Hell freezes over: Koch's scientists confirm that climate change is REAL!

[PLC1]

Till you can acknowledge that it depicts a flat earth, there is no point in continuing. The men who made the budget both acknowledged that /4 was a mathematical way to have the incoming solar flux reach the entire surface of the earth simultaneously. The only way to illuminate the entire surface of a sphere is to either have two sources of illumination or you skin it and lay its surface out flat. I don't know why you refuse to acknowledge that fact when the men responsible for the budget confirmed my statment.

Because the flat earth conclusion was already shown to be false several times above, but whatever. No doubt NASA thinks the Earth is flat, or they would never have allowed the graphic to be shown at all.

anyway, on the thermodynamics:

The second law of thermodynamics states:

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.

It expicitly states that energy will not flow from a cooler object (atmosphere) to a warmer object (surface of the earth) unless some work is done to accomplish the movement. Absorption and emission do not constitute work.

Here is the equation from the k-t energy budget that I provided.

Look to the right side of the equals sign. It is a corrupted derivative of the Stefan - Boltzman law which they used in an attempt to balance the incoming energy with the outgoing energy. As a side note, the reason that they used P/4 and laid the entire surface of the earth flat so that the entire surface of the earth could be irradiated simultaneously by the solar flux is that they used the Stefan -Boltzman (S-B) to balance the outgoing radiation with the incoming solar flux. The S-B law only deals with instantaneous solar fluxes so it became necessary to irradiate the entire surface of the earth at once in order to apply the S-B law.

This is the S-B law in its simplest form:

If the warmer object is radiating energy to a cooler background, the S-B law takes the form:

Now look back at the right side of the equation from the k-t energy budget. You can disregard the (1-f) because that is dealing with lost energy that isn't really part of the budget. Note that they apply the S-B law twice. The correct form of the equation that immediately preceeds this paragraph represents the S-B law which depicts energy flows in accordance with the second law of thermodynamics. That is, it represents energy flowing from a warm radiator to a cooler background.

P = the net radiated power.
e = the emissivity of the radiator (surface of the earth)
A= the radiating area
T = the temperature of the radiator

= the temperature of the background

= the Stefan - Boltzman constant (

)

The equation is describing the net radiated power as the difference between the temperature of the radiator (T) and the background (

).

Now note the equation from the k - t energy budget. The S-B law is used twice and in effect shows energy radiating from the warmer radiator to the cooler background and then changes the cooler background to a radiator and has it radiating to the warmer radiator which it has changed to the cooler background.

What they have done is taken the S-B law

and changed it to

. If you have ever taken algebra, you may recognize that they simply applied the distributive law to the equation. If you have ever taken phisics at the 2000 level or higher, you may know that you can't simply go about applying algaebraic properties to equations dealing with physics problems unless you first explicitly define the reason for applying the property.

In a math class, you simply need an answer so you may apply algaebraic properties as you like because there is no risk. In physics, however, you are not only seeking an answer, you are defining a physical process. For example, you can apply the distributive property to the SB equation and you will get the same answer for P as you would if you did not apply the property; BUT, you have altered a physical process and in doing so have violated the second law of thermodynamics and corrupted the S-B law in order to achieve that violation. No such definition for the reason the distributve property was ever, nor has ever been given. The reason is obvious to anyone who understands the objective of the energy budget. They needed backradiation and corrupting the S-B law would allow them to do it. The problem is that they violated the second law of thermodynamics.

Now, if you can show an equation that allows backradiation without corrupting the S-B law, I would be very interested in seeing it.



Perhaps you hope they don't apply the way they actually do, or you wish that they don't apply the way you wish they did, but there is no wiggle room in the second law for backradiation. It says that it is NOT POSSIBLE for heat to flow from a cooler body to a warmer body and that heat WILL NOT flow spontaneously from a cooler object to a warmer object. In order to have backradiation, you must alter the statement of the second law of thermodynamics.

Is that unequivocal enough for you?

That is very unequivocal. Agreed, the second law of thermodynamics says that heat will flow from the warmer object to the cooler object, no question.

Now, explain how this nifty little device works:

 

[palerider]

Because the flat earth conclusion was already shown to be false several times above, but whatever. No doubt NASA thinks the Earth is flat, or they would never have allowed the graphic to be shown at all.

anyway, on the thermodynamics:




That is very unequivocal. Agreed, the second law of thermodynamics says that heat will flow from the warmer object to the cooler object, no question.

Now, explain how this nifty little device works:

That nifty little device works in accordance with the second law of thermodynamics. I was going to bring it up a bit later as a way for you to prove to yourself in your own back yard that there is no such thing as backradiation. Since you mention it, I will provide you a link below to show you how you can point it at the sky and actually cool items put into it and get ice when the ambient temperature is 45 degrees or so. I am surprised that you would attempt to use something that proves the second law of thermodynamics in an attempt to disprove it.

That nifty little device absorbs shortwave radiation coming in from the sun and radiates longwave infrared radiation. The warmer long wave radiation from the collector then radiates to the cooler bowl. Exactly in accordance with the second law of thermodynamics. An interesting thing about that nifty little device is that you can point it at the sky, but away from the sun on a clear day and the water will cool to about 4 degrees below the ambient temperature precisely in accordance with the second law of thermodynamics. If there were such a thing as backradiation, the water would not cool to below the ambient temperature as the backradiation would heat the water to some degree warmer than the ambient temeprature. You can take the same nifty device and point it at a clear sky at night and ice will form in your dish of water if the ambient temperature is 45 degrees or lower. Again, in compliance with the second law of thermodynamics. According to the AGW hypothesis, backradiation is happening everywhere 24/7. If backradiation sufficient to warm the surface of the earth is radiating down all the time, how could ice possibly form when the ambient temperature is 45 degrees?

Here is a link to an experiment done by the physics department of Brigham Young University. It had nothing to do with global warming or climate change but the result, ie cooling effect when not pointed at the sun and refrigeration at night kicks sand in the face of the idea of backradiation.

http://www.think-aboutit.com/Misc/The BYU Solar Cooker-Cooler.htm

 

[palerider]

Because the flat earth conclusion was already shown to be false several times above, but whatever. No doubt NASA thinks the Earth is flat, or they would never have allowed the graphic to be shown at all.

The flat earth conclusion was shown to be true and confirmed by the men who flattened the earth for the purpose of their energy budget. I doubed that you would understand their emails to me any more than you understood my own explanation and you continue to prove me right. They both acknowledget that they applied the solar constant to the entire surface of the earth simultaneously. How might you do that unless you are applying it to a flat surface?

 

[PLC1]

That nifty little device works in accordance with the second law of thermodynamics.

Yes, it does.

and yet, the reflectors are cooler than the item being heated, and without violating any laws of thermodynamics. It does so in much the same way that the atmosphere radiates energy to the warmer ground.

The key is that neither the atmosphere nor the reflectors are the actual source of the heat, but you know that of course.

and yet, you continue to state that the atmosphere can not warm the warmer earth due to the laws of thermodynamics. interesting. I know you understand the principles involved.

I am surprised that you would attempt to use something that proves the second law of thermodynamics in an attempt to disprove it.

That's because I'm not going to attempt to disprove a basic law of physics.

That nifty little device absorbs shortwave radiation coming in from the sun and radiates longwave infrared radiation. The warmer long wave radiation from the collector then radiates to the cooler bowl. Exactly in accordance with the second law of thermodynamics.

Exactly.

and the atmosphere does the same thing on a larger scale, all without violating any basic laws of physics. Interesting how that works, isn't it?

Here is a link to an experiment done by the physics department of Brigham Young University. It had nothing to do with global warming or climate change but the result, ie cooling effect when not pointed at the sun and refrigeration at night kicks sand in the face of the idea of backradiation.

http://www.think-aboutit.com/Misc/The BYU Solar Cooker-Cooler.htm

yes, that's a good description of how the solar cooker works and how to build one.

On a larger scale,the same principle can be used to generate steam, and electricity. With a little bit of R and D, it's possible that power could be generated economically using such a system.

and none of it violates the laws of thermodynamics.

 

[palerider]

Yes, it does.

and yet, the reflectors are cooler than the item being heated, and without violating any laws of thermodynamics. It does so in much the same way that the atmosphere radiates energy to the warmer ground.

I suggest that you put your hand into the area in which the radiation is focused and tell me that the energy is of a lower temperature than the water, or whatever you have placed there. By the way, if you take that solar cooker and point an infrared heater at it, you will not be able to achieve a temperature even as high as the temperature of the heater. It is the conversion of shortwave to longwave IR and focusing that energy into a small area that is key to its operation.

You believe the atmosphere absorbs short wave radiation, converts it to longwave radiation, focuses it into a small area (gathering and focusing energy is the key to how the oven works), and then radiates it back to the ground? How does a molecule that is invisible to short wave and has no mechanism by which to retain energy do that?

The key is that neither the atmosphere nor the reflectors are the actual source of the heat, but you know that of course.

The key is that a solar cooker is in no way analogous to the atmosphere. Perhaps you should read up a bit on how solar cookers work before you attempt to compare them to the atmosphere.

http://images2.wikia.nocookie.net/solarcooking/images/2/2e/Granada06_david_denkenberger.pdf

The atmosphere has no means of focusing energy. So called greenhouse gasses absorb and emit radiation and in doing so actually scatter the radiation, not concentrate it as is the case with a solar cooker.

And yet, the energy budget shows clearly that twice as much energy is absorbed by the surface of the earth from the atmosphere than is absorbed from the sun. There is only the amount of energy being absorbed by the ground from the sun coming into the system. That being the case, how does the surface of the earth, according to that energy budget radiate more than twice as much?

and yet, you continue to state that the atmosphere can not warm the warmer earth due to the laws of thermodynamics. interesting. I know you understand the principles involved.

That's because I'm not going to attempt to disprove a basic law of physics.

If you are going to try and prove longwave radiation within the same frequency band as is emitted from the surface of the earth is running back "downstream" so to speak against the EM field of far greater magnitude propagated from the surface of the earth and actually reaches, and is absorbed by the surface of the earth then yes, you are going to have to disprove a law of physics.

Exactly.

and the atmosphere does the same thing on a larger scale, all without violating any basic laws of physics. Interesting how that works, isn't it?

What is interesting; and I mean really interesting is how badly someone can misunderstand the laws of physics. Why are you here in this discussion? Your knowledge base concerning any of this is so childlike that I can't imagine why you would want to discuss the topic. First, a solar cooker works because it is capable of absorbing short wave energy and radiating long wave. The atmosphere, especially so called greenhouse gasses are not. In fact, so called greenhouse gasses are completely invisible to short wave radiation and only capable of absorbing and emitting a very small and limited band of the longwave spectrum. Then the solar oven absorbs nearly all of the incoming shortwave radiation and emits longwave radiation and is capable of focusing the emitted longwave radiation into a very small area. The atmosphere has no capacity to focus energy at all. The atmosphere does exactly the opposite by serving to scatter LW radiation.

and none of it violates the laws of thermodynamics.

If you are promoting the idea of longwave radiation from the cooler atmosphere within the same bandwidth of longwave radiation emitted from the surface of the earth radiating back to the surface of the earth and being absorbed then you are violating the laws of thermodynamics. First, it would add to the amount of radiation being absorbed from the earth's only energy source thus constituting the creation of energy and violate the first law of thermodynamics, and would require that longwave radition from a cooler object flow to a warmer object violating the second law of thermodynamics.

You need to spend some time understanding the difference between long wave and short wave radition and the concept of focus before you try to analogize a solar cooker to the atmosphere. That attempt represents a truely foundational lack of knowledge of thermodynamics. You are doomed to lose this part of the discussion as surely as you lost the first because unlike you, I actually can do the math.

By the way, have another look at this graphic:

Do you think it is coincidence that it shows the entire surface of the earth being irradiated at once? Don't you think that k-t might have illustrated the earth as a sphere, dark on one side if that was how their energy budget represented the earth? Hell, they even took the time to illustrate every continent so that no misunderstanding woud happen and yet, you completely misunderstood, even when k-t stated that their budget irradiated the entire surface of the earth simultaneously.

 

[PLC1]

I think your graphic is a simplification, and that the energy from the sun is an average, not the amount being received 24/7. I also think that the solar cooker analogy is a pretty good one, and illustrates the difference between heat transferred from a warmer body to a cooler one, and radiation being reflected.

Further, I can see that you've spend a great deal of time thinking about this issue and attempting to show how NASA, NOAA, CERN et al have ignored basic laws of physics, and that you've convinced yourself that you're right and that they're wrong.

Further, I can see that there is no way I'm going to ever be able to convince you otherwise, but then, I knew that going in.

So, go ahead, write a grant, start a blog, tell the world that all those organizations are wrong, or at least that the heads of the scientific organizations are putting one over on the world. People will listen. Some of them are listening on this board, all of the ones who wanted to believe that global warming was a liberal hoax to begin with in fact.

 

[dogtowner]

I think your graphic is a simplification, and that the energy from the sun is an average, not the amount being received 24/7. I also think that the solar cooker analogy is a pretty good one, and illustrates the difference between heat transferred from a warmer body to a cooler one, and radiation being reflected.

Further, I can see that you've spend a great deal of time thinking about this issue and attempting to show how NASA, NOAA, CERN et al have ignored basic laws of physics, and that you've convinced yourself that you're right and that they're wrong.

Further, I can see that there is no way I'm going to ever be able to convince you otherwise, but then, I knew that going in.

So, go ahead, write a grant, start a blog, tell the world that all those organizations are wrong, or at least that the heads of the scientific organizations are putting one over on the world. People will listen. Some of them are listening on this board, all of the ones who wanted to believe that global warming was a liberal hoax to begin with in fact.

as far as I can tell, you can leave CERN off your list. you can add IPCC and CRU @ East Anglia and AlGOREINC.

 

[dogtowner]

If Pale has added more nails to the coffin (and he has) then good for him. Its not like there wasn't abundant evidence already but it was news to me regarding these more "sciencey" things. Never clained to be the next Bill Nye the Science Guy just following my nose on what appeared to not pass the smell test. If there is an explanation as to how greenhouse gasses provide the external impetus needed to satisfy this 2nd law then its got to have been published by means of coming up with the concept of greenhouse effect. thats probably old but maybe its available via google-fu.

 

[palerider]

I think your graphic is a simplification, and that the energy from the sun is an average, not the amount being received 24/7. .

You have clearly demonstrated that you don't "think" at all. And it isn't "my" graphic.

It is the graphic published by kiehl and trenberth. It is the graphic found in the pal reviewed paper that has formed the basis of AGW as we know it. You operate on some sort of belief system that has nothing to do with any sort of knowledge of the subject matter and especially the mathematics and laws of physics upon which the subject depends. You make so many fundamental errors that it is self evident. Even when the men who created that energy budget state that the budget has the entire surface of the earth being irradiated at once, you can not accept the truth.

I also think that the solar cooker analogy is a pretty good one, and illustrates the difference between heat transferred from a warmer body to a cooler one, and radiation being reflected

Tell me PLC, do you really believe that a solar cooker is an example of energy flowing from a cooler object to a warmer object? Ask yourself how a solar cooker works. If you have a clue, you are going to answer that it works by gathering radiation from an energy source and reflecting it to a focal point. The next question you must ask yourself is what is the temperature of the energy source? What is the energy source? What is the temperature of the energy source? Is the water, or whatever container you place in the cooker anywhere near the temperature of the energy source?

The second law states that a mirror can't produce a higher temperature than the energy source is emitting. The energy source is emitting at around 5700K so even if you had a perefect reflector, that would be your maximum temperature. How basic an error is it to ignore the temperature of your energy source and measure the temperature of the mirror?

And you have not addressed how the solar cooker can realize a cooling effect if it is not aimed at the sun or a drastic cooling effect if aimed at a clear sky at night. According to the energy budget, the entire surface of the earth is receiving over 300 watts per square meter in downdwelling radiation. how could any source gathering and concentrating that amount of energy to a focal point get cooler than the ambient temperature?

Geez guy, do you have a grasp at even the elemtary level of any science whatsoever?
quote="PLC1, post: 179595, member: 301"] Further, I can see that there is no way I'm going to ever be able to convince you otherwise, but then, I knew that going in. [/quote]

You never had a chance to convince me of anything because you don't know the first thing about the topic. Hell, you remain blissully unaware of how much you don't know. You are a believer, simple as that. When I sent that email to keihl and trenberth I put the question to them explicitly when I said:

My opponent in the discussion explains that the difference between the solar constant and the incoming solar radiation shown on the graphic depicting the energy budget is simply the result of spreading the incoming solar radiation at any given time over the entire surface of the earth and not a manipulation of the amount of incoming solar radiation.

Both confirmed my assertion. Tell me genius, how can you spread the solar constant across the entire surface of the earth simultaneously if you are not irradiating a flat earth. The men made no attempt to explain that they had accounted for night, or the curvature of the earth, or the fact that the solar constant could only apply to about 50% of the illuminated surface of a sphere the size of the earth, or any such thing. They simply stated that the person who said that the difference between the solar constant and the incoming solar radiation was a result of spreading the incoming solar radiation over the entire surface of the earth was, IN FACT, CORRECT.

So, go ahead, write a grant, start a blog, tell the world that all those organizations are wrong, or at least that the heads of the scientific organizations are putting one over on the world. People will listen. Some of them are listening on this board, all of the ones who wanted to believe that global warming was a liberal hoax to begin with in fact.

Ahhh, back to the ad hominems in lieu of any rational argument. Why not drag up the old conspiracy theory strawman again. It is clear that you can't argue based on the facts even when they are confirmed by genuine scientists on your side of the argument. I have given you the math and even given you the truth straight from the horse's mouths so to speak and rather than accept the facts, you retreat into impotent ad hominems. When you belive you can construct a coherent rebuttal to the information I have given you, let me know.

 

[PLC1]

as far as I can tell, you can leave CERN off your list. you can add IPCC and CRU @ East Anglia and AlGOREINC.

here's a more complete list:

The following scientific organizations endorse the consensus position that "most of the global warming in recent decades can be attributed to human activities":

• American Association for the Advancement of Science
• American Astronomical Society
• American Chemical Society
• American Geophysical Union
• American Institute of Physics
• American Meteorological Society
• American Physical Society
• Australian Coral Reef Society
• Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
• Australian Bureau of Meteorology and the CSIRO
• British Antarctic Survey
• Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Sciences
• Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
• Environmental Protection Agency
• European Federation of Geologists
• European Geosciences Union
• European Physical Society
• Federation of American Scientists
• Federation of Australian Scientific and Technological Societies
• Geological Society of America
• Geological Society of Australia
• International Union for Quaternary Research (INQUA)
• International Union of Geodesy and Geophysics
• National Center for Atmospheric Research
• National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
• Royal Meteorological Society
• Royal Society of the UK
• Academia Brasiliera de Ciencias (Brazil)
• Royal Society of Canada
• Chinese Academy of Sciences
• Academie des Sciences (France)
• Deutsche Akademie der Naturforscher Leopoldina (Germany)
• Indian National Science Academy
• Accademia dei Lincei (Italy)
• Science Council of Japan
• Russian Academy of Sciences
• Royal Society (United Kingdom)
• National Academy of Sciences (USA)

not sure about ALGOREINC. That sounds more like a political organization to me.

Did CERN break ranks and expose the conspiracy?

 

[PLC1]

Palerider asks:

Tell me PLC, do you really believe that a solar cooker is an example of energy flowing from a cooler object to a warmer object?

If you will review my posts, you will see that I've said exactly the opposite of that.

No wonder you think I'm wrong about so much. You are not understanding my posts.

 

[palerider]

here's a more complete list:

not sure about ALGOREINC. That sounds more like a political organization to me.

Did CERN break ranks and expose the conspiracy?

Now that's an impressive list. Considering that they represent some of the most august bodies to be found in science, one would think that any hypothesis that could garner such an impressive list of supporters would be a strong one indeed.

Surely, among all those scientific bodies, there must be at least one shred of hard, observed, repeatable evidence that provides a solid link between the changing climate and the activities of man. Can you perhaps check among the people whom you trust so unquestioningly that you allow them to form your opinion and ask for such a shred of evidence. I certainly know that I have looked, and looked for a long time and yet, not a shred of hard evidence can be found.

Would you like a list of scientific organizations that were on board with past hypotheses that turned out to be just so much pseudoscience? There are many such lists buried back there in the past and on some future date, the list of those who believed in the hypothesis of AGW will join them.

Now, about that evidence. Just one piece. Surely you can provide something.

 

[palerider]

Palerider asks:

No wonder you think I'm wrong about so much. You are not understanding my posts.

I understand you fine. Are you laboring under the impression that heat flowing from a warm object to a cooler object is something other than radiation moving from one place to another? And are you laboring under the impression that the cooler atmosphere can somehow reflect radiation back to the warmer surface of the earth? How might the atmosphere reflect anything? Most of it is invisible to longwave radiation and a very narrow band is absorbed by the several so called greenhouse gasses but they immediately emit precisely as much energy as they absorb in a wavelength that can not be reabsorbed by another greenhouse gas. The energy is scattered, not reflected so the atmosphere acts in exactly the opposite fashion as a solar oven which reflects energy to a very small focal point.

Back to the Stefan - Boltzman law:

This equation describes a one way energy flow between the emitter and a cooler background. The cooler background can not move LW energy back to the emitter. Sorry, your understanding is terribly flawed. The math, and physical laws of thermodynamics speak for themselves. You can not move radiation from cool to warm and you can not create energy both of which would have to happen in order for there to be such a thing as backradiation. Tell me, do you also believe in back convection and back conduction and perhaps Santa Clause and the Easter Bunny?

 

[PLC1]

Now that's an impressive list. Considering that they represent some of the most august bodies to be found in science, one would think that any hypothesis that could garner such an impressive list of supporters would be a strong one indeed.

Surely, among all those scientific bodies, there must be at least one shred of hard, observed, repeatable evidence that provides a solid link between the changing climate and the activities of man. Can you perhaps check among the people whom you trust so unquestioningly that you allow them to form your opinion and ask for such a shred of evidence. I certainly know that I have looked, and looked for a long time and yet, not a shred of hard evidence can be found.

Would you like a list of scientific organizations that were on board with past hypotheses that turned out to be just so much pseudoscience? There are many such lists buried back there in the past and on some future date, the list of those who believed in the hypothesis of AGW will join them.

Now, about that evidence. Just one piece. Surely you can provide something.

It most certainly is an impressive list. How difficult it must be to keep so many diverse organizations througout the world unified into one great conspiracy!

One piece... let's see... have we discussed any one so far? Why, as a matter of fact, there is the melting glaciers... but you found a four year period in which glaciers in at least one part of the Earth actually increased. There is the melting of Arctic ice, but wait! You found an anecdote about a polar expedition back in the '50s that found more open water than expected.

Gosh, in the face of such overwhelming evidence, one must wonder whether those windmills at which you keep tilting are actually dragons after all.

 

[dogtowner]

here's a more complete list:




not sure about ALGOREINC. That sounds more like a political organization to me.

Did CERN break ranks and expose the conspiracy?

not sure they ever joined at all but they did/are do research on some sort of solar emanation that does demonstrate an ability to up the temps a bit and correlates to measured increase3s of this eminaton.

sorry for the half-a**ed description, these may be more helpful.

"Nature" article causing the fuss

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100102296/sun-causes-climate-change-shock/