Tuesday, March 28, 2017

Gravity, the Greenhouse Effect and Surface Temperature


When Eli last left the bunnies, he was pointing out how gravity explains much of the greenhouse effect, well, except for the part that you need some things in the atmosphere that absorb IR radiation from the surface.
The first is the lapse rate, the decline of temperature with altitude in the troposphere.  There are plenty of detailed derivations of the dry lapse rate on the net and a bunny can even throw in some water vapor, but the basic principle is that the atmosphere is for all thermodynamic purposes an ideal gas, and the temperature decreases with pressure, and pressure decreases with altitude because of gravity. 
The second is the decrease in density with altitude, again because pressure decreases with altitude because of gravity.  The higher you go the less stuff 
Both of these effects explain why radiative energy transfer from the ground to space slows, the higher greenhouse gas concentrations are.  
In a shortly following post the Rabett quoted pretty much the same from J.S. Sawyer, written in 1972
The chief effect of increasing carbon dioxide is that the gas which is radiating heat to space is found at a higher level in the atmosphere than before - the radiation from lower down in the atmosphere is absorbed by the extra carbon dioxide above and then reradiated to space.  In the troposphere, at least, temperature decreases with height so the effective radiating temperature of the carbon dioxide becomes lower if the amount of the gas is increased and therefore less heat is radiated to space.  Thus the additional carbon dioxide tends to act as a blanket which keeps the Earth warmer - the Earth has to get rid of the incoming radiation from the Sun, and the same amount can only be removed if the temperature of the atmosphere rises a little.
But, to be honest there was some handwaving there, namely the mechanism for heating the surface when the radiating layer moved up.  Ferren in a comment provided the link.  As shown in the figure, when the radiating level moves up because the CO2 mixing ratio increases, since the lapse rate (the slope) stays constant, the surface temperature increases and, of course, the reason the lapse rate stays constant is that it is fixed by gravity.


Anybunny who wants to deny that the greenhouse effect exists or that increasing greenhouse gas concentrations will not warm the surface is denying the law of gravity, which is pretty basic.  Given that humidity increases with temperature, they are also going to have to deny a fair bit of thermodynamics to claim that the concentration of water vapor in the atmosphere will not occur.

98 comments:

  1. "the mechanism for heating the surface when the radiating layer moved up"

    I think there are other ways of seeing it too. One is that, conversely, the downward radiating level moves down. So DWLWIR comes from warmer levels, so there is more of it.

    On the rise of radiating level, that assumes that the amount radiated by GHGs at that level stays constant, so the new radiating level temperature must rise, and this is propagated down by lapse rate. But what if the temperature there doesn't rise. That means that less power is radiated in GHG wavelengths, and I think that happens. That means that more has to be radiated in other bands, including the atmospheric window. That requires warmer surface.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Im not sure you can say the layer that's radiating into space is at a higher level. I see it as a mix of photons which depart from all levels, the lower levels warm up, the higher levels cool down, thus the lower levels emit more energy but contribute less photons to the total number escaping to outer space, while the upper levels cool down and emit lower energy photons, which happen to be a larger fraction of the overall photon population that escapes into the vacuum. Thus if you point a thermometer at earth you may see a teensy difference in the temperature it measures, equivalent to a reduction of about 0.5 watts per m2 versus say 1950. Did I get it right?

    ReplyDelete
  3. Nick's is an interesting POV which relates to the surface touching shift.

    FL is wrong in an understandable way. The energy of the individual emitted photons is set by the vibrational frequency which is the same at all altitudes, their number is decreased by the lower temperature.

    Anyhow, it's all gravity

    ReplyDelete
  4. FL is wrong in an understandable way. The energy of the individual emitted photons is set by the vibrational frequency which is the same at all altitudes, their number is decreased by the lower temperature.

    Thanks Eli. I was wondering about that.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Things should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler -- attribute to Einstein.

    I thinks Eli's explanation is both too simple and not simple enough. From the simplest point of view, gravity is almost irrelevant. Increasing the infrared opacity of the atmosphere means that a greater temperature differential between surface and last radiating altitude is needed to drive the same thermal output.

    Once you get into talking about gravity, then the question of what defines the top of the troposphere comes into play, and there two effects compete: decreasing opacity permits radiative transport to dominate convective and UV absorption warms the stratosphere. From there things get complicated.

    But opacity is the most fundamental construct, not gravity.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Let me just add. Suppose there were no gravity and that the atmosphere was instead held to Earth by a perfectly transparent sphere surrounding it. In that case, the greenhouse effect would be very similar, with more CO2 and water vapor increasing the surface temperature.

    ReplyDelete
  7. a) there is no crystal sphere and b) since the radiating layer is well below the tropopause the second question never occurs.

    ReplyDelete
  8. The *average* radiating layer is well below the tropopause, the average being that of a) the surface for wavelengths in the atmospheric window, plus b) ~4-5 km for wavelengths absorbed mainly by water vapor, plus c) ~10-12 km, i.e. just below the lower bound of the tropopause, for the 13-17 micron wavelength band absorbed by CO2.

    ReplyDelete
  9. @Eli a)Gravity's principal role, like that of the imaginary sphere, is to keep the atmosphere and it's IR opaque gases attached to the planet and b) the tropopause exists mostly because below it radiative transport is less efficient than convective.

    @Jim - the crucial point is that where radiative transport becomes more efficient than convective transport. Above that, convection is energetically disfavored.

    ReplyDelete
  10. What CIP is ignoring is that greenhouse gasses can be either a net radiator or a net absorber--and in fact are, depending on whether you are in the troposphere or the stratosphere. Stratification of the atmosphere and the temperature profile are important as well.

    ReplyDelete
  11. CIP, AIUI, the other impact of gravity on the flow of energy out of the atmosphere is the fact that H2O has a lower density than O2 or N2, thus as more moisture is added to the atmosphere at the bottom, the surface layer becomes less dense and vertical convection begins. Parcels of high humidity air are lifted by buoyant forcing as gravity pulls denser parcels to the bottom of the column of air. This process operates in parallel with the radiative transport, with convection moving energy from near the surface to higher levels approaching the troposphere. Above the troposphere, after almost all of the water vapor has condensed and been removed thru precipitation, the radiative processes dominate.

    ReplyDelete
  12. E. Swanson, on average almost all of the water vapor condenses out well below the tropopause. IIRC, at ~4-6 km H2O concentration has fallen from 4000 ppm at the surface to 400 ppm, about the same as CO2, and by 10 km it is down to ~3 ppm, thus the lower effective emission height for wave lengths absorbed by H2O.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Jim has just explained

    1 Why contrails dissapear
    2Why they can't be made of aluminum.

    Eli might have mentioned that pressure broadening matters a little even on earth, because we have enough trace gases for things to overlap even at modest pressures

    ReplyDelete
  14. @snarkrates - I am absolutely not ignoring the fact that greenhouse gases radiate. In fact I spent a good chunk of my scientific career measuring radiation from them. My point is that greenhouse warming is driven by the temperature difference between the surface and the region radiating to space, which is ultimately determined mostly by the IR opacity of the atmosphere.

    To escape Earth, the heat due to solar radiation has to be radiated to space. If the atmosphere were completely transparent to radiation, the planet would radiate directly to space and the surface temperature would be close to that of a grey body with appropriate emissivity.

    Because the atmosphere absorbs a lot of the IR transport through it has to be driven by a temperature gradient - when the gradient large enough, the atmosphere becomes convectively unstable, and convects.

    As Eli points out, gravity is needed for convection, but, I claim, it is opacity that is mainly responsible for the temperature gradient that drives it. This point seems to be a lot better understood by astronomers than atmospheric scientists, who seem to be in the habit of just taking the lapse rate for granted.

    ReplyDelete
  15. A few questions for doubters:

    a)Why is the stratosphere partly isothermal and partly increasing in temperature with height?

    b)Why is the troposphere have decreasing temperature with height?

    c)Why is the tropospheric lapse rate so much less than the adabatic lapse rate?

    Hint: It's almost all about opacity.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Jim Eager - Your data may be true for the average moisture at increasing elevations, but, in a rising thunderstorm column, the water is retained in the air mass until precipitation occurs. While the air mass rises, it expands and cools and when the dew point is hit, the water vapor begins to condense and the cloud "ceiling" appears. the condensation releases thermal energy, which warms the remaining air mass, promoting further rise. After precipitation, the air at the top has become much dryer. It's well known that large thunderstorms can rise to more than 50,000 feet (~15 km), even up to 70,000 feet (~21 km).

    ReplyDelete
  17. I suggest that contestants first study "Principles of Planetary Climate" by Ray Pierrehumbert. Only then take off the gloves.

    ReplyDelete
  18. I’m aware of that, E, but cumulonimbus storm clouds are the exception, earth surface area-wise, and the heating caused by condensation within them changes the lapse rate locally, as you describe, so they are the primary source of the "almost" in “almost all.”

    ReplyDelete
  19. @David Benson - good advice, here is a quote from it:

    When the atmosphere is optically thin, τ ∞ – τ is small throughout the atmosphere, and the entire atmosphere becomes isothermal with temperature equal to the skin temperature.

    Pierrehumbert, Raymond T.. Principles of Planetary Climate (p. 210). Cambridge University Press. Kindle Edition.

    ReplyDelete
  20. "Thus the additional carbon dioxide tends to act as a blanket which keeps the Earth warmer - the Earth has to get rid of the incoming radiation from the Sun, and the same amount can only be removed if the temperature of the atmosphere rises a little"

    When people have to use an analogy using blankets to explain how air interacts with heat, it must be a sign of poor understanding. What a blanket does is to force air to do the opposite of what it usually does when heated, rise from the heat source and carry energy away stored in mass, with new cold air replacing it at the surface immediately. The greenhouse effect is best illustrated by the situation where you sit naked under a blanket outside in the shade a day with 0Celsius. If you take off the blanket you feel the greenhouse effect, cold air flowing across the surface of your skin as it carry energy away. This is enhanced with windspeed, since the temperature drops with increasing amounts of air-molecules that gets into contact with the surface of your skin, or earth. If increasing windspeed has the effect of massively increasing the cooling, where is the gh-effect? If you were right, more air in contact would make you hotter.

    Another good analogy is what happens if you heat one empty pot on the stove, and one with water? Which one gets hotter?

    A fluid atmosphere is like liquid water in the pot. The deep cool compressed streams of slow moving saltwater in stratified oceans, where the cold dense layer beneath is in contact with the high speed moving layer above that collects the heat, is like a planetary scale AC-system with a couple of really large heat sinks in the polar caps.

    One more thing, the surface doesn´t have to do anything, according to Prevost, that formulated the relationship of emission and temperature from observations where he found that almost all solids start glowing at the same temperature, "the emission of a body logically depends on the internal state solely". The internal state is what we measure with thermometers, everything in mass is included in temperature. If a single small detail inside the body is changed, it has to have an effect on temperature, it is the sum of all energy inside.

    If the emission depends on temperature of the body alone, how could an atmosphere be the cause of temperature? The atmosphere is not part of the internal state, is it? Or do you mean that the theories of blackbody and thermal radiation doesn´t hold? Correct me if I´m wrong, but those laws of heat are the base for the laws of thermodynamics. Energy can´t be created and there is never any energy transferred from cold to hot without another force working on the system.

    When you say the greenhouse theory is correct, you explain it like the difference between the blackbody emission from a perfect absorber/emitter that interacts with an infinitely thin surface in two dimensions, and say that the 33 degrees difference to observations is the GH-effect. It´s not, the 33 degrees is the albedo you fudged away before even calculating. That is not even a correct calculation for the blackbody. But even worse, you claim that earth receives only 240W/m^2, some say even less, and the surface emits 390W. If you have a system with an input of energy with the flux density of 240W, then nothing inside that system can reach an intensity above that, if not work is performed on the system adding energy to cover for it. So when you say earth receives 240W/m^2 and the surface emits 390W, you are saying this:

    240W=390W

    And you explain it with the gh-effect adding the missing 150W. When saying that the gh-effect adds energy concentrating the fluxdensity above what the heat source provide, that is the exact definition of creation of energy forbidden by the first law of thermodynamics.

    When you say that heat or energy of some other sort, is transferred from an atmosphere at much lower temperature -18C average, and there is no work performed on the system, you break the second law of thermodynamics.

    ReplyDelete
  21. When you say that the surface emission equivalent to mean temperature observations, is explained by the atmospheres low density, low temperature mass surrounding it, you stand in opposition to the theory of thermal radiation of heated bodies, as well as the theory of the ideal blackbody emitter. You say the exact opposite to what Prevost stated. Where the theorys foundation is that the emission depends on the bodys internal state alone, you say it depends on the external state of another much colder body.

    Couldn´t you find just one more way to contradict the whole physics of thermal radiation and the laws of thermodynamics? Why settle with the ones mentioned above? Let´s just go crazy now that we have already defined a theory by basing it on only processes that break the laws of nature.

    "Anybunny who wants to deny that the greenhouse effect exists or that increasing greenhouse gas concentrations will not warm the surface is denying the law of gravity, which is pretty basic."

    Well, lets throw in gravity then. Now you claim that gravity explains how the greenhouse theory explain the temperature of earth by breaking both the first and the second LOT, and it throws the theory of radiating bodies out the window at the same time.

    But we don´t even know what gravity is, so that is an extraordinary claim, and you know what they say about the evidence needed for extraordinary claims?

    That´s right, you need extraordinary evidence. What kind of evidence do you have? Lets see, a weak correlation between increasing fraction of a heat absorbing gas and a low quality temperature data history that has to be treated with "corrections" that all consist of removing data not in line, and assigning data to large areas where there is no data. The raw data of absolute temperature, if you do a graph, can only be claimed to show an alarming increase if you have serious mental health problems. But with some massage and instead showing a misleading perspective of anomalies based on a random period the last century, you get a scary graph that makes you think something alarming is happening.

    I think you should avoid to assign to critics that they deny gravity, when you break the 1st and 2nd law of thermodynamics, at the same time as you say that the theory of thermal radiation doesn´t apply for earth so you will use an explanation with the opposite scenario, where the heat source is the part with the lowest observed temperature of all the bodies included.

    First, the "law" of gravity is unknown. Second, you need clean up your own act first. Because right now your theory consist of only broken laws of nature and rejection of proven theory.

    Best regards, the universe

    ReplyDelete
  22. Oh look, a "second law" wack-job pokes his head up.

    Now you've done it, wabbet.

    ReplyDelete
  23. "Oh look, a "second law" wack-job pokes his head up"

    What? I´m just saying the obvious. If earth has an input of 240W and the surface emit 390W, the density of energy increase inside the system. The gh-theory says it doesn´t come from the sun, and clearly say that the atmosphere is cause of the flow of thermal energy increasing its density to 390W.

    There is no other way to describe that than "creation of energy".

    The atmosphere temperature profile is well known, it has a mean temperature of -18C, and that is 33 degrees colder than the surface. The gh-theory says that the increase in density of the flowing heat, is caused by the atmosphere transferring heat to the surface. No part of the atmosphere is hotter than the surface, not even when there is inversion, because the surface is not an infinitely thin layer as in the blackbody case, it has depth and not very far below it is hot. Whatever temporary inversion means in temperature difference, there is never anything but a very superficial effect, possibly not even that.

    Anyway, we can safely say that the atmosphere is much, much colder than the solid surface. If you claim that the atmosphere transfer heat to the surface, you say that heat transfers from a cold body to a warm body, and that is what 2nd LOT says can´t happen.

    If you say that some other type of energy transfer to the surface, it does not matter, because only the net transfer is heat. And only heat can raise temperature (of course we are talking spontaneous transfer, not work). Energy that is not included in "net" is not involved in the process where temperature rise.

    If you say that the emission of earth surface is caused by emission from the atmosphere, you reject the foundation of the theories of radiating bodies. Emission depends on the internal state, absorption depends on the internal state as well, they are not cause and effect but it is easy to misinterpret the theory. They are related through temperature, but emission always has a character that is entirely dependent on the internal state, the temperature of the body. The absorption depends on the internal state, proven by heat transfer between bodies where transfer happen according to difference in temperature. The photons are destroyed in the body and shows only characteristics according to the emitter. Same apply for molecules.

    ReplyDelete
  24. A theory saying that the radiating body of the solid earth, depends on the emission of the atmosphere, is a straight on contradiction to known, proven and applied physics.

    This is only what I think and the conclusions from reading the theories. I believe in sticking to them literally and avoid assumptions entirely. If you don´t want to I have nothing to say. But an advice is, look through the litterature and experimental studies made on co2 and heat, there is lots of them, and see if you find any examples of co2 increasing the intensity of its heat source, or raising temperature in any system beyond its own. I can almost guarantee you 100% that you will not find any. I have checked.

    You are mixing up spectral composition with heat, and absorption with emission. Absorption does not equal heat, or even emission, it equals cooling.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermal_insulation

    "Heat flow is an inevitable consequence of contact between objects of differing temperature. Thermal insulation provides a region of insulation in which thermal conduction is reduced or thermal radiation is reflected rather than absorbed by the lower-temperature body."

    Absorption is what you avoid if you want to "trap" heat. There is a mixup where everyone seem to think emission has to equal absorption, but that would make it very hard to boil water because all energy would just go straight through.

    Adding a potent heat absorber like dry ice into the atmosphere, where energy supply is limited and constant, means less energy per molecule and that is the definition of lower temperature.

    Where do you find the logic in a theory using the coldest body of three as the main source of heat? Especially when it is a gas that has much lower density, and the molecules are limited to few wavelengths of absorption, in the case of co2 it only absorbs a couple of them, and observations clearly show how it decrease temperature as absorption decrease emission from the atmosphere and spectrums show clearly how it removes a chunk of the intensity while still not increasing its temperature.

    All details, every single part of the gh-theory, is an argument for those exact mechanisms described as "heating", to be cooling the surface. It is so detailed in its opposition to established theories and laws of nature, that it is hard to imagine how it could be so perfectly wrong in exactly every part. Its easy to see how someone could think that it is a deliberate deception, since it is done so carefully.

    Everyone can believe anything they want, I am just saying have another look, clear your assumptions and read again carefully. All observations and the theories about thermal energy says the opposite of what gh-theory with the heat source dry ice says.

    ReplyDelete
  25. Lifeisthermal,
    You have not understood how the greenhouse effect works. What is more, your misunderstanding is so fundamental that it is pointless to try even to explain it to you. Go back and look again.

    Hint: Consider energy in and energy out. The only way energy gets out is by thermal (IR) radiation. Take a bite out of that, and you have to find a new, higher-temperature equilibrium. This is not controversial. It's known physics.

    ReplyDelete
  26. Lifeisthermal: "There is no other way to describe that than "creation of energy".

    Wrong. There *is* another way to describe it: retention of energy.

    snarkratese is right, you have no clue how the greenhouse effect works.
    The only way heat escapes the earth system (system = solid surface + liquid surface + atmosphere) is by radiation. Period, full stop.

    And it is that radiation that greenhouse gasses interfere with by absorbing outgoing IR, converting some of it to sensible heat though collision with non greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, thereby retaining heat within the system. The system then has to warm until it once again radiates as much energy out as comes in from the sun.

    There is no magic “creation” of energy, there is only retention of energy.

    You also don’t understand the second law of thermodynamics nearly as well as you think you do. It says that there is no *net* flow of energy from the colder body to the warmer body, not that there is *no* flow in that direction. That is a novice mistake.

    ReplyDelete
  27. "snarkrates said...
    Lifeisthermal,
    You have not understood how the greenhouse effect works. What is more, your misunderstanding is so fundamental that it is pointless to try even to explain it to you. Go back and look again."

    It is a theory that has a hard time telling the difference between clothes, blankets, insulation and the properties of air. In the theory of thermal radiation, which is all radiation since it all depends on temperature, it is clear how textiles, insulation, radiant barriers and air relate to heat. Air has the opposite relationship to heat compared to the others, and you not knowing that is a problem.

    I understand the greenhouse very well. I didn´t understand it until a couple of years ago when I started to look into the details, I had just accepted the description that is usually presented to the public. I was probably preaching the harm and evil waiting in the future if we don´t reduce our emissions, long before most people even had their first worrying thought of guilt implanted by propaganda.

    Physics taught me that if there is something universally good in humans, if the universe could say "thank you" for anything we do, it would be our ability and very strong urge to make energy flow increasingly. What makes humans unique is our ability to make energy flow outside our metabolism. Negative consequences are unavoidable but correctable. Co2 is not one of those consequences, it has no known negative sideeffects at these concentrations.

    "Hint: Consider energy in and energy out. The only way energy gets out is by thermal (IR) radiation. Take a bite out of that, and you have to find a new, higher-temperature equilibrium. This is not controversial. It's known physics.

    3/4/17 2:38 PM"

    I´m trying to tell you it is not. I say it again and again, where in litterature, in theory and experimental studies and observations in reality, or in your everyday experience of air, water vapor, dry ice and liquid water, do you experience that wet, cold air and evaporating water from surfaces, increase temperature????

    To prevent heat loss you need a radiant barrier with low ability to heat up, and high reflectance, reducing the ways of transfer to conduction from all three means of heat transfer.

    Look in the litterature, plenty of experiments have been done, and they are clearly showing why we don´t use co2 in insulated windows where we use gases that gh-theory say isn´t involved. They also show why co2 is used as an industry coolant, because it is super efficient at absorbing heat and transporting it away from the heat source. Absorption is a useful property.

    Nowhere experiments or textbooks show that co2, water vapor or air that absorb heat from a heat source, increase temperature in that heat source. Only if there is a separate chapter of a greenhouse without windows that has a heat source consisting of dry ice and damp cold air.

    Concentration is what this is about, it is called flux density for a reason. All radiative properties are different aspects of concentration. The spectrum of the atmosphere show how low density mass absorb fractions and emit fractions, everywhere the area under the curve is stumped and muted. Temperature is the area under the curve. The density of thermal energy defines everything. Temperature includes all the internal components in a single value where every atom plays its part. That is why the emission, the energy density in the flow leaving a radiating body, depends on the internal state only. And why the atmosphere shows mass emitting and absorbing energy of decreasing quality at decreasing temperature. The longer radiation travel through the troposphere, the lower quality and density of energy there is.

    ReplyDelete
  28. Remember that the energy in solar radiation is not balanced to the surface or the atmosphere, it is balanced to a massive glowing interior with a shell. Remove the solar constant and the surface would cool by 90mW+390W/m^2 every second.

    Think of it like pouring water into a 10dm^3 bucket at a flow rate of 1dm^3 per second. First it has to fill up, then the overflow is equal to what flows into the bucket in a state of equilibrium. The concentrated stream into a large volume filled to the max, is balanced by a sloppy dribble overflow over the rim. How much water does the overflow add to the bucket? The same amount that the emitted radiation cooled by the atmosphere adds to the surface. Nothing. The importance of using the full solar constant should be clear, reducing it to a fourth is not a real situation. Remember that the greenhouse is impossible to explain or even less calculate with the right equations, if you use the full power of the sun, albedo or not. A model which cannot handle reality even in a simplified form, is not a model worth considering. The difference between average and reality is more than number of Watts. You can have a thousand suns at 240W, but only when you introduce one with slightly higher flux density of 250W the temperature will rise.

    You say that the only way energy gets out is through the air. It is not, the surface emits according to its glowing interior which is in equilibrium proven by the confirmed small addition of 90mW. The surface emits according to that, the atmosphere exists because of that emission. The heat transfer equation can be used to make an estimation of the rate of transfer from the surface, and that is on top of the measured temperature.

    In a simplified outline of the system, transfer to the atmosphere is Q=sb(288^4-255^4)=150W. 150W is very close to sb*T^4 at the tropopause. The surface emits 390W and transfer the same amount to the atmosphere, since the transfer to the tropopause is Q=sb(288^4-225^4)=255^4K or 240W/m^2. Every second the temperature has to be accounted for, and every second there is heat transfer to colder locations in the surroundings that also needs to be accounted for. Temperature rules it all, focus on temperature and all pieces fall into place. This is all part of the theory that is proven to be correct many times, and it is the only one for temperature, but it has some variations depending on circumstances.

    The one thing theory is clear about that never has exceptions, is that there is no heating energy that plays any whatsoever part in rising temperatures, coming from a lower temperature. Nope, not even reduced cooling or insulation. This is something we can be sure of.

    ReplyDelete
  29. "Jim Eager said...
    Lifeisthermal: "There is no other way to describe that than "creation of energy".

    Wrong. There *is* another way to describe it: retention of energy."

    Retention of energy is not a term used in these situations. The correct term would be reduced heat transfer, but I understand what you mean. It is the old wet blanket-trap, in an atmosphere without blankets.

    Reduced heat transfer is insulation, that is the only way to retain heat. A radiant barrier reducing transfer, maybe coupled with a material that is porous and keeps air in place internally. It is crucial that the air is kept in place, otherwise it carries heat away from the surface of the barrier. These are known concepts applied throughout our modern civilisation with success. So there are no mysteries involved in the "retention of heat". Sorry to spam links, but:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermal_insulation

    "Thermal insulation provides a region of insulation in which thermal conduction is reduced or thermal radiation is reflected rather than absorbed by the lower-temperature body"

    We do not want absorption if we try to retain heat. Anything is better than absorption, because absorption means that heat is gobbled up by something.

    "snarkratese is right, you have no clue how the greenhouse effect works.
    The only way heat escapes the earth system (system = solid surface + liquid surface + atmosphere) is by radiation. Period, full stop."

    Energy leaves the surface without resistance at light speed. On top of that colder air moves across it and receive the heat, but also absorb via conduction from contact, cooling even more. Then water evaporates the same instant, when energy exceed what the bindings of the liquid can hold, and carry massive amounts internally in the molecule to a location where it is cold enough for water to condense, at the same time as releasing the excess it blocks input by cloud formation, then return to the surface cooling it further. This all happens at the same time as the surface emits as a radiator. Why do you think you can slow down radiation at light speed and heat at the speed of sound, with cold air? If anything, it speeds it up.


    "And it is that radiation that greenhouse gasses interfere with by absorbing outgoing IR, converting some of it to sensible heat though collision with non greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, thereby retaining heat within the system. The system then has to warm until it once again radiates as much energy out as comes in from the sun."

    It has to do nothing, it does everything according to the internal state. You cannot hide heat, if the atmosphere would keep the energy in place it would get hot, and then we would observe rising intensity in the spectrum. The "radiative imbalance" is the opposite of that. The system has two part (to keep it simple). They are without doubt separate bodys because they dont mix. The solid surface has to do nothing because the atmosphere is cold, it radiates and transfer heat into the air, emission according to the internal state, and transfer according to difference in temperature. I am not stating something unknown or unproven here, this is proven over and over again to be true. Your oven proves it, your refridgerator proves, your AC proves it, even a kid pissing his pants proves it when it first get warm and nice, then wet and cold. By your reasoning, the kid would absorb the heat from the piss, and then do it all over again getting hotter and hotter. You can only add energy once to the system, then it is spent. The first time a photon from the sun is absorbed, all the heat is in the system. The heat travels in, then out, dropping in intensity in every step. That is why the sb-equation for transfer is only used with subtraction, except for in the greenhouse that is the only theory using it to add fluxes together. It is a balance equation, you can only use it for net transfer which is the definition of heat.

    ReplyDelete
  30. "There is no magic “creation” of energy, there is only retention of energy."

    Then there must be a textbook of thermal energy describing this retention with a proven principle, that is not a greenhouse description. I gave you a source above to a description of the only retention I know of for heat, insulation. That is the opposite of what dry ice in the greenhouse does. I would very much like to see your source, please. Since I must have missed something.

    "You also don’t understand the law of thermodynamics nearly as well as you think you do. It says that thee is no *net* flow of energy from the colder body to the warmer body, not that there is *no* flow in that direction. That is a novice mistake."

    Carnot:

    "The efficiency of a quasi-static or reversible Carnot cycle depends only on the temperatures of the two heat reservoirs, and is the same, whatever the working substance."

    "whatever the working substance"

    Clausius:

    "Heat can never pass from a colder to a warmer body without some other change, connected therewith, occurring at the same time"

    As you see in the first quote, temperature is boss, that invalidate what you say. Inside the "reservoir" of course equals the internal state of a body. No matter how you waterboard it, the surface and atmosphere is two separate reservoirs.

    Clausius doesn´t mention "net", but it is a common resort in the greenhouse that you seem to think gives you space to say that there is possibility of heat coming from the ice cold atmosphere. "Net" is heat, there is not any energy that is not included in "net" that can heat something or in any way increase temperature by a cold body acting on a hot body. That is the fantastic home run of the heat transfer equation. It removes all doubts about the direction of energy in transfer.

    It is as clear as it can be, without work adding energy, there is never any energy that can pass from a cold body to a hot. No exceptions are given. That is why it is called a law.

    ReplyDelete
  31. LIT: "Energy leaves the surface without resistance at light speed.”

    Why yes, it does, but it only continues directly to space at light speed in the atmospheric window where there is very little greenhouse gas absorption of IR wavelengths. Elsewhere in the IR radiating spectrum it travels the prevailing mean free path before being absorbed by a greenhouse gas molecule (H2O, CO2, CH4, etc.). But the energy does not stay absorbed, it is either spontaniously radiated as a new photon in any direction including back down, or as is far more likely in the lower troposphere, is released through collision with another gas molecule, thus converting vibrational energy into sensible heat energy. Heat is not gobbled up by anything, it is either converted to a different form of energy or redirected in a different direction.

    And yes, evaporatiuon and convection move a tremendous amount of energy, both sensible and latent, from the surface up into the atmosphere, but it *can not* move it to space, it can only move it closer to space where it can then radiatet with a lower chance of absorption, but also at a lower temperature.

    LIT: “You cannot hide heat, if the atmosphere would keep the energy in place it would get hot, and then we would observe rising intensity in the spectrum.”

    Bingo. Which is exactly what we are observing. The surface is warming. The ocean is warming. The lower atmosphere is warming. The amount of energy radiating in the atmospheric window is increasing. The effective radiating altitude in the absorbing parts of the spectrum is rising. The stratosphere is cooling.

    LIT: "It is as clear as it can be, without work adding energy, there is never any energy that can pass from a cold body to a hot.”

    The noviice digs in with his literal reading.

    All bodies radiate, even cold ones, and photons are not sentient. They know not the temperature of the bodies that they strike or that a “law” forbids them to strike a warmer body. There are simply more photons being emitted by the warm body than reach it from the cold body, hence it is a *net* difference.

    ReplyDelete
  32. @LIT - I think you should strive to be a bit more pithy.

    ReplyDelete
  33. @LIT - Actually you need clarity more than pith. I can't really tell what you are arguing for or against.

    BTW, You are wrong in calling the blanket analogy poor. What a blanket and an IR absorbing atmosphere have in common is that they increase the thermal impedance between warm reservoir and cold.

    ReplyDelete
  34. LIT, you are evidently irremediably delusional.

    Proof: You are disseminating your crackpot theory on a blog rather than in a scientific journal.

    Have a nice, inconsequential life.

    ReplyDelete
  35. @snark -

    What, you think journals need more crackpot theories?

    ReplyDelete
  36. CIP, No, they need to fulfill one of their important functions--informing crackpots that they are indeed crackpots.

    ReplyDelete
  37. "Why yes, it does, but it only continues directly to space at light speed in the atmospheric window where there is very little greenhouse gas absorption of IR wavelengths."

    And how much can you slow down radiation or heat with air? I expect some sources with experimental data to back a claim that heat has restricted possibility to move in cold air.


    "Elsewhere in the IR radiating spectrum it travels the prevailing mean free path before being absorbed by a greenhouse gas molecule (H2O, CO2, CH4, etc.)."

    So you think temperature is dependent on wavelength. The theory of heat says the opposite.

    "Heat is not gobbled up by anything, it is either converted to a different form of energy or redirected in a different direction."

    Not "either". A photon is destroyed when absorbed, it is always transformed according to the temperature of the absorber. The spectrum shows that the effect of co2 absorption is transformation to photons emitted or transferred by other means, at 220K. Damn hot, don´t you think?


    "And yes, evaporatiuon and convection move a tremendous amount of energy, both sensible and latent, from the surface up into the atmosphere, but it *can not* move it to space, it can only move it closer to space where it can then radiatet with a lower chance of absorption, but also at a lower temperature.

    You still seem to think that the surface cares. The surface and the atmosphere emits at the same time, its not like they stand in line waiting.

    "Bingo. Which is exactly what we are observing."

    Are you kidding me? Do you seriously mean that you see rising intensity in the spectrum from gases in the atmosphere?


    "The surface is warming."

    Not even kids believe that anymore after climategate and Karl fudging his ass off.

    "The ocean is warming. The lower atmosphere is warming. The amount of energy radiating in the atmospheric window is increasing. The effective radiating altitude in the absorbing parts of the spectrum is rising. The stratosphere is cooling."

    The ocean is warming how much? How many degrees Kelvin?

    The stratosphere is cooling you say, so there is less radiation emitted there? When something cools, it always show less emission.

    A more concentrated flow of thermal energy is the only thing that can increase concentration in another body. Or do you think it is about number of Watts?

    "The noviice digs in with his literal reading."

    How wise of you to think that physics is a science where you can ignore proven theories and laws, and just make shit up.

    ReplyDelete
  38. "All bodies radiate, even cold ones, and photons are not sentient. They know not the temperature of the bodies that they strike or that a “law” forbids them to strike a warmer body."

    And where did you learn that photon-counting is the method to calculate temperature? Photons is something used in quantum physics, since when do we use quantum physics to define bulk properties?

    There is an equation for heat transfer, and it doesn´t care about photons, it only cares about temperatures. Are blankets and greenhouses without glass that is heated by dry ice a good analogy for photons as well? How many photons do you catch and release with a blanket? And in how many directions?

    Do you seriously not know that temperature is not caused by photons? Photons are caused by temperature. How much energy do you think photons emitted at -18C carry?

    Why do blanket-people think that "photons in all directions" is a reason for heat coming from dry ice at freezing temperatures?

    "There are simply more photons being emitted by the warm body than reach it from the cold body, hence it is a *net* difference."

    Yes there is. And if photons are your argument you should look up maxwell-boltzmann distribution.

    How do you relate to what Prevost said: The emission depends on the internal state solely.

    The theory that explain temperature has not been changed, what the surface emits depends on the temperature only, the internal state.

    Is the ice cold atmosphere a part of the internal state? Are you saying that the atmosphere is the cause of the surface internal state?

    And regarding the photons, are you saying that heat flows from the cold atmosphere to the surface, and "photon-blankets in all directions" is explaining why we should listen to you arguing that the second law of Thermodynamics can be broken?

    You seem to think it is not very important. That it shouldn´t be read literally. Because only novices are serious about natures laws, and the wise men of blankets know better than to read what physics theories say about temperature.

    When you say that solar energy received in relationship to surface emission is 240W=390W, is that because of photon-blankets as well? Do only novices think that energy can not be created, because they haven´t learned about the blankets and what direction photons have?

    ReplyDelete
  39. "narkrates said...
    LIT, you are evidently irremediably delusional.

    Proof: You are disseminating your crackpot theory on a blog rather than in a scientific journal.

    Have a nice, inconsequential life."

    Well, thank you for stalking. I am honored that blanket-people have interest in what I write. You have such massive knowledge that the laws of nature bends for you. You leave no pots to crack for anyone else. I am humbled by your theory where 240W=390W. Your wisdom shines with a strong brown color over the world, as you tell the stories of photon-blankets and many, many directions, even ALL directions. How can I achieve such wisdom. I also want to heat things up with co2, and then set it on fire with water vapor.

    You are truly superior, I would never have thought of choosing the coldest body in the system to provide most of the heat. I was convinced it was the sun, but damn, I´ll never be smart enough to understand the blanket.

    Thank you blanket-people for saving us from the burning hell of dry ice. We are lucky your theory doesn´t bend to the laws of nature.

    ReplyDelete
  40. "CapitalistImperialistPig said...
    @LIT - Actually you need clarity more than pith. I can't really tell what you are arguing for or against."

    Sorry blanket-master. I argue against your theory that is a detailed contradiction of everything in the physics of heat.


    "BTW, You are wrong in calling the blanket analogy poor. What a blanket and an IR absorbing atmosphere have in common is that they increase the thermal impedance between warm reservoir and cold."

    Its almost cute, I can almost see you come running and saying: here, look, I found a new word. Thermal impedance between warm and cold?

    You mean that decreased emission from increased absorption in another external body, cause increasing impedance between the surface and atmosphere? Thermal Impedance is about heat transfer. To increase thermal impedance you don´t increase absorption in the colder body absorbing heat from the heat source. Did you even check what thermal impedance is? It is always the same with you blanket people, every time Michael Mann read you a bedtime story and you learned a new word, you come and break the laws of nature with it. And when someone is skeptical you start waving the blankets screaming "all directions" and "photons", and we shall all believe how dry ice is really hot.

    ReplyDelete
  41. LIT: "Photons is something used in quantum physics"

    Ah, here's a free clue for you: The absorption of IR photons by greenhouse gas molecules *is* quantum physics.

    Try cracking a textbook on radiative transfer sometime.

    LIT: "Not even kids believe [the surface is warming] anymore after climategate and Karl fudging his ass off."

    So you're just another run of the mill denier of reality with a Galileo complex then.

    That's it, you've wasted enough of my time.

    ReplyDelete
  42. @LIT - I'm bored so I will explain something. The rate of heat flow between a warm reservoir and a cold one depends on the medium through which the heat flows. When the warm reservoir is continually supplied with heat, as a person is by metabolism or the Earth is by mainly short wave solar radiation, the rate of heat flow increases with increasing temperature difference and decreases with the degree to which the medium obstructs the flow - I call it thermal impedance to indicate that the mechanism of heat flow is not restricted to conduction.

    Putting on a blanket warms you because it makes it harder for heat to flow away from your body. Adding GHGs to the atmosphere makes it harder for heat to flow through the atmosphere and be radiated to space.










    ReplyDelete
  43. Blogger Jim Eager said...

    "lIT: "Photons is something used in quantum physics"

    Ah, here's a free clue for you: The absorption of IR photons by greenhouse gas molecules *is* quantum physics.

    Try cracking a textbook on radiative transfer sometime."

    Only if you learn physics first. Start with thermodynamics, when you have read that you will understand why we use quantum physics for particles and not for planets. I would normallyceum think it is obvious, both thermo and quantum are pretty clear about it. I would like to ser tour textbook that explain how quantum-blankets in a windowless greenhouse use dry ice to get around the laws of nature that describe how heat and radiation of solids should reverse when you explain to it; "photons have many directions in the blänket"

    Are you saying quantum physics makes thermodynamics invalid?


    Captain blänket:

    "Putting on a blanket warms you because it makes it harder for heat to flow away from your body. Adding GHGs to the atmosphere makes it harder for heat to flow through the atmosphere and be radiated to space."

    You write "between" and try to hide the fact that the atmosphere IS the reservoir, the cold one. There is nothing in "betwewn". You feel that pain? That is from tour guts, it hurts to twist and turn inside out.

    A blanketv prevent atmospheric gases to do what they usually do when they are heated. Try again!

    ReplyDelete
  44. Dear blanket people, absorption is the opposite of heating when cold bodies absorb heat from warm. Photon-blankets bless you with dry ice, amen.

    ReplyDelete
  45. Snarkblanket,

    Do you mean that I will believe that blankets and dry ice use many directions to reverse the heat flow in the solar system if I take meds? Why else would you say I need meds? It must come from experience. Tell me more about the benefits of medication.

    Is it quantum physics? A greenhouse entangled with a photon-blanket? And the entanglement cause an atmosphere with a cue of photons waiting in line for the photons far out in the atmosphere to escape the blanket, so the surface can let some more photons out into the magic world were "all directions" make anything possible? Air turns into blankets, cold damp air supplies heat to warm surfaces and dry ice sets it all on fire.

    No, thank you. Your medicine doesn´t seem to help you very much.

    In the name of DryIce I bless you with the finest of photon-blankets, may you have many, many directions in the greenhouse, amen.

    ReplyDelete
  46. @LIT

    What you need is probably not meds, but a good course in elementary thermal physics. I don't know at what high school you think you learned physics, but you didn't - learn physics I mean.

    Based on a long career of doing and sometimes teaching physics, I can say confidently that you don't know physics. I doubt if there is any commenter here who knows less.

    ReplyDelete
  47. If a body at some temperature T is placed in a vacuum it will lose energy and cool. If at the same time an equal amount of energy in some form flows into the body as flows out, it will reach an equilibrium temperature.

    If the rate at which a body loses thermal energy decreases, the temperature of the thing (maybe a bunny, maybe a planet) will increase.

    Blankets decrease the rate at which stuff loses thermal energy.

    Shall we go on?

    Here is a simple experiment. Start with an electric hotplate and a thermometer/thermocouple, etc. Turn the hotplate on and measure the temperature. Get it up to 100 C or maybe more.

    Suspend a metal plate above but near and not touching the hotplate. Measure the temperature of the hotplate again. It will be higher than it was before. The temperature of the metal plate will be less than the temperature of the hotplate, but since it acts as a blanket, the effect of putting it there is to raise the temperature of the hotter hotplate.

    Place a metal plate a bit

    ReplyDelete
  48. "Blogger EliRabett said...
    If a body at some temperature T is placed in a vacuum it will lose energy and cool. If at the same time an equal amount of energy in some form flows into the body as flows out, it will reach an equilibrium temperature."

    More importantly, it will absorb depending on temperature only, and emit depending on temperature only.

    "If the rate at which a body loses thermal energy decreases, the temperature of the thing (maybe a bunny, maybe a planet) will increase."

    So...you mean that when Prevost said that emission depends on temperature only, he meant temperature depends on emission?

    No, sorry. You are mistaking blanket-religion with science. If temperature increase, emitted intensity increase. Its like the first thing you learn when you read about thermal radiation. You should stop studying textiles and waving techninques, waving photon-blankets is not science.

    Try again without doing it backwards, its really not that hard. Just follow instructions. Emission depends on temperature only, absorption depends on temperature only. If you had read the theory you would know that. Drop the blankets.


    "Here is a simple experiment. Start with an electric hotplate and a thermometer/thermocouple, etc. Turn the hotplate on and measure the temperature. Get it up to 100 C or maybe more."

    I have a tingling feeling now, I think I´m going to enjoy this. I smell a new kind of blanket here, it is usually hilarious when you blanket-people try to put words on your fantasies of blankets.

    "Suspend a metal plate above but near and not touching the hotplate. Measure the temperature of the hotplate again. It will be higher than it was before. The temperature of the metal plate will be less than the temperature of the hotplate, but since it acts as a blanket, the effect of putting it there is to raise the temperature of the hotter hotplate."

    Yes! You keep feeding me, its unbelievable.

    So, now you are saying air is like metalplates, because metal plates are like blankets, we can see how air at -18C heats the earth by breaking the first and second law of thermodynamics in an experiment where metalplates do sexy blanket-stuff with each other.

    Just go to the window, look at the sky, do you see all those metal-blankets up there? Those are blanketing photons in many, many directions. And unicorns.

    You are not even aware of that you do an experiment putting a radiant barrier in heats way. Which I have explained is what you need to raise temperature. Insulation, that prevents absorption. It is an experiment of the opposite of what you claim.

    May the blankets and photons be with you, amen.

    ReplyDelete
  49. Sky-dragons don't even make good Poes. LIT is boring. Really, really boring.

    ReplyDelete
  50. Eli, you are trying to communicate rationally with an outright crank channeling Gerlich & Tscheuschner who denies that the planet is even warming (see LIT @ 4/4/17 6:03 PM). It is a fool's errand.

    Heck, seeing as it is doubtful that English is LIT’s first language, he may even be Gerlich or Tscheuschner.

    ReplyDelete
  51. Well yeah Jim, Eli does enjoy abusing such types, but in an interesting way he gets it exactly backwards.

    If you know the composition and temperature of an object you know the intensity and spectral distribution of the emission/absorption and visa versa (although going from intensity and spectrum to composition can be harder for solids and liquids and easier for gases because of the structured spectrum). You need to know the composition because the intensity of the emission and the absorption as well as the dispersed spectrum depend on composition. Look up emissivity.

    Get that and we can go on.

    ReplyDelete
  52. "Well yeah Jim, Eli does enjoy abusing such types, but in an interesting way he gets it exactly backwards.

    If you know the composition and temperature of an object you know the intensity and spectral distribution of the emission/absorption and visa versa (although going from intensity and spectrum to composition can be harder for solids and liquids and easier for gases because of the structured spectrum). You need to know the composition because the intensity of the emission and the absorption as well as the dispersed spectrum depend on composition. Look up emissivity.

    Get that and we can go on."

    You found yourself a new word again. Good for you.

    Are you trying to say that low emissivity is equal to higher temperature?

    Emissivity does not make a body hotter, I am sure you know that. It doesn´t increase emission either. If emission is lower and temperature is lower, how does emissivity help you?

    How do you relate to Prevosts statement, the emission of the body depends on the internal state only?

    Is the atmosphere part of the surface internal state?

    If Prevost says it depends on the internal state alone, do you think it is reasonable to claim that on earth we have an extreme exception, here the emission depends on the external state of the atmosphere. Which have a temperature of -18C compared to surface emission equal to 390W/m^2?

    Its not a small thing to make such a claim, it is a violation of the whole theory of thermal radiation and heat.

    Still not a single coherent argument, and no sources showing data where co2 increase the intensity of its heat source. Absorption is what you want to avoid to "trap" heat. Or blanketing it into many directions like a unicorn vomiting backradiation into a pot of gold at the end of a brown rainbow.

    Pseudo-scientific, blanket-religion contradicting proven theory and radiation laws. Dry ice is not, and will never be, a heat source. And it is not a metal-blanket. You should stand in front of a mirror, looking yourself in the eyes, and repeat: cold, wet air is like a metal plate which acts like a blanket on heat. Try it.

    ReplyDelete
  53. "Jim Eager said...
    Eli, you are trying to communicate rationally with an outright crank channeling Gerlich & Tscheuschner who denies that the planet is even warming (see LIT @ 4/4/17 6:03 PM). It is a fool's errand.

    Heck, seeing as it is doubtful that English is LIT’s first language, he may even be Gerlich or Tscheuschner."

    You are right, its not my native language. But G&T was crap. That´s not me.

    I still haven´t seen a blanket-free argument or a source showing that co2 raise the intensity emitted by a heat source at constant supply of energy.

    Its pathetic.

    ReplyDelete
  54. Blogger Kevin O'Neill said...

    "Sky-dragons don't even make good Poes. LIT is boring. Really, really boring."

    You believe in dragons as well. That makes sense I guess.


    " CapitalistImperialistPig said...
    @LIT

    What you need is probably not meds, but a good course in elementary thermal physics. I don't know at what high school you think you learned physics, but you didn't - learn physics I mean.

    Based on a long career of doing and sometimes teaching physics, I can say confidently that you don't know physics. I doubt if there is any commenter here who knows less."

    Yeah, you really showed me there. "Sometimes teaching physics", that seems like you were not fit for the task. I can see why.

    If you start by providing sources for your claims, that would at least be a mimic of science. Proof of cold wet air increasing the intensity of the heat source above the supplied constant input. What you basically need is evidence for the claim that 240W=390W per square meter, and it is caused by cold wet air without doing work on the system or adding any heat from another source.

    ReplyDelete
  55. "But G&T was crap."

    The pot calling the kettle black.

    G&T was crap but at least they published their paper so that it could be examined in depth and torn apart. All we get from LIT is hand waving, assertions, and personal incredulity on a blog.

    ReplyDelete
  56. "Jim Eager said...

    "But G&T was crap."

    The pot calling the kettle black.

    G&T was crap but at least they published their paper so that it could be examined in depth and torn apart. All we get from LIT is hand waving, assertions, and personal incredulity on a blog.
    "

    What do you mean? Should I publish a copy paste of Prevost, Stefan, Boltzmann etc.?

    I am pointing out some facts from the theories that govern radiation, heat and temperature. I provided links as support, you may have opinions about using wikipedia as a source, but the links and quotes I have provided are undeniably true. And they stand in strong opposition to what you say. Everything you say.

    I have asked for sources for your claims, that 240W=390W and the cause of creating that energy that flows from icecold temperature is water and dry ice. I have asked for a source for you pathetic claim that dry ice and water can raise the intensity of the heat source heating it, above the constant limited supply.

    I have asked for sources explaining that earth can be an exception from what several of the thermodynamic geniuses said was the amazing discovery, that emission depends on temperature only. Which is repeated for fluids and solids in heat transfer textbooks today, exception is if there is a chapter on greenhous-unicorns with blankets and so many directions.

    Don´t you understand that if you claim the opposite of what physics say about emission, when you say that surface emits depending on the external state of the cold atmosphere, you HAVE to provide the strongest support that there can be?

    You are claiming that a law that is the single relationship that defines the whole theory of thermal radiation, is not valid for earth. You say that it works in the exact opposite way on earth, the most severe violation you can make. And you don´t seem to understand what you are saying. It is a clear sign that you don´t have the slightest clue of what you´re talking about. Either you have a lack of capability to read, understand what you are reading, or you haven´t read the theory that is THE theory of the central matter of your crappy dry ice greenhouse.

    And you think I need to publish a copy paste of that theory?

    Now I have to ask, are you retarded?

    ReplyDelete
  57. > Dry ice is not, and will never be, a heat source.

    I routinely drop a few cubes of dry ice into my morning cup of liquid nitrogen to warm it up a bit.

    > You should stand in front of a mirror, looking yourself in the eyes, and repeat: cold, wet air is like a metal plate which acts like a blanket on heat. Try it.

    You should try putting mirrors around a light bulb.

    Apparently, aluminum foil is a "heat source".

    But more likely: you just don't understand radiative energy transfers so much as you pretend.

    ReplyDelete
  58. LIT,
    The basic problem is that your description of the greenhouse effect bears no resemblance to how scientists describe how it works. None whatsoever. This makes it painfully obvious to anyone who has bothered to understand the effect that you are merely a poseur.

    And yes, you do need meds. I've dealt with plenty of relativity denialists in my long career as a physicist (>30 years). I remember one apologizing to me for a very belligerent phone call a few days prior, telling me he was in one of his manic phases. Get on some meds. Then take a thermo class.

    ReplyDelete
  59. @LIT

    Well, if you want proof that I'm stupid, there is the fact that I'm still talking to you. Of course I am retired and sometimes bored, so here goes.

    You seem to doubt that "cold wet air" can radiate. I spent 15 years or so measuring that radiation, so I can assure that it does radiate, just as predicted by Planck's radiation law. If you want proof, take an infrared radiometer (or even a sensitive IR camera) and point it up. You will indeed measure radiation from that cold wet air. If you take that radiometer to the top of a mountain, it will receive less of that radiation, because the air is colder above it and there is less of it. Take it to the top of the atmosphere and point it into space and the IR radiation will be undetectable unless you are sensitive enough to pick up the faint radiation from dust grains in our galaxy and others.

    If you don't have access to a radiometer, have you ever left your car outside on a night when the temperature is not quite down to freezing? If you live in the desert, as I do, you will find your windshield covered with hard frost unless there are low clouds. That's because those cold wet clouds emit enough radiation to warm your windshield more than radiation cools it - but a dry sky won't.

    Cheers

    ReplyDelete
  60. "Physics taught me that if there is something universally good in humans, if the universe could say "thank you" for anything we do, it would be our ability and very strong urge to make energy flow increasingly."

    Huh, it's good to enhance entropy and hasten the heat death of the universe? Why would the universe want to thank us for that?

    ReplyDelete
  61. Bernard J.: "Huh, it's good to enhance entropy and hasten the heat death of the universe? Why would the universe want to thank us for that?"

    Especially since the Universe isn't one thing, it's all things, and among all things, only human-like things have the property of gratitude. We might want to thank the set of all things for being that, but why would the set of all things thank us for being the subset of human-like things?

    Deep thoughts, man.

    ReplyDelete
  62. LIT was just stupidity sent to college...and it's doubtful it spent much time in any physics classes. Or if it did, it didn't listen.

    ReplyDelete
  63. I think I recently encountered the emissivity troll over at Science. I can't possibly bludgeon my way through this, but he seems obsessed over thermal radiation. Which is, of course, energy in some form. There are so many forms of energy I can't possibly list them, one has to wonder why he is obsesses with thermal energy, but it seems politically ideological. When he comes to grips with the mathematical concept of 'delta' maybe he can make some progress. Clearly too he needs to come to grips with particle interactions and quantum mechanics in general.

    I myself love the 'optical', but it has been a long and winding road.

    http://lifeform.net/archimedes/Cosmic_Evolution.pdf

    I am grateful to the universe to have had the chance to write some essays. Until axions are detected, quantum cosmogenesis will have to wait. You see, with me, there is this thing. Empirical validation.

    That will require some smaller, faster, more efficient gonkulators.

    And some mathematical and physical insights.

    ReplyDelete
  64. "Brandon R. Gates said...
    > Dry ice is not, and will never be, a heat source.

    I routinely drop a few cubes of dry ice into my morning cup of liquid nitrogen to warm it up a bit."

    You are absolutely right. I should have expressed myself more clearly. It is not a heat source on earth in relation to normal temperatures on the surface.

    "You should try putting mirrors around a light bulb.

    Apparently, aluminum foil is a "heat source"."

    Does the aluminum increase the power fed to the light bulb?

    Because that is what is claimed for the greenhouse effect. It is said to increase the power radiated from 240W/m^2 to 390W/m^2. It shows its failure when you write it like 240=390, because there are no sources other than the sun. And the atmosphere is limited to what it gets from the surface.

    Do you think aluminium foil around a lightbulb which has an internal power source, is anything like a planet with an external heat source?

    "But more likely: you just don't understand radiative energy transfers so much as you pretend."

    Still, your argument is only words, or fairy tales, about magic in the atmosphere where cold is hot, and unicorns have made a reverse system of metal-blankets around lightbulbs that look like cold air and the mechanism behind the curtains is.... "photons in all directions". You say that the source of most of the heat is the coldest body of three in the system.

    Metal-blankets and lightbulbs with photons and lots of directions make dry ice and wet air hotter than the sun, Amen.

    ReplyDelete
  65. "Blogger Bernard J. said...

    Huh, it's good to enhance entropy and hasten the heat death of the universe? Why would the universe want to thank us for that?"

    Because the universe seems to always choose the maximum entropy in all processes. Humans have made the impossible possible by extracting energy that was locked into earth, and would have stayed there for a long time. We enhance entropy-production in ways that is not possible without us.

    ReplyDelete
  66. " Mal Adapted said...

    Especially since the Universe isn't one thing, it's all things, and among all things, only human-like things have the property of gratitude. We might want to thank the set of all things for being that, but why would the set of all things thank us for being the subset of human-like things?

    Deep thoughts, man."

    Its simply a way of looking at the only impact on our surroundings in an objective way. The universe favors processes that maximize entropy, humans add new dimensions to that by increasing entropy beyond metabolism, or beyond the spontaneous process. Although, humans is probably a spontaneous effect of maximum entropy anyway.

    ReplyDelete
  67. "OpenID 8c7793aa-15b2-11e5-898a-67ca934bd1df said...
    I think I recently encountered the emissivity troll over at Science. I can't possibly bludgeon my way through this, but he seems obsessed over thermal radiation. Which is, of course, energy in some form. There are so many forms of energy I can't possibly list them, one has to wonder why he is obsesses with thermal energy, but it seems politically ideological."

    What a load of bs. There are how many forms of energy not originating from a source of heat?

    Everything is a product of heat, it is the only energy that flows through space, when absorbed and emitted some transformations happen. But the source is always heat and the end product is always heat. Big Bang? The source of the universe, heard about it?

    Heat, and then some heat with heat on top. Dessert is heat as well. No blankets.


    "When he comes to grips with the mathematical concept of 'delta' maybe he can make some progress. Clearly too he needs to come to grips with particle interactions and quantum mechanics in general."

    So you mean that quantum mechanics give us the temperature in thermodynamics? This is so stupid that I don´t know what to say. Thermodynamics is the base for quantum physics, QM is a development of the functions where microscopic reality interact with energy. Thermodynamics is about heat, work and temperature, the behaviour of bulk matter. Please provide a source for QM that make the relationship between the bulk property temperature and emission invalid and reversed. And don´t forget how you use delta as a blanket in a mechanism where the directions of photons can make heat flow from cold, wet air to a hot planetary surface.

    "I myself love the 'optical', but it has been a long and winding road."

    You might need to upgrade whatever optics you use for your eyes, because you are not seeing things clearly.

    Go and make a drawing with crayons where the atmosphere is producing emission from metal-blankets at 333W/m^2 in air with temperature of -18C.

    May Michael Mann bless you with retarded blankets from many directions, Amen.

    ReplyDelete
  68. "8c7793aa-15b2-11e5-898a-67ca934bd1df said...


    I am grateful to the universe to have had the chance to write some essays. Until axions are detected, quantum cosmogenesis will have to wait. You see, with me, there is this thing. Empirical validation."

    Lol. Empirical validation of the coldest body of three beeing the source of most of the heat in the system?

    Are the blankets and unicorns vomiting backradiation out of the ass of the atmosphere part of that empirical validation of photon-diarrhea in all directions?

    Only in climate-religion we see such stupid explanations.

    ReplyDelete
  69. "OpenID snarkrates said...
    LIT was just stupidity sent to college...and it's doubtful it spent much time in any physics classes. Or if it did, it didn't listen."

    You are absolutely right, I didn´t listen. And when your version of physics is a description of how blankets, unicorns and dry ice in cold wet air is the heat source of a glowing planet with a shell, I don´t listen either. Well, I listen, because it is funny as shit. You are not even embarrassed when you spread this unscientific, religious blame-giving crap.

    ReplyDelete
  70. "CapitalistImperialistPig said...
    @LIT

    Well, if you want proof that I'm stupid, there is the fact that I'm still talking to you. Of course I am retired and sometimes bored, so here goes."

    I just emit what is absorbed. You were using arguments of authority, not science. That is equal to say I´m stupid, and then I am not nice anymore.

    "You seem to doubt that "cold wet air" can radiate."

    Absolutely not, read more carefully.

    "I spent 15 years or so measuring that radiation, so I can assure that it does radiate, just as predicted by Planck's radiation law. If you want proof, take an infrared radiometer (or even a sensitive IR camera) and point it up."

    Those devices use the stefan-boltzmann equation to calculate the temperature in a direction from a small gradient in an internal thermopile, or thermocouple. They have a reach of what? 25 meters?

    They measure the heat transfer FROM the device, the incoming radiation is a product of doing what you shouldn´t do with an equation for net-transfer, change - to +. The radiation from a colder source is what is NOT transferred from the atmosphere as net.

    The devices are slightly more advanced thermometers.

    "If you don't have access to a radiometer, have you ever left your car outside on a night when the temperature is not quite down to freezing? If you live in the desert, as I do, you will find your windshield covered with hard frost unless there are low clouds. That's because those cold wet clouds emit enough radiation to warm your windshield more than radiation cools it - but a dry sky won't."

    Desert areas have the lowest emissivity in the ground of almost all places, I think that is a more probable cause of the temperature there. There is no net transfer from colder temperatures, heat is only net transfer. When the gradient is less steep, the transfer just happen towards higher layers.

    "Cheers"

    You to, I will have a scotch.

    ReplyDelete
  71. "OpenID snarkrates said...
    LIT,
    The basic problem is that your description of the greenhouse effect bears no resemblance to how scientists describe how it works. None whatsoever. This makes it painfully obvious to anyone who has bothered to understand the effect that you are merely a poseur."

    Do the GH-theory say that more heating power, higher intensity thermal radiation, comes from the coldest part of the system? Yes it does.

    Do the GH-theory say that there is heat coming from a low temperature gas that makes the temperature increase in the solid body of earth? Yes it does.

    Do the GH-theory say that the emission from the atmosphere at a mean temperature of-18C, is the cause of emission from the solid body earth to be at +14C? Yes it does.

    Does the GH-theory say that intensity of solar radiation is increased by a low density, low temperature fluid, from 240W/m^2 absorbed radiation to 390W/m^2 emitted intensity? Yes it does.

    Does the GH-theory say that the emission from the surface depends on the state of the external low temperature of a cold troposphere? Yes it does.

    Does the GH-theory contradict Prevost´s statement about radiating bodies, break the first and second law of thermodynamics and violate the theory of heat transfer and its relation to temperature? Yes, yes, yes and yes. You can bet your magic photon-blanket, unicorn ass on that it does.

    It is a detailed contradiction to all physics involved, where every single part of the greenhouse is individually and as a whole, a violation of the physics of temperature and the relationship to emission. It is a bit scary actually, it is so carefully constructed of only violations of the physics involved, that it can´t be a mistake. No one is that stupid.

    "And yes, you do need meds. I've dealt with plenty of relativity denialists in my long career as a physicist (>30 years). I remember one apologizing to me for a very belligerent phone call a few days prior, telling me he was in one of his manic phases. Get on some meds. Then take a thermo class"

    Well, you haven´t dealt with me, and I can already tell you are going to need some meds when you realize that Michael Mann and his nazi-friends have fooled you into embarrasing yourself by stubbornly defending a theory that is a complete violation of physics.

    I advise you to have another look in your textbooks. Even more, read the articles written by the old masters from ~100years ago that are the (heat)source of modern physics. Its a bliss to read the humble statements resulting from theory and experiments, where it is as important to point out what can not be assumed, as what conclusions that CAN be drawn from the theories. (the opposite of climate science approach)

    There are some important oneliners in the old articles, which makes you realize that someone forgot to mention that people are stupid and you shouldn´t trust them to teach you what you want to know. You have to see for yourself and read the theory undistorted if you really want to know how it works. The draper point should set the last nail into the coffin for normally talented people. All solids start glowing at the same temperature. Understanding that is the key to understand the relationship between the internal state and the emitted intensity.

    The inside of earth glows. Is the atmosphere with its mean temperature of -18C the cause of that? That is what you claim. And then comes the talk of blankets and photon-diarrhea in many directions and other magic stuff.

    That shit is funny as hell, but if you say its science you´re really asking to be ridiculed and maybe we should tie you to a pole so people can spit at you. Its worse than the people that say the earth is 10000 years old, because the unicorn God created it with blankets and photons in many directions from a heat source in cold wet air.

    Look for proof of any other situation than the unicorn-greenhouse-blanket, where the mechanism you claim is shown.

    ReplyDelete
  72. Eight sequential comments, although not a record, is pretty impressive.

    Fortunately I did not take the time to read them. But as long as it keeps you engaged and off the streets and out of trouble, I'm good.

    ReplyDelete
  73. "OpenID 8c7793aa-15b2-11e5-898a-67ca934bd1df said...
    Eight sequential comments, although not a record, is pretty impressive.

    Fortunately I did not take the time to read them. But as long as it keeps you engaged and off the streets and out of trouble, I'm good"

    I´m not surprised you don´t read them. You seem a bit intolerant to skeptic arguments which point to the physics that you violate with magic unicorns waving photon-blankets.

    It must be comfortable to be ignorant.

    ReplyDelete
  74. @LIT

    >>You were using arguments of authority, not science.

    I was arguing from experience, both practical experience in measurement and many years study of theory.

    >>They have a reach of what? 25 meters?

    A good IR radiometer will measure at a range of frequencies, in some of which almost all the radiation comes from the closest few meters, and some in which some of the radiation comes from dozens of kilometers.

    How do you think satellites measure atmospheric temperature? I will tell you. They measure atmospheric emission at various (usually IR) frequencies, which comes from and characterizes the temperature at various levels.

    Atmospheric gases, like all materials, radiate with an intensity that depends on their temperature and emissivity. The emissivity is almost always dependent on frequency. Contrary to what you have stated, absorption depends only indirectly on temperature, by altering the absorption coefficient.

    That radiation is nearly isotropic, equally in all directions, up, down and sidewise. Radiation flow is predominantly upwards because the hotter radiators below are radiating more than the colder radiators above - not because the direction in which they radiate is biased.

    Hope you enjoyed your scotch.


    ReplyDelete
  75. John Tyndall's experiments with the absorption and emission of radiation by atmospheric gases: http://web.gps.caltech.edu/~vijay/Papers/Spectroscopy/tyndall-1861.pdf

    ReplyDelete
  76. The inside of the earth may glow but fortunately there is a blanket of rock and soil between us and the core. The blanket keeps the core warm just as the blanjeting atmosphere protects us from the cold of space.

    ReplyDelete
  77. "the blanketing atmosphere protects us from the cold of space"

    Indeed. I can't wait for LIT's explanation of why earth's *surface* temp is not -15C.

    ReplyDelete
  78. @ CapitalistImperialistPig
    "A good IR radiometer will measure at a range of frequencies, in some of which almost all the radiation comes from the closest few meters, and some in which some of the radiation comes from dozens of kilometers.

    How do you think satellites measure atmospheric temperature? I will tell you. They measure atmospheric emission at various (usually IR) frequencies, which comes from and characterizes the temperature at various levels."

    The satellites measure from an environment that is cold. If your device measure from a small gradient inside of the thermopile, space @ 3K is ideal for measuring incoming radiation. Placing it at the hottest location between space and the surface (on the surface that is), in a heat bath, you cannot measure any incoming heat since it works by using an equation for net heat transfer. I read the manual for a Kipp&Zonen pyrgeometer a while ago, and it clearly says that you will get a negative value which is used for the calculation showing incoming radiation. The meters showing incoming radiation at the surface are really showing what is NOT coming in. I must say I was surprised, I didn´t think unconfirmed assumptions were used as a base for building a device for scientific measurement. But it is logical, the IR-meters are built for measuring heat, not cold.


    "Atmospheric gases, like all materials, radiate with an intensity that depends on their temperature and emissivity. The emissivity is almost always dependent on frequency. Contrary to what you have stated, absorption depends only indirectly on temperature, by altering the absorption coefficient."

    Yes, finally! They radiate according to temperature. Then you agree that the Trenberth cartoon energy-budget showing colorful arrows with 333W/m^2 from the atmosphere at -18C is bullshit?

    Since the heat transfer using Stefan-Boltzmann equation use difference in temperature to show how much the lower temperature body absorbs, I would say you are wrong. There is no absorption coefficient included.

    Total absorption might depend on absorption coefficient, but that is irrelevant in this situation, isn´t it? Its about how much heat goes to what location and what temperature that location has. Because the temperature at that altitude decide how much energy that is radiated to another location, and the temperature at that altitude is very low.

    "That radiation is nearly isotropic, equally in all directions, up, down and sidewise. Radiation flow is predominantly upwards because the hotter radiators below are radiating more than the colder radiators above - not because the direction in which they radiate is biased."

    Yes, isotropic radiation of low intensity from low temperatures. Put it in the equation for heat transfer to see how much it adds to the surface.

    0.0000000567(255^4-288^4)=-150W/m^2. Ooops, it didn´t add anything.

    The balance equation shows that heat is instantaneous, the atmosphere radiate at the same time as the surface. Think about what would happen if the surface didn´t have to share the energy with an atmosphere 100km high. It would have it all by itself and would have been much hotter.

    When solar radiation is absorbed the first time all of it is added to the system. You can´t add it twice, that is a perpetuum mobile. The greenhouse is explained as a time machine, it borrows energy from the past and that is unphysical.


    ReplyDelete
  79. Your insane delusional hypothesis refuting the radiative properties of greenhouse gases and their efficacy in diminishing long wave radiation from the surface of the Earth into space on a nightly (and even daily) basis might be more persuasive of you wrote your equations up in an essay and submitted it for review here, and elsewhere. Flailing around is not the most productive manner of expressing your crackpot ideas to the greater scientific community. You need to commit them to print.

    ReplyDelete
  80. @CapitalistImperialistPig

    "John Tyndall's experiments with the absorption and emission of radiation by atmospheric gases: http://web.gps.caltech.edu/~vijay/Papers/Spectroscopy/tyndall-1861.pdf"

    I read that not so long ago, fantastic reading. I really love to read the old articles where the discoveries were made.

    Now, what is the conclusion that can be made from that paper?

    How hot did the gases get in relation to how much radiation they absorbed?

    This is the main problem with the GH-theory. It only talks about absorption but it makes claims about emission. All papers I have read, and I read my way through the last century back to Tyndall, show how these gases absorb lots of radiation but emit very little.

    There is one part where he describes how temperature drops when gas is pulled inside the chamber, and then soon rise again. What is your take on that?

    My take is that the gas absorbs lots of radiation initially until it has filled up to maximum capacity for that volume.That is how absorption works, a body absorbs heat until it has reached its maximum in relation to its surroundings, and then there is no net heat transfer in any direction. Without net-transfer there is no change in temperature.

    Tyndall used a chamber of limited volume at room-temperature. What would have happened if he had surrounded his copperball-heat source with the gas in a chamber with vacuum at 3K, aka The Ultimate Heat Sink Of Unlimited Capacity?

    What he describes as he fills the chamber, is how the atmosphere relate to the heat source of the surface. It never reach anything near its capacity, since the gradient is like a free fall for heat. Look up the definitions of gradient, thermal insulation and its relation to absorption, thermal resistance, thermal conductivity etc.
    The mechanisms of heating and retaining heat are no mysteries. They are well studied and understood. Every single one of them is a description of the opposite to the relationship between the surface and the cold, cold, wet and cold atmosphere.

    ReplyDelete
  81. @ 8c7793aa-15b2-11e5-898a-67ca934bd1df

    "Your insane delusional hypothesis refuting the radiative properties of greenhouse gases and their efficacy in diminishing long wave radiation from the surface of the Earth into space on a nightly (and even daily) basis might be more persuasive of you wrote your equations up in an essay and submitted it for review here, and elsewhere."

    You have a crappy brain, I´m sorry.

    Why do I need to write an essay about how you can´t read?

    What I say is written in the physics of heat and temperature, it is old, old physics of the best of qualities. You don´t realize that you are the one that needs to write an essay about why anyone should listen to you arguing that the coldest body of three being the source of most of the heat in the system. Come on, tell me more about how the hot surface is heated by dry ice and not the sun. Crackpot.

    "Flailing around is not the most productive manner of expressing your crackpot ideas to the greater scientific community. You need to commit them to print"

    Yeah, to the peer review process ruined by Mann and his nazi-boyfriends. Peer-review doesn´t work anymore, climategate clearly show that the blanket-people destroyed it. And the way you blanket-people treat the ones that dare to say that dry ice is cold as shit, and not a heat source, clearly show how you killed science honor.

    ReplyDelete
  82. Well I'm sorry to say that your ground breaking paradigm busting refutation of well established physics won't be taken seriously without committing it to an easily readable essay with credible references.

    I recently wrote one because I'm getting a little tired of string theorists, and you'll just have to trust me that it had the desired effect.

    http://lifeform.net/archimedes/Cosmic_Axions.pdf

    And then I was so happy with that that I gathered up what remained on the cutting room floor and turned that into something I can live with.

    http://lifeform.net/archimedes/Quantum_Cosmology.pdf

    So what I did (besides inventing a new domain of science) was remove the singularity behind the green curtain and replaced it with a time reversal invariant topological superfluid, which is thus amenable to topological quantum field theory. String theorists are necessarily outraged. Too bad for them. What you need to understand is the difference between cutting edge science and old tired worn out science. Until you can do that, you're just another worn out crank.

    Did I mention that I recently solved the origin of life problem and that bismuth iodide is a topological superconductor? Yes, I'm calling you a crank. Konrad.

    ReplyDelete
  83. @Blogger Eli Rabrtt

    "The inside of the earth may glow but fortunately there is a blanket of rock and soil between us and the core. The blanket keeps the core warm just as the blanjeting atmosphere protects us from the cold of space"

    But you do realize that the emission of the surface at 390W/m^2 comes from the inside and according to the inverse square law the source has to transfer 4*390W/m^2?

    Now it gets a bit more difficult to use a cold gas to produce the emitted intensity, doesn´t it?

    Why do you blanket-people think that you can use the inverse square law for the effective temperature, but then it can be thrown out when creating energy that flows from hot to cold?

    The inverse square law is actually for an internal heat source, the reason for using it for a blackbody heated externally is that the emission is equal to what an internal heat source would produce, when absorption and emission is perfect and twodimensional from a body of uniform temperature which has a surface infinitely thin and perfectly black. That is, not earth.

    For the effective temperature you need a source that is ~960W/m^2. How do you explain that with blankets?

    The addition from internal heat generation is ~90mW/m^2. That doesn´t mean that earth only emit 90mW. It means that internal heat transferred to the surface is 390W+90mW/m^2. And the source is x4.

    The small addition from internal generation means that the glowing inside is in near perfect equilibrium. Can you balance a glowing ball in equilibrium with a cold atmosphere? Do you think that the crust prevent the heat from the inside to flow into the ultimate heat sink? It is a very thin crust compared to the size of the glowing ball.

    You are free to use dry ice and wet, cold air as an explanation instead of the sun if you want, but do you really think that is a smart choice?

    ReplyDelete
  84. @Jim Eager said

    "Indeed. I can't wait for LIT's explanation of why earth's *surface* temp is not -15C"

    Here it comes... its the Sun. Surprise, surprise.

    Don´t take 30% of the heat away before calculating. There is no reason. Especially when shit add up if you don´t.

    ReplyDelete
  85. OpenID 8c7793aa-15b2-11e5-898a-67ca934bd1df

    "So what I did (besides inventing a new domain of science) was remove the singularity behind the green curtain and replaced it with a time reversal invariant topological superfluid, which is thus amenable to topological quantum field theory. String theorists are necessarily outraged. Too bad for them. What you need to understand is the difference between cutting edge science and old tired worn out science. Until you can do that, you're just another worn out crank."

    Wow, and I didn´t see a single equation in there. Or did I miss it?

    Ok, I agree with you taking a dump on dark matter. Its the equaivalent og God and ghosts. But what if there is a correlation between surface emitted intensity on earth, and the energy needed to produce the force of gravity on this glowing ball? Would that be more reasonable than "cosmic axions" that has no confirmation in observation?

    I think it would. And this one needs no references, since nothing spooky that needs blankets is included. Only old high quality proven physics:

    https://wordpress.com/post/lifeisthermal.wordpress.com/577

    I didn´t intend to promote my theory. I just want people to realize that the gh-theory is crap, and it is fun to piss blanket-people off by pointing to the violations of physics. But if you deliver articles about gravity without a single number, then here you go.

    ReplyDelete
  86. I don't think you are pissing anyone off here, your ideas are too crankish, not backed up by any sound reasoning and fly in conflict with centuries old science. If you were write up your idea in an essay that flows properly from beginning to end, maybe. And I think you will find that my gravitational axion 'hypothesis' does contain some numbers and SI units, but more importantly, it references actual science papers.

    Right now I am looking at amorphization of bismuth and bismuth iodide under pressure, so I probably won't get back to gravitational axions until they are detected. That requires some investment in haloscopes and possibly looking at the potential of a variable mass range first.

    So really, until I see some empirical validation, further cranking on the math would be pointless. But if you need help with the math on your project I can suggest that you start here. At the beginning.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idealized_greenhouse_model

    Glad to help.

    ReplyDelete
  87. LIT "gh-theory is crap"

    Yes, your Nobel Prize awaits.

    Or you're a moron.

    Or a very boring Poe.

    I'd bet on options 2 or 3. Perhaps you can explain why you haven't yet won the Nobel? Or perhaps you can just admit to being a Dunning-Kruger afflicted nutjob. Do you really expect anyone to take you seriously?



    ReplyDelete
  88. Ditch accounting for planetary albedo so your maths will work out. Now that's a novel approach that I haven't seen before. Yes, the shit is adding up.

    ReplyDelete
  89. 8c7793aa-15b2-11e5-898a-67ca934bd1df

    "Right now I am looking at amorphization of bismuth and bismuth iodide under pressure, so I probably won't get back to gravitational axions until they are detected. That requires some investment in haloscopes and possibly looking at the potential of a variable mass range first."

    Hi, remember me? The polite guy with hate towards the scientific equal to islam: climate science based on the greenhouse without windows.

    I left you to catch your breath a bit, you all seemed to have to much carbon dioxide in your systems.

    What kind of pressure are we talking about for the bismuth? That sounds awesome, I envy you. I would like to play with diamond anvils, they are brutal.

    Crap the axions, take a close look at heat instead. To get perspective of what we are analyzing and summing up what information we have, we can make a couple of definitive conclusions.

    First, the only observed independent form of energy that is universal, is radiation that has a character and dependent of only the temperature of the emitter. Which is practically only consisting of stellar bodies. Another observation is the work being done by gravity, observed indirect in the effects on radiation, like a wobble.

    That´s it. That is the only information that is independently observed from earth in its solar system.

    If the only universally observed expressions of energy, or anything at all, is thermal radiation and indirectly gravity from displacement of thermal energy in lensing or displacing the emitter by doing work, then it is perfectly logical to make a single conclusion:

    Thermal radiation, or heat flow, is very likely to be intimately related to the work done by gravity on its surroundings.

    ReplyDelete
  90. continued:


    With no other source of energy than radiated heat, observed universally and independent of earth and humans, I have good reasons to claim that gravity is a force which is supplied with energy from the flow of heat, and that heat flow intensity should logically account for the force.

    Those are obvious relations, and it is the most conservative and minimalistic conclusions that can be made. Not a single assumption about hidden energies or super-complicated mechanics of hypothesized forces and processes that can´t be measured.

    If using only what we know, and take that information literally, we gain further understanding than any of the hyped theories based on assumptions hanging by a thread from a phantasy.

    Gravity and heat are closely related. Gravity is never independently observed without heat. And then it is actually not observed, only assumed from the effects on heat radiation. Which means that gravity depends on temperature, which is the only known measured flow of energy in the universe. If we only have one type of energy, radiated heat, that flows according to potentials in temperature difference, then everything is a product of heat.

    When it is easily shown that gravity equals the surface acceleration when using units for thermal resistance/pressure/stress, Nm^2. And that units for work as thermal resistance, has the same units as flux density of heat, then the force in a point at 9.8m/s or 9.8W/m, is equal to the thermal resistance of 96W/m^2 acting on a surface, which needs a source intensity that supply energy at the rate of 384W/m^2.

    These conclusions and simple transformation by using known and applied physical models for basic properties of heated mass, gives weight to arguments for abandoning current models and rely on what we know. Maybe add just a touch more innovative approach to energy, work and heat flows. But always avoiding assumptions about anything that is not based on observations. Dark matter, gravitational waves, black holes and their properties etc. , is entirely constructions of assembled assumptions which at best have some logic.

    If someone claims that the universe has 11 dimensions, and the reason is that the someone-person can´t manage to build a theory without it, then we should question why this person might be the problem. And that problem will not be solved by believing that reality has a bunch of never seen dimensions, instead of just putting a label on it that says: Bullshit! Stop wasting my time.

    "But if you need help with the math on your project I can suggest that you start here. At the beginning."

    But what if there is no beginning and no end. What if time doesn´t exist as we know it. Consider the photon, time and space is irrelevant for the photon. It is constant in space. It carries energy, like a point signal. Until it is absorbed, then it dissipates through expansion in a volume in three dimensions. Conclusion:

    Point-source energy is constant and independent of distance and time. This means that the difference between the zero-dimensional point of energy, and the heated threedimensional volume, is time. From zero or maybe one linear dimension along its path, expansion in three dimensions is dependent only on time.

    One dimension of signal containing all the information in heat that expands into three dimensions of time in a volume of mass.

    It´s one-three dimensions, not three-one. Imagine you are a point in space travelling at the speed of light, reality expands behind you like ripples in the fabric of time. Everything you observe is from the past. Only your consciousness experience the point at the instantaneous "now". But the experienced immediate consciousness only observe the effects of actions and processes in the past.

    Everything is effect, only heat is a cause.

    ReplyDelete
  91. Blogger Jim Eager said...
    "Ditch accounting for planetary albedo so your maths will work out. Now that's a novel approach that I haven't seen before. Yes, the shit is adding up."

    Wow, what a comment. You mean that being conservative and only include the basic principles in the theory of thermal radiation and heat transfer, is worse than using both emissivity and grabbing the concept of albedo from optics?

    Albedo mostly refer to the human eye and the receptors of the "visible spectrum". Albedo is not a factor used in models for temperature. Actually, it should not be used at all when analyzing heat flow.

    How can you complain on my approach, which minimalize unknown factors by keeping to proven and applied principles of unquestioned 100% consensus science?

    When you subtract a large amount of heat by claiming that your eyes is a trustworthy instrument to approximate thermal energy to a fraction which is excluded, before even starting to do the calculation?

    On top of that, then you come whining about there is not enough solar heat to sustain the surface temperature. I feel how veins pop in my eyeballs from the frustration of watching defect brains doing physics. Of course you don´t have enough heat from the sun, you f***ing threw it away before we got a chance to find the internal relationships. Based on that you think snow and random shit should reduce heat by exactly what? 30%

    Because you think humans eyes are a good instrument for collection of data, then just throw in a number that makes the greenhouse work by flows of heat from the coldest part of the system, the atmosphere.

    ReplyDelete
  92. continued...

    Before we throw Boltzmann and Planck out the window and instead use the least probable cause of high surface temp, I would like to investigate every single suggestion of the entire population of earth. Because your theory, that damp, cold air and dry ice is a logical and sane model explaining temperature distribution, is the least probable solution to the problem. Even farts are more likely as a cause. I would choose booze and being drunk as an even more probable model, combine it with farts and we have a winner.

    Anything but an explanation of how absorption decrease the cooling by trapping heat, when it is well known that absorption is what speeds up cooling.

    Are you serious when you say that I "ditch albedo to make the math work out"?

    Do you not understand that I am ditching the suspected problems in ill-defined physical principles of the greenhouse? I minimalize the system to observed geometry, including a realistic model of heating from one-sided irradiation in depth of a spherical non-interacting cavity with shells. This was to find baseline in optimized flow from minimal constraints, and finite differences from average energy distribution. The potential in surface temperature and insolation sets the limits for maximized flow. Earth has a temperature very close to that calculation. There is no albedo causing changes, there is no retained heat or accumulation of heat. It is free flow, full power, albedo is caused by heat, heat absorbing molecules drop temperatures by adding mass to a limited constant heat flow.

    I don´t ditch anything important, just the stuff you put in there to compensate for not doing logical analysis based on known physical laws and principles. I throw out the shit that is not found in the theories from the 1800:s.

    All necessary parts are there, just get rid of the retarded stuff. Like analogies with blankets showing how misunderstanding of physics is expressed by analogies where the blanket decrease heat loss by preventing air, and included GHG:s, to absorb heat.

    I think you people should stick together and maybe tattoo "blanket-people" on your foreheads. Then you can support each other in your misery, and find each other easily.

    Also, we would know more easily what people that should not be allowed to do science. You almost fucked everything up because of lacking logic and ignorance of physics. To the point where you try to slow evolution of civilization which is entirely a product of fossil fuels and fission.

    You really go all the way, forcing by politics everyone to follow your lead to misery, prosecuting opponents, constantly attacking character and avoiding scientific discussion. Claiming immoral basis for people that just don´t agree with you. Writing papers about consensus and "denialism", trying to fake a scientific appearance when lining up postulated correlations to mental problems, pseudoscience, creationism and religion. You even try to appear scientific when you throw crap around you talking shit about your opponents to avoid the scientific problems which skeptics point out.



    Everyone living on earth, just needs to go to the window and take a look everyday. Then think a minute about the weather and temperature.

    There is not a single person in this world that can claim that they observe never before seen temperatures or anything that doesn´t fit the average for this season. Not anywhere in the world. Only anomaly graphs from climate science and hopelessly defective predictions about the future effects, show something that a weak mind would feel as a threat that is cause for alarm.

    Nothing is happening! How long do you think people will listen to your bullshit when their eyes tell them that it seems stable as f**k.

    ReplyDelete
  93. Blogger Kevin O'Neill said...
    LIT "gh-theory is crap"

    "Yes, your Nobel Prize awaits."

    What exactly was the intent behind this statement.

    My point of view is that I can´t get a nobel-prize for showing how 19th century physics smash the Greenhouse to pieces, and at the same time showing how we need to pay attention to scientific methods used, and how they are interpreted to extreme expressions like environmental activism. Still with the polar bears. March for science, pffft... Puppets.


    "Or you're a moron."

    I always let others decide that. You got one vote. I don´t value your opinion very highly. I have a guinea pig, it gets two votes. Everyday. Because it is smart enough to not believe stupid shit like the greenhouse heated by dry ice.


    "Or a very boring Poe."

    Naah, come on?

    A bit funny, you have agree...

    Michael Mann & Cook, there you have a couple of boring nazis that should have been smacked into the tiled wall immediately at birth. Those two are truly unpleasant, with obvious lack of moral foundation combined with a lacking empaty for humans. To not forget their infinite incompetense, only matched by the other observed infinite, the vacuum of space.

    "I'd bet on options 2 or 3. Perhaps you can explain why you haven't yet won the Nobel? Or perhaps you can just admit to being a Dunning-Kruger afflicted nutjob. Do you really expect anyone to take you seriously?"

    I don´t make any claims, that makes it hard to get the prize.

    I just use logic and what is known.

    Yeah, there comes the Dunning-Kruger sex-doll you have been hiding behind your back. You should try to stop waving that disgusting thing around just because you feel stupid for beeing fooled into a fairy tale of photon-blankets used by lepricorns to rape unicorns by distracting them with unphysical backradiation. This is callad a pride-festival. Where you run around with a bunch of coloured feathers stuck up your ass, piss-drunk, screaming:

    Take me seriously! I´m a normal human!

    Yeah, what a misery. Poor man, gay and drunk with ass-feathers, screaming about nobel-prizes, doing personal attacks in a scientific discussion while getting more ass-feathers. I think the whole concept of "seriousness" would reach an entirely new level in your life if you just pull out the feathers, shut up, and focus on the science. The physics of heat and temperature.

    Who you take seriously, is not likely representative for anyone with their breathing holes above sea-level. Who else takes me seriously is a measure of intellect on their behalf, from my point of view. I don´t care, I just want truth. If no-one else wants it, have it your way. Keep on with the feathers.

    ReplyDelete
  94. OpenID 8c7793aa-15b2-11e5-898a-67ca934bd1df said...
    "But if you need help with the math on your project I can suggest that you start here. At the beginning.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idealized_greenhouse_model"

    Hey, thanks! That is a good link to point at when arguing for unphysical theories in the greenhouse.

    The third equation, big problem. Look at the + that adds flux densities of two surfaces to a combined flux density of only one m^2. Sure it has the appearance of physics, but it is seriously stupid. Like I have been saying, pull out the feathers and focus on the physics. Then you can learn that a balance equation for net transfer of heat, weighs two flows against each other to find the Heat(net) transferred to one m^2, by subtraction.

    At least you should understand that emissive power is instantaneous and not something that can be stacked on top of each other. That equation shows how you should not do it. It adds one flux of x/m^2 to another flux from another m^2. That gives an averaged flux of them both, emitted from 2m^2. Divide by two and you get closer to understanding the S-B equation. Net is balance. Net is never found by stacking separate flows. When you add another m^2 to the first, you still have two m^2. You have to mix them. And tadaa, you find the revelation of the holy Boltzmann angel of the heat paradise, with a bottle of scotch.

    Adding two different flux densities from two surfaces using an equation for net-transfer, inevitably leads to d.i.l.u.t.i.o.n.

    Second fantasy of unicorns:

    You cannot average heat flow into only half the surface, over the whole surface. Emissive power is not energy, averaging over the whole surface must be in form of kWh, not instantaneous W/s/m^2.

    The average energy over time, which passes through the system, is not equal to the power of flowing concentrated heat at constant rate on only half the area that cools by longwave radiation.

    You use a theory where insolation is set at -40C, no wonder you are confused. I use solar radiation at 105C. You see the difference?

    Try putting a glas of water in the freezer, it is irradiated by thermal radiation below zero, from all directions. Then try heating it with a heat gun on one side, with a temperature of heat flow at a 100C. Are they equal?

    Logic. Try it.

    Next: They show that the atmosphere temperature can magically be doubled. Guess why?

    All directions? Of course!

    An atmosphere apparently behaves differently from other bodies. The emissive power of a temperature from a surface, is cloned by unicorns into glowing blankets where 240W suddenly doubles to 480W/m^2. Because: ALL DIRECTIONS! And raped unicorns...

    Don´t believe me? Find an example of that principle outside of climate science. Good places to look are: physics of thermodynamics from the 19th century. Those theories are complete, if you don´t find it there, it is wrong.

    ReplyDelete
  95. continued...

    The link describes the flawed physics in a theory of heating yourself by pissing your pants in wintertime. Using the same logic, the heat from the piss is absorbed again in your skin, heating up new piss, creating a pisspant-effect by retaining piss-heat by absorption from the now frozen stiff pants, which create circulation of hot piss by increasing absorption in the growing yellow ice-cap on your pants. Re-emitting the absorbed heat into your smelly skin, from the melting piss-ice on the inside of your pants. Or... NO? Really? The increased absorption of heat in the growing piss-ice-cap is not a way to retain heat in circulation of piss-heat?

    Then how can increasing absorption by increasing the amount of dry ice in already cool air, make the surface hotter?

    The decreased emission of piss-heat to the surroundings from yellow ice, wouldn´t that be a "forcing"? Which leads to higher surface temps by less emitted heat? Same thing? No? Another unique principle of physics, only seen in the greenhouse?

    Your greenhouse smells of urin now by the way. You should seriously clean it.

    ReplyDelete
  96. 8c7793aa-15b2-11e5-898a-67ca934bd1df said...

    "And then I was so happy with that that I gathered up what remained on the cutting room floor and turned that into something I can live with.

    http://lifeform.net/archimedes/Quantum_Cosmology.pdf"

    I would be very interested in the possible conclusions you could make from a combination of your approach to quantized cosmology, and the network of thermal flow connecting stellar bodies by unique individual flows by pairs.

    Instead of mass causing gravity and organization of matter into hierarchies of structured networks, how about connecting them with thin threads of heat like a spider web? With each body being firmly locked by its emissive power as a repulsive force, and just hanging to surrounding masses by a fraction of heat turned into work. Just enough to hang on by the fingertips in a spiralling weightless motion. Travelling collectively in the same direction at the speed of light, from the acceleration of big bang being established before mass condensed into a state where relativity is the difference in acceleration. Potentials from small variations of relative speed in the same direction. The only way to explain the fact that mass has the energy of c^2.

    Heat flow, incoming and outgoing, both have the speed c, combined to c^2.

    We are standing on a surface potential accelerated by opposing flows with the sum c^2.

    I wonder what mass would look like at that speed. Maybe like it moves very slowly? Like it moves so slowly that we hardly can detect it with our senses? Like a rock? Imagine standing on a rock, expanding at a rate of c^2 from heat flow. Wouldn´t the experience be that time moves so slowly that everything seems to not move at all? Wouldn´t that make it possible that the universe is only a few seconds old, observed from the outside?

    ReplyDelete
  97. In a universe expanding from a single expansion of energy similar to an explosion accelerating space and the later condensing mass, to the speed of light, would we experience time as moving extremely slow? Making it possible that we live inside an explosion, displayed in extremely hot masses of glowing spheres that is surrounded by smaller, colder bodies sucked into the drag of spiralling motion. I imagine the curvature of space being the boundary of the expanding force of explosion. Like a bubble pushing masses and creating wells of curved space by elastic deformation from the counterforce of inertia. That would make things hotter according to size and density, from just friction.

    Overflow of energy distributing to potentials in lower density masses by transfer that minimize losses by distribution of heat to a network of bounded bodies. Bounded by potentials, repelling by independent emission of heat flow. Like grabbing the balls of a newtonian cradle, you know the bouncing metalballs in a row hung on a frame. Grabbing them with one hand, letting them bounce to repell, and attract towards the center of individual and collective center of mass, by the acceleration in the same direction side by side. Creating wells of increasing depth towards the increasing resistance of larger mass and heat. On the outside of an expanding sphere originating in big bang. Or several BB:s. What would the location of initial expansion look like? Wouldn´t it be places where no light is observed? Where mass didn´t have time to condense? Like black holes?

    Anyway, I like to watch galaxies and think that: it looks very similar to fireworks. Then fireworks from multiple explosions it is, originating in black holes. Dark matter can suck unicorn balls.

    Assumptions and fantasies are fun, the universe stimulates such activities with the night sky. Any assumption is as good as the next. Maybe not the piss-pant-effect or the greenhouse.

    But thermodynamics is real. It hits the bullseye of the universe, centering everything around an independent flow of heat. Use it for important stuff, and ride unicorns to galaxies creating fireworks with backradiation of naked women at the speed of light. But I have a strong feeling that heat would bring more solutions in cosmology as well, compared to unicorns. But not compared to backradiated fountains of naked women at the speed of light, obviously. That must always be the preferred solution to anything, if available.

    The greenhouse discussion turned into something else, apparently. It never is a good thing to discuss with yourself, constantly nodding and making sounds of approval to the excellent ideas that bounce around inside the skull unquestioned. Just look at the madness above. I blame it on the blanket-people, you distract me with your unicorns and feathers.

    ReplyDelete

Dear Anonymous,

UPDATE: The spambots got clever so the verification is back. Apologies

Some of the regulars here are having trouble telling the anonymice apart. Please add some distinguishing name to your comment such as Mickey, Minnie, Mighty, or Fred.

You can stretch the comment box for more space

The management.