Gas pressure and Will's interpretation of the 2nd law of thermodynamics

[Poutnik]

Gas pressure and Will's interpretation of the 2nd law of thermodynamics

Scenario:
There are 2 connected systems A and B represented by joined reservoirs
of the same gas of the same temperature. There is no gravity
to avoid adiabatic temperature lapse rate.

Action:
A molecule of system A hits a molecule from system B at the system border,
performing an elementary action of a gas pressure.
As being a general collision, it redistributes their energy.

Analysis:
What happens to systems A and B from point of view the 2nd TD law ?

Are collisions allowed, if they increase temperature of one system
and decrease temperature of the other, being initially the same ?

If they are allowed, they are violations
of Will's interpretation of the 2nd TD law.

If they are not allowed, gas pressure does not exist.

--
Poutnik

[Wally W.]

Who wrote this:

"Note that gas thermodynamics, temperature
and mean quadratic molecule speed
are purely statistical terms,
that are not valid for single molecule.
...
For single molecule temperature does not have sense"

Do you know who?

.
.
.
wait for it.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
wait for it.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

Maybe you should ask this guy about your proposed experiment:

From: Poutnik <pout...@privacy.invalid>
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Re: Sound wave propagation question
Date: Wed, 4 Jan 2012 14:24:33 +0100
Message-ID: <MPG.296e717...@news.eternal-september.org>



What Koolaid have you drunk since January?

[Poutnik]

Wally W. posted Thu, 23 May 2013 20:32:33 -0400

I was me, and I insists on that.



--
Poutnik

[Poutnik]

Wally W. posted Thu, 23 May 2013 20:32:33 -0400


>

Try to get the post why I posted the both ?


--
Poutnik

[Wally W.]

Your post about Will's interpretation is a straw man arguement.

The behavior of an individual molecule doesn't make your case, for the
reason you stated in January.

[Poutnik]

Wally W. posted Fri, 24 May 2013 20:24:52 -0400

> Your post about Will's interpretation is a straw man arguement.
>
> The behavior of an individual molecule doesn't make your case, for the
> reason you stated in January.

You have not got the relation of both posts yet, try harder.

--
Poutnik

[Wally W.]

On Sat, 25 May 2013 11:38:10 +0200, Poutnik wrote:

>
>Wally W. posted Fri, 24 May 2013 20:24:52 -0400
>
>

>> Your post about Will's interpretation is a straw man argument.

>>
>> The behavior of an individual molecule doesn't make your case, for the
>> reason you stated in January.
>
>You have not got the relation of both posts yet, try harder.

No incentive to do so.

Your post in this thread started by talking about a single molecule,
then moved the goal posts to discussing macroscopic temperature.

Moving the goal posts is standard practice for warmophobes.

Look at the weaseling by other True Believers of AGW in this group.
Efforts to "try harder" in understanding their illogic is
diversionary.

Once one understands that a claim is bullshit, there is no need to
"try harder" to understand it.

Nothing you have posted in this thread leads me to believe you have
done anything more substantial than moving the goal posts.

I already understand that.

Warmophobes need to do better than try to repeat their "Truth" into
existence, or try to project their lack of understanding onto others.

Here is an idea: Focus on *real* problems.

[Poutnik]

Wally W. posted Sat, 25 May 2013 07:28:47 -0400

>
> On Sat, 25 May 2013 11:38:10 +0200, Poutnik wrote:
>
> >
> >Wally W. posted Fri, 24 May 2013 20:24:52 -0400
> >
> >
> >> Your post about Will's interpretation is a straw man argument.
> >>
> >> The behavior of an individual molecule doesn't make your case, for the
> >> reason you stated in January.
> >
> >You have not got the relation of both posts yet, try harder.
>
> No incentive to do so.

As you are not interested in science, but trolling,
as well know from the past.

> Your post in this thread started by talking about a single molecule,
> then moved the goal posts to discussing macroscopic temperature.

As there had good reason that escapes from you.

As temperature does not apply to molecules,
Will interpretation there is not possible any transfer
of thermal energy to warmer system is invalid.

--
Poutnik

[Wally W.]

A molecule is not a system in the sense used later in your post.

You implied that the energy from one collision was distributed
throughout the system:

"As being a general collision, it redistributes their energy."

In the context of the 2nd TD law, it does not.

It was a straw man argument, as I said before.

[Poutnik]

Wally W. posted Sat, 25 May 2013 07:45:15 -0400

> >As there had good reason that escapes from you.
> >
> >As temperature does not apply to molecules,
> >Will interpretation there is not possible any transfer
> >of thermal energy to warmer system is invalid.
>
> A molecule is not a system in the sense used later in your post.

I was not talking about molecules as systems,
only that they a pert of systems.

>
> You implied that the energy from one collision was distributed
> throughout the system:
> "As being a general collision, it redistributes their energy."
>
> In the context of the 2nd TD law, it does not.

General collision redistributes energy of these 2 molecules,
therefore changes thermal energy and temperature
of these 2 systems the molecules belong to.

Of course, from macroscopical POV and long time horizont,
dynamic equlibrium manages equal numbers of
passing/getting energy collisions and zero net energy transfer.

What Will says in other words is,
than even such 1 molecule transfer is not possible.

Not even pressure of colder gas accross thermal gradient.

> It was a straw man argument, as I said before.

Unless pointed out where and why, it is useless statement.

--
Poutnik

[Wally W.]

On Sat, 25 May 2013 13:53:46 +0200, Poutnik wrote:

>
>Wally W. posted Sat, 25 May 2013 07:45:15 -0400
>
>> >As there had good reason that escapes from you.
>> >
>> >As temperature does not apply to molecules,
>> >Will interpretation there is not possible any transfer
>> >of thermal energy to warmer system is invalid.
>>
>> A molecule is not a system in the sense used later in your post.
>
>I was not talking about molecules as systems,
>only that they a pert of systems.
>>
>> You implied that the energy from one collision was distributed
>> throughout the system:
>> "As being a general collision, it redistributes their energy."
>>
>> In the context of the 2nd TD law, it does not.
>
>General collision redistributes energy of these 2 molecules,

Okay, within a "system" that contains all affected particles,
including parts of both reservoirs.

>therefore changes thermal energy and temperature
>of these 2 systems the molecules belong to.

That's where you went to far, moving the goal posts and making a straw
man argument.

The temporary and local redistribution of energy between two groups of
molecules too small to have "temperatures", as noted in your post from
January, do *not* affect the temperatures of the *systems* which you
now want to define as the reservoirs.

>Of course, from macroscopical POV and long time horizont,
>dynamic equlibrium manages equal numbers of
>passing/getting energy collisions and zero net energy transfer.

Which is why discussion of local exchanges between a few molecules
does not make your case.

>What Will says in other words is,
>than even such 1 molecule transfer is not possible.
>
>Not even pressure of colder gas accross thermal gradient.

That is your interpretation of what Will says. If that isn't a correct
interpretation, it us up to Will to take issue with it. I haven't been
following your many exchanges.

Your attempt in this thread to demolish the purported position was
flawed.

>> It was a straw man argument, as I said before.
>
>Unless pointed out where and why, it is useless statement.

Noted above.

[Poutnik]

Wally W. posted Sat, 25 May 2013 08:15:48 -0400

> >General collision redistributes energy of these 2 molecules,
>
> Okay, within a "system" that contains all affected particles,
> including parts of both reservoirs.

No, have not I have said 2 systems ?
why not to read carefully the settings ?

>
> >therefore changes thermal energy and temperature
> >of these 2 systems the molecules belong to.
>
> That's where you went to far, moving the goal posts and making a straw
> man argument.

General statement saying nothing.

>
> The temporary and local redistribution of energy between two groups of
> molecules too small to have "temperatures", as noted in your post from
> January, do *not* affect the temperatures of the *systems* which you
> now want to define as the reservoirs.

Thermal transfer does not stop to be thermal transfer,
just because it is small and temporary.

And therefore even temperature of these systems is affected,
even if just a little and temporary.

>
>
> >Of course, from macroscopical POV and long time horizont,
> >dynamic equlibrium manages equal numbers of
> >passing/getting energy collisions and zero net energy transfer.
>
> Which is why discussion of local exchanges between a few molecules
> does not make your case.

Does make sense as 2ndTD law is statistical law
base on statistical behaviour of large sets.

Does make sense as these bidirectional transfers
do not violate 2ndTD law.

>
>
> >What Will says in other words is,
> >than even such 1 molecule transfer is not possible.
> >
> >Not even pressure of colder gas accross thermal gradient.
>
> That is your interpretation of what Will says.

In fact, it is not interpretation.
You can directly ask him.

> If that isn't a correct
> interpretation, it us up to Will to take issue with it. I haven't been
> following your many exchanges.

Well, this thread was not tageted to you, if you want to participate,
than without knowing the context you can be not well oriented in
what is being said and why... ( not attacking your skills ).

>
> Your attempt in this thread to demolish the purported position was
> flawed.

By what way , and you like general statements saying nothing.

>
> >> It was a straw man argument, as I said before.
> >
> >Unless pointed out where and why, it is useless statement.
>
> Noted above.

Still was not.


--
Poutnik

[Poutnik]

Wally W. posted Sat, 25 May 2013 08:15:48 -0400

>
> The temporary and local redistribution of energy between two groups of
> molecules too small to have "temperatures", as noted in your post from
> January, do *not* affect the temperatures of the *systems* which you
> now want to define as the reservoirs.
>
>

I think we may have in fact similar attitude to the topic,
not knowing it yet.

Will denies existance of dynamic equlibrium in physics.

Including thermal and radiative dynamic opposing processes
under hood of static like behaviour of macroobjects.

E.g. in his interpretation of thermal radiatition interaction,
colder object do not radiate at all,
and warmer object radiates
not proportionaly to T1^4, but (T1^4 - T4^4 )

In his interpretation are all flows unidirectional,
or do not exist, in case of equilibrium.


--
Poutnik

[Wally W.]

On Sat, 25 May 2013 14:59:27 +0200, Poutnik wrote:

>
>Wally W. posted Sat, 25 May 2013 08:15:48 -0400
>
>>
>> The temporary and local redistribution of energy between two groups of
>> molecules too small to have "temperatures", as noted in your post from
>> January, do *not* affect the temperatures of the *systems* which you
>> now want to define as the reservoirs.
>>
>>
>I think we may have in fact similar attitude to the topic,
>not knowing it yet.

Maybe so.

I agree that molecules on one side of a system boundary can transfer
kinetic energy to a system on the other side. However, the system
boundary has an area larger than one molecule. The opposite kinetic
energy transfer is taking place elsewhere on the system boundary.

Net effect is the macroscopic temperatures remain constant in the
well-mixed systems in both reservoirs.

>Will denies existance of dynamic equlibrium in physics.
>
>Including thermal and radiative dynamic opposing processes
>under hood of static like behaviour of macroobjects.
>
>E.g. in his interpretation of thermal radiatition interaction,
>colder object do not radiate at all,

I have observed this, and I think it is incorrect.

>and warmer object radiates
>not proportionaly to T1^4, but (T1^4 - T4^4 )

If so, how does the warmer object know that the colder object is at
temperature T2?

The use of the term "backradiation" is unsavory, but is this a fair
interpretation?

"forward radiation" =
sigma * area_1 * emissivity * (view_factor_12) * T1^4

"backradiation" =
sigma * area_2 * emissivity * (view_factor_21) * T2^4

"net radiation" =
sigma * area_1 * emissivity * (view_factor_12) * (T1^4 - T2^4)

>In his interpretation are all flows unidirectional,
>or do not exist, in case of equilibrium.

I disagree with this interpretation.

If there are no flows, there is not equillibrium; there is a static
condition.

[Poutnik]

Wally W. posted Sat, 25 May 2013 09:33:08 -0400

>
> On Sat, 25 May 2013 14:59:27 +0200, Poutnik wrote:
>
> >
> >Wally W. posted Sat, 25 May 2013 08:15:48 -0400
> >
> >>
> >> The temporary and local redistribution of energy between two groups of
> >> molecules too small to have "temperatures", as noted in your post from
> >> January, do *not* affect the temperatures of the *systems* which you
> >> now want to define as the reservoirs.
> >>
> >>
> >I think we may have in fact similar attitude to the topic,
> >not knowing it yet.
>
> Maybe so.
>
> I agree that molecules on one side of a system boundary can transfer
> kinetic energy to a system on the other side. However, the system
> boundary has an area larger than one molecule. The opposite kinetic
> energy transfer is taking place elsewhere on the system boundary.
>
> Net effect is the macroscopic temperatures remain constant in the
> well-mixed systems in both reservoirs.

We agree here, as expected.

>
>
> >Will denies existance of dynamic equlibrium in physics.
> >
> >Including thermal and radiative dynamic opposing processes
> >under hood of static like behaviour of macroobjects.
> >
> >E.g. in his interpretation of thermal radiatition interaction,
> >colder object do not radiate at all,
>
> I have observed this, and I think it is incorrect.

So we agree here as well.

>
>
> >and warmer object radiates
> >not proportionaly to T1^4, but (T1^4 - T4^4 )
>
> If so, how does the warmer object know that the colder object is at
> temperature T2?

We agree here as well..
And I asked Will many times, "how does it know" ?

>
> The use of the term "backradiation" is unsavory, but is this a fair
> interpretation?

As posted more time, I prefer term downward radiation,
as backradiation creates false causality feeling.

>
> "forward radiation" =
> sigma * area_1 * emissivity * (view_factor_12) * T1^4
>
> "backradiation" =
> sigma * area_2 * emissivity * (view_factor_21) * T2^4
>
> "net radiation" =
> sigma * area_1 * emissivity * (view_factor_12) * (T1^4 - T2^4)

For dimplification can be taken same areas and view factors.

>
>
> >In his interpretation are all flows unidirectional,
> >or do not exist, in case of equilibrium.
>
> I disagree with this interpretation.
> If there are no flows, there is not equillibrium; there is a static
> condition.

So we agree in all terms.

--
Poutnik

[Wally W.]

On Sat, 25 May 2013 15:39:41 +0200, Poutnik wrote:

>
>Wally W. posted Sat, 25 May 2013 09:33:08 -0400

>> The use of the term "backradiation" is unsavory, but is this a fair
>> interpretation?
>
>As posted more time, I prefer term downward radiation,
>as backradiation creates false causality feeling.
>
>>
>> "forward radiation" =
>> sigma * area_1 * emissivity * (view_factor_12) * T1^4
>>
>> "backradiation" =
>> sigma * area_2 * emissivity * (view_factor_21) * T2^4
>>
>> "net radiation" =
>> sigma * area_1 * emissivity * (view_factor_12) * (T1^4 - T2^4)
>
>For dimplification can be taken same areas and view factors.

I would have to think more about what is swept under the rug with this
simplification.

Albert Einstein: "Everything should be made as simple as possible, but
not simpler."

The view factors and emissivities have greater interaction than I
indicated above:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermal_radiation#Radiative_heat_transfer

[Poutnik]

Poutnik posted Sat, 25 May 2013 15:39:41 +0200

>
> Wally W. posted Sat, 25 May 2013 09:33:08 -0400
> >

> > The use of the term "backradiation" is unsavory, but is this a fair
> > interpretation?
>
> As posted more time, I prefer term downward radiation,
> as backradiation creates false causality feeling.
>
> >
> > "forward radiation" =
> > sigma * area_1 * emissivity * (view_factor_12) * T1^4
> >
> > "backradiation" =
> > sigma * area_2 * emissivity * (view_factor_21) * T2^4
> >
> > "net radiation" =
> > sigma * area_1 * emissivity * (view_factor_12) * (T1^4 - T2^4)
>

> For simplification can be taken same areas and view factors.

Like e.g. imaginary thin layers of atmosphere
and their IR radiation balance.

Will interpreation of 2ndTD law for radiation says,
that colder upper layers
can never thermally radiate
to warmer layers or surface.


--
Poutnik

[Poutnik]

Wally W. posted Sat, 25 May 2013 10:02:40 -0400

>
> On Sat, 25 May 2013 15:39:41 +0200, Poutnik wrote:
>
> >
> >Wally W. posted Sat, 25 May 2013 09:33:08 -0400
> >> The use of the term "backradiation" is unsavory, but is this a fair
> >> interpretation?
> >
> >As posted more time, I prefer term downward radiation,
> >as backradiation creates false causality feeling.
> >
> >>
> >> "forward radiation" =
> >> sigma * area_1 * emissivity * (view_factor_12) * T1^4
> >>
> >> "backradiation" =
> >> sigma * area_2 * emissivity * (view_factor_21) * T2^4
> >>
> >> "net radiation" =
> >> sigma * area_1 * emissivity * (view_factor_12) * (T1^4 - T2^4)
> >

> >For simplification can be taken same areas and view factors.

> I would have to think more about what is swept under the rug with this
> simplification.
>
> Albert Einstein: "Everything should be made as simple as possible, but
> not simpler."
>
> The view factors and emissivities have greater interaction than I
> indicated above:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermal_radiation#Radiative_heat_transfer

Generally, I agree, of course.

But I mean simplification for simplified geometrical scenario,
where the only major difference is temperature.

If you take atmosphere thought air layers over unit surface area,
they can be considered of

same area,
same view factor,

About same emissivity
This is for case of low vertical distance,
it differs for longer distance, mainly due pressure and composition,
and can be determined by average numbers.

This emissivity can be kept more constant, if we consider layers
of constant pressure difference, instead of the height.

--
Poutnik

[Wally W.]

Note that the effective area radiating to space is slightly more than
four times that of the Earth's surface receiving energy from the Sun.

The effective area exposed to solar radiation is the projection of a
hemisphere on a plane: pi * (R_earth)^2

The actual area emitting radiation to space is the exterior "surface"
of the atmosphere surrounding the entire planet: 4 * pi * (R_earth + 2
* depth_of_atmosphere)^2

The relevant radiant heat balance is done here:

http://eesc.columbia.edu/courses/ees/climate/lectures/radiation/
"Solving this equation for temperature we obtain:
...
It is referred to as the effective temperature
of the planet."

At the outer fringe of the atmosphere, as viewed from space.

This is not the effective temperature at the *surface* of the planet.

"The effective temperature of Earth is much lower
than what we experience."

Because we don't travel unprotected to the outer fringe of the
atmosphere.

Greenhouse effect: Busted.

[Poutnik]

Wally W. posted Sat, 25 May 2013 10:47:52 -0400

>
> Note that the effective area radiating to space is slightly more than
> four times that of the Earth's surface receiving energy from the Sun.
>
> The effective area exposed to solar radiation is the projection of a
> hemisphere on a plane: pi * (R_earth)^2
>
> The actual area emitting radiation to space is the exterior "surface"
> of the atmosphere surrounding the entire planet: 4 * pi * (R_earth + 2
> * depth_of_atmosphere)^2
>

You ignore height profile of atmosphere emissivity,
that determines very strong weighting of heigth
during calculation of atmosphere depth.

Emissivity decreases exponentially with height, as probability of
emission and absorption decreases about linearly with pressure.

Even faster, as relative content og GHGs decreases
in thermosphere and exosphere.

At 2R on height 6378 km is high vacuum
with effectively zero IR absorption and emission.

The height where majority of emitted IR travals to space undisturbed
is much lower.



--
Poutnik

[Poutnik]

Wally W. posted Sat, 25 May 2013 10:47:52 -0400

I apologize,
at the 1st time I misinterpreted your post, now I see
why it seemed it much less clever than I would expected from you.

>
> Note that the effective area radiating to space is slightly more than
> four times that of the Earth's surface receiving energy from the Sun.

This is true, but see below.

>
> The effective area exposed to solar radiation is the projection of a
> hemisphere on a plane: pi * (R_earth)^2
>
> The actual area emitting radiation to space is the exterior "surface"
> of the atmosphere surrounding the entire planet: 4 * pi * (R_earth + 2
> * depth_of_atmosphere)^2

Why R_earth + 2 * depth_of_atmosphere ?

The point is mean insolation reflects this fact,
it is average value recalculated on the whole surface.

The solar constant cca 1360 W/m2
is for equivalent of 4 times larger surface to
1360/4 = 340 W/m2, the value


--
Poutnik

[Poutnik]

Poutnik posted Sat, 25 May 2013 17:51:59 +0200

>
> Wally W. posted Sat, 25 May 2013 10:47:52 -0400
>
> I apologize,
> at the 1st time I misinterpreted your post, now I see
> why it seemed it much less clever than I would expected from you.
> >
> > Note that the effective area radiating to space is slightly more than
> > four times that of the Earth's surface receiving energy from the Sun.
>
> This is true, but see below.
> >
> > The effective area exposed to solar radiation is the projection of a
> > hemisphere on a plane: pi * (R_earth)^2

BTW, here one has to calculate
pi * (R_earth + k * depth of atmosphere)^2 as well,
due atmospherical absorption.

[Wally W.]

On Sat, 25 May 2013 18:04:27 +0200, Poutnik wrote:

>
>Poutnik posted Sat, 25 May 2013 17:51:59 +0200
>
>
>>
>> Wally W. posted Sat, 25 May 2013 10:47:52 -0400
>>
>> I apologize,
>> at the 1st time I misinterpreted your post, now I see
>> why it seemed it much less clever than I would expected from you.
>> >
>> > Note that the effective area radiating to space is slightly more than
>> > four times that of the Earth's surface receiving energy from the Sun.
>>
>> This is true, but see below.
>> >
>> > The effective area exposed to solar radiation is the projection of a
>> > hemisphere on a plane: pi * (R_earth)^2
>
>BTW, here one has to calculate
>pi * (R_earth + k * depth of atmosphere)^2 as well,
>due atmospherical absorption.

Then the energy balance needs another term, not an adjustment in
projected area for the radiation that reaches the ground.

(radiation reaching the ground) + (radiation absorbed by atmosphere) =
heat radiated to space.

[Poutnik]

Wally W. posted Sat, 25 May 2013 14:02:04 -0400

These effects are minor.

--
Poutnik

[Wally W.]

Only about 1000 W/m2 reaches the surface. It falls only on the
projection of a sphere of radius R_earth.

You are commenting on the fine points of the math.

The main problem with the case for a greenhouse effect is in the part
you snipped:

:The relevant radiant heat balance is done here:

: http://eesc.columbia.edu/courses/ees/climate/lectures/radiation/
: "Solving this equation for temperature we obtain:
: ...
: It is referred to as the effective temperature
: of the planet."

:At the outer fringe of the atmosphere, as viewed from space.

:This is not the effective temperature at the *surface* of the planet.

: "The effective temperature of Earth is much lower
: than what we experience."

:Because we don't travel unprotected to the outer fringe of the
:atmosphere.

:Greenhouse effect: Busted.

The interpretation of the math is wrong by those who say there is a
greenhouse effect.

[Poutnik]

Poutnik posted Sat, 25 May 2013 20:04:38 +0200

BTW these effects are quite well implied in percentage
of reflected / air absorbed / earth absorbed radiation.

--
Poutnik

[Poutnik]

Wally W. posted Sat, 25 May 2013 14:09:24 -0400

> >
> >Why R_earth + 2 * depth_of_atmosphere ?
> >
> >The point is mean insolation reflects this fact,
> >it is average value recalculated on the whole surface.
> >
> >The solar constant cca 1360 W/m2
> >is for equivalent of 4 times larger surface to
> >1360/4 = 340 W/m2, the value
>
> Only about 1000 W/m2 reaches the surface. It falls only on the
> projection of a sphere of radius R_earth.

In fact, even less, as 29% is reflected
and 23& absorbed by atmosphere.

> The main problem with the case for a greenhouse effect is in the part
> you snipped:

Why not to quote relevant information ?
What you have quoted says nothing...
That is reason why I have quoted it out.

>
> The interpretation of the math is wrong by those who say there is a
> greenhouse effect.

--
Poutnik

[Will Janoschka]

No more exchanges at all!
Wally I have never posted anything about what molecules do or do not
do,
I simply am not interested. I Have never seen even one.

All of the interpretations of 2LTD say that spontaneous heat transfer
from a cold
body to a hot body ist verbotten. This is true even in QED simply
because the
probability of "any" spontaneous transfer is greater from hot to cold
than vice versa.
QED the versa doesn't happen. This includes. radiative heat transfer
as demonstrated
in 1906 Nutnik indeed changes the whole story in any way to gain what
he thinks
as an edge..

[Wally W.]

On Sat, 25 May 2013 20:12:01 +0200, Poutnik wrote:

>
>Wally W. posted Sat, 25 May 2013 14:09:24 -0400

>> The main problem with the case for a greenhouse effect is in the part
>> you snipped:
>
>Why not to quote relevant information ?
>What you have quoted says nothing...
>That is reason why I have quoted it out.
>>
>> The interpretation of the math is wrong by those who say there is a
>> greenhouse effect.

I suspect you had other reasons for not quoting it.

Do you take issue with the energy balance here?
http://eesc.columbia.edu/courses/ees/climate/lectures/radiation/

If not, what do you think they are saying this energy balance shows?

They compare two things:
1. The effective temperature of the planet.
2. The air temperature we normally experience.

Why is this comparison relevant?

When was the last time you experienced the air temperature at the
fringe of the atmosphere?

[Poutnik]

Will Janoschka posted Sat, 25 May 2013 13:18:29 -0500

> >
> > That is your interpretation of what Will says. If that isn't a
> > correct interpretation, it us up to Will to take issue with it. I
> > haven't been following your many exchanges.
> >
> No more exchanges at all! Wally I have never posted anything about what
> molecules do or do not do, I simply am not interested. I Have never
> seen even one.

As you were never really interested in science.

>
> All of the interpretations of 2LTD say that spontaneous heat transfer
> from a cold body to a hot body ist verbotten.

What does not apply to molecules without temperature,
so they happily intechnage energy both directions
independently on system temperatures.

> This is true even in QED

What is true even in QED, you have hardly any clue about.

> simply because the probability of "any" spontaneous transfer is greater
> from hot to cold than vice versa.

Yes, and that is reason why why transfer from hot to cold
is faster than from cold to hot.

> QED the versa doesn't happen. This
> includes. radiative heat transfer as demonstrated in 1906 Nutnik indeed
> changes the whole story in any way to gain what he thinks as an edge..
>

I need not to say anything against what you say.
You do it for me yourself better than I could do..




--
Poutnik

[Poutnik]

Wally W. posted Sat, 25 May 2013 14:35:28 -0400

>
> On Sat, 25 May 2013 20:12:01 +0200, Poutnik wrote:
>
> >
> >Wally W. posted Sat, 25 May 2013 14:09:24 -0400
> >> The main problem with the case for a greenhouse effect is in the part
> >> you snipped:
> >
> >Why not to quote relevant information ?
> >What you have quoted says nothing...
> >That is reason why I have quoted it out.
> >>
> >> The interpretation of the math is wrong by those who say there is a
> >> greenhouse effect.
>
> I suspect you had other reasons for not quoting it.

I is syour right.
But I had not.

>
> Do you take issue with the energy balance here?
> http://eesc.columbia.edu/courses/ees/climate/lectures/radiation/

I am OK with that.

>
> If not, what do you think they are saying this energy balance shows?
>
> They compare two things:
> 1. The effective temperature of the planet.
> 2. The air temperature we normally experience.
>
> Why is this comparison relevant?

Because it show there must be some mechanism
that decreases radiation, allowing higher temperatures
than theoretized low Te.

>
> When was the last time you experienced the air temperature at the
> fringe of the atmosphere?
>

Never. Why ?

BTW, existence of IR absorbing atmosphere is equivalent to GH effect,
as this atmosphere emits IR radiation toward surface.

That caused net radiation is at given temperature lower
that would be with IR not absorbing atmosphere.




--
Poutnik

[Wally W.]

On Sat, 25 May 2013 21:02:58 +0200, Poutnik wrote:

>
>Wally W. posted Sat, 25 May 2013 14:35:28 -0400
>
>
>>
>> On Sat, 25 May 2013 20:12:01 +0200, Poutnik wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >Wally W. posted Sat, 25 May 2013 14:09:24 -0400
>> >> The main problem with the case for a greenhouse effect is in the part
>> >> you snipped:
>> >
>> >Why not to quote relevant information ?
>> >What you have quoted says nothing...
>> >That is reason why I have quoted it out.
>> >>
>> >> The interpretation of the math is wrong by those who say there is a
>> >> greenhouse effect.
>>
>> I suspect you had other reasons for not quoting it.
>
>I is syour right.
>But I had not.
>
>>
>> Do you take issue with the energy balance here?
>> http://eesc.columbia.edu/courses/ees/climate/lectures/radiation/
>
>I am OK with that.
>>
>> If not, what do you think they are saying this energy balance shows?
>>
>> They compare two things:
>> 1. The effective temperature of the planet.
>> 2. The air temperature we normally experience.
>>
>> Why is this comparison relevant?
>
>Because it show there must be some mechanism
>that decreases radiation,

What do you mean decreases radiation?

The radiation in equals the radiation out.

There is no decrease in radiation.

>allowing higher temperatures
>than theoretized low Te.

What is low about Te when measured at the outer fringe of the
atmosphere?

The temperature at the fringe of the atmosphere must be lower than the
surface temperature. Their energy balance shows that it is.

The surface temperature will be higher because there is convection
from the surface to the upper levels. That, and the lapse rate.

What do you think the temperature at the outer fringe of the
atmosphere should be, if not the -18�C calculated in the link above?

>> When was the last time you experienced the air temperature at the
>> fringe of the atmosphere?
>>
>Never. Why ?

Because the link above compares Te, at the fringe of the atmosphere,
with "the surface temperature of our planet", 15�C.

Do you realize Te and "surface temperature" are two different things?

If so, then you realize that a direct comparison of the two tells us
nothing about a supposed "greenhouse effect."

>BTW, existence of IR absorbing atmosphere is equivalent to GH effect,
>as this atmosphere emits IR radiation toward surface.

No, it is not. The "greenhouse effect" singles out particular
wavelengths of light. The energy balance in the link above allows the
atmosphere to emit all wavelengths of light.

>That caused net radiation is at given temperature lower
>that would be with IR not absorbing atmosphere.

Again, there is nothing special about IR or CO2 in the energy balance.

[Poutnik]

Poutnik posted Sat, 25 May 2013 21:02:58 +0200

>
> Wally W. posted Sat, 25 May 2013 14:35:28 -0400
>
> >

> > If not, what do you think they are saying this energy balance shows?
> >
> > They compare two things:
> > 1. The effective temperature of the planet.
> > 2. The air temperature we normally experience.
> >
> > Why is this comparison relevant?
>
> Because it show there must be some mechanism
> that decreases radiation, allowing higher temperatures
> than theoretized low Te.
> >

Note that this effective SURFACE temperature -15 deg C
for nonabsorbing atmosphere is kept even for combined system
surface + absorbing atmosphere.

The point is - this effective temperature
is integral average across all wavelength.

For non absorbing ones the temperature is like + 15.
For very absorbing ones the temperature is e.g. like -30.


--
Poutnik

[Poutnik]

Wally W. posted Sat, 25 May 2013 15:24:05 -0400

> >
> >Because it show there must be some mechanism
> >that decreases radiation,
>
> What do you mean decreases radiation?

Effective, net radiation.

>
> The radiation in equals the radiation out.

Not in case of existance downward radiation.

>
> There is no decrease in radiation.

As above.

>
> >allowing higher temperatures
> >than theoretized low Te.
>
> What is low about Te when measured at the outer fringe of the
> atmosphere?

Te means SURFACE radiation.
Wir absorbin

>
> The temperature at the fringe of the atmosphere must be lower than the
> surface temperature. Their energy balance shows that it is.

No doubts.

>
> The surface temperature will be higher because there is convection
> from the surface to the upper levels. That, and the lapse rate.

Convection is minor, about 5% of surface outcome.

>
> What do you think the temperature at the outer fringe of the

> atmosphere should be, if not the -18�C calculated in the link above?

Why do you think it is wavelength independent ?
I am afraid you are rather confused here.

>
> Because the link above compares Te, at the fringe of the atmosphere,

and this is your confusion.
Te is for surface without absorbing atmosphere.

With absorbing atmosphere this -15 is effective radiation temperature
integrated over all wavelength.


> with "the surface temperature of our planet", 15�C.

>
> Do you realize Te and "surface temperature" are two different things?

Sure, I am well educated in atmospheric physics.

>
> If so, then you realize that a direct comparison of the two tells us
> nothing about a supposed "greenhouse effect."

there is no downward radiation without GH effect.

>
>
> >BTW, existence of IR absorbing atmosphere is equivalent to GH effect,
> >as this atmosphere emits IR radiation toward surface.
>
> No, it is not. The "greenhouse effect" singles out particular
> wavelengths of light. The energy balance in the link above allows the
> atmosphere to emit all wavelengths of light.

Hardly.

>
>
> Again, there is nothing special about IR or CO2 in the energy balance.

Have you tried to estimated downwward Ir radiation ?


--
Poutnik

[Wally W.]

On Sat, 25 May 2013 21:31:20 +0200, Poutnik wrote:

>
>Poutnik posted Sat, 25 May 2013 21:02:58 +0200
>
>
>>
>> Wally W. posted Sat, 25 May 2013 14:35:28 -0400
>>
>> >
>> > If not, what do you think they are saying this energy balance shows?
>> >
>> > They compare two things:
>> > 1. The effective temperature of the planet.
>> > 2. The air temperature we normally experience.
>> >
>> > Why is this comparison relevant?
>>
>> Because it show there must be some mechanism
>> that decreases radiation, allowing higher temperatures
>> than theoretized low Te.
>> >
>Note that this effective SURFACE temperature -15 deg C

On what basis?

http://eesc.columbia.edu/courses/ees/climate/lectures/radiation/
"First let us denote the solar radiative flux at the **top** of the
planets atmosphere"

What in the energy balance requires the planet to *have* a surface?

After a hand-wave, they do say "this would be the temperature at the
surface of the planet if it had no atmosphere."

But that is irrelevant. It is also the effective temperature of the
planet if it had an atmosphere, but *no* surface.

Since we are talking about a planet that *does* have an atmosphere
*and* a surface, this one equation in the energy balance cannot
provide values for both the *surface* temperature and the effective
temperature of the planet.

>for nonabsorbing atmosphere is kept even for combined system
>surface + absorbing atmosphere.
>
>The point is - this effective temperature
>is integral average across all wavelength.

Hand-waving.

>
>For non absorbing ones the temperature is like + 15.
>For very absorbing ones the temperature is e.g. like -30.

Hand-waving.

The "greenhouse effect" is bullshit.

[Wally W.]

On Sat, 25 May 2013 21:41:51 +0200, Poutnik wrote:

>
>Wally W. posted Sat, 25 May 2013 15:24:05 -0400
>> >
>> >Because it show there must be some mechanism
>> >that decreases radiation,
>>
>> What do you mean decreases radiation?
>
>Effective, net radiation.
>>
>> The radiation in equals the radiation out.
>
>Not in case of existance downward radiation.

On a planetary basis as viewed from space, it doesn't matter whether
there is "downward radiation" as observed from the surface.

>> There is no decrease in radiation.
>
>As above.

Indeed.

>>
>> >allowing higher temperatures
>> >than theoretized low Te.
>>
>> What is low about Te when measured at the outer fringe of the
>> atmosphere?
>
>Te means SURFACE radiation.

It means effective planetary temperature as viewed from space.

>Wir absorbin
>>
>> The temperature at the fringe of the atmosphere must be lower than the
>> surface temperature. Their energy balance shows that it is.
>
>No doubts.
>>
>> The surface temperature will be higher because there is convection
>> from the surface to the upper levels. That, and the lapse rate.
>
>Convection is minor, about 5% of surface outcome.
>>
>> What do you think the temperature at the outer fringe of the

>> atmosphere should be, if not the -18�C calculated in the link above?

You didn't answer this question.

>Why do you think it is wavelength independent ?
>I am afraid you are rather confused here.

Not so much. There is heat flux in and heat flux out. On a planetary
basis, as viewed from space, they are equal; regardless of the mix of
wavelengths.

>>
>> Because the link above compares Te, at the fringe of the atmosphere,
>
>and this is your confusion.
>Te is for surface without absorbing atmosphere.

It is also the effective temperature of a planet with an atmosphere
but no surface.

Or do you think Jupiter can't have an effective temperature because it
has no surface?

>With absorbing atmosphere this -15 is effective radiation temperature
>integrated over all wavelength.
>
>

>> with "the surface temperature of our planet", 15�C.

>>
>> Do you realize Te and "surface temperature" are two different things?
>
>Sure, I am well educated in atmospheric physics.
>>
>> If so, then you realize that a direct comparison of the two tells us
>> nothing about a supposed "greenhouse effect."
>
>there is no downward radiation without GH effect.

There is "downward radiation" if there is any object between the
source of radiation and the surface.

>> >BTW, existence of IR absorbing atmosphere is equivalent to GH effect,
>> >as this atmosphere emits IR radiation toward surface.
>>
>> No, it is not. The "greenhouse effect" singles out particular
>> wavelengths of light. The energy balance in the link above allows the
>> atmosphere to emit all wavelengths of light.
>
>Hardly.

See above. Either the flux in equals the flux out, or the planet
melts.

>> Again, there is nothing special about IR or CO2 in the energy balance.
>
>Have you tried to estimated downwward Ir radiation ?

Not relevant to the effective temperature as viewed from space.

[Poutnik]

Wally W. posted Sat, 25 May 2013 15:48:55 -0400

> >> >
> >Note that this effective SURFACE temperature -15 deg C
>
> On what basis?

Havent you read the article YOU quoted ?

>
> But that is irrelevant. It is also the effective temperature of the
> planet if it had an atmosphere, but *no* surface.

Joking, right ?

>
> The "greenhouse effect" is bullshit.

= IR radiation is bull shit.

--
Poutnik

[Wally W.]

On Sat, 25 May 2013 21:53:54 +0200, Poutnik wrote:

>
>Wally W. posted Sat, 25 May 2013 15:48:55 -0400
>
>> >> >
>> >Note that this effective SURFACE temperature -15 deg C
>>
>> On what basis?
>
>Havent you read the article YOU quoted ?

I don't claim that everything in the article is correct. I think their
conclusion is wrong. That isn't the only thing I think is wrong with
the article.

As a first approximation, their energy balance is a nicely formated
point of reference.

We seem to agree on their energy balance.

We seem to disagree on what it means.

>> But that is irrelevant. It is also the effective temperature of the
>> planet if it had an atmosphere, but *no* surface.
>
>Joking, right ?

Not at all.

Why must a planet have a surface before one can calculate its apparent
temperature as viewed from space?

Do you think the effective temperature is something other than the
average apparent radiating temperature as viewed from space?

If not, why not?

>> The "greenhouse effect" is bullshit.
>
>= IR radiation is bull shit.

I didn't say that.

[Poutnik]

Wally W. posted Sat, 25 May 2013 15:56:38 -0400

> >Not in case of existance downward radiation.
>
> On a planetary basis as viewed from space, it doesn't matter whether
> there is "downward radiation" as observed from the surface.

At surface level, it means surface can afford high temperature,
wit net flux the same as at -15 or -18 without down radiation.

>
> >>
> >> >allowing higher temperatures
> >> >than theoretized low Te.
> >>
> >> What is low about Te when measured at the outer fringe of the
> >> atmosphere?
> >
> >Te means SURFACE radiation.
>
> It means effective planetary temperature as viewed from space.

It is kept, and for non absorbing air
would be mean temperature of surface.

With our air Te,mean is stil those -15 or -18,
but it is integral parameter of Te = f(lambda)

> >>
> >> What do you think the temperature at the outer fringe of the

> >> atmosphere should be, if not the -18�C calculated in the link above?

>
> You didn't answer this question.

This temperature is unrelated to Te.

>
> >Why do you think it is wavelength independent ?
> >I am afraid you are rather confused here.
>
> Not so much. There is heat flux in and heat flux out. On a planetary
> basis, as viewed from space, they are equal; regardless of the mix of
> wavelengths.

Totally yes, Per wavelength it is more complicated.
Overall, the original Te is kept.

>
> >and this is your confusion.
> >Te is for surface without absorbing atmosphere.
>
> It is also the effective temperature of a planet with an atmosphere
> but no surface.

Nonsense.

>
> Or do you think Jupiter can't have an effective temperature because it
> has no surface?

It has surface in sense of solid body radiation.

> There is "downward radiation" if there is any object between the
> source of radiation and the surface.

Explain.

> >>
> >> No, it is not. The "greenhouse effect" singles out particular
> >> wavelengths of light. The energy balance in the link above allows the
> >> atmosphere to emit all wavelengths of light.
> >
> >Hardly.
>
> See above. Either the flux in equals the flux out, or the planet
> melts.

Unrelated.
Some are emitted by surface due atmospheric windows.


--
Poutnik

[Poutnik]

Wally W. posted Sat, 25 May 2013 16:08:49 -0400

>
> We seem to disagree on what it means.

Possibly.
I like this more....
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/EnergyBalance/page1.php

>
> Why must a planet have a surface before one can calculate its apparent
> temperature as viewed from space?

Need not.
That original -15 was Te needed to radiate back all radiation income.

Even for non absorbing atmosphere , e.g. pure nitrogen
this Te is kept, as overall net transfer of energy to atmosphere is zero.

Due the same lapse rate mechanism you have mentioned,
the atmosphere would return to surface the same amount of energy
as it would get.
It would be done by global vertical ciculation and
downward adiabatic warming.

( Seen on Earth at subtopical desert area )

>
> Do you think the effective temperature is something other than the
> average apparent radiating temperature as viewed from space?

It depends on what you mean by effective temperature.
It can have 2 meaning :

Effective temperature of surface to emite energy income.
Effective temperature of Earth to emit energy income.

The former is about +15, the latter about -15 deg C.
Tha latter is effective mean of
all effective wavelength dependent temperatures.

>
> >> The "greenhouse effect" is bullshit.
> >
> >= IR radiation is bull shit.
>
> I didn't say that.

By other words.

--
Poutnik

[Wally W.]

On Sat, 25 May 2013 22:08:33 +0200, Poutnik wrote:

>
>Wally W. posted Sat, 25 May 2013 15:56:38 -0400
>
>> >Not in case of existance downward radiation.
>>
>> On a planetary basis as viewed from space, it doesn't matter whether
>> there is "downward radiation" as observed from the surface.
>
>At surface level, it means surface can afford high temperature,
>wit net flux the same as at -15 or -18 without down radiation.

The energy flows in this link
http://eesc.columbia.edu/courses/ees/climate/lectures/radiation/
may be rewritten:

heat absorbed by (planet + atmosphere) = (1 - a) * pi * R^2 *S_o

heat radiated from (planet + atmosphere) = (4* pi * R^2) * sigma *
T^4

The energy balance is:

(1 - a) * pi * R^2 *S_o = (4* pi * R^2) * sigma * T^4

There is one temperature in this energy balance.

For a planet with no atmosphere, T is measured at the surface of the
planet.

For a planet with an atmosphere (with or without a surface), T is
measured in the atmosphere.

If you disagree with this, please explain why.

>> >> >allowing higher temperatures
>> >> >than theoretized low Te.
>> >>
>> >> What is low about Te when measured at the outer fringe of the
>> >> atmosphere?
>> >
>> >Te means SURFACE radiation.

Only for a planet with no atmosphere.

>>
>> It means effective planetary temperature as viewed from space.
>
>It is kept, and for non absorbing air
>would be mean temperature of surface.
>
>With our air Te,mean is stil those -15 or -18,
>but it is integral parameter of Te = f(lambda)

Needless complication in this discussion.

>> >> What do you think the temperature at the outer fringe of the

>> >> atmosphere should be, if not the -18�C calculated in the link above?

>>
>> You didn't answer this question.
>
>This temperature is unrelated to Te.

No, it is not. If it is, please explain as requested above.

>> >Why do you think it is wavelength independent ?
>> >I am afraid you are rather confused here.
>>
>> Not so much. There is heat flux in and heat flux out. On a planetary
>> basis, as viewed from space, they are equal; regardless of the mix of
>> wavelengths.
>
>Totally yes, Per wavelength it is more complicated.
>Overall, the original Te is kept.

More complicated, but not relevant to this discussion.

>> >and this is your confusion.
>> >Te is for surface without absorbing atmosphere.
>>
>> It is also the effective temperature of a planet with an atmosphere
>> but no surface.
>
>Nonsense.

No it is not. Why do you think *every* planet in the universe must
have a surface?

>> Or do you think Jupiter can't have an effective temperature because it
>> has no surface?
>
>It has surface in sense of solid body radiation.

How much sunlight reaches that "surface"?

>> There is "downward radiation" if there is any object between the
>> source of radiation and the surface.
>
>Explain.

See Figure 3 on page 7 here:
https://www.jstage.jst.go.jp/article/jtst/5/2/5_2_303/_pdf

Any intermediate surface with create/experience "backradiation"
regardless of its size. It need not be an entire atmosphere.

>> >> No, it is not. The "greenhouse effect" singles out particular
>> >> wavelengths of light. The energy balance in the link above allows the
>> >> atmosphere to emit all wavelengths of light.
>> >
>> >Hardly.

There is nothing about wavelengths in the energy balance equation.

>> See above. Either the flux in equals the flux out, or the planet
>> melts.
>
>Unrelated.

No, it is not.

Why do you say it is?

>Some are emitted by surface due atmospheric windows.

It doesn't matter to an observer in space whether the radiation comes
from the surface or the atmosphere.

[Wally W.]

On Sat, 25 May 2013 22:19:39 +0200, Poutnik wrote:

>
>Wally W. posted Sat, 25 May 2013 16:08:49 -0400
>
>>
>> We seem to disagree on what it means.
>
>Possibly.
>I like this more....
>http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/EnergyBalance/page1.php

Where is the math?

If you want to talk science, use math.

>> Why must a planet have a surface before one can calculate its apparent
>> temperature as viewed from space?
>
>Need not.
>That original -15 was Te needed to radiate back all radiation income.
>
>Even for non absorbing atmosphere , e.g. pure nitrogen
>this Te is kept, as overall net transfer of energy to atmosphere is zero.

Are you saying an atmosphere of pure N2 would not absorb *any*
wavelengths of incoming solar radiation? More than just IR absorption
is important here.

If the surface heats, there will be convection to the atmosphere.

>
>Due the same lapse rate mechanism you have mentioned,
>the atmosphere would return to surface the same amount of energy
>as it would get.

No, it would radiate to space from the higher elevation and return to
the surface cooler than it left.

>It would be done by global vertical ciculation and
>downward adiabatic warming.
>
>( Seen on Earth at subtopical desert area )
>
>>
>> Do you think the effective temperature is something other than the
>> average apparent radiating temperature as viewed from space?
>
>It depends on what you mean by effective temperature.
>It can have 2 meaning :
>
>Effective temperature of surface to emite energy income.
>Effective temperature of Earth to emit energy income.

I mean the average radiant temperature of the planet as seen from
space.

>The former is about +15,

No, this is the observed temperature at the surface of the Earth.

>the latter about -15 deg C.

This is the average radiant temperature of the Earth as seen from
space. With or without an atmosphere if the albedo is constant for
both cases.

>Tha latter is effective mean of
>all effective wavelength dependent temperatures.

A needless complication in this discussion.

>> >> The "greenhouse effect" is bullshit.
>> >
>> >= IR radiation is bull shit.
>>
>> I didn't say that.
>
>By other words.

According to you.

[Poutnik]

Wally W. posted Sat, 25 May 2013 16:43:20 -0400

> The energy flows in this link
> http://eesc.columbia.edu/courses/ees/climate/lectures/radiation/
> may be rewritten:
>
> heat absorbed by (planet + atmosphere) = (1 - a) * pi * R^2 *S_o
>
> heat radiated from (planet + atmosphere) = (4* pi * R^2) * sigma *
> T^4
>
> The energy balance is:
>
> (1 - a) * pi * R^2 *S_o = (4* pi * R^2) * sigma * T^4
>
> There is one temperature in this energy balance.

Yes, it is. As it suspects uniform radiation.

>
> For a planet with no atmosphere, T is measured at the surface of the
> planet.
>
> For a planet with an atmosphere (with or without a surface), T is
> measured in the atmosphere.
> If you disagree with this, please explain why.

It is.

In case not absorbing atmosphere, like N2/O2,
atmosphere keeps dynamic thermal equilibrium with zero net effect.

For real atmosphere,
Earth has different effective temperature for every wavelength.
Integratd, it will provide the same single value as above.

> >> >Te means SURFACE radiation.
>
> Only for a planet with no atmosphere.

or non absorbing atmosphere.

> >
> >With our air Te,mean is stil those -15 or -18,
> >but it is integral parameter of Te = f(lambda)
>
> Needless complication in this discussion.

In fact not. Important complication,
closely related to GHE.

>
> >> >> What do you think the temperature at the outer fringe of the

> >> >> atmosphere should be, if not the -18�C calculated in the link above?

> >>
> >> You didn't answer this question.
> >
> >This temperature is unrelated to Te.
>
> No, it is not. If it is, please explain as requested above.

Te is given by T of mean effective radiating height,
tha can be abywhere in atmosphere, depending on wavelength.

>

> >Totally yes, Per wavelength it is more complicated.
> >Overall, the original Te is kept.
>
> More complicated, but not relevant to this discussion.

I do not thing so. Depending on the pount you follow.

>
> No it is not. Why do you think *every* planet in the universe must
> have a surface?

I do not.
But forget other planets, it is distracting.

>
> >> There is "downward radiation" if there is any object between the
> >> source of radiation and the surface.
> >
> >Explain.
>
> See Figure 3 on page 7 here:
> https://www.jstage.jst.go.jp/article/jtst/5/2/5_2_303/_pdf
>
> Any intermediate surface with create/experience "backradiation"
> regardless of its size. It need not be an entire atmosphere.

There is no need of any object between

the source of radiation and the surface.

Emitting gaseous molecule emits radiation directly to surface,
if it is low enough.

> There is nothing about wavelengths in the energy balance equation.

As it is simplified.

>
>
> >> See above. Either the flux in equals the flux out, or the planet
> >> melts.
> >
> >Unrelated.
>
> No, it is not.
> Why do you say it is?

I lost the context.

>
> >Some are emitted by surface due atmospheric windows.
>
> It doesn't matter to an observer in space whether the radiation comes
> from the surface or the atmosphere.

But the effective temperature.


--
Poutnik

[Poutnik]

Wally W. posted Sat, 25 May 2013 17:02:10 -0400

>
> >Possibly.
> >I like this more....
> >http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/EnergyBalance/page1.php
>
> Where is the math?
> If you want to talk science, use math.

Have I said I have written those pages.
Good picture is better than incorrect or oversimplifing math.

Math of overall balance is VERY complicated,
more than these rather funny high school formulas with Te.

> >Need not.
> >That original -15 was Te needed to radiate back all radiation income.
> >
> >Even for non absorbing atmosphere , e.g. pure nitrogen
> >this Te is kept, as overall net transfer of energy to atmosphere is zero.
>
> Are you saying an atmosphere of pure N2 would not absorb *any*
> wavelengths of incoming solar radiation? More than just IR absorption
> is important here.

I do not say any, but would be negligible.
We need not math precision.

>
> If the surface heats, there will be convection to the atmosphere.

Yes, as well as subsident flows, heating the colder surface,
together with adiabatic heating/cooling during verical movement.
Vertical circulation, transfering heat from warmer to colder places.
Zero net effect.

> >
> >Due the same lapse rate mechanism you have mentioned,
> >the atmosphere would return to surface the same amount of energy
> >as it would get.
>
> No, it would radiate to space from the higher elevation and return to
> the surface cooler than it left.

We still talking now about non absorbing = non emitting atmosphere.
You cannot have one without the other.

>
> >>
> >> Do you think the effective temperature is something other than the
> >> average apparent radiating temperature as viewed from space?
> >
> >It depends on what you mean by effective temperature.
> >It can have 2 meaning :
> >
> >Effective temperature of surface to emite energy income.
> >Effective temperature of Earth to emit energy income.
>
> I mean the average radiant temperature of the planet as seen from
> space.

Which is wavelength dependent. Mean Te will be equal
to that from formula you have provided.

>
>
> >The former is about +15,
>
> No, this is the observed temperature at the surface of the Earth.

Sure, and as well Te for WL emitted by surface directly to space,
as air is inactive for these IR wavelength.

>
> >the latter about -15 deg C.
>
> This is the average radiant temperature of the Earth as seen from
> space. With or without an atmosphere if the albedo is constant for
> both cases.

Yes.
But albedo for VIR and thermal IR is not comparable.

>
> >Tha latter is effective mean of
> >all effective wavelength dependent temperatures.
>
> A needless complication in this discussion.

We will see.

>
> >> >> The "greenhouse effect" is bullshit.

IR radiation of air = GHE.
Deal with that.

With same other income, surface can afford higher T
with support of extra income of IR.



--
Poutnik

[Will Janoschka]

> >> atmosphere should be, if not the -18øC calculated in the link above?

> You didn't answer this question.
> >Why do you think it is wavelength independent ?
> >I am afraid you are rather confused here.

> Not so much. There is heat flux in and heat flux out. On a planetary
> basis, as viewed from space, they are equal; regardless of the mix of
> wavelengths.

Sorry to butt in here. This is never true, as the earth has very
very
much sensible heat and the planet is always playing catch-up..
It is not wavelength dependent.

Still back radiation is NOT!

> >> Because the link above compares Te, at the fringe of the atmosphere,
> >
> >and this is your confusion.
> >Te is for surface without absorbing atmosphere.
>
> It is also the effective temperature of a planet with an atmosphere
> but no surface.
>
> Or do you think Jupiter can't have an effective temperature because it
> has no surface?
> >With absorbing atmosphere this -15 is effective radiation temperature
> >integrated over all wavelength.
> >

> >> with "the surface temperature of our planet", 15øC.

> >>
> >> Do you realize Te and "surface temperature" are two different things?
> >
> >Sure, I am well educated in atmospheric physics.
> >>
> >> If so, then you realize that a direct comparison of the two tells us
> >> nothing about a supposed "greenhouse effect."
> >
> >there is no downward radiation without GH effect.
>
> There is "downward radiation" if there is any object between the
> source of radiation and the surface.
>
> >> >BTW, existence of IR absorbing atmosphere is equivalent to GH effect,
> >> >as this atmosphere emits IR radiation toward surface.
> >>
> >> No, it is not. The "greenhouse effect" singles out particular
> >> wavelengths of light. The energy balance in the link above allows the
> >> atmosphere to emit all wavelengths of light.
> >
> >Hardly.
>
> See above. Either the flux in equals the flux out, or the planet
> melts.
>

The Earth fixes whatever tries to fuck it up. including Nutnik.

[Poutnik]

Will Janoschka posted Sun, 26 May 2013 00:50:27 -0500

>
> > Not so much. There is heat flux in and heat flux out. On a planetary
> > basis, as viewed from space, they are equal; regardless of the mix of
> > wavelengths.
>
> Sorry to butt in here. This is never true, as the earth has very
> very
> much sensible heat and the planet is always playing catch-up..
> It is not wavelength dependent.

Surely it is wavelength dependent.
Earth is not in thermodynamic equilibrium with the space.

At no wavelength there is kept balance as it would above.
The balance is kept on overall, across all wavelength.

>
> Still back radiation is NOT!

Sure is not. It is downward radiation.

You have not provided mechanism of radiation discrimination,
and science does not know it.
It does not exist in any scientific references.

If it does, I sincerely apologize and you would be
for sure so king and provide us the reference.

But I very doubt he would provide anything.

Earth does not care what Will think it should do...

>
> The Earth fixes whatever tries to fuck it up. including Nutnik.

Will always prefers personal offences,
whenever he is to bring some real scientific thinking.


--
Poutnik

[Sam Wormley]

On 5/26/13 12:50 AM, Will Janoschka wrote:
> The Earth fixes whatever tries to fuck it up.

It was a full five million years after the great dying of 252 million
years ago before a lot of life came back.

We might be on that track again, is the oceans get hot enough.

> Ocean Acidification: The Other CO2 Problem
> http://www.annualreviews.org/eprint/QwPqRGcRzQM5ffhPjAdT/full/10.1146/annurev.marine.010908.163834
>
> Ocean acidification on track to be among the worst of the last 300 million years
> http://arstechnica.com/science/news/2012/03/ocean-acidification-could-become-worst-in-at-least-300-million-years.ars
>
> Climate Armageddon: How the World's Weather Could Quickly Run Amok [Excerpt]
> http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=how-worlds-weather-could-quickly-run-amok
>
> Physics Today | Humans may be driving Earth toward catastrophe
> http://blogs.physicstoday.org/newspicks/2012/06/humans-may-be-driving-earth-toward-catastrophe/
>
> Climate MADness
> http://thebulletin.org/web-edition/columnists/dawn-stover/climate-madness
>
> Approaching a state shift in Earth's biosphere
> http://www.ecoearth.info/shared/docfeed/biosphere_state_shift_nature.pdf
>
> Earth is on the edge of runaway warming
> http://arctic-news.blogspot.com/2013/04/earth-is-on-the-edge-of-runaway-warming.html

[Sam Wormley]

On 5/25/13 1:18 PM, Will Janoschka wrote:
> Wally I have never posted anything about what molecules do or do not
> do

Will, you obviously don't have the foggiest idea how greenhouse
gasses absorb, store, transfer and reradiate IR wavelength photons.

> http://chriscolose.wordpress.com/2008/03/10/physics-of-the-greenhouse-effect-pt-2/

[Will Janoschka]

yOU HAVE NOTHING TO SAY. Fuck off idiot!>

[Will Janoschka]

Fuck off idiot.

[Sam Wormley]

Great response, Will. Nevertheless the earth is warming!

[Sam Wormley]

Nice response from Will, who has not foggiest idea how greenhouse