Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
The Greenhouse Effect - A Few Cracked Panes
#21
Thank you for the considered replies, they are greatly appreciated.
I will reread them and consider my response.

I am also always happy to learn and consider new. Smile

You may be interested in a couple of new additions to the Alan Siddons archive I have added over the last day or so.
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
#22
(06-29-2010, 03:43 AM)Richard111 Wrote: If you look at graphs for two identical objects at different temperatures you will note the hotter object will have a higher line than the cooler even though the shapes of the graphs are similar. The "area under the graph" defines the level of energy for each object. In effect there are many more photons being emitted from the hotter object than the cooler, remember this varies as to the fourth power of the temperature, so just a few degrees makes a big difference. "Net" radiation will defines the energy exchange between the two objects.
The "area under the graph" is what many climate scientists ignore, just concentrating on the height of the line. A look at the sun spectrum shows that the "area under the graph" is greater for all IR than the rest. A combined absorption curve matched against the spectrum curve shows a not inconsiderable absorption of short-wave IR by GHGs, leaving plenty to reach the surface. There's a fair bit of long-wave IR in the spectrum too, and as we all know GHGs absorb most of that. Too much of the science is "cherry-picked" to suit the warmist argument. On the Re-radiation thread I said
Quote:For example, the absorption by nitrogen is around 3000 time less than CO2, but it's 2000 times more abundant in the atmosphere, so it's effect is around 2/3 that of CO2. Oxygen IS included in the climate models, yet nitrogen is not.
Ernest Rutherford: "If your experiment needs statistics, you ought to have done a better experiment."
Reply
#23
Don't most Greenhouses have more than just glass across their ceilings?

Don't they also have glass walls on all sides?

Does not this effectively isolate the atmosphere inside the greenhouse from the surrounding atmosphere?

The mixing winds and the precipitation in the area do not affect the inside of the greenhouse, for example.

I agree - using the term "Greenhouse Effect" is not only simply wrong but somewhat deliberately misleading.


Re: "back radiation" - just using CO2 as an example, does not the CO2 absorb some of the incoming radiation and then re-radiate it in all directions? How much of CO2 absorption capability is used up through this process? How much of CO2's capability is left to be considered in the reflected radiation going back out? How much does the mixing winds and precipitation affect this?

Even so, with CO2 being such a small part of the overall atmosphere, is any of this really of significance?


I don't need to "do the math", in fact I don't have the knowledge to do so, but I can think logically and this entire concept doesn't set well logically, at least not from what I've seen.

CO2, it would seem, actually blocks more radiation from reaching the earth's surface than it does "capture" and "re-radiates" it toward the earth's surface.

Am I wrong?
I know you think you understand what you thought I said,
but I'm not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant!


Reply
#24
(06-29-2010, 06:48 AM)JohnWho Wrote: Re: "back radiation" - just using CO2 as an example, does not the CO2 absorb some of the incoming radiation and then re-radiate it in all directions? How much of CO2 absorption capability is used up through this process? How much of CO2's capability is left to be considered in the reflected radiation going back out? How much does the mixing winds and precipitation affect this?
That's the point I was making - CO2 and the other GHGs absorb a significant portion of IR at all frequencies in sunlight. The upper atmosphere absorbs most of the UV from the sun, and whether it's quickly re-radiated as OLR or involved in O2/O3 (oxygen/ozone) reactions it results in warming. All of these effects are largely ignored, thought they're very significant.
Quote:Even so, with CO2 being such a small part of the overall atmosphere, is any of this really of significance?
Agreed, it is. Considering only CO2 in isolation is simply "following the agenda", which is to prove AGW.
Quote:I don't need to "do the math", in fact I don't have the knowledge to do so, but I can think logically and this entire concept doesn't set well logically, at least not from what I've seen.
Indeed - however powerful a GHG CO2 is, it is at least 50 times less abundant than water vapour, which is many (10 times?) more absorptive than CO2. Yet it's omitted entirely from many tables of "greenhouse gases".
Quote:CO2, it would seem, actually blocks more radiation from reaching the earth's surface than it does "capture" and "re-radiates" it toward the earth's surface.

Am I wrong?
I don't know whether it's more or less, but it's a significant part of the picture, and the absorption of incoming radiation by ALL GHGs shouldn't be ignored.
Ernest Rutherford: "If your experiment needs statistics, you ought to have done a better experiment."
Reply
#25
How much incoming, or outgoing IR radiation is turned into sensible heat in (liquid) water in the atmosphere,
and then moved vertically within the atmosphere. ?

How much cold is rained down, which if omitted as it is, must be misinterpretted as
not recieved at the surface incoming radiation. ?

AND of course there is also Brego's point regarding liquid water emitting 15 micron band IR in the atmosphere. ?
That must also confuse the "measurements", or rather quesstimates of the amounts of IR radiated supposedly by CO2, particularly at certain altitudes within the atmosphere.
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
#26
Yup- dihydrogen monoxide is largely ignored, as is everything else that's not convenient for the hypothesis. Clouds don't only reflect energy back out, they absorb IR both from the sun and from the surface, not a great deal, to be sure, but what use are energy budgets and models if they don't include everything known?

BTW - dihydrogen monoxide is deadly - it kills millions of people and animals every year. Unfortunately it's everywhere - we just can't protect ourselves against it. Chemical formula is H2O.
Ernest Rutherford: "If your experiment needs statistics, you ought to have done a better experiment."
Reply
#27
(06-29-2010, 06:12 PM)MostlyHarmless Wrote: BTW - dihydrogen monoxide is deadly - it kills millions of people and animals every year. Unfortunately it's everywhere - we just can't protect ourselves against it. Chemical formula is H2O.

Yeah, it's really deadly stuff in the wrong concentration, or situation.
We should see how many we could get to sign a petition NOW,
oh, it's already been done.......
Penn and Teller. Big GrinBig Grin
The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed
(and hence clamorous to be led to safety)
by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.

H. L. Mencken.  

The hobgoblins have to be imaginary so that
"they" can offer their solutions, not THE solutions.
Reply
#28
(06-29-2010, 03:18 AM)MostlyHarmless Wrote: Your analogy is not entirely wrong at all. What you may be confusing is energy flow and energy content. Consider that voltage is analogous to temperature and energy flow to current. The difference between the electrical circuit and bodies emitting radiation is that current is proportional to voltage difference; radiation is proportional to the fourth power of the absolute temperature of the body. Bear in mind that voltage is not an absolute quantity, but is the difference in potential between two points in a circuit. There's no "opposing flow" in circuits or fluids in pipes, but there's opposing potential or pressure. Connecting two batteries in parallel is (crudely) analogous to placing two identical hotter bodies adjacent to a cooler one. The temperature difference is the same, but the heat flow to the cooler body will initially be doubled. The basis for radiation theory is quantum theory, which I understand the finer points of as someone standing on a beach understands the ocean.

I would refer readers back to my description of the different (possible) views of radiation in post 16,
namely,
" Please excuse my "persistence" but this is a major "sticking point" for me,
and I think it might help if I try to explain why.
Two objects, one hotter than the other. You use 100 and 90 so I will stick with these figures.
IF radiation is all positive, then if your previous description holds, in that,
energy from the hotter body (100) has left that body - it therefore cools down.
The smaller amount of energy from the cooler body (90) cannot fully replace that lost energy; it just slows the rate of cooling.

ie, -100 +90 = net -10
On it's own the hotter object would cool at a faster rate of -100 = net -100

Or,
IF radiation is relatively absorbed then the cooler recieved radiation by the hotter object will cool the hotter body faster.
ie, The surface of the object is 100 and it absorbs radiation at 90, so cooling it (not replacing lost energy) by a difference of -10.
This must be added to the -100, so the object cools at -100 and -10 = net -110.
On it's own the hotter object would cool relatively slower to the two object example.
ie, net -100

I realise mine is a "heat flow" point of view, as if mixing bodies of water at different temperatures,
or, an "electrical viewpoint", adding wires of the same voltage does not increase the voltage, it increases the amperage,
but in my everyday life these seem a more realistic view point.
Hence I ask (politely) for the experiments that show this view point (heat / water / electricity) is not correct for radiation.

Richard111 also kindly replied, in part as below in post 20,
(06-29-2010, 03:43 AM)Richard111 Wrote: If you look at graphs for two identical objects at different temperatures you will note the hotter object will have a higher line than the cooler even though the shapes of the graphs are similar.
The "area under the graph" defines the level of energy for each object.
In effect there are many more photons being emitted from the hotter object than the cooler,
remember this varies as to the fourth power of the temperature, so just a few degrees makes a big difference.
"Net" radiation will defines the energy exchange between the two objects.

This is my understanding of how it works.

BUT, I have never read a peer reviewed paper that explains this in detail,
my information is aquired from comments on blogs and I make a value judgement and
choose what I think makes most sense given my current level of understanding.

Always happy to learn new. Smile

As of yet it would seem to me that the discussion stances remain both unproven, and not disproven.
So I repeat my invitation to Mostly harmless for the long done experiments he mentioned that prove, or disprove one way or the other either stance.
If the way I am interpretating the Mostly harmless quote I have used is slightly out of context then I do apologise, but
given it is a matter of such central importance, I hope this is "allowable", because I am not aware of any such experiments.
If there is relevant decisive peer reviewed literature then that would be appreciated as well.

(06-27-2010, 02:02 AM)Derek Wrote: I suppose the answer is simple really, does a hotter object cool at a different rate with the presence of a cooler object as compared to the presence of no other object.
Such a simple experiment, but I am not aware if it has been done.
(06-27-2010, 03:40 AM)MostlyHarmless Wrote: Of course those experiments have been done, they were the basis for the Stefan-Boltzmann law among others.

Finally I would add that I tend to "look" at these examples from a "objects surface" point of view.
If I understand correctly then, solids emit not because of chemical bonds changing, but becuase of "vibrations" of the molecules and hence collisions.
Fluids internally behave somewhat similar, but at their surfaces can exhibit "chemical bond" IR peaks of emission rather than temperature dependent peaks (ie, solids).
Gases can emit temperature dependent frequencies, but prefer to emit chemical bond change frequency emissions, ie, distinct peaks seemingly independent of temperature.

The (solid) objects surface is at a certain temperature, or energy level if you prefer, I think of it as colour (red for hot, blue for cooler - as if using paint, not light frequencies).
The object emits at all frequencies, but effectively it is a Planck curve, with a peak emission frequency.
The peak emission frequency IS used to measure the temperature of objects, ie, stars.
The hotter the object the bigger the curve, and the higher the peak frequency of emission.
The further away from the object, the less IR is recieved by another object because of the dilution of an ever expanding circle when emitting at 360 x 360 degrees of any object.

So, intuitively (from a heat flow point of view) I tend to imagine, that,
the object has a red surface colour, and incoming (cooler) IR is blue,
on absorbtion the objects surface becomes purple (red for hot, blue for cooler, purple somewhere inbetween - as if using paint, not light frequencies).
Conversely, if the object is recieving hotter source IR, I imagine this as yellow, and the recieving objects surface (which is red) becomes somewhat orange in colour, again using the paint colour analogy.
ie, IR is relatively absorbed, the net effect being somewhere inbetween the two objects temperatures, or (peak) radiation frequency or energy levels of emission.

Yes, objects emisions can be described in W/m2, and yes, this is a figure that is always positive compared to absolute zero, in other words nought.
But what does that mean for how the emission is absorbed by another object, not a lot really.
That however seems to be (to me at least) the basis for considering "all radiation is positive",
by (possibly unwittingly) always comparing radiation flows and intensities to absolute zero (ie, zero W/m2) which,
I am not sure actually exists anywhere in the first place..
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
#29
Thank you Richard111 for sending me this link.
It may help more to actually consider the point of view that IR radiation is absorbed relatively, AND WHY..

Why a Cold Body Cannot Heat a Warm Body.
Claes Johnson blog 12 July 2010.
Professor of applied mathematics
at the Royal Institute of Technology in Stockholm, Sweden.


Excerpt,
" Because in transfer from warm to cold, high precision/energy/frequency waves are transformed to low precision/energy/frequency waves.
In short, high precision can transformed by itself (with low precision) to low precision.


On the other hand, transfer from cold to warm, would require low precision to be transformed into high precision, and
that is only possible by exterior (high precision) intervention.
"

I prefer my usual "visualisation" (or similie) of mixing red paint and blue paint you get purple paint,
but Professor Claes Johnson gets his point across very well.
The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed
(and hence clamorous to be led to safety)
by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.

H. L. Mencken.  

The hobgoblins have to be imaginary so that
"they" can offer their solutions, not THE solutions.
Reply
#30
(07-13-2010, 05:18 AM)Derek Wrote: Why a Cold Body Cannot Heat a Warm Body

Who has claimed that it can?
Ernest Rutherford: "If your experiment needs statistics, you ought to have done a better experiment."
Reply
#31
(07-13-2010, 06:19 AM)MostlyHarmless Wrote:
(07-13-2010, 05:18 AM)Derek Wrote: Why a Cold Body Cannot Heat a Warm Body

Who has claimed that it can?

Firstly, if I wanted to be pedantic, I did not write the quote above you attribute to me,
it is the blog post title that the link links to.
ie,
Why a Cold Body Cannot Heat a Warm Body.
Claes Johnson blog 12 July 2010.
Professor of applied mathematics
at the Royal Institute of Technology in Stockholm, Sweden.


To answer your "question" in spirit, AGW - period, does say, and imply it at every conceivable opportunity however.
"It" being that it is "accepted" a colder body can warm a warmer body.
ie, Colder clouds warm the warmer earth's surface via back radiation supposedly
- in this case it is the same as adding energy to the earth's surface.
That as you are well aware is the point of the post linked to, is all radiation positive, or relatively absorbed.
IR radiation is shown to be relatively absorbed,
infact it is shown to be physically impossible to be absorbed as all positive, which I realise you will find very upsetting.
Possibly even ungraspable to your understanding / knowledge / view point.

I can not decide if that is a crass, or just a stupid comment on your part.
Maybe it is just a plain and simple attempt at deflection.
Nor do I think for a mere second that you do not understand very well what is being said, why, and explained.
You have already not answered several (very relevant to this subject) questions on this forum directly put to you.

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

H. L. Mencken.  

The hobgoblins have to be imaginary so that
"they" can offer their solutions, not THE solutions.
Reply
#32
Keep your shirt on - I was just asking a civil question. I've read all the posts on Claes Johnson's site going back several months. I disagree with little he says there. (and don't know enough maths to agree or disagree with a lot of it).

A cold body cannot heat a warmer body, that would violate the second law of thermodynamics. It needs no proof.

Which questions haven't I answered? I'm not aware of any. Why the veiled attack? Is there something going on I'm not aware of. I've always taken part here in the spirit of this forum, civil, friendly and open debate. What's caused this?
Ernest Rutherford: "If your experiment needs statistics, you ought to have done a better experiment."
Reply
#33
MH,

The AGW believers have in the past made it clear they believe that back-radiation adds to the surface temperature.

The K/T chart implies it too.They show the back-radiation arrow go all the way back to the surface.

Quote:A cold body cannot heat a warmer body, that would violate the second law of thermodynamics. It needs no proof.

I am glad that you made this statement.

Smile
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
#34
(07-13-2010, 07:32 AM)MostlyHarmless Wrote: A cold body cannot heat a warmer body, that would violate the second law of thermodynamics. It needs no proof.

http://www.globalwarmingskeptics.info/fo...d-800.html
Post 4
(07-08-2010, 01:26 AM)MostlyHarmless Wrote: Because both hot and cooler bodies radiate. That from the cooler body replaces some of the energy lost by the hotter body.
The net energy flow is the difference between the two fluxes. This is fundamental to understanding heat flow.
I've elaborated on this elsewhere. Those who seek to "prove" that a cooler body has no effect whatsoever on a nearby hotter body are ignoring basic radiation theory.

Also, in Post 19 of this thread.
(06-29-2010, 03:18 AM)MostlyHarmless Wrote:
Derek Wrote:Or,
IF radiation is relatively absorbed then the cooler recieved radiation by the hotter object will cool the hotter body faster.
ie, The surface of the object is 100 and it absorbs radiation at 90, so cooling it (not replacing lost energy) by a difference of -10.
This must be added to the -100, so the object cools at -100 and -10 = net -110.
On it's own the hotter object would cool relatively slower to the two object example.
ie, net -100
You're losing me - the hotter body is at some unspecified temperature. In a given time, it loses 100 units, and gains 90 units from the cooler body, net loss 100-90 = 10. Conversely the cooler body loses 90 units and gains 100, net gain 10.

When these quotes are taken in the context of your reply to my post 29 in this thread, linking to
Why a Cold Body Cannot Heat a Warm Body.
Claes Johnson blog 12 July 2010.
Professor of applied mathematics
at the Royal Institute of Technology in Stockholm, Sweden.


Which you seemingly "dealt with" in post 32 - whilst entirely missing the main points of Professor Claes Johnson's blog posts.....
(07-13-2010, 07:32 AM)MostlyHarmless Wrote: I've read all the posts on Claes Johnson's site going back several months. I disagree with little he says there.
(and don't know enough maths to agree or disagree with a lot of it).

I think the reason for my apparent fustration is clear, you do not seem to be considering, or discussing in the spirit you suggest you are.
There appears to be on your part an adherance to an "all radiation is positive" viewpoint,
that is seemingly bordering on denial of any other expressed or (however simply) described viewpoint.
Particularly the "You're losing me" comment in the third quote above.

ie, You do not appear to be considering that a "relativley absorbed" viewpoint for IR radiation is making more, and more sense,
whilst the "all positive" viewpoint is loosing / has lost credibility.
AND,
If I have missed a relevant post, then my apologies to you, but you have stated there are long done experiments proving "all radiation is positive".
I have asked you (earlier in this thread) to give these examples you state have been done a long time ago,
but as far as I'm aware you have not to date.
Given the central importance of the issue, then please excuse my "impatience", and "fustration".
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
#35
This seems to be a rather circular discussion so I'll add a little push to the wheel. Smile

The temperature of the atmosphere above the surface is cooler, at higher altitude very much cooler, yet AGW theory claims the ghgs in the cooler air warm that same surface. They even quote a "forcing" for it.

Yes, many people out there claim cooler is warmin up hotter.

Now consider this: there is about 6kg of CO2 in the atmosphere over every square meter of the planet. If that one square meter column of air is over water this mass of CO2 in the air will be the same mass as 6mm of water. Given the heat capacity between water and gas I see no contest. But if anyone can explain how 6kg of quite cold gas can heat up 6kg of warmish water by any amount I will be very interested.
Environmentalism is based on lies and the lies reflect an agenda that regards humanity as the enemy of the Earth. - Alan Caruba
Reply
#36
Interesting article at http://www.icecap.us:

Jul 17, 2010
Miskolczi destroys greenhouse theory

By Kirk Myers

Quick sumary:

Dr. Miskolczi has calculated the "global average infrared absorption" of the atmosphere using current data and data from 61 years ago - no models - just real empirical data. This figure measures the ability of the atmosphere to absorb infrared radiation. He has shown that in spite of increases in atmospheric CO2 over that time frame, the global average infrared absorption has remained stable. Bye-bye greenhouse. Another nail in the coffin of AGW?
Reply
#37
He seems to state that "the global average infrared absorption has remained stable",therefore any additional CO2 in the atmosphere could not be the cause of any warming in last 61 years.

It has not increased it's absorptive ability.Thus the additional CO2 has never been involved in promoting warming.

This is why AGW believers hate him so much.
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
#38
Having read the comment below at GREENIE WATCH, I had to go back to WUWT and look at the picture of the hockey stick and low and behold the temperature increase over the last 1,000 years as shown just barely tops 1 degree Kelvin.

Quote:Saturday, August 28, 2010
Illogical causal attribution

An email from a reader. He shows what happens when you are consistent and use ratio scales (i.e. scales with a meaningful rather than an arbitrary zero) to evaluate both temperature and CO2 levels

Roosters crowing causes the Sun to come up.

'Tis claimed that there being more CO2 in the atmosphere has 'caused' global warming.

'Cause and Effect' presumes some sort of direct association.

Since about 1870 CO2 has increased from 290ppm to about 390ppm, that is a 33% increase.

Since 1870 the world's average temperature(estimated) has increased from about 13 C to 14 C.

13 C = 286 K
14 C = 287 K.

1K is an increase of about 1/2 of 1%.

A 33% increase in CO2 causing a 1/2 of 1% increase in temperature seems a RATHER WEAK association to use to claim 'causality'!!

( Using degrees Kelvin gives one a total increase, using Celsius or Fahrenheit only gives the increase in above 0 degrees.)

So, just what the hell is the fuss all about?

Environmentalism is based on lies and the lies reflect an agenda that regards humanity as the enemy of the Earth. - Alan Caruba
Reply


Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  New paper supports Miskolczi's theory of saturated greenhouse effect Sunsettommy 0 3,324 02-07-2012, 04:32 PM
Last Post: Sunsettommy
  The fallacy of the Greenhouse Effect 2 Sunsettommy 0 3,224 10-03-2011, 08:55 AM
Last Post: Sunsettommy
  Outgoing Longwave Radiation and the Greenhouse Effect: Ken Gregory Sunsettommy 1 7,363 07-03-2011, 12:58 PM
Last Post: Inconvenient_Skeptic
  The Fallacy of the Greenhouse Effect Sunsettommy 1 4,111 10-19-2010, 05:31 AM
Last Post: Richard111
  The Greenhouse Effect - Destroying your own argument MostlyHarmless 7 11,183 07-19-2010, 03:16 AM
Last Post: Climate Realist
  Greenhouse effect on our moon? Questioning_Climate 20 22,315 05-28-2010, 06:49 AM
Last Post: Derek
  Venus - not a run away greenhouse effect. Derek 0 5,952 02-23-2010, 12:52 PM
Last Post: Derek
  There is NO greenhouse effect. ! Derek 45 48,326 01-31-2010, 07:42 AM
Last Post: JohnWho



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)