Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Why are we 33C warmer than we would otherwise be?
#41
Summary: “The physics of the Earth’s atmosphere” Papers 1-3

That is a great new site Richard111. I have downloaded the papers. A lot of reading.

Pervection, new to me. I need to read their paper.

Multimers, and a phase change, also new to me. I need to read their paper.

Exciting stuff. There may be a few flies in the ointment though, so trying to suss them at present.
One quote that I find a concern,
"After all, it takes a lot of energy to hold an object up in the air without letting it fall, doesn’t it?"
Sounds a bit like "Loschmidt"!

Plus, you tube experiment has two flasks connected by 100 meters of plastic pipe. That pipe will be a little elastic. Not sure if that makes a difference though. I need to read their paper.
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
#42
Pervection! Got me going round in circles. I'm reading the summaries only at the moment. Lot of stuff that I can follow and agree with but that Pervection stuff is a blank fog. Need a simplistic explanation for my simple mind.
If I think I can figure it out will speak in due course. Meanwhile...
Environmentalism is based on lies and the lies reflect an agenda that regards humanity as the enemy of the Earth. - Alan Caruba
Reply
#43
Okay. I give up. I've convinced myself this 'pervection' process is a con job!

Newton's cradle thingy is simply a distraction. GAS MOLECULES CAN'T BEHAVE LIKE THOSE STEEL BALLS. Those balls are RESTRICTED in their allowed movements. Molecules in the atmosphere WILL NOT pass energy along in that manner. They will bounce off each other every which way.

The test with the green water is simply AIR PRESSURE BALANCING OUT along that 100m pipe. The length of the pipe introduces the delay. You can see the pipe FLEX when the air pressure changes. :thumbdown:

Time for a beer.
Environmentalism is based on lies and the lies reflect an agenda that regards humanity as the enemy of the Earth. - Alan Caruba
Reply
#44
That is my reaction too Richard111. BUT, I will read their paper first. I see we agree re effect of 100m plastic pipe...

The multimers / phase change? No chemist has come forward on that to my knowledge. Nor a physicist. ????????????????? Surely such a phase change would not have been missed?

Ok, so that is at least two papers to read..........
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
#45
(03-01-2014, 09:49 AM)Greg House Wrote:
(03-01-2014, 01:42 AM)Derek Wrote: However, Greg's last paragraph has a major omission, namely that the whole of the sphere radiates all of the time, even though as he correctly points out only half is heated. ... Greg, seems to take the opposite view, no cooling at all on the dark side of the sphere, which is also patently wrong.

No, it is not my view, the opposite is true. I said clearly: "So, if you apply the Stefan-Boltzman formula to a hemisphere, the average input will be 480W/m² and the temperature +30°C accordingly. The temperature of the dark side depends on the rate of it's cooling (after it was heated to the same +30°C), so as you can see the average blackbody temperature of a (rotating) sphere can not be determined based on the solar constant and the Stefan-Boltzman formula alone. But the maximum possible blackbody average temperature of the sphere Earth is +30°C, not -18°C (assuming the warmists data is otherwise correct and ignoring the other problem of deriving average temperature from average radiation for a hemisphere)."

If you wish to have it formulated in a precise way, then the maximum average temperature of the sphere Earth is indefinitely close to +30°C, but not exactly +30°C. Again, as I said, it depends on the rate of cooling.

Anyway, what is patently wrong here is the warmists approach to the calculation. The Stefan-Boltzmann formula is simply not applicable to the total area of a sphere. Their -18°C value has no basis in science.

Greg, my point is that a black body is assumed to instantly emit all it receives. Therefore, according to black body theory itself, the bare earth model states the dark side of the globe will be at zero degrees kelvin (well, except for the 2.3W/m2 background radiation of space).

S/B only strictly applies to a black body. The bare earth model is a black body based model.

IF you were going to include specific heat content / losses, which is the correct approach after all, that would be a different type of model entirely. It would be a thermodynamics based model, and it would have to include earth's oceans. The bare earth model simply can not do that, because it is a black body based model.

Put simply, grey bodies are different. They are not just a surface, they have volume, heat capacity, etc, etc, etc. How one applies S/B to a grey body is both incredibly complex, and beyond our understanding at present. Black body and S/B are merely rough approximations of the temperatures we think we might find in grey body reality.
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
#46
Derek, the warmists calculation determines the maximum average temperature of the Earth the Sun can possibly induce and I demonstrated that it was a fallacy. Neither them nor me maintain that the Earth is a black body in reality.
Reply
#47
Again, if the Sun can make the surface on average maximum N° warm according to SB equation, no addition of oceans and atmosphere can make it warmer than this N°.

To get above this N you need a more powerful source of energy than the Sun. Warmists do understand that, so they made up the "back radiation from greenhouse gases" as that more powerful source of energy needed.
Reply
#48
Greg, P/4 is treating the earth as a black body. Yes / No?
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
#49
Derek, the known warmists calculation referes indeed to a blackbody which does not mean however that they consider the earth to actually be a blackbody. They only determine the MAXIMUM temperature this way, according to the SB equation. However, they do it in a wrong way.
Reply
#50
I agree with Greg. The P/4 concept is only valid for one calculation, that is total energy in must equal total energy out measured at the TOA. Only satellites provide this data. The Earth can only lose energy to space and can thus be considered a black body.

Mind you, when you look at the emissivity coefficients for most of the Earth's surface you find:
Water = 0.998
Ice = 0.98
Snow = 0.997
Sand = 0.962
Granite = 0.898
Green Grass = 0.986
pretty close to 'black body' anyway but this does not take into account heat capacity and thermal transfer within the various substances.

Willis over at WUWT has made an interesting post titled Three Clocks that should help confuse the subject. Rolleyes
Environmentalism is based on lies and the lies reflect an agenda that regards humanity as the enemy of the Earth. - Alan Caruba
Reply
#51
Ok, I thought that would be the answer..

Wiki - Black body.
Excerpt.
"A black body is an idealized physical body that absorbs all incident electromagnetic radiation, regardless of frequency or angle of incidence.

A black body in thermal equilibrium (that is, at a constant temperature) emits electromagnetic radiation called black-body radiation. The radiation is emitted according to Planck's law, meaning that it has a spectrum that is determined by the temperature alone (see figure at right), not by the body's shape or composition.

A black body in thermal equilibrium has two notable properties:[1]

1) It is an ideal emitter: it emits as much or more energy at every frequency than any other body at the same temperature.
2) It is a diffuse emitter: the energy is radiated isotropically, independent of direction.

An approximate realization of a black surface is a hole in the wall of a large enclosure (see below). Any light entering the hole is reflected indefinitely or absorbed inside and is unlikely to re-emerge, making the hole a nearly perfect absorber. The radiation confined in such an enclosure may or may not be in thermal equilibrium, depending upon the nature of the walls and the other contents of the enclosure.[2][3]

Real materials emit energy at a fraction—called the emissivity—of black-body energy levels. By definition, a black body in thermal equilibrium has an emissivity of ε = 1.0. A source with lower emissivity independent of frequency often is referred to as a gray body.[4][5] Construction of black bodies with emissivity as close to one as possible remains a topic of current interest.[6] A white body is one with a "rough surface [that] reflects all incident rays completely and uniformly in all directions."[7]

In astronomy, the radiation from stars and planets is sometimes characterized in terms of an effective temperature, the temperature of a black body that would emit the same total flux of electromagnetic energy.
"
End of excerpt.

The bare earth model, which is how the -18C average surface temperature that GMT of 15C is compared to, is calculated, goes like this.

Average solar input received at a distance of 93.5 million miles from our sun = 1368W/m2.

A globe has four times the surface area of the same diameter disc.
Therefore, 1368 id divided by 4 = 342W/m2.

Earth's bare surface has an albedo sufficient to reflect 102W/m2 straight back to space.
Therefore 342 - 102 = 240W/m2.

ie,
[Image: Slide2-1.jpg]

For a black body receiving 240W/m2, the Stefan Boltzman equation states that IR input would induce a surface temperature of -18C.
Wiki states that - Stefan–Boltzmann law
The Stefan–Boltzmann law, also known as Stefan's law, describes the power radiated from a black body in terms of its temperature. Specifically, the Stefan–Boltzmann law states that the total energy radiated per unit surface area of a black body across all wavelengths per unit time (also known as the black-body radiant exitance or emissive power), j^{\star}, is directly proportional to the fourth power of the black body's thermodynamic temperature T:

The bare earth model assumes that the only input is solar input, and that is totally emitted in (one full revolution, or many full revolutions of the globe) as an assumed equilibrium.

This is NOT like a black body, this is AS a black body.

It should be remembered that correlation is not necessarily causation,
AND that,
peak frequency of emission = temperature of emitting body = power of emission = amount emitted.
Radiative constant input and a resulting thermodynamic equilibrium are also assumed to be the same temperature figure, which is a black body assumption, using the above "logic path".....
The above are all black body assumptions, that are being used as if they follow on from each other. This is only true for an imaginary black body......
Therefore, the bare earth model IS a black body based model.

If it were not, then it would describe the situation much more like this.
[Image: Slide3-1.jpg]

btw - This applies to almost all current "climate science" explanations of GH "theory" and AGW. Note how often emissivity is included in such explanations. Hint - it is NOT mentioned at all. Remembering albedo IS NOT emissivity....
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
#52
(03-09-2014, 12:00 AM)Richard111 Wrote: Mind you, when you look at the emissivity coefficients for most of the Earth's surface you find:
Water = 0.998
Ice = 0.98
Snow = 0.997
Sand = 0.962
Granite = 0.898
Green Grass = 0.986
pretty close to 'black body' anyway but this does not take into account heat capacity and thermal transfer within the various substances.

One has to wonder, is there a problem with the way these figures are measured?
Yup...... But, that's another story, involving how and what is measured and calculated before the machine produces a figure.
[sarc on] It is surprisingly "standardized"..... [sarc off]
Hint - Generally the machines assume peak frequency of emission is power of emission, which is assumed to be temperature of the emitting body, minus usually about 5%.....

btw water is a very poor emitter, no where near the figure quoted, in fact it is quite close to zero, but it does have a high albedo, particularly at certain angles of incidence.....
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
#53
(03-09-2014, 12:55 AM)Derek Wrote: btw water is a very poor emitter, no where near the figure quoted, in fact it is quite close to zero, but it does have a high albedo, particularly at certain angles of incidence.....

Can't argue with that Derek, don't know enough. :nod_no: But do have a look at this pdf. Read the conclusion and summary on page 24 first to give you some confidence to look at the rest. Very involved!
http://www.klimanotizen.de/2006.06.17_Se...y_Volz.pdf

Now a personal observation of why I can't get excited about any energy budget. Oh, yes, while I'm at it, just how accurate is the calculation for 'global albedo'?
Seen lots of pics from orbiting satellites that show a hell of a lot more than 30% cloud cover.

Right. Back to my time in deserts. Tends to be rather hot and dry in deserts. I think that is why they are called deserts. It can be quite a pain to keep travelling across the sand in the middle of the day. So stop and erect a little pup tent in the shadow of your truck. Make sure it's a white pup tent! Reflectivity you know. Now enter your tent and carefully shovel out the top 6 inches of sand. You will find the temperature has dropped inside the tent such that you can enjoy a beer and a sandwich while you wait for the sun to go down a bit. Of course, back in those days, it never occurred to me to record the actual temperature. Rolleyes

The point being the heat of the sun did not warm the deeper sand levels. Come night time the temperature drops to near freezing. So to my simple layman mind sand is not very good at storing any heat from the sun. Only 30% of the Earth's surface is land and a notable percentage is desert. This argument applies to the poles as well, they are effectively deserts. Only when man builds cities with roads and dark roofed buildings are there 'deserts' that store an appreciable amount of daylight heat.
Environmentalism is based on lies and the lies reflect an agenda that regards humanity as the enemy of the Earth. - Alan Caruba
Reply
#54
Thank you Richard111. I had a quick skim through the pdf.
"This presentation identifies a major positive feedback (emissivity
of oceans), not yet implemented in climate models.
"
:yawn:

"energy of insolation must equal outgoing infrared radiation of Earth"
Rolleyes

Black body......

As far as I can work out he is saying that - bigger waves, more surface area, more emitted.
"a waveless sea surface of 17°C and stormy surface of 15°C emit the same amount of IR-radiation"
But, he forgets to mention stormier conditions also mean more cloud cover....

Sounds like a contorted "soft landing", or rather way out for the climate modellers to me.
It would certainly make a wonderful "fudge factor"........
"Of the seven models, six show a warming trend over the 20th Century similar in timing and magnitude to the Northern Hemisphere instrumental series.
One of the models passes right through the 20th Century data.
These results suggest that 20th Century warming trends are plausibly a continuation of past climate patterns.
Anywhere from a major portion to all of the warming of the 20th Century
could plausibly result from natural causes according to these results.
"
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
#55
This cloud cover business keeps me chattering on. Again, personal observation, this last few weeks has seen a very wet and cloudy period here at Milford and night time temperatures rarely dropped below 8C. Last night, after a lovely sunny day working in the garden, temperature dropped to below 2C. It was a cloudless night.

Here's my puzzlement. Clouds prevent the ground from cooling because of radiation from the water content in the cloud. Thus the ground must have lost MORE energy on a cloudy night because it was warmer than the cloudless night where ground temperature is several degrees COOLER for a number of hours.

See here.

Now to stir the pot some more. Smile The top of the cloud is radiating to space through essentially clear air (radiation 'window' is wide open), bottom of the cloud is in thermal equilibrium with the surface. Now the claim is the SATURATED adiabatic lapse rate is 5.6C per kilometre, but that is an average! What is the lapse rate up through that cloud? How do they calculate energy loss from under cloud?
Environmentalism is based on lies and the lies reflect an agenda that regards humanity as the enemy of the Earth. - Alan Caruba
Reply
#56
Arr, there you see Richard111, all this black body rubbish in grey body reality.....
Ok, clouds act as a parasol by day and as a blanket at night.
My blanket keeps me warmer by reducing convection of sensible and latent heat losses.
Mind you I don't have a radiative (read black body) obsession as modern climatology does have...

My point - If one accepts the black body assumptions, ie, "like a black body", radiative equilibrium, Stefan Boltzman, clouds keep the surface warmer by "back radiation", etc, etc, etc,
then one will have a radiative obsession that does not apply to grey body reality.....

BTW - Ulric Lyons went completely ape with me on fb recently. Apparently I am a "depostic twat", according to him. :lol:
He did not like me pointing out his often used explanation that when clouds come over at night it is warmer, which he says shows atmospheric back radiation from clouds warming the surface, is confusing weather with physics. ie, clear night becomes cloudy night, usually involves a different air mass, that is warmer, moving into the locality.....
But Ulric has a very deep, almost personal it seems, radiative obsession.
:lol:
One of his friends joined in, to support Ulric, stating to me that,
"you can not ask me questions because I am a scientist".....
:lol:
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
#57
"you can not ask me questions because I am a scientist".....

Oops! Quite!

I'm quite happy with net energy transfer as long as total energy in equals total energy out. A lot of energy is consumed/stored by life on this planet. I wonder how that is calculated?

Anyway, I am still convinced nobody knows what they are talking about, scientist or not. A lot of people know some of it. Anyone who can forecast my local temperature for Thursday week and get it right gets my attention.

Current evidence still points to the encroaching ice age, local heat waves not with standing! Plenty of reports out there on glacier growth.

My current curiosity is about earth quakes and volcanic activity. Seems to be on the increase. Would this be because of the reduced magnetic activity of the sun? Is this causing Earth's interior to 'relax' and 'turn over'? What ever. I'm keeping an eye on Yellowstone at the moment. Some increase in activity reported there. Minor yet.
Environmentalism is based on lies and the lies reflect an agenda that regards humanity as the enemy of the Earth. - Alan Caruba
Reply
#58
Total energy in equals total energy out IS black body....
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
#59
(03-11-2014, 11:34 PM)Richard111 Wrote: I'm quite happy with net energy transfer as long as total energy in equals total energy out. A lot of energy is consumed/stored by life on this planet. I wonder how that is calculated?

Anyway, I am still convinced nobody knows what they are talking about, scientist or not.

I think you have just nailed it Richard111.
It may be worth rereading the wiki quotes in post 51 at this point.
"total energy in equals total energy out." Can only be for a black body.
For a grey body one would have to write, total energy in has to be accounted for, as best we can. That is a BIG difference.

An imaginary black body can only absorb and radiate, an actual real grey body can do so much more.

Yes, it appears that black body and grey body commonly get a very similar answer, but by completely difference means....
In this case, correlation is definitely NOT causation.

Black body is pseudo science, it can not be tested within the scientific method, because a black body IS imaginary.

Greg House is completely correct, Stefan Boltzman which is only for a black body, can not be applied to earth, in any way, because earth is a grey body. It is that simple.

For example, whether we are talking about the bare earth model -18C predicted surface temperature, or the average temperature of earth's atmosphere as calculated by (1368 / 4) -102 = 240 therefore -18C. It does not matter, BOTH are black body calculations. Yes, grey body measurements get the same answer, BUT because of completely different processes, etc, etc, etc.

To say (1368 / 4) -102 = 240 therefore -18C for a black body explains the actual grey body (atmosphere) measurements of -18C is just false. It is stating that a grey body IS a black body. It is simply wrong. It is pseudo science, at best....

It might be worth compiling a list....
Energy in equals energy out = Black body.
radiative equilibrium = Black body.
Stefan Boltzman = Black body.
Peak frequency of emission equals power of emission = Black body.
Power of emission equals amount emitted = Black body.

In other words current climate science is a whole load of black body bollocks being misapplied to grey body reality.

This is so simple, it can only mean that the whole of current climate science is a deliberate fraud. The alternative, it appears to me, is to try to believe nobody noticed this misapplication of imaginary black body "explanations" to actual grey body reality.........
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
#60
(03-12-2014, 01:34 PM)Derek Wrote: Greg House is completely correct, Stefan Boltzman which is only for a black body, can not be applied to earth, in any way, because earth is a grey body.

I did not say that.

(03-12-2014, 01:34 PM)Derek Wrote: For example, whether we are talking about the bare earth model -18C predicted surface temperature, or the average temperature of earth's atmosphere as calculated by (1368 / 4) -102 = 240 therefore -18C. It does not matter, BOTH are black body calculations. Yes, grey body measurements get the same answer,

The warmists calculation of -18°C and your "average temperature of earth's atmosphere" are unrelated things.

Even if the "average temperature of earth's atmosphere" was -18°C, the warmists calculation is still wrong, so you can not really treat them as the same answer.
Reply


Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Climate Science Humiliated…Earlier Model Prognoses Of Warmer Winters Now Today’s Laug Sunsettommy 0 2,086 02-22-2015, 07:47 AM
Last Post: Sunsettommy



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)