Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
P/4 - Why it is THE issue that destroys GH and AGW.
#21
Climate Realist:

Quote:Sorry, but what a load of rubbish! That does not "prove" the GHE at all. Cold cannot heat warm, if the moon were at -180C then it would be cooler than it is now and would reflect less radiation back to the earth, therefore a cooler moon would cool the earth. However, a moon at -180C could not warm the earth as it is colder than the earth.

It is nonsense because of my explanation that a -180C moon is emitting radiation that cannot possibly warm a 15C (or -18C etc) temp earth because the matter of the earth is in higher energy state and is ALREADY emitting radiation at this wavelength that corresponds to this temperature and higher. Therefore the radiation from -180C moon cannot excite the atoms and molecules on the earth because they are already at this state of excitation and higher. Therefore the energy states of the bonds and electrons that correspond to -180C are already occupied- the earths matter cannot be excited by this radiation and therefore cannot be warmed by this radiation and the Lunar -180C radiation will merely be scattered back to the moon and to outer space.

I thought the main point of the Second Law of Thermodynamics was that it describes a one way heat transfer from warmer to cooler.

A block of ice that is over -200 C colder than Earth could not possibly warm it.Since it is lacking the parameters for a heat (almost nonexistent to start with) transfer back to Earth.
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
#22
Exactly Sunsettomy, but Jeff ID seems to have bought into the Lukewarmer ideology.
Reply
#23
Quote:Question 2 – Would it warm the Sun.

Ids Answer – It would warm the Sun for the same reasons as above. The tiny little pinpoint in the distance would probably add as much as a distant star, but it would add a little and that is all it takes.

This is absurd on the face of it.

The Sun's surface is about 5500 C and the Corona and solar wind is around 1,000,000-2,000,000 K.

Yet we are told that the Earth can still warm the sun to some degree,not mentioned.Despite that it is radiating in a far lower energy band in IR.While the Sun emits a lot of Gamma,Ultraviolet and of course Visible light.

All much higher energy levels than what the tiny Earth emits.Earth radiates IR in ALL directions from its spherical shape.Thus only a small portion of its radiation is even in the direction of the sun.

The DIAMETER of the sun is 109 times that of Earth! Imagine trying to warm up the Suns surface with a cool IR band emission.All from a tiny diameter surface,that Earth has.

Plus it is around 93,000,000 miles away.IR will get absorbed in interstellar space AND be pushed around by the incoming solar wind.I wonder how a weak IR wave from Earth could even reach the sun in the first place.
:lol:
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
(06-15-2011, 05:03 AM)Climate Realist Wrote: As for P/4, you introducing that on Jeff's thread is about as relevant as me introducing my subatomic IR interaction theory (SIRI theory) on this thread! Blush

You have not followed the threads at tAV, so, you do not know how our discussions there have developed, or what lines they have taken.
It may appear out of context in your snap view, but that is only your snap view.

P/4 is the whole basis of the failed hypothesis / thinking, you do not seem able to see it yet.
I would suggest re-reading the piece I have posted here, and my "shape" issue piece,
hopefully between the two, that will explain.

It is difficult for me to imagine how to explain it all more simply than the piece here,
but I will ponder it over, to see if I can see what is eluding you, or which misconception/s is / are stopping you seeing it.
My immediate thoughts are that you are not seeing the mangling of the physics, and
the inappropriate application of meaningless averages that do not apply,
that P/4 necessarily "creates".

Re absorption, we have already agreed to disagree.
I do not like Claes approach because he ignores below peak frequency.
Nature does not, and I have not seen that Claes proves it does. He does assert it does though.
(06-15-2011, 06:07 AM)Sunsettommy Wrote: I wonder how a weak IR wave from Earth could even reach the sun in the first place.
:lol:

I think exactly the same argument / reasoning can be applied, with the same result, to the supposed atmospheric "back radiation".

Reply
#25


Oh, hello.

Here is Derek painstakingly expressing why P/4 CAN be an expression at a point in time IN THE REAL EARTH, let alone a spherical model that accounts for night and has simulated rotation.

But, instead of admitting I was right (which he apparently can't), he is claiming that it supports his position!

http://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2011/06...ment-51345

Then, a few minutes later, he posts on GWS, "It is difficult for me to imagine how to explain it [why P/4 is bad] all more simply than the piece here, but I will ponder it over, to see if I can see what is eluding you [. . . .]"

SOMETHING is certainly eluding SOMEONE, here.

RTF


Derek's quote from the above link:

-------
OK, here is a way to think about, or rather question to ask, I do not think many have done so far.
If we view earth as an object from space it is supposed to be an object (on average) at -18C. I do not disagree with this.
However, where are you viewing earth from?

If we are say, 30 million miles above earth and orbiting the earth,
what temperature is the object (hemisphere actually) earth, that you would view, because it will not be (on average) -18C from all positions of the orbit.
Directly between the sun and earth (12 O’clock), looking at earth you would see the lit hemisphere only, what temp would that be, on average?
At 90 degrees to the above viewing point (3 or 9 O’clock) you would see a half lit hemisphere that would be -18C, on average.
A further 90 degrees on (6 O’clock) you would see the dark side of the planet only, what temperature would that be, on average?

Have I, with that question illustrated what P/4 unphysically mangles, using divorced from the actual reality maths?

-------
Reply
#26
From HERE

Quote:Jeff Id said
June 15, 2011 at 8:46 am

#104, There is net flow from warm to cold, but the cold does project radiative electromagnetic energy to the warm. What happened to that energy?

I would think that energy would in turn flow to a COOLER source.

Yet he thinks it can go back to a warmer source and be absorbed? to some level.

But thermodynamics would say it should be a ONE WAY energy transfer.Therefore Jeff appears to be contradicting the law of energy transfer.
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
#27
RTF shows a comment from Derek in Post:#25 which does make sense to me.

Consider my Post:#5 above where I derive the outgoing radiative temperature of the earth as being at -18C using very basic maths but I still have to use the P/4 principle to get the answer. But I then go on to say:

"This outgoing radiation is a "sum total" of surface, through the 10micron window plus clouds and anything in the atmosphere capable of radiating."

That famous 10micron window will have a much higher "intensity" from the daylight side of the earth than from the night side. Also cloud tops will have increased "intensity" from the more active water vapour phase changes which will not be happening on the night side. I am not talking about albedo here although that is also a factor, much different between day and night. Also "greenhouse" gases, especially water vapour, in the atmosphere will be absorbing near infrared directly from the sun in the 1micron to 4micron bands. This absorbed energy will reduce by half the impact on the surface at those bands. Again, not happening on the night side.

Then I could add in particulate matter etc.etc. All these elements have an accumulative effect on the out going radiation on the daylight side of the earth which are much reduced or even absent on the night side.

How all this might be calculated I have no idea but lumping this all together under the P/4 principle strikes me as overly simplistic.

Environmentalism is based on lies and the lies reflect an agenda that regards humanity as the enemy of the Earth. - Alan Caruba
Reply
#28
Derek, I do understand what you are saying and I've read what you've said on the jeff ID thread, however, I do not understand how what you've said invalidates the use of P/4 for a climate model. You contradict yourself here:-

"If P is divided by 4, then at a moment in time, this is impossible. It is unphysical.
This is proven beyond reasonable doubt by the fact that night follows day.
In earth's case the only time scale P/4 can work over is 24 hours, or multiples of 24 hours,
as that is the time it takes for the planet to fully revolve.
The planet must fully revolve otherwise P/4 is not the case,
as the surface area has been reduced (by a partial rotation),
so this must mean 1 or, full multiples of 24 hours only when "using" P/4 in earth's case."

Yes, correct night does follow day and the planet DOES revolve in 24 hours. However, this does not disprove P/4 as P/4 is needed as an average over 24 hours.

You also say:-
[i]
"Dividing solar power received by 4, in earth's case,
1) is unphysical.
(yet you have not explained why you consider P/4 to be unphysical!)
2) has enabled the GH failed hypothesis, and AGW to get the earth's surface temperature low enough to require a GH effect,
when there is no proof such is the case.
(No the failure of the GHE is due to other causes, including my ideas, if I may be so bold, not the simple geometry!)
3) establishes the principle of increased surface area = reduced intensity received and capable of being emitted.
Yet, this principle is not applied throughout the GH hypothesis as taught at present.
(Yes, this is why P/4 is used as in 24 hours the sunlight shines over 4x the area on the globe of the simplified disc.)
4) introduces a time element of 24 hours, or multiples thereof, into the quoted W/m2 figures of the GH hypothesis, and K&T type plots.
A W/m2 is strictly defined as a timeless power figure, so such calculated figures are not W/m2, because they must contain a time element.
Such calculations and averaging divorces the maths from the physics, and therefore reality.
This makes any "answers" derived physically meaningless.


No 4, aaah, now we are getting somewhere! W/m2, you quite rightly point out that 1 watt is 1 joule per second. However, I would contend that this does not invalidate P/4 as there are quite a lot of seconds in 1 day. If the climate models enter the average W/M2 in 86,400 "quanta" then P/4 is still correct as the 288 average W/M2 would be multiplied by 86,400 seconds to get the total average number of Watts in one day.

Using time twice in a unit of measure does not invalidate that unit of measure and make it unphysical. Otherwise you might wish to sue to electricity board for charging you for electricity by the Kilowatt hour! ;-) Maybe the confusion here is between power and energy??

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watt#Confus...s_per_hour

You've now moved from a simple geometric argument to one about units of measurement!

"This necessarily introduces a time element of 24 hours, or multiples thereof,
into the quoted W/m2 figures of the GH hypothesis, and K&T type plots.
A W/m2 is a timeless power unit, so dividing P by 4 in earths case results in a unit that is not a W/m2, because
it has to be over a certain time period. In earths case this is obviously 24 hours, or one full revolution of the planet."

Yes, I agree, units if measure are being misused in the strictest sense of the word, however:-
" A kilowatt-hour is the amount of energy equivalent to a steady power of 1 kilowatt running for 1 hour, or 3.6 MJ."

So, if the sunlight averaged over P/4 in a 24 hour period were measured in energy and not power, using Kilojules and not Watts would that make P/4 valid??? It seems to me that P/4 is valid anyway as the Earth still receives energy as it rotates over a 24 hour period and that and the confusion (not yours, but K/T diagram confusion) does not invalidate the use of P/4 for averaging the energy the earth receives over 24 hours! It is the Kilojoule that is an instant measure of energy and the watt is the measure of energy over time, i.e. power.

I agree with you that Climatologists are not very good physicists or they would have realised that thermodynamics and the precise nature of the interaction between photons and matter invalidates the GHE theory, not a confusion about geometry or units of measure.

I think the confusion may have arisen because heat is measured in watts in the domestic environment, eg a 1KW electric fire for example. If we are talking about the energy coming from the sun perhaps Kilojoules would be a better measure.

You say :-
"Averaging over an arbitrary length of time (one year in K&T) divorces (again) the maths from the physics, and therefore reality."
[/i][/color]

I don't think this is true because one can talk about 348 Watts of power per M2 over a 24hour period. By this logic as area has been mentioned twice in the P/4 and the meter squared it should also be invalidated but I don't believe it is.

One can talk about using 1 kilowatt hour in an electric fire over 24 hours, there is nothing wrong with this- that is how your electricity bill is calculated. Your confusion here is between power and energy, this does not invalidate P/4 as the correct geometry to use, because P/4 represents the 24 hour average. The K/T diagram does not represent an instant in time, it represents 24 hours, hence P/4.

I don't see the problem with Watts versus Joules and P/4, the problem is that back radiation warming the earths surface is itself an unphysical concept, due to thermodynamics and the precise quantum level nature of how electromagnetic radiation excites matter.


Reply
#29
(06-15-2011, 10:36 AM)Richard111 Wrote: RTF shows a comment from Derek in Post:#25 which does make sense to me.

Consider my Post:#5 above where I derive the outgoing radiative temperature of the earth as being at -18C using very basic maths but I still have to use the P/4 principle to get the answer. But I then go on to say:

"This outgoing radiation is a "sum total" of surface, through the 10micron window plus clouds and anything in the atmosphere capable of radiating."

That famous 10micron window will have a much higher "intensity" from the daylight side of the earth than from the night side. Also cloud tops will have increased "intensity" from the more active water vapour phase changes which will not be happening on the night side. I am not talking about albedo here although that is also a factor, much different between day and night. Also "greenhouse" gases, especially water vapour, in the atmosphere will be absorbing near infrared directly from the sun in the 1micron to 4micron bands. This absorbed energy will reduce by half the impact on the surface at those bands. Again, not happening on the night side.

Then I could add in particulate matter etc.etc. All these elements have an accumulative effect on the out going radiation on the daylight side of the earth which are much reduced or even absent on the night side.

How all this might be calculated I have no idea but lumping this all together under the P/4 principle strikes me as overly simplistic.

Richard111,

With all due respect, we are not discussing emission. We are discussing incoming radiation and the distribution of intensity within climate models.

Of course, your comments make perfect sense, and since we are (even Derek) now on the same page, to wit, THAT IT IS POSSIBLE FOR A SPHERICAL, NIGHT-INCLUDING, ROTATING MODEL TO HAVE INCOMING OF P/4 AND HAVE A FALSE GH SIGNAL, I am simply seeking credit for having set Derek straight. Instead, having used my (and others') idea as his own, without credit at tAV, and actually, inexplicably, claiming that it supports his previous position ... he then goes on to reiterate on the present page that he cannot see what is prevent us from understanding him.

Derek has just made the exact same argument that I made to HIM, just a few hours before! But he will not admit I was right. He continues to insist that he is right, and that P/4 = a global, one-quarter haze. I am speechless.

And there my name sits on that list that includes Lindzen and Gavin Schmidt. I wonder if Derek is planning to put himself on on the list. It would, of course, be better to just cross the whole list out and repudiate it. What is the point of saying that we all agree with Gavin Schmidt about something? That's pointless.

Thanks for your thoughts.

RTF
Reply
#30
(06-15-2011, 11:10 AM)Richard T. Fowler Wrote: Richard111,
With all due respect, we are not discussing emission. We are discussing incoming radiation and the distribution of intensity within climate models.
Actually RTF, the point about the same logic of P/4 NOT being applied throughout the as presently taught, and failed GH hypothesis, and K&T type plots,
is exactly one of the points, in regards of atmospheric emissions up and down, and their intensity, THAT IS BEING RAISED AND DISCUSSED.
ie, as RTF obviously needs reminding,
Dividing solar power received by 4, in earth's case,
1) is unphysical.
2) has enabled the GH failed hypothesis, and AGW to get the earth's surface temperature low enough to require a GH effect,
when there is no proof such is the case.
3) establishes the principle of increased surface area = reduced intensity received and capable of being emitted.
Yet, this principle is not applied throughout the GH hypothesis as taught at present.
4) introduces a time element of 24 hours, or multiples thereof, into the quoted W/m2 figures of the GH hypothesis, and K&T type plots.
A W/m2 is strictly defined as a timeless power figure, so such calculated figures are not W/m2, because they must contain a time element.
Such calculations and averaging divorces the maths from the physics, and therefore reality.
This makes any "answers" derived physically meaningless.


Point 3 RTF, as illustrated below.
[Image: GHasRadflowD.jpg]



I am glad to see however so many thoughts by others being discussed and raised (excepting RTF, naturally).
I will try to reply to at least some of them in the near future.
However, time and other responsibilities intervene.

You all have my word I will respond in due course though.

Reply
#31
(06-15-2011, 01:50 PM)Derek Wrote: I am glad to see however so many thoughts by others being discussed and raised (excepting RTF, naturally).
I will try to reply to at least some of them in the near future.
However, time and other responsibilities intervene.

You all have my word I will respond in due course though.


Translation: RTF even if you are right, you still deserve a good beating. Don't go anywhere, you'll get it when I get back.

It's all right Derek, I'm getting used to it now. I'll be here.

RTF
Reply
#32
I did say this thread had crossed over from friendly discussion to hostile debate!
Reply
#33
RTF - Would you kindly answer the point raised and illustrated in post 30.
Reply
#34
Derek - Thank you but I will wait on an appropriate acknowledgment of the contents of posts 25 and 29.

RTF
Reply
#35
In post 25.
You missed the point about how little of the orbit one satellite (ie, P/2) could possibly give the P/4 answer. ie, only two points out of the whole orbit give the correct answer of -18C....
AND,
What would that tell you of the overall and different physics involved, observed as a whole, and expressed as a meaningless "average" from one (90 degrees) view point only.

It is like taking all the colours used in a master piece painting, mixing them together to make one colour (which will be brownish),
then painting that on a canvas.
You then say you can tell us everything about the painter and original painting from the brownish rectangle you had just created.
(No, it would not matter if your rectangle was landscape or portrait)
I would not believe a word you said about the artist or how you thought the original masterpiece was painted.

In Post 29.
I am answering your first point made (to Richard111) first, because again, I think you missed something centrally important.
What you missed in this case is I think clearly enough expressed / illustrated / described in Post 30.

Reply
#36
(06-16-2011, 02:14 AM)Climate Realist Wrote: I did say this thread had crossed over from friendly discussion to hostile debate!

Yes I agree.

The forum is supposed to be based on the civil discussion style of communication.

Therefore let us be that way from now on in the thread.

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
#37
During the apparent "interval" whilst Richard T Fowler replies to the question I asked of him in post 30,
may I offer the following...
I think this will interest all, especially Climate Realist, yet I have to read it through slowly myself yet...

From the attached pdf, a jovial limerick that Timothy Casey makes his point most clearly with....

" The Hothouse Limerick

There was an old man named Arrhenius
Whose physics were rather erroneous
He recycled rays
In peculiar ways
And created a "heat" most spontaneous!

Timothy Casey, 2010
"

Please see attached pdf, or read the original,
The Shattered Greenhouse: How Simple Physics Demolishes the "Greenhouse Effect".
Timothy Casey B.Sc. (Hons.)
Consulting Geologist


Attached Files
.pdf   The Shattered Greenhouse - Timothy Casey..pdf (Size: 257.39 KB / Downloads: 400)
Reply
#38
"" The Hothouse Limerick

There was an old man named Arrhenius
Whose physics were rather erroneous
He recycled rays
In peculiar ways
And created a "heat" most spontaneous!

Timothy Casey, 2010 ""

I like that, nice one. The Timothy Casey PDF is well worth a read!
Reply
#39
(06-20-2011, 12:09 PM)Climate Realist Wrote: The Timothy Casey PDF is well worth a read!



Having made my way up to section 3.1 thus far, I agree with you!

Nonetheless, from the standpoint of the present thread, it seems to also be a distraction from the fact that Derek has already agreed with me at another website on the matter of P/4.

If Derek's purpose with this thread is to teach or show me things that he knows about the thermodynamic properties of the Earth, he has an exceptional way of going about it.

RTF
Reply
#40
I do not really prefer, at the present time, to move on from the outstanding issue I've raised on this thread, to which I am still awaiting a response from Derek.

However, since I highly doubt he will acknowledge the issue, and since it seems that no one else presently intends to either, I will comment on an observation I've made about Casey's paper.

The following is not intended as a disagreement with any specific part of Casey's paper, as I still do not feel qualified to do such a thing, and I from what I can tell, it is quite possible and plausible that there is no net backradiation, and thus, much of merit to be found in Casey's work.

That having been said, I am here primarily to find truth, and no additional truth will out if I simply find things to agree with in the material at hand. So I offer this observation in a spirit of inquiry and desire to increase my (and others') understanding.


Casey quotes the following definition from the OED:

-------
"Greenhouse Effect noun the trapping of the sun's warmth in the planet's lower atmosphere, due to the greater transparency of the atmosphere to visible radiation from the sun than to infrared radiation emitted from the planet's surface."
-------



Later on, he states the following:

-------
"Carbon dioxide does, in fact, have a lower thermal conductivity than either nitrogen or oxygen (by roughly 36%, calculated from the figures of Gerlich & Tscheuschner, 2007 and 2009). So a large increase (i.e. by hundreds of thousands of parts per million) in atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration that would increase the thermal gradient accordingly, could produce a measurable surface warming. As this cannot change the amount of heat flowing through the system, the effect would be manifest by a decrease in atmospheric temperature offset by a corresponding increase in surface temperature."
-------


For the surface temperature to increase, the long-term temperature of the lowest portion of the atmosphere would have to as well.


Consequently, I find that the paragraph I've quoted from Casey is in full agreement with the OED definition of "greenhouse effect". Thus, in effect Casey is agreeing that a "greenhouse effect", as defined by OED, actually exists. He is merely quibbling with the magnitude of it.

Let me be the first to say that I do not necessarily agree with Casey's implication. I still believe it is possible that there is _no_ greenhouse effect, as defined by the OED.

If anyone reading agrees with me about the foregoing observations about Casey's paper, I would very much appreciate being told about that. It would make it easier to temporarily overlook the rather obvious manner in which I've been treated on this page at certain times.

For the expressions of support I've already received from Climate Realist, Scpg02, and Richard111, I am very grateful. Thank you.

RTF
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 2 Guest(s)