Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Discussions of Climate - Where's the Physics?
#1
I've spent more than five years delving into the intricacies of the climate, the "Greenhouse Effect" and AGW. I've had a few "eureka" moments when I've spotted major flaws in the arguments - on BOTH sides. What amazes me more and more is apparently well educated and rational scientists discussing, arguing over and publishing papers on complete irrelevancies.

A prime example of this is the reliance on the Stefan-Boltzmann law used to estimate the effective temperature of the earth, with or without an atmosphere. The earth does not function as an ideal black body, far from it. It is not totally absorbing of radiation, and the surface is most certainly not flat. Applying the law to a multi-layered almost transparent low-absorbant gaseous atmosphere is completely ridiculous, and yet it is routinely done, and the results of calculations taken at face value. Because the energy radiated by a black body depends on the fourth power of the absolute temperature, even small deviations from the ideal state lead to relatively large differences in radiated energy. Working backwards, calculating temperature from incident radiation involves even more error, due to uncertainties in atmospheric absorption, albedo etc. It's akin to measuring a swimming pool to the nearest metre, estimating the volume of water in it as 50,000 litres, adding a litre of water and declaring the new volume to be 50,001 litres. A more humourous example is the museum attendant who was asked how old a dinosaur skeleton was. "Twenty million and three years" he said. When asked how the age was known with such accuracy, he replied "They told me it was twenty million years old when I started work here, three years ago".

Were these calculations done merely to illustrate a "broad brush" approach to estimating the temperature of the earth/atmosphere system for a school physics textbook, there'd be no issue here. However, although there are large margins for error, they're used to calculate tiny differences in the earth's energy budget, often involving fractions of a watt/sq.m leading to tenths or even hundredths of a degree temperature difference.

When I first saw an earth/atmosphere "energy budget" diagram I was impressed. It looked like a lot of detailed science had gone into it. The figures on it certainly give that impression - "Incoming radiation 341.3 watts/sq.m", "Reflected by surface 23", "Net absorbed 0.9". Knowing the uncertainties in the albedo of clouds, cloud extent, earth albedo, atmospheric absorption etc., that 0.9 figure is the equivalent of the one litre added to the swimming pool. The error bar on it must be +/- 10 at least, if indeed such an imbalance exists. Of course, the 0.9 figure is calculated or estimated elsewhere, and the figures on the diagram adjusted to show a net imbalance of that amount.

The energy diagram I have shows the earth's surface radiating 396 watts/sq.m at 15 Celcius. The room I'm sitting in is 5x4 metres, and the temperature is currently 22°C, so the floor alone should be emitting something like 8.5Kw. I must be missing something here, or perhaps it's just lucky my shoes have got thick soles? If materials lost most heat through radiation, it would be easy to construct an unpowered refrigerator. An insulated box which allowed infrared to escape but not enter would cool food in a matter of minutes if these radiation figures were correct.

Scientists tell us that the earth (with atmosphere) radiates about 235 watts/sq.metre into space (long-wave infrared), as measured by satellite. They then tell us that the Stephan-Boltzmann law says that an object at -19°C emits 235 watts/sq.m black body radiation, therefore the temperature of the earth WITH an atmosphere but without greenhouse gases would be -19°C. Errm - but it was measured WITH an atmosphere WITH greenhouse gases, and the surface temperature is most certainly NOT -19°C. The -19°C of course is the calculated top-of-the-atmosphere (TOA) temperature where the radiation originates, NOT the surface temperature. The temperature of the air mixture at 1 bar is not surprisingly 15°C, the same law defining the temperature on Venus at 93 bar of around 470°C - nothing to do with CO2's "greenhouse" effect. In fact the Venus temperature would be about 200° higher with an air atmosphere (which is largely bi-atomic molecules, as opposed to CO2 which is tri-atomic).

The energy diagram is totally bogus. There cannot be any net "back radiation" from the atmosphere, which has (even with greenhouse gases) low heat content, and radiates in all directions.This radiation cancels out, as it is flux which is a vector quantity. Flux between the surface and the lower atmosphere also largely cancels out. Heat transport from the surface to the atmosphere is almost entirely due to conduction/convection, not radiation. Also the "near-earth" temperature 15°C (2m in a screen) is confused with the SURFACE temperature, which HAS to be higher, or there'd be no net energy transfer to the atmosphere via conduction and convection, and no weather. Apologists tell us that surfaces are poor at conducting heat to gases, and that most energy transfer is via radiation. Time to redesign hot-water (central) heating systems, vehicle cooling systems, finned coolers of all kinds and glass vacuum (Dewar) flasks then, seems the engineers got it wrong.

Billions of words and millions of articles, books, blog and forum posts discuss the "Greenhouse Effect" ad nauseam, and to no effect. We are told that the atmosphere is almost entirely opaque to long-wave infrared radiation, and so it is. How then does the "back radiation" penetrate this opaque atmosphere to bathe the earth's surface in a rosy glow? If it was absorbed on the way up, it'll be absorbed on the way down. The net effect is nil. The irony is that the atmosphere doesn't warm the earth at all, it COOLS it. A radically adjusted Stephan-Boltzmann expression which actually bears some relation to reality gives a surface temperature of 55°C. The warmed air in contact with the ground expands and rises, cooler air replaces it. The heat energy is transported upwards, and is eventually lost to space as infrared radiation. The convection and therefore heat transport is increased because water vapour and other "greenhouse" gases absorb the relatively small amount of infrared emitted by the surface, and also because they have a higher specific heat..The GHGs don't retain the excess energy but release it almost immediately by collision with other molecules, which are mostly not GHGs. That surface of course, conducts quite a lot of the heat downwards, cooling it further, and releasing that heat at night, reducing the otherwise sharp temperature drop. The "Energy Budget" diagram is a fabrication, and the "Greenhouse Effect" is a myth.
Ernest Rutherford: "If your experiment needs statistics, you ought to have done a better experiment."
Reply
#2
Wow!

A very nice first post!

I never paid much attention to the S-B law because I thought the trace gas CO2 was at best a feeble player no matter what it allegedly can do.

Thus I never bought into the absurdity that a 150 ppm rise in the atmosphere of CO2,to year 2100,can promote a run away warming trend.

Most or all of the "evidence" they have seems to be based on climate models.And the few times they made specific predictions.They failed utterly.

The Hotspot in the tropics atmosphere.

The 3 scenarios modeling promoted by James Hansen in 1988.That failed so bad after 20 years,that even some of the AGW believers camp quit bringing it up.

The big list of climate modeling temperature projections from 2001 to 2100 as published by the IPCC in their 2001 report.Off to a bad start in the first decade,that is barely cooling over all.Where as they projected a .20 degree increase.

That ENSO cycling seems to be almost mirrored by temperature changes,while atmospheric CO2 increase is a very specific and seasonal cycle that does not even remotely match temperature changes.With a current 5-6 month lag following temperature changes.Making it a follower and NOT a driver of temperature changes.

There are surely more but that is enough for now.
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
#3
(06-22-2010, 05:14 PM)Sunsettommy Wrote: Wow!

A very nice first post!

Seconded.
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
#4
Looks like some interesting physics in this article. Found the link at GREENIE WATCH.

A Null Hypothesis For CO2

Quote:Summary
The energy transfer processes that occur at the Earth’s surface are examined from first principles. The effect of small changes in the solar constant caused by variations in the sunspot cycles and small increases in downward long wave infrared flux due to a 100 ppm increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration on surface temperature are considered in detail. The changes in the solar constant are sufficient to change ocean temperatures and alter the Earth’s climate. The effects on surface temperature of small increases in downward LWIR flux are too small to be measured and cannot cause climate change. The assumptions underlying the use of radiative forcing in climate models are shown to be invalid. A null hypothesis for CO2 is proposed that it is impossible to show that changes in CO2 concentration have caused any climate change, at least since the current composition of the atmosphere was set by ocean photosynthesis about one billion years ago.
Environmentalism is based on lies and the lies reflect an agenda that regards humanity as the enemy of the Earth. - Alan Caruba
Reply
#5
Great find, yet again, Richard111.

Thank you.
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
#6
Thanks. I did say I found the link at GREENIE WATCH(scroll down to 14July) so thanks are due to John Ray.

Unfortunately I am struggling to understand aspects of this article. Could be the date I need is in the references. I will bite the bullet and use photobucket to post a graph so I can ask questions that might be understood. Hopefully enlightenment comes to those who seek. Undecided
Environmentalism is based on lies and the lies reflect an agenda that regards humanity as the enemy of the Earth. - Alan Caruba
Reply
#7
My first attempt at posting an image. Hope this works. Smile

Will ask questions later about how this graph works. I have posted before on how rock surfaces fracture in the desert on clear nights after a hot day yet this graph shows 1 meter depth.

[Image: landheat.jpg]
Environmentalism is based on lies and the lies reflect an agenda that regards humanity as the enemy of the Earth. - Alan Caruba
Reply
#8
With regard to the above image; can anyone explain how thermal conduction through a solid is calculated. I'm sure time must be a factor, how is it introduced?

As I've mentioned before I have experienced rocks splitting off their surfaces in deserts during clear nights after a hot day. This is a case of the surface of the rock contracting faster than the inner volume as conductive (maybe some radiative?) cooling proceeds faster at the surface.

Just how quickly does heat move through different land surfaces. This one example makes it look like the near surface can cool rapidly but inner heat is released more slowly. Is this a factor in calculating LWIR surface radiation?

This question does not seem to apply to open water surfaces which constitute 70% and more of the planet's surface.

So just how valid is the global LWIR surface radiation figure?
Environmentalism is based on lies and the lies reflect an agenda that regards humanity as the enemy of the Earth. - Alan Caruba
Reply
#9
(07-15-2010, 11:37 AM)Richard111 Wrote: As I've mentioned before I have experienced rocks splitting off their surfaces in deserts during clear nights after a hot day.
This is a case of the surface of the rock contracting faster than the inner volume as conductive (maybe some radiative?) cooling proceeds faster at the surface.

I would wonder how much geology plays a part in the "onion skin" effect, as I seem to remember it being called.
Sedimentary rocks, or rather rock type, must be a big factor in this.
How well the sedimentary layers are "glued together" is another obvious factor,
even slate splits nicely with just a (an appropriate and well placed) tap.

It may even be more due to moisture and ice or frost heave (always seen on soil surface on a frosty morning),
(it's probably a very similar process (to frost heave) come to think of it, moisture just below the cold surface then freezes, and expands (heaves) splitting rock along sedimentary line / layers)
rather than cooling differences / rates from the outside to the inside of the rock.

BTW - Richard111, sometime ago you gave an excellant link to a site describing the complexities of water,
I could really do with that link again for the piece I am working on at present, please.
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
#10
Might be somewhere in here Derek:

ATMOSPHERIC WATER

That is a 2 page menu to a number of essays on the complexities of water.

The starting point to a vast number of these essays is here:

WELCOME TO WWW://CLIMATES.COM

The science in these essays by Patrick J. Tyson are referenced to:

Water Structure and Science

by Martin Chaplin BSc PhD CChem FRSC Emeritus Professor of Applied Science London South Bank University.

Neither of these two guys commit themselves one way or the other on AGW and I have not detected any deliberate bias but I am suspicious of Pat Tyson's views. He has written comments in his essays that I take as support for AGW .
Environmentalism is based on lies and the lies reflect an agenda that regards humanity as the enemy of the Earth. - Alan Caruba
Reply
#11
(07-15-2010, 11:57 PM)Richard111 Wrote: Water Structure and Science

by Martin Chaplin BSc PhD CChem FRSC Emeritus Professor of Applied Science London South Bank University.

THANK YOU Richard111, that is exactly the link I was thinking of.

Particularly,
http://www1.lsbu.ac.uk/water/vibrat.html
and,
http://www1.lsbu.ac.uk/water/anmlies.html

Smile

NB - I am also not too keen on Patrick J Tyson -
it is his latent heat "fallacy" that did it for me..
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
#12
Ah, yes. I was deeply interested in that link:

http://www1.lsbu.ac.uk/water/vibrat.html

when I first saw it because there is a graph down the page a ways that showed the penetration depth down the right hand scale. It showed very clearly that LWIR could only penetrate water about a millimeter or so. This got me quite exited and I know I made posts about it but cannot find them again. But never mind, the scale has been removed.

[Image: watopt.gif]
Environmentalism is based on lies and the lies reflect an agenda that regards humanity as the enemy of the Earth. - Alan Caruba
Reply
#13
Confirmation of the Segelstein plot we have mentioned on numerous occasions.
That still has it's scale. Interesting it has been removed on the one you show.
"We" can assume that it is a pro AGW site / source then, or at least done in "due respect" of AGW "ideology".

Just for reference here is the Segelstein 81 MS thesis image (with scale...)
(It's a good job "we" keep this type of thing isn't it...)
[Image: segelstein81-jpeg.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
#14
It seems the other side has encountered the 2nd Law argument. This was posted on another board.

[quote
2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
'The atmospheric greenhouse effect, an idea that authors trace back to the traditional works of Fourier 1824, Tyndall 1861, and Arrhenius 1896, and which is still supported in global climatology, essentially describes a fictitious mechanism, in which a planetary atmosphere acts as a heat pump driven by an environment that is radiatively interacting with but radiatively equilibrated to the atmospheric system. According to the second law of thermodynamics such a planetary machine can never exist.' (Gerhard Gerlich)


What the science says...

Select a level... Basic Intermediate The 2nd law of thermodynamics is consistent with the greenhouse effect which is directly observed.

Skeptics sometimes claim that the explanation for global warming contradicts the second law of thermodynamics. But does it? To answer that, first, we need to know how global warming works. Then, we need to know what the second law of thermodynamics is, and how it applies to global warming. Global warming, in a nutshell, works like this:

The sun warms the Earth. The Earth and its atmosphere radiate heat away into space. They radiate most of the heat that is received from the sun, so the average temperature of the Earth stays more or less constant. Greenhouse gases trap some of the escaping heat closer to the Earth's surface, making it harder for it to shed that heat, so the Earth warms up in order to radiate the heat more effectively. So the greenhouse gases make the Earth warmer - like a blanket conserving body heat - and voila, you have global warming. See What is Global Warming and the Greenhouse Effect for a more detailed explanation.

The second law of thermodynamics has been stated in many ways. For us, Rudolf Clausius said it best:

"Heat generally cannot flow spontaneously from a material at lower temperature to a material at higher temperature."

So if you put something hot next to something cold, the hot thing won't get hotter, and the cold thing won't get colder. That's so obvious that it hardly needs a scientist to say it, we know this from our daily lives. If you put an ice-cube into your drink, the drink doesn't boil!

The skeptic tells us that, because the air, including the greenhouse gasses, is cooler than the surface of the Earth, it cannot warm the Earth. If it did, they say, that means heat would have to flow from cold to hot, in apparent violation of the second law of thermodynamics.
So have climate scientists made an elementary mistake? Of course not! The skeptic is ignoring the fact that the Earth is being warmed by the sun, which makes all the difference.

To see why, consider that blanket that keeps you warm. If your skin feels cold, wrapping yourself in a blanket can make you warmer. Why? Because your body is generating heat, and that heat is escaping from your body into the environment. When you wrap yourself in a blanket, the loss of heat is reduced, some is retained at the surface of your body, and you warm up. You get warmer because the heat that your body is generating cannot escape as fast as before.

If you put the blanket on a tailors dummy, which does not generate heat, it will have no effect. The dummy will not spontaneously get warmer. That's obvious too!

Is using a blanket an accurate model for global warming by greenhouse gases? Certainly there are differences in how the heat is created and lost, and our body can produce varying amounts of heat, unlike the near-constant heat we receive from the sun. But as far as the second law of thermodynamics goes, where we are only talking about the flow of heat, the comparison is good. The second law says nothing about how the heat is produced, only about how it flows between things.

To summarise: Heat from the sun warms the Earth, as heat from your body keeps you warm. The Earth loses heat to space, and your body loses heat to the environment. Greenhouse gases slow down the rate of heat-loss from the surface of the Earth, like a blanket that slows down the rate at which your body loses heat. The result is the same in both cases, the surface of the Earth, or of your body, gets warmer.

So global warming does not violate the second law of thermodynamics. And if someone tells you otherwise, just remember that you're a warm human being, and certainly nobody's dummy.quote]
Reply
#15
(10-23-2010, 09:10 PM)Goose52 Wrote: It seems the other side has encountered the 2nd Law argument. This was posted on another board.

This is going to be fun, I know it in my bones already.

the other side" quoting Gerhard Gerlich Wrote:2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
'The atmospheric greenhouse effect, an idea that authors trace back to the traditional works of Fourier 1824, Tyndall 1861, and Arrhenius 1896,
I do wish people would remember the Arrhenius 1906 paper, where he dramatically revised DOWN his own figures.
"Everyone" still seem to quote Arrhenius incorrectly (ie 1896, not 1906).
T&G correctly include quotes and text of Arrhenius 1906 in their falsification of the greenhouse effect within the framework of physics paper.
The "other side" never, or very rarely mentions it...Although now it is mentioned on Wiki..
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Svante_Arrhenius
" In his 1906 publication, Arrhenius adjusted the value downwards to 1.6 °C (including water vapour feedback: 2.1 °C). "

the other side" quoting Gerhard Gerlich Wrote:and which is still supported in global climatology, essentially describes a fictitious mechanism, in which
a planetary atmosphere acts as a heat pump driven by an environment that is radiatively interacting with but radiatively equilibrated to the atmospheric system.
According to the second law of thermodynamics such a planetary machine can never exist.' (Gerhard Gerlich)
One major point most have missed to date.
No one has shown to date that, although IPPCC, NASA, MODTRAN etc claim an,
"environment that is radiatively interacting with but radiatively equilibrated to the atmospheric system".
It is stating (asserting) a balance that has never been shown to exist.
This implies no loses to the "system", which is absurd in the extreme.
There is undeniably at many levels "work done", so there ARE loses to the "system".
the other side" says, Wrote:What the science says...

Select a level... Basic Intermediate The 2nd law of thermodynamics is consistent with the greenhouse effect which is directly observed.
Really, how, when, with what was the greenhouse effect directly observed. ????
The IPCC, NASA, and MODTRAN do not claim to "directly observe" the greenhouse effect.
Although they all have plenty of computer simulations suggesting such an effect...
The so called "greenhouse effect" is believed to exist, and is represented in many plots / diagrams,
but directly observed. No.
This is simply asserting unproven, hypothetical, and actually physically impossible non-sense.
the other side" says, Wrote:Skeptics sometimes claim that the explanation for global warming contradicts the second law of thermodynamics. But does it?
Agreed.
the other side" says, Wrote:To answer that, first, we need to know how global warming works.
There "t'other side" goes again, implying / asserting a human cause to what appears to be perfectly natural global temperature changes, by use of weasel words.
the other side" says, Wrote:Then, we need to know what the second law of thermodynamics is, and how it applies to global warming.
Whoooaaa, that is an unproven hypothesis, "t'other side" just jumped to something supposedly already proven, and,
is already implying man made, rather than possible and perfectly natural variations.
To say "t'other side" are promoting misconceptions is being generous to "t'other side", "t'other side" is deliberately framing and misleading the ensuing "discussion",
by implying, or rather asserting observed reality and certainty where there is none or very, very little, and with almost no certainty.
the other side" says, Wrote:Global warming, in a nutshell, works like this:
YAWN....
the other side" says, Wrote:The sun warms the Earth.
Yup.
the other side" says, Wrote:The Earth and its atmosphere radiate heat away into space. They radiate most of the heat that is received from the sun,
so the average temperature of the Earth stays more or less constant.
This is a BIG one, "t'other side" has again asserted there is a balance. Proof please.
Who is to say some, or a lot of the incoming solar energy is used by life rather than radiated back to space.
QUACK, QUACK, OOOOPS - "t'other side" NEVER INCLUDED THAT.....
the other side" says, Wrote:Greenhouse gases trap some of the escaping heat closer to the Earth's surface, making it harder for it to shed that heat,
There is no proof for this assertion. Please explain HOW so called greenhouse gases "trap" escaping heat,
this is as far as I'm aware PHYSICALLY IMPOSSIBLE.

Yes, some gases are able to absorb photons (small packets of energy everything emits according to temperature),
but what happens next.? No one actually knows.

The absorbing molecule may alter it's chemical links (stretching them for instance),
or it may raise it's vibrational state (my preferred version, but it's probably a mixture of both, or both are the same thing, moves in and out electron shells accordingly with vibrational state),
If the vibrational state is raised then this will be transmitted by conduction (pressure dependent obviously) to other molecules the higher vibrational state molecule comes into contact with.
The photon is "thermalised". Converted to sensible heat in other words.
Or the molecule splits out (re-emits) the photon in any of 360 x 360 degrees.
Plainly both "thermalising" of or "re-emission" of an absorbed photon by a radiatively active gas molecule is absolutely NOT "trapping" the energy (heat) transported by photons.

I would also add, somewhat controversially that,
a lower energy level photon when absorbed by a higher energy level molecule, MUST lower the energy level of the absorbing molecule.
Or,
a lower vibrational state photon when absorbed by a higher vibrational state molecule, MUST lower the vibrational state of the absorbing molecule.
That is the way we see all other forms of heat flow (relatively) happen. Why is radiation "so different". ????
To date I have not seen a single reasonable explanation of the
"all radiation is positively absorbed" dominant viewpoint in physics at present.

the other side" says, Wrote:so the Earth warms up in order to radiate the heat more effectively.
AGAIN, how, "t'other side" have given no possible or known of means so far, just assertions, which is hand waving, nothing more.
the other side" says, Wrote:So the greenhouse gases make the Earth warmer - like a blanket conserving body heat - and voila, you have global warming.
"t'other side" have asserted global warming - absolutely nothing more though.
the other side" says, Wrote:See What is Global Warming and the Greenhouse Effect for a more detailed explanation.
Please visit the link to receive more misconceptions and assertions cleverly dressed up as "proof" of an unproven hypothesis - namely AGW.
the other side" says, Wrote:The second law of thermodynamics has been stated in many ways. For us, Rudolf Clausius said it best:

"Heat generally cannot flow spontaneously from a material at lower temperature to a material at higher temperature."

So if you put something hot next to something cold, the hot thing won't get hotter, and the cold thing won't get colder.
That's so obvious that it hardly needs a scientist to say it, we know this from our daily lives. If you put an ice-cube into your drink, the drink doesn't boil!
? If you put an ice cube in your drink the drink gets colder, heat flows from the warm fluid to the cool solid, including the latent heat / phase change.
That is a poor "thought experiment" that is meant to misdirect you.
the other side" says, Wrote:The skeptic tells us that, because the air, including the greenhouse gasses, is cooler than the surface of the Earth, it cannot warm the Earth.
Well, let's be fair here the ice cube cooled the drink....
the other side" says, Wrote:If it did, they say, that means heat would have to flow from cold to hot, in apparent violation of the second law of thermodynamics.
By jove I think "t'other side" might be getting this..
the other side" says, Wrote:So have climate scientists made an elementary mistake?
Oh, oh, there is hope yet.
the other side" says, Wrote:Of course not!
Dooooohhhh... I should of known, wait for it, this will be silly..
the other side" says, Wrote:The skeptic is ignoring the fact that the Earth is being warmed by the sun, which makes all the difference.
? - huh, a tricky customer this one.. Although "t'other side" is relying on his earlier thought experiment either misdirecting or confusing you.
the other side" says, Wrote:To see why, consider that blanket that keeps you warm. If your skin feels cold, wrapping yourself in a blanket can make you warmer.
Here we go, this is the misdirection.
the other side" says, Wrote:Why? Because your body is generating heat, and that heat is escaping from your body into the environment.
Well, yes, a lot like the sun heating the earth's surface ACTUALLY, and geothermal inputs, but I digress..
the other side" says, Wrote:When you wrap yourself in a blanket, the loss of heat is reduced, some is retained at the surface of your body, and you warm up.
You get warmer because the heat that your body is generating cannot escape as fast as before.
Yes, basically agreed, but because conduction and convection are greatly reduced.
There is very little radiation involved,
but wait for it, "t'other side" can not have that..
the other side" says, Wrote:If you put the blanket on a tailors dummy, which does not generate heat, it will have no effect.
This is completely irrelevant, the earth IS heated, AND from outside the blanket.
the other side" says, Wrote:The dummy will not spontaneously get warmer. That's obvious too!
Arrrh, I get the misdirect now. "t'other side" is implying that the reduced conduction / convection is really the GHG's re-radiating heat back to the surface.
the other side" says, Wrote:Is using a blanket an accurate model for global warming by greenhouse gases?
No, not in the way "t'other side" is about to.

Hold on, "t'other side" forgets to explain the heating, "t'other side" completely omits back radiation, it is implied, but not explained at all.
The misdirect is completed, "t'other side" has said "it", without actually saying "it".
"t'other side" does not explain how a colder thing (the upper atmosphere) warms a warmer thing (the earth's surface).
To avoid doing this (justifying / explaining "back radiation" of heat from the upper troposphere to the earths surface in contradiction to the second law of thermodynamics),
is the reason why "t'other side" has explained as he has.
the other side" says, Wrote:Certainly there are differences in how the heat is created and lost, and our body can produce varying amounts of heat, unlike the near-constant heat we receive from the sun.
Hmmmm, as we understand very little about how the sun interacts, and by what mechanisms, processes with the earth's atmosphere and surface
the "near-constant" assertion, is merely that, an assertion.
However the earth's surface does NOT react, or act equally to solar input, some absorbs, some reflects,
some absorbs to great depths, some releases very quickly, and some releases very slowly, they almost all vary considerably in response and time.
This is the surface heating, retention, and varying later release problem AGW refuses to actually acknowledge exists.
the other side" says, Wrote:But as far as the second law of thermodynamics goes, where we are only talking about the flow of heat, the comparison is good.
The second law says nothing about how the heat is produced, only about how it flows between things.


To summarise: Heat from the sun warms the Earth, as heat from your body keeps you warm. The Earth loses heat to space, and your body loses heat to the environment.
Reasonably OK.
the other side" says, Wrote:Greenhouse gases slow down the rate of heat-loss from the surface of the Earth,
HOW. "t'other side" have not given a single reason as to how heat is trapped by the so called GHGs. ????????
the other side" says, Wrote:like a blanket that slows down the rate at which your body loses heat. The result is the same in both cases, the surface of the Earth, or of your body, gets warmer.
Rubbish, "t'other side" have misrepresented reduced conduction / convection, AND invented some unexplained "heat trapping" mechanism employed by their so called GHGs.
the other side" says, Wrote:So global warming does not violate the second law of thermodynamics.
"t'other side" has NOT shown that, this is merely an assertion on "t'other side" part.
the other side" says, Wrote:And if someone tells you otherwise, just remember that you're a warm human being, and certainly nobody's dummy.
But tailors dummies are not heated (usually).
"t'other side" has merely tried to support an unproven hypothesis (AGW) with
numerous silly assertions, confusing and misinterpreted "thought experiments", and some as yet unexplained "heat trapping" properties of some atmospheric trace gases.
"heat trapping" properties that are unknown to physics at present, and are likely to be so for ever, because they do not exist.
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
#16
Quote:To see why, consider that blanket that keeps you warm. If your skin feels cold, wrapping yourself in a blanket can make you warmer.

The skin feels cold is because it is in CONTACT with cooler air.Being wrapped in a good blanket simply removes the direct exposure to that cold air.

Quote:Why? Because your body is generating heat, and that heat is escaping from your body into the environment.

If the body is generating heat,why need a blanket?

Dodgy

It is the temperature difference between the body and the air it is being directly exposed to,that matters here.And why we wear clothes is to create a small buffer zone between the surface of the body and the much colder air.

The temperature difference between the body's surface and clothing is much smaller.That is why we feel warmer,being removed from direct exposure to the cold air.

That is why we wear clothes in most of the world.Clothes also block cold winds too.The degree of blocking is determined in the design of the cloth used in making clothes.

We like buffer zones.

Quote:When you wrap yourself in a blanket, the loss of heat is reduced, some is retained at the surface of your body, and you warm up.
You get warmer because the heat that your body is generating cannot escape as fast as before.

Not necessarily.

The loss of heat can still be the same after wearing the blanket.At least for a while because the body has to warm up the blanket first.

As long as there is heat generation is made by the body,there WILL be some heat at the surface.What the blanket is doing that make you FEEL warmer is creating a buffer zone between the warm body surface and the cold air.

When the blanket warms up,the body is no longer exposed to the cold air and now feels warm.The body itself may not be any warmer the whole time.

I am sure you will realize this is true when you take that warm blanket off yourself during the night and boing,there is that cold air again pressing down on you.Quickly you FEEL cooler again,because you are now once again directly exposed to that cooler air.

The body itself may not be getting any warmer,it is lack of exposure to the cold air,that make it FEEL warmer.

Quote:If you put the blanket on a tailors dummy, which does not generate heat, it will have no effect.

Of course that is because the Dummy and the air temperature are the same.The dummy having no heat does not need a blanket anyway.
Rolleyes

Quote:The dummy will not spontaneously get warmer. That's obvious too!

Your AGW hypothesis seems to say that it can get warmer since it is after all above absolute zero.Put it in a room full of CO2 gas and the dummy will warm up.

Snicker....

Quote:Is using a blanket an accurate model for global warming by greenhouse gases?

Nope,since all the blanket did was to create a buffer zone.Between the body and the air in the room.CO2 gas does not create such a zone at all.

It absorbs in a slender IR band and emits it isotropically.It is all done radiatively.There is conduction going on too when the CO2 molecules collide with other molecules in the atmosphere.

The blanket was being warmed up by Conduction,creating a buffer zone from the body's surface and the air in the room.

CO2 does not create buffer zones.Since it is part of the atmosphere receiving heat from the surface.

Quote:To summarise: Heat from the sun warms the Earth, as heat from your body keeps you warm. The Earth loses heat to space, and your body loses heat to the environment.

Solar radiation from outside the planets atmosphere heats the earths surface,warming it.The body is already being heated internally,since it is a living organism.

The Earths surface loses heat to the ATMOSPHERE,then to space.The atmosphere itself is a buffer zone between the heated surface and the cold of space.

The body loses heat to the BLANKET,creating a buffer zone between the warm surface and the cold room air.Blanket loses heat to the cold room air.

Quote:like a blanket that slows down the rate at which your body loses heat. The result is the same in both cases, the surface of the Earth, or of your body, gets warmer.

Not necessarily.

The body can still be losing heat at the same rate,for a while at least until that nice blanket has been warmed up.But since the surface of the body is no longer being directly exposed to the cold room air.It might not generate as much heat after the blanket has warmed up.

Heat loss then slows down,despite that the body can be generating LESS heat,due to the fact that there is now very little temperature difference between the body's surface and the inner blankets surface.

This Apples to Orange analogy is garbage and why they never understand why their absurd infatuation of a trace gas makes fools out of them.

Quote:So global warming does not violate the second law of thermodynamics.

The body warms up the blanket.From hot to cold.
Blanket does not warm up body.From cold to hot.

The planets surface warms up the lower atmosphere.From hot to cold.
The atmosphere does not warm up the planets surface.From cold to hot.

Pour hot water into cold water.Cold water warms up.But no warmer than the hot water.

Pour cold water into hot water.Hot water cools down.But no cooler than the cold water.

Since the planets surface is warmer than the air.It is a one way flow of heat transfer.

Same with water since it always goes in one direction.

Using a blanket creates a buffer zone between the body and the rooms air.But heat still continues in one direction.From the body,to the blanket,to the air.

ALWAYS transfer heat in one direction.Neither the blanket or the rooms air ever warmed up the body.The body is the sole source of heat.

CO2 does not generate heat.
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


Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Physics World - Lasers in Space re: Climate Questioning_Climate 0 3,603 05-12-2010, 09:21 AM
Last Post: Questioning_Climate



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)