Heat Has No Hair
Among physicists and chemists, well at least the theoretical side of the latter it is well known that electrons have no hair by which is meant that a bunny can't tell one electron from another. This has serious consequences in quantum mechanics because in a multi-electron system you have to allow for each electron to be anywhere any electron is and it gets quite complicated. True, when an atom is ionized you can trace the electron as it is expelled from the atom, but you can't say WHICH electron it was. Same for electron capture. You could identify an atom before it is captured, but once it was captured you can not identify it from any of the others in the atomic system.
The same thing is true of heat. Heat in an object, perhaps better thermal energy, is random motion of atoms and molecules, translation, vibration, whatever. You can say where heat entering an object came from (say radiation from the sun), but if there is more than one source (trivial case) once it is randomized and in the object you can't say where it came from.
Which brings Eli to the evergreen claim of those who deny the greenhouse effect, that radiation is not important compared to convection.
In addition to 161 W/m2 from the sun absorbed at the surface the surface is warmed by 342 W/m2 of IR radiation from the atmosphere. At this point a whole lot of people say, hmm, 104 W/m2 from sensible heat and evaporation, e.g. convection, is bigger than the net 398 - 342 = 56 W/m2 from radiation, so radiation is not such an important process in cooling the surface, more properly removing thermal energy from the surface. A lot of the more, shall Eli say, sky dragonny, or numerically impaired go so far as to say radiation is not important, even though on their own terms it accounts for about a third of the heat leak.
However, that is not the important point. The important point is to realize that surface IR radiation absorbed in the atmosphere is rapidly (10 μs) thermalized and converted into random motion of the molecules in the atmosphere, just as is latent heat from condensation of water vapor and from sensible heat. Very little, less than a part per million, is directly radiated back to the surface and we can neglect that.
The 342 W/m2 of back radiation is OBSERVED, so this ain't a model or a theory, where does it come from? It comes from ALL of the sources pushing heat into the atmosphere, from the convective and radiative heat transfer from the surface.
That being the case the source of the IR backradiation must be allocated by proportion to the amount transferred from the surface. Let's do that as is shown in the second and third lines of the table below
The bunnies can refer to the first table above and read out the amount of flux absorbed in the atmosphere from each source. The next and last line is the proportional flux which warms the atmosphere. By inspection IR radiation from the surface is much larger than the other three, indeed it is about twice as big as the sum of them.
As far as emission to space, 29% directly from reflection from the atmosphere and surface, 12 % directly from thermal IR emission of the surface and 59% comes from IR emission from the atmosphere.
Posts
66 comments:
Three decades of rancorous handwavium debate over evidence for and the physics behind the Radiative Greenhouse House Effect, Green House Gasses and man-caused climate change, aka CAGW.
What a waste - since none of it is real.
That the earth might be 33 C warmer with an atmosphere is based on the difference between two completely unrelated and made up numbers: 288 K, a wild ass guess pulled straight out of the World Meteorological Organization’s butt and 255 K, a theoretical, ideal, benchmark calculation for the “average” 240 W/m^2 Long Wave Infrared Radiation supposedly leaving the top of the atmosphere.
Furthermore, the lunar studies by Nikolov and Kramm clearly conclude that without an atmosphere the earth would be much like the moon, a barren rock with the lit/hot side maybe 390 K, the dark/cold side maybe 150 K, but nothing like 33 C colder.
The LWIR up/down/”back” GHG energy “warming” loop is another theoretical, ideal, benchmark calculation for any surface radiating at 288 K and likewise - not real. A contiguous participating media, i.e. atmospheric molecules, preclude any BB emission from the surface.
No 33 C warmer + No GHG energy loop + No BB radiation = No RGHE & No CO2 warming & No mankind driven climate change.
Am I wrong?
Always possible – as is the case for all of us.
’cause if I’m not wrong three decades of research, “evidence,” publications and billions of green dollars all go straight in the dumpster and the entire trillion dollar global climate change industry is suddenly unemployed.
Nick Schroeder, BSME CU ’78, CO PE 22774
http://www.writerbeat.com/articles/21036-S-B-amp-GHG-amp-LWIR-amp-RGHE-amp-CAGW
http://writerbeat.com/articles/14306-Greenhouse---We-don-t-need-no-stinkin-greenhouse-Warning-science-ahead-
http://writerbeat.com/articles/15582-To-be-33C-or-not-to-be-33C
Yes. Very wrong. It's all backed up by decades of measurements by multiple platforms from top to bottom and in labs and by quantum theory. Don't fight a battle that never even started.
Now some, not Eli to be sure, might point out that backradiation is a measured thing and Ned Nikolov a known nut. But no. If you carefully read Nikolov's first paper there is nothing new there. As a matter of fact Nikolov cites Arthur Smith who went through the same exercise about 2008. Arthur pointed out that his results were not new, but given the blather types like our new pal engaged in
https://arxiv.org/pdf/0802.4324.pdf
"In fact, the standard presentation in climatology textbooks is accurate in all material respects. The following explores in more detail certain points that seem to have been cause for confusion."
The correct statement is that
" Observed parameters for Earth prove that without infrared absorption by the atmosphere, the average temperature of Earth’s surface would be at least 33 K lower than what is observed."
Now how much lower depends on assumptions. For example, rock or water surface, rotating or not rotating, what is the albedo, but the bottom line is one can calculate an effective radiative temperature which, for the earth is 255 K, see eq 9 in Smith
Bottom line is
"the presence of any absorption at all is what qualitatively distinguishes a greenhouse-effect planet from one with a transparent atmosphere, and is what allows surface temperatures to climb above the effective radiative limit."
Nighty.
My very first thought reading Eli's post was that a greenhouse effect denier would apparate. I was not disappointed.
One wonders how, in the 21st century, we still have people refractory to objectivity, logic, fact, and parsimony. But then, given that there are millions of Western people still believe that the Earth is flat, perhaps it's not quite so surprising...
https://www.forbes.com/sites/trevornace/2018/04/04/only-two-thirds-of-american-millennials-believe-the-earth-is-round/#a6171cb7ec66
"...backed up by decades of measurements..."
The Instruments & Measurements
But wait, you say, upwelling LWIR power flux is actually measured.
Well, no it’s not.
IR instruments, e.g. pyrheliometers, radiometers, etc. don’t directly measure power flux. They measure a relative temperature compared to heated/chilled/reference thermistors or thermopiles and INFER a power flux using that comparative temperature and ASSUMING an emissivity of 1.0. The Apogee instrument instruction book actually warns the owner/operator about this potential error noting that ground/surface ε can be less than 1.0.
That this warning went unheeded explains why SURFRAD upwelling LWIR with an assumed and uncorrected ε of 1.0 measures TWICE as much upwelling LWIR as incoming ISR, a rather egregious breach of energy conservation.
This also explains why USCRN data shows that the IR (SUR_TEMP) parallels the 1.5 m air temperature, (T_HR_AVG) and not the actual ground (SOIL_TEMP_5). The actual ground is warmer than the air temperature with few exceptions, contradicting the RGHE notion that the air warms the ground.
You can't remove the atmosphere and keep the 30% albedo.
So, what would the earth be like without an atmosphere?
The average solar constant is 1,368 W/m^2 with an S-B BB temperature of 394 K or 21 C higher than the boiling point of water under sea level atmospheric pressure, which would no longer exist. The oceans would boil away removing the giga-tons of pressure that keeps the molten core in place. The molten core would push through the floor flooding the surface with dark magma changing both emissivity and albedo. With no atmosphere a steady rain of meteorites would pulverize the surface to dust same as the moon. The earth would be much like the moon with a similar albedo (0.12) and large swings in surface temperature from lit to dark sides. No clouds, no vegetation, no snow, no ice a completely different albedo, certainly not the current 30%. No molecules mean no convection, advection, conduction, latent energy and surface absorption/radiation would be anybody’s guess. Whatever the conditions of the earth would be without an atmosphere, it is most certainly NOT 240 W/m^2 and 255 K.
At least now we know that RCP8.5 was not "business as usual", and the "worldwide heat wave" we heard so much about three weeks ago wasnt that bad, it was simply a case of media exaggeration driven by pseudoscience.
288 K – 255 K = 33 C NOT 33 K. 33 K is 33 C above absolute zero. K is the scale, C are the units. Those who actually do science know that, amateurs, pretenders, wanna-bes don’t. Like the difference between vacuum, psia, psig and psid.
.ppt slideshow
https://www.linkedin.com/feed/update/urn:li:activity:6436614669925965824
An accurate and realistic model of how the earth actually heat and cools.
https://www.linkedin.com/feed/update/urn:li:activity:6369927560008212481
SURFRAD & USCRN
https://www.linkedin.com/feed/update/urn:li:activity:6384689028054212608
PSI link
https://www.linkedin.com/feed/update/urn:li:activity:6377566595765583874
Modest experiment – surface cannot radiate BB except into vacuum, 396 W/m^2 upwelling is NOT possible.
https://www.linkedin.com/feed/update/urn:li:activity:6394226874976919552
K-T critique.
https://www.linkedin.com/feed/update/urn:li:activity:6415199314871664641
Ah Eli has uncovered a Stefan Boltzman law denier
It sort of like mercury thermometers don't measure temperature but INFER temperature from a change in volume of the mercury in a bulb when immersed in baths ASSUMED to be a constant and KNOWN (somehow) temperatures.
The second point is the usual, how can the incoming radiation from the sun be less than the circulating radiation. Cavity ringdown spectroscopy (you can look it up) offers a simple example where continuous leakage of a few milliwatts of laser radiation into an cavity builds up over time to a megawatt field. Intracavity power gains of 1E5 are practical.
The point about the interchange between the atmosphere and the surface is that sun light is continuously injected INTO the system. The sun is external and constant, but the leakage OUT of the system depends on the temperature of the atmosphere and the surface. Thermal energy builds up until the leakage rate to space OUT of the system matches the pumping rate INTO the system. The circulating thermal flux between the surface and the atmosphere can, as in cavity ringdown, be much higher (tho not 1E5th) higher than the incoming flux from the sun. Energy Reality is wrong, but thanks for another post.
Albedo of various substances at various temperatures and wavelengths is straightforward to measure in the lab or the field. Given that ER's take on the buildup of thermal energy in the atmosphere is a delusion, Eli will leave it there
Bubby, somehow Eli remembers that the degree unit in Celsius is the same as in Kelvin, so if it's a temperature difference you are interest in there is no difference, and yes, upwelling radiation is measured and folks actually sell and use instruments to do so.
There is a database of emissivities at UCSanta Barbara
https://icess.eri.ucsb.edu/modis/EMIS/html/em.html
what say you go discuss with them your amateur opinion that their work is crap.
Energy reality: You seem to have gotten everything backward. Temperature does not move via photons, energy does. Remote radiometric "temperature" measurements are measurements of energy flow, and the "temperatures" are inferred using lab- and field-measured emissivities. And, yes, air temps are generally below surface skin temps, which is why Eli's thermal transfer numbers give a surface-to-air energy transfer. The atmosphere and surface exchange energy mainly via long-wave IR. which interacts relatively weakly with the thin surface boundary layer (because of it's thinness). You can see an example of this frequently in colder weather when frost can for on surfaces at night due to radiative cooling, even when the air temperature is above freezing.
"Thermal energy builds up until the leakage rate to space OUT of the system matches the pumping rate INTO the system."
aka net albedo Q in (240) = U A dT (240) out just like the insulated walls of a house or blanket on the bed. Pierrehumbert even mentions in 2011 Phys Today paper but overlooked the implications. Radiation is a part, sometimes even minor, of U.
The atmosphere kewls the earth by reflecting away 30% of ISR. Otherwise would be hot like moon. See Kramm U of Alaska.
288 K out of WMOs butt, 255 K theoretical S-B BB calc for 240 W/m^2, i.e. not real and unrelated to w or w/o atmos. delta 33 C warmer total nonsense.
The atmosphere warms the earth relative to ToA per Q = U A dT.
396 W/m^2 upwelling LWIR is not possible: 1) thermodynamics violations & 2) contiguous participating media.
A surface cannot radiate S-B BB except into a vacuum or similar non-participating media. Surface of sun, moon, earth ToA, ISS, spaceman, etc.
Justify/explain S-B BB 396 surface upwelling in light of 1) & 2), nothing else matters. Without the 396 the entire scam unravels.
Eli goes trolling for idiots and hooks a couple. Oh well.
But claiming that heat has no hair is errant nonsense. The original hairless beast of physics is the black hole, and it referred to the fact black holes are completely described by mass, angular momentum, and charge. Electrons, of course, are all alike, so I suppose one could call them hairless too, though identical is an older and more appropriate description.
Heat is quite different, since it is energy transfer, and energy transfer takes diverse forms, which Eli discusses. The beauty of thermodynamics is that in most cases we can ignore those details, which I suppose is what Eli referred to. I don't think it's hopeless pedantic to think that precision of language is still useful in science.
Our engineer makes a number of utterly irrelevant points about what might happen if Earth lost its atmosphere. The fact that they are utterly irrelevant escapes his oblivious gaze. Calling climate science a trillion dollar industry is of course a simple falsehood, borrowed straight from the Trump handbook. Just accuse any opponent of the qualities you recognize in yourself. The real trillion dollar industry is energy extraction.
Meanwhile, Fernando, another energy dude, is cruising through some space of his own imagination, connected to reality by nearly invisible tendrils.
By the way, Nick, the Earth's molten core is kept in place not by the ocean, but by gravity - it's really dense compared to both the ocean and the mantle. Without oceans and their lubricant effects, motion of tectonic plates would likely come to a grinding halt, and with it much volcanism would also halt.
The vast basaltic provinces of the moon were not created by oceans, but by massive impacts way back when the solar system experienced the period of late bombardment.
Your failure to understand the notion of the gedanken experiment of imagining an Earth with identical albedo but no atmosphere has zero to do with understanding climate and global warming.
One more for ER: Why do you imagine that the surface of the Earth doesn't radiate? Why do you imagine that the presence of contiguous media (air) has any relevance? I assure you that you are utterly deluded on both points. Did you really get an ME degree without learning any thermodynamics? That's usually an important part of the curriculum.
As a guy who used to teach ME (just the physics parts), among other things, I feel a bit embarrassed.
@-"Ah Eli has uncovered a Stefan Boltzman law denier"
Well you did ask...
(mazin innit)
Thank you very much. It was getting dull around here.
Gotta admit
"A surface cannot radiate S-B BB except into a vacuum or similar non-participating media. Surface of sun, moon, earth ToA, ISS, spaceman, etc."
is a new one in intelligent photon theory. Usually they say that the smart IR photons from the sky are clever enough not to commit hari-kari on the hotter surface.
ER: Am I wrong?
BPL: Yes, you're about as wrong as wrong can be. You have so many things wrong it would be fatiguing to list them all. I'll just do one: 288 K is the average temperature of the Earth's surface because averaging is a pretty simple procedure, and it wasn't pulled out of the IPCC's anything because that figure has been around at least since 1896. Do the math.
ER: You can't remove the atmosphere and keep the 30% albedo.
BPL: Sure you can. It's called a thought experiment.
Pedantic boy said: 288 K – 255 K = 33 C NOT 33 K. 33 K is 33 C above absolute zero. K is the scale, C are the units. Those who actually do science know that, amateurs, pretenders, wanna-bes don’t. Like the difference between vacuum, psia, psig and psid.
BPL: As a climate scientist and planetary astronomer, I can tell you that kelvins are, in fact, a unit of temperature used in physics and it's perfectly legitimate to say 288 K - 255 K = 33 K.
"You can see an example of this frequently in colder weather when frost can for on surfaces at night due to radiative cooling, even when the air temperature is above freezing."
I was about to post about this very thing, only to see that I'd been gazumped!
I had dinner with some friends last week and walked out in a late southern winter at midnight to find a heavy frost over my car, even though it was about 7-8 C. Peculiarly mine was the only frosted vehicle in the area - it looked as though it was covered with an approximately 5 mm-thick layer of salt. I know how it happened, but I'm curious if others can guess...
ER: 288 K out of WMOs butt
BPL: No matter how many times you say this, it will still be wrong. And offensive.
An earlier reply either didn't post or got snipped. I'll try again.
My contention is that the 396 W/m^2 upwelling LWIR power flux is only a theoretical calculation, inserting 289 K, 16 C, in the S-B equation with an ideal BB emissivity of 1.0. (TFK_bams09)
This 396 W/m^2 power flux has no physical reality because: 1) it violates conservation of energy, 2) the non-radiative heat transfer processes, e.g. conduction, convection, advection, latent evaporation & condensation, of the contiguous participating media, i.e. atmospheric molecules, limits the surface LWIR emissivity to 0.16, 63/396.
In the spirit of R. W. Wood’s 1909 experiment that disputed CO2’s atmospheric role, I have actually demonstrated point 2 in a lab situation.
https://www.linkedin.com/feed/update/urn:li:activity:6394226874976919552
No 396 W/m^2 upwelling means no 333 W/m^2 perpetual GHG energy loop means no RGHE and no CO2 warming and no man caused climate changing.
Now the honorable traditional scientific process is that you 1) explain the origin/physical existence of the 396 W/m^2 upwelling power flux and/or 2) otherwise refute my contention.
No irrelevant side trips into QED etc.
Barton, Eli would guess you had left your reflective heat shield up or you have some sort of a/r coating on the windows.
Copied from another thread.
Well, an admirable piece of work, but I don’t consider the issue that complicated. I perceive the purpose of this and many similar S-B & QED analyses addressing/justifying/”proving” the up/down/”back” GHG LWIR radiation loop. The error in this loop is 3rd grade mathematics, a bank error, a check book error.
Much as I despise the K-T power flux balance, the earth evenly & averagely heated by and suspended in a bucket of warm solar poo - everybody uses it. (TFK_bams09) It’s their own petard upon which I hoist them.
Incoming
1,368 W/m^2 solar irradiation bathes the earth, luminosity divided by spherical area at average orbit.
Averaging this power flux over the earth’s spherical ToA equals 1,368/4=342. The rationale for this eludes me, it is not even close to how energy flows into/out of and the earth heats and cools.
The 30% albedo reflects about 102 leaving 240 to enter the atmosphere.
About 80 is absorbed by the atmosphere leaving 160 to reach the actual surface.
Outgoing
About 17 leaves the surface as convection, about 80 leaves the surface as latent leaving 63 leaving the surface as LWIR (160-17-80). That’s all there is, the surface balance is closed.
Plus 80 from the atmosphere equals 240 leaving ToA and the atmospheric balance is maintained.
The 396 upwelling is a theoretical ideal thought experiment calculation & IT’S NOT REAL!!!! Minus the 63 gives 333 which appears out of absolutely NOWHERE? How can anybody not notice this!!! 396 is an alleged average surface temperature of 289 K inserted in the theoretical S-B BB equation, what ANY surface at 289 K will emit BB.
But the surface CANNOT emit as a BB because of 1) thermodynamic violations and 2) non-radiative processes of the contiguous participating media aka atmospheric molecules as demonstrated in my modest experiment.
The ENTIRE RGHE/CAGW edifice sits on this one ephemeral number.
I say 396 W/m^2 is not real – the entire house of cards collapses.
They have to demonstrate that 396 W/m^2 is real.
And that is all that matters.
ER - You really need to free yourself from one central delusion. Conduction, convection, etc don't directly affect emissivity. The long wave emissivity of most materials on Earth's surface is around 80-90% (.95 -.998 for snow, .9 to .95 for dry plowed ground). The emitters only care about temperature and emissivity.
BPL - Glass and paint are high emissivity, so I suspect that the secret of your frosted pumpkin is that you didn't park under a tree.
ER - You can buy a handheld IR radiometer for 25 bucks. Go out and measure the thermal emissivity of the Earth's surface yourself. All you need is some bare ground, a thermometer and the radiometer. The Black and Decker model has an emissivity adjustment, so all you need to do is adjust the emissivity until the radiometer temperature matches the thermometer temperature on the ground. Of course your results won't be as accurate as the literally millions of measurements made with precision instruments, but if you have any functions brain cells left, you ought to be able to persuade yourself.
"Conduction, convection, etc don't directly affect emissivity."
My modest experiment demonstrates they do.
https://www.linkedin.com/feed/update/urn:li:activity:6394226874976919552
Emissivity & the Heat Balance
Emissivity is defined as the amount of radiative heat leaving a surface to the theoretical maximum or BB radiation at the surface temperature. The heat balance defines what enters and leaves a system, i.e. W/m^2 = radiative + conductive + convective + latent
Emissivity = radiative / W/m^2 = radiative / (radiative + conductive + convective + latent)
In a vacuum (conductive + convective + latent) = 0 and emissivity equals 1.0.
In open air full of molecules other transfer modes reduce radiation’s share and emissivity, e.g.:
conduction = 15%, convection =35%, latent = 30%, radiation & emissivity = 20%
IR instruments use thermopiles which have a temperature/mv relationship. They measure temperature not power flux. Power flux is inferred by assuming emissivity - and when you assume 1.0 you assume wrong.
I've played with IR instruments and during the modest experiment. Never matched the surface contact T/C, readings erratic. Junk instruments.
The Instruments & Measurements
But wait, you say, upwelling LWIR power flux is actually measured.
Well, no it’s not.
IR instruments, e.g. pyrheliometers, radiometers, etc. don’t directly measure power flux. They measure a relative temperature compared to heated/chilled/reference thermistors or thermopiles and INFER a power flux using that comparative temperature and ASSUMING an emissivity of 1.0. The Apogee instrument instruction book actually warns the owner/operator about this potential error noting that ground/surface ε can be less than 1.0.
That this warning went unheeded explains why SURFRAD upwelling LWIR with an assumed and uncorrected ε of 1.0 measures TWICE as much upwelling LWIR as incoming ISR, a rather egregious breach of energy conservation.
This also explains why USCRN data shows that the IR (SUR_TEMP) parallels the 1.5 m air temperature, (T_HR_AVG) and not the actual ground (SOIL_TEMP_5). The actual ground is warmer than the air temperature with few exceptions, contradicting the RGHE notion that the air warms the ground.
ER: the non-radiative heat transfer processes, e.g. conduction, convection, advection, latent evaporation & condensation, of the contiguous participating media, i.e. atmospheric molecules, limits the surface LWIR emissivity to 0.16, 63/396.
BPL: Emissivity is a radiative term and non-radiative heat transfer has nothing to do with it. The emissivity of Earth's surface averages about 0.996.
ER: Averaging this power flux over the earth’s spherical ToA equals 1,368/4=342. The rationale for this eludes me, it is not even close to how energy flows into/out of and the earth heats and cools.
BPL: Area of a circle: pi R^2
Area of a sphere: 4 pi R^2
Divide A by B
ER: Emissivity is defined as the amount of radiative heat leaving a surface to the theoretical maximum or BB radiation at the surface temperature. The heat balance defines what enters and leaves a system, i.e. W/m^2 = radiative + conductive + convective + latent
BPL: Radiative heat leaving a surface. RADIATIVE heat.
"The emissivity of Earth's surface averages about 0.996."
Not possible.
Try this.
https://www.linkedin.com/feed/update/urn:li:activity:6384689028054212608
The non-radiative heat transfer processes of the atmospheric molecules move a significant amount of the heat from surface into the atmosphere. Per K-T 63 out of 160, 39.4%, emissivity of 0.16 = 63/396.
The 396 is a theoretical what if calculation - aka not real.
I have an actual classical style experiment that proves my point.
https://www.linkedin.com/feed/update/urn:li:activity:6394226874976919552
What have you got?
Here's how energy actually leaves and enters.
https://www.linkedin.com/feed/update/urn:li:activity:6369927560008212481
Please Eli, don't pull the plug on EnergyReality--
I can't stand the sound of A Bicycle Built For Two.
Reality is really real.
ER's big mistake is apparent in his first reference. He defines emissivity as:
"Emissivity = radiative / (radiative + conductive + convective + latent)
In a vacuum (conductive + convective + latent) = 0 and emissivity equals 1.0."
No ER guy, emissivity is defined as the ratio of emitted IR EM radiation of a material as compared to that emitted by a black body. That energy transfer does not include conduction, convective or latent energy transfer.
"Emissivity = (radiative actually emitted from surface) / (radiative + conductive + convective + latent), i.e. what surface would emit as a BB, i.e. if it radiated ALL of the input energy."
So what's the issue?
Now, back to the essential question.
396 W/m^2 upwelling is a theoretical calculation and not real.
What have you got? And don't say it's measured because it isn't, that ground's been plowed.
Damn, ER, are you just too lazy to look up the definition of emissivity? A body cooling by conduction, convection and latent heat loss can cool much faster than a black body losing heat only by radiation. Want an example? Your skin is nearly black in the IR (independent of your skin color). Go outside when it's 5 below and the wind is blowing and compare that to how fast your skin cools without the wind.
Never mind - you are obviously too deluded to learn anything and just here to annoy people who know a lot more than than you. Congratulations! Now go back, sit with the other D students, and eat your funny CO candy.
Now, back to the essential question.
396 W/m^2 upwelling is a theoretical calculation and not real.
What have you got? And don't say it's measured because it isn't, that ground's been plowed.
"A body cooling by conduction, convection and latent heat loss can cool much faster than a black body losing heat only by radiation."
And at a lower than BB temperature.
Like the non-BB surface of the earth?
Kind of making my point.
Thanks.
The calculation shows the ground radiates upward at 396 watts per square meter. ER says that doesn't count.
Instruments show the ground radiating at 396 watts per square meter. ER says that doesn't count, either.
Logic doesn't count, and evidence doesn't count. What does that leave? Existential choice? Divine revelation?
ER Wrote: "So what's the issue?".
The issue is your apparent lack of understanding of fundamentals of physics and engineering. Heat transfer is a well known subject of mechanical engineering and you're failure to face the factual, well documented evidence tells everyone that you are either an idiot or a Russian troll pretending to be a real person. Your so-called experiment on Linkedin lacks any evidence of understanding or experience with experimental work as there's no description of the setup of your apparatus or the method of it's operation.
If you really are (were?) a PE, your massive errors would be considered malpractice and you could find that your employment would vanish.
CIP said that non-radiative processes move a bunch of energy.
Ah yup!!!!
So radiation cannot move it all a second time like the 396 in the K-T diagram.
Now, back to the essential question.
396 W/m^2 upwelling is a theoretical calculation and not real.
What have you got? And don't say it's measured because it isn't, that ground's been plowed.
Mooch-o fulminating rant & ad hominem,
GOT SCIENCE!!!!!
BPL
Was that your CV online?
You have a place at this table?
HOW!!!!
One sign of insanity is persistent delusions that are immune to fact and logic - so we have a diagnosis for ER. A problem with dealing with the insane is that it can tend to drive you a bit nuts yourself - which may account for this idea I have that while artificial intelligence has been growing apace, perhaps the energy industry has been developing and deploying artificial stupidity on a massive scale. Such bots infest the internet. More bothersome is the fact that some seem to have become Congressmen, Senators, Prime Ministers and Presidents.
Energy Reality says that once energy is moved it cannot be moved a second time. Eli tried that line on Ms. Rabett about the couch. It did not work.
Now, back to the essential question.
396 W/m^2 upwelling is a theoretical calculation and not real.
What have you got?
@-nick
"396 W/m^2 upwelling is a theoretical calculation and not real.
What have you got?"
Direct measurement of the longwave downward radiation by the Baseline Surface Radiation Network. Here is one example.
https://www.umr-cnrm.fr/concordiasi/IMG/pdf_7-1_busetto_bsrn_toulouse.pdf
Of course it is using state-of-the-art energy flux instruments which while perfectly utile, you reject as inherently wrong because the S-B calculation is wrong.
Despite the fact it is derivable from basic quantum mech via Planck constant.
ER said to me: You have a place at this table?
HOW!!!!
BPL: Because I have a degree in physics and have published articles on the surface temperatures of planets. How did you get a place at the table, ER? By being an annoying pseudoscience troll?
Now, back to the essential question.
Me
396 W/m^2 upwelling is a theoretical calculation and not real.
You
What explanation for the physics and origin of the 396 W/m^2 upwelling and up/down/"back" 333 W/m^2 loop have you got?
Note the subject (ER) perseverates in talking about upwelling radiation he thinks can't be measured, despite all the evidence to the contrary. This suggests that either he isn't really a degreed ME or is so far gone in his psychosis that anything he learned about the theory of measurement has been forgotten.
Note for the curious: how do you tell that an infrared (or other radiometer) is really measuring radiation and not ambient air temperature. Put it in a vacuum and point at various temperature black bodies in the environment so only radiation can excite it. Put it in the air and notice the difference when point at a hot or cold black body or just into empty air. Next place flat IR absorbing plate (like window glass) between the black body and the source while allowing the air to circulate.
These experiments, versions of which were first performed 218 years ago by astronomer William Herschel, demonstrate clearly that what bolometers and radiometers are detecting and measuring is radiation.
Conclusion: ER is either (a) nuts, or (b) dumb as a rock, or (c) here merely to annoy us.
PS - BPL owes us his explanation of the frosted pumpkin.
I vote for b.
CIP, the radiometers in vacuum are well thought of.
Why was Barton's car frosty?
I suspect that the BPL mobile was the only one not parked under a tree.
My Prius last winter, half way under carport, frosty in the rear and no frost up front in the moring. Tried to explain why to my grand daughter, 7. Bemused, she said that the cat would not sleep on the frosty end.
Elegant solution Fixed Carbon. A tip o the ears.
It wasn't my car. That was somebody else's post.
Have two blocks, one atop the other. The top one is space, the bottom one is the ground. No atmosphere.
240 watts per square meter comes out of space and hits the ground, which has perfect emissivity. The ground radiates 240 watts per square meter right back up, but not down since the ground is thick and is a good insulator. The temperature of the ground, inverting the Stefan-Boltzmann law, is 255 K.
Now add a third block in between--this is the atmosphere. The radiation from space is shortwave. The radiation from the ground is longwave. The atmosphere passes all shortwave but absorbs all longwave. So it absorbs the 2409 Watts per square meter from the ground.
The air, too, radiates. But unlike the ground, it radiates both up and down. 120 watts per square meter in each direction, longwave. Things are now out of balance. Only 120 watts per square meter is getting out to space. And the ground is now receiving 240 from the sun and 120 from the air, or 360 altogether. Clearly, the ground has to heat up--which heats the atmosphere up--which restores the space balance sheet closer to balance.
Things are in equilibrium again when there is as much coming in from space (240) as there is going out from the atmsophere (also 240). That means the atmosphere is at 255 K, radiating 240 W/m2 up and 240 W/m2 down. The Earth is getting 240 W/m2 from space and 240 W/m2 from the air, for a total of 480 W/m2. Inverting Stefan-Boltzmann, it's at a temperature of 303 K. That's the greenhouse effect.
You get a more realistic picture, as in Eli's tables, when you account for convection and so on as well.
@BPL Just to be pedantic - the ground does radiate down (and sideways) too, but that radiation doesn't get far before its absorbed by the very high absorptivity ground below it.
@BPL - Oh right.
@Bernard J. - You are up.
Looks like this a well researched area (e. g. 342 and 398 W/m^2 LWR measurements) ...
The global energy balance from a surface perspective
http://doc.rero.ch/record/321020/files/382_2012_Article_1569.pdf
Surface Irradiances Consistent with CERES-Derived Top-of-Atmosphere Shortwave and Longwave Irradiances
https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/JCLI-D-12-00436.1
The energy balance over land and oceans: an assessment based on direct observations and CMIP5 climate models
https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007%2Fs00382-014-2430-z.pdf
The Global Energy Balance Archive (GEBA) version 2017: a database for worldwide measured surface energy fluxes
https://www.earth-syst-sci-data.net/9/601/2017/essd-9-601-2017.pdf
Baseline Surface Radiation Network (BSRN): structure and data description (1992–2017)
https://www.earth-syst-sci-data.net/10/1491/2018/essd-10-1491-2018.pdf
A New Radiative Model Derived from Solar Insolation, Albedo, and Bulk Atmospheric Emissivity: Application to Earth and Other Planets (not to be confused with Ned Nikolov's way beyond total crapatola)
http://www.mdpi.com/2225-1154/6/2/52/pdf
The cloud-free global energy balance and inferred cloud radiative effects: an assessment based on direct observations and climate models (2018)
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs00382-018-4413-y
https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007%2Fs00382-018-4413-y.pdf
So there are direct LWR flux measurements at the surface, looking up and looking down, and at the same times even.
I think someone here has a basic problem with conservation laws as used in models.
I fear one of Eli's young relatives has been skyjacked -
https://vvattsupwiththat.blogspot.com/2018/09/at-least-he-didnt-bill-congress-for-its.html
And just to make Life a little bit more interesting ...
M. Henry, T. Merlis, "The role of the nonlinearity of the Stefan-Boltzmann law on the structure of 2 radiatively forced temperature change", Journal of Climate, appeared online 2018, published in January 2019 issue.
Abstract
The Stefan–Boltzmann law governs the temperature dependence of the blackbody emission of radiation: E = \sigma T^{4}. A consequence of this nonlinearity is that a cold object needs a greater increase in temperature than a hot object in order to reach the same increase in radiation emitted. Therefore, this nonlinearity potentially has an impact on the structure of radiatively forced atmospheric temperature change in both the horizontal and vertical directions. For example, it has previously been argued to be a cause of polar amplification (PA) of surface air warming. Here, the role of this nonlinearity is investigated by 1) assessing the magnitude of its effect on PA compared to spatial variations in CO2’s radiative forcing for Earth’s atmosphere and 2) linearizing \sigma T^{4} in a gray radiation atmospheric general circulation model (GCM) with an interactive hydrological cycle. Estimates for Earth’s atmosphere show that the combination of the Planck feedback and forcing from CO2 would produce a tropically amplified warming if they were the only means of changing the Earth’s energy balance. Contrary to expectations, climate change simulations with linearized radiation do not have reduced polar amplification of surface air warming relative to the standard GCM configuration. However, simulations with linearized radiation consistently show less warming in the upper troposphere and more warming in the lower troposphere across latitudes. The lapse rate feedbacks from pure radiative and radiative–convective configurations of the model are used to show that the “cold-altitudes-warm-more” effect of the \sigma T^{4} nonlinearity carries across this model hierarchy.
Post a Comment