Re: 2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory

[Paul Aubrin]

On Sat, 30 Mar 2013 22:06:06 -0500, Will Janoschka wrote:

> Who the hell has "measured", rather than just claim?
> What is the ratio of H2O molecules to CO2 molecules at the space
> station?
> They are there, they have the instrumentation. You say trust me, but you
> have demonstrated many times that you are an unreliable source of
> anything.

On well mixed CO2 up to the higher parts of the atmosphere, I think
that Tom is right. What he omits to say, is that although the
concentration of CO2 is the same than at the level of the ground, its
effect is less: very low temperatures and very low pressures imply no
widening of the absorption rays as is the case at the level of the
ground. The absorption pattern of the cold, low pressure CO2 in the high
atmosphere is that of a thin grate.

[emoneyjoe]

On Sun, 31 Mar 2013 09:29:03 -0500, wil...@nospam.pobox.com (Will
Janoschka) wrote:

>On Sun, 31 Mar 2013 12:44:49, Tom P <wero...@freent.dd> wrote:
>> On 03/31/2013 04:51 AM, Will Janoschka wrote:
>> > On Sat, 30 Mar 2013 23:40:42, Tom P <wero...@freent.dd> wrote:
>> >> On 03/30/2013 11:54 PM, Will Janoschka wrote:
>> >>> On Sat, 30 Mar 2013 18:24:56, Tom P <wero...@freent.dd> wrote:
>> >>>> Sam, as our resident denialists seem to be as equally impervious to
>> >>>> reasonable argument as to insults, I thought it might be interesting to
>> >>>> step back and find out when this particular canard first started
>> >>>> circulating in the blogosphere.
>> >>>> Googling for greenhouse+effect+second+law+of+thermodynamics, the first
>> >>>> real hit I can find is back in 2007, when Gerlich and Tscheuschner their
>> >>>> "Falsification Of The Atmospheric CO2 Greenhouse Effects Within The
>> >>>> Frame Of Physics". Although this farrago has long been dismissed as
>> >>>> bogus, it is still being quoted by numerous blogs.
>> >>>>
>> >>> No creditable person has found any flaws in Gerlich and Tscheuschner
>> >>> their "Falsification Of The Atmospheric CO2 Greenhouse Effects Within
>> >>> The Frame Of Physics".
>> >>>
>> >>>> The G&T paper makes a large number of statements that appear be
>> >>>> regurgitated by our residents.
>> >>>> For example: "Figure 31: Any machine which transfers heat from a low
>> >>>> temperature reservoir to a high temperature reservoir without external
>> >>>> work applied cannot exist: A perpetuum mobile of the second kind is
>> >>>> impossible". (true of course, but G&T don't mention that the sun is
>> >>>> supplying an external source of heat)
>> >>>
>> >>> Try to find the machine that does your claim of back radiation!!
>> >>> show how that machine is powered by the sun.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> I won't go into detail trying to point out all the numerous faults
>> >>>> with G&T, it's been done enough times already, but obviously G&T lives
>> >>>> on the minds of the incorrigible.
>> >>>>
>> >>> You betcha. You are wrong as usual.
>> >>>
>> >>>> Incidentally, one of the (unintentionally) funniest links I found was at
>> >>>> http://fwcon.wordpress.com/truth-about-global-warming/ - if you follow
>> >>>> the link about CO2 cooling, it takes you to Dr Roy Spencer's "Yes
>> >>>> Virginia" blog.. the one proving that yes, cool bodies can make hot
>> >>>> bodies warmer. Duh..
>> >>>
>> >>> There is no proof the body is getting warmer because it is a heat
>> >>> source. the only heat source that can warm.
>> >>>
>> >> Will, do have a look at the Dr Roy Spencer piece, and bear in mind he's
>> >> mind he's a skeptic.
>> >
>> > Tom I have been all over this many times. Anything that interferes
>> > with radiative cooling will result is an increase in temperature of
>> > the radiator.
>> > Is this what you call greenhouse effect? Where is the back radiation?
>> >
>> That is the back radiation right in front of you, it's just that you
>> can't stomach it.
>
>Spencer's example has no back radiation to the heated
>plate either from the outer sphere or from the passive plate.
>As in any thermo"dynamics"situation any change in geometry
>will affect the equilibrum temperatures.

I wish the subject url to be in any post that
discusses it. Why do the AGW crowd have
to use solid objects to explain thermal transfer
in GHGs?

http://www.drroyspencer.com/2010/07/yes-virginia-cooler-objects-can-make-warmer-objects-even-warmer-still/

Using an imagined experiment with imagined
temperatures isn't very convincing, and not having
any air seems to be an attempt to avoid real
conditions in the Earth's atmosphere.
In the first figure, air would cause more
thermal transfer by conduction, and the
air would heat up, possibly cooling the
heated bar.


>If the two plates were conducting well to each other, the
>geometrydid not change nor would the equilibium temperatures.

Even considering the second plate to be
conducting to the heated plate is imaginary
too, while I really love thought experiments,
this one is garbage from the start, and is
not relevant to GHG theory.


>The spacing of the plates changes the geometry and the result
>to each. Note in Spencer's demo all of the energy from the
>heated plate to the passive plate was immediately radiated
> to the colder outer sphere. That balance of from = to is
>what determines the temperature of the passive plate the
>temperature of the powered and pasive plate self adjust
>to radiate just the amount pf power delivered by the heater

Apparently Spencer considered a constant
wattage going to the heated plate, everything
else is imagined, this is not a thought experiment,
it is science fiction, and Tom seems to like fiction
that supports his agenda.


>This is called thermodynamic equilibrum.
>No back radiation to higher from colder anywhere.

I would not call it back radiation, but there
must be some transfer going on from and to
each object, only I don't accept the imagined
results.


>This is not a warming, as warming can come only from the
>power source. it is a correction for a change in geometry.

Frankly I don't think IR radiation from a
single surface can be fast enough to change
the temperature of the heated bar very much
just because there is a passive bar near it.
Again, the temperatures are all imagined,
not real, not measurements.


>This is again a correct demonstration of the second law that
>says "No spontaneous heat transfer from colder to warmer

I don't see that at all, without measured
temperatures, the experiment is nothing
but imagination, that is what fiction is.


>The only heat or power to the passive plate, like our atmosphere,
>came from the powered plate, and was radiated outward
>establishing its equilibrium temperature". No back radiation
>thus no violation of 2LTD.. All thermodynamics. can and must
>be done without violation else the description of process is false,
>as is greenhouse the effect.

I feel you need to take a different approach,
but only with real experiments and measured
temperatures.


>Why keep trying to do thermodynamics from a temperature
>start, rather that a power start. The temperatures will adjust to
>"do" what the power must do and this must do is all that is "ever"
>done. Back radiarion is not a must do and is not done!!!
>Radiance is a potential, and never Radiation.

I would still want measurements no matter
what prior science says. I am not a scientist,
I am an inventor, and facts are important, far
more important than imagined results.


>In the the additional CO2 inthe earth atmospherechanges neither
>the transmissivity nor the temperature of any part.

Don't be too sure, more GHGs should cool
the atmosphere more, or at least cool the
upper atmosphere more because GHGs
are what cool the atmosphere.


>Your Climate Clowns have never measured any thermal flux "from"
>or "to" the earth surface. They have not even said what the earth
>surface is. Is the Sun's radiation that is converted to chemical
>change such as latent heat of vaporization by the biomass,
>surface water, or ocean, "ever" some sensible heat of the surface?
>By the time H2O has this latent heat it is a gas and part of the
>atmosphere not part of the surface. I am not nit picking.I wish to
>understand what it is, that is written. what is the surface?
>
>Your Climate Clowns have much Bull Shit to account for.

The fourth graphic shows radiation arrows
both up and down the full atmosphere from
stratopause to the surface.
He must have a reason to use a number
of short arrows rather than one long one.

And then he says, this is my story and
I am sticking to it until somebody convinces
me otherwise.


How about a story about gases, real
gases, with measurements. I can accept
two way flow of energy, but using the gases
involved, not solid bars and no gases.

And with measured temperatures,
not imagined temperatures.


The whole idea of the study of GHG
theory is lost here, the question of whether
GHGs warm or cool the atmosphere wasn't
even mentioned, maybe GHGs can both
warm and cool and moderate the temperature
of the atmosphere, but the natural curiosity
of science is lost when the AGW crowd
gets going.

The very existence of the lapse rate
not being modified by more than half
seems to be a suggestion that IR radiation
is not a big warming process, but the
fact that the atmosphere is cooled at
all levels suggests that IR radiation
is a big cooling process.

[Tom P]

>>>>> source.the only heat source that can warm.

>>>>>
>>>> Will, do have a look at the Dr Roy Spencer piece, and bear in mind he's

>>>> a skeptic.
>>>
>>> Tom I have been all over this many times. Anything that interferes
>>> with radiative cooling will result is an increase in temperature of
>>> the radiator.
>>> Is this what you call greenhouse effect? Where is the back radiation?
>>>
>> That is the back radiation right in front of you, it's just that you
>> can't stomach it.
>>
>
> Spencer's example has no back radiation to the heated plate either
> from
> the outer sphere or from the passive plate. As in any
> thermo"dynamics"

> situation any change in geometry will affect the equilibrium
> temperatures.

>
>
> If the two plates were conducting well to each other, the geometry
> did

> not change nor would the equilibrium temperatures. The spacing of

> the
> plates changes the geometry and the result to each. Note in Spencer's
>
> demo all of the energy from the heated plate to the passive plate was
>

> immediately radiated to the colder outer sphere. No back radiation to
> the
> highertemperature powered plate. This is not a warming, as warming
> can
> come only from the power source. This is again a correct demonstration

>
> of the second law that says "No spontaneous heat transfer from colder

> to warmer The only heat or power to the passive plate, like our
> atmosphere
> came from the powered plate, and was radiated outward estaLike in my
> demo using three concentric spheres with no radiative leaks

>
> Spencer's example has no back radiation to the heated plate either
> from
> the outer sphere or from the passive plate. As in any
> thermo"dynamics"

> situation any change in geometry will affect the equilibrium
> temperatures.

>
>
> If the two plates were conducting well to each other, the geometry
> did not

> change nor would the equilibrium temperatures. The spacing of the

> plates
> changes the geometry and the result to each. Note in Spencer's demo
> all
> of the energy from the heated plate to the passive plate was
> immediately

> radiated to the colder outer sphere. No back radiation to the higher
>
> temperature powered plate. This is not a warming, as warming can come
>
> only from the power source. This is again a correct demonstration of

> the
> second law that says "No spontaneous heat transfer from colder to
> warmer

> The only heat or power to the passive plate, like our atmosphere came

> from
> the powered plate, and was radiated outward establishing its
> equilibrium
> temperature". No back radiation thus no violation of 2LTD.. All
> thermodynamics. can and must be done without violation else the

> description of process is false, as is greenhouse effect.
>
>
>
> Why do you keep trying to do thermodynamics from a temperature
> start rather that a power start. The temperatures will adjust to

> "do"
> what the power must do and this must do is all that is "ever" done.
>
>
>

> In the earth atmosphere the additional CO2 changes neither the

>
> transmissivity nor the temperature of any part.
>
>

Will, I've pointed it out several times before, but your formulation of
the 2nd law applies expressly to isolated systems. The Clausius
statement of the second law applies to the entire system and not just
isolated parts of it. In the case of the Spencer experiment, there is
an external source of power, and the surrounding sphere is being
maintained at a temperature of zero by some cooling mechanism. In the
case of planet earth, the planet-atmosphere system is heated by the sun
and radiates energy off into empty space. This fact alone is sufficient
to invalidate your interpretation.

There have been several rebuttals of the G&T paper, here are a few:
http://arxiv.org/abs/0802.4324
http://rabett.blogspot.de/2009/03/second-law-and-its-criminal-misuse-as.html
http://rabett.blogspot.de/2008/02/all-you-never-wanted-to-know-about.html
http://www.worldscientific.com/doi/abs/10.1142/S021797921005555X
http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/upload/2010/05/halpern_etal_2010.pdf

Will, I'd suggest if that you want to see how your version of the 2LTD
works - unplug your refrigerator and tells us tomorrow how the beer tastes.

[JohnM]

I see you have made no attribution, nor given a citation/reference,
for your above statement. Would that be for any particular reason?

[Sam Wormley]

On 3/31/13 3:54 AM, Paul Aubrin wrote:
> If you apply what this course states to the case of an element of
> surface on the ground (supposed a reasonably perfect black surface)
> and a volume of atmosphere above, there is not a sigma.T^4 flux from
> the ground and a down-welling flux from the element atmosphere. There
> is only a net flux which proportional to the difference of the two
> emittances.

See: http://edu-observatory.org/olli/Climate/layer.jpg

One must include the incoming solar flux.

[Will Janoschka]

I understand Paul, I helped create the HiTran database.

I can accept your take. My point was "when you have all needed to
measure, please measure rather than compute, well mixed".

For me, Measurement is God, as you have no-thing better!

I oft time error in what is measured. but still "something" was
measured. We need to discover what was measured.
All measurement is sacred, as in the best you can have.

[Will Janoschka]

On Sun, 31 Mar 2013 18:05:20, JohnM <jmorgan...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Mar 31, 5:48ĸpm, Paul Aubrin <chu8i...@free.fr> wrote:
> > On Sat, 30 Mar 2013 22:06:06 -0500, Will Janoschka wrote:
> > > Who the hell has "measured", rather than just claim?
> > > What is the ratio of H2O molecules to CO2 molecules at the space
> > > station?
> > > They are there, they have the instrumentation. You say trust me, but you
> > > have demonstrated many times that you are an unreliable source of
> > > anything.
> >

> > ĸ ĸOn well mixed CO2 up to the higher parts of the atmosphere, I think

> > that Tom is right. What he omits to say, is that although the
> > concentration of CO2 is the same than at the level of the ground, its
> > effect is less: very low temperatures and very low pressures imply no
> > widening of the absorption rays as is the case at the level of the
> > ground. The absorption pattern of the cold, low pressure CO2 in the high
> > atmosphere is that of a thin grate.
>
> I see you have made no attribution, nor given a citation/reference,
> for your above statement. Would that be for any particular reason?

Yes JohnM, Paul, like Joe, and myself have only our "own" hard
learned
knowledge, we do not attribute because another's knowledge is their
knowledge, not mine. I can only express what is me! This is called
"Personal integrity". Have you any?

[Will Janoschka]

Why?

[JohnM]

On Mar 31, 9:27 pm, wil...@nospam.pobox.com (Will Janoschka) wrote:

> On Sun, 31 Mar 2013 18:05:20, JohnM <jmorgan1234...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Mar 31, 5:48ÿpm, Paul Aubrin <chu8i...@free.fr> wrote:
> > > On Sat, 30 Mar 2013 22:06:06 -0500, Will Janoschka wrote:
> > > > Who the hell has "measured", rather than just claim?
> > > > What is the ratio of H2O molecules to CO2 molecules at the space
> > > > station?
> > > > They are there, they have the instrumentation. You say trust me, but you
> > > > have demonstrated many times that you are an unreliable source of
> > > > anything.
>

> > > ÿ ÿOn well mixed CO2 up to the higher parts of the atmosphere, I think

> > > that Tom is right. What he omits to say, is that although the
> > > concentration of CO2 is the same than at the level of the ground, its
> > > effect is less: very low temperatures and very low pressures imply no
> > > widening of the absorption rays as is the case at the level of the
> > > ground. The absorption pattern of the cold, low pressure CO2 in the high
> > > atmosphere is that of a thin grate.
>
> > I see you have made no attribution, nor given a citation/reference,
> > for your above statement. Would that be for any particular reason?
>
> Yes JohnM,  Paul, like Joe, and myself have only our "own" hard
> learned
> knowledge, we do not attribute because another's knowledge is their
> knowledge, not mine. I can only express what is me!  This is called
> "Personal integrity".   Have you any?

So you finally admit to just making up stuff to fit your personal
agenda, then.

We all knew you were doing that, but in your deluded state you never
realised it yourself. That's why you imagine you are acting from
'personal integrity'.

[Sam Wormley]

You can't leave out the energy source and sink in a radiative
transfer problem! Are you daft?

[JohnM]

On Mar 31, 9:50 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 3/31/13 2:31 PM, Will Janoschka wrote:
>

> > On Sun, 31 Mar 2013 18:06:43, Sam Wormley <sworml...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>  See:http://edu-observatory.org/olli/Climate/layer.jpg
>
> >>  One must include the incoming solar flux.
>
> >   Why?
>
>      You can't leave out the energy source and sink in a radiative
>      transfer problem! Are you daft?

Yes, he appears to be so ;-))

[1treePetrifiedForestLane]

as pointed-out by someone, just recently,
the rockets have injected toms of burnt fuel,
that is to say H2O and CO2, into near-earth orbit, although
CO2 is so heavy, that it is bound to be "going downsville."

however, hte pressure is so much less, the density,
that it may be of almost no "glass haus quantitatively.

> > What is the ratio of H2O molecules to CO2 molecules at the space
> > station?

[Tom P]

On 03/31/2013 11:21 AM, Paul Aubrin wrote:
> On Sat, 30 Mar 2013 14:06:19 +0000, RedAcer wrote:
>
>
>> This is the first paragraph from the wiki article - do you disagree with
>> anything here?
>>
>> "The greenhouse effect is a process by which thermal radiation from a
>> planetary surface is absorbed by atmospheric greenhouse gases, and is
>> re-radiated in all directions. Since part of this re-radiation is back
>> towards the surface and the lower atmosphere, it results in an elevation
>> of the average surface temperature above what it would be in the absence
>> of the gases."
>
> The values of the energy flux on the diagram which is supposed to
> illustrate this text are obviously incorrect.

Instead of referring to some diagram in Wikipedia, refer to Trenberth 2008.
Surface radiation: 396 W/m2
Back radiation: 333 W/m2

Sanity check in python:
>>> T=289
>>> phys.sigma*T*T*T*T
395.56115999249494
>>> T=277
>>> phys.sigma*T*T*T*T
333.84228712770215
>>>

What makes you say that a surface temperature of 14°c and downward
radiating sky at 4°c is "obviously incorrect"?

>
> A course I found on "radiative heat transfers", confirms that the
> energy flux exchanged between two black surfaces is proportional to the
> *difference* of their emittance. It doesn't say that both surfaces
> unconditionally emit like a black body in all directions.

Why should it need to state the obvious?

The interaction
> between the two surfaces conditions the actual emission (from the one
> with greater emissivity to the one with lesser emissivity).
> Now lets apply this to a volume of 10m3 of air above 1m2 of ground
> considered as a black surface. The emittance curve as a function of the
> wavelength of the gas is made of absorption bands. The presence of these
> absorption bands hinder the emission of the ground in the corresponding
> frequency bands. To keep its energy balance, the ground must evacuate
> differently its energy: more evaporation, more convection, temperature
> increase.
> Now examine the consequences of an increase in CO2 concentrations. At
> the level of the ground, the central part of the main CO2 absorption band
> of is saturated, 100% is already absorbed in the central part, 100% is
> absorbed within 10m. All the possible effect is by the widening of the
> sides of the band. But this is a marginal only effect, not a direct one.
> The effect of an increase of CO2 concentration has no direct effect at

> the level of the ground.
>

> http://scienceofdoom.com/2011/04/03/understanding-atmospheric-radiation-
> and-the-%E2%80%9Cgreenhouse%E2%80%9D-effect-%E2%80%93-part-ten/
>

[Poutnik]

emoneyjoe posted Sat, 30 Mar 2013 09:41:36 -0400
>
> >Outgoing Earth energy in the whole is less
> >then outgoing Earth surface energy.
>
> That is even more wrong, the surface
> does not receive all incoming energy.

You mix apples and pineapples.
>
>
> >Like if you have a blanket, sleeping on the bed.
>
> The problem with that is that it is a
> wet blanket, cover with a wet blanket
> and see how much it warms/cools.

I case of air, wet blanket warms you even more.

>
> >> The most controversial aspect of the greenhouse "theory"
> >
> >It is observed effect, not a theory.
>
> It is misinterpreted.

No, it is not. It is physics.

>
> The effect of the atmosphere and
> water and GHGs is more than just a
> warming process, it is a self regulating
> process most of the time.

Sure, it is. There are many of loopbacks.
Enough is to understand physics,
especially radiation behaviour of matter.
>
> The ice ages represent periods
> of loss of absorption because of
> snow and cloud cover, not changes
> in outgoing radiation.

Absorption is just part of the process.

> >Entropy is a state function, and change of entropy along to any closed
> >path of reversible system is zero.
>
> The flow to entropy (state of disorder)
> is more constant than the incoming energy
> reaching the surface or the lower troposphere.

Many people do not understand entropy and use it as magic word.


> If you can provide any first hand
> information about weather station
> closures in Eastern Europe around
> year 1990 it will be appreciated.

Satellites produce much better information, as they can measure area
averages values, well used for global statistics.

Point measurement of weather stations are not useful here.


--
Poutnik

[Poutnik]

emoneyjoe posted Sat, 30 Mar 2013 09:51:41 -0400

> Why are you supporting this obviously
> wrong concept, fog and clouds do act
> that way, clear air does not.

It is not concept it is physics.
Ignoring physics is bad concept.

Both act this way, effect of condensed water
is just stronger.
>
> Is there something in your past or
> in your education or political beliefs
> that could cause you to support what
> organizations support?

Physics, that you ignore.


--
Poutnik

[Poutnik]

Paul Aubrin posted 30 Mar 2013 13:52:52 GMT
>
> Red Acer already replied that you can find a *huge* number of sources
> on the internet and plenty of books at Amazon. A good place to start is
> the article in Wikipedia. The graph riddled with error was precisely
> taken from Wikipedia as a reference of what people like Red Acer consider
> to be the "greenhouse" aka Tyndall theory. Once you, Red Acer, and a few
> others agree on what is the "greenhouse effect, theory or phenomenon", we
> will be able to discuss its validity among the realm of physics without
> being constantly replied that it is not "your" version of the aforesaid
> "greenhouse theory" (or effect, or phenomenon).

I just say, study physics.
All analysis must respect physical principles.

--
Poutnik

[Poutnik]

emoneyjoe posted Sat, 30 Mar 2013 10:23:34 -0400

>
> The sun is the only surface heater, the

Most of incoming IR does not come from Sun.
>
>
> Averages don't always count, the
> lower 100 feet of the air has more
> thermal transfer with the surface
> than the rest of the atmosphere
> put together.

Not true.
>
> While you know basic physics,
> applying that knowledge to the
> complexity of the total thermal
> energy content of the Earth's
> biosphere is not a given.

Still physical principles have to be obeyed.

IR absorbing air without grehouse effect
is not physically possible.


--
Poutnik

[Poutnik]

Paul Aubrin posted 30 Mar 2013 14:32:25 GMT


>
> On Sat, 30 Mar 2013 10:08:11 +0100, Poutnik wrote:
>
> > P.S.: I hope blankets will not be accused for 2nd TD law violation,
> > performing transformation of thermal and radiation energy all the time.
>
> As far as I know, blankets don't violate the second law of
> thermodynamics. Like real greenhouses, most blankets work by preventing
> convection.

Than 2nd one should not help.
And, for education purposes we can use some model heate and vacuum
chnamber.


> The CO2 blanket absorbs currently 100% of the 15?m active band at the
> level of the ground. One more blanket there changes nearly nothing.

It would be true if such absorbtion was end of the story.
But is not. All air layers radiates on each other.


> Although it is not a mechanical work, I am nearly sure that the
> transformation from electromagnetic energy to heat is not
> reversible.

Than not to be so sure,
as such operations are part of radiative equilibrium.


> Could you provide us hints that the cyclic transformations -from
> radiation to heat and again- implied in the greenhouse effect, are
> quantitatively compatible with second principle of thermodynamics?

It is reversible process. dS gor closed cycle of refersible chnages = 0
Do you see any irreversibility there ?

> This
> is a completely different situation from the radiative equilibrium of
> various black-bodies in the void where no actual actual electromagnetic
> energy is exchanged at the point of equilibrium.

This is incorrect. Only net exchnage is zero.


--
Poutnik

[emoneyjoe]

On Sun, 31 Mar 2013 14:29:45 -0700 (PDT), 1treePetrifiedForestLane
<Spac...@hotmail.com> wrote:

>as pointed-out by someone, just recently,
>the rockets have injected toms of burnt fuel,
>that is to say H2O and CO2, into near-earth orbit, although
>CO2 is so heavy, that it is bound to be "going downsville."

A lot of the rockets only exhaust water, and
sorry, no matter how "heavy" CO2 is, it follows
the same trajectory as the water or anything
else outside the atmosphere.

>however, hte pressure is so much less, the density,
>that it may be of almost no "glass haus quantitatively.

Not enough mass to even consider.

>> > What is the ratio of H2O molecules to CO2 molecules at the space
>> > station?
>
>>    On well mixed CO2 up to the higher parts of the atmosphere, I think
>> that Tom is right. What he omits to say, is that although the
>> concentration of CO2 is the same than at the level of the ground, its
>> effect is less: very low temperatures and very low pressures imply no
>> widening of the absorption rays as is the case at the level of the
>> ground. The absorption pattern of the cold, low pressure CO2 in the high
>> atmosphere is that of a thin grate.

Above 100 miles there is no sense
even thinking of any molecules as a
gas. If a GHG molecule is in free
space it may emit any energy it
receives almost instantly, in the
lower atmosphere it is the mass
of the air that holds the heat.

[emoneyjoe]

On Mon, 1 Apr 2013 01:26:46 +0200, Poutnik <pou...@privacy.invalid>
wrote:

>
>emoneyjoe posted Sat, 30 Mar 2013 09:41:36 -0400
>>
>> >Outgoing Earth energy in the whole is less
>> >then outgoing Earth surface energy.
>>
>> That is even more wrong, the surface
>> does not receive all incoming energy.
>
>You mix apples and pineapples.

Read the above two lines with three
attribute marks again, outgoing Earth
energy in the whole represents about
the same as incoming total solar
energy, outgoing surface energy
is probably only about, what, 70%
of the total outgoing?

>> >Like if you have a blanket, sleeping on the bed.
>>
>> The problem with that is that it is a
>> wet blanket, cover with a wet blanket
>> and see how much it warms/cools.
>
>I case of air, wet blanket warms you even more.

It isn't just the air, water on the surface
is a big cooling process, water anyplace
that is evaporating is a big cooling process,
1000 BTU per pound.

>> >> The most controversial aspect of the greenhouse "theory"
>> >
>> >It is observed effect, not a theory.
>>
>> It is misinterpreted.
>
>No, it is not. It is physics.

Where does climate science say that
GHGs cool the atmosphere, the whole
of literature talks of GHGs warming the
atmosphere.

>> The effect of the atmosphere and
>> water and GHGs is more than just a
>> warming process, it is a self regulating
>> process most of the time.
>
>Sure, it is. There are many of loopbacks.
>Enough is to understand physics,
>especially radiation behaviour of matter.

I'm not talking about loop backs,
it is things like the fourth power of
temperature radiation that makes
the cooling increase a lot if temperature
rises.
Warmer temperatures cause more
evaporation, which causes more clouds,
which means less solar energy incoming,
that is self regulation big time.

>> The ice ages represent periods
>> of loss of absorption because of
>> snow and cloud cover, not changes
>> in outgoing radiation.
>
>Absorption is just part of the process.

If solar energy is reflected back to
space, there is no process in the
atmosphere.

>> >Entropy is a state function, and change of entropy along to any closed
>> >path of reversible system is zero.
>>
>> The flow to entropy (state of disorder)
>> is more constant than the incoming energy
>> reaching the surface or the lower troposphere.
>
>Many people do not understand entropy and use it as magic word.

It is a tricky thing to talk about using the

word.


>> If you can provide any first hand
>> information about weather station
>> closures in Eastern Europe around
>> year 1990 it will be appreciated.
>
>Satellites produce much better information, as they can measure area
>averages values, well used for global statistics.
>
>Point measurement of weather stations are not useful here.

What do you mean, the data from the
old weather stations is used as part of the
1960-1990 base line, so the old weather
station data is very important.

If they would redo all the averaging,
working backwards, using only stations
that exist in the last year, no telling what
the result might be, it might even show
the Earth is cooling.

Any government that provides funding
should demand exactly that before funds
are paid, working backwards with existing
2012 stations only for every year would
provide a much better data quality.

[emoneyjoe]

On Mon, 1 Apr 2013 01:29:16 +0200, Poutnik <pou...@privacy.invalid>
wrote:

>
>emoneyjoe posted Sat, 30 Mar 2013 09:51:41 -0400
>
>> Why are you supporting this obviously
>> wrong concept, fog and clouds do act
>> that way, clear air does not.
>
>It is not concept it is physics.
>Ignoring physics is bad concept.

The comment was about clouds and
fog blocking IR radiation, it is too simple
to be just physics.

>Both act this way, effect of condensed water
>is just stronger.

You mean liquid water, of course,
it blocks and emits better than gases
or vapor.

>> Is there something in your past or
>> in your education or political beliefs
>> that could cause you to support what
>> organizations support?
>
>Physics, that you ignore.

Are you avoiding the question, were
you in the Air Force of a socialist nation
at one time, this information can have
a bearing on how you view Global
Warming in my opinion, thanks.

[Sam Wormley]

On 3/24/13 9:52 PM, Will Janoschka wrote:
> The Sun has no temperature only radiance and apparent
> temperature, as the Sun does not have "the" thermometer.

You would be wrong about that, Will, as the sun has a core
temperature ~15.7E6 K and a surface temperature of 5,778 K.

I pity you if you can only conceive of temperature measurement
with a glass thermometer.

[Sam Wormley]

On 3/27/13 12:00 AM, Will Janoschka wrote:
> We don need no steenkin electromagnetic speculum here!!!

Perhaps, Will, you don't understand that temperature determines,
in part, spectra.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wien's_displacement_law

[Sam Wormley]

On 3/31/13 2:47 AM, Will Janoschka wrote:
> ... fool concept of greenhouse effect and why it violates 2LTD.


What the science says...
> http://www.skepticalscience.com/Second-law-of-thermodynamics-greenhouse-theory-intermediate.htm

> The atmosphere of the Earth is less able to absorb shortwave
> radiation from the Sun than thermal radiation coming from the
> surface. The effect of this disparity is that thermal radiation
> escaping to space comes mostly from the cold upper atmosphere, while
> the surface is maintained at a substantially warmer temperature. This
> is called the "atmospheric greenhouse effect", and without it the
> Earth's surface would be much colder.

> Most participants in climate debates can agree that the atmosphere's
> capacity to interact with thermal radiation helps maintain the
> Earth's surface temperature at a livable level. The Earth's surface
> is about 33 degrees Celsius warmer than required to radiate back all
> the absorbed energy from the Sun. This is possible only because most
> of this radiation is absorbed in the atmosphere, and what actually
> escapes out into space is mostly emitted from colder atmosphere.
>
> This absorption is due to trace gases which make up only a very small
> part of the atmosphere. Such gases are opaque to thermal radiation,
> and are called "greenhouse gases". The most important greenhouse
> gases on Earth are water vapor and carbon dioxide, with additional
> contributions from methane, nitrous oxide, ozone, and others. If the
> atmosphere was simply a dry mix of its major constituents, Oxygen and
> Nitrogen, the Earth would freeze over completely.
>
> Observing the greenhouse effect in action
>
> The simplest direct observation of the greenhouse effect at work is
> atmospheric backradiation. Any substance that absorbs thermal
> radiation will also emit thermal radiation; this is a consequence of
> Kirchoff's law. The atmosphere absorbs thermal radiation because of
> the trace greenhouse gases, and also emits thermal radiation, in all
> directions. This thermal emission can be measured from the surface
> and also from space. The surface of the Earth actually receives in
> total more radiation from the atmosphere than it does from the Sun.
>
> The net flow of radiant heat is still upwards from the surface to the
> atmosphere, because the upwards thermal emission is greater than the
> downwards atmospheric backradiation. This is a simple consequence of
> the second law of thermodynamics. The magnitude of the net flow of
> heat is the difference between the radiant energy flowing in each
> direction. Because of the backradiation, the surface temperature and
> the upwards thermal radiation is much larger than if there was no
> greenhouse effect.
>
> Atmospheric backradiation has been directly measured for over fifty
> years. The effects of greenhouse gases stand out clearly in modern
> measurements, which are able to show a complete spectrum.

More:
> http://www.skepticalscience.com/Second-law-of-thermodynamics-greenhouse-theory-intermediate.htm

[Poutnik]

emoneyjoe posted Sun, 31 Mar 2013 20:14:10 -0400

> >>
> >> >Outgoing Earth energy in the whole is less
> >> >then outgoing Earth surface energy.
> >>
> >> That is even more wrong, the surface
> >> does not receive all incoming energy.
> >
> >You mix apples and pineapples.
>
> Read the above two lines with three
> attribute marks again, outgoing Earth
> energy in the whole represents about
> the same as incoming total solar
> energy, outgoing surface energy
> is probably only about, what, 70%
> of the total outgoing?

No, it is roughly about 150 %.

Outgoing Earth energy in the whole

is equal to incoming Sun energy,
but less then outgoing Earth surface energy.

>
>
> >> >Like if you have a blanket, sleeping on the bed.
> >>
> >> The problem with that is that it is a
> >> wet blanket, cover with a wet blanket
> >> and see how much it warms/cools.
> >
> >I case of air, wet blanket warms you even more.
>
> It isn't just the air, water on the surface
> is a big cooling process, water anyplace
> that is evaporating is a big cooling process,
> 1000 BTU per pound.

No problem with that.

> Where does climate science say that
> GHGs cool the atmosphere, the whole
> of literature talks of GHGs warming the
> atmosphere.

GHGs cool the atmosphere, if radiate more then absorb.
GHGs warm the atmosphere, if radiate less then absorb.

> I'm not talking about loop backs,
> it is things like the fourth power of
> temperature radiation that makes
> the cooling increase a lot if temperature
> rises.

> Warmer temperatures cause more
> evaporation, which causes more clouds,
> which means less solar energy incoming,
> that is self regulation big time.

All this happens, aside of phenomena
of IR radiation not coming from the Sun.

> If solar energy is reflected back to
> space, there is no process in the
> atmosphere.

IF

>
> What do you mean, the data from the
> old weather stations is used as part of the
> 1960-1990 base line, so the old weather
> station data is very important.

There is plkanety of such data.

>
> If they would redo all the averaging,
> working backwards, using only stations
> that exist in the last year, no telling what
> the result might be, it might even show
> the Earth is cooling.

Time series for single stations say otherwise.


--
Poutnik

[Poutnik]

emoneyjoe posted Sun, 31 Mar 2013 20:19:33 -0400

> >
> >> Why are you supporting this obviously
> >> wrong concept, fog and clouds do act
> >> that way, clear air does not.
> >
> >It is not concept it is physics.
> >Ignoring physics is bad concept.
>
> The comment was about clouds and
> fog blocking IR radiation, it is too simple
> to be just physics.

Whatever climate model anyones uses,
it must obey physics.

Saying "clear air does not" ignores physics.

>
>
> >Both act this way, effect of condensed water
> >is just stronger.
>
> You mean liquid water, of course,
> it blocks and emits better than gases
> or vapor.

You have mentioned clouds and fog, I just follow.

>

> Are you avoiding the question, were
> you in the Air Force of a socialist nation
> at one time, this information can have
> a bearing on how you view Global
> Warming in my opinion, thanks.

I follow physics only,
being subscriber of sci.physics,
not of alt.global-warming


--
Poutnik

[Poutnik]

Poutnik posted Mon, 1 Apr 2013 03:14:06 +0200

>
> > Are you avoiding the question, were
> > you in the Air Force of a socialist nation
> > at one time, this information can have
> > a bearing on how you view Global
> > Warming in my opinion, thanks.
>
> I follow physics only,
> being subscriber of sci.physics,
> not of alt.global-warming

Air absorbs IR by same way
for communists, socialists, democrats or republicans.

It does not care if you like it or not.

--
Poutnik

[Poutnik]

emoneyjoe posted Sun, 31 Mar 2013 20:19:33 -0400

> Are you avoiding the question, were
> you in the Air Force of a socialist nation
> at one time, this information can have
> a bearing on how you view Global
> Warming in my opinion, thanks.
>

Funny non scientific argument.
It was 1 year furing military service.

I could by the same way say

you are �oke being paid by Donor trust,
being under influence of US coal/oil/car lobby
interested to keep common lifestyle ignoring consequences.


--
Poutnik

[Poutnik]

emoneyjoe posted Sun, 31 Mar 2013 19:51:31 -0400

> >as pointed-out by someone, just recently,
> >the rockets have injected toms of burnt fuel,
> >that is to say H2O and CO2, into near-earth orbit, although
> >CO2 is so heavy, that it is bound to be "going downsville."
>
> A lot of the rockets only exhaust water

There are no such rockets,
what you would know
if you knew combustion chemistry.

--
Poutnik

[josephus]

Will Janoschka wrote:
> On Wed, 27 Mar 2013 10:05:55, Poutnik <pou...@privacy.invalid> wrote:
>
>>
>> Paul Aubrin posted 27 Mar 2013 09:25:39 GMT
>>
>>>>
>>>> I say surface radiation outcome is bigger than Sun radiation surface
>>>> income.
>>
>>> Nice. How do you know that for sure?
>>
>> Matter thermal radiative behaviour is well known.
>> Sun income was measured many time and can be any time.
>> so does current surface temperature ans spectral absorptivity/emissivity
>> of material.
>
> So you claim but cannot demonstrate, because you are wrong.
>
>>>> And, I say non radiative surface income is lower than non radiative
>>>> surface outcome.
>>>
>>> It is very, very curious. You say that not only does the ground loose
>>> more energy through a radiative process than it gains from the (casi)
>>
>> Yes.
>> BTW, what is :casi" ?
>>
>>> only external energy source (the sun),
>>
>> Do you count air as external or internal source,
>> in context of surface bilance ?
>>
>>> but it also looses energy as
>>> evaporation and convection.
>>
>> Sure. And conduction, unless inversion occurs.
>>
>>> And you add that the energy flux difference
>>> comes from the atmosphere which has (nearly) no energy source except the
>>> ground itself. Indirectly, you say that the ground is warming itself.
>>>
>> No, analyze it more properly. Balance is balanced.
>>
>> Just accept simple verifyable fact air absorbs and emits IR radiation.
>>
>> If absorbs, but does not emit, I am able to built a perpetuum mobile,
>> powered by electricity of thermocouples, using different temperatures
>> of air and solid, balancing radiative energy flux by thermal energy flux.
>> ( If I am technically skilled enough, of course )
>>
> You are truly deluded. This thread is about the direction of
> thermal flux from the earth and atmosphere, which is not ever
> in thermal equlibrium with the flux from the sun because
> both the earth and the atmosphere have specific heat,
> (discount wiggle CO2 molecules) This specific heat acts
> as a low pass filter so the effects of Solar radiation to the
> earth vs radiation from the earth to space. is always
> delayed, hence no thermal equilibrium EVAR.
> All is peddling as fast as can, to catch up.
> CO2 does nothing!!!! Both weather and climate
> can not be determied By CO2. FRAUD!
>
>
>
except I know that the NOAH data is wicked. the slopes of my best fit
algorthm are bending upward. the I plottend them and looked at
the FIRST data. 1895 to 2012 the enlish data 1723 to 1970 and
the NASA GISS data. 1860 to 2002 the problem is most of them are
very different. the english data is mostly -XXx which means the
slope is downward. the NASA GISS resembles the NOAA data. both
of them show a shart increase. the probem is severe it indicates
the record is bending upward. we will see record temperatures and
this is the consequence of the fact that the terms of my slope
they are a CURVE upward. So CO@ has to get in line with the rest of
them. we are in TROUBLE. I curve fitted a NON LINEAR line to a LOG
line and converted back. then I printed that data.

josephus


josephus

[Will Janoschka]

On Sun, 31 Mar 2013 16:53:21, emoneyjoe <emon...@iglou.com> wrote:
> On Sun, 31 Mar 2013 09:29:03 -0500, wil...@nospam.pobox.com (Will
> Janoschka) wrote:
> >On Sun, 31 Mar 2013 12:44:49, Tom P <wero...@freent.dd> wrote:
> >> On 03/31/2013 04:51 AM, Will Janoschka wrote:
> >> > On Sat, 30 Mar 2013 23:40:42, Tom P <wero...@freent.dd> wrote:
> >> >> On 03/30/2013 11:54 PM, Will Janoschka wrote:
> >> >>> On Sat, 30 Mar 2013 18:24:56, Tom P <wero...@freent.dd> wrote:
> >> >>>> Sam, as our resident denialists seem to be as equally impervious to
> >> >>>> reasonable argument as to insults, I thought it might be interesting to
> >> >>>> step back and find out when this particular canard first started
> >> >>>> circulating in the blogosphere.
> >> >>>> Googling for greenhouse+effect+second+law+of+thermodynamics, the first
> >> >>>> real hit I can find is back in 2007, when Gerlich and Tscheuschner their
> >> >>>> "Falsification Of The Atmospheric CO2 Greenhouse Effects Within The
> >> >>>> Frame Of Physics". Although this farrago has long been dismissed as
> >> >>>> bogus, it is still being quoted by numerous blogs.
> >> >>>>
> >> >>> No creditable person has found any flaws in Gerlich and Tscheuschner
> >> >>> their "Falsification Of The Atmospheric CO2 Greenhouse Effects Within
> >> >>> The Frame Of Physics".
> >> >>>
> >> >>>> The G&T paper makes a large number of statements that appear be
> >> >>>> regurgitated by our residents.
> >> >>>> For example: "Figure 31: Any machine which transfers heat from a low
> >> >>>> temperature reservoir to a high temperature reservoir without external
> >> >>>> work applied cannot exist: A perpetuum mobile of the second kind is
> >> >>>> impossible". (true of course, but G&T don't mention that the sun is
> >> >>>> supplying an external source of heat)
> >> >>>
> >> >>> Try to find the machine that does your claim of back radiation!!
> >> >>> show how that machine is powered by the sun.
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>> I won't go into detail trying to point out all the numerous faults
> >> >>>> with G&T, it's been done enough times already, but obviously G&T lives
> >> >>>> on the minds of the incorrigible.
> >> >>>>
> >> >>> You betcha. You are wrong as usual.
> >> >>>
> >> >>>> Incidentally, one of the (unintentionally) funniest links I found was at
> >> >>>> http://fwcon.wordpress.com/truth-about-global-warming/ - if you follow
> >> >>>> the link about CO2 cooling, it takes you to Dr Roy Spencer's "Yes
> >> >>>> Virginia" blog.. the one proving that yes, cool bodies can make hot
> >> >>>> bodies warmer. Duh..
> >> >>>
> >> >>> There is no proof the body is getting warmer because it is a heat
> >> >>> source. the only heat source that can warm.
> >> >>>
> >> >> Will, do have a look at the Dr Roy Spencer piece, and bear in mind he's
> >> >> mind he's a skeptic.
> >> >
> >> > Tom I have been all over this many times. Anything that interferes
> >> > with radiative cooling will result is an increase in temperature of
> >> > the radiator.
> >> > Is this what you call greenhouse effect? Where is the back radiation?
> >> >
> >> That is the back radiation right in front of you, it's just that you
> >> can't stomach it.
> >
> >Spencer's example has no back radiation to the heated
> >plate either from the outer sphere or from the passive plate.
> >As in any thermo"dynamics"situation any change in geometry
> >will affect the equilibrum temperatures.
>
> I wish the subject url to be in any post that
> discusses it. Why do the AGW crowd have
> to use solid objects to explain thermal transfer
> in GHGs?

They like to confuse!!!
>
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2010/07/yes-virginia-cooler-objects-can-
make-warmer-objects-even-warmer-still
or http://fwcon.wordpress.com/truth-about-global-warming/ - if you
follow
the link about CO2 cooling, it takes you to Dr Roy Spencer's "Yes
Virginia" blog..

> Using an imagined experiment with imagined
> temperatures isn't very convincing, and not having
> any air seems to be an attempt to avoid real
> conditions in the Earth's atmosphere.
True bit just BS

> In the first figure, air would cause more
> thermal transfer by conduction, and the
> air would heat up, possibly cooling the
> heated bar.
>
>
> >If the two plates were conducting well to each other, the
> >geometrydid not change nor would the equilibium temperatures.
>
> Even considering the second plate to be
> conducting to the heated plate is imaginary
> too, while I really love thought experiments,
> this one is garbage from the start, and is
> not relevant to GHG theory.

Joe, there is no valid , or relevent GHG theory!

The whole idea here is to explain the change in geometry.

In thermodymamics 96% is geometry, easy to get wrong.
the other 4% is a snap!.
>
> >The spacing of the plates changes the geometry and the result
> >to each. Note in Spencer's demo all of the energy from the
> >heated plate to the passive plate was immediately radiated
> > to the colder outer sphere. That balance of from = to is
> >what determines the temperature of the passive plate the
> >temperature of the powered and pasive plate self adjust
> >to radiate just the amount pf power delivered by the heater
>
> Apparently Spencer considered a constant
> wattage going to the heated plate, everything
> else is imagined, this is not a thought experiment,
> it is science fiction, and Tom seems to like fiction
> that supports his agenda.

That is true for Spencer,a constant wattage source,
then figure out the temperatures needed to dissipate
that constant power, under changing. geometry.
Yes, all is imagined, One can be demonstrated,
the other is Bull Shit.
>
> >This is called thermodynamic equilibrum.
> >No back radiation to higher from colder anywhere.
>
> I would not call it back radiation, but there
> must be some transfer going on from and to
> each object, only I don't accept the imagined
> results.

True, they claim spontanious heat transfer from
cold to warm. This is identically, a violation 2LTD.
>
> >This is not a warming, as warming can come only from the
> >power source. it is a correction for a change in geometry.
>
> Frankly I don't think IR radiation from a
> single surface can be fast enough to change
> the temperature of the heated bar very much
> just because there is a passive bar near it.

Joe, All can be measured, and if the calcilation
is correct the measured temperature is exact.
If a difference is observed, it is the calculation
that has the error. not the mjasurement.

> Again, the temperatures are all imagined,
> not real, not measurements.
>
> >This is again a correct demonstration of the second law that
> >says "No spontaneous heat transfer from colder to warmer
>
> I don't see that at all, without measured
> temperatures, the experiment is nothing
> but imagination, that is what fiction is.

Joe, in all of Spencer's demo all "can" be calculated
and measured. What Spencer proves is "no back
radiation ever"
>
> >The only heat or power to the passive plate, like our atmosphere,
> >came from the powered plate, and was radiated outward
> >establishing its equilibrium temperature". No back radiation
> >thus no violation of 2LTD.. All thermodynamics. can and must
> >be done without violation else the description of process is false,
> >as is greenhouse the effect.
>
> I feel you need to take a different approach,
> but only with real experiments and measured
> temperatures.

I agree the calulations are called "dry labing"
the calcilations are your best guess.
Without "dry labing" you will never discover
the "Aw Shit" in the measurement.

In my case, I did again put the PI in the
top rather than in the bottom!
>
>
> >Why keep trying to do thermodynamics from a temperature
> >start, rather that a power start. The temperatures will adjust to
> >"do" what the power must do and this must do is all that is "ever"
> >done. Back radiarion is not a must do and is not done!!!
> >Radiance is a potential, and never Radiation.
>
> I would still want measurements no matter
> what prior science says. I am not a scientist,
> I am an inventor, and facts are important, far
> more important than imagined results.

A real inventor only invents what is desired
by others, Measurements only let you know
what was invented!
>
>
> >In the the additional CO2 in the earth atmosphere
> >changes neither
> >the transmissivity nor the temperature of any part.
>
> Don't be too sure, more GHGs should cool
> the atmosphere more, or at least cool the
> upper atmosphere more because GHGs
> are what cool the atmosphere.

The measurements of CO2 from 300 ppmv to
400 ppmv show no measurable effect.
the calculations of 1100 ppmv indicate
that that should be measurable
>
> >Your Climate Clowns have never measured any thermal flux "from"
> >or "to" the earth surface. They have not even said what the earth
> >surface is. Is the Sun's radiation that is converted to chemical
> >change such as latent heat of vaporization by the biomass,
> >surface water, or ocean, "ever" some sensible heat of the surface?
> >By the time H2O has this latent heat it is a gas and part of the
> >atmosphere not part of the surface. I am not nit picking.I wish to
> >understand what it is, that is written. what is the surface?
> >
> >Your Climate Clowns have much Bull Shit to account for.
>
> The fourth graphic shows radiation arrows
> both up and down the full atmosphere from
> stratopause to the surface.

All the graphics are profession advertising.
never made to inform, but only to create
a believer!

> He must have a reason to use a number
> of short arrows rather than one long one.
>
> And then he says, this is my story and
> I am sticking to it until somebody convinces
> me otherwise.
>
>
> How about a story about gases, real
> gases, with measurements. I can accept
> two way flow of energy, but using the gases
> involved, not solid bars and no gases.

Measured effects of mixed gasses in this
atmosphere, is a true mess.

It will take much smarter grankids to
ever get a correct answer
>
> And with measured temperatures,
> not imagined temperatures.
>
I agree with all of this!
>
> The whole idea of the study of GHG
> theory is lost here, the question of whether
> GHGs warm or cool the atmosphere wasn't
> even mentioned, maybe GHGs can both
> warm and cool and moderate the temperature
> of the atmosphere, but the natural curiosity
> of science is lost when the AGW crowd
> gets going.

You indicate that you believe in GHGs,
I do not, all fake all nonsense

>
> The very existence of the lapse rate
> not being modified by more than half
> seems to be a suggestion that IR radiation
> is not a big warming process, but the
> fact that the atmosphere is cooled at
> all levels suggests that IR radiation
> is a big cooling process.

From the atmosphere yes! From the
surface not so much!

[Will Janoschka]

The Space scuttle main engine runs very hot, on liquid hydrogen
and liqiuid oxygen. High specific impulse. Pray tell what else is
the combustion product beside water?

[Sam Wormley]

On 3/31/13 11:23 PM, Will Janoschka wrote:
> The Space scuttle main engine runs very hot, on liquid hydrogen
> and liqiuid oxygen. High specific impulse. Pray tell what else is
> the combustion product beside water?

See: Nozzle Exit Exhaust Products From Space Shuttle Boost Vehicle
(November 1973 Design)
> http://ia700507.us.archive.org/3/items/nasa_techdoc_19750011272/19750011272.pdf

> Principal exhaust species emitted at various altitudes for two
> trajectories of the Space Shuttle Vehicle are presented. The exhaust
> composition is given for the nozzle exit plane on the basis of
> equilibrium chemistry. However, afterburning of excess H, H2 , and
> CO in the plume is accounted for. Species considered include HCL and
> A12O3, which have been recognized as environmentally significant,
> as well as others such as H2O (produced by both the Solid Rocket
> Motor and the Orbiter Main Engine) which, although innocuous, may
> participate in subsequent chemical reactions in the atmosphere.

[Will Janoschka]

On Sun, 31 Mar 2013 21:29:45, 1treePetrifiedForestLane
<Spac...@hotmail.com> wrote:

> as pointed-out by someone, just recently,
> the rockets have injected toms of burnt fuel,
> that is to say H2O and CO2, into near-earth orbit, although
> CO2 is so heavy, that it is bound to be "going downsville."

Not quit true. Each molecule is in "its" eliptical orbit and
constrained
only by the force of gravitation, untill a collision.. Going up they
are
decelerating going down accelerating. A CO2 molecule at any
velocity has much more momentum upon elastic colilsion with a H2O
molecule the H2O bounces reversing direction,.while the CO2
guy says "did someone say something"? And continues in orbit
untill it scoots right through the tropopause on its way to the
center of mass of this planet. Once atmospheric pressure is
high enough, all hell breaks loose, and we have weather.
>
> however, the pressure is so much less, the density,

> that it may be of almost no "glass haus quantitatively.

The glass haus is but a figment

[Will Janoschka]

On Sun, 31 Mar 2013 23:51:31, emoneyjoe <emon...@iglou.com> wrote:

> On Sun, 31 Mar 2013 14:29:45 -0700 (PDT), 1treePetrifiedForestLane
> <Spac...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >as pointed-out by someone, just recently,
> >the rockets have injected toms of burnt fuel,
> >that is to say H2O and CO2, into near-earth orbit, although
> >CO2 is so heavy, that it is bound to be "going downsville."
>
> A lot of the rockets only exhaust water, and
> sorry, no matter how "heavy" CO2 is, it follows
> the same trajectory as the water or anything
> else outside the atmosphere.
>

Untill an elastic collision The greater momentum
of the CO2 guy compared to the H2O guy males
all the difference. You wish to be in the cement
mixer not on the motorcycle.

>
> >however, hte pressure is so much less, the density,
> >that it may be of almost no "glass haus quantitatively.
>
> Not enough mass to even consider.
>

Consider how much more volume for each kilometer
of altitude" 3R^2 delta R

>
> >> > What is the ratio of H2O molecules to CO2 molecules at the space
> >> > station?
> >
> >>    On well mixed CO2 up to the higher parts of the atmosphere, I think
> >> that Tom is right. What he omits to say, is that although the
> >> concentration of CO2 is the same than at the level of the ground, its
> >> effect is less: very low temperatures and very low pressures imply no
> >> widening of the absorption rays as is the case at the level of the
> >> ground. The absorption pattern of the cold, low pressure CO2 in the high
> >> atmosphere is that of a thin grate.
>
> Above 100 miles there is no sense
> even thinking of any molecules as a
> gas. If a GHG molecule is in free
> space it may emit any energy it
> receives almost instantly, in the
> lower atmosphere it is the mass
> of the air that holds the heat.

To hold any heat as sensible heat
the temperature of the air must increase,
it does not, All is in thermodynamic
equilibrium or the temperature must change
until it is. This is why you do thermodynamics
from a power prespective rather than a
temperature perspective. Temperature
is the dependent variable. What temperature
is needed to transfer this much power.
"Make it so." No back radiation!!!
>
>
>
>
>

[Will Janoschka]

Blatent Bull Shit!!!

[Will Janoschka]

No exchange except net Your theory is not measurable, so is not.
Radiance is not radiation.
>

[Sam Wormley]

On 3/31/13 11:55 PM, Will Janoschka wrote:
> Not quit true. Each molecule is in "its" eliptical orbit and
> constrained only by the force of gravitation, untill a collision..
> Going up they are decelerating going down accelerating. A CO2
> molecule at any velocity has much more momentum upon elastic
> colilsion with a H2O molecule the H2O bounces reversing
> direction,.while the CO2 guy says "did someone say something"? And
> continues in orbit untill it scoots right through the tropopause on
> its way to the center of mass of this planet. Once atmospheric
> pressure is high enough, all hell breaks loose, and we have weather.

What kind of bullshit is this, Will. CO2 molecules experience on the
order of a billion collisions per second.

An IR photon is absorbed by a CO2 molecule

CO2 + hv <==> CO2*
CO2* + N2 ==> N2* + CO2
N2* + H2O ==> H2O* + N2
H2O* ==> H2O + hv

> http://edu-observatory.org/olli/Climate/layer.jpg

[Sam Wormley]

On 4/1/13 12:18 AM, Will Janoschka wrote:
> Untill an elastic collision The greater momentum of the CO2 guy
> compared to the H2O guy males all the difference. You wish to be in
> the cement mixer not on the motorcycle.

[Sam Wormley]

You think, Will? CO2 molecules experience on the

[Will Janoschka]

On Mon, 1 Apr 2013 00:28:58, Sam Wormley <swor...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 3/24/13 9:52 PM, Will Janoschka wrote:
> > The Sun has no temperature only radiance and apparent
> > temperature, as the Sun does not have "the" thermometer.
>
> You would be wrong about that, Will, as the sun has a core
> temperature ~15.7E6 K and a surface temperature of 5,778 K.

Wrong these are apparent temperatures.

>
> I pity you if you can only conceive of temperature measurement
> with a glass thermometer.

I did not say a thermometer I said "the" thermometer.
Temperature is but a concept that you always get wrong.
>
So you claim Sam, you will not know until you measure,
Then you will find your obvious mistakes.

I wish to "know" the temperature of "this" right here.
I have in the request, but I have been wating for
"the" thermometer for six years now..

[Will Janoschka]

Sam why don't you tell me what I don't understand! -idiot-

[Will Janoschka]

On Sun, 31 Mar 2013 19:48:15, JohnM <jmorgan...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Mar 31, 9:27�pm, wil...@nospam.pobox.com (Will Janoschka) wrote:
> > On Sun, 31 Mar 2013 18:05:20, JohnM <jmorgan1234...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Mar 31, 5:48�pm, Paul Aubrin <chu8i...@free.fr> wrote:
> > > > On Sat, 30 Mar 2013 22:06:06 -0500, Will Janoschka wrote:
> > > > > Who the hell has "measured", rather than just claim?

> > > > > What is the ratio of H2O molecules to CO2 molecules at the space
> > > > > station?

> > > > > They are there, they have the instrumentation. You say trust me, but you
> > > > > have demonstrated many times that you are an unreliable source of
> > > > > anything.
> >
> > > > � �On well mixed CO2 up to the higher parts of the atmosphere, I think

> > > > that Tom is right. What he omits to say, is that although the
> > > > concentration of CO2 is the same than at the level of the ground, its
> > > > effect is less: very low temperatures and very low pressures imply no
> > > > widening of the absorption rays as is the case at the level of the
> > > > ground. The absorption pattern of the cold, low pressure CO2 in the high
> > > > atmosphere is that of a thin grate.
> >

> > > I see you have made no attribution, nor given a citation/reference,
> > > for your above statement. Would that be for any particular reason?
> >
> > Yes JohnM, �Paul, like Joe, and myself have only our "own" hard
> > learned
> > knowledge, we do not attribute because another's knowledge is their
> > knowledge, not mine. I can only express what is me! �This is called
> > "Personal integrity". � Have you any?
>
> So you finally admit to just making up stuff to fit your personal
> agenda, then.
>
> We all knew you were doing that, but in your deluded state you never
> realised it yourself. That's why you imagine you are acting from
> 'personal integrity'.

So you finally admit that you don't have any!!!

[Will Janoschka]

On Sun, 31 Mar 2013 19:50:04, Sam Wormley <swor...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 3/31/13 2:31 PM, Will Janoschka wrote:
> > On Sun, 31 Mar 2013 18:06:43, Sam Wormley <swor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> See: http://edu-observatory.org/olli/Climate/layer.jpg
> >>
> >> One must include the incoming solar flux.
> >
> > Why?
> >
>
> You can't leave out the energy source and sink in a radiative
> transfer problem! Are you daft?
>
You did not explain "why"! This whole thread is about your
illusionary Greenhouse effect, which is not. It is about
the nonsense "back radiation" that violates 2LTD.

[Will Janoschka]

On Mon, 1 Apr 2013 00:35:23, Sam Wormley <swor...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 3/31/13 2:47 AM, Will Janoschka wrote:
> > ... fool concept of greenhouse effect and why it violates 2LTD.
>
>
> What the science says...

Give up your non- cience Sam.

[Sam Wormley]

On 4/1/13 12:57 AM, Will Janoschka wrote:
> On Sun, 31 Mar 2013 19:50:04, Sam Wormley <swor...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>

>> Will--You can't leave out the energy source and sink in a radiative

>> transfer problem! Are you daft?
>>

> You did not explain "why"! This whole thread is about your
> illusionary Greenhouse effect, which is not. It is about
> the nonsense "back radiation" that violates 2LTD.
>
>

Actually the thread is about greenhouse gas effects in complete
harmony with the 2nd law of thermodynamics. Will fails to understand
the physics of radiative transfer.

[Sam Wormley]

On 4/1/13 12:45 AM, Will Janoschka wrote:
>

> I did not say a thermometer I said "the" thermometer. Temperature is
> but a concept that you always get wrong.
>
> So you claim Sam, you will not know until you measure, Then you will
> find your obvious mistakes.
>
> I wish to "know" the temperature of "this" right here. I have in the
> request, but I have been wating for "the" thermometer for six years
> now..

Will, measurements shows that sun has a core temperature ~15.7E6 K

[Will Janoschka]

On Sun, 31 Mar 2013 17:59:15, Tom P <wero...@freent.dd> wrote:

> >>>>> source.the only heat source that can warm.

> >>>>>
> >>>> Will, do have a look at the Dr Roy Spencer piece, and bear in mind he's

> >>>> a skeptic.
> >>>
> >>> Tom I have been all over this many times. Anything that interferes
> >>> with radiative cooling will result is an increase in temperature of
> >>> the radiator.
> >>> Is this what you call greenhouse effect? Where is the back radiation?
> >>>
> >> That is the back radiation right in front of you, it's just that you
> >> can't stomach it.
> >>
> >
> > Spencer's example has no back radiation to the heated plate either
> > from
> > the outer sphere or from the passive plate. As in any
> > thermo"dynamics"

> > situation any change in geometry will affect the equilibrium
> > temperatures.

> >
> >
> > If the two plates were conducting well to each other, the geometry
> > did

> > not change nor would the equilibrium temperatures. The spacing of

> > the
> > plates changes the geometry and the result to each. Note in Spencer's
> >
> > demo all of the energy from the heated plate to the passive plate was
> >

> > immediately radiated to the colder outer sphere. No back radiation to
> > the
> > highertemperature powered plate. This is not a warming, as warming
> > can
> > come only from the power source. This is again a correct demonstration

> >
> > of the second law that says "No spontaneous heat transfer from colder

> > to warmer The only heat or power to the passive plate, like our
> > atmosphere
> > came from the powered plate, and was radiated outward estaLike in my
> > demo using three concentric spheres with no radiative leaks

> >
> > Spencer's example has no back radiation to the heated plate either
> > from
> > the outer sphere or from the passive plate. As in any
> > thermo"dynamics"

> > situation any change in geometry will affect the equilibrium
> > temperatures.

> >
> >
> > If the two plates were conducting well to each other, the geometry
> > did not

> > change nor would the equilibrium temperatures. The spacing of the

> > plates
> > changes the geometry and the result to each. Note in Spencer's demo
> > all
> > of the energy from the heated plate to the passive plate was
> > immediately

> > radiated to the colder outer sphere. No back radiation to the higher
> >
> > temperature powered plate. This is not a warming, as warming can come
> >
> > only from the power source. This is again a correct demonstration of

> > the
> > second law that says "No spontaneous heat transfer from colder to
> > warmer

> > The only heat or power to the passive plate, like our atmosphere came

> > from
> > the powered plate, and was radiated outward establishing its
> > equilibrium
> > temperature". No back radiation thus no violation of 2LTD.. All
> > thermodynamics. can and must be done without violation else the

> > description of process is false, as is greenhouse effect.
> >
> >
> >
> > Why do you keep trying to do thermodynamics from a temperature
> > start rather that a power start. The temperatures will adjust to

> > "do"
> > what the power must do and this must do is all that is "ever" done.
> >
> >
> >

> > In the earth atmosphere the additional CO2 changes neither the

> >
> > transmissivity nor the temperature of any part.
> >
> >
>

> Will, I've pointed it out several times before, but your formulation of
> the 2nd law applies expressly to isolated systems.
The first is the only that is limited to a closed system
>The Clausius
> statement of the second law applies to the entire system and not just
> isolated parts of it.
The second with no spontanious from warm to cold applies in all
cases and for all forms of heat transfer.

>In the case of the Spencer experiment, there is
> an external source of power, and the surrounding sphere is being
> maintained at a temperature of zero by some cooling mechanism. In the
> case of planet earth, the planet-atmosphere system is heated by the sun
> and radiates energy off into empty space. This fact alone is sufficient
> to invalidate your interpretation.

Tranfer ot thermal energy from the cfold atmospner to a watmer earthy
is a violation and never happens. No back radiation.
>
> There have been several rebuttals of the G&T paper, here are a few:
> http://arxiv.org/abs/0802.4324
> http://rabett.blogspot.de/2009/03/second-law-and-its-criminal-misuse-as.html
> http://rabett.blogspot.de/2008/02/all-you-never-wanted-to-know-about.html
> http://www.worldscientific.com/doi/abs/10.1142/S021797921005555X
> http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/upload/2010/05/halpern_etal_2010.pdf

Fake bloggers all. No creditable disagreement. No rebuttal. It
stands.
>
> Will, I'd suggest if that you want to see how your version of the 2LTD
> works - unplug your refrigerator and tells us tomorrow how the beer tastes.

Exactly, moving heat to warm requires more power than is moved
such transfer is never spontainious. but powered You have in your
back
radiation at night a claim of a rediction of entropy, never happens.

[Sam Wormley]

On 4/1/13 12:48 AM, Will Janoschka wrote:

> Sam why don't you tell me what I don't understand! -idiot-
>

Gladly, Will. I don't understand why you try to be so stooopid!
The science is there for you to learn and the scientific literature
is there for you to read. Why are you being a science denier?

[Sam Wormley]

[Sam Wormley]

On 4/1/13 12:59 AM, Will Janoschka wrote:

>

> Give up your non- cience Sam.
>

The science is there for you to learn and the scientific literature

is there for you to read. Why are you being a science denier, Will?

[Poutnik]

emoneyjoe posted Sun, 31 Mar 2013 19:51:31 -0400

>
> Above 100 miles there is no sense
> even thinking of any molecules as a
> gas.

Why ? They keep behaviour of gaseous molecules,
Only speed of getting to equilibrium is near zero.
Butability of emit and absorb IR is unaffected.

> If a GHG molecule is in free
> space it may emit any energy it
> receives almost instantly, in the

It is valid for the whole atmosphere.

> lower atmosphere it is the mass

> of the air that holds the heat.
>
Both holds the heat and emits constantly.
As it absorbs as well.


--
Poutnik

[Poutnik]

emoneyjoe posted Sun, 31 Mar 2013 20:14:10 -0400


> It isn't just the air, water on the surface
> is a big cooling process, water anyplace
> that is evaporating is a big cooling process,
> 1000 BTU per pound.
>

Exactly. And, in parallel to that,
part of energy Earth radiates is absorbed by air
and part of that is radiated back.

As air radiates IR independently on absorbtion from surface.

--
Poutnik

[Will Janoschka]

On Sun, 31 Mar 2013 15:37:31, Paul Aubrin <chu8...@free.fr> wrote:

> On Sat, 30 Mar 2013 07:46:53 +0100, Poutnik wrote:
>
> >> is the permanent transformation from radiation to heat and back in
> >> the global-warming energy loop.
> >
> > It is not a problem for anybody understanding physics and
> > thermodynamics.
> > Any system in TS equilibrium does it all the time,
> > keeping its entropy constant.
>
> The earth atmosphere is never in equilibrium. Two black surfaces at
> thermal equilibrium don't exchange any radiative energy at all, unlike
> the supposition of many people in this group.

Only at the same temperature If power needs be moved the powered
source will increase in temperature such that that power, "exactiy",
is moved..This power is the dynamics of thermodynamics and all
power transfer (flux) is one way only.

> There is no scientific definition of the atmospheric "greenhouse
> effect", each person in this group has some representation in his/her
> head.

> Your definition of the greenhouse effect as the creation of a
> radiative looping energy flux is false. There can be no radiative energy
> loop. The only energy fluxes are from warm regions to cold regions,
> whatever may be the mechanisms at stake, conductive, convective and
> radiative transfer included.

> The energy which reach the ground flows upwards (except in the case
> of temperature inversions). The role of "greenhouse gases" is to slightly
> throttle the radiative flow in a limited range of frequencies.

For CO2 from 300 to 400ppmv it is so slight it is unmeasurable!

> The right
> analogy is not a blanket, it is a moucharaby, not a dam, but at grate. At
> the level of the ground, the size of the rods of the grate are already as
> big as they can be (100%), so an increase of CO2 concentrations has no
> direct effect.

For this increase in CO2 there is no change in atmospheric
transmittivity
or temperature,
>

[Sam Wormley]

On 4/1/13 1:49 AM, Will Janoschka wrote:
> For CO2 from 300 to 400ppmv it is so slight it is unmeasurable!

Of course it is measurable, Will. Are you daft? We routinely
measure part per billion for gasses.

[Will Janoschka]

No science all deliberate lies.
>

[Will Janoschka]

Hey sgtupid Sam the effect of that change is unmeasurable.

[Paul Aubrin]

On Mon, 01 Apr 2013 00:20:54 +0200, Tom P wrote:

>> A course I found on "radiative heat transfers", confirms that the
>> energy flux exchanged between two black surfaces is proportional to the
>> *difference* of their emittance. It doesn't say that both surfaces
>> unconditionally emit like a black body in all directions.
>
> Why should it need to state the obvious?
I prefer stating the obvious because what some people state in this
group is ambiguous and could be interpreted in several ways. Better state
the obvious and be clear than endlessly discussing ill defined concepts.
The proportionality of the net flow to the difference of emittance
holds for every wavelength. As the spectral emittance of the air above
the ground has not the black-body shape, the net flow of the radiation
from the ground has not the black-body spectrum shape either, especially
in the long wave thermal IR range.

[Poutnik]

Paul Aubrin posted 01 Apr 2013 07:37:29 GMT

> The proportionality of the net flow to the difference of emittance
> holds for every wavelength. As the spectral emittance of the air above
> the ground has not the black-body shape, the net flow of the radiation
> from the ground has not the black-body spectrum shape either, especially
> in the long wave thermal IR range.
>

I agree.
It has shape of near BB radiation at surface T
for IR transparent windows,
and shape of near BB radiation at "effective" air T
for IR apaque windows with near complete absorption.




--
Poutnik

[Paul Aubrin]

On Mon, 01 Apr 2013 01:43:17 +0200, Poutnik wrote:

> Paul Aubrin posted 30 Mar 2013 14:32:25 GMT
>
>
>
>> On Sat, 30 Mar 2013 10:08:11 +0100, Poutnik wrote:
>>
>> > P.S.: I hope blankets will not be accused for 2nd TD law violation,
>> > performing transformation of thermal and radiation energy all the
>> > time.
>>
>> As far as I know, blankets don't violate the second law of
>> thermodynamics. Like real greenhouses, most blankets work by preventing
>> convection.
>
> Than 2nd one should not help.
> And, for education purposes we can use some model heate and vacuum
> chnamber.
>
>

>> The CO2 blanket absorbs currently 100% of the 15?m active band at
>> the

>> level of the ground. One more blanket there changes nearly nothing.
>
> It would be true if such absorbtion was end of the story.
> But is not. All air layers radiates on each other.

For each wavelength, each layer radiates according to the difference in
radiance for this wavelength. The radiance is linked to temperatures of
the atmosphere (its molecular agitation). The temperature results from
the lapse rate. The radiation from layer to layer results from the
(small) difference of temperature between the two layers. In the
"greenhouse gas" absorption bands, the net radiative flux is proportional
to the temperature gradient and (nearly always) small and upward.

>> Although it is not a mechanical work, I am nearly sure that the
>> transformation from electromagnetic energy to heat is not reversible.
>
> Than not to be so sure,
> as such operations are part of radiative equilibrium.

In the radiative equilibrium, no actual energy is exchanged. Photons
are not small bullets fired in every direction by matter. They are
quantum of interaction between two particles which are in a convenient
state for this precise exchange. In the atmosphere where nearly all the
available CO2 molecules are in their excited state (graphs show 100%
absorption at the central frequency of the band), there are nearly no
candidate target molecules to accept a photon in this frequency band,
thus no emission. It is not a magic driven idea, but observed reality as
explained in Feynman's book "Q.E.D.: The Strange Theory of Light and
Matter".

[Poutnik]

Paul Aubrin posted 01 Apr 2013 08:31:06 GMT

>
> For each wavelength, each layer radiates according to the difference in
> radiance for this wavelength. The radiance is linked to temperatures of
> the atmosphere (its molecular agitation). The temperature results from
> the lapse rate. The radiation from layer to layer results from the
> (small) difference of temperature between the two layers. In the
> "greenhouse gas" absorption bands, the net radiative flux is proportional
> to the temperature gradient and (nearly always) small and upward.

Yes. The point is - net flux.
So does net surface IR radiation flux is upwards.
And this net flux is progressively decreasing across layers.

> In the radiative equilibrium, no actual energy is exchanged.

False.

> Photons
> are not small bullets fired in every direction by matter.

In many aspects they are.

> They are
> quantum of interaction between two particles which are in a convenient
> state for this precise exchange.

These 2 events are unrelated.

> In the atmosphere where nearly all the
> available CO2 molecules are in their excited state (graphs show 100%
> absorption at the central frequency of the band)

Are you really serious ?
100% absorption has nothing to do with 100% of excited state.
If CO2 was in nearly 100 % excited state,
you would get smashed and burnt.

There are still most of molecules not excited at all,
as even basic excitation level is quite high for thermal energies.

> there are nearly no
> candidate target molecules to accept a photon in this frequency band,
> thus no emission. It is not a magic driven idea, but observed reality as
> explained in Feynman's book "Q.E.D.: The Strange Theory of Light and
> Matter".

I highly doubt the book says that, as I have read most of it recently.

And no emission note is total nonsense.




--
Poutnik

[Will Janoschka]

On Sun, 31 Mar 2013 22:20:54, Tom P <wero...@freent.dd> wrote:

> On 03/31/2013 11:21 AM, Paul Aubrin wrote:
> > On Sat, 30 Mar 2013 14:06:19 +0000, RedAcer wrote:
> >
> >
> >> This is the first paragraph from the wiki article - do you disagree with
> >> anything here?
> >>
> >> "The greenhouse effect is a process by which thermal radiation from a
> >> planetary surface is absorbed by atmospheric greenhouse gases, and is
> >> re-radiated in all directions. Since part of this re-radiation is back
> >> towards the surface and the lower atmosphere, it results in an elevation
> >> of the average surface temperature above what it would be in the absence
> >> of the gases."
> >
> > The values of the energy flux on the diagram which is supposed to
> > illustrate this text are obviously incorrect.
>
> Instead of referring to some diagram in Wikipedia, refer to Trenberth 2008.
> Surface radiation: 396 W/m2
> Back radiation: 333 W/m2

Both are fake and never measuresd

> Sanity check in python:
> >>> T=289
> >>> phys.sigma*T*T*T*T
> 395.56115999249494
Radiance of a black body
radiative flux from the earth 62 watts/ M^2
> >>> T=277
> >>> phys.sigma*T*T*T*T
> 333.84228712770215
Radiance from a black body
No flux fto a warmer body 2LTD.
> >>>
>
> What makes you say that a surface temperature of 14°c and downward
> radiating sky at 4°c is "obviously incorrect"?
Niether is a blackbody Downward violates 2LTD.

>
> >
> > A course I found on "radiative heat transfers", confirms that the
> > energy flux exchanged between two black surfaces is proportional to the
> > *difference* of their emittance. It doesn't say that both surfaces
> > unconditionally emit like a black body in all directions.
>
> Why should it need to state the obvious?
>

Your obvious Is fake nonsense and a violation.

[Will Janoschka]

Guesses only of apparent temperature. No measurement.

[Will Janoschka]

Any concept of spontanious heat transfer is a violation of 2LTd
and neve4r happens.
>

[Poutnik]

Paul Aubrin posted 01 Apr 2013 08:31:06 GMT

> In the atmosphere where nearly all the
> available CO2 molecules are in their excited state (graphs show 100%
> absorption at the central frequency of the band), there are nearly no
> candidate target molecules to accept a photon in this frequency band,
> thus no emission.
>

100% absorption means there is no radiation left to be absorbed.
It does not mean there is no molecule left to absorb it.

100% excitation would mean zero absorption
and very high emission, equivalent to very high temperature.

Note that energy related to vibration excitation at 15 um
is equilvalent to average energy per degree of freedom near 1900 K.
Even at this temperature is more molecules not excited than excited.



--
Poutnik

[Tom P]

On 03/30/2013 11:24 PM, Will Janoschka wrote:
> On Sat, 30 Mar 2013 12:55:06, Tom P <wero...@freent.dd> wrote:
>
>> On 03/28/2013 11:18 AM, Will Janoschka wrote:
>>> On Wed, 27 Mar 2013 09:44:42, Tom P <wero...@freent.dd> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 03/26/2013 01:17 PM, emoneyjoe wrote:
>>>>> On Tue, 26 Mar 2013 11:59:59 +0100, Tom P <wero...@freent.dd> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 03/23/2013 03:52 AM, Paul Aubrin wrote:
>>>>>>> On Thu, 21 Mar 2013 17:35:52 +0100, Tom P wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 03/21/2013 04:55 AM, emoneyjoe wrote:
>>>>>>>>> [...]
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> We are not discussing thermal flux, we are discussing radiation.
>>>>>>> You were proposing a theory where a volume of air is modelled as disk
>>>>>>> covered with black carbon. I expected some complement where you would
>>>>>>> show us how the distribution of molecule speeds (and thus temperature)
>>>>>>> were modified when you don't neglect, as is usually done, the presence of
>>>>>>> temporarily excited H20 or CO2 molecules.
>>>>>>> Until you produce some physics, I will no believe you when you say that a
>>>>>>> volume of gas radiates like a black carbon surface.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> [texte cité caché]
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> What you are saying is that the 1st law, the conservation of energy does
>>>>>>>> not apply.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> In your radiative model, if you suppose that the ground is warmer
>>>>>>> than the air above, each layer of air is in near equilibrium with the
>>>>>>> layer above, temperature gradient, translated in radiative terms, is the
>>>>>>> small difference between two nearly equal thermal radiations, the
>>>>>>> difference being the net heat flow.
>>>>>>> It is not because you modelled it this way that it allows any energy
>>>>>>> to actually flow back from a cold air layer to a warmer air layer below.
>>>>>>> It will even less allow some scarce CO2 molecules to radiate tens to
>>>>>>> hundreds of watt by square meter in the direction of the ground, when you
>>>>>>> say that they receive that energy flux from the heated ground.
>>>>>>> The green energy loop superimposed by warmists on Trenberth's diagrams
>>>>>>> is a fiction. Water vapour can move heat from the ground to the high
>>>>>>> atmosphere because of its phase changes. You say us that CO2 pumps some
>>>>>>> heat from the cold upper layers of the atmosphere to the warmer ground
>>>>>>> because it is heated by the sun, but you give no hint of what physical
>>>>>>> mechanism would do this.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Paul, you are imagining things that I did not write.
>>>>>> Near the ground, water vapour is the dominant GHG. CO2 is relevant at
>>>>>> higher altitudes. I did not write that CO2 is heated by the sun. CO2 is
>>>>>> heated by radiation from below, meaning the earth's surface and the
>>>>>> layers of WV below the CO2.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Therefore I do not need to explain non-existent mechanisms that exist
>>>>>> exclusively in your imagination.
>>>>>
>>>>> And what, the radiation from the higher
>>>>> altitude CO2 makes it back to near the
>>>>> surface?
>>>>>
>>>>> Cold heats warm?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> Go read up about "lapse rate"
>>>>
>>>
>>> Lapse rate is back radiation? This is about
>>> the violation of 2LTD by the concept
>>> of greenhouse effevct
>>>
>> Which is a complete red herring. You do not need the 2nd law to
>> understand the greenhouse effect, for the simple reason that the 2nd law
>> is not applicable.
>>
> Any claim of spontaneous radiative heat transfer to a higher
> temperature
> is a violation of 2LTD and does not happen.

The 2nd Law says no such thing. The application of the 2nd law requires
consideration of all the heat flows involved in the process. There is no
physical law that forbids radiation from body B being absorbed by a
warmer body A. The theory of electromagnetic radiation requires that
radiation emitted by an object is independent of the presence or absence
of any other objects that might absorb the radiation.

You have to bear in mind that Clausius derived the 2nd Law by
considering how much work could be extracted by a reversible heat engine
working between two heat reservoirs of different temperatures, and
derived the concept of maximal thermal efficiency. He showed that if
there existed a heat engine of higher efficiency, then you could couple
two of these together IN A CLOSED SYSTEM to pump heat backwards.
In this argumentation, it is totally irrelevant whether the heat is
transferred by radiation or any other means.

The whole derivation of the 2nd Law depends on understanding what is a
closed system, and the earth-atmosphere system does not qualify as a
closed system because heated by the sun, therefore the 2nd law does not
apply, at least not in the sense that you seem to understand it.

[Poutnik]

Poutnik posted Mon, 1 Apr 2013 11:15:39 +0200

>
> Paul Aubrin posted 01 Apr 2013 08:31:06 GMT
>
>
> > In the atmosphere where nearly all the
> > available CO2 molecules are in their excited state (graphs show 100%
> > absorption at the central frequency of the band), there are nearly no
> > candidate target molecules to accept a photon in this frequency band,
> > thus no emission.
> >
>
> 100% absorption means there is no radiation left to be absorbed.
> It does not mean there is no molecule left to absorb it.
>
> 100% excitation would mean zero absorption
> and very high emission, equivalent to very high temperature.

P.S: In fact there is no positive temperature,
when there are more molecules in particular excited state
than in basic state. The limite for temperature going to infinite
is equal distribution across all states.
( not real state as there would be no molecules anymore )

[emoneyjoe]

On Sun, 31 Mar 2013 23:38:25 -0500, Sam Wormley <swor...@gmail.com>
wrote:

>On 3/31/13 11:23 PM, Will Janoschka wrote:
>> The Space scuttle main engine runs very hot, on liquid hydrogen
>> and liqiuid oxygen. High specific impulse. Pray tell what else is
>> the combustion product beside water?
>
>
>
> See: Nozzle Exit Exhaust Products From Space Shuttle Boost Vehicle
> (November 1973 Design)
>> http://ia700507.us.archive.org/3/items/nasa_techdoc_19750011272/19750011272.pdf
>
>> Principal exhaust species emitted at various altitudes for two
>> trajectories of the Space Shuttle Vehicle are presented. The exhaust
>> composition is given for the nozzle exit plane on the basis of
>> equilibrium chemistry. However, afterburning of excess H, H2 , and
>> CO in the plume is accounted for. Species considered include HCL and
>> A12O3, which have been recognized as environmentally significant,
>> as well as others such as H2O (produced by both the Solid Rocket
>> Motor and the Orbiter Main Engine) which, although innocuous, may
>> participate in subsequent chemical reactions in the atmosphere.

The SRMs burn out in a couple of minutes
and the exhaust doesn't go into space.

The main engines produce water and
unburned hydrogen and probably oxygen
that was not combined.

There may be some minor metal flaking
from the nozzles and pumps, but that is
getting picky.


This is an example of failure to understand
the words "main engines".

[emoneyjoe]

On Mon, 01 Apr 2013 00:29:39 -0500, Sam Wormley <swor...@gmail.com>
wrote:

>On 3/31/13 11:55 PM, Will Janoschka wrote:
>> Not quit true. Each molecule is in "its" eliptical orbit and
>> constrained only by the force of gravitation, untill a collision..
>> Going up they are decelerating going down accelerating. A CO2
>> molecule at any velocity has much more momentum upon elastic
>> colilsion with a H2O molecule the H2O bounces reversing
>> direction,.while the CO2 guy says "did someone say something"? And
>> continues in orbit untill it scoots right through the tropopause on
>> its way to the center of mass of this planet. Once atmospheric
>> pressure is high enough, all hell breaks loose, and we have weather.
>
> What kind of bullshit is this, Will. CO2 molecules experience on the
> order of a billion collisions per second.
>
> An IR photon is absorbed by a CO2 molecule
>
> CO2 + hv <==> CO2*
> CO2* + N2 ==> N2* + CO2
> N2* + H2O ==> H2O* + N2
> H2O* ==> H2O + hv
>
>> http://edu-observatory.org/olli/Climate/layer.jpg


How about reading more before posting,
the situation was "in orbit".

[emoneyjoe]

On Mon, 01 Apr 2013 01:26:29 -0500, Sam Wormley <swor...@gmail.com>
wrote:

Something prevented GHG theory to
work as predicted, no warming for 15 years,
when will GH theory explain that?

[emoneyjoe]

On Mon, 01 Apr 2013 01:52:44 -0500, Sam Wormley <swor...@gmail.com>
wrote:

More stupid replies, obviously you omitted
the thing talked about, the effect of an increase
of CO2, not the concentration.

This thread is getting so many stupid replies,
it is ready for bulk delete.

[Paul Aubrin]

On Sun, 31 Mar 2013 12:48:15 -0700, JohnM wrote:

>> > I see you have made no attribution, nor given a citation/reference,
>> > for your above statement. Would that be for any particular reason?
>>
>> Yes JohnM,  Paul, like Joe, and myself have only our "own" hard learned
>> knowledge, we do not attribute because another's knowledge is their
>> knowledge, not mine. I can only express what is me!  This is called
>> "Personal integrity".   Have you any?
>
> So you finally admit to just making up stuff to fit your personal
> agenda, then.
>
> We all knew you were doing that, but in your deluded state you never
> realised it yourself. That's why you imagine you are acting from
> 'personal integrity'.

Temperature and pressure broadening are well established physical facts.
Spectral rays emitted by a gas at -55°C and 200Hpa are surely thinner
than the same gas at +14°C and 1000Hpa, making the gas less efficient as
a greenhouse gas.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spectral_line
Quote:
" *Thermal* Doppler *broadening*: The atoms in a gas which are
emitting radiation will have a distribution of velocities. Each photon
emitted will be "red"- or "blue"-shifted by the Doppler effect depending
on the velocity of the atom relative to the observer. The higher the
temperature of the gas, the wider the distribution of velocities in the
gas. Since the spectral line is a combination of all of the emitted
radiation, the higher the temperature of the gas, the broader will be the
spectral line emitted from that gas. This broadening effect is described
by a Gaussian profile and there is no associated shift.

*Pressure broadening*: the presence of nearby particles will affect
the radiation emitted by an individual particle. There are two limiting
cases by which this occurs:

Impact pressure broadening: The collision of other particles with
the emitting particle interrupts the emission process, and by shortening
the characteristic time for the process, increases the uncertainty in the
energy emitted (as occurs in natural broadening)[3]. The duration of the
collision is much shorter than the lifetime of the emission process. This
effect depends on both the density and the temperature of the gas. The
broadening effect is described by a Lorentzian profile and there may be
an associated shift.
Quasistatic pressure broadening: The presence of other particles
shifts the energy levels in the emitting particle, thereby altering the
frequency of the emitted radiation. The duration of the influence is much
longer than the lifetime of the emission process. This effect depends on
the density of the gas, but is rather insensitive to temperature. The
form of the line profile is determined by the functional form of the
perturbing force with respect to distance from the perturbing particle.
There may also be a shift in the line center. A stable distribution is a
general expression for the lineshape resulting from quasistatic pressure
broadening [2]"

etc.

[JohnM]

On Apr 1, 7:50 am, wil...@nospam.pobox.com (Will Janoschka) wrote:
> On Sun, 31 Mar 2013 19:48:15, JohnM <jmorgan1234...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Mar 31, 9:27ÿpm, wil...@nospam.pobox.com (Will Janoschka) wrote:
> > > On Sun, 31 Mar 2013 18:05:20, JohnM <jmorgan1234...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > On Mar 31, 5:48˜pm, Paul Aubrin <chu8i...@free.fr> wrote:
> > > > > On Sat, 30 Mar 2013 22:06:06 -0500, Will Janoschka wrote:
> > > > > > Who the hell has "measured", rather than just claim?
> > > > > > What is the ratio of H2O molecules to CO2 molecules at the space
> > > > > > station?
> > > > > > They are there, they have the instrumentation. You say trust me, but you
> > > > > > have demonstrated many times that you are an unreliable source of
> > > > > > anything.
>
> > > > > ˜ ˜On well mixed CO2 up to the higher parts of the atmosphere, I think
> > > > > that Tom is right. What he omits to say, is that although the
> > > > > concentration of CO2 is the same than at the level of the ground, its
> > > > > effect is less: very low temperatures and very low pressures imply no
> > > > > widening of the absorption rays as is the case at the level of the
> > > > > ground. The absorption pattern of the cold, low pressure CO2 in the high
> > > > > atmosphere is that of a thin grate.

>
> > > > I see you have made no attribution, nor given a citation/reference,
> > > > for your above statement. Would that be for any particular reason?
>

> > > Yes JohnM, ÿPaul, like Joe, and myself have only our "own" hard

> > > learned
> > > knowledge, we do not attribute because another's knowledge is their

> > > knowledge, not mine. I can only express what is me! ÿThis is called
> > > "Personal integrity". ÿ Have you any?

>
> > So you finally admit to just making up stuff to fit your personal
> > agenda, then.
>
> > We all knew you were doing that, but in your deluded state you never
> > realised it yourself. That's why you imagine you are acting from
> > 'personal integrity'.
>

> So you finally admit that you don't have any!!!

Certainly not of the imaginary kind you have.

[Poutnik]

emoneyjoe posted Mon, 01 Apr 2013 05:59:55 -0400

>
> This thread is getting so many stupid replies,
> it is ready for bulk delete.
>

You are free to return to thermodynamics
and radiation behavior of matter.


--
Poutnik

[JohnM]

Yes, indeed. But that does not negate the fact that increasing amounts
of gases such as CO2, CH4, NOx, CFCs etc. in the upper stratosphere,
the mesosphere and the thermosphere, will increase the back radiation
from these regions. What is currently unknown is how much they will
increase it. Let's hope it's a tiny amount, because of the low
pressures and temperatures pertaining, but that is not a given in the
thermosphere where molecules can have very high kinetic energies (i.e.
"temperatures"). Also a factor is that these regions together span 10
times as much of the exit path for outgoing radiation as does the
troposphere.

[Paul Aubrin]

Some example of the real atmospheric emission spectrum in the thermal IR
range:
http://scienceofdoom.files.wordpress.com/2011/04/petty-1-downward-surface-
radiation-p219.png

The actual flux (and only existing one) results from the difference of
emittance for each wavelength. The ground below the mass of air will emit
according to the difference in emittance for each wavelength. It will not
emit a clean black-body spectrum.

[Paul Aubrin]

On Mon, 01 Apr 2013 10:48:18 +0200, Poutnik wrote:

> Paul Aubrin posted 01 Apr 2013 08:31:06 GMT
>
>
>
>
>> For each wavelength, each layer radiates according to the difference in
>> radiance for this wavelength. The radiance is linked to temperatures of
>> the atmosphere (its molecular agitation). The temperature results from
>> the lapse rate. The radiation from layer to layer results from the
>> (small) difference of temperature between the two layers. In the
>> "greenhouse gas" absorption bands, the net radiative flux is
>> proportional to the temperature gradient and (nearly always) small and
>> upward.
>
> Yes. The point is - net flux.
> So does net surface IR radiation flux is upwards.
> And this net flux is progressively decreasing across layers.

The net flux is the only actual, physically observable, energy flux.

>
>> In the radiative equilibrium, no actual energy is exchanged.
>
> False.

True. Equal emittance, no flux.

>
>> Photons are not small bullets fired in every direction by matter.
>
> In many aspects they are.

It is a convenient analogy, but which doesn't allow to explain a number
of physical phenomena, even as simple as interferences. Your
"unconditional" bullet like electromagnetic theory is false.

>> They are quantum of interaction between two particles which are in a
>> convenient state for this precise exchange.
>
> These 2 events are unrelated.

The 3 events: state change at the emitter side, state change at receiver
side, and mediating photon are intimately related in one electromagnetic
interaction.

[Paul Aubrin]

On Mon, 01 Apr 2013 10:48:18 +0200, Poutnik wrote:

>> In the atmosphere where nearly all the available CO2 molecules are in
>> their excited state (graphs show 100% absorption at the central
>> frequency of the band)
>
> Are you really serious ?

No this part is an error.

[Paul Aubrin]

On Mon, 01 Apr 2013 11:20:43 +0200, Tom P wrote:

> The 2nd Law says no such thing. The application of the 2nd law requires
> consideration of all the heat flows involved in the process. There is no
> physical law that forbids radiation from body B being absorbed by a
> warmer body A. The theory of electromagnetic radiation requires that
> radiation emitted by an object is independent of the presence or absence
> of any other objects that might absorb the radiation.

The theory of electromagnetic radiation state that, for each wavelength,
the energy flux between two surfaces is proportional to the difference of
their emittance (for that wavelength). If those two surfaces are black
surfaces, the net flux is from the warmer to the colder, because the
emittance of the warmer is greater. A photon mediates the electromagnetic
interaction between two charged particles. In the absence of a source or
a target, there is no interaction.

[Poutnik]

Paul Aubrin posted 01 Apr 2013 11:00:19 GMT

>

>
> Some example of the real atmospheric emission spectrum in the thermal IR
> range:
> http://scienceofdoom.files.wordpress.com/2011/04/petty-1-downward-surface-
> radiation-p219.png
>
> The actual flux (and only existing one) results from the difference of
> emittance for each wavelength. The ground below the mass of air will emit
> according to the difference in emittance for each wavelength. It will not
> emit a clean black-body spectrum.

Not only difference of emittance,
but also difference of paths leads to
different effective height/temperature of fictious effective surface.

As mentioned in the article from which the picture is quoted.

Air does not emit as the single surface of solid object.
Emission is given by integration across all atmosphere,
concerning temperature,
temperature based emission spectrum
and absorbtion by inbetween layers.

It should be obvious that it will not emit clean BB spectrum.



--
Poutnik

[Poutnik]

Paul Aubrin posted 01 Apr 2013 11:12:11 GMT

>
> The net flux is the only actual, physically observable, energy flux.

Will's school.

There is no mechanism how emittor can know
temperature of target nor even its own source system
to know if it is allowed to emit.

> >> Photons are not small bullets fired in every direction by matter.
> >
> > In many aspects they are.
>
> It is a convenient analogy, but which doesn't allow to explain a number
> of physical phenomena, even as simple as interferences. Your
> "unconditional" bullet like electromagnetic theory is false.

Since when "In many aspects" means "unconditional" ?

> The 3 events: state change at the emitter side, state change at receiver
> side, and mediating photon are intimately related in one electromagnetic
> interaction.

There is even no guearantee there is any target systemm at all.
3K photons are bilions years old.



--
Poutnik

[Poutnik]

Paul Aubrin posted 01 Apr 2013 11:30:03 GMT

You mix behavior of real and virtual photons.

And evem for virtual I think you are wrong.
When virtual photon leaver matter,
it does not have clue if there is any other.

If stars would radiate only the radiation that will reach the target,
the look of universu wuld be VERY different.

They would radiate only negligible fraction of their radiation,
and to get into thermal equilibrium,
they would have much higher temperature to get so high radiation flux.

Life on the Earth would not be possible, as very most
of Sun radiation would be concentrated on hitting the planets.



--
Poutnik

[Poutnik]

Poutnik posted Mon, 1 Apr 2013 14:13:49 +0200

> A photon mediates the electromagnetic
> > interaction between two charged particles
>

Only virtual photons are mediators
of electromagnetic interaction.


--
Poutnik

[Will Janoschka]

No law is needed because no such radiation exists

> The theory of electromagnetic radiation requires that
> radiation emitted by an object is independent of the presence or absence
> of any other objects that might absorb the radiation.

You might want to check with jimmy Maxwell on that he say otherwise
as does all of QED.

>
> You have to bear in mind that Clausius derived the 2nd Law by
> considering how much work could be extracted by a reversible heat engine
> working between two heat reservoirs of different temperatures, and
> derived the concept of maximal thermal efficiency. He showed that if
> there existed a heat engine of higher efficiency, then you could couple
> two of these together IN A CLOSED SYSTEM to pump heat backwards.
> In this argumentation, it is totally irrelevant whether the heat is
> transferred by radiation or any other means.

Your interpretation is false. That is not spontanious heat transfer.
The second law holds for "any" heat transer including thermal
radiation.

>
> The whole derivation of the 2nd Law depends on understanding what is a
> closed system,

The second law holds for "any" heat transer including thermal
radiation.

> and the earth-atmosphere system does not qualify as a
> closed system because heated by the sun, therefore the 2nd law does not
> apply, at least not in the sense that you seem to understand it.
>

The second law holds for "any" heat transer including thermal
radiation.

[columbiaaccidentinvestigation]

Its funny watching the dance of the denialists, avoiding the wave
properties of matter and energy. You can go on and on, but that does
not make your twisted use of science valid.

[Will Janoschka]

Try 30 x way out to 300km.
You forgot the hottest of all H2O.
All such radiartion or mass transfer heat is absorbed at the
tropopause and
from there, cannot spoontaniously be transfered to the warm earth
surface
by any means. No back radiation!!! A violation of 2LTD.

[columbiaaccidentinvestigation]

On Apr 1, 5:55 am, wil...@nospam.pobox.com (Will Janoschka) wrote:

http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/JCLI3525.1
Spectral and Broadband Longwave Downwelling Radiative Fluxes, Cloud
Radiative Forcing, and Fractional Cloud Cover over the South Pole
MICHAEL S. TOWN
Department of Atmospheric Sciences, University of Washington,
Seattle,Washington
VON P. WALDEN
Department of Geography, University of Idaho, Moscow, Idaho
STEPHEN G. WARREN
Department of Atmospheric Sciences, University of Washington,
Seattle,Washington
(Manuscript received 12 July 2004, in final form 30 March 2005)
ABSTRACT
"...About two-thirds of the clear-sky flux is due to water vapor, and
one-third is due to CO2, both in summer and winter."

[JohnM]

On Apr 1, 3:04 pm, columbiaaccidentinvestigation

You are wasting your time and sanity, my friend. This is one kook so
steeped in delusions about classical science, he probably denies
organic evolution as a source of biodiversity.

What all of us need to recognise is that the modelled imagery we use
in our science is just that. There is no substantial reality in
forces, energy, quarks, photons, electrons, gravity and
electromagnetic fields. A whole host of physical entities which aren't
- physical entities that is.

Sorry to break that to you ;-))

[columbiaaccidentinvestigation]

You are correct, your discussions with bill ward years ago played
along the same lines. You pointed out the facts, and he always had
some convoluted reply that twisted science based on a false premise .I
just thought i would provide some facts as he seems to think he bs is
relevant.

[RedAcer]

>>>>>>>>>>> [texte cité caché]

Wrong. Check any physics book, or shows us physics book which says Tom
is wrong.

>> The theory of electromagnetic radiation requires that radiation
>> emitted by an object is independent of the presence or absence of
>> any other objects that might absorb the radiation.
>
> You might want to check with jimmy Maxwell on that he say otherwise
> as does all of QED.

Wrong. Check any physics book.

>>
>> You have to bear in mind that Clausius derived the 2nd Law by
>> considering how much work could be extracted by a reversible heat
>> engine working between two heat reservoirs of different
>> temperatures, and derived the concept of maximal thermal
>> efficiency. He showed that if there existed a heat engine of
>> higher efficiency, then you could couple two of these together IN
>> A CLOSED SYSTEM to pump heat backwards. In this argumentation, it
>> is totally irrelevant whether the heat is transferred by radiation
>> or any other means.
>
> Your interpretation is false. That is not spontanious heat transfer.
> The second law holds for "any" heat transer including thermal
> radiation.

Did you actually read what Tom said.

>
>>
>> The whole derivation of the 2nd Law depends on understanding what
>> is a closed system,
>
> The second law holds for "any" heat transer including thermal
> radiation.

Non sequitur. Re-read what Tom said in the statement above.

>
>> and the earth-atmosphere system does not qualify as a closed
>> system because heated by the sun, therefore the 2nd law does not
>> apply, at least not in the sense that you seem to understand it.
>>
> The second law holds for "any" heat transer including thermal
> radiation.

No.

The second law of thermodynamics states that the entropy of an
*isolated* system never decreases, because *isolated* systems
spontaneously evolve towards thermodynamic equilibrium�the state of
maximum entropy. Equivalently, perpetual motion machines of the
second kind are impossible

[Poutnik]

emoneyjoe posted Sat, 30 Mar 2013 17:15:09 -0400

>
>
> Without GHGs or water vapor, there would
> be very little radiation to space from the
> atmosphere, and without water the surface
> would be warmer.

From the atmosphere, yes, but all radiation would go
from surface and nothing would return,
therefore surface would be cooler.

Energy transfer by latent heat is way smaller than radiation.
>
> And the remaining gases (N2 and O2)
> would warm more every day by conduction
> with the surface.

There would be far stronger overnight radiative cooling,
and during day lower temperature would be needed
to radiate Sun radiative income.


--
Poutnik

[Poutnik]

Paul Aubrin posted 31 Mar 2013 08:54:38 GMT



> If S2 is a perfect black surface, it flux can be expressed as a
> function of its temperature as sigma.T2^4. But if its spectral density of
> emission is different (for example it emits only in a few spectral bands
> such as what appears on the few real atmosphere spectrum presented in
> this thread), then you have to integrate the differences of spectral
> emittance over the whole spectrum.

Yes, radiative flux is still rougly proporational to T4,
with partubative cooficient to emtitting material specifics.

Net fluxs is given by integration of the differences of
planck formulas, multiplied by sigma(matter,lambda,T).
>
> If you apply what this course states to the case of an element of
> surface on the ground (supposed a reasonably perfect black surface) and a
> volume of atmosphere above, there is not a sigma.T^4 flux from the ground
> and a down-welling flux from the element atmosphere. There is only a net
> flux which proportional to the difference of the two emittances.

Net fluxes per lambda are independent.
Total flux is their integration.

> As the emittance of a volume of cold gas is generally less than the
> emittance of an element of surface on the ground, the net flux is
> generally from the ground to the atmosphere. The net flux is the ground
> grey surface flux (nearly a black surface flux says Poutnik) less the
> part of the flux that the element of volume of the atmosphere would emit
> (the energy content of the H2O, CO2, etc. bands). The "back-radiation" is
> virtual. There is no need of a permanent conversion from heat to
> radiation.

It is not question of need. It happens.
Back radiatian is lower than surface radiation.

Air radiates independently if irradiated from surface.
the only difference is level of radiative loss/gain,
given by air versus surrounding temperature.



--
Poutnik

[Will Janoschka]

> >>>>>>>>>>> [texte cité caché]

> spontaneously evolve towards thermodynamic equilibrium�the state of

> maximum entropy. Equivalently, perpetual motion machines of the
> second kind are impossible
>

No.

The second law holds for "any" heat transer including thermal

radiation.The second law relates to spontanious heat transfer4.

[Tom P]

On 04/01/2013 08:24 AM, Will Janoschka wrote:
> On Sun, 31 Mar 2013 17:59:15, Tom P <wero...@freent.dd> wrote:
>
>> On 03/31/2013 04:51 PM, Will Janoschka wrote:
>>> On Sun, 31 Mar 2013 12:44:49, Tom P <wero...@freent.dd> wrote:
>>>> On 03/31/2013 04:51 AM, Will Janoschka wrote:
>>>>> On Sat, 30 Mar 2013 23:40:42, Tom P <wero...@freent.dd> wrote:
>>>>>> On 03/30/2013 11:54 PM, Will Janoschka wrote:
>>>>>>> On Sat, 30 Mar 2013 18:24:56, Tom P <wero...@freent.dd> wrote:
>>>>>>>> Sam, as our resident denialists seem to be as equally impervious to
>>>>>>>> reasonable argument as to insults, I thought it might be interesting to
>>>>>>>> step back and find out when this particular canard first started
>>>>>>>> circulating in the blogosphere.
>>>>>>>> Googling for greenhouse+effect+second+law+of+thermodynamics, the first
>>>>>>>> real hit I can find is back in 2007, when Gerlich and Tscheuschner their
>>>>>>>> "Falsification Of The Atmospheric CO2 Greenhouse Effects Within The
>>>>>>>> Frame Of Physics". Although this farrago has long been dismissed as
>>>>>>>> bogus, it is still being quoted by numerous blogs.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> No creditable person has found any flaws in Gerlich and Tscheuschner
>>>>>>> their "Falsification Of The Atmospheric CO2 Greenhouse
>>>>>>> Effects Within The Frame Of Physics".
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The G&T paper makes a large number of statements that appear be
>>>>>>>> regurgitated by our residents.
>>>>>>>> For example: "Figure 31: Any machine which transfers heat from a low
>>>>>>>> temperature reservoir to a high temperature reservoir without external
>>>>>>>> work applied cannot exist: A perpetuum mobile of the second kind is
>>>>>>>> impossible". (true of course, but G&T don't mention that the sun is
>>>>>>>> supplying an external source of heat)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Try to find the machine that does your claim of back radiation!!
>>>>>>> show how that machine is powered by the sun.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I won't go into detail trying to point out all the numerous faults
>>>>>>>> with G&T, it's been done enough times already, but obviously G&T lives
>>>>>>>> on the minds of the incorrigible.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You betcha. You are wrong as usual.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Incidentally, one of the (unintentionally) funniest links I found was at
>>>>>>>> http://fwcon.wordpress.com/truth-about-global-warming/ - if you follow
>>>>>>>> the link about CO2 cooling, it takes you to Dr Roy Spencer's "Yes
>>>>>>>> Virginia" blog.. the one proving that yes, cool bodies can make hot
>>>>>>>> bodies warmer. Duh..
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> There is no proof the body is getting warmer because it is a heat
>>>>>>> source.the only heat source that can warm.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Will, do have a look at the Dr Roy Spencer piece, and bear in mind he's
>>>>>> a skeptic.
>>>>>
>>>>> Tom I have been all over this many times. Anything that interferes
>>>>> with radiative cooling will result is an increase in temperature of
>>>>> the radiator.
>>>>> Is this what you call greenhouse effect? Where is the back radiation?
>>>>>
>>>> That is the back radiation right in front of you, it's just that you
>>>> can't stomach it.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Spencer's example has no back radiation to the heated plate either
>>> from
>>> the outer sphere or from the passive plate. As in any
>>> thermo"dynamics"
>>> situation any change in geometry will affect the equilibrium
>>> temperatures.
>>>
>>>
>>> If the two plates were conducting well to each other, the geometry
>>> did
>>> not change nor would the equilibrium temperatures. The spacing of
>>> the
>>> plates changes the geometry and the result to each. Note in Spencer's
>>>
>>> demo all of the energy from the heated plate to the passive plate was
>>>
>>> immediately radiated to the colder outer sphere. No back radiation to
>>> the
>>> highertemperature powered plate. This is not a warming, as warming
>>> can
>>> come only from the power source. This is again a correct demonstration
>>>
>>> of the second law that says "No spontaneous heat transfer from colder
>>> to warmer The only heat or power to the passive plate, like our
>>> atmosphere
>>> came from the powered plate, and was radiated outward estaLike in my
>>> demo using three concentric spheres with no radiative leaks
>>>
>>> Spencer's example has no back radiation to the heated plate either
>>> from
>>> the outer sphere or from the passive plate. As in any
>>> thermo"dynamics"
>>> situation any change in geometry will affect the equilibrium
>>> temperatures.
>>>
>>>
>>> If the two plates were conducting well to each other, the geometry
>>> did not
>>> change nor would the equilibrium temperatures. The spacing of the
>>> plates
>>> changes the geometry and the result to each. Note in Spencer's demo
>>> all
>>> of the energy from the heated plate to the passive plate was
>>> immediately
>>> radiated to the colder outer sphere. No back radiation to the higher
>>>
>>> temperature powered plate. This is not a warming, as warming can come
>>>
>>> only from the power source. This is again a correct demonstration of
>>> the
>>> second law that says "No spontaneous heat transfer from colder to
>>> warmer
>>> The only heat or power to the passive plate, like our atmosphere came
>>> from
>>> the powered plate, and was radiated outward establishing its
>>> equilibrium
>>> temperature". No back radiation thus no violation of 2LTD.. All
>>> thermodynamics. can and must be done without violation else the
>>> description of process is false, as is greenhouse effect.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Why do you keep trying to do thermodynamics from a temperature
>>> start rather that a power start. The temperatures will adjust to
>>> "do"
>>> what the power must do and this must do is all that is "ever" done.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> In the earth atmosphere the additional CO2 changes neither the
>>>
>>> transmissivity nor the temperature of any part.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Will, I've pointed it out several times before, but your formulation of
>> the 2nd law applies expressly to isolated systems.
> The first is the only that is limited to a closed system
>> The Clausius
>> statement of the second law applies to the entire system and not just
>> isolated parts of it.
> The second with no spontanious from warm to cold applies in all
> cases and for all forms of heat transfer.
>
>> In the case of the Spencer experiment, there is
>> an external source of power, and the surrounding sphere is being
>> maintained at a temperature of zero by some cooling mechanism. In the
>> case of planet earth, the planet-atmosphere system is heated by the sun
>> and radiates energy off into empty space. This fact alone is sufficient
>> to invalidate your interpretation.
>
> Tranfer ot thermal energy from the cfold atmospner to a watmer earthy
> is a violation and never happens. No back radiation.
>>
>> There have been several rebuttals of the G&T paper, here are a few:
>> http://arxiv.org/abs/0802.4324
>> http://rabett.blogspot.de/2009/03/second-law-and-its-criminal-misuse-as.html
>> http://rabett.blogspot.de/2008/02/all-you-never-wanted-to-know-about.html
>> http://www.worldscientific.com/doi/abs/10.1142/S021797921005555X
>> http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/upload/2010/05/halpern_etal_2010.pdf
>
> Fake bloggers all. No creditable disagreement. No rebuttal. It
> stands.
>>
>> Will, I'd suggest if that you want to see how your version of the 2LTD
>> works - unplug your refrigerator and tells us tomorrow how the beer tastes.
>
> Exactly, moving heat to warm requires more power than is moved
> such transfer is never spontainious. but powered You have in your
> back
> radiation at night a claim of a rediction of entropy, never happens.
>
Ok, now plug your refrigerator back in, and notice how the external
source of energy is unspontaneously moving the heat out of your
six-packs into the air space at the back of the refrigerator.
Now look out of the window and tell me what that bright yellow thing
is in the sky.

[Tom P]

On 04/01/2013 08:26 AM, Sam Wormley wrote:
> On 4/1/13 12:59 AM, Will Janoschka wrote:
>
>>
>> Give up your non- cience Sam.
>>
>
> The science is there for you to learn and the scientific literature
> is there for you to read. Why are you being a science denier, Will?
>

Seeing as he's too old and drunk to even hit the right keys on his
keyboard, he's certainly much too old to learn anything.

[Poutnik]

Paul Aubrin posted 31 Mar 2013 09:21:32 GMT

> A course I found on "radiative heat transfers", confirms that the
> energy flux exchanged between two black surfaces is proportional to the
> *difference* of their emittance. It doesn't say that both surfaces
> unconditionally emit like a black body in all directions. The interaction
> between the two surfaces conditions the actual emission (from the one
> with greater emissivity to the one with lesser emissivity).

There is no way for emitter
to know temperatures of target nor source system.

Quantum state of emitter and absorber
are independent on temperature.

Only probability of their states are temperature dependent.

> Now lets apply this to a volume of 10m3 of air above 1m2 of ground
> considered as a black surface.

I suppose you are aware the emission spectrum
very depends on the thickness, beeing affected by changes of lambda
emissivity AND lambda dependent effective temperature.

E.g. Effective temperature for less absorbed/emitted lambdas,
will be lower for normal lapse rate, but higher for inversion situation.

> The emittance curve as a function of the
> wavelength of the gas is made of absorption bands. The presence of these
> absorption bands hinder the emission of the ground in the corresponding
> frequency bands. To keep its energy balance, the ground must evacuate
> differently its energy: more evaporation, more convection, temperature
> increase.

Yes, that is consequence of GH effect.

> Now examine the consequences of an increase in CO2 concentrations. At
> the level of the ground, the central part of the main CO2 absorption band
> of is saturated, 100% is already absorbed in the central part, 100% is
> absorbed within 10m.

As said before, this would be true only if air does not emit IR.
You have to integrate the IR flows over infinete number of air layers.

The same absorption within thinner layer
leads to higher temperature delta due absorption,
leading to higher back radiation.

Again, imagine 2 very thin total IR absorbing foil in vacuum conditions,
to get rid parallel not nariative processes ( that do exist )

Heater has/can to emit more IR for the same outer loses.
And inner foil is warmer then single foil, radiating more back,
while outer foil is colder than single foil, radiating less out.


--
Poutnik

[Tom P]

On 04/01/2013 11:56 AM, emoneyjoe wrote:
> On Mon, 01 Apr 2013 01:26:29 -0500, Sam Wormley <swor...@gmail.com>

> wrote:
>
>> On 4/1/13 12:59 AM, Will Janoschka wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Give up your non- cience Sam.
>>>
>>
>> The science is there for you to learn and the scientific literature
>> is there for you to read. Why are you being a science denier, Will?
>

> Something prevented GHG theory to
> work as predicted, no warming for 15 years,
> when will GH theory explain that?
>
>
>
>
Translation: when in doubt, change the subject.

[Poutnik]

Paul Aubrin posted 31 Mar 2013 15:37:31 GMT


>
> On Sat, 30 Mar 2013 07:46:53 +0100, Poutnik wrote:
>
> >> is the permanent transformation from radiation to heat and back in
> >> the global-warming energy loop.
> >
> > It is not a problem for anybody understanding physics and
> > thermodynamics.
> > Any system in TS equilibrium does it all the time,
> > keeping its entropy constant.
>
> The earth atmosphere is never in equilibrium.
> Two black surfaces at
> thermal equilibrium don't exchange any radiative energy at all, unlike
> the supposition of many people in this group.

Sure. But matter does not know if it is or not in equilibrium.
Atoms do not know they should not exchange any energy,
as they do not know temperature of any system.

Quantum state of oscilators/atoms is temperature independent,
on probability of their states is temperature dependent.

Rest text has not more sense in light of this...


> The energy which reach the ground flows upwards (except in the case
> of temperature inversions).

It flows upwards even in inversions,
where no other thermal transfer occurs.

Earth surface during clear nights keep cooling,
even if air 2 m above is 5 deg C warmer.



--
Poutnik

[RedAcer]

>>>>>>>>>>>>> [texte cité caché]

>> spontaneously evolve towards thermodynamic equilibrium�the state of

>> maximum entropy. Equivalently, perpetual motion machines of the
>> second kind are impossible
>>
> No.
> The second law holds for "any" heat transer including thermal
> radiation.The second law relates to spontanious heat transfer4.
>
>

show us the physics book where you found that.

[Sam Wormley]

On 4/1/13 2:08 AM, Will Janoschka wrote:
> On Mon, 1 Apr 2013 06:52:44, Sam Wormley <swor...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On 4/1/13 1:49 AM, Will Janoschka wrote:
>>> For CO2 from 300 to 400ppmv it is so slight it is unmeasurable!
>>
>> Of course it is measurable, Will. Are you daft? We routinely
>> measure part per billion for gasses.
>>
> Hey sgtupid Sam the effect of that change is unmeasurable.
>

Wow, you are really daft--have you not noticed that the incoming
radiation is 0.6 W/m^2 more than the outgoing radiation. Have
you not noticed all the receding glaciers, melting of Arctic ice,
rising sea level, increasing global temperature and more extreme
weather events.

Increasing CO2 from 300 to 400 ppm is having a dramatic effect.