Hottest Year Ever????

[Lagboltz]

Insofar as it applies to the climate of the earth, the equation is stated

which describes an energy transfer as I described...aside from that the SB law is incorrectly applied to earth as the earth is not a blackbody and the atmosphere certainly isn't.

That proves that you are totally ignorant about the Stefan-Boltzmann equation.

First, the emissivity of earth, around 0.96 is already included in the SB equation as epsilon. You are totally ignorant of that.

Secondly, the Stefan Boltzman law is NOT:

You are totally ignorant of that.

According to many sites from an easy search, these universities and dictionaries all give the SB definition as:

John Hopkins U. http://www.pha.jhu.edu/~kknizhni/StatMech/Derivation_of_Stefan_Boltzmann_Law.pdf

Keiser University https://www.easycalculation.com/physics/thermodynamics/learn-stefan-boltzmann.php

The University of Tennessee http://electron6.phys.utk.edu/101/CH7/controlling_radiation.htm

http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/Stefan-BoltzmannLaw.html

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/stefan-boltzmann law

http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/564843/Stefan-Boltzmann-law

Even the anti-AGW site: http://scienceofdoom.com/2010/10/24/planck-stefan-boltzmann-kirchhoff-and-lte/

You are totally ignorant of that.

The form you gave involving a subtraction is a derivation of the S-B equation. That derivation is shown by this Dartmouth link http://www.dartmouth.edu/~phys17/labs/lab1.pdf

Equation (1) is the Stefan Boltzman Law showing emission of IR from an object
Equation (2) is the Stefan Boltzman Law showing the object's absorption from the surround.
Equation (3) is the difference - the net energy transferred between the object and it's surround.

Look at Figure 1 at the Dartmouth U. site. Notice their example is very similar to the heated box example I gave. You think there is external work. The Dartmouth example does not mention work as a factor in the box example and shows two-way energy flow. Are you also going to challenge Dartmouth as just “piling idiocy on top of stupid”?

This following Youtube video is a very clear explanation of the derivation of the distributive form. You can skip to 6:00 in the video to save time.
In particular note his points starting at 6:35 and 6:50

He says “...Not only will an object radiate, but it will absorb energy from the surround at the same time....” Are you also going to challenge him as just “piling idiocy on top of stupid”?

You are totally ignorant of energy exchange. What you fail to understand is that radiant energy in any environment is moving all over the place in all directions. Substances are continually emitting and at the same time absorbing radiant energy. The Stefan-Boltzmann law simply tells you how much is radiated from a body to the surround. Reciprocally, it also tells you how much it is absorbing from the surroundings. Why do you have such a hard time understanding that?

 

[Lagboltz]

The second law states that energy can not move spontaneously from a cool object to a warm object without doing some external work to make it happen.

That again proves that you know nothing about the Second law of Thermodynamics.

Nope. The second law states that heat cannot move spontaneously from a cool object to a warm object without doing some external work to make it happen.

Second law
http://m.teachastronomy.com/astropedia/article/The-Laws-of-Thermodynamics
“heat cannot flow spontaneously from a cold to a hot object”

The University of Colorado
www.uccs.edu/.../Ch%2015%20The%20Laws%20of%20Thermodynamics. Pdf‎
“Heat energy flows spontaneously from a hot object to a cold object but not vice versa.”

Bluffton University
http://www.bluffton.edu/~bergerd/nsc_111/thermo6.html
“Heat will not flow spontaneously from a cold body to a hot body.”

UC Davis. http://chemwiki.ucdavis.edu/Physica...f_Thermodynamics/Second_Law_of_Thermodynamics
"Heat generally cannot flow spontaneously from a material at a lower temperature to a material at a higher temperature."

Boston University
http://physics.bu.edu/~duffy/py105/Secondlaw.html
“heat flows spontaneously from a hotter region to a cooler region, but will not flow spontaneously the other way”

Book: Thermodynamics: An Engineering Approach, 5th edition, Cengel & Boles
“heat flows spontaneously from a high temperature to a low temperature“

The same goes for dictionaries:
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/thermodynamics
http://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/law-of-thermodynamics

What you fail to understand is that energy in any environment is moving all over the place in all directions. Substances are emitting and at the same time absorbing energy. The second law puts a constraint on the nature of energy flow: heat energy can only spontaneously move from hotter to colder. That is, not any energy, only heat energy.

 

[Lagboltz]

Come on labboltz...lets hear your response. You provided this graph as evidence to support your claims and stressed that energy was not being multiplied.

Look at what it says...161 absorbed by the ground from the sun 333 coming back to the earth in the form of back radiation.....what the graph neglects show is the required 333 that is radiated straight on out into space....and if you consider poynting vectors the amount of energy must be even more as 333 radiates back to the surface and 333 radiates out into space which covers up and down but does not cover the radiation moving in lateral directions which would ammount to how much energy being radiated if of the energy moving in every possible direction 333 were radiated back to the surface??....

So again, tell me how climate science is not multiplying energy.

Water, as a "green house" gas is a dispersive medium. The poynting vector does not apply well in this case since it is defined for coherent plane waves. Any plane waves are quickly dispersed. There is no multiplying energy. The 396 outgoing radiation is largely diminished by the 333 incoming radiation.

 

[palerider]

That proves that you are totally ignorant about the Stefan-Boltzmann equation.

First, the emissivity of earth, around 0.96 is already included in the SB equation as epsilon. You are totally ignorant of that.

Secondly, the Stefan Boltzman law is NOT:

You are totally ignorant of that.

According to many sites from an easy search, these universities and dictionaries all give the SB definition as:

Sorry guy, you get so wrapped up in trying to be the smartest guy in the room that you completely forget that you aren't.

Insofar as the SB law applies to the climate it is the aspect of the SB law that applies to heat radiation.

Thermal radiation is energy transfer by the emission of electromagnetic waves which carry energy away from the emitting object. For ordinary temperatures (less than red hot"), the radiation is in the infrared region of the electromagnetic spectrum. The relationship governing the radiation from hot objects is called the Stefan-Boltzmann law:

Fail again.

 

[palerider]

That again proves that you know nothing about the Second law of Thermodynamics.

Nope. The second law states that heat cannot move spontaneously from a cool object to a warm object without doing some external work to make it happen.[/qipte]

Is heat energy or is heat the fingerprint of energy moving from one place to another. I think we have been there and found out that here, 15 years into the 21st century, science remains unclear of what heat is exactly...

Fail again.

 

[palerider]

Water, as a "green house" gas is a dispersive medium. The poynting vector does not apply well in this case since it is defined for coherent plane waves. Any plane waves are quickly dispersed. There is no multiplying energy. The 396 outgoing radiation is largely diminished by the 333 incoming radiation.

So you are claiming that shortwave cancels out long wave? Is there to be no end to your failure? For ever watt climate science claims is backscattered, there must be an equal or greater amount not being back radiated....Of course no energy is being multiplied because trenberth's cartoon, and climate science's energy budgets are completely wrong. Unfortunate that you fell for the hoax...that's the main problem with being a sheep.

 

[Old_Trapper70]

True. There are a host of genuine environmental problems that desperately need to be addressed and that we can, in fact, do something about. Alas, the climate change hoax sucks all of the air out of the room and all of the treasure from the coffers. Nothing can be done to address the genuine environmental problems that we face till the hoax is finally nailed into its coffin and buried deep.

Climate change is not the hoax. The hoax is what is causing the climate to change, and if it will be permanet, and how long will it last. No one can deny that the glaciers are melting, deeper droughts are occurring, etc.

Climate change isn't about fixing anything....it is about redistributing wealth from industrial countries to the third world and the IPCC has admitted as much.....that and foisting higher energy costs on people who can least afford to pay them.

I really could care less about what the IPCC said, or will say. I look up at the mountains around my property, and I see 41 inches of snow where there should be 124 inches, or better. I look at the lakes, and reservoirs, and see shorelines that should be under water. I look at the thermometer, and it says 62* when it should be 41, or colder. Then I wonder what will happen this summer. Will my well have enough ground water feed for me? Should I set up a solar power system for the main house as I have for the trailer?

To you, since you enjoy postulating all of your formulas which the average person could care less about, perhaps you would be better off considering some actual solutions rather then believe it isn't about "fixing" anything.

Before you go quoting bible verses...perhaps you should compare the mound of corpses that can be laid at the alter of environmentalism....to date, environmentalism is responsible for tens of millions of deaths...

Perhaps people should pay closer attention to the Bible verses, and act accordingly.

Having said that, one might say that environment is responsible for millions of deaths, however, I do not believe the same claim can be laid at the feet of environmentalism.

 

[Lagboltz]

Sorry guy, you get so wrapped up in trying to be the smartest guy in the room that you completely forget that you aren't.

Insofar as the SB law applies to the climate it is the aspect of the SB law that applies to heat radiation.

Thermal radiation is energy transfer by the emission of electromagnetic waves which carry energy away from the emitting object. For ordinary temperatures (less than red hot"), the radiation is in the infrared region of the electromagnetic spectrum. The relationship governing the radiation from hot objects is called the Stefan-Boltzmann law:

Fail again.

I gave you seven references to the Stefan-Boltzmann law as,

and you give me an eighth reference!!!

If you click on your link "Stefan-Boltzmann law" which is the last phrase of your third paragraph, you find they give the definition of the SB law just as I gave it. They go on to show the derived form as the net radiation loss, and that's exactly the subtracted form as given by my Dartmouth and Youtube references.

You just proved my point and disproved yours. Just what are you thinking??? You shot yourself in the foot again. My gosh.

 

[Lagboltz]

Is heat energy or is heat the fingerprint of energy moving from one place to another. I think we have been there and found out that here, 15 years into the 21st century, science remains unclear of what heat is exactly...

Statements of the second-law like,
“Heat will not flow spontaneously from a cold body to a hot body.”
Always implies that heat is defined as thermal energy.

However, “fingerprint of energy” is not a term you would find in any physics book.

 

[Lagboltz]

So you are claiming that shortwave cancels out long wave? Is there to be no end to your failure?

My you have a weird imagination in strawmen. Is there no end to your failures?

For ever watt climate science claims is backscattered, there must be an equal or greater amount not being back radiated....

Balderdash. You seem to be making this up as you go along.

Of course no energy is being multiplied

I certainly agree with you there.

because trenberth's cartoon, and climate science's energy budgets are completely wrong. Unfortunate that you fell for the hoax...that's the main problem with being a sheep.

There are two numbers that are fairly accurate. The solar radiation absorbed by the earth (161W/mm), and the LW outward surface radiation (396). Those values can be reliably measured or computed. If you don't think the other numbers in Trenberth's diagram are accurate, I really don't care. You will get no argument from me.

However there has to be a very large LW back-radiation otherwise the 396 W/mm will quickly escape into space and the earth would freeze. You choose to deny back-radiation with your made up interpretation of the second-law. But you offer no other way to prevent the 396 LW from dashing off to outer space. If you don't believe the 396, then you don't believe in the Stefan-Boltzmann law. As I said before, I really don't care what you believe in the climate future. The irony is there are a lot of avenues to attempt to refute AGW, but you choose to go a ludicrous route by literally making up bogus interpretations of the laws of physics to suit your ends. And then you sling vitriol and curses to cement your ideas.

 

[palerider]

Climate change is not the hoax. The hoax is what is causing the climate to change, and if it will be permanet, and how long will it last. No one can deny that the glaciers are melting, deeper droughts are occurring, etc.

True, climate change is not a hoax...anthropogenic climate change, however is.

really could care less about what the IPCC said, or will say. I look up at the mountains around my property, and I see 41 inches of snow where there should be 124 inches, or better.

So in the history of the world....or even the recorded history of your area there has never been less than 124 inches of snow..or more? Are you saying that 41 inches of snow is unprecedented? Which mountains...I will be happy to look it up.

I look at the lakes, and reservoirs, and see shorelines that should be under water. I look at the thermometer, and it says 62* when it should be 41, or colder. Then I wonder what will happen this summer. Will my well have enough ground water feed for me? Should I set up a solar power system for the main house as I have for the trailer?

Apply the same questions I asked above.

Perhaps people should pay closer attention to the Bible verses, and act accordingly.

Perhaps? I will ask again, do you have any idea how many corpses can be laid at the feet of the liberal thinking to which you apparently subscribe? What might the bible say about a line of thought that has resulted in so many deaths?

Having said that, one might say that environment is responsible for millions of deaths, however, I do not believe the same claim can be laid at the feet of environmentalism.

What you believe is irrelevant...what is is what matters and environmentalism and liberal thinking (not to be confused with conservation) are responsible for millions upon millions upon millions of deaths.

 

[palerider]

Statements of the second-law like,
“Heat will not flow spontaneously from a cold body to a hot body.”
Always implies that heat is defined as thermal energy.

However, “fingerprint of energy” is not a term you would find in any physics book.

Again, is heat a form of energy or is heat the fingerprint of energy moving from one place to another? Surely you have an answer.

 

[palerider]

Tell me lagboltz..you seem to be fixated on the SB law so can you tell me what the peak radiating temperature of CO2 is?

 

[Lagboltz]

Again, is heat a form of energy or is heat the fingerprint of energy moving from one place to another? Surely you have an answer.

Here is the long answer.
In complex systems where there can be latent state changes, latent chemical energy (or nuclear energy, esp. in the case of reactor physics), the concept of heat becomes more complicated because internal potential energy can become thermal energy or vice versa.

In formulae, Q is used for thermal energy which is called heat in simple systems. In that case heat is the sum of the random kinetic energy, rotational energy and vibratory energy of the substance.

In more complex systems involving internal potential energy, the state changes are important. In that case delta Q is is used to denote the differential of heat. The word “heat” is often used as a substitute for the time differential (delta Q) of the thermal part of the system.

When in doubt the specific context of the usage would tell you what the word “heat” refers to.

Here is the short answer.
The phrase “fingerprint of energy” is not in scientific usage and I would have to see it's context before I could answer your question. If I had to guess, I might say it refers to the delta Q usage.

 

[Lagboltz]

Tell me lagboltz..you seem to be fixated on the SB law so can you tell me what the peak radiating temperature of CO2 is?

A Google search of +"peak radiating temperature" only yields 6 hits, all from the same site, hockeyschtick.blogspot.com. The first paragraph I read that contains that phrase also has the phase, “AGW proponents ... claim that the atmosphere or Earth can rightfully violate the Second Law of Thermodynamics”

As you know, I totally disagree with that. We have covered that topic enough here. If you think your question is important, you will have to give me more detail on what you mean by the question.

 

[palerider]

Here is the long answer.
In complex systems where there can be latent state changes, latent chemical energy (or nuclear energy, esp. in the case of reactor physics), the concept of heat becomes more complicated because internal potential energy can become thermal energy or vice versa.

Why not just try the honest answer....which is, science is unsure as to whether heat is a form of energy or evidence of energy moving from one place to another....

 

[palerider]

A Google search of +"peak radiating temperature" only yields 6 hits, all from the same site, hockeyschtick.blogspot.com. The first paragraph I read that contains that phrase also has the phase, “AGW proponents ... claim that the atmosphere or Earth can rightfully violate the Second Law of Thermodynamics”

Wien's law is used to tell us what the radiating temperature of any blackbody is. Now again, what is the peak radiating temperature of CO2. Can't you even bring yourself to say it? Does saying it out loud make the whole anthropogenic climate change hoax sound as ridiculous as it is?

you know, I totally disagree with that. We have covered that topic enough here. If you think your question is important, you will have to give me more detail on what you mean by the question.

Which part of what is the peak radiating temperature of CO2 is confusing you? The peak absorption and emission spectra of CO2 centers around 15 microns. What temperature does CO2 best absorb and emit at? Come on, you can say it.....it's just a number. Here is a clue....it's a negative number.