"Settled Science"??

[palerider]

So what? There is no physical violation.

So what? Are you kidding? So what? Not so long ago, you said it was "very important" to understand that the energy did not warm the earth. Now you are saying that it does and is no big deal? You switch hypotheses like my wife changes shoes.

Here is what you said barely a month ago: https://www.houseofpolitics.com/threads/settled-science.17472/page-12#post-226766

In climate science, the earth, warmed by the sun, emits long wave radiation.

Specific bands of earth's radiation are resonantly absorbed and scattered by some gasses in the atmosphere.

Some of the radiation in those bands are scattered back to earth.

The back-scattered radiation prevents the earth from losing as much heat as it would if those gasses were not present.

It is important to understand that the green house gasses don't directly heat up the earth, but simply cause the earth to lose less energy.

You have changed your story and have lost any small bit of credibility you might have ever had. You clearly stated that some of the radiation are scattered back to earth (not that it actually happens) but "some" is a long way from twice as much as is absorbed directly from the sun. Then you go on to say that it is "important" to understand that the greenhouse gasses don't directly heat up the earth. Now you are agreeing that the earth absorbs more than twice as much energy from the atmosphere than it does from the sun and emits all of that energy as long wave radiation. That is a statement that the earth is warmed by al that energy it supposedly absorbs from the cooler atmosphere.

First you argue against the official climate pseudoscience model and make a point of saying that the backscatter doesn't warm the earth, now you agree with the climate pseudoscience model that the "backscatter" is actually more than twice as much energy as is absorbed from the sun and it warms the earth and is emitted as long wave radiation. You are a lapdog...a parrot...a non thinking drone who will agree with anything, no matter how ridiculous so long as it supports your political positional.

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

Energy doesn't move from low temperatures to high.

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

So is heat a form of energy or is heat the result of energy moving?

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.

Must be? Must be? Even though it has never been observed, or measured? Simply must be? Good one. When you can show an observed example, then you have something. Must be does' mean much...and it means even less now that you have agreed with climate pseudoscience that the earth absorbs more than twice as much energy from the cooler atmosphere than it does from the sun.

yes it is very relevant.

No it isn't and neither are you.

 

[palerider]

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".

The input of work is at the foundation of "thermodynamics in general".

 

[Lagboltz]

So what? Are you kidding? So what? Not so long ago, you said it was "very important" to understand that the energy did not warm the earth. Now you are saying that it does and is no big deal? You switch hypotheses like my wife changes shoes.

I said that greenhouse gases prevent the earth from losing heat. Tell your wife that she should change her shoes at least once a year.

You have changed your story and have lost any small bit of credibility you might have ever had. You clearly stated that some of the radiation are scattered back to earth (not that it actually happens) but "some" is a long way from twice as much as is absorbed directly from the sun. Then you go on to say that it is "important" to understand that the greenhouse gasses don't directly heat up the earth. Now you are agreeing that the earth absorbs more than twice as much energy from the atmosphere than it does from the sun and emits all of that energy as long wave radiation. That is a statement that the earth is warmed by al that energy it supposedly absorbs from the cooler atmosphere.

First you argue against the official climate pseudoscience model and make a point of saying that the backscatter doesn't warm the earth, now you agree with the climate pseudoscience model that the "backscatter" is actually more than twice as much energy as is absorbed from the sun and it warms the earth and is emitted as long wave radiation. You are a lapdog...a parrot...a non thinking drone who will agree with anything, no matter how ridiculous so long as it supports your political positional.

You totally don't understand what I have been saying. Just look at the Global Energy Flow diagram. The numbers are all there and they are consistent with each other. It is really simple if you would just take the time. The yellow bars on the left are short wavelength energy from the sun. The tan bars are long wavelength thermal energy. Don't confuse the thermal physics of the two. The lower tan bars show the internal "blanket effect" that keeps the heat in earth from totally radiating away.

Must be? Must be? Even though it has never been observed, or measured? Simply must be? Good one. When you can show an observed example, then you have something. Must be does' mean much...and it means even less now that you have agreed with climate pseudoscience that the earth absorbs more than twice as much energy from the cooler atmosphere than it does from the sun.

OK. If you disagree with that why don't you tell me how you think a hot solid can heat up a cold gas in contact with it. That is quite relevant to the earth in contact with the atmosphere.

No it isn't and neither are you.

Don't be a sourpuss. You are evading explaining the crux of the thermodynamics that you are attempting to promote.

 

[palerider]

I said that greenhouse gases prevent the earth from losing heat. Tell your wife that she should change her shoes at least once a year.

Sorry, you are contradicting yourself now. You said...and I quote "It is important to understand that the green house gasses don't directly heat up the earth, but simply cause the earth to lose less energy."

The trenberth cartoon says explicitly that the earth absorbs more than twice as much energy from the cooler atmosphere than it does from the sun and then radiates it in the form of LW radiation. Are you going to tell me that it absorbs all that energy but doesn't warm up, and then radiates it all as LW?

totally don't understand what I have been saying. Just look at the Global Energy Flow diagram. The numbers are all there and they are consistent with each other. It is really simple if you would just take the time. The yellow bars on the left are short wavelength energy from the sun. The tan bars are long wavelength thermal energy. Don't confuse the thermal physics of the two. The lower tan bars show the internal "blanket effect" that keeps the heat in earth from totally radiating away.

I understand fine.. you are full of crap. Simply balancing the numbers isn't good enough. It is like your idiotic bastardization of the SB equation in an attempt to claim that back radiation exists. The equations describe physical processes...changing the equations change the processes. Without justification the changes are nothing but bad math. Show me a justification, in print for the application of the distributive property to the SB equation.

Show me evidence that the surface of the earth absorbs twice as much energy from the cooler atmosphere than it does from the sun. And again, is heat a form of energy...or is it the result of energy moving from one place to another?

 

[Lagboltz]

Sorry, you are contradicting yourself now. You said...and I quote "It is important to understand that the green house gasses don't directly heat up the earth, but simply cause the earth to lose less energy."

I said that greenhouse gases prevent the earth from losing heat.
Previously I said it causes the earth to lose less energy.
I see what you problem is now. It should have been obvious that I was referring to thermal energy. So it would have been clearer if I said " it causes the earth to lose less thermal energy"

It is like your idiotic bastardization of the SB equation in an attempt to claim that back radiation exists. The equations describe physical processes...changing the equations change the processes. Without justification the changes are nothing but bad math. Show me a justification, in print for the application of the distributive property to the SB equation.

First of all the Stefan Boltzman law is given in terms of the fourth power of T not the distributive form which is a derivation. This is a typical definition from Princeton U.
https://www.princeton.edu/~achaney/tmve/wiki100k/docs/Stefan–Boltzmann_law.html
"The Stefan–Boltzmann law, also known as Stefan's law, states that the total energy radiated per unit surface area of a black body per unit time is directly proportional to the fourth power of the black body's thermodynamic temperature T (also called absolute temperature)"

From an easy search, these universities and dictionaries all give the same non-distributive form of the definition. There are many more.

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

Vermont State Colleges http://apollo.lsc.vsc.edu/classes/met130/notes/chapter2/sb_law.html

Michigan State U. http://www.pa.msu.edu/~pratts/phy232/lectures/quantum/stefboltz.html

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

The following site at Dartmouth U. shows the derivation to it's distributive form.
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.

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

The two final references above explain how an object (e.g. the earth) absorbs and radiates energy to and from it's surround (e.g. the atmosphere). In the climate diagram, this absorption and radiation is shown by the large tan bars in the diagram.

 

[GenSeneca]

Science - noun
1. the systematic study of the nature and behavior of the material and physical universe, based on observation, experiment, and measurement, and the formulation of laws to describe these facts in general terms

....and I have to hand it to you, you say it as if you genuinely believe it to be true. The first order of business is to prove that photon's exist. Can you do that? There will be a nobel in it for sure if you can. How do you suppose you will prove the existence of the theoretical particles you so fervently believe in? No one has managed to do it so far....I am interested to hear what sort of experiment you might construct to prove that they exist.

VS.

Faith - noun
1. strong or unshakeable belief in something, esp without proof or evidence

The fact that you need proof to believe photons exist reeks of anti-science.

 

[palerider]

I said that greenhouse gases prevent the earth from losing heat.

No, you said...and again I QUOTE: "It is important to understand that the green house gasses don't directly heat up the earth, but simply cause the earth to lose less energy."

You claimed that the earth itself isn't being warmed...that isn't what the trenberth cartoon claims. It claims that more than twice as much energy is being absorbed BY THE SURFACE OF THE EARTH from the atmosphere due to greenhouse gasses than is being absorbed from the sun. You agree and then claim that you don't...then you don't and claim that you dol. You are full of it.

see what you problem is now.

The only problem here is yours....ergo...the constant shuck and jive...duck and cover....dodge and weave...etc etc etc.

By the way...the earth isn't a black body....another source of your problem.

 

[palerider]

Science - noun
1. the systematic study of the nature and behavior of the material and physical universe, based on observation, experiment, and measurement, and the formulation of laws to describe these facts in general terms



VS.

Faith - noun
1. strong or unshakeable belief in something, esp without proof or evidence

Yeah, Mr. AntiScience...that must be me.....demanding actual evidence of a thing rather than simply believing the result of a mathematical model that may or may not be terribly flawed. What sort of twisted anti science attitude must I have to not be willing to accept the hypothesis just because the chalk has been put back on the desk. How crazy must I be to think that once the chalk dust has settled, it is then time to begin experimentation, and observation, repeat to see if the mathematical model was correct? Who am I, after all, to expect science to actually prove its hypotheses? Do I have any idea how much it might cost to prove a hypothesis? Better to just believe....right?

 

[Lagboltz]

No, you said...and again I QUOTE: "It is important to understand that the green house gasses don't directly heat up the earth, but simply cause the earth to lose less energy."

You claimed that the earth itself isn't being warmed...that isn't what the trenberth cartoon claims. It claims that more than twice as much energy is being absorbed BY THE SURFACE OF THE EARTH from the atmosphere due to greenhouse gasses than is being absorbed from the sun. You agree and then claim that you don't...then you don't and claim that you dol. You are full of it.

You are mixing up the ideas. Try to remember that the sun, being the only external source of energy is what warms the earth. 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. That is why the two ideas can be considered separately. I hope that helps you understand what you think is a contradiction.

You are full of it.

The only problem here is yours....ergo...the constant shuck and jive...duck and cover....dodge and weave...etc etc etc.

Now, now pale. Don't let your emotions get in the way of clear thinking.

By the way...the earth isn't a black body....another source of your problem.

No problem. The emissivity is already included in the Stefan-Boltzman equation.

 

[palerider]

You are mixing up the ideas.

I am only quoting what you said and you are only saying what you have been told to believe. You started off saying that it was "IMPORTANT" to understand that the earth itself doesn't get heated...now you agree with trenberth who says that the surface of the earth is heated more by energy it receives from the cooler atmosphere than it is by energy it receives from the sun.

to remember that the sun, being the only external source of energy is what warms the earth.

I know that, but you believe that a surface that only receives 161 watts from the sun can somehow radiate more than twice that amount because it receives more than twice that amount from the cooler atmosphere.

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. That is why the two ideas can be considered separately. I hope that helps you understand what you think is a contradiction. [p/quote]

One watt per square meter is one watt per square meter. 161 absorbed from the sun...and according to you and all the other climate wackos....333 absorbed from the cooler atmosphere.

, now pale. Don't let your emotions get in the way of clear thinking.

Like you, a true believer and active member of a religious cult would know the first thing about clear thinking.

problem. The emissivity is already included in the Stefan-Boltzman equation.

And what, precisely is earth's emissivity? What precisely, is its albedo? Your wacko church claims to be able to measure global temperature to hundredths, and sometimes even thousandths of a degree so you must have a pretty good handle on such things...for that matter, how about quantifying the greenhouse effect for me. X increase in so called greenhouse gasses equals Y increase in temperature. Surely you can do that if you believe the future climate can be predicted with anything even resembling accuracy.

 

[Lagboltz]

I am only quoting what you said and you are only saying what you have been told to believe. You started off saying that it was "IMPORTANT" to understand that the earth itself doesn't get heated...now you agree with trenberth who says that the surface of the earth is heated more by energy it receives from the cooler atmosphere than it is by energy it receives from the sun.

I know that, but you believe that a surface that only receives 161 watts from the sun can somehow radiate more than twice that amount because it receives more than twice that amount from the cooler atmosphere.

You are still confused about the Global Energy Flow diagram. Look pale, I am trying to help you understand the science behind the climate. Not the science behind climate change. The basics of the Global Energy Flow diagram is accepted by all scientists whether or not they believe in AGW, GW, or no GW at all. The basics are not all that complicated. But you are trying to approach it from "gut feel" without regard to the physics involved. You don't have enough experience in physics to develop a gut intuition about the interaction of the forces of physics. None at all.

You have no understanding of radiation thermodynamics and confuse it with refrigeration thermodynamics.

You think theories of Clausius in the mid 1800s explains radiation thermodynamics when he didn't even know it existed.

You have no understanding of quantum thermodynamics as it was in the 1900s.

You have no understanding of the difference between power and power density.

You have no understanding of the difference between coherent and incoherent radiation.

You don't understand black body radiation.

You think photons can strike each other and cancel each other out. But later you even cast doubt that they exist.

You think that the light energy between two light bulbs cancel each other out

You have no understanding of the Stefan-Boltzman law.

You have no understanding of exchange radiation in thermodynamic systems.

You think quantum mechanics "is a hoax" and "pseudoscience."

You believe modern science has "abandon reality for fantasy".

You think Einstein, Pauli, Born, Heisenberg, Dirac, Feynman, Gell-Mann and many many others who have laid the foundation of modern physics are "laughable".

You have continually been bitterly antagonistic, replacing reason with caustic vitriol. You lash out at science as though every scientist beyond the 19th century is stupid, and only you know the truth about science. I have never had a conversation with someone so anti-science, who vainly attempts to argue scientifically. What I have lately promoted is the basis of what any climate scientist knows, whether they believe in climate change or not. Yet you unknowingly acridly reject the very scientists that you support. Your reaction to accepting science is like someone feeding a petulant baby who puts his hands over his mouth and vigorously shakes his head.

I am not trying to get you to believe in GW or AGW. You will do as you will. But if you try to support your believe with an invalid and ridiculous understanding of science, I will challenge you as I have been doing.

 

[palerider]

You are still confused about the Global Energy Flow diagram.

Im not confused at all. According to you, a surface that absorbs 161 watts per square meter from the sun is able to radiate 493 watts per square meter due to the crazy idea that the surface of the earth absorbs more energy from the cooler atmosphere than it does from that big ball of fire in the sky.

Look pale, I am trying to help you understand the science behind the climate.

No you aren't because you don't even begin to understand yourself. A couple of weeks ago you said that it was very important to understand that the surface of the earth didn't warm as a result of the greenhouse effect, and now you are trying to defend the idea that that same surface absorbs twice as much energy from the cooler atmosphere than it does from the sun. What you are trying to do is get someone else to join you on the AGW crazy train. Not interested.

basics of the Global Energy Flow diagram is accepted by all scientists whether or not they believe in AGW, GW, or no GW at all.

Actually, they aren't. There are quite a few out there....mostly in the hard science field of physics, who don't buy it at all. That energy diagram models a flat earth, which doesn't rotate, has no day or night, and is 4 times further away from the sun than it is in reality. Nothing about that energy flow diagram models reality so it doesn't predict reality as evidenced by the epic failure of climate models which use that energy flow diagram as their foundation. The reason the models fail so spectacularly is because the data they are processing is so spectacularly wrong.

The basics are not all that complicated.

No, they are not and yet climate science has managed to get them so wrong as to be laughable.

you are trying to approach it from "gut feel" without regard to the physics involved.

Afraid that is you who thinks that things "must be" even though you don't have a whit of evidence to substantiate your feelings.

don't have enough experience in physics to develop a gut intuition about the interaction of the forces of physics. None at all.

You have no experience in physics. You are a drone...you read, you repeat....you don't think.

have no understanding of radiation thermodynamics and confuse it with refrigeration thermodynamics.

Is heat a form of energy, or is it the fingerprint of energy moving from one place to another?

think theories of Clausius in the mid 1800s explains radiation thermodynamics when he didn't even know it existed.

You think mathematical models trump observation.

have no understanding of quantum thermodynamics as it was in the 1900s.

And you have faith even though observation doesn't bear out the models...you have faith even though qm can't explain the electron cloud of a hydrogen atom without an ad hoc fix.

and on and on and on... making up one claim by me after another...mischaracterizing every statement I make....consummently playing the part of the congenital liar...trying to convince me that you are the smartest guy in the room when you have changed your position 180 degrees in the past few weeks from it being very important to understand that the surface of the earth doesn't actually get any warmer due to the greenhouse effect to trying to convince me and yourself that the surface of the earth absorbs twice as much energy from the cooler atmosphere than it does from the sun. Go sell your snake oil to someone who is far more gullible than me.

By the way...did you know that if you say gullible very slowly...and I mean very slowly....it sounds like you are saying oranges?

Laughing in your face lagboltgz...laughing out loud in your gullible face.

 

[Texas_tea]

How is this for "settled science"?

Math Is Math

The Obama administration’s new carbon rules won’t put a dent in emissions.

For people who use the word “science” as a bludgeon and trumpet their strict commitment to fact and reason, the Obama administration and its supporters are strangely incapable of rational analysis of new climate-change regulations.

President Barack Obama’s Environmental Protection Agency released draft rules last week to create a vast new regulatory apparatus with no input from Congress — in other words, to govern in its accustomed highhanded, undemocratic manner. The goal is to reduce carbon emissions from existing power plants, in particular coal-fired plants, to 30 percent below 2005 levels by 2030.

The rhetoric around the rules has involved self-congratulation about how they are the inexorable result of taking climate science and the reality of dangerous global warming seriously. “Science is science,” President Obama said in an open-and-shut tautology about global warming during an interview with New York Times columnist Tom Friedman. By the same token, math is math, and the new regulations make no sense.

 

[Lagboltz]

Pale, now that you refreshed yourself with your bluster, lets get on with it. The Global Energy Flow diagram shows the earth surface back radiation to be 333. How about giving a ball park estimate of what you think that would really be. I presume you think its much much lower or even zero since you don't believe in back-scatter.

And also, the diagram shows the earth surface is losing 493 W/mm where the radiation part is 396 W/mm as IR. Do you think that is accurate? If not what ball park figure do you think would be more accurate? I presume that you think it would be less than the 161 W/mm that is received from the sun since you are comparing the two.

 

[palerider]

Pale, now that you refreshed yourself with your bluster, lets get on with it. The Global Energy Flow diagram shows the earth surface back radiation to be 333. How about giving a ball park estimate of what you think that would really be. I presume you think its much much lower or even zero since you don't believe in back-scatter.

Zero. The warmer surface of the earth doesn't absorb energy from the cooler atmosphere. Sometimes in rare circumstances an energy inversion exists where the surface is cooler than the atmosphere and some energy gets exchanged there....and rain on ice would transfer some energy...but nothing like 300 watts per square meter.. nothing even close.

also, the diagram shows the earth surface is losing 493 W/mm where the radiation part is 396 W/mm as IR. Do you think that is accurate? If not what ball park figure do you think would be more accurate? I presume that you think it would be less than the 161 W/mm that is received from the sun since you are comparing the two.

The firs thing one should note is that 161 W/mm is bullshit. It is just another ad hoc construct in a model that is full of them. That figure arbitrarily places the earth 4 times further away from the sun than it actually is but doesn't accurately compute the actual energy that would be incoming if the earth were really 4 times further away. The whole thing is a giant steaming plile of shit.

No part of that energy diagram is right. It is an ad hoc construct that doesn't even come close to representing reality. It assumes a flat earth....it assumes an earth that has no day or night but a continuous weak twilight that is roughly 1/4 as bright as daylight. Nothing about it is correct. The actual incoming solar energy is more like 1364 watts per square meter at the top of the atmosphere. That energy budget is custom tailored to support the AGW hoax. If one models a 3D spinning earth which has daylight on one side and night on the other and progressively less energy being absorbed by the surface as one moves towards the poles due to the increasing angle light strikes the surface and progressively more absorption from daybreak till slightly after noon at which time progressively less energy is absorbed till dark one will find that an ad hoc greenhouse effect is not necessary to explain the temperature of planet earth....combine that with the fact that the greenhouse effect as described by climate science can't even come close to predicting the temperature of any other planet in the solar system with an atmosphere and one must really wonder why anyone would have any faith in all in climate science to predict anything other than their own rapidly approaching demise as a credible field of science.