Global Mean Temperature

[Lagboltz]

seems like a fair trade to me. you boys up for it ?

OK. Dogtowner, I will take you up on your suggestion, since Pale responded to my request, but for now, I will respond just to the phrase,
"a trace gas with no capacity to absorb and retain energy within an open atmosphere" part of the question. The other parts of the question are fraught with Pale's emotions and will lead to a quagmire of bickering.

Do not take this post as addressing global warming. It's just to give an intuitive perspective of CO2 in the atmosphere, and how such an "airy" thing can be thermally so important?

If the atmosphere had the same density of water, it would compress down to a height of about 34 feet of liquid, or 10 meters. There would be about 3.5 mm of CO2 in this condensed pile of atmosphere. This is a significant thickness of material for CO2 resonant absorption of infrared, especially when you consider that a fraction of a mm of sunscreen can protect you from UV.

This hypothetical pile of atmosphere has a similar thermal capacity of 34 feet of ocean, or a dozen or so feet of earth. That is not trivial since the earth mantel can have a low thermal conductivity, and there are no convection currents.

So the CO2 does have a large capacity to absorb energy, and since it is in intimate contact with the rest of the atmosphere, that hypothetical 34 foot of N2 and O2 acts as the reservoir to retain the energy.

When we consider the free uncondensed atmosphere, the absorption and retention capability are not changed, but new effects such as resonant absorption and re-radiation must be considered in order to understand the thermal energy flow.

In my example, the condensed pile of atmosphere would have predominantly a conductive and convection contact with the earth. The free atmosphere would also include a significant radiation contact.

 

[palerider]

In many types of scientific analysis there is considerable correction of raw data. For example in x-ray computed aided tomography (CAT) the raw data is incomprehensible and must use a straightforward inverse transform to construct the image. But the constructed image from the raw data has many artifacts due to beam hardening, streaking near bones, motion artifacts, etc. Fortunately, the raw data can be corrected with newer ever more complicated modeling and algorithm techniques. There are hundreds of patents on these "data tampering" techniques, and they continually improve the science.

I am still waiting for you to describe some new technology that would make it necessary, or even possible to accurately alter temperature data taken a decade, or half a century, or more ago.

In a similar vein, all research groups including those decades ago recognize that the raw temperature measurements around the globe must have local corrections for a number of reasons in order for the data to be useful. That is analogous to the need for CAT scans corrections. However the algorithms the various groups use are different from each other - in both CAT scan and climate science..

To the best of my knowledge, science has had accurate thermometers since the early 1800's. Again, what sort of technology could possibly detect eroneous temperature readings taken from say....the 1930's?

Suppose you went to a hospital and a CAT scan of your head showed no brain tumor. A week later the hospital calls you back and says they bought a new algorithm that shows you actually do have a brain tumor after all and it was previously masked by an artifact.

In the case of early temperature data we are talking about a human being going outside and looking at a thermometer and writing down the observed temperature. Describe an algorithm that could determine whether or not that individual accurately recorded the temperature he saw on the thermometer or whether or not the thermometer was accurate. In the case of later temperature data, we know that more than half the collection stations are poor and most inject a warm bias of more than 1 degree into the data set so there is nothing like usefull information there either. You are relying on output from computer programs based on flawed data.

You didn't understand previously, but I will try again.

I understood perfectly and described the difference between you and myself. You adhere to post modern science where computer output trumps actual observation. At some point, that sort of mindless thinking is going to be placed up on the dusty shelves with "new math" or outcome based education. Observation is the very essence of actual science and those who accept the output of computer models when that output is in conflict with direct observation are doomed to be disappointed.

 

[palerider]

If the atmosphere had the same density of water, it would compress down to a height of about 34 feet of liquid, or 10 meters. There would be about 3.5 mm of CO2 in this condensed pile of atmosphere. This is a significant thickness of material for CO2 resonant absorption of infrared, especially when you consider that a fraction of a mm of sunscreen can protect you from UV.[/quote}

If the atmosphere had the same density as water you could move up into the atmosphere to the point where the atmospheric pressure was equal to 1 bar and you would see a temperature nearly identical to that which we live with. We sent probes to venus, a planet whose atmosphere is far more dense than that of earth and composed almost entirely of greenhouse gasses and yet, the measurements taken high up in the atmosphere where the atmospheric pressure was equal to that of earth, once the difference in distance from the sun was accounted for, the temperature was nearly identical to that of earth even though the atmosphere was nearly 100% so called greenhouse gasses.

Move out out to jupiter or saturn and decend into the atmosphere deep enough so that the atmospheric pressure is 1 bar, and account for the difference in distance from the sun and again, the temperature is going to be nearly identical to that of earth even though there are no greenhouse gasses present. The ideal gas laws account for the temperatures of planets, not a fabricated, unphysical greenhouse effect.

So the CO2 does have a large capacity to absorb energy, and since it is in intimate contact with the rest of the atmosphere, that hypothetical 34 foot of N2 and O2 acts as the reservoir to retain the energy.

CO2 absorbs infrared, and then emits IR. It does not retain any energy. Absorbing and emitting scatters the IR. Scattering is a cooling, not a warming mechanism.

When we consider the free uncondensed atmosphere, the absorption and retention capability are not changed, but new effects such as resonant absorption and re-radiation must be considered in order to understand the thermal energy flow.

Describe the mechanism by which you believe CO2 causes warming within the atmosphere without violating a physical law.

In my example, the condensed pile of atmosphere would have predominantly a conductive and convection contact with the earth. The free atmosphere would also include a significant radiation contact.

Conduction and convection are responsible for more than 90% of the movement of energy within the atmosphere till it reaches the very high atmosphere where radiation is the means of tansporting energy into space.

Again, describe the mechanism by which you believe CO2 or any of the so called greenhouse gasses (other than water vapor) can cause warming within the atmosphere.

 

[Lagboltz]

I am still waiting for you to describe some new technology that would make it necessary, or even possible to accurately alter temperature data taken a decade, or half a century, or more ago.

To the best of my knowledge, science has had accurate thermometers since the early 1800's. Again, what sort of technology could possibly detect eroneous temperature readings taken from say....the 1930's?

In the case of early temperature data we are talking about a human being going outside and looking at a thermometer and writing down the observed temperature. Describe an algorithm that could determine whether or not that individual accurately recorded the temperature he saw on the thermometer or whether or not the thermometer was accurate. In the case of later temperature data, we know that more than half the collection stations are poor and most inject a warm bias of more than 1 degree into the data set so there is nothing like usefull information there either. You are relying on output from computer programs based on flawed data.

Thank you; thank you. I finally understand why you are so bitter about the global warming graphs. You think scientists are altering the actual historical temperature recordings! I agree that would certainly be fraudulent!

It's like the CAT scan system. You don't alter the x-ray data given by the sensors, that would be nonsense. What you do is model the system artifacts and modify the numbers going into the inverse transform that creates the image.

If you want to know what the global warming adjustments entail, there is a good article by Patrick Michaels at the Cato Institute "Global Warming: Correcting the Data."
http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/regv31n3/v31n3-2.pdf
If you can't trust Cato for a valid assessment, who can you trust. This is his conclusion:

Mathematical simulations of climate tend to project a constant
rate of warming, once warming from changes in greenhouse
gases begins and is established. Indeed, the observed rate
of warming (either with or without our adjustment) has tended
to be constant. Our revised temperature record suggests
that the warming of the 21st century will be around 1.4ºC
(2.5ºF), which is at the extreme low end of the range of projections
currently given by the ipcc.

The author states that his analysis reduces the warming trend since 1975 by about 15%. That's not nearly enough to squelch us warmers.

I understood perfectly and described the difference between you and myself. You adhere to post modern science where computer output trumps actual observation. At some point, that sort of mindless thinking is going to be placed up on the dusty shelves with "new math" or outcome based education. Observation is the very essence of actual science and those who accept the output of computer models when that output is in conflict with direct observation are doomed to be disappointed.

I disagree with you here. Physics theories are models. They are mappings from real world observations to mathematical models. The real test of the model is if the mapping goes the other way, such as a model's prediction of the Higgs Boson that was observed in the real world. Computers are only a tool to handle the models. Observation without mathematical models are only useful in Aristotelian physics. Modeling without a computer would not lead to anything of much interest these days.

 

[dogtowner]

Conduction and convection are responsible for more than 90% of the movement of energy within the atmosphere till it reaches the very high atmosphere where radiation is the means of tansporting energy into space.

Again, describe the mechanism by which you believe CO2 or any of the so called greenhouse gasses (other than water vapor) can cause warming within the atmosphere.

Hes got a point Lag. Just saying it does really isn't much of an argument. If it does this then there has to be a why/how.

 

[palerider]

Thank you; thank you. I finally understand why you are so bitter about the global warming graphs. You think scientists are altering the actual historical temperature recordings! I agree that would certainly be fraudulent!

That is not what I "think" is happening, that is precisely what is happening in addition to present data gathering methods that inject a signifigant warm bias into the present database.

If you want to know what the global warming adjustments entail, there is a good article by Patrick Michaels at the Cato Institute "Global Warming: Correcting the Data."
http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/regv31n3/v31n3-2.pdf
If you can't trust Cato for a valid assessment, who can you trust. This is his conclusion:

Who can you trust indeed? Revist your link and look at page 48 figure 1. Note the temperature of the middle to late 1930's vs the temperatures of the middle to late 1990's. Now refer back to the nasa graphs I provided above. Your paper is based on data that has been altered to cool the past and warm the present. Of what value exactly is a paper based on fraudulent data?

I disagree with you here. Physics theories are models. They are mappings from real world observations to mathematical models. The real test of the model is if the mapping goes the other way, such as a model's prediction of the Higgs Boson that was observed in the real world. Computers are only a tool to handle the models. Observation without mathematical models are only useful in Aristotelian physics. Modeling without a computer would not lead to anything of much interest these days.

And when the output of the models don't match observation a proper scientist must assume that his model is simply wrong and goes back to the drawing board; unlike climate science which simply tweaks the models so that their output looks like the present till the disparity between the output and observation becomes to great again at which time they simply tweak the model again rather than ever consider the obivious fact that their models are simply wrong.

In cliamte science, the output of models is considered to be of more value than actual observed data. When warmers are asked to provide something like hard evidence in support of anthropogenic climate change, one is invariably given the output of models as there is no actual evidence that provides a hard link between the activities of man and the changing global climate. The fact is that we don't even begin to know enough about the movement of energy through the global system to even begin to model it with anything like accuracy.

At present, climate models are modelling a flat earth that does not rotate, has no night and exists in a perpetual twilight that is 1/4 of the actual solar flux. Tell me, how do you suppose such a model, which doesn't approximate anything like the actual conditions on earth will ever produce output that approximates reality? In addition to the lack of anything like reality in the model itself, an assumption that CO2 is a primary driver of the climate (even though no actual evidence exists) is built in along with a flawed use of the Stefan-Boltzman law which assumes that the earth is a perfect blackbody and an assumption that the surface of the earth receives and absorbs more than twice as much energy from the atmosphere in the form of backradiation than it receives and absorbes from the sun.

Now if you believe such modelling, and the output from such models represents anything like actual science, then you seriously need to take some time to learn what actual science is. At present, climate science is at best, pseudoscience and more likely a deliberate and malicious fraud.

By the way, you haven't described the mechanism by which you believe CO2, or any so called greenhouse gas other than water vapor can cause warming.

 

[Lagboltz]

CO2 absorbs infrared, and then emits IR. It does not retain any energy.

That's true for it's particular IR resonant frequencies, but it is in thermal equilibrium with the energy that's in the air and retains energy in because of it's thermal capacity.

That is not what I "think" is happening, that is precisely what is happening in addition to present data gathering methods that inject a signifigant warm bias into the present database.

Who can you trust indeed? Revist your link and look at page 48 figure 1. Note the temperature of the middle to late 1930's vs the temperatures of the middle to late 1990's. Now refer back to the nasa graphs I provided above. Your paper is based on data that has been altered to cool the past and warm the present. Of what value exactly is a paper based on fraudulent data?

And when the output of the models don't match observation a proper scientist must assume that his model is simply wrong and goes back to the drawing board; unlike climate science which simply tweaks the models so that their output looks like the present till the disparity between the output and observation becomes to great again at which time they simply tweak the model again rather than ever consider the obivious fact that their models are simply wrong.

So you think that every one of the scientists who published the many graphs of increasing global temperatures altered the original readings of historical data rather than algorithmic corrections. Well that's your opinion, and I call that a conspiracy theory. My opinion is that the chart data were never meant to be the raw data, but represents algorithmically corrected raw data. That has more meaning. (Also algorithmic corrections of raw data can find brain tumors better.)

At present, climate models are modelling a flat earth that does not rotate, has no night and exists in a perpetual twilight that is 1/4 of the actual solar flux. Tell me, how do you suppose such a model, which doesn't approximate anything like the actual conditions on earth will ever produce output that approximates reality? In addition to the lack of anything like reality in the model itself, an assumption that CO2 is a primary driver of the climate (even though no actual evidence exists) is built in along with a flawed use of the Stefan-Boltzman law which assumes that the earth is a perfect blackbody and an assumption that the surface of the earth receives and absorbs more than twice as much energy from the atmosphere in the form of backradiation than it receives and absorbes from the sun.

Temperature, is a local scalar quantity not a vector, so a flat earth approximation has an insignificant bearing on accuracy. What you are saying is similar to thinking a real estate surveyor should use a curved earth calculation on your property, and somehow consider rotation while he is at it. For scalar measurements it is just as valid to assume the sun goes round the earth rather than a rotating planet. (That might be interesting to scoff at too.) For vector computations such as hurricane prediction, it is paramount to assume the rotation of the earth in the model.

By the way, you haven't described the mechanism by which you believe CO2, or any so called greenhouse gas other than water vapor can cause warming.

There is a article in wikipedia about that for you to scoff at:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_effect.
There are also other sources. I suspect that you have a disagreement with the science, but rather than playing games, why don't you tell me exactly what it is.

 

[palerider]

That's true for it's particular IR resonant frequencies, but it is in thermal equilibrium with the energy that's in the air and retains energy in because of it's thermal capacity.

You still aren't describing a mechanism by which you believe CO2 is capable of causing warming.

So you think that every one of the scientists who published the many graphs of increasing global temperatures altered the original readings of historical data rather than algorithmic corrections.

No, I think climate science is the unfortunate victim of an error cascade. Every scientist doesn't have to alter the original temperature database. Only a couple need do it and then then someone else only needs to use the database under the assumption that it is correct. Then the next set of researchers reference the paper that used the altered data base. For example, practically all of climate science uses hansen's energy budget as if it is correct even though it is rediculously flawed and there is not a whit of actual observable evidence to back it up. Like I said, it literally models a flat earth with no separation between day and night, no hemispheres, no rotation, and experiences continuous cold twilight. That earth "requires" a greenhouse effect to explain the temperature of earth. An earth that is modelled as a rotating sphere that is constantly warming and cooling doesn't require a greenhouse effect to explain the temperature. Error cascades are common throughout science but in the hard sciences, someone usually catches the errror rather quickly. That is because in the hard sciences, a high percentage of the practitioners posess the education required to catch the error. Have you looked at the educational requirements for a degree in climate science? It simply isn't a hard science. The average engineer or chemist graduating posesses a far better scientific education than a new climate science graduate. For that matter a meteoroligist is far better educated than a climate scientist.

Well that's your opinion, and I call that a conspiracy theory. My opinion is that the chart data were never meant to be the raw data, but represents algorithmically corrected raw data. That has more meaning. (Also algorithmic corrections of raw data can find brain tumors better.)

If that is how you maintain your belief, that's fine. But don't expect for me to either buy into your belief, or pay for the claims based on your belief. Plenty of hard evidence exists that the actual temperature data base has been altered. If you choose to disregard that it suggests strongly that you hold your position for political reasons rather than upon any actual scientific basis.

Temperature, is a local scalar quantity not a vector, so a flat earth approximation has an insignificant bearing on accuracy. What you are saying is similar to thinking a real estate surveyor should use a curved earth calculation on your property, and somehow consider rotation while he is at it. For scalar measurements it is just as valid to assume the sun goes round the earth rather than a rotating planet. (That might be interesting to scoff at too.) For vector computations such as hurricane prediction, it is paramount to assume the rotation of the earth in the model.

It absolutely does not and any claim to that effect is either pure fantasy of malicious deception. And you have a way of providing the most inept analogies possible as examples of your eroneous thinking. There is nothing analogous to surveying 125 acres and trying to survey the entire globe. There might be some error in trying to survey my bit of land as if the earth were flat, but that error would be so infentestimally small as to be meaningless. Could you say the same about the error that would be present if you tried to survey the globe and not account for its curvature?

You are perfectly analogous to the error cascade I described, You are so wrapped up in computer modelling and the resulting output that you have lost your ability to relate those models to the physical world and when they fail to produce output that jibes with observation, you favor tweaking the program so that it again matches the real world rather than admit that your model isn't producing accurate output because the hypothesis upon which it is based is terribly flawed.

I keep asking you to describe a mechanism by which you believe CO2 causes warming and you clearly can't do it. You apparently lack the scientific background required to discuss the actual mechanics of energy transfer. That is how an error cascade goes on and on. None of the practitioners in the field posess the foundational knowledge to spot a basic error so they just continue to reference data that references data that references data that referenced flawed data.

Since you clearly can't describe a mechanism by which you believe CO2 can cause warming, lets try a different question. Can you name a single physica law that either predicts, or supports a greenhouse effect as claimed by climate science?

(continued)

 

[palerider]

(continuation)

There is a article in wikipedia about that for you to scoff at:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_effect.
There are also other sources. I suspect that you have a disagreement with the science, but rather than playing games, why don't you tell me exactly what it is.

Yes I have a disagreement with the basic premise of climate science. The fudged, fabricated, and altered data are not the real problem; they are only symptoms of a more fundamental flaw. A flaw that exists at the very heart of the hypothesis of anthropogenic climate change. Fudging, fabrication, and altering data will continue to be necessary till the physical flaws in the hypothesis are corrected, and when that happens, there will no longer be a hypothesis of global anthropogenic climate change.

Look at the first twp sentences in your wiki article. Thet go off the reails there and everything that comes after must be, by defnintion flawed.

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 so called greenhouse gasses absorb IR and emit it in all directions. To begin with, that represents a cooling, not a warming effect. It is interesting to note that when the earth is modelled as a rotating sphere receiving the actual amount of incoming radiation from the sun, the temperature is slightly higher than the actual temperature of earth but this scattering of IR by so called greenhouse gases corrects that slight temperature difference. Sorry to go off on a tangent. So some of this IR is radiated back down towards the surface where it is then absorbed and causes the earth to be warmer than its only energy source can make it. Free energy. The creation of energy. Perpetual motion. Imagine that. Out atmosphere is a demonstration of a perpetual motion machine and we are worried about energy.

Take an electric heater capable of an output of 1000 watts and put it in your living room. Now surround it with the most perfect reflectors possible. Run if for as long as you like and then tell me that you get one nanowatt out of that system that you didn't pay the electric company for. According to greenhouse theory, the atmosphere which is certainly nothing like a perfect reflector can radiate energy back down to the surface of the earth (it's energy source insofar as IR goes) and warm that energy source but you can't coax out a single nanowatt of energy from your electric heater using the most perfect reflectors known to man.

The second law of conservation of energy, the second law of thermodynamics, and the stefan boltzman laws all predict that you won't be able to get any extra energy from your electric heater. The law of conservation of energy says that you can't create energy and it predicts that no matter how many reflectors you put up, you are never going to get more power out of your system than you put into it. Your heater is capable of putting out 1000 watts using the energy it is receiving from its source and 1000 watts is all you get. Even with the most perfect reflectors known to man, there is going to be some energy loss in that reflecting process so less than 1000 watts will be reflecting back. As such, the reflected energy will not be as hot as the heater element.

The second law of thermodynamics is a pretty specific statement. It speaks in absolute terms. It says "It is not possible for heat to flow from a colder body to a warmer body without any work having been done to accomplish this flow. Energy will not flow spontaneously from a low temperature object to a higher temperature object."

That is a pretty explicit statement regarding energy flows. "not possible" "will not flow". No wiggle room there; you ether accept the second law as true, or you don't. The atmosphere is cooler than the surface of the earth and yet, the greenhouse effect hypothesis requires that energy flow from the cooler atmosphere to the warmer earth where it is absorbed warming the earth to a higher temperature than it can be warmed by its only energy source even though you couldn't possibly acheve that feat with the most advanced reflecting material known to man. If you could, that extra bit of energy, no matter how small would represent the possibility of a perpetual motion.

So back to my original challenge. Describe a mechanism by which you believe CO2 to be capable of causing warming without violating a law of physics.

 

[palerider]

Hey lagboltz, your sig line brings your particular brand of flawed thinking into sharp relief. You have clearly confused cause and effect, and have obviously never done the experiment to see if your conclusion means anything in the real world. Grab yourself a piece of paper and a decent magnifying glass and move out to your back yard. You will see quite soon that you can view a magnified image of your piece of paper as it is charring and bursting into flames if you are bright enough to tilt your head a few degrees and look through the magnifying glass at an angle rather than straight on.

You might work on your sense of humor as well. My sig line is deliberately funny while yours just simply........isn't.

 

[Lagboltz]

To cut down on the tedium and repetition of the same old same old, I will not break down Pale's two posts paragraph by paragraph and comment on each, but I will summarize and comment here knowing that Pale will correct me if I mischaracterize anything.

Pale continues to claim that researchers altered the original raw data and further, NASA's James Hansen comes up with erroneous results. Pale then scoffs at climate scientists in general. Nothing new here.

He claims that I hold my views on modeling for political reasons and later claims I lack scientific background.

He doesn't like my analogies where I try to address the concepts of modeling in other fields where it is analogous to the modeling in warming. He disparages my analogies as erroneous thinking. I suppose that's true in a way, but analogies are a good learning tool. Many Nobel prize winning scientists made their discoveries through unrelated analogies, in chemistry and physics.

He goes on to claim that flat earth with no rotation is inappropriate for making graphs of temperature, but never said how he would use rotation specifically on historic temperature measurements that are scalar and not vector.

In his second post, he bitterly presses his claim on fabricated data. Nothing new here.

As per Pale's request, lets switch to his completely different topic: how greenhouse gasses can cause warming on the earth. Here the rotation of the earth does become important, and creates a very complex energy exchange system.

At any specific point in time large parts of the earth are in these broad categories:
1. A winter climate at night, (Say Maine)
2. A summer climate at night (Say New Zealand)
3. A winter climate in daylight
4. A summer climate in daylight.
As the hours and seasons progress, the boundaries of these areas continually change.

At times and places, the atmosphere is colder than the nearby ground, and at times it's not. The majority of energy exchange is convection (like wind.) For the radiation fraction (10%?), the second law of thermodynamics comes into play. I will express radiant energy flow and the 2nd law in a way that may be surprising to some not well versed in the sciences.

1. Radiant energy flows from a cold body to a hot body.
2. Simultaneously radiant energy flows from the hot body to the cold body.
3. The net energy flow is always from the hot body to the cold body. (2nd law)

Many people forget about #1.

As Pale says, the greenhouse gasses cause certain long wavelengths (IR) to reradiate energy in all directions. The majority of this IR is backscattered to outer space and very little reaches the earth - a cooling effect.

Wavelengths from the sun outside those absorption bands do hit the earth. Some of it is absorbed and heats the earth and nearby air. The heated earth reradiates IR energy. The earth is way too cold to reradiate short wavelengths, (except from light bulbs, or steel foundries.) Where does this reradiated IR energy go? Some of the IR energy radiates back to space, but a significant part of earth's radiant energy is backscattered to earth by the same physics that the sun's IR energy was backscattered to space. In short, the greenhouse gases trap some radiant energy.

The next question is how can the trapped radiant energy be absorbed by the earth in those places where the earth is warmer than the atmosphere.

The answer lies in my statement #1 above. In this case, the warm earth is radiating lots of IR which is absorbed by the cold atmosphere, and the cold atmosphere is radiating lots of IR in the greenhouse bands back to be absorbed by the earth. (Let IR in the green house bands be called GH-IR.) Of course the direction of the net energy flow of all bands of IR radiation and convection is from the warm earth to the colder atmosphere (2nd law). The backscattered component of the GH-IR absorbed by the earth is the mechanism by which the earth gains some thermal energy from the GH-IR radiant energy even though the earth is warmer. But, by the 2nd, law the net result is that the atmosphere near the warm earth would heat up and continue to backscatter GR-IR to the earth while the earth continues to radiate more IR energy to be backscattered.

What happens if the atmospheric CO2 were doubled? It affects two directions: the sun's GH-IR will be backscattered to space as usual and still very little of it will hit the earth. So there's not much change in energy from the sun. However some IR from the earth will be further trapped by a doubling of backscattering of the CO2 portion near the earth and cause an increase in warming via my statement #1.

A final question is, why is the IR energy flow so much larger than the solar input as shown in the wiki greenhouse article? Pale has the answer in his analogy of a heater in an insulated box. The sun's fuel source is like the power cord going to the heater. The heater energy is trapped in the box and grows larger and larger over time. Very soon the trapped radiant energy circulating in the box will become a dominant source of radiant energy in the box.

There are further considerations such as a bit of CO2 heating allows the atmosphere to hold even more water vapor which is the predominant green house gas. Water vapor has a fast source and sink of water, but CO2 and CH4 don't. This post is already too long to go into all that now.

 

[palerider]

He goes on to claim that flat earth with no rotation is inappropriate for making graphs of temperature, but never said how he would use rotation specifically on historic temperature measurements that are scalar and not vector.

Actually, I sadi that a flat earth with no rotation is an inappropriate model for the earth, not for making graphs of temepratures. Why not simply be honest and address my comments as stated rather than fabricate statements that I never made. Do you actually believe a computer model of a flat earth that doesn't rotate, has no night, and exists in a perpetual state of twilight can accurately depict the earth as it exists?

At times and places, the atmosphere is colder than the nearby ground, and at times it's not.

Which places and times might the ground be colder than the atmosphere?

1. Radiant energy flows from a cold body to a hot body.

Stop the bus. Second law of thermodynamics: "It is not possible for heat to flow from a colder body to a warmer body without any work having been done to accomplish this flow. Energy will not flow spontaneously from a low temperature object to a higher temperature object."

Energy WILL NOT FLOW spontaneously from a low temperature object to a higher temperature object. Which part of that are you having trouble with? Are you saying that you reject the second law of thermodynamics? Are you saying that the second law is a false statement? It is clearly in direct opposition to your number one claim. You left the tracks with your first statement.

The second law of thermodynamics is stated in absolute terms. It isn't about net flows, it isn't about statistics, it isn't about systems, it is about the direction that energy can flow. I say again, according to the second law of thermodynamics, energy WILL NOT FLOW spontaneously from a low temperature object to a higher temperature object. Since the rest of your statement is built upon your first statement, I am afraid, that your claims, like those of cliamte science with regard to the greenhouse hypothesis simply do not pass the smell test.

I asked you to describe a mechanism by which the greenhouse effect works without violating a law of physics, you lost with your first statement.

Many people forget about #1.

Your number 1 is number 2 and it doesn't pass the smell test.

As Pale says, the greenhouse gasses cause certain long wavelengths (IR) to reradiate energy in all directions. The majority of this IR is backscattered to outer space and very little reaches the earth - a cooling effect.

None reaches the earth. Neither heat nor energy will flow from a cooler object (the atmosphere) to a warmer object (the surface of the earth)

Wavelengths from the sun outside those absorption bands do hit the earth. Some of it is absorbed and heats the earth and nearby air. The heated earth reradiates IR energy. The earth is way too cold to reradiate short wavelengths, (except from light bulbs, or steel foundries.) Where does this reradiated IR energy go? Some of the IR energy radiates back to space, but a significant part of earth's radiant energy is backscattered to earth by the same physics that the sun's IR energy was backscattered to space. In short, the greenhouse gases trap some radiant energy.

Law of conservation of energy: Energy can neither be created nor destroyed

If even one fraction of one watt per square meter were radiated back to the surface and were absorbed, it would increase the amount of energy the earth radiates by that fraction of a watt per square meter over and above the amount of energy the earth absorbs from the sun. Energy must be created in order to radiate more than is absorbed from the energy source. No energy is radiated from the atmosphere to the ground.

If you are the sort that does experiments, I can describe a simple one to you that proves that there is no backradiation from the atmosphere to the ground. I can point you to a site with plans for a quite effective and inexpensive solar oven. Point it at the sun and it will boil water as fast as your stovetop. Point it away from the sun into a clear sky, however, and place a thermometer in the parabola and you will see the temperature drop several degrees below the ambient temperature. If backradiation from the atmosphere were warming the surface of the earth, you would not see a cooling effect by pointing the dish at clear sky. Point the dish at a clear sky at night when the ambient temperature is between 33 and 45 degrees F and you can watch ice form. If backradiation were happening as climate science claims, you could not form ice when the ambient temperture is so far above freezing.

(continued)

 

[palerider]

(continuation)

The next question is how can the trapped radiant energy be absorbed by the earth in those places where the earth is warmer than the atmosphere.

There is one gas within the atmosphere that can actually trap radiant energy. It is water vapor but since it would be impossible to politicize water vapor, it isn't a very effective political tool. Neither CO2 nor any of the other so called greenhouse gasses has any mechanism by which to "trap" energy. They absorb and emit. No trapping.

The answer lies in my statement #1 above.

Your statement number 1 is false. I repeat the second law of thermodynamics: "It is not possible for heat to flow from a colder body to a warmer body without any work having been done to accomplish this flow. Energy will not flow spontaneously from a low temperature object to a higher temperature object."

In this case, the warm earth is radiating lots of IR which is absorbed by the cold atmosphere, and the cold atmosphere is radiating lots of IR in the greenhouse bands back to be absorbed by the earth.

I repeat. "It is not possible for heat to flow from a colder body to a warmer body without any work having been done to accomplish this flow. Energy will not flow spontaneously from a low temperature object to a higher temperature object."

Of course the direction of the net energy flow of all bands of IR radiation and convection is from the warm earth to the colder atmosphere (2nd law).

The second law of thermodynamics is stated in absolute terms. It isn't about net flows, it is about energy flow...period. The falsehood of the second law being about net energy flow is a sham created by some people to whom the second law is inconvenient. Energy will not flow from a cooler object (the atmosphere) to a warmer object (the surface of the earth)

If you believe there exists an experiment that shows that the second law of thermodynamics is wrong and energy will, in fact, flow from a cool object to a warm object, then by all means point me in the direction where it may be found because it opens up the posibility of perpetual motion and personally, I wouldn't mind being an overnight bazillionaire.

The backscattered component of the GH-IR absorbed by the earth is the mechanism by which the earth gains some thermal energy from the GH-IR radiant energy even though the earth is warmer. But, by the 2nd, law the net result is that the atmosphere near the warm earth would heat up and continue to backscatter GR-IR to the earth while the earth continues to radiate more IR energy to be backscattered.

The earth gains no heat from the atmosphere as the atmosphere is not an energy source any more than the electric heater in your room can gain energy from the reflectors you placed around it. The energy comes from the electric company and you pay for every nanowatt of it.

What happens if the atmospheric CO2 were doubled?

Nothing, other than we would see a much faster and greater degree of plant growth.

However some IR from the earth will be further trapped by a doubling of backscattering of the CO2 portion near the earth and cause an increase in warming via my statement #1.

Again, statement 1 is untrue. I repeat: "It is not possible for heat to flow from a colder body to a warmer body without any work having been done to accomplish this flow. Energy will not flow spontaneously from a low temperature object to a higher temperature object."

I will ask again. Do you reject the statement of the second law of thermodynamics? If you do then unless you can prove it wrong, I am afraid that you have lost the discussion and if you don't, then you must admit that your statement number 1 really is number 2 in which case you must go back to the drawing board and try to think up some other mechanism for CO2 to cause warming.

A final question is, why is the IR energy flow so much larger than the solar input as shown in the wiki greenhouse article? Pale has the answer in his analogy of a heater in an insulated box. The sun's fuel source is like the power cord going to the heater. The heater energy is trapped in the box and grows larger and larger over time. Very soon the trapped radiant energy circulating in the box will become a dominant source of radiant energy in the box.

I can only guess that you don't have even the slightest background in science. That statement is patently......I am searching for a word that sounds nicer than stupid but I am afraid that stupid is abnout the nicest adjective I can apply to it. If you actually believe that statement then you must believe this device will operate as advertised as it operates on precisely the same principle as you described above. Do you believe this device will work? If not, how do you believe the amplification of IR you described above works since the device below would be much more efficient than the open atmosphere?

There are further considerations such as a bit of CO2 heating allows the atmosphere to hold even more water vapor which is the predominant green house gas. Water vapor has a fast source and sink of water, but CO2 and CH4 don't. This post is already too long to go into all that now.

Your assumption that more water vapor will result in warming is, as ususal, the result of computer models rather than any actual look at the physical world. Water vapor is a negative feedback in case you haven't heard.

http://www.drroyspencer.com/Paltridge-NCEP-vapor-2009.pdf
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2010/09/five-reasons-why-water-vapor-feedback-might-not-be-positive/
http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.ca/2012/06/new-paper-corroborates-that-water-vapor.html
http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2012/05/new-paper-finds-water-vapor-feedback-is.html

CH4 has no more capacity to trap energy and cause warming than CO2. There is one gas in the atmosphere that has the capacity to absorb and retain heat. That gas is water vapor and oddly enough, it is a negative feedback. The models continue to fail for a reason and assuming that the output of climate models is anything like reality is a sure fire way to fall for the hoax as you obviously have.

 

[Lagboltz]

"It is not possible for heat to flow from a colder body to a warmer body without any work having been done to accomplish this flow. Energy will not flow spontaneously from a low temperature object to a higher temperature object."

I absolutely agree with you, Energy will not flow from a colder to a warmer body. Period. That was the essence of my statement #3.

There is one major overarching principle in your post that is totally misunderstood by you. I will only address that. If you can't understand that then you can't understand anything about the physics of thermodynamics.

You misread my statement #1. Let me address #1 in large colorful letters that should emphasize the distinction. I will reword it for clarity.

Radiant energy can flow from a cold body to a warmer body

I did not say,
Wrong wrong >>> heat can flow from a cold body to a warmer body. <<< Wrong wrong.

What is radiant energy?: photons. Any object above absolute zero will radiate photons. Photons are not heat. Photons are a form of EM radiation. A cold body will radiate photons.

Look up Plank's law on black body radiation. It's PHOTONS being radiated, NOT heat.

Suppose you are a cold body. You radiate some IR photons everywhere since you are a bit above absolute zero. If you deny this, then you are denying everything in thermodynamic understanding, black body radiation, emissivity, not to mention climate science which I suppose you already deny.

Suppose I am a warm body nearby. Some of your photons will be directly aimed at me. Just what happens to those photons They don't deviate in flight. They don't disappear in flight. They do hit me at the speed of light. How can you argue against that.

Since I am a warmer body, I emit more and higher energy photons everywhere, including at you. My photons will outdo your photons and you will heat up by virtue of absorbing my photons. I will not heat up. Really. If you can't understand this and deny it, all that's left in this thread is your angry bitter vitriol.

 

[palerider]

What is radiant energy?: photons. Any object above absolute zero will radiate photons. Photons are not heat. Photons are a form of EM radiation. A cold body will radiate photons.

Look up Plank's law on black body radiation. It's PHOTONS being radiated, NOT heat.

You guys always (warmers) go there when there is no "there" to go to because we are already here and have been since this phase of the conversation started.

In the first place, the earth is not a blackbody so the assumption that it acts as a black body in energy balance models of the earth is off the reservation from the very beginning. In the second place, this may surprise you, but EM radiation includes radio waves, microwaves, terahertz radiation, infrared radiation, visible light, ultraviolet radiation, X-rays and gamma rays. A photon is merely the smallest possible unit of each of these forms of radiation. Each type describes a different wavelength.

IR radiation IS electromagnetic radiation. You haven't introduced a different type of radiation into the conversation, you have only begun to call IR electromagnetic radiation when, in reality, they are one in the same. Is this a deliberate strawman or an attempt to decieve, or were you really unaware that IR is, in fact, a wavelength of electromagnetic radiation?

Photon - The subatomic particle that carries the electromagnetic force and is the quantum of electromagnetic radiation.

In case there is any question, quantum is defined as : A discrete, indivisible manifestation of a physical property, such as a force or angular momentum. Some quanta take the form of elementary particles; for example, the quantum of electromagnetic radiation is the photon, while the quanta of the weak force are the W and Z particles

I am going to go out on a limb here and assume that you are familiar with the Stefan-Boltzman law.

When we are discussing the emissivity of an object radiating into a cooler background, the law takes the form:

(watts per square meter)

if we rearrange the equation, we get:

This is clearly a subtraction of two EM fields. It is predicted by and in compliance with the vector subtraction of EM fields which are vectors. You subtract the smaller field from the larger and the resulting field will have a magnitude equal to P/A and be propagated in a direction away from the field of greater magnitude. Slice it, dice it, make julienne fries out of it if you like, but there is no transfer of energy from cool to warm precisely as the second law of thermodynamics predicts. If it were possible, then perpetual motion would be possible.

Radiated EM, no matter which wavelength of EM we are talking about are vector fields and as such, must be treated as vector fields. If you are familiar EM physics, then you must be familiar with the interference properties of EM fields. The physics of electromagnetism has been in daily use by folks ranging from physicists to electrical engineers for over a hundred years now. The topic is well documented via observable, repeatable experimentation unlike climate science which doesn't rely on observable repeatable experimentation but rather lives on the output of flawed models.

The fact that EM fields in opposition to each other can cause interference and even result in the complete cancellation of one, or the other is well known and documented and is a critical consideration in the design of each and every TV/Radio tower, microwave transmitter, satellite link, and optical / IR link in existence. All EM radiation is subject to interference, addition, subtraction, and cancellation.

I repeat, no energy transfer exists between the cooler atmosphere and the warmer surface of the earth as predicted by the second law of thermodynamics, the law of conservation of energy, and the Stefan-Boltzman law.

Suppose you are a cold body. You radiate some IR photons everywhere since you are a bit above absolute zero. If you deny this, then you are denying everything in thermodynamic understanding, black body radiation, emissivity, not to mention climate science which I suppose you already deny.

Yep, if I am a cold body I am radiating some electromagnetic radiation. (so long as my temperature is above absolute zero) And all those photons I am radiating constitue vectors radiating off in various directions. If I am radiating off into a background colder than myself, the EM radiation I am putting out just goes off in all directions.

Suppose I am a warm body nearby. Some of your photons will be directly aimed at me. Just what happens to those photons They don't deviate in flight. They don't disappear in flight. They do hit me at the speed of light. How can you argue against that.

Yep, some of my photons will be directed at you and at the same time, some of your photons will be directed at me. At every point where our photons are in opposition, we must subtract those vectors. Since you are warmer, we will subtract the magnitude of my EM vectors from the magnitude of your EM vectors and the resulting EM field will be the difference between my magnitude and your magnitude and the direction of propagation of the resulting EM field will be away from your warmer body. None of my photons will ever reach you although they will diminish the original magnitude of the EM field you are propagating.

Since I am a warmer body, I emit more and higher energy photons everywhere, including at you. My photons will outdo your photons and you will heat up by virtue of absorbing my photons. I will not heat up. Really. If you can't understand this and deny it, all that's left in this thread is your angry bitter vitriol.

You aren't using your brain lagboltz. Lets follow your thinking to its logical conclusion. If you were able to absorb any of my photons, you would then warm up by some small bit and as a result radiate more energy out which I would then absorb and become warmer and thus radiate more energy out which you would then absorb and thus become warmer and in turn radiate out more energy which I would then absorb and become warmer and thus radiate more energy out which you would then.....
See where this is going? If you, as the warmer body could absorb energy from me, the colder body, we would get stuck in a postive feedback loop till both of us become infinitely hot. What you aren't getting in your final statement is that if you absorb any of my photons, even one, you will become warmer and then be radiating all of the energy you were radiating plus that photon(s) that you got from me. If you absorbed even one photon from me, by definition, you would have to warm up even if it was only by an infinitestimal amount at the beginning of the positive feedback loop.

Like it or not lagboltz, there is no transfer of energy from the cooler atmosphere to the warmer earth and therefore no greenhouse effect as claimed by climate science. There is an atmospheric thermal effect which is, in reality, much greater than the greenhouse effect, but it isn't dependent upon the compositon of the atmosphere. To understand why the earth is the temperature it is, you need not look much further than the ideal gas laws. A politically motivated greenhouse effect is not necessary.