"Settled Science"??

[palerider]

The earth initially receives all its energy from the sun. Your characterization of the earth receiving more energy from the atmosphere than the sun is too simplistic and misleading because isolating two pieces of energy flow in a complex system loses the physics of the complete picture and becomes meaningless. It is more accurate to say that the earth is kept warm by it's own radiation being backscattered in part to itself. As you see in the IPCC diagram, the earth's own radiation is 396 W/mm. A radiation of 333 W/mm is scattered back to the earth. So the earth gains no energy from the interplay of reradiating the sun's energy as long wave energy and absorbing its own energy from the backscatter. It loses net energy by that means. Why is this so hard for you to understand that.

Shuck and jive...duck and cover...bob and weave....talk out of your ass till the cows come home....you are not in agreement with climate science and you simply can't bring yourself to admit it.

The graphic clearly shows 161 wm2 being absorbed by the surface of the earth from the sun. It then shows a total of 493 wm2 radiating from the surface of the earth. It says surface radiation in the most clear way possible. 161 absorbed by the surface from the sun.....493 radiated out from the surface. The AGW hypothesis is based on an energy budget that is flawed beyond comprehension....anyone who actually believes in the pseudoscience behind this energy budget is....to be polite...a f'ing idiot.

 

[palerider]

These are old experiments dating to the mid 1800's.
http://www.searchanddiscovery.com/pdfz/documents/2011/70092sorenson/ndx_sorenson.pdf.html
http://aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm
Tyndall, John (1861). "On the Absorption and Radiation of Heat by Gases and Vapours..." Philosophical Magazine ser. 4, 22: 169-94, 273-85.

Tyndall set out to find whether there was in fact any gas in the atmosphere that could trap heat rays. In 1859, his careful laboratory work identified several gases that did just that. The most important was simple water vapor (H2O). Also effective was carbon dioxide (CO2), although in the atmosphere the gas is only a few parts in ten thousand. ...

Yes I know that you don't believe in backscatter. The second law refers to heat not energy. That is easy to see by a simple example. Thermal energy in a solid metal is vibratory energy and it's atoms stay put. Thermal energy in a gas is largely free kinetic motion. If a hot solid is in a closed system with a colder gas, the gas spontaneously bombards the surface of the solid because of kinetic energy of it's free moving atoms.

That is a very clear and obvious example of energy from a colder substance spontaneously impinging on a hotter substance. Of course more energy from the hotter solid is transferred to the colder gas than the other way around. So the second law is preserved as a spontaneous one way flow of heat even though there is a two way flow of (kinetic) energy.

My my my...you are as stupid as I originally thought. Tyndal didn't show anything more than that some gasses are radiative...meaning that they absorb and emit radiation...that's all he showed. Absorption and emission do not equal warming.

And as we have already seen, modern science is not sure exactly what heat is so your claim that the second law talks about heat and not energy is just plain bullshit. Your whole argument is based on a faith in unproven, undemonstrated, unobservable effects predicted by uncertain mathematical models which bear little resemblance to the real world. No energy is transferred from a cool object to a warm object....but I am sure that it is as obvious to you as the beauty of the emperor's new clothes.

 

[Lagboltz]

Shuck and jive...duck and cover...bob and weave....talk out of your ass till the cows come home....you are not in agreement with climate science and you simply can't bring yourself to admit it.

It would be more productive if you could control your emotional outbursts and stick more with the subject. I am in agreement with the IPCC. It is you who doesn't understand the physics involved to be able to see that. Please tell me exactly where you think I disagree with your climate diagram. That would be more productive than emoting insults.

The graphic clearly shows 161 wm2 being absorbed by the surface of the earth from the sun. It then shows a total of 493 wm2 radiating from the surface of the earth. It says surface radiation in the most clear way possible. 161 absorbed by the surface from the sun.....493 radiated out from the surface. The AGW hypothesis is based on an energy budget that is flawed beyond comprehension....anyone who actually believes in the pseudoscience behind this energy budget is....to be polite...a f'ing idiot.

Again, insults do not prove anything except that you are very bitter. I see that your climate diagram has an energy balance. Please go into detail on why you think the energy budget is flawed, and exactly where the flaws are.

 

[Lagboltz]

My my my...you are as stupid as I originally thought. Tyndal didn't show anything more than that some gasses are radiative...meaning that they absorb and emit radiation...that's all he showed. Absorption and emission do not equal warming.

Yes, Tyndal measured backscatter which is the basis for the physics of trapping heat. Trapping heat is the basis for the earth retaining the energy of the sun and the earth becoming warmer than it would without GH gases. Tyndal's work does explain how a large atmospheric backradiation can be returned from the larger surface radiation.

And as we have already seen, modern science is not sure exactly what heat is so your claim that the second law talks about heat and not energy is just plain bullshit. Your whole argument is based on a faith in unproven, undemonstrated, unobservable effects predicted by uncertain mathematical models which bear little resemblance to the real world. No energy is transferred from a cool object to a warm object....but I am sure that it is as obvious to you as the beauty of the emperor's new clothes.

I see that you are still very emotional and are using insults again as the primary thrust of your arguments. You generally do that when you don't have a cogent reply.

No, it is you who doesn't understand what heat is. You are essentially saying that in a closed system, no atom from a cold gas such as pure nitrogen can ever spontaneously strike any atom in a hot solid. How then do you think thermal energy is transferred from the hot solid to the cold gas? That question can be answered using high school physics.

 

[palerider]

I see that your climate diagram has an energy balance. Please go into detail on why you think the energy budget is flawed, and exactly where the flaws are.[/QUOTE]

Interesting that you can't see the glaring flaw there. Explain how a surface which, according to the cartoon absorbs 161 watts per square meter of energy from its primary energy source manages to emit 493 watts per square meter without magical intervention.

 

[palerider]

Yes, Tyndal measured backscatter which is the basis for the physics of trapping heat. Trapping heat is the basis for the earth retaining the energy of the sun and the earth becoming warmer than it would without GH gases. Tyndal's work does explain how a large atmospheric backradiation can be returned from the larger surface radiation.

Sorry, he didn't. Backradiation has never been observed or measured.

 

[Lagboltz]

Interesting that you can't see the glaring flaw there. Explain how a surface which, according to the cartoon absorbs 161 watts per square meter of energy from its primary energy source manages to emit 493 watts per square meter without magical intervention.

No flaw. There is also 333 W/mm of backradiation absorbed by the earth that you forgot to consider and also an extra 58 W/mm sunlight absorbed in the upper atmosphere.

Sorry, he didn't. Backradiation has never been observed or measured.

Tyndal measured the large absorptive power of greenhouse gasses, which he understood to be the physical basis for trapping heat. Backscattering comes from the trapped heat.

I know you don't believe in backscattering, which every physicist accepts. You still have not answered my question: If you think that in a closed system, no atom from a cold gas such as pure nitrogen can ever spontaneously strike any atom in a hot solid, how then do you think thermal energy is transferred from the hot solid to the cold gas?

 

[palerider]

No flaw. There is also 333 W/mm of backradiation absorbed by the earth that you forgot to consider and also an extra 58 W/mm sunlight absorbed in the upper atmosphere.

So you believe that the surface of the earth absorbs more than twice as much energy from the atmosphere than it absorbs from the sun?

And back radiation has never been measured.

measured the large absorptive power of greenhouse gasses, which he understood to be the physical basis for trapping heat. Backscattering comes from the trapped heat.

Tyndal measured absorption and emission. Backradiation has never been measured at ambient temperature.

 

[Lagboltz]

So you believe that the surface of the earth absorbs more than twice as much energy from the atmosphere than it absorbs from the sun?

That's what the energy flow diagram shows.

Tyndal measured absorption and emission.

That is exactly what you see in the energy flow diagram: IR absorption of 333 W/mm and emission of 396 W/mm. Also notice that the IR emission is greater than the absorption. So the net flow is from hot to cold and the second law is not violated.

For the third time you haven't answered my question:
If you believe that in a closed system, no atom from a cold gas such as pure nitrogen can ever spontaneously strike any atom in a hot solid, how then do you think thermal energy is transferred from the hot solid to the cold gas?

 

[palerider]

That's what the energy flow diagram shows.

So again, you believe that the surface of the earth absorbs more than twice as much energy from the atmosphere as it does from the sun.

That is exactly what you see in the energy flow diagram: IR absorption of 333 W/mm and emission of 396 W/mm. Also notice that the IR emission is greater than the absorption. So the net flow is from hot to cold and the second law is not violated.[/quote]

What I see in that energy flow diagram is the claim that the surface of the earth absorbs more energy from the cool atmosphere than it does from the sun....more than twice as much. Do you actually believe that?

I haven't answered your question because it is irrelevant. The earth isn't a closed system. Do you believe that the surface of the earth absorbs more than twice as much energy from the atmosphere than it does from the sun?

 

[dogtowner]

Unless Im missing something the question regarding "closed system" is anserred by the "without external work" caveat in 2nd law. But as oale observes, this is mot a closed system.

 

[Lagboltz]

So again, you believe that the surface of the earth absorbs more than twice as much energy from the atmosphere as it does from the sun.

What I see in that energy flow diagram is the claim that the surface of the earth absorbs more energy from the cool atmosphere than it does from the sun....more than twice as much. Do you actually believe that?

So what? There is no physical violation. Don't forget that the energy from the sun that reaches earth is short wavelength and external to the earth. The energy reradiated from the atmosphere is long wavelength radiation of energy that came from the earth's surface in the first place. It is really quite simple. I don't know why you don't understand that. If there were no backradiaton from the greenhouse gases the earth would continually emit IR radiation and the average temperature of earth’s surface would plummet to around 0°F. The surface of earth would turn into solid ice. Thank heavens for backradiation.

I haven't answered your question because it is irrelevant.

Oh yes it is relevant! You have always insisted "Energy will not flow spontaneously from a low temperature object to a higher temperature object."

I have always maintained that the correct law is, "Heat will not flow spontaneously from a low temperature object to a higher temperature object."

The example I gave shows that there must be a two way energy flow between the kinetic energies of the hot solid and the cold gas. In other words, the system description I gave is a counterexample to your faulty understanding of the second law. You have continually based your entire objection to backscatter on the basis of energy flow rather than heat flow.

So yes it is very relevant.

 

[Lagboltz]

Unless Im missing something the question regarding "closed system" is anserred by the "without external work" caveat in 2nd law. But as oale observes, this is mot a closed system.

The closed system aspect is not important. I am commenting on thermodynamics in general, not the earth's atmosphere in particular. I am addressing what pale refers to as "some idiotic bullshit regarding two way energy flow"

It is just as valid if the question referred to "any system" and not to "a closed system".

 

[dogtowner]

The closed system aspect is not important. I am commenting on thermodynamics in general, not the earth's atmosphere in particular. I am addressing what pale refers to as "some idiotic bullshit regarding two way energy flow"

It is just as valid if the question referred to "any system" and not to "a closed system".

Ok. All i had was words on a screen to noodle.

 

[Lagboltz]

Ok. All i had was words on a screen to noodle.

Here is something else to noodle.

The essence of the above Global Energy Flow diagram is believed by practically every climate scientist. They fall in three groups:

1) Those who believe in AGW
2) Those who believe in GW but not AGW
3) Those who believe there is no GW at all.

1) The first group believes that the Net Absorbed energy is around 0.9 W/mm (See the very bottom of pale's diagram.) They also believe that CO2 backscatter has, or will have, a significant role in that absorbed energy.

2) The second group also believes that the Net Absorbed energy is around 0.9 W/mm. But they don't believe that CO2 plays a significant role in that energy absorption.

3) The third group believes that the 0.9 W/mm is wrong, and is actually close to zero.

Of course the above is an oversimplification because many would believe partial combinations of the three.

Pale does not fall in any of the three groups because he doesn't believe in modern physics nor the diagram.