Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Considered comments and questions rising from getting the maths pdf.
#21
(02-10-2011, 02:45 PM)Derek Wrote: {snip}AND I am certain "back radiation" is unphysical and imaginary.
{snip}But, I think you may not have quite understood my "query" as such as I mean to ask it.
Reading through your reply quickly seems to confirm this to me.

I would note,
" 1) body A emits radiation of a certain [peak] wavelength (energy) determined by its temperature (wave, particle, wave/particle/photon, dual, does not matter). "
Please note my addition, in bold and red.
I will try to explain more clearly what I mean when I have more time, but, for the time being maybe this will help.
Why does lower (energy) level radiation from a.n.other (cooler) body not lower the (energy) level of a body at a higher energy level?
Claes seems to suggest (in my understanding) that the lower energy level radiation (from a.n.other cooler body) is merely re-radiated by the hotter body with no effect upon the hotter body.
I hope your links will clear this up for me.

Back radiation is real, saying back radiation is imaginary is setting one's self up for a straw-man rebuttal. Back radiation is real but it cannot warm the surface of the earth for the reasons I have stated in this thread, it has insufficient energy and the surface of the earth is ALREADY emitting these wavelengths so the radiation will simply be re-emitted without transferring it's energy as heat to the surface.

My reply may not to you directly address your query as it is not sufficiently clear (to me) what the precise query is, however, the information I have posted, if you think about it and read the links posted will enable you to answer the query for yourself. With respect to you, I'm sure you will gain more from working it out in your own mind -gain a far deeper understanding- from the data and links I have provided. A better answer is that not? I'm sure you'd rather have the clues and work it out for yourself than be spoon fed, I'm presenting this to you in the manner of the University, not the GCSE. I'm sure you are at grad level on these subjects as deserve the information to be presented accordingly.

As for "peak" energy, that does not matter- especially if CO2 is unable to interact with the wavelength of that "peak" radiation. All that matters is the wavelengths of IR that the much maligned gas CO2 absorbs and re-emits at. For these specific wavelengths of are where the alleged back radiation GHE effect comes from. All the other wavelengths, peak or not, have no relevance to the imaginary GHE.

What follows is VERY important - please read carefully, follow the links and take time to digest

Let us consider visible light from the sun. (Much direct IR is absorbed by the atmosphere so we can ignore that component). This light is of a shorter wavelength than IR. Visible light strikes the earths surface - say a rocky surface - this surface is heated through the day, then starts to emit radiation, some visible (so we can see the rock in daylight) and some IR. Only the IR that the CO2 molecule absorbs and re-emits is of any concern to the alleged GHE theory. This radiation, according to this diagram:-

[Image: 1293007_f520.jpg]

falls in two main bands, and both these bands are of a lower frequency (and hence energy) than visible light (see here)

[Image: spectrum.jpg]

The ground is already excited to this level so the IR has no effect on the ground and CANNOT heat the ground.

The ground is ALREADY emitting these frequencies, so cannot be warmed by these frequencies. BTW, frequency and wavelength go in opposite directions, for obvious reasons.

As for the question of "cooler" radiation cooling matter- no it cannot. Radiation can only warm, or if the matter is already emitting at that frequency/wave number then it does nothing. However, a body may cool by emitting radiation, it cannot cool by absorbing radiation.

When a photon/wave/duality etc (does not really matter) hits an atom it causes an electron to change its quantum orbit, as so:- http://csep10.phys.utk.edu/astr162/lect/light/bohr.html

The "photon" hits the atom, the electron increases its orbital quantum level, the radiation is thus absorbed and the atom has a higher energy level. Only a certain wavenumber can move the electron from one level to another. These electron orbitals are "quantised", they have a certain fixed number and energy of possible orbitals- there is no in-between. And for the electron to move from one quantum orbit to another requires a certain discrete, precise amount of energy- i.e. only one specific wavenumber/frequency of photon can do this.

[Image: excitation.gif]

This is absorption of a photon. Emission of a photon is the opposite process, so the electron moved from the higher quantum orbit to the lower quantum orbit and a photon of the same frequency/wavenumber is emitted.

[The relationship between energy and wavelength is determined by Plancks law:-
http://astronomyonline.org/Science/PlancksLaw.asp

[Image: PhotonEnergyFrequency.gif]

[Image: PhotonEnergyWavelength.gif]

These equations just mean that the shorter the wavelength, the higher the energy of the radiation- so visible light is more energetic than IR "light".]

So you can see that if the atoms and molecules in the ground, being made up of this matter are ALREADY in the excited higher quantum state possible from that specific wavenumber/frequency of radiation, then it is impossible for that wavenumber/frequency to excite the ground further. The atoms in the ground will just spontaneously emit a photon and then absorb one from the back radiation continuously and not get to a higher state of energy (BECAUSE THEY ARE ALREADY THERE!). The ground atoms will therefore not get any hotter from back radiation because they are already at that excited state. The net result is that the back radiation is scattered throughout the lower atmosphere and does not make the ground any hotter. Greenhouse theory = dead as a Dodo!

I appreciate that quantum mechanics are an odd way of looking at the problem, but I believe this is the key to dispelling the myth of heating by back-radiation.

And I have simplified the interaction with matter and radiation, as it is not just changes in electron quantum level that occur with absorption and emission of radiation, but also bond stretches and waggles etc, that is why CO2 only emits and absorbs on certain narrow bands. However, the same quantum principles apply to changes in energy states of bonds as they do to single electron orbitals, as bonds between atoms are merely another type of electron orbital. Chemical bonds between atoms are merely electron pairs shared between the two atoms. So the quantum principles I outlined above still apply.

This is why the Greenhouse Effect from Back Radiation is IMPOSSIBLE!

Hans Schreuder being a qualified ex professional chemist (as am I!- that is why Hans is SO CERTAIN that the back radiation Greenhouse Effect is impossible) realises this, as do I and hopefully now you Derek as well. Hans Schreuder was an analytical chemist, so he understood the precise relationships and interactions between radiation and matter better than Claes Johnson does. Claes is a mathematician, not a chemist.

We are in a VERY exciting position, being a very select few people out of six billion plus on the planet who now know why the whole greenhouse effect is a sham, a scam and a shameful corruption of science.

This is possibly the most important post I have ever made to a forum!



Derek, I'd like to thank you for your excellent questions, your attention and patience. This discussion has motivated me to finally write up my ideas.
Reply
#22
Quoting Climate Realist,

Quote:These equations just mean that the shorter the wavelength, the higher the energy of the radiation- so visible light is more energetic than IR "light".]

So you can see that if the atoms and molecules in the ground, being made up of this matter are ALREADY in the excited higher quantum state possible from that specific wavenumber/frequency of radiation, then it is impossible for that wavenumber/frequency to excite the ground further. The atoms in the ground will just spontaneously emit a photon and then absorb one from the back radiation continuously and not get to a higher state of energy (BECAUSE THEY ARE ALREADY THERE!). The ground atoms will therefore not get any hotter from back radiation because they are already at that excited state. The net result is that the back radiation is scattered throughout the lower atmosphere and does not make the ground any hotter. Greenhouse theory = dead as a Dodo!

This dovetails what Tom Kondis wrote,when he talked about the Incoming Visible light radiation as being the Top of the hill and CO2 as the bottom of that hill.When it comes to kinetic energy levels.

Advocates misuse the term "absorption" of photons by substances as being analogous to water sopped up by a sponge, unchanged, implying physical entrapment. Actually, it means that the photon smoothly transfers its radiant energy to kinetic form. Absorption is an energy transition, not a trap; photons don't occupy molecular cages. Similarly, emission is the reverse kinetic to radiant transfer.

An absorbed photon disappears as its discrete packet (quantum) of radiant energy dissipates into a diverse kinetic assortment of motion, vibrations or collisions involving atoms and molecules of the absorbing substance. Imagine one shot of your metabolic energy, through cue stick and cue ball, scattering a rack of balls on a pool table. These transfers obey the second law of thermodynamics, popularly stated as the spontaneous downhill flow from high to low energy, or hot to cold. Inside a greenhouse, visible photons define the hilltop from which this flow begins. IR photons, when emitted, are near the bottom of a typical greenhouse energy hill.


Nice post CR!

+2
It is our attitude toward free thought and free expression that will determine our fate. There must be no limit on the range of temperate discussion, no limits on thought. No subject must be taboo. No censor must preside at our assemblies.

–William O. Douglas, U.S. Supreme Court Justice, 1952
Reply
#23
Since we KNOW that CO2 does emit IR.

That means radiation was emitted,and in all directions from the CO2 molecules.

But the word "back-radiation" was invoked by AGW believers to make a case that the emitted radiation from CO2 goes whizzing back to the planets surface.And warm it up..... again or more warmer that it is initially.Whatever angle they chose.It is their way to argue that we have invisible perpetual energy propagating streams flying around our heads.

Rolleyes

To me,their use of the word "back-radiation" is a pseudo scientific mumbo jumbo.It is rooted in propaganda.Where they use it to invoke scary run away warming bull crap.

The very word needs to vanish from the charts.Since the very (AGW based) idea of its claimed ability is completely false.



It is our attitude toward free thought and free expression that will determine our fate. There must be no limit on the range of temperate discussion, no limits on thought. No subject must be taboo. No censor must preside at our assemblies.

–William O. Douglas, U.S. Supreme Court Justice, 1952
Reply
#24
(02-12-2011, 02:42 AM)Climate Realist Wrote: This is possibly the most important post I have ever made to a forum!

I will be reading, re-reading and digesting this post for a long, long time.
THANK YOU Climate Realist,
you have helped me, and I hope many others,
to finally be able to pull together so many related but difficult to combine and comprehend ideas / problems / realities.

It is certainly one of the most informative, and clear posts I have read to date anywhere.
AND, I am certain I will not be alone in this valuation of your post.
I have added a reputation positive "vote" to you, I suggest others who find your post 21 as good as I do, do as well.
Reply
#25
I think this article by Nasif Nahle backs up Climate Realist's post #21 above and adds a LOT more maths. This link is to a 20 page pdf file. Well worth careful study.

THE TOTAL EMISSIVITY OF CARBON DIOXIDE AND ITS EFFECT ON THE TROPOSPHERIC TEMPERATURE

Didactic Article
By Nasif Nahle
Scientific Research Director at Biology Cabinet
May 12, 2010

Abstract:
By applying generally accepted algorithms on radiative heat transfer, verified through experimentation by Hottel(1), Leckner(2) and other contemporary scientists and engineers(3)(4)(5), I have found that the carbon dioxide molecules posses a low total emissivity at the current density of CO2 in the atmosphere.

This quote from page 5,
Quote:Actually, the total emissivity of the carbon dioxide at its current density in the atmosphere is quite low. The total absorptivity of the carbon dioxide at its current concentration in the atmosphere is 0.0017.
Environmentalism is based on lies and the lies reflect an agenda that regards humanity as the enemy of the Earth. - Alan Caruba
Reply
#26
(02-12-2011, 11:35 AM)Sunsettommy Wrote: -snip-

This dovetails what Tom Kondis wrote,when he talked about the Incoming Visible light radiation as being the Top of the hill and CO2 as the bottom of that hill.When it comes to kinetic energy levels.

Advocates misuse the term "absorption" of photons by substances as being analogous to water sopped up by a sponge, unchanged, implying physical entrapment. Actually, it means that the photon smoothly transfers its radiant energy to kinetic form. Absorption is an energy transition, not a trap; photons don't occupy molecular cages. Similarly, emission is the reverse kinetic to radiant transfer.

An absorbed photon disappears as its discrete packet (quantum) of radiant energy dissipates into a diverse kinetic assortment of motion, vibrations or collisions involving atoms and molecules of the absorbing substance. Imagine one shot of your metabolic energy, through cue stick and cue ball, scattering a rack of balls on a pool table. These transfers obey the second law of thermodynamics, popularly stated as the spontaneous downhill flow from high to low energy, or hot to cold. Inside a greenhouse, visible photons define the hilltop from which this flow begins. IR photons, when emitted, are near the bottom of a typical greenhouse energy hill.


Nice post CR!

+2

My understanding is that the photon interacts on a quantum level and then the atom or molecule may convert this this energy to kinetic energy- i.e. "heat" that we can feel.

Tom Kondis is right, but the radiation does not go directly from ""photon"" to heat, it has to go via quantum shifts in electron and bond states. Therefore, if the IR radiation is already "bottom of the hill" it can do no further warming.

I'm pleased at the positive response to my postBig Grin.

I think we have to link the quantum level of physics to Claes Thermodynamics level of physics in order to explain why the GHE is an impossibility!

Think about this! When the sun is shining, we feel its warmth DIRECTLY from the sun. As this morning on a still late winters day. Go into shadow or the sun goes behind a cloud and it gets colder, IMMEDIATELY. Where is the so-called back radiation then to warm us up ??? If you believe the KT diagram,

All that so-called green house gases do is to scatter the IR wavelengths they interact with, they cannot warm the surface of the earth.

Thanks, I will look at the Nasif Nahle link. He is a very clever chap and together with Claes has another piece of the puzzle.
(02-12-2011, 11:46 AM)Sunsettommy Wrote: Since we KNOW that CO2 does emit IR.

That means radiation was emitted,and in all directions from the CO2 molecules.

But the word "back-radiation" was invoked by AGW believers to make a case that the emitted radiation from CO2 goes whizzing back to the planets surface.And warm it up..... again or more warmer that it is initially.Whatever angle they chose.It is their way to argue that we have invisible perpetual energy propagating streams flying around our heads.

Rolleyes

To me,their use of the word "back-radiation" is a pseudo scientific mumbo jumbo.It is rooted in propaganda.Where they use it to invoke scary run away warming bull crap.

The very word needs to vanish from the charts.Since the very (AGW based) idea of its claimed ability is completely false.


ABsolutely right! Propaganda, and nonsense pseudo science that suggests a perpetual motion heat machine!

I would replace the term "back radiation" with "scattered radiation".
Reply
#27
Hi All,
I will attach a pdf of Climate Realist's posts in regards to Claes Johnson's approach to the maths.

Enjoy.

Later edit - Title changed and pdf re uploaded as suggested by Climate Realist.


Attached Files
.pdf   Why back radiation does not matter! - Climate Realist.pdf (Size: 567.4 KB / Downloads: 642)
The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed
(and hence clamorous to be led to safety)
by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.

H. L. Mencken.  

The hobgoblins have to be imaginary so that
"they" can offer their solutions, not THE solutions.
Reply
#28
I have been pondering the 3 lines of approach to the question, how is radiation absorbed, in this thread so far.
ie,
1) All radiation positively absorbed. - "consensus" position
2) Below objects temp received radiation effectively ignored. - Claes Johnson approach.
3) All radiation relatively absorbed. - The [to me] intuitively correct approach.

I am working on a way to illustrate that the three lines of approach all give the same end answer, but how they get there is THE difference.
I think "the problem" is the use of the word "instantly" in black body theory explanations.

It is after all how they get there that interests us, not actually the net / end answer.
The end answer "we" all agree on.
It is the differences in the "how" between the three approaches that needs illustrating better.
This I think I have found a way to do.

In the end I can not reach any conclusion between what I have referred to as approaches 2 and 3.
But 1 is certainly wrong to my mind.
Between 2 and 3 I have reached an impasse, on several specific issues, that no one (to my knowledge) knows the answers to.
Reply
#29
Hi All,
Whilst thinking through a development to the Oily mug experiment to try to demonstrate the relative power of latent heat losses as a cooling mechanism,
Home experiment to illustrate the cooling power of latent heat.
the following (below) occurred to me.
I think it is relevant to the subject of this thread.


- I will be trying out a glass tray version of the mug experiment,
to test / show the effect of increased surface area to volume of water.
I may also repeat the tray version with a constant fan supplied wind.
AND,
I want to try to illustrate a third "it must be less than" radiative losses, using a vacuum flask.
BUT,
a vacuum flask leads me to an interesting dilemma.
Does a vacuum flask only show radiative losses?
No, there is some sensible heat losses from the cap, and that it is probably not a pure contained vacuum.
Hence, radiative losses alone must be less than a vacuum flask rate of cooling.
But, then I get to a dilemma.....

Here is the "dilemma",
Inner flask radiates according to temperature / emissivity, OK.
Outer flask, what does it do?
Well, it radiates according to it's temperature / emissivity, yes, but what's the effect upon the inner flask?
So, could the rate of cooling be calculated for the inner flask, in a perfect vacuum, by radiative losses alone?
If so, then, this could be plotted.
If the actual rate of cooling is measured and plotted, what is the result,
is the second plot, above, below, or on the first calculated line of theoretical cooling rate?

If I have got this line of thinking correct, then where the second line is shows whether,
i) radiation is all positively absorbed, rate of cooling reduced.
I think not... - it's a relative world we live in.
ii) radiation below average is ignored (Claes Johnson approach), ie no effect, no difference to calculated line.
iii) radiation is relatively absorbed, so the rate of cooling of the inner flask is increased.

If it is not possible to calculate the theoretical rate of cooling for the inner flask only, by radiative only means,
then,
would a change in the temperature of the outer flask help illustrate which of the three above is correct?
This one I can not quite work out in my minds eye.
The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed
(and hence clamorous to be led to safety)
by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.

H. L. Mencken.  

The hobgoblins have to be imaginary so that
"they" can offer their solutions, not THE solutions.
Reply
#30
Is it possible that the answer lies somewhere between,

" ii) radiation below average is ignored (Claes Johnson approach), ie no effect, no difference to calculated line.
iii) radiation is relatively absorbed, so the rate of cooling of the inner flask is increased.
"

?

I remember Nasif Nahle asked me why a tank could be seen 20 miles away with a thermal image camera.
I have no answer, which I assume proves my iii) suggestion wrong.

However, no one has explained, as far as I'm aware, the atmospheric IR window.
Maybe the answer lies within that explanation?

Is it possible then that the answer lies somewhere between ii) and iii), and also explains the atmospheric IR window?



The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed
(and hence clamorous to be led to safety)
by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.

H. L. Mencken.  

The hobgoblins have to be imaginary so that
"they" can offer their solutions, not THE solutions.
Reply
#31
My laymans "thinking", and, what I observe in other heat flows.

If an object emits at a peak frequency, determined by it's temperature, then does it emit + and - compared to the temperature peak frequency?
I have always assumed that this is what happens, a distribution curve, with a peak frequency.
Therefore the object emits some above, (plus), some at, and some below, (negative), peak frequency.
Two objects at the same temperature would emit identical curves, presumably the + and - canceling each other out.

What happens to the same, or peak frequency IR I do not know....
If it (and below peak) is ignored (Claes approach), where does it go???
That seems to mean the energy was not there in the first place, which surely can not be right.
That has always been my problem with Claes approach.

Surely the at peak frequency IR just adds to the objects "volume" of energy at that temperature. That makes sense to me.

IR, is it absorbed as, all positive, ignored below peak, or all relatively?
Well, it ain't all positive, that we know.
Other wise we would have energy for free ovens.
As for the other two options, I don't know which, but my intuition says nearer relatively absorbed.
In all honesty, why restrict ourselves to just one option???

Maybe it is actually the same ignored (or rather added to the "volume"), and the rest relatively absorbed.

Maybe that is just my daft, and laymans maths way of getting the right answer, but it does get the right answer..

AND, at the end of the day, no one, and it is absolutely true, no one actually knows.
In which case why are some so damned sure that the version they prefer is so certainly correct????
The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed
(and hence clamorous to be led to safety)
by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.

H. L. Mencken.  

The hobgoblins have to be imaginary so that
"they" can offer their solutions, not THE solutions.
Reply
#32
Hi All,
This issue is still perplexing me.
I think I can explain in far simpler terms now 3 "things" that "bug" me about the Claes Johnson approach.

1) Ignoring below peak just means you add all above peak frequency of emission of the receiving object, radiation. So, as an approach it is merely all radiation is positively absorbed, except that which "we" ignore (ie, below peak).

2) The notion of ignoring all below peak IR as "back scattered" - how does that work if there are more than 2 objects are involved???
Somewhere along the line previously ignored energy is suddenly counted.
There would have to be massive amounts of uncounted energy floating around, but it would be counted again when convenient.

3) Objects emit over a range, with a peak frequency. This is because the various constituent parts of the objects surface are at different and constantly changing temperatures that all add up to mean, or surface temperature. My apologies, there is a proper term for this which I can not remember at present.
So, how does an object, particularly if it is warming or cooling, know how to "back scatter" all below peak IR? It can not, because some of the below peak IR received will be absorbed by parts of the objects surface that are below that temperature. Even if the IR received is below the peak frequency of emission of the object.

Relatively speaking, those are the main reasons why I still just do not get Claes approach. All the quanta and other "too small to see" justifications to me are just that. Too small to see, or just accept, because it is "handed down" to me / us.

At the really small scales, no one does know, which means the big explanations are built on unknown, merely interpretations and guesswork foundations.
It is a relative world we live in. It is a world that does not seem to square with present radiation explanations.
When the facts change I will change my mind, but to date, and to the best of my understandings,
the facts do not seem to equate to the offered (radiation) explanations.
The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed
(and hence clamorous to be led to safety)
by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.

H. L. Mencken.  

The hobgoblins have to be imaginary so that
"they" can offer their solutions, not THE solutions.
Reply


Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Considered comments and questions arising from In equals Out, or else BOOOM pdf. Derek 1 5,174 01-19-2012, 10:52 AM
Last Post: Derek
  Considered questions and comments arising from free to ALL "shape issue" pdf. Derek 37 55,538 09-18-2011, 01:12 AM
Last Post: Richard111
  I just do not "get" the "maths" of climate science. Derek 1 5,876 01-05-2011, 03:30 AM
Last Post: Derek



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)