it’s just that I don’t actually understand it to be honest.
Graham,
Start by carefully learning what the S-B equation is, and what it is not Wiki is for those that do not understand. Wiki is the place to learn that you do not understand. it has good references Go elsewhere to learn. Read what Boltzmann,, Stephan. and Planck had to say about how to correctly present and explain that very useful equation.
To use of the S-B equation for calculation the temperature of the surface is a deliberate lie The only thing calculated is the apparent black body temperature of a black body at the distance if the Sun. That temperature is the one needed to do the equilibration the flux from the Sun and the flux from some place in the Earth’s atmosphere to space at 7 kelvins.
The thermal electromagnetic flux from the surface starts at about 60 milliWatts/m^2 then increases in magnitude continuously out to 200 Km until all that is needed to radiate to space is radiated to space. The outward flux at 200 Km is about 160 iWatts/m^2. The 255 kelvins is a composite determined by the outward flux by every molecule of aqueous vapour and every CO2 molecule in the atmosphere. This outward flux from the atmosphere is the only thing that keeps the atmosphere from reaching 3000 kelvins where the O2 and N2 molecules can now radiate to space at that temperatureeir
The atmosphere is not ever heated by thermal radiation from the surfaced. The temperature of the atmosphere (its whole profile) is determined by convective transfer and latent heat of evaporation of water. The whole radiative GHE is also a deliberate lie.
The surface cannot but does not need to radiate Anything radiated from the surface, because of the aqueous vapour in the atmosphere would be absorbed within the first 40 meters There the temperature difference that would cause such radiation is but 3 degrees Celsius. You can use the (differential with respect to kelvins) form of the S-B equation Flux = 4sigma K^3 x delta T, to derive the maximum that can be radiated from the surface if the atmosphere no intervening absorption on that first 40 meters That first 40 meter absorptive atmosphere reduces .the amount radiated to about 1/3 of the amount calculated with a delta T of 3 degrees Celsius.
Please do not use any of what I said. What I said is for consideration only I can only hope it helps your doing what was suggested.by Greg House says: 2013/12/16 at 7:00 PM
Graham W says: “If so I have no idea where the error is,”
====================================================
“Just go through each step thoroughly and question everything, then you’ll find it.”
Greg, He says he cannot do what you suggest yet! Perhaps in time. Difficult!!!
We must first identify the lies and who is doing the lying, for consideration.
Please read what I wrote and point out all you can find.
I am certain that many remain.
“Well I liked Kristians response a little more”
I don’t doubt that Joe but Kristian, like Greg, has also made fundamental errors.
“ALL layers within the Earth system, from surface to ToA, radiate to space.”
That is as maybe but the IR emitted by the surface is quickly replaced at light speed which is why the “effective emission height” is called the “effective emission height”. Because emission of IR to space from anywhere else below this level is irrelevant, as it will be instantly replaced at light speed.
I am making a big deal about accuracy, ambiguity and sophistry.
Will Pratt says: “If Greg wanted to avoid any ambiguity he could have simply said…”
================================================
There was no ambiguity in my comment and I do not believe that you are that stupid to not understand that.
As I said, since warming by back radiation (the IPCC “greenhouse effect”) is impossible and absurd and there is no other more powerful than the Sun source of warming, the calculation referred to above MUST be wrong.
Secondly, a wrong calculation might either contain one single error or many errors. I did not specify that. One error is obvious, however, and reveals the evil nature of modern warmism.
The f***ing climate liars simply turn things upside down and fool people. Again, the primary thing is that the IPCC “greenhouse effect” does not exist physically and this is independent from that false calculation, no self-heating by own heat is possible, but still it might be interesting sometimes to look at how they fool us.
And let’s leave it at that, Will and etc…on the particular interpretation of what Greg meant. The radiative greenhouse effect is the fraud.
Kristian says: “On Mars, the planetary ‘blackbody emission temperature’ … real average global surface temperature of Mars … in the case of Mars … Mars’s final planetary radiative flux to space… This is the easiest way to ‘debunk’ this particular version of the radiative GHE.”
=========================================
Referring to other planets is a bad way to debunk the IPCC “greenhouse effect” since practically nobody can check it and hence has to believe. At the same time, it is sufficient to find out by looking into the IPCC reports that their “greenhouse effect” is the impossible and absurd self-heating by own heat. Everybody understands that such a process is impossible, the problem is that people simply do not know what the IPCC in fact maintains. The hoax is obvious and we do not need to make things complicated.
Will Pratt says, 2013/12/17 at 5:24 AM:
“That is as maybe but the IR emitted by the surface is quickly replaced at light speed which is why the “effective emission height” is called the “effective emission height”. Because emission of IR to space from anywhere else below this level is irrelevant, as it will be instantly replaced at light speed.”
If anything, Will, Earth’s ‘effective emission height’ to space is at the tropopause (the top of convection). Because only from this level all energy transported up and away is through radiation. And the tropopause is not at -18C on average. There is no connection.
Greg House says, 2013/12/17 at 6:01 AM:
“Referring to other planets is a bad way to debunk the IPCC “greenhouse effect” since practically nobody can check it and hence has to believe.”
Eh, we do have real measurements from Mars, Greg.
“At the same time, it is sufficient to find out by looking into the IPCC reports that their “greenhouse effect” is the impossible and absurd self-heating by own heat.”
When I said “this particular version of the radiative GHE” I meant the ‘raising the effective radiating level’ version, not the version you’re talking about. It is just as ridiculuos, but for other reasons.
Will Pratt says: “the whole “GHE” fraud has been built on the perception and false premise that the Earths solid surface is the emitting surface and this is where the temperature of -18º C should be found.”
==================================================
No, this is not what the IPCC “greenhouse effect” has been built on. It has been built on the false premise that the surface of the Earth heats itself by it’s own heat, the “greenhouse gases” serving only as passive reflectors. It is practically impossible that scientists who designed it did not know what sort of unscientific crap that notion was. To make this crap credible they refer to the well known false calculation of maximum average temperature of the Earth surface, which is according to them -18°C. Then they compare this false number with the actual much higher temperature near the surface and say “you see, this is the back radiation from the “greenhouse gases” that makes the difference”. Your “emission hight” is simply a trick obfuscating the matter.
Well that is a very good point Greg! That IS how the radiative ghe was created and what its basis is; also throw in the redefinition of how a real greenhouse works and the false radiative association to higher temperatures found within.
Kristian says:
2013/12/17 at 6:12 AM
“If anything, Will, Earth’s ‘effective emission height’ to space is at the tropopause (the top of convection). Because only from this level all energy transported up and away is through radiation. And the tropopause is not at -18C on average. There is no connection.”
Yet empirical observation in the form of radiosonde data and direct satellite measurements AND the Stefan-Boltzmann law, all confirm that the effective emission height is where the atmosphere is on average -18º C, 5 km. To claim there is no connection, is naive at best.
Emission IR below and for that matter, above the effective emission height, is irrelevant to the Earths average temperature.
Will Pratt says: 2013/12/17 at 4:54 AM
“If they’re doing some calculation that says that the surface must be -18C, then the calculation must be wrong”
“The surface is -18º C Joe and it’s referred to as the effective emission height.”
What Climate Clown nonsense! You are the AGW fraudster
There is no effective emission height every CO2 and aqueous vapour radiates some power upward the only, This upward is the direction of all heat flux no mater how such flux is generated Any claimed flux toward a higher temperature surface is simple\y a claim that violates 2!LTD, and is a intentional false claim, “FRAUD”.
No one has measured a BB temperature of 255 kelvins, nor a outward flux to space has ever measured 240 Watts/m^2. That is another fraudulent use of the S-B equation. see http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/1520-0469%281964%29021%3C0030%3ASGVOTR%3E2.0.CO%3B2
The actual average measured flux to space from all of the atmosphere in every direction from but including nadir is closer to 160 Watts/m^2. That flux is from a solid angle greater than PI because the atmosphere only has an implied cross sectional area that radiates upward unevenly into a 2 PI steradians (a hemisphere) with no dilution by cosine theta. Emissivity or temperature itself goes down as some function of theta.
“and Greg, that have reinterpreted the surface, the effective emission height, to mean the solid surface.”
Only you are the one that says Greg called a anything a surface he said that the calculated -18 C is wrong and it is, You are the only one calling anything a surface as above and below:
“Regarding IR, the earths (surface) is at the effective emission height, average 5km altitude and has a temperature of -18º C.” What nonsense
Greg clearly stated:
“It is a result of a wrong calculation. If you look at the calculation closely, you can find the error.”
I agree with Greg. The the attempt use of the S-B equation to determine the surface of a planet with an partially absorptive/emissive atmosphere is again an intentional lie expressed by only AGW Climate Clowns like you.
“Like I said earlier, this is not news in the field of Meteorology.”
No it is a deliberate lie. Suggestion: get off the AGW crap, and learn some Thermodynamics!
Greg said to Graham:
” that means that since the Earth surface temperature is obviously significantly higher than -18°C on average and the Sun is the only source of energy, that number -18°C must be wrong.”
“This statement is, incorrect, ambiguous and misleading. I therefore have to conclude that Greg House, who seriously out to know better, is trying lead Graham off into the weeds.”
It is only you that is, incorrect, ambiguous and misleading. Please stop judging others intentions that you do not know. Instead judge your own intentions which are but, incorrect, ambiguous and misleading.
Greg House says:
2013/12/17 at 6:39 AM
“To make this crap credible they refer to the well known false calculation of maximum average temperature of the Earth surface, which is according to them -18°C. ”
The Earths average temperature is -18º C.
“Your “emission hight” is simply a trick obfuscating the matter.”
No, that is where the Earths 3 dimensional radiating surface is found.
Will Pratt says: “The Earths average temperature is -18º C. … No, that is where the Earths 3 dimensional radiating surface is found.”
================================================
Your “Earths 3 dimensional radiating surface” is just an obfuscation trick.
I can found -18°C at different places, like in Canada, in the air above my head or in my freezer. All that has nothing to do with what sort of unscientific crap wamists and their IPCC are selling us as “greenhouse effect”. Again, they “found” their -18°C on the Earth surface, this is what counts as a trick, not where else -18°C can be found. And again, this is not the primary issue, it is only interesting as a supplement to better understand the evil nature of warmism and those scientists in particular who designed all that.
Will Pratt says: 2013/12/17 at 6:47 AM
“Yet empirical observation in the form of radiosonde data and direct satellite measurements AND the Stefan-Boltzmann law, all confirm that the effective emission height is where the atmosphere is on average -18º C, 5 km. To claim there is no connection, is naive at best.”
There is only your concocted claim the the 5Km altitude temperature is the same As the deliberately concocted lie, that tries to falsely claim the the S-B equation can be used
to somehow create a temperature of a non-black non-isothermic body like the earth!
“Emission IR below and for that matter, above the effective emission height, is irrelevant to the Earths average temperature”
Radiation from every molecule outward especially, aqueous vapour, is what keeps this planet cool enough for biomass and animal life! Begone warmist!!!
Will Pratt says, 2013/12/17 at 7:00 AM:
“The Earths average temperature is -18º C.”
The -18C is not Earth’s ‘average temperature’, Will. It is Earth’s S-B-calculated ‘blackbody emission temperature’, the temperature Earth’s SOLID surface would have had IF it had been a blackbody radiating a flux of 239 W/m^2 directly into the vacuum of space.
The two are not the same. They happen to be close on Earth: 255K (calculated ‘BB emission temp’, based on the flux to space) vs. (288K+210K)/2 = 249K (simple average between mean gl surface and mean gl tropopause temperatures). But if what you say were right, then the ‘average temperature’ of Venus would be -89C (184K) (calculated ‘BB emission temp’) and the ‘average temperature’ of Mars would be -63C (210K) (calculated ‘BB emission temp’). It should be a fairly straightforward operation finding the true average temperatures between surface and tropopause on our two planetary neighbours. I can tell you this much: The ‘average temperature’ of Venus (surface to tropopause) is much, much higher than its calculated ‘BB emission temp’, while the ‘average temperature’ of Mars is much lower than its calculated ‘BB emission temp’.
Go figure. There is no connection.
Kristian says: “The -18C is not Earth’s ‘average temperature’, Will. It is Earth’s S-B-calculated ‘blackbody emission temperature’, the temperature Earth’s SOLID surface would have had IF it had been a blackbody radiating a flux of 239 W/m^2 directly into the vacuum of space.”
=======================================
No, this is not true.
The -18C is the result of the false calculation of what the Sun can cause. It is clear that the calculation must b false, since in fact the average temperature is much higher and there is no other more powerful source of heating than the Sun.
No, sorry,
You’re all wrong. The effective emission height temperature of -18º C is confirmed by the fact that, as one would expect, it can be used to accurately predict, within 1-2º C, the surface temperature below using the 6.5º C per km normal atmospheric lapse rate.
Kristian says: “I can tell you this much: The ‘average temperature’ of Venus (surface to tropopause) is much, much higher than its calculated ‘BB emission temp’, while the ‘average temperature’ of Mars is much lower than its calculated ‘BB emission temp’. Go figure. There is no connection.”
=========================================
But you have “figured” it, by inventing some “atmospheric effect” that heats the surface ABOVE what the Sun can cause, you just did not call it “greenhouse effect” and pretended to not imagine that Venus might be heated by it’s internal heat engine beneath the surface. I can recall the lovely discussion on this matter here: http://www.principia-scientific.org/Current-News/a-tale-of-two-versions.html
Will Pratt says: “You’re all wrong. The effective emission height temperature of -18º C … atmospheric lapse rate.”
========================================
All that will not help you. We have the non-existing “greenhouse effect” on paper in the published IPCC reports and the false calculation designed to make this crap credible. You can not replace it with your “emission height temperature”, whatever it means. It seems very much to be a word salad, another sort of unscientific crap designed to obfuscate the key issue and I do not feel like discussing it in-depth. Anyway, it is not what warmists mean when presenting their false -18°C surface temperature.
Greg House says:
2013/12/17 at 8:48 AM
You know all about word salads Greg,
From : Understanding the Atmosphere Effect By Joseph E Postma
“In yet another amazing confirmation of the power of the Laws of Thermodynamics, blackbody spectrums and Kirchhoff‟s Law of radiation, the average spectrum of thermal radiation from the Earth (and its atmosphere) indeed resembles a blackbody at -180C! And so the radiative equilibrium temperature of the Earth is measured to be exactly just what we calculated!”
and
“Like the examples we just discussed, the total average equilibrium temperature calculated via the Stefan-Boltzmann equation is what is actually confirmed by observation: a blackbody spectrum at 255K or -18º C.”
Just sayin’.
Will Pratt says: 2013/12/17 at 8:57 AM […]
===========================================
I can only say that everything coming from NASA, WMO and “climate science” in general concerning climate, temperature etc. should be questioned.
It is not that everything they say is a lie or a mistake, but it can be. They stakes are high and special groups will do whatever they need to fool people.
Will those are really general statements from long ago and I would be more inclined today for the precision being offered by Greg and Kristian here. Yes, what I said still has validity, but particularly Greg’s (and Kristian’s) points are much more on target. When I was writing back then I wasn’t yet fully able to articulate the “tale of two versions” and identify it as the center of the fraud. It has taken years to sort out the mess that climate science has created. That the Earth emits 240 W/m^2 in accord with its input is a rather simple issue; I was writing to make the point that there are no actual temperature discrepancies, and that climate alarm wasn’t correctly interpreting or doing the calculation.
Greg House says: 2013/12/16 at 5:48 PM
======================================================
“First of all, regardless of any calculations, right or wrong, the IPCC “greenhouse effect” is self-heating of the Earth surface by it’s own heat, the “greenhouse gases” serving only as passive reflectors. This is a clearly impossible absurd process, it does not exist.”
That is pritty good!! . If the Green effect or the interior of the Willis Steel greenhouse were reflective, 0% tranmissivitey, 0% emissivity, the limiting (-T^4) potential would be equal to the (+T^4) potential trying to radiatef The (-T^4) comes from the sphere The only thing the shell can reflect no matter how many reflective bounces that would take The sphere is the only thing with emissivity. If the sphere has power its temperature must go higher and higher untill that temperature destroys that power source. At that point all attemped heat transferceases and the shell stays at that temperature as it has no way to dissapate any of its sensible heat..
This is what Joe alluded to wiith his graphs. Unfortunatly Joe kept the sphere temperature constant rather than treating that to be a dependant variable that must rise to distruction by the som the “constant” power “no back radiation”. The final temperature is that which stops the constant power from generating any more power no matter how small that constant power was.
This is sumilar to what happens betrween the surface and the atmosphere. The very small lapse rate and high absorption of aqueous vapor seriosly limit that wich can be radiated all the way to the tropopause where the aqueous vapor density is so low that the radiation can be finaly be emitted to cold space by both CO2 molecules from that point and the aqueous vapor below the tropopause. CO2 radiate nothigfrom lower than the tropopause where CO2 becomes them fourth principal gas in the atmesphere. CO2 continues to radiate more all the way the stratopause where now it radiates most to space but a wee bit to the colder tropopause. None of this “downwelling” CO2 radiation ever males it back to the surface.
The earths lapse rate is not determined by radiation but by covection, especially that larent heat of aqueous vapor that turns back to sensible heat before that vapor can precipitate. The lapse rate starts at the pressure of the tropopause and increases all the way down to thw surface, on Venus. Earth, Saturn, and Titan. Atmospheric aqueous vapor decreases the laps rate causing the surface to be at a lower temperature.
Mars has no lapse rate as the surface of Mars has a pressure lower than the pressure of our tropopause. On this Earth it is all H2O never CO2. Not even earthlings can harm it badly. What a wonderful planet!!!~-
Greehhouse Effect, properly spoken when meaning to deceive’ “Grunhous Effekt”
The current German is one word “Treibhauseffect”. Treb meaning “ambition drove him to crime.” The krauts got that one correc! Look it up!.
Sorry !“Treibhauseffekt”. Treib meaning “ambition drove him to crime.” The krauts got that one correc! Look it up!.
Thanks Joe, I think I’ll archive this thread right there.
By the way, Anthony say’s can he have his trolls back now please!
Lol!!
Thanks all for help and advice. It seems that despite other differences, all except Joel Shore agree that the temperature of the Earth’s surface is not what is calculated on the page I linked to…and all agree that the -18 C figure applies to the temperature of the Earth as would be detected from space. Is that fair to say?
I have a question…if the Earth was just a ball of rock in a vacuum, no atmosphere, water or ice, at the same distance from the sun, would the temperature of the surface be 6 C as suggested by the page I linked to? In other words, is it correct up to this point?
Sorry, “is it right up to this point?” is a misleading way to ask. “Does the calculation give the correct answer as 6C for the temperature of the Earth without an atmosphere or water, at the same distance from the sun?” is a more accurate way.
“Earth’s surface” I should say, not just “Earth”. Jesus. I’ll get there eventually.
P.S: my own tentative answer is that yes it is correct, since there is only sun, vacuum, Earths surface, and hence all heat transfer will be through radiation, hence the Stefan-Boltzmann equation can be correctly applied. Add in an atmosphere + water and you can no longer use the equation to determine what the surface temperature should be, because there are now other forms of heat transport going on plus no longer a vacuum between Earths surface and sun.
Graham W says: “my own tentative answer is that yes it is correct, since there is only sun, vacuum, Earths surface, and hence all heat transfer will be through radiation, hence the Stefan-Boltzmann equation can be correctly applied.”
============================================
Their calculation is wrong because they implicitly handled the sunshine as falling upon the whole area of the sphere (Earth) simultaneously. I hope you understand that this is not possible. This way they got a lower number as a result.
Graham W says:
2013/12/17 at 12:12 PM
“Sorry, “is it right up to this point?” is a misleading way to ask. “Does the calculation give the correct answer as 6C for the temperature of the Earth without an atmosphere or water, at the same distance from the sun?” is a more accurate way.”
If the Earth were without atmosphere and water, but at the same distance from the Sun, it would be the Moon.
The actual measured surface temperature of the Moon can be found here :
http://www.diviner.ucla.edu/science.shtml
Hope that answers your question……..
The following paper by James Hansen (1981) explains the Greenhouse Effect, or at least Hansen’s version. I think most GHE versions use the same logic regarding the 255 K effective radiating temperature of the earth versus the 288 K mean surface temperature. The “Greenhouse Effect” section of the paper is only 4 paragraphs and worth a read just for context in regards to the current discussion.
Click to access Hansen_climate_impact_of_increasing_co2.pdf
Greg House says, 2013/12/17 at 8:38 AM:
“But you have “figured” it, by inventing some “atmospheric effect” that heats the surface ABOVE what the Sun can cause, you just did not call it “greenhouse effect” and pretended to not imagine that Venus might be heated by it’s internal heat engine beneath the surface. I can recall the lovely discussion on this matter here: http://www.principia-scientific.org/Current-News/a-tale-of-two-versions.html“
Yes, Greg, I remember. I remember that I explained it (that the atmosphere does not bring heat to the surface, and that you didn’t (or didn’t want to) understand what I was saying. And so, rather than just keep quiet, you started building strawmen to attack.
But let’s not go there on this thread. By all means some other time. I’m game.
I think that using other planets are a great way to debunk the greenhouse gas fraud (I refuse to call it a theory). In particular this simple analysis using verifiable data about the parts of the atmosphere of Venus that match Earth’s in terms of pressure proves a lot of what has been written here.
http://theendofthemystery.blogspot.com.au/2010/11/venus-no-greenhouse-effect.html
I suspect you may be able to do the similar analysis of Titan if we can detailed information of where Saturn was in relation to Titan when the measurements were taken. I suspect that reflected energy from Saturn would have to be factored into the analysis.
Truthseeker says: “…http://theendofthemystery.blogspot.com.au/2010/11/venus-no-greenhouse-effect.html”
==================================================
Note the same mistake Mr. Huffman makes when calculating “the effective, or equivalent blackbody, temperature”. He too divides the solar power by 4: “use the mean incident solar intensity of 342 W/m^2” (http://theendofthemystery.blogspot.de/2010/11/venus-no-greenhouse-effect.html?showComment=1309703361209#c5400702688262775862).
Greg,
I don’t know how I got so confused. I understood the error of dividing the solar energy by 4, and how this treats it as though it is falling on the globe everywhere simultaneously 24/7 at 1/4 of the full possible power, even though in reality at any one moment it is only shining on one hemisphere, back when I first read about it, which was on this blog, a year or so ago. I mean I didn’t fully understand it in terms of the maths/geometry involved, but I did get it conceptually.
Somehow between then and now, I completely lost sight of where that /4 error originates, which is in those calculations, and I even linked to them myself, which is the really stupid thing. And there was a big clue what with all those 4s everywhere…
…oh well. Yes you’re right Greg that is a pretty big problem thanks for pointing it out.
If the sphere was sufficiently smaller it would melt through lack of surface area. If it was bigger (or add a shell) then it would radiate the same heat at a lower temperature. That’s about it isn’t it.
The 255K is bogus. Here is their (IPCC and Warmists) bogus derivation:
TSI = 1365 W/sq.m
After albedo = 956 W/sq.m arriving Earth surface
Then, they divide by 4 and go to the SB equation, yielding 255K.
Dividing by 4 invalidates the 255K.
A flat ideal absorber receiving 956 W/sq.m yields 360K. Earth is somewhat a sphere, and rotates, but the 360K indicates Earth has cooling mechanisms in play. Just one more nail in the coffin for GHE.
Greg,
If he is doing that, he is doing that on both sides of the equation (Earth vs Venus) and so the analysis still stands.
He also finds and corrects his own mistake, which is a very rare occurrence in today’s “I am always right” view of the world that many seem to have …
http://theendofthemystery.blogspot.com.au/2012/03/my-own-blackbody-error-scientific.html
Truthseeker, the problem is that we have to analyze his analysis first and this is what our target audience will never understand. So, they have only one option, to believe, and they will not and we’ll lose. We have lost a lot already and we’ll keep losing by referring to such articles.
To debunk the IPCC “greenhouse effect” no reference to other planets is necessary and in fact such references are counter-productive.
Greg, I just have to disagree with you there. Showing that the composition of a planetary atmosphere has no bearing on the ambient temperature of that atmosphere is an incredibly powerful argument against the greenhouse gas fraud. It is practical, real, does not rely on a deep knowledge of physics and is not a thought bubble. Also, you can do it without going to the more complex math and algebra that Joe has used in this post for example.
Fight them on the beaches, fight them in the streets, fight them in the skies and never surrender. A multi-pronged attack will reach a greater number of people as different people will see things differently and what makes sense to one person may be unintelligible to another.
Truthseeker says: “Greg, I just have to disagree with you there. Showing that the composition of a planetary atmosphere has no bearing on the ambient temperature of that atmosphere is an incredibly powerful argument against the greenhouse gas fraud.”
=============================================
I do not think his comparison has shown that.
Truthseeker says: “Fight them on the beaches, fight them in the streets, fight them in the skies and never surrender. A multi-pronged attack will reach a greater number of people as different people will see things differently and what makes sense to one person may be unintelligible to another.”
================================================
Sounds good in general, but the argumentation should be a)addressing the key point, b)valid and c)comprehensible for the target audience.
Truthseeker: keep in mind that you will most likely get nowhere in trying to shine a light for those with their eyes closed.
As for the target audience it is variously described as being dull as dishwater and incredibly retarded. However we would get further in expanding our horizons past these people, past the scientifically stunted out into the real world of the people who can think outside the box. People that is, who are not climate scientists at all, but who have a real interest in solving society’s problems, people who have a track record of not being duped, and of not falling for the “appeal to authority” assertions.
People who live in the real world and are already helping humanity, not pounding sand in frustration that nobody is as intelligent as they are.
I know I am coming to this party a little late (fashionably so, I hope), but I am liking Greg’s explanation more and more. That is, ask yourself this, can I take a bright and hot light bulb, create an object, any object, that can be illuminated by that light bulb and have that object begin to heat itself? Is there ANY material (or combination thereof) that I can utilize that can cause itself to raise its temperature above what the light bulb can provide?
I think this is a pretty simple question, and one that any and all sane and rational people would have to answer emphatically NO. This simply violates physical law.
So, the next question is, how can the Earth do this then? No other object in the entire universe is capable of such magic. How can the Earth do this then?
Simply put, it cannot. By no uncertain terms, it simply cannot. No matter the manufactured explanation or reason. It cannot.
Thanks Greg! .. This really is as simple as it can get. No maths involved, nothing. Just a little dose of common sense and rational thinking.
Greg,
Huffman’s analysis shows precisely that the composition of a planetary atmosphere has no bearing on the ambient temperature of that atmosphere and that the only variable that matters a damn is the incoming energy and the distance from that energy source given equal pressure levels. Also he doesn’t need to use any energy flow (quartered or otherwise) as he just takes observed temperature measurements and compares them – like to like.
So this type of analysis is a) addressing the key point unambiguously b) utterly valid and c) comprehensible to anyone who can do simple math.
The arguments you have raised are perfectly valid, but are analogies. Huffman’s analysis is not an analogy. It is relevant and verifiable observation with clear logic and valid conclusions.
Truthseeker says: “Huffman’s analysis … is a) addressing the key point unambiguously b) utterly valid and c) comprehensible to anyone who can do simple math.”
================================================
No, he did not address the key point of references to Venus warmists use. They say that Venus surface is so hot because there is so much CO2 in the air. Huffman accepts that Venus surface is so hot and there is so much CO2 in the air apparently because he refers to the data accordingly. But he provides no alternative explanation of that. That is he misses the key point completely.
Truthseeker says: “The arguments you have raised are perfectly valid, but are analogies.”
=============================================
My argumentation is that warming the source by back radiation is impossible and absurd. This is not an analogy.
Greg House says: 2013/12/18 at 5:17 AM
“Sounds good in general, but the argumentation should be a) addressing the key point, b) valid and c) comprehensible for the target audience.”
What is your target audience? (c):
A) The ten or so That came up with this “good business plan” / “conspiracy to drfraud” the people and their governments!
B) The less than 1 million higly opionated folk that defend one side or the other, many feeding on the gravy train!
C) The 7 billion folk, wan asked about CAGW?, Only say “Hunh”
D) Any other audiance you are specifcally trying to address!
Remember bureaucrats, especially elected ones, remain firmly in catagory (C), but all think
they should be in catagory (B). All do feed from the gravy train.!
What are your Key points? (a):
(A) A colder temperature object cannot “warm” (define warm) or “increase” the temperature of an independently powered higher temperature object!
(B) “Triebhauseffekt” is only an fraudulent invention by the folk in (A) above.
(C) The S-B equation has “no meaning” when applied to a spherical planet with an atmospherethat is subject to convective heat transfer. This atmosphere is partially,reflective,
transmissive, and absorptive, all at parcular wavelength intevarals, different temperatures, and different in all three at different angles of incidence.
Here (A) is false and can be demonstrated false. It is but a distraction of what is a thought experiment and what is demonstratable from the physical results. I offer again a physical demonstration. Here (B) is true but cannot be proven true as it contains “intent”. Here (C) is also true but need not have proof as it is a claim of inapplicability. Only those that claim that the S-B equation is applicable under the conditions above, need prove that applicability.
BTW this need be addressed to James Hanson and Gaven Schmidt As they are the ones that claimed S-B is applicable and they both knew better. Others only believed that nonsense and made fools of all that claim to be a climate scientist.
OK. I am completely confused. If you go to the Wikipedia website:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stefan%E2%80%93Boltzmann_law
Go down to the section entitled: “Temperature of the Earth”
They apply the Stefan Bolzman law. The energy absorbed by the earth from the sun is calculated as the area of a circle, with “r” being the radius of the earth. So the absorption is not over the whole sphere of the earth. They then equate the energy absorbed over the area of a circle to the energy emitted over the surface area of a sphere (earth). So, this seems to be counter to Greg House’s claims.
Joseph. Help!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
SkepticGoneWild says: ” They then equate the energy absorbed over the area of a circle to the energy emitted over the surface area of a sphere (earth). So, this seems to be counter to Greg House’s claims.”
================================================
It was not my claim. They can equate whatever they want, but you should ask yourself if it is correct before crying “Help!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!”. First of all keep in mind that self-heating by own heat (“greenhouse effect”) is impossible and then look for tricks in their calculation.
No Greg does know what he’s talking about…I don’t know why you all talk past each other so much…when you say almost the exact same thing.
The calculation for the input to output of the Earth resulting in 240 W/m^2 “on average” from the Earth is fine, and it equates to an effective blackbody temperature of -18C. However none of that means very much because “the average” doesn’t actually exist as real thing that should be found somewhere – it comes from an ensemble of all sorts of other values and locations etc. The problem is in the supposition that this temperature should be found at the surface, because this is wrong, because the surface is only a tiny part of the entire ensemble, and therefore not representative of its supposed average. And in fact there are already reasons which indicate that the surface component of the ensemble will be the warmest part of the ensemble. And also the emission from the Earth is not all that close to a blackbody spectrum.
As I said, the trick is that 2 hemispheres are warmed by the Sun independently from each other. So, what comes through the cross-section of a circle is spread only over a hemisphere, which yields +30° average temperature of the hemisphere. The same goes for the other hemisphere. Thus the average temperature of the sphere would be 30°C as well. That is when we ignore rate of cooling on the dark side, what warmists do as well. 30°C, not -18°C. And this is on the surface. Of course, somewhere above our heads we can find -18°C, +18°C or whatever, but this is a different story.
Greg,
I am left with the conclusion that you have completely misunderstood Huffman’s analysis about Venus. The alarmists do say that Venus is so hot because of the CO2 concentration. Huffman proves that DESPITE the CO2 levels the Venus atmosphere is hotter purely because it is closer to the Sun and at the same pressures that exist on Earth, that the ratio of temperatures is precisely determined by the S-B law relating to that distance ratio, which means that the composition of the atmosphere is irrelevant. That is the point.
I think that this approach can be used to show that there may be radiation going in all directions, but it is not doing any work and is not affecting any temperatures.
Truthseeker says:”Greg, I am left with the conclusion that you have completely misunderstood Huffman’s analysis about Venus. The alarmists do say that Venus is so hot because of the CO2 concentration. Huffman proves that DESPITE the CO2 levels the Venus atmosphere is hotter purely because it is closer to the Sun and at the same pressures that exist on Earth, that the ratio of temperatures is precisely determined by the S-B law relating to that distance ratio, which means that the composition of the atmosphere is irrelevant. That is the point.”
=============================================
I have understood his point and allow me to repeat that his point misses the key point.
He just found a coincidence and did not present any physical mechanism. The most natural explanation of relatively high temperature on the Venus surface is internal heating. Imagine that temperature being lower, then the air temperature on the level where the pressure is the same as on the earth surface would be probably lower as well and there would be no coincidence any more.
And again, the point the warmists make about Venus is different and Mr.Huffman did not address it.
@Truthseeker
@Greg,
Greg, I am agreeing with Truthseeker here. I have, some time ago, read through all of Huffman’s writing about Venus (and other planets). While I did not commit his entire texts to memory, my take away from what he has written is just as Truthseeker describes. Both in that the alarmists claim Venus is hot from a runaway green house effect (complete absurdity) and that this runaway green house effect was (and is) caused purely because of the 95% CO2 concentration in the atmosphere. He then goes on to show how this is not true since the temperature at any altitude within the Venusian atmosphere can be simply calculated based upon it’s distance from the sun without regard to atmospheric composition. Which, I might add, is precisely as you have been describing throughout this blog post. I think Huffman does a pretty good job of demonstrating pretty conclusively that what he theorizes is probably correct. I believe he also talks about, and shows how this very same observation exists on all planets within our solar system.
squid2112 says: “…He then goes on to show how this is not true since the temperature at any altitude within the Venusian atmosphere can be simply calculated based upon it’s distance from the sun without regard to atmospheric composition.”
==========================================
No Squidy, he does not show that. I understand that you might have got such an impression, because some fallacies are tricky, look at this -18°C fallacy for example. Just read my previous comment. Again, depending on the temperature on the surface, the air temperature on Venus on the level where the pressure is 1000mb would be higher or lower. In other words, what Mr.Huffman presented is just a fallacy (I do not think he did it on purpose, though). I can go deeper in that, if you wish, but I suggest you make an effort first. Forget the pleasant outcome he presents and look at it really critically.
Greg,
“He just found a coincidence” … really? A precise mathematical outcome that occurred at every 100 mb from 1000 mb to 100 mb of air pressure is a “coincidence”? Huffman specifically did not try to propose a mechanism. He just presented verifiable observations that disproved the alarmist proposed mechanism. If the facts disprove your theory then your theory is wrong. That is the only message Huffman was conveying here. He does not have to postulate a theory. He has just disproved the greenhouse gas one.
If you want a mechanism, you can look at the work of Nikolov and Zeller who presented a theoretical mechanism using all of the planetary bodies in the solar system and arrived at basically the same outcome. You then go on to say “Imagine that …” and what “… would be probably …” none of which is very definitive. Me, I like to go with verifiable observational data and leave the theorising to others.
Truthseeker says: “He just found a coincidence” … really? A precise mathematical outcome that occurred at every 100 mb from 1000 mb to 100 mb of air pressure is a “coincidence”?”
=================================================
You are asking me the question I have already answered TWICE on this thread. Sadly, you have apparently read those comments, but you chose to just pick up one word “probably” and ignore the rest. This is a very peculiar way of seeking the truth, Truthseeker.
For the third time, yes, what Mr.Huffman presented was a pure coincidence at best, provided the date he referred to was correct. As I said, if the temperature on the Venus surface was higher or lower, the temperature at the hight corresponding to 1000mb pressure (and any other pressure accordingly) would be higher or lower accordingly and there would be no coincidence any more. This is my key point and please make an effort to get it now. So, there is no connection between that coincidence Mr.Huffman presented and the question whether the IPCC “greenhouse effect” exists or not. He could have said as well “2+2=4 hence there is no greenhouse effect”, it would be a statement of the same scientific value.
He failed to build a scientific case against the absurd notion of “greenhouse effect” and offered just a fallacy.
Truthseeker says: “If you want a mechanism, you can look at the work of Nikolov and Zeller who presented a theoretical mechanism using all of the planetary bodies in the solar system and arrived at basically the same outcome.”
==============================================
Yeah, you would like to keep us busy with more complicated things practically nobody would understand, this is nice. As I said many times, no one from our target audience will “look at the work of Nikolov and Zeller” and check whether they presented another fiction or fallacy or not.
The “greenhouse effect” as presented by the IPCC is a very clear case of an absurd non-existent process, because no warming the source by back radiation is possible. The explanation is simple and understandable for everyone: even 100% of reflected back to the source radiation is just an equivalent of two equal bodies of the same temperature, and everybody knows that they do not warm each other.
We do not need Venus, Mars, Mr.Huffman’s story and whatever Nikolov and Zeller did with planets.
Greg House says: 2013/12/19 at 3:36 PM
“Yeah, you would like to keep us busy with more complicated things practically nobody would understand, this is nice. As I said many times, no one from our target audience will “look at the work of Nikolov and Zeller” and check whether they presented another fiction or fallacy or not”.
Who is thiis “us” that you reference?. Who is your claimed “target audience”, that you refer to as “our target audence”? Who do you think you represent? Why do you think you are not “presenting fiction or faliacy”? Did you “look at the work of Nikolov and Zeller” and check whether they presented another fiction or fallacy or not? You seem to be claiming yourself as your tasget audience, that has no desire to learn because you and your target audience already knows everything!!
” The “greenhouse effect” as presented by the IPCC is a very clear case of an absurd non-existent process, because no warming the source by back radiation is possible. The explanation is simple and understandable for everyone: even 100% of reflected back to the source radiation is just an equivalent of two equal bodies of the same temperature, and everybody knows that they do not warm each other.”
What is your warming that you refer therto? Can you please define warming for us, the rest of us, and your so called target audiance? Can you show where the IPCC claims anything with 100% reflected? Can you determine the temperature of any powered body in a vacuum completely surounded by a surface with 100% reflectance? Do you have any clue as to the meaning of the epsilon in the S-B equation? What are your “two equal bodies of the same temperature”? Are you somehow forced to use equivocation just because your so called climate scientists are so good at it?
Will, I am sure you know the answer to every single question of yours. What you are doing (and not for the first time) seems very much to be just obstruction. Distortion and obstruction. I guess you are having fun with all that, debating here and there and not interested in any success.
Online debates are good for sharpening one’s grasp of a subject, they force you to explicitly explain your stance beyond what you implicitly understood as obvious. But that only goes so far.
There is a truism, at least for me, that great debaters, that is people who ‘win’ debates care not for the actual truth but just winning the slugfest. I decided years ago that I would have no problem with my (ego) admitting the other side was right when in a debate, because I was willing to learn in the debating process, and that was a greater victory than massaging the ego.
These discussions, at least since I landed here keep reminding me of this movie excerpt:
~
Ironically we’re all currently supposedly on the same side, and yet so much heat, and little light. Obviously I agree with several posters here that ideas should be aired not stifled. We are presumably mature enough to consider them and realize when they are not useful, but there is a constant stifling of debate, and presumably many turned away such as myself.
The empirical disproof of AGW is that the Earth has not warmed as CO2 has risen this past decade. Any audience should get that.
Huffman said that climate science is so warped and clumsy yet so young that it should be scrapped and begun afresh. His Venus comparison totally ignores CO2 concentrations and yet depicts an accurate comparison. Hence if climate scientists had a clue, they might open their minds and begin to reconsider their whole thesis. Instead they severely massage their egos.
It was Carl Sagan with his Cosmos series that helped create this whole mess by popularizing the concept of Venus’ supposed runaway GHE, supposedly caused by it’s high CO2 concentration.
If Venus had a Saganian ‘runaway GHE’ would not it’s temperature keep rising? Does being closer to the Sun not make it hotter than Earth, was this not the most logical starting point for Sagan to blather on about?
James says: “The empirical disproof of AGW is that the Earth has not warmed as CO2 has risen this past decade. Any audience should get that.”
=================================================
Anyway, much of the audience can be fooled by this invalid “disproof”.
I do not see any scientific reason to accept GW as a fact. Then the logic is that simple: what the so called “climate scientists” present/calculate as “global temperature” has nothing to do with science, hence it is unknown whether there has been any warming or cooling trend at all. Referring to fictional/unproven trends is invalid argumentation. The GW part should be simply dismissed as unproven.
On the other hand, it is absolutely unnecessary to deal with “global temperatures” (which is a little bit complicated too), since to debunk the IPCC “greenhouse effect” is very easy on the pure elementary physical level, which is easy for any lay person.
So, James, please, go ahead and present the real scientific proof that the Earth has not warmed for whatever years. Prove that all those calculations of “global temperature” both warmists and pseudo-skeptics like so much are correct, meaning that the results are REPRESENTATIVE for the whole Earth. Look at their “temperature reconstructions” for areas where there has been no thermometer, or how they assign average temperatures to large areas. I am looking forward to your discoveries.
Greg House says: 2013/12/19 at 7:07 PM
Will, I am sure you know the answer to every single question of yours. What you are doing (and not for the first time) seems very much to be just obstruction. Distortion and obstruction. I guess you are having fun with all that, debating here and there and not interested in any success.
Greg, You claim I wish to be just obstruction. What is “it’ that that you claim I try to obstruct? Is “it” the same as what you try to succed at? You have never stated what “it” may be! Please tell us al, l just what “it” is that I am trying to obstruct! I am not debating at all. I am only asking questions of`of your intent and of your qualifications for such an intent. This one is of intent, “Can you show where the IPCC claims anything with 100% reflected?” Yes or no?
These two are technical, “Can you determine the temperature of any powered body in a vacuum completely surounded by a surface with 100% reflectance?” Yes, no, mabe? “Do you have any clue as to the meaning of the epsilon in the S-B equation?” Yes, no, mabe?
This one is about an unknown or complerely fake reference. “What are your “two equal bodies of the same temperature”?” Can you tell us what this may mean even to you?
This one is about your technique. “Are you somehow forced to use equivocation just because your so called climate scientists are so good at it?” Can you answer even to claim that you are not using your obvious equivocation? What is the meaning of “to warm”?
Will, I told you what in my strong opinion you had been doing and, of course, I am not going to help you. I am not answering your questions because, as I said, I am sure you know the answers very well.
Greg,
I have been reading through all of your comments on this thread and have come to realise that you make statements but offer no supporting evidence. Yes you have SAID things a number of times but do not provide any data or analysis to back them up. You are using a sort of argument by authority where the authority is that you have said it. You link to Huffman’s statement about the 342 W/m2 but both data sources Huffman uses are not day/night specific and so are spherical averages and therefore his application of the average flux is consistent with that (otherwise Huffman would be comparing apples with oranges). Until you offer something more that “I have already said that” as an argument, I will stick with the type of observational data based analysis that Huffman provides, unless of course you can make an actual argument that is convincing and not a spurious one based on your own authority.
On a different note, you state that a global temperature is meaningless in scientific terms. I agree with you, but not because you have said it, but because there is are detailed explanations of why it is meaningless, and the best one I have found to date is here;
Click to access local-vs-global.pdf
The alarmists use argument by authority to convince people. You are trying to use the same method to convince people. The only way to defeat argument by authority is to show that the authority is wrong. They only way to do that is by verifiable data, repeatable experiments and sequential conclusions based on the data and method (in short – science). The other side treat everyone like idiots. I think we can go with not insulting their intelligence.
Truthseeker says: “Greg, …unless of course you can make an actual argument that is convincing and not a spurious one based on your own authority.”
=================================================
Truthseeker, concerning the Mr. Huffman’s “demonstration” I am sure that you are already convinced, otherwise you would have reacted to my argumentation differently than just picking up the word “probably” after reading my argumentation twice and ignoring the rest.
This tactic of your’s makes a joke out of your nice name” Truthseeker”. To me, you are unconvinced that Mr.Huffman presented just a fallacy to the same extent as climate liars are unconvinced that there is no self-heating by own heat (the “greenhouse effect”). I care only about convincing the readers to not rely on fake or fallacious argumentation some people so generously offer on blogs.
Greg,
Again you offer nothing of value. What you are saying does not have any substance to it. You want to convince people and yet you offer nothing to achieve this outcome. You say something is a fallacy and yet do not substantiate that assertion. You want to point me in the direction of a better truth? Then do so. Simply making unsupported statements achieves nothing.
Truthseeker says: “You say something is a fallacy and yet do not substantiate that assertion.”
===========================================
I said THREE TIMES already on this thread what was wrong with the Mr.Huffman’s comparison. No need to repeat it once more.
You will have to look for other distractions to fool people.
Truthseeker says: 2013/12/20 at 3:03 AM
Greg,
Again you offer nothing of value. What you are saying does not have any substance to it. You want to convince people and yet you offer nothing to achieve this outcome. You say something is a fallacy and yet do not substantiate that assertion. You want to point me in the direction of a better truth? Then do so. Simply making unsupported statements achieves nothing.
Count how many of Joseph’s “The 10 Commandments of Rational Debate” Greg has violated so far! Greg seems to be worse at this than even the so called climate scientists.
I am is a still waiting for the part 2 of Nikolov and Zeller reply. Do they give any indication that the lapse rate is strongly dependent on the composition of each atmosphere. The understanding that the laps rate begins at a pressure of 0.05 bar and increases with increasing pressure all the way to the surface has been published since 2000.
Venus does not have a constant lapse rate with pressure like the earth. On Venus the pressures and temperatures exceed that of the critical point of CO2 and earthlings have yet to determine the specific heat of any gas at its critical point. The sensible heat transferred to/from that fluid, at that point, is chaotic, and depends on the starting point and also to the direction of heat transfer with respect to the gravitational field.
Greg,
Yes you have made a number of statements about Huffman’s analysis and the only definitive statement of why you thought he was wrong related to a comment Huffman made using the 342 W/m2 value. I have already responded to that as it was consistent with the data sets that were being used, but you seem only to be able to argue that you are right because you have already said that you are right.
You also talked about a “what if” for the surface temperature which is again irrelevant to the point Huffman is making. Huffman was specifically comparing like to like and that was the limitation of the data sets being used. Again you just argued by assertion and said nothing definitive.
I doubt you will have any success in turning people away from the greenhouse gas fraud simply because your arguments are as insubstantial as those that we oppose. To win this debate we must debate differently, so unless you are going to offer something different, you are not going to make any difference.
Truthseeker says: “You also talked about a “what if” for the surface temperature which is again irrelevant to the point Huffman is making. Huffman was specifically comparing like to like and that was the limitation of the data sets being used.”
===========================================
I have made a clear point, understandable for everyone including you, 3 times. I am not going to repeat it once more. Huffman’s comparison is a fallacy based on a coincidence, and that only provided the data he referred to was correct. He also missed the key point warmists made about Venus.
As for another thing you repeatedly trying to introduce into discussion, it was only relevant to another issue discussed above about the alleged -18°C. Here he was unable to recognize the warmists fallacy, but this is a secondary point.
You can keep offering invalid argumentation, but I do not think you will have much success with it here. I fully understand the desire to drag the discussion to the field where no politician or journalist could judge anything for themselves, this will surely help the climate liars to keep their position. The actual key point is very simple and you can not obfuscate that: the IPCC “greenhouse effect” is just self-heating of the Earth surface by it’s own heat, and practically everybody knows already that this is impossible. This is all we need to debunk the whole climate hoax.
Greg House says: 2013/12/20 at 3:42 PM
Truthseeker says: “You also talked about a “what if” for the surface temperature which is again irrelevant to the point Huffman is making. Huffman was specifically comparing like to like and that was the limitation of the data sets being used.”
===========================================
“I have made a clear point, understandable for everyone including you, 3 times”
Greg you have never made a clear point to anyone here!. It is all your fantasy!
” I am not going to repeat it once more. Huffman’s comparison is a fallacy based on a coincidence, and that only provided the data he referred to was correct. He also missed the key point warmists made about Venus.”
Greg,, Huffman never refered to warmists at all. Another of your fantasys. All he ever talked about ywas the similarities of planets with atmospheres and the temperatures at 101 kiloPascals.
Why will you not address his issue, rather than your nonsense.
“As for another thing you repeatedly trying to introduce into discussion, it was only relevant to another issue discussed above about the alleged -18°C. Here he was unable to recognize the warmists fallacy, but this is a secondary point.”
Greg, you refer to Huffman as “He was unable…” Huffman does not acknowledge the warmists
POV as anything valid ever! Why do you not take a hint?>?
“You can keep offering invalid argumentation, but I do not think you will have much success with it here. I fully understand the desire to drag the discussion to the field where no politician or journalist could judge anything for themselves, this will surely help the climate liars to keep their position. The actual key point is very simple and you can not obfuscate that: the IPCC “greenhouse effect” is just self-heating of the Earth surface by it’s own heat, and practically everybody knows already that this is impossible. This is all we need to debunk the whole climate hoax.”
If You reverend House, have a religion, please show some parishioners none heare will have anything to do with your preaching.
Will, you apparently enjoy distortion and obstruction and will never stop it, still all that does not really matter. The “greenhouse effect” is done and that is easy to demonstrate and I will keep demonstrating it this way, despite all your efforts to obfuscate this very simple issue.
Greg House says: 2013/12/20 at 5:05 PM
“The “greenhouse effect” is done and that is easy to demonstrate and I now is an Oricle will keep demonstrating it this way”.
The Reverand Greg House is become an Oracle, according to the Reverand. The Reverend however has no demonstration if anything, including a demonstration of the existance of itself!
@Truthseeker,
…” The alarmists use argument by authority to convince people. You are trying to use the same method to convince people. ” …
I am not sure what Greg is trying to convince me of anymore. I am in complete agreement that I do not believe the GHE exists in this universe. I don’t “believe” this because of what Greg tells me however, far from it. In fact, I don’t find what Greg writes to be in the least bit convincing what so ever. The reason why I believe as I do is because I follow people like Joseph Postma and Huffman. I watch what they write about. I try to learn what it is they are actually doing. I try to digest all of the information. I think about things for quite a while. I stew over them. And finally, I come to a conclusion that “it can’t be otherwise”, and, viola! I now trust my conclusions based upon the information I was able to gather and understand.
As for Greg, although I have been reading his comments for quite sometime now, I do not find much value in most of them. When Joe comments, hey typically goes into the proofs of what he is talking about, and in terms of 1=1 and 2+2=4, and describes why it is so. Your typical street walking cattle can never figure out what Joe is articulating, but I don’t give a rats ass if your typical street walking cattle gets it or not. They are inconsequential to me. They are herd followers and they will only always follow their own herd. It makes little difference how you dumb it down.
Look, I have a father who graduated from MIT with honors. Spent 35 years working as an electrical engineer for one of the largest research institutions in the world. Much of his work was done for the DOE and DOD. He is a herd follower. He is your typical street walking cattle. Granted, he is a very intelligent cow, but he is a cow none the less and will always follow his herd. He believes that a cold thing can warm a warmer thing. No matter what I have presented to him (and it has been a veritable mountain of FACTS for sure) he refuses to stray from his herd. You will never convince him until you convince the leader(s) of his herd. The only way you are going to convince the leader of his herd, is through continuous, ruthless, public humiliation on the subject, until the herd leader him/her self (or group) becomes inconsequential to the herd.
That my friend, is your “target audience”. Good luck with that. They aren’t going to be swade easily, nor are they going to follow your authority.
Greg,
You are not listening and have put yourself on a continuous loop. I am not the only ones who can see this and I have no skin in this game. I would love you to give me something definitive to expand my knowledge in this area, but you seem to think your own statements are inherently definitive. They are not.
Good-bye.
Squid – next time your dad wants a hot pack give him one filled with ice….
Also Squid, your comment reminded me of the fact that I do not see any contradiction between Postma (and other scientists on the anti-AGW side) and Huffman’ work, AT ALL. Why Greg is kicking up a fuss about Huffman is his own concern. Although it does serve the UN interests to divide and unsettle the opposition…
Joseph E Postma says:
2013/12/18 at 9:12 PM
“The calculation for the input to output of the Earth resulting in 240 W/m^2 “on average” from the Earth is fine, and it equates to an effective blackbody temperature of -18C. However none of that means very much because “the average” doesn’t actually exist as real thing that should be found somewhere – it comes from an ensemble of all sorts of other values and locations etc.”
The average does of course exist. How could it not. How could a gas NOT have an average temperature? It is ludicrous to imply that it wouldn’t.
The atmosphere is where all the Earths heat ends up before it is lost to space. No heat can go directly into space, ALL heat must be transferred to the atmosphere before it is emitted into space. Any IR that is emitted directly from the solid surface to space has no effect on the the Earths average temperature because that IR will be instantly replaced.
So the atmosphere MUST of course posses an average temperature because it is a gas with an adiabatic lapse rate.
And the average temperature of the Earths atmosphere is -18º C. This is confirmed by the fact that the surface temperature can be accurately predicted by finding the altitude of -18º C and working your way back to the surface using the normal lapse rate of 6.5º C per km.
This is a repeatable piece of empirical evidence and despite all attempts to wish this fact away, from everyone including Joe Postma, it is an empirical fact and must be accepted as such.
Joe
I’ve often wondered how this -18C average is worked out for Earth.
This I understand is based on the radiation spectrum measured from space looking at Earth
If taken looking at Earth from different directions you would get very different results.
If in a view angle where solar reflection is significant the spectrum must be quite different to where it is absent.
Do they ignore any radiation less than 1um?
Then there is the atmospheric window around 10um.
The net result is a spectrum far removed from a Planck curve.
Perhaps this was covered in your Astrophysics course.
You might do an article on it if you can find the time.
James says: “Why Greg is kicking up a fuss about Huffman is his own concern.”
=============================================
I can tell you why. Because he gives a fallacious explanation of a correct result. He comes to a right conclusion by invalid argumentation. Although I like his message, which is “there is no “greenhouse effect”, his argumentation is wrong. Hence it should not be used. Because it is easy to debunk. It can be debunked in different ways and I have chosen the easiest one.
If you like, his proof is not better than yours about “people reentering the room” from another thread or than the references to so called “global temperatures”.
Although fooling people might well be successful, we can not win this way, by counter-fooling people. The other side has a big advantage in that, so we should stick to the truth and explain it in the most comprehensible way.
More ‘straw man’ arguments from you Greg, nobody here is trying to fool anyone.
“I have chosen the easiest one”. – G.H.
James says: “nobody here is trying to fool anyone.”
==============================================
I doubt that, but the essential part is that offering invalid argumentation, intentionally or not, is equivalent to fooling people. Using it for the good course can easily lead to loss.
squid2112 says: “Your typical street walking cattle can never figure out what Joe is articulating, but I don’t give a rats ass if your typical street walking cattle gets it or not. They are inconsequential to me. They are herd followers and they will only always follow their own herd. It makes little difference how you dumb it down.
… He is a herd follower. He is your typical street walking cattle. …You will never convince him until you convince the leader(s) of his herd. The only way you are going to convince the leader of his herd, is through continuous, ruthless, public humiliation on the subject, until the herd leader him/her self (or group) becomes inconsequential to the herd.
That my friend, is your “target audience”. “
===========================================
My target audience are in the first place politicians because they make lows and other decisions. Secondly, they are journalists because they influence the politicians and the public. Thirdly, they are the public because they elect politicians. My target audience are certainly not climate liars including those who pretend to be “skeptics” and support the key fictions of warmism.
Of course, there are people who became “stupid by choice”, that is they are not inherently stupid but refuse to think critically. They are “followers”. You can find them on both sides, just re-read your own comments. They would swallow any BS argumentation if they like the conclusion and, of course, attack the opponents.
Will Pratt,
You say “The average does of course exist”. I think that this excellent analysis may have a different view.
Click to access local-vs-global.pdf
Of course averages exist mathematically and Huffman’s analysis that I brought up earlier does rely of those averages. I think such averages are valid if you are looking at a total system view, but are not so valid if you are trying to actually gauge what the measured temperature trends are over time. I think that this is a subtle point of some importance.
Truthseeker says:
2013/12/21 at 3:42 PM
You are talking about an entirely different subject.
I am not sure I am understanding what you are inferring here. Please elaborate. This appears to me to be an attack and an attempt to marginalize me.
To this point, I see nothing but circular psycho babble from you. I am beginning to believe you are another Willis Eschenbach. That is, you are to Joseph Postma what Willis Eschenbach is to Anthony Watts.
Joe, I plead with you, don’t allow this sort of “side kick” sort of thing to happen. At this point, Greg has simply pissed me off and now I will shut him out. He is trying to argue as some sort of authoritarian. You want to lose my attention? Just start acting authoritarian and I’m gone.
Myself and others have asked repeatedly for Greg to elaborate on the statements he has made. He has refused and is simply prancing around the bushes as King House. I find this a shame as I have enjoyed many of Greg’s contributions in the past, and have found myself mostly agreeing with him.
Greg. perhaps you need to take a vacation? Get out and enjoy a little nature? See some family and friends for the holidays? Go put a smile on the face of an under-privileged child (donate some toys)? Just do something to take that 2×4 out of your ass and start acting like a valued contributor instead of an agitator.
Thank you all! … Have a VERY Merry Christmas and a Safe and Happy New Year!
Remember, we only have each other!
squid2112 says 2013/12/20 at 11:20 PM: “In fact, I don’t find what Greg writes to be in the least bit convincing what so ever.
squid2112 says 2013/12/21 at 7:50 PM: “I have enjoyed many of Greg’s contributions in the past, and have found myself mostly agreeing with him.”
========================================================
Looks like a nice example of contradiction to me.
Greg, I’ve had enough of you now….
““In fact, I don’t find what Greg writes to be in the least bit convincing what so ever.” … was obviously referring to what you have written within this particular blog post;
You’re a dick! … I’m outta here…
squid2112 says:””In fact, I don’t find what Greg writes to be in the least bit convincing what so ever.” … was obviously referring to what you have written within this particular blog post;”
==============================================
Come on, here is the context: “I am not sure what Greg is trying to convince me of anymore. I am in complete agreement that I do not believe the GHE exists in this universe. I don’t “believe” this because of what Greg tells me however, far from it. In fact, I don’t find what Greg writes to be in the least bit convincing what so ever. The reason why I believe as I do is because I follow people like Joseph Postma and Huffman. I watch what they write about.”
Holy you guys have been busy…I’ve been gone for a few days and there are like 50 more comments on this thread…about nothing….about you guys fighting about semantics…
Just say: “I understand your position. And I understand your position. Regards.”
Can we not do this? See look we can’t even get to a position where we could agree on what could actually TEST the radiative greenhouse effect…because it is an analogy to the real thing, it just ends up in semantics about how to understand the f’ing analogy.
I’ve been through this before and we all have. Wood’s Box does indeed directly test the math of the radiative greenhouse effect, and when these boxes, real greenhouses, don’t produce the predicted result, then the believers simply state “it is an analogy, so you’re not testing the real thing”.!! Isn’t that amazing, and wonderful for them? I mean holy crap.
Then when you ask them for the real thing, to see the math and diagram for the real thing, then its: “You’re an f’ing idiot that doesn’t understand science and I can’t believe you would ask that question…you criticized an analogy and now do DARE to ask for the real thing!!!??? You f’ing moron the real thing is in the GCM’s and if you can’t read 100,000 lines of code to find the real greenhouse effect then it just proves that you’re a scientific fraud and I have no time to spend educating you…you fucking heathen asshole piece of crap enemy of humanity and all that is good. You think that measuring solar insolation and measuring the temperature it produces has anything to do with the radiative greenhouse effect? This just proves that you have no clue about science or physics whatsoever and you’re a crank! Nowhere is it specified that the greenhouse effect is about solar insolation…there’s an atmosphere too you know…but you wouldn’t cause you’re an idiot!”. Chris Colose invented part of this response, and now it’s become AW’s, RGB’s, etc etc. favorite response.
So that’s what you get. If I went through my emails with these people I would easily be able to cobble that response together.
I literally had David Weston Allen tell me that measuring the solar insolation and predicting the temperature had nothing to do with the greenhouse effect, or radiative physics, and that computing T from F was wrong because this has nothing to do with the S-B Equation…
Anyway, holidays coming up…let’s do those instead for a bit 🙂
Joseph E Postma says:
2013/12/22 at 4:38 AM
“Holy you guys have been busy…I’ve been gone for a few days and there are like 50 more comments on this thread…about nothing….”
Presumably you missed my comment @
Will Pratt says:
2013/12/21 at 8:19 AM
Will, you said …
Truthseeker says:
2013/12/21 at 3:42 PM
You are talking about an entirely different subject.
If that is true, I would appreciate if you would join some of the dots for me. I think that you provide a great deal of sanity to the debate, but I am just not making the connection in this particular instance.
Thanks.
Truthseeker says:
2013/12/22 at 5:26 AM
Okay, I don’t know your name so I’m not sure how to address you, however, my point, that you are talking about an entirely different subject, is perfectly obvious.
You are referring to near surface temperature anomalies, whereas I am talking about the temperature of the atmosphere’s average emission height, which simply cannot be at or anywhere near the surface because it is a gas with an adiabatic lapse rate.
Two completely different and separate metrics.
Joe: yes, little light but lots of heat
Squid: well said, the prancing that is
House: not that you can objectively consider it, but now that you answered a direct question I will respectively disagree with your order of audience(s). The people first, who may influence the politicians. The politicians do not listen to scientists, they listen to their financial contributors. And you don’t need a snide comeback to that. Just leave it.
To all:
Most academics who find themselves on the fringes of accepted dogma, I mean science, may end up being proved correct decades or centuries later when the ego of the consensus can no longer be bruised. Galileo, Copernicus etc. Today with the peer reviewed system, nothing is changed, it is a club and new ideas are not only frowned on but quickly stamped out for fear than the fire might spread.
It is beyond science, because science is mostly a paid hand-servant of wealth, directly and indirectly, as rumour has it Dwight Eisenhower said something about this. He said this to be on record that the system was out of presidential control and in the hands of unaccountable elites. Who ARE accountable to themselves and their inbred oligarchical families that run the world.
One cannot lobby these people, they care not about reason or the good of humanity – they WANT austerity for us. Only masses of people who have their pet assumptions unravelled and have their blinders removed have a chance to eventually reverse not only this pseudoscience but the political push against us.
James says: “The politicians do not listen to scientists, they listen to their financial contributors.”
======================================================
At least some politicians will not support AGW legislation if they know a)that this is a hoax and b)that other people can easily see it too or will be able to see it when they get the necessary information, provided the information is correct and understandable. E.g. American Congress rejected the Kyoto treaty. The second important thing is that there are IDEOLOGIES as well, not only financial contributors.
Of course, there are enough normal people among politicians who are misled by the climate swindle propaganda and are not able to find out the truth by themselves. When some of them get the feeling that the AGW stinks and start looking for the truth on blogs and find mostly distortion, obfuscation, distraction and pseudo-skeptical invalid argumentation they can not use. All those things they can find even on this blog including this thread, not to mention pseudo-skeptical blogs like WUWT.
Very well stated, James, even though it is indeed very sad to accept it. I was going to argue that the S-B expression is derived by molecular considerations regarding absorption spectra, but I truly give up, the AGW crowd has long made up its mind as you stated, regardless of science. And BTW, you meant to state “respectfully” rather than “respectively” when addressing House, Minor point however.
I will prepare my analysis separately, and anyone interested in a copy I will be glad to email it to you. I also want to thank Joe Postma (Dutch name, I suppose? Like mine.) for having initiated this Blog, but I also am under the impression that you only evoke foul remarks from those you like to convince. Your talent and time is worth more than having to endure such utter nonsense..
Cheers Henri
Will,
Thank you for the explanation. That is clear enough even for me.
You can use TS if you want a shortened way to address me.
Will Pratt says, 2013/12/21 at 8:19 AM:
“The average does of course exist. How could it not. How could a gas NOT have an average temperature? It is ludicrous to imply that it wouldn’t.”
You’re just fundamentally wrong on this issue, Will. You’re simply completely and naïvely following the herd without even thinking it through on this one. Why?
Of course one could estimate the average physical temperature of a volume of gas, taken as a mean of many direct measurments.
But, Will, this does NOT (!!!) mean that you will thereby also automatically know the IR density flux this volume of gas gives off to its surroundings.
The two are not connected! You cannot apply the Stefan-Boltzmann equation to a volume of gas.
Think about this, Will:
What if you found that a specific volume of gas held an average temperature of 255K and that this specific volume of gas happened to be made up purely (100%) of nitrogen, oxygen and argon?
Would you then apply the S-B equation on this gas to establish its radiative emission flux? Would you directly assume this flux to be 239 W/m^2 based on the gas temperature of 255K?
Well, if not, then why on earth would you take as a given that our atmosphere, a specific volume of gas holding an estimated average physical temperature of around 255K and made up pretty much entirely of nitrogen, oxygen and argon (to 99.5%), is able to radiate a flux to space exactly and perfectly like a blackbody simply because there are some traces of radiatively active gases like H2O and CO2 floating around in it?
Where’s the skeptic in you? Wake up! There is no connection!
Then compare the estimated average temperatures of the atmospheres of Mars and Venus with the estimated BB emission fluxes to space for those same two planets. A good fit?
You say: “(…) I am talking about the temperature of the atmosphere’s average emission height, which simply cannot be at or anywhere near the surface because it is a gas with an adiabatic lapse rate.”
Well, on Mars it’s at or more likely below the surface. Still, the atmosphere of Mars is a gas with an adiabatic lapse rate … and lots of CO2.
While you’re at it, Will, can you please elaborate on how you’ve arrived at the truly novel idea that the surface of the Earth somehow does NOT heat the atmosphere …?!
Kristian says:
2013/12/22 at 4:48 PM
The claim that O2 and N2 are “radiatively inactive” is utterly false and a major part of “AGW” fraud.
“Then compare the estimated average temperatures of the atmospheres of Mars and Venus with the estimated BB emission fluxes to space for those same two planets. A good fit?”
I’m not talking about “estimated average temperatures” of atmospheres, I’m talking about empirical measurements of our atmosphere.
“While you’re at it, Will, can you please elaborate on how you’ve arrived at the truly novel idea that the surface of the Earth somehow does NOT heat the atmosphere …?!”
At certain locations and at certain times of the day/year, of course the surface heats a thin layer of air above it, if the surface has been heated enough by direct sunlight. However for over most of the Earths solid surface the ground is mostly cooler than the air above it, most of the year round. The evidence for that is the temperature inversion in the first 4′ above the ground and again is confirmed by the radiosonde data as I explained up above. Also there are multiple sources of empirical evidence which show that the atmosphere is heated directly by incoming EMR.
There is nothing “novel” about these facts, despite your ridiculous assertions.
Will Pratt says: 2013/12/22 at 7:11 PM
“While you’re at it, Will, can you please elaborate on how you’ve arrived at the truly novel idea that the surface of the Earth somehow does NOT heat the atmosphere …?!”
Show such a stantement from Me! I am tne only other Will here! I did say: “Radiation between the surface and the atmosphere is non existent, Just like your non existent “Greenhouse Gas Theory”. That is not a theory, It is a fantasy, that rises not even to the level of “conjecture”.
WP “There is nothing “novel” about these facts, despite your ridiculous assertions.”
Show any ridiculous assertions! The earth surface radiates in the 8-13 micron band about 18 W/m^2 directly to space between the clouds, and another 20 W/m^2 to the bottom of clouds which simultaneously radiate to space that flux along with all the other sensible heat flux transfered to the clouds by any means. The clouds must so radiate or increase in temperature. The clouds are no more part of the atmosphere than airplanes are. The rest of the IR band from 1-100 microns radiate with a flux less than 60 milliwatts/m^2, as there is very little difference in radiative potential difference before that radiation is absorbed by the aqueous vapor in the atmosphere.
90% of the heat flux from the surface and the colder atmosphere. is via convection and the latent heat from the vaporization of liquid water. every molecule in the atmosphere radiatesw what is can to cold space from its own temperature and its own emissive bands. The earth does notn radiate from some fixed temperature black surface wether real or your fake altitude level determined by a fixed temperature determined by some sloppy use of the S-B equation. The Earth and its atmosphrer close coupled thermodynamically is nowhere close to a blackbody. this isolated entity in space does not even have the “same temperature” at all wavelengths! Albedo is not the percentage of insolation reflected, but only part of it. The measured irradiance at the space syation must be reduced by the toward the Sun radiative potential which Increases from the morning insolation to the afternoon insolation as the temperature of both the surface and the atmodphere continiouslt increase in that time or rotational interval. No one has tried to measure that although such measurement is trivial.
There is nothing “novel” about these facts, despite your fradulent claims!
Having trouble getting my comment to format…strange. Someone’s prolly screwing with it.
So, basically the climate alarmist response came down to Joel Shore saying that 3 = 2.
We had the equations above for the temperature of the shell due to the sphere being dependent upon the ratio Rsp/Rsh, so that when Rsh/Rsp > 1, which is would always be, Tsh < Tsp.
That is, Rsh > Rsp, and so Tsh < Tsp.
And so Joel Shore says “no it isn’t”.
So let’s use numbers then:
3 > 2, and so 2 < 3.
Joel Shore, climate idiot, says, "No you're wrong: 3 = 2".
Joel Shore literally tried to argue that 3 = 2, in order to defend climate alarm. That's what these people will do. That is the degenerate depth to which they will go to.
Can we think of a name for the climate idiots? You know how we are illogically called "climate deniers"? Maybe just "climate idiot" is a good one?
I have been thinking about Willis’ steel sphere thought bubble and have come to the following realisation.
He was using two solid objects (a sphere and a shell) with a vacuum with an internal heat source and no day/night cycle to describe an effect that apparently occurs on our planet with a free flowing gaseous atmosphere, an external energy source and a day/night cycle.
What could possibly go wrong?
Almost everything. At least he used a sphere which is more than Hansen et al did.
Well yah and then he didn’t even use basic, available, textbook physics equation to calculate the end result. He just MADE UP the result he wanted. That’s how simple it is to lie and cheat. You just make up what you want to believe. Just invent it. And say 3 = 2 if your belief requires that too. Just whatever you want. Just make it up and believe in it and there you go – reality.
Joseph, I did some simple numbers using a sphere of 5m in radius, a shell 1m beyond that which was 1mm thick and the energy flux of the sphere is 240 W/m2.
Area of the sphere is 4 x pi x 5^2 = 314.15965 m2. Flux from sphere is 240 W/m2, therefore the energy output of the sphere is 75398.2236 Watts. The area of the inner surface of the shell is 4 x pi x 6^2 = 452.3893416 m2 and the area of the outer surface of the shell is 4 x pi x 6.001^2 = 452.5401506 m2. Given that the total energy radiates both inwards and outwards from the shell, the inward flux is (75398.2236/2) / 452.3893416 = 83.3333 W/m2 and the outward flux is (75398.2236/2) / 452.5401506 = 83.3055 W/m2.
So what are you saying is going to happen when the 83.3333 W/m2 is reflected back to the sphere?
The heat transfer of radiative energy is only from the sphere to shell and then outside of shell to space. There is no transfer of energy back to the sphere from the shell given the law of heat transfer and its natural thermodynamic directionality.
OK, here is where the conflict is. The energy radiates away at 240 W/m2 at the sphere surface which equates to 166.66667 W/m2 at the 1m point away from the sphere assuming no shell. Add the shell this loss of radiation for the system is now only 83.3035 W/m2, that means that there must be more energy in the system. So if more energy does not mean more heat, what does it mean? Clearly there is no heat in the vacuum by definition, so what does occur?
The loss with the shell is not only 83.3035, it is still 166.6667 outward because there is no heat transfer of energy back to the sphere from the shell. The sphere heats the shell to the temperature of the flux density of the radiation from the sphere at the shell, which is the 166.66667 W/m^2 temperature. No heat energy transfers from the cooler shell to the warmer sphere.
Joseph I think I get it now. The GHE people say that radiated energy is in all directions (OK) and radiated energy = heat (not OK) the shell “keeps” energy in the system and so there is is more heat (not OK). Those that have some understanding of the physics of thermodynamics say that the heat loss remains the same with only a temporary delay due to the mass of the sphere (there is time before it reaches its thermal equilibrium).
@TS, the temperature of the shell will equate to what the radiation field at the shell from the sphere is capable of producing. The interior radiation from the shell doesn’t transfer any heat energy to the sphere because the sphere is hotter and the shell is colder, because the sphere is the source and the shell is the receiver. On the outside of the shell, the total energy from the sphere escape but at lower flux density.
Pingback: Why not Backradiation? The Amazing Nature of Light | Climate of Sophistry
Pingback: The Pseudoscientific Steel Greenhouse Debunks the Climate Greenhouse Effect | Climate of Sophistry