Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Why are we 33C warmer than we would otherwise be?
#61
It seems no one else can see the elephant in the room....
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
#62
Round and round the mulberry bush! Big Grin

If it is a grey body, you can see it, so it must have an albedo!

Now you simply employ the absorption/emission factor into the S-B equation.

I think the problem is defining the albedo. See here.

Now I don't know the absorption/emission of CO2 so I use a percentage 18% of the black body flux over the range 13 to 17 microns that applies to CO2 in our atmosphere. If the black body temperature is 15C then total flux is 390w/m^2 of which just 70w/m^2 is from the CO2. CO2 can absorb energy in the 2.7 and 4.3 micron bands but is extremely unlikely to emit in the bands, the flux level of the 13 to 17 micron band from the CO2 will increase to dissipate the extra energy (some will be lost by collision with other molecules in the atmosphere)

The other problem that is always ignored is that any radiating element CANNOT ABSORB radiation at below peak emission level. Low energy photons are simply emitted pronto and there is no warming.

Thus radiation from CO2 at say 13C CANNOT WARM surfaces at 15C. If that was possible then they need to announce when and where the physics was rewritten.

The whole back radiation explanation for AGW is a total farce/fraud/scam, choose your own word.
Environmentalism is based on lies and the lies reflect an agenda that regards humanity as the enemy of the Earth. - Alan Caruba
Reply
#63
(03-13-2014, 04:01 AM)Richard111 Wrote: If it is a grey body, you can see it, so it must have an albedo!

Now you simply employ the absorption/emission factor into the S-B equation.

Errr, and Huh
One of us does not understand the differences between a black body and a grey 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
#64
Black body excludes almost all thermodynamics, grey body includes all thermodynamlcs.
BIG difference.
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
#65
Okay. Here is how I see it.

I am well aware that a BLACK BODY is a figment of a physicist's imagination. It is also perfectly reasonable to discuss two black bodies of finite size and surface area radiating at each other with different temperatures and derive the NET flow of energy between them.

Now with grey bodies you must include heat capacity and heat flow rates from inside to surface which can have big effects on the surface radiation of the body. Get that wrong and the calcs will be meaning less. Then of course, there is convection loss to the atmosphere.

I have here a graphic, sadly I can't remember where I got it from. I think John Kehr, but he has taken his graphics down due to hacking, so can't confirm that.

It is four BLACK BODY curves showing how much influence CO2 has at each of the temperatures shown. I think he missed out the 2.7 and 4.3 micron points in the 740K curve. The effect would be real but VERY small.

A molecule doesn't know or care if it is part of a 'black body'. If it is at temperature range BELOW a particular emission band, IT CAN ABSORB a higher energy band photon but is unlikely to emit it again as it will still be too cold, so it emits a number of lower energy photons to maintain the local temperature equilibrium. In this instance, some energy will also be transferred to other nearby molecules by conduction, thus some warming does occur. As far as I am aware only photons directly from the sun can do this. Nothing on the surface of the Earth is hot enough to emit such high energy photons. How this would be quantified I haven't a clue.

My feeling is that an awful lot of data is missing from global temperature budgets, and I suspect a lot is 'cherry picked'.

[Image: PlanckfullCO2.png]

I attempted to explain how CO2 molecules would respond between different temperature levels in the atmosphere using this type of chart over in the Layman Struggles thread.
Environmentalism is based on lies and the lies reflect an agenda that regards humanity as the enemy of the Earth. - Alan Caruba
Reply
#66
THE point I am trying to make Richard11 is that one can not, in any way, shape, or form apply black body explanations to grey body reality. This is simply because even if they get the same answer, they get it by totally different methods. Therefore, unphysical black body "theories" can not explain physical grey body reality - period.

Black body is only concerned with complete and instant IR absorption and emission, and resulting S/B predicted temperature of an imaginary surface. Grey body includes all thermodynamlc processes, which is a lot more than we have described to date in this thread.

GH "theory", ie global energy budgets, is a perfect example of black body based "theory" being used to explain grey body reality. The bare earth model does exactly the same thing too. Which is the point of this thread.
So called "Climate science" at present is the deliberate misrepresentation of grey body physical reality so that it can be (unphysically) explained in black body "theories".
ie, GH "theory" based AGW "climate science" is pseudo science, because it is an unphysical black body explanation of physical grey body reality.

btw - Radiatively able gases CAN NOT emit a black body curve at any temperature, because they have certain frequencies they can emit at....
So, I do not see the point in the graphs you posted, regardless of who compiled them.
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
#67
(03-14-2014, 03:36 PM)Derek Wrote: So called "Climate science" at present is the deliberate misrepresentation of grey body physical reality so that it can be (unphysically) explained in black body "theories".

I have not seen any "black body theories".

They only refer to black body when calculating the average temperature of the earth surface the sunshine can possibly induce, that is the MAXIMUM average temperature of the earth surface the sunshine can possibly induce. Such an approach is not wrong as such, however they do it in a wrong way (details above) thus getting a too low temperature (-18°). The correct value is about +30°C. This correct value does not provide any space for speculations about "why we are warmer than otherwise", because we are not.

No process exists that would raise the temperature of the earth surface above what the sunshine can possibly induce, other than a source of heat more powerful than the Sun.
Reply
#68
1) My unicorn is sick. It has measles and is running a temperature. What do I do?

A horse has a temperature because it is alive. Measles is a human disease. But, you can cure the unicorn any way you want to because it is imaginary.


2) I remember from school my statistics teacher saying she got a very good degree, partly because in her dissertation she "proved" European human birth rates correlated very highly with stork numbers in Europe.....
Correlation is not necessarily causation.


3) Micheal Mann produced his "hockey stick" with statistics, based upon the assumption that temperature = tree ring width.
Tree ring width is dependent upon many things, including, water availability, nutrient availability, sun shine hours, predation / symbiotic relationship with other life, etc, etc, etc. Until the other factors have been quantified, and how they vary over time has also been quantified, then the effect of temperature on tree ring width can not be known. Therefore the temperature = tree ring width assumption is plainly false. Reality, may get a similar answer to the assumption, but for completely different reasons. The assumption can not be used to explain reality.....


Greg writes -
"They only refer to black body when calculating the average temperature of the earth surface the sunshine can possibly induce, that is the MAXIMUM average temperature of the earth surface the sunshine can possibly induce. Such an approach is not wrong as such, however they do it in a wrong way (details above) thus getting a too low temperature (-18°). The correct value is about +30°C."

Temperature, measles, unicorns, statistics, assumptions, you have them all Greg.
AND,
30C for an overall average is plain wrong. THAT is GH "theory", which includes the fictional warming effect by atmospheric back radiation of earth's surface.
Your calculation (method), by which you alone get 30C, has already been demonstrated to be for only half a globe.
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
#69
(03-15-2014, 03:18 AM)Derek Wrote: 30C for an overall average is plain wrong.

Again, 30°C is the average for the hemisphere (day side). On the other side the temperature is lower, it is clear, depending on the rate of cooling, as I said a few times n this thread. If cooling there is slow, we'll get about the same 30°C as the overall average, theoretically. But it should be clear that it is wrong to put the whole area of a sphere in the SB equation and get the -18°C as the overall average.

If the temperature on the night side was 0°C on average e.g., the overall average would be +15°C.
Reply
#70
(03-01-2014, 09:49 AM)Greg House Wrote: 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.

"then the maximum average temperature of the sphere Earth is indefinitely close to +30°C, but not exactly +30°C."
WRONG. The dark side of the planet is not, and can not be that insulated.

"The Stefan-Boltzmann formula is simply not applicable to the total area of a sphere."
It is also, by definition not applicable to a grey body, but yet, you see no black body "theories"?

Yes, the warmist approach is wrong, but Greg you simply add and divide temperature to get averages, which is also wrong. You also seem to swop between Celsius and Kelvin too, to get different results? You are in effect doing black body assumption adding and dividing of temperature only, without radiative losses (or unjustified limited radiative losses) from the dark side. I can only describe that as even more unphysical than the warmist black body approach.
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
#71
Alan Siddons used to talk about "greenhouse land physics". I think he meant, but never quite said (or possibly realised that) it is all black body "theories" and assumptions being misapplied willy nilly to grey body reality.

Carl Brehmer quite rightly points out that pseudo science is something that can not be tested within the scientific method. A black body is imaginary, so at first glance it appears that this can not be tested within the scientific method. However, hypothesises make predictions, and these we can test within the scientific method, by experiment.

Lord Huxley, the man who realised there is such a thing as IR, also wrote at least one paper about the men that lived on the sun's surface, in what we refer to as sunspots. He thought they were caves. So, not everyone is right all the time....

But, Lord Huxley did state words to the effect,
"It only takes one ugly fact to destroy the beautiful theory".

The ugly fact that destroys black body "theory".

Black body and the Stefan Boltzman equation predicts a certain maximum possible surface temperature a black body could reach for a given input of IR.
This prediction can be tested with grey bodies, and a given IR input.

1) NASA teaches it's astronauts, for health and safety reasons that in space -
A white painted metal ball reaches a maximum temperature well below the Stefan Boltzman equation and Black body predicted surface temperature. OK.
A black painted metal ball reaches about the Stefan Boltzman equation and black body predicted surface temperature. OK.
HOWEVER, a shiny metal ball will reach a maximum temperature well in excess of the Stefan Boltzman equation and black body predicted surface temperature. An ugly fact.

NASA is stating that it is a fact that a shiny metal ball although it must emit the correct peak frequency of IR for it's temperature, can not be emitting the correct power or amount of IR for it's temperature, according to the Stefan Boltzman equation and black body "theory". "Low emissivity" falsifies black body.

2) Most home mechanics have occasionally realised that a chromium plated spanner they had inadvertently left out in direct sunlight can get surprisingly hot........
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
#72
Derek says:
Quote:btw - Radiatively able gases CAN NOT emit a black body curve at any temperature, because they have certain frequencies they can emit at....
So, I do not see the point in the graphs you posted, regardless of who compiled them.

Now look at a graphic from Perry's.

[Image: emitt.jpg]

Note that that CO2 IR response is only possible at 1,500K !!!

You now need to define the CO2 IR response at temperatures pertinent to global surface levels. By all means go ahead and use RADCAL, just remember to include a specific level for H2O as that effects the output.

The point of the graphs is to enable a visual interpretation of the CO2 IR response to changes in temperature. I agree is will not be spot on for calculation purposes but gives a starting point for what you might expect to find.
Environmentalism is based on lies and the lies reflect an agenda that regards humanity as the enemy of the Earth. - Alan Caruba
Reply
#73
Changes of radiatively able gas concentrations only increase the rate at which the gas mixture is able to redistribute energy. Water vapour dwarfs any possible effect CO2 might have in this respect. CO2 is all but irrelevant, in it's concentration, it's changes of concentration, and at what temperatures it could be active at.

I would expect to find nothing of relevance to this thread. Have I missed something?
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
#74
What's been missed? Well, let's try this.

Imagine a world of bare rock with just nitrogen for the atmosphere. All masses and densities same, just leave out all water and oxygen and argon and anything else you can think of. You will have a world with an atmosphere TRANSPARENT to IR and an albedo as good as the moon. Just what will be the surface temperature of the atmosphere after a few million or so years?

TSI same as now.
Environmentalism is based on lies and the lies reflect an agenda that regards humanity as the enemy of the Earth. - Alan Caruba
Reply
#75
It would appear to me that you are attempting to construct a thought experiment that is by any other name a black body surface...

Excluding water and water vapour being the "give away".

Also, NASA admits the regolith plays a significant part on the moon, as it would on a "bare earth".
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
#76
(03-16-2014, 12:38 AM)Derek Wrote: You also seem to swop between Celsius and Kelvin too, to get different results?

This is not true. I never did that.

(03-16-2014, 12:38 AM)Derek Wrote: "then the maximum average temperature of the sphere Earth is indefinitely close to +30°C, but not exactly +30°C."
WRONG. The dark side of the planet is not, and can not be that insulated.

The value +30° MAXIMUM has nothing to do with any insulation. The temperature simply can not be higher as the one correctly calculated according to the SB equation, which is in the warmists case +30°C.

In reality, as I said a few times here, the temperature on the night side depends on the rate of cooling.

(03-16-2014, 12:38 AM)Derek Wrote: You are in effect doing black body assumption adding and dividing of temperature only, without radiative losses (or unjustified limited radiative losses) from the dark side.

No, this is not true. I do not calculate the temperature of the night side referring to it as a black body. However, the maximum average temperature there is, of course, the same +30°C, because this is what the Sun can possibly induce (on the day side ) according to the SB equation.
Reply
#77
(03-16-2014, 08:18 AM)Richard111 Wrote: Imagine a world of bare rock with just nitrogen for the atmosphere. All masses and densities same, just leave out all water and oxygen and argon and anything else you can think of. You will have a world with an atmosphere TRANSPARENT to IR and an albedo as good as the moon. Just what will be the surface temperature of the atmosphere after a few million or so years?

BTW - Earth has a hot core, hence we have volcanoes. Without oceans there would be far more obvious volcanic activity straight into the atmosphere. Your "conditions" would not last very long at all. Most people accept that the water on this planet, and in the oceans came from volcanic eruptions. Earth is not, and can not be compared to, a bare, dead rock, devoid of life.

After millions of years there would be oceans, add to that life, and in the end we would probably be much where we are now, a GMT of 15C, that varies on the geological time scale between (very roughly) about 12C and 22C.

Please note I have edited 7C into 12C, hence following comments and quotes.
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
#78
(03-16-2014, 10:49 AM)Derek Wrote: ...that varies on the geological time scale between (very roughly) about 7C and 22C.

This is another fiction.

I repeatedly challenged warmists on various blogs to demonstrate how they calculated the "global temperature" for the year 666 e.g. and they failed to do that. they absolutely do not like the question :lol: .
Reply
#79
Greg, regarding your three quotes / points.

1) Yes, you did. Go back and check the first page of this thread.

2) The writing in blue, is me quoting what you wrote......
You actually confirm what I replied to you in your answer......

3) The warmists get +30C by including "back radiation", you get 30C purely by insulating the dark side of the planet.....
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
#80
(03-16-2014, 11:02 AM)Greg House Wrote:
(03-16-2014, 10:49 AM)Derek Wrote: ...that varies on the geological time scale between (very roughly) about 7C and 22C.

This is another fiction.

I repeatedly challenged warmists on various blogs to demonstrate how they calculated the "global temperature" for the year 666 e.g. and they failed to do that. they absolutely do not like the question :lol: .

Geological timescale is a different matter Greg. Various proxys and human history can give us a rough answer + or - a fair amount....
What the exact GMT in year 666 was is meaningless.
But, I should have written 12C not 7C. Apologies, done from memory. I have corrected it to avoid confusion.
[Image: Slide7-77.jpg]
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
  Climate Science Humiliated…Earlier Model Prognoses Of Warmer Winters Now Today’s Laug Sunsettommy 0 1,965 02-22-2015, 07:47 AM
Last Post: Sunsettommy



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)