tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post5498676190099145873..comments2024-03-19T03:14:04.172-04:00Comments on Rabett Run: Life is too shortEliRabetthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07957002964638398767noreply@blogger.comBlogger48125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-85758169228820660842011-06-10T05:29:49.997-04:002011-06-10T05:29:49.997-04:00I can´t Thank You enough for debunking this dubios...I can´t Thank You enough for debunking this dubios article.<br />BTW Anybody intrestet in Reading O. G. SOROKHTIN original Paper in german can leave a comment, on request I will leave a Link. <br /><br />I have a Comment to make and I would appreciate if you could correct this on your Site. It doesn´t change the argumantation you just cited wrong. <br /><br />in Eq(2) you define Te as the Surface Temperature, while it is in the paper the radiation Tempeture (as statet Equation 2 in the original Paper). Please Correct this to help other in the Argumentation.<br /><br />Thanks!!EnEconomisnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-55704577301704083362008-09-07T11:23:00.000-04:002008-09-07T11:23:00.000-04:00I hope anonymous 7:26 is joking, because otherwise...I hope anonymous 7:26 is joking, because otherwise their teachers should be forming a queue at their front door to demand apologies for bringing them into disrepute. <BR/><BR/>If they are not joking, perhaps they can tell us what heat and radiation are, and how heat is transfered by an electric fire.guthriehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17992984293423290387noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-42551600285674419602008-09-03T10:26:00.000-04:002008-09-03T10:26:00.000-04:00"Actually, that's not correct. Any light absorbed ..."Actually, that's not correct. Any light absorbed by an object will heat it, even if the thing it's coming from is at a lower temperature. The object has no way of knowing what temperature the light falling on it originates from."<BR/><BR/>Yeah, yeah, that's just where the ERROR is in the whole AGW nonsense. You can send all the radiation you want from a cooler object to a warmer one, but it will NOT HEAT IT. That violates the second law of thermodynamics.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-18210378819833930952008-09-03T05:27:00.000-04:002008-09-03T05:27:00.000-04:00Anonymous said:Step 7 violates the second law of t...Anonymous said:<BR/><BR/><I>Step 7 violates the second law of thermodynamics. You can't heat a warm surface with a colder one. I don't care how many watts you generate from the colder surface, it cannot heat a warmer one.</I><BR/><BR/>Actually, that's not correct. Any light absorbed by an object will heat it, even if the thing it's coming from is at a lower temperature. The object has no way of knowing what temperature the light falling on it originates from.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-82548609259900064552008-09-02T22:00:00.000-04:002008-09-02T22:00:00.000-04:00However as has been pointed out to you many times ...However as has been pointed out to you many times the exchange of heat from a colder to a warmer body can effect the equilibrium temperature of the warmer one. <BR/><BR/>It goes like this:<BR/><BR/>-The surface is at ~290 K. It radiates ~400 W/m2. In addition there are losses from latent heats (maybe another 100 on average). <BR/><BR/>-The average solar power absorbed by the surface is ~190 W/m2, call it 200 W/m2. <BR/><BR/>-That means, neglecting latent heats, if there is no radiation from the atmosphere absorbed by the earth, the surface will cool until the net outflow of radiation in the IR matches the radiation absorbed by the sun. <BR/><BR/>-Do the math E = 200 W/m2 = $sigma; Tn^4, so the temperature of the surface will reach an equilibrium at 244 K. If you include convection, which is strictly a loss from the surface, the temperature would go even lower. <BR/><BR/>-OTOH, if 200 of the 400 W/m2 radiated in the IR are returned to the earth from the colder atmosphere, there is a balance between energy absorbed at the surface, Sun + Atm Return =200 +200<BR/>and surface radiated = 400 W/m2.<BR/><BR/>-There is still a NET heat flow from the warmer surface to the colder atmosphere (400 - 200 W/m2) so the second law is obeyed<BR/><BR/>-In short, you are not only wrong, you are in deep denial. <BR/><BR/>Numbers at <A HREF="http://www.eoearth.org/article/Earth%27s_energy_balance" REL="nofollow"> eoearth</A>EliRabetthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07957002964638398767noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-11406311169810743112008-09-02T11:59:00.000-04:002008-09-02T11:59:00.000-04:00Barton:The first 6 steps are correct. Step 7 viol...Barton:<BR/><BR/>The first 6 steps are correct. Step 7 violates the second law of thermodynamics. You can't heat a warm surface with a colder one. I don't care how many watts you generate from the colder surface, it cannot heat a warmer one. I know it's counterintuitive, but I think it's demonstrably true. See the "Goodbye radiation, hello convection." thread on the CA Message Board (under the Physics Subject).Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-69267972818031067712008-09-02T08:16:00.000-04:002008-09-02T08:16:00.000-04:00Jae,The greenhouse effect works because some gases...Jae,<BR/><BR/>The greenhouse effect works because some gases absorb infrared light but are transparent (or mostly so) to sunlight. A simplified picture of how the greenhouse effect works would be as follows:<BR/><BR/>1. Sunlight passes through the atmosphere and heats the ground.<BR/><BR/>2. The ground gives off infrared light.<BR/><BR/>3. The greenhouse gases absorb the infrared light.<BR/><BR/>4. The greenhouse gases heat up because of the infrared light they have absorbed.<BR/><BR/>5. The greenhouse gases radiate infrared light.<BR/><BR/>6. Some of the infrared light from the greenhouse gases goes down and strikes the Earth.<BR/><BR/>7. The Earth heats up a little more.<BR/><BR/>That's basically how the greenhouse effect works -- you've got both sunshine and "atmosphere shine" heating the Earth. In fact, the Earth's surface actually gets more heating from the atmosphere than directly from the sun! (about 324 watts per square meter compared to 168 W/m^2).Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-73725057231069783962008-08-31T10:33:00.000-04:002008-08-31T10:33:00.000-04:00Anon: Google is your friend:http://en.wikipedia.o...Anon: Google is your friend:<BR/>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LambdaAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-47014279379349910832008-08-30T15:20:00.000-04:002008-08-30T15:20:00.000-04:00No lamb in lambda? I beg to differ (as does my LaT...<I>No lamb in lambda? I beg to differ (as does my LaTeX compiler)</I><BR/><BR/>Since when did the guy who created the LaTeX compiler become the definitive authority on Greek?<BR/><BR/>Probably about the same time that some Microsoft Geek became the definitive authority on English grammar.<BR/><BR/>While the Greeks had class, the geeks are just crass.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-73000398151978452612008-08-28T22:24:00.000-04:002008-08-28T22:24:00.000-04:00In denialoworld, Jupiter and Venus weigh the same....In denialoworld, Jupiter and Venus weigh the same. Precious. More please.<BR/>Saturnian.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-63831596097783044742008-08-27T00:28:00.000-04:002008-08-27T00:28:00.000-04:00LaTeX is a sickness of physicists, wanna be printe...LaTeX is a sickness of physicists, wanna be printers and control freaks (YMMV) but yes, we like the lambs as long as they don't hog the goodiesEliRabetthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07957002964638398767noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-29975470717993718912008-08-26T22:24:00.000-04:002008-08-26T22:24:00.000-04:00No lamb in lambda? I beg to differ (as does my LaT...No lamb in lambda? I beg to differ (as does my LaTeX compiler).Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-87109753432224848062008-08-25T12:56:00.000-04:002008-08-25T12:56:00.000-04:00You seem to be agreeing that the entire Temperatur...You seem to be agreeing that the entire Temperature gradient is derived solely as a function of Gravity. Well done.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-38981298219630407532008-08-24T22:02:00.000-04:002008-08-24T22:02:00.000-04:00... and I have a strong hunch from what you said a...... and I have a strong hunch from what you said above that you are a liar.<BR/><BR/>So does that mean you really have a strong hunch that I understand more than I think I do?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-62998271290013135632008-08-24T20:07:00.000-04:002008-08-24T20:07:00.000-04:00anon: perhaps you need to go to charm school for a...anon: perhaps you need to go to charm school for awhile, LOL. I have a strong hunch that you don't understand as much as you think you do.jaehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16368446236963574119noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-27899759170907493982008-08-24T18:52:00.000-04:002008-08-24T18:52:00.000-04:00sorry, jae, but it's pretty obvious to anyone who ...sorry, jae, but it's pretty obvious to anyone who reads what is above that if anyone doesn't get it, it is you.<BR/><BR/>my first assessment was correct.<BR/><BR/>go back to junior high and learn to think.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-1733555140137564302008-08-24T18:11:00.000-04:002008-08-24T18:11:00.000-04:00anon: You either have trouble reading, or I have ...anon: You either have trouble reading, or I have trouble getting my point across, because you just don't get it. But for now, just tell me where the equation with "A" in it comes from and how "A" is determined.jaehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16368446236963574119noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-56697837986973394372008-08-24T17:28:00.000-04:002008-08-24T17:28:00.000-04:00Jae says "I realize there is a "greenhouse effect,...Jae says "I realize there is a "greenhouse effect," in the sense that the planet is warmer with an atmosphere than it is without one. "<BR/><BR/>Oh, really?<BR/><BR/>then, what, precisely <I>was</I> the point of your request for a proof of eli's statement "you can't ignore greenhouse gases absorbing radiation from the ground, and radiating a fair bit of it back" <BR/><BR/>if you already "realized" there is a greenhouse effect?<BR/><BR/>...and by the way, a minor point of English (or more precisely, Greek)<BR/><BR/>There is no "lamb" in "lamda".<BR/><BR/>I think I am beginning to see the point of Eli's post (but at least no one can say i didn't try)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-91650531931061469382008-08-24T16:03:00.000-04:002008-08-24T16:03:00.000-04:00Anyone got the wavelength, and quantum of the Eart...Anyone got the wavelength, and quantum of the Earths emissivity?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-70886024040790475542008-08-24T15:23:00.000-04:002008-08-24T15:23:00.000-04:00anon:"jae, I really don't think you are being hone...anon:<BR/>"jae, I really don't think you are being honest here.<BR/><BR/>Your initial question was essentially "Why the need for the greenhouse effect?"<BR/><BR/>Let me remind you what you said because you have so quickly forgotten:<BR/><BR/>"I'm still waiting for a proof of this":"<BR/><BR/>I'm not trying to be coy, obtuse, funny, etc. My interest is what the "greenhouse effect" really is. I realize there is a "greenhouse effect," in the sense that the planet is warmer with an atmosphere than it is without one. What I'm trying to be more certain of is just what causes this.<BR/><BR/>Again, where did A in the equation come from?jaehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16368446236963574119noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-71247767136466234162008-08-24T15:02:00.000-04:002008-08-24T15:02:00.000-04:00jae, I really don't think you are being honest her...jae, I really don't think you are being honest here.<BR/><BR/>Your initial question <I>was</I> essentially "Why the need for the greenhouse effect?"<BR/><BR/>Let me remind you what you said because you have so quickly forgotten:<BR/><BR/>"I'm still waiting for a proof of this":<BR/><BR/>[Eli's statement that] "you can't ignore greenhouse gases absorbing radiation from the ground, and radiating a fair bit of it back"<BR/> <BR/>And your second question was "Where did the lambda equation at the RC link come from?"<BR/><BR/>which I just explained.<BR/><BR/>If you are really trying to learn, you are taking the wrong approach here because it looks to me more and more like what you are doing is what most people do when they deny AGW: play silly word games.<BR/><BR/>And, no, emissivity of the atmosphere is not simply determined by plugging in 288k to the simple equation above and solving.<BR/><BR/>It's obvious that this <I>would</I> be circular reasoning -- to say nothing of ridiculous.<BR/><BR/>What do you take these scientists for, idiots or just frauds?<BR/><BR/>It's insulting and i would suggest that if you actually want answers in the future, you cease and desist from these sorts of implications.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-79155615229126239292008-08-24T14:51:00.000-04:002008-08-24T14:51:00.000-04:00Erm..."Another striking difference is the abs...Erm..."Another striking difference is the absence of H2O on Venus. How can this be explained?"<BR/><BR/>http://books.google.com/books?id=2ykUzupXUKgC&pg=PA218&lpg=PA218&dq=H2O+on+venus&source=web&ots=YB74FyeNWw&sig=dwzIzY0lZpppxIAm2y3KbOXoz48&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=4&ct=resultAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-60324808692815753392008-08-24T14:30:00.000-04:002008-08-24T14:30:00.000-04:00anon: "You are are moving the goalposts"Nope, I'm ...anon: <BR/>"You are are moving the goalposts"<BR/><BR/>Nope, I'm just starting at the 20-yard line, again, to try to understand this better. Thanks for finally answering my question in your later post. Now, what is the value of A and how is it calculated? If it is just calculated from SB using 288 K, we've got some serious circular reasoning going on, IMHO.jaehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16368446236963574119noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-91507820205762958382008-08-24T13:24:00.000-04:002008-08-24T13:24:00.000-04:00jae aks "Where did the lambda equation at the RC l...jae aks "Where did the lambda equation at the RC link come from?"<BR/><BR/>The <A HREF="http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/04/learning-from-a-simple-model/" REL="nofollow">real Climate post linked to above</A> indicates where it comes from under the heading "The Greenhouse Effect".<BR/><BR/>The first equation:<BR/>S + lamda x A = G<BR/><BR/>means that at equilibrium (ie, energy in = energy out), the total energy absorbed by the earth's surface per square meter per second -- S watts per square meter from the sun plus "lamda x A" watts per square meter from the atmosphere (back toward earth) -- is equal to the total amount of energy radiated by the earth per square meter per second.<BR/><BR/>The lamda factor (emissivity) comes in because the atmosphere is not a perfect black body in the IR. In words, it only absorbs (and radiates) a certain fraction (lamda) of the radiation absorbed (and emitted) by a black body at the same temperature (which equals a constant (sigma) times temperature (T) raised to the fourth power -- by the stefan boltzmann radiation law)<BR/><BR/>The second equation <BR/><BR/>lamda x G = 2 x lamda x A<BR/><BR/>means this:<BR/><BR/>The atmosphere, which is also in equilibrium (though at a different temp from the earth) absorbs a certain fraction (lamda) of the energy emitted by the earth per square meter per second ("G") and re-emits this equally in two directions -- to space and back to earth. Again, there is a factor of lamda involved for the energy radiated by the atmosphere (explained above)<BR/><BR/>Finally, the third equation, <BR/><BR/>S = lamda x A + (1- lamda) x G<BR/><BR/>means this:<BR/><BR/>The earth-atmosphere system taken as a whole absorbs S watts per square meter from the sun (top arrow directed down) and re-radiates the same amount (the two top arrows directed up added together) back to space, equal to the energy emitted by the atmosphere to space (again per square meter per second) plus the fraction of the (IR) energy emitted by the earth that went right through the atmosphere without being absorbed by the atmosphere ( 1-lamda) x G.<BR/><BR/>As explained above:<BR/><BR/>If you wish to find the temperature of the earth with no greenhouse effect (ie, with no IR absorbing (and emitting) atmosphere, simply set the value of lamda to "0" and solve the first equation S = G, where G= sigma T^4 for the temperature of the earth T. In other words, take the fourth root of S/sigma (you get about 255K)<BR/><BR/>As indicated in the real Climate post, this is really the simplest model of the earth with an atmosphere and the fact that it yields a value so close to the actual global average temp of the earth's surface (288K) is somewhat fortuitous.<BR/><BR/>But the one thing it does tell you without any question whatsoever is that <I>without</I> a greenhouse effect, the earth would be significantly cooler than it is.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-55249605596008116312008-08-24T11:03:00.000-04:002008-08-24T11:03:00.000-04:00It turns out that there is a small amount of water...It turns out that there is a small amount of water vapor in the Venusian atmosphere, and this pretty much completely closes the IR window. <BR/><BR/>Now, if you had actually read what Eli wrote, you would have recognized that greenhouse gases maintain the temperature of the ground by re-radiating emission from the surface back to the surface. The adiabatic lapse rate depends on the temperature of the surface. It ain't one thing OR another, it's one thing AND another.EliRabetthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07957002964638398767noreply@blogger.com