Show Me Now – Direct Proof
I’m fed up to the back teeth with sleezy politicians, lying climate scientists and every tom, dick, harry & lisa telling me on twitter, tv and the news and the internet that climate change is real and it is caused by CO2.
Why because I know damn well that they are lying and I can show them that they are lying.
BBC? It is the fake news channel. CNN, full of it. UK Government, corrupted to the core with corrosive communist climate clap trap.
So as well as releasing articles and producing science experiments which show conclusively that CO2 does not induce GMST to rise, I am going to start demanding, that all those fakezperts “SHOW ME NOW!” that they can indeed show that CO2 causes GMST to rise.
I am not talking about some stupid graph, which some numpty school children could make up and knock together using a home computer from 1984. Nor am I talking about stupid memes, showing pictures of “stranded polar bears” or “lost penguins” or “Ice caps melting in the summer sun.”
No, I am talking about real proof, real evidence, 100{154653b9ea5f83bbbf00f55de12e21cba2da5b4b158a426ee0e27ae0c1b44117} hard factual scientific demonstration.
And as I elaborated in my book, http://www.stairwaypress.com/bookstore/black-dragon/ the fake greenhouse in a gas bottle experiment is wrong. They haven’t explained that CO2 absorbs directly SHORTWAVE IR emitted by the light bulb (which is direct absorption and heating not back radiant greenhouse effect), they haven’t explained that CO2 has different density and specific heat capacity than air and they haven’t compared it with other gases. In short it is a FAKE!
Surely, the governments of the world, would be able to roll such hard proof as evidence, as you know, everyone asks them this all the time, so they have to hand to show anyone anywhere, at any time that what they say is true. Except they can’t.
Just like I can with my experiments, where I can show any time, any-where that CO2 does not induce surface temperature warming. I can show that CO2 does not warm, so why cant they show the opposite. Why not, BECAUSE THEY ARE LYING AND THEY KNOW THEY ARE LYING.
So therefore I intend to write to many politicians and fake scientists asking for this direct hard proof. I will start memes on twitter and facebook. I can do it, I can show I speak the truth, yet none of them can. They are liars, it’s that simple.
Filament with CO2 – DIM Like a GHE Advocate. In a Vacuum Bright. Says it all. The thermometers tests I conducted prove the same principle. Climate Crisis, IS A LIE!
They are going to get so tired of seeing & hearing this, they will have no choice but to relent, withdraw their fake CO2 taxes and pricing structures and repeal all their fake laws.
The demand that they SHOW ME right now will become unstoppable, it will appear on protest signs, on every letter on every tweet and hopefully every news article.
If some stupid climate mongrel, says “CO2 cause climate Change” “Show me – now direct proof” should be the standard response.
Every single time some fakes, drones on about the CO2, that should be the normal answer. They don’t have any. Everyone needs to know that.
They can’t do it, no one can, time to call their stupid bluff all over the world. Every climate activist on the planet is full of lies, whether they know it or not.
So therefore I strongly suggest everyone everywhere do exactly the same as me. As a side issue, I found this video on You-tube, the chorus lyrics are great.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DQ03Xs501Rk
PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL, legally registered in the UK as a company 
incorporated for charitable purposes. Head Office: 27 Old Gloucester Street, London WC1N 3AX.
Please DONATE TODAY To Help Our Non-Profit Mission To Defend The Scientific Method.
Trackback from your site.
Squidly
| #
RUSH – Show Don’t Tell (Rabbits From A Hat Intro) live 1990 – Presto Tour
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J41AXq3-Mc0
Reply
geran
| #
Good points, Geraint.
There is NO proof of the bogus GHE because it violates the laws of physics. When they violate the laws of physics, they become charlatans peddling pseudoscience.
It’s fun to watch.
“IPCC” stands for “Institutionalized Pseudoscience of Climate Charlatans”.
Reply
Norman
| #
JDHuffman
There is considerable proof of a real GHE. It does not violate any real working laws of physics. It only violates your made up false versions of it. I have given you numerous examples of your false and erroneous viewpoint and corrected you several times. Reality is not your strong asset. Making up false physics seems your specialty. You still can’t understand the Moon rotates on its axis.
Reply
geran
| #
Every sentence is wrong, Norman, revealing both your lack of education and your disregard for truth.
But, everyone loves a clown.
More please.
Reply
richard
| #
The reality is , Norman , that the longest , largest , increase in life , ever, on earth was during the Cambrian period that lasted millions of years when the CO2 levels were 15 x todays levels.
Reply
Norman
| #
Richard
Thanks for the information. I was aware of this. But it is not what I am saying. I attempting the impossible. I am injecting actual textbook physics dealing with radiant energy on a blog dominated by people who make up their own physics based upon nothing but incorrect assumptions about laws they do not understand or experiments they are not able to properly understand and draw incorrect conclusions based upon a limited view of how the science actually works.
Reply
richard
| #
Sadly , as stated, no empirical evidence.
I loved the Al Gore/Bill Nye attempt at the increased CO2 in a test tube experiment a few years back. Even that was faked.
They never state the amount of increased CO2 ppm to prove their theory. I guess 500,000-1,000,000 ppm CO2 Vs around 400ppm makes it all rather ridiculous.
Squidly
| #
Richard, what was the worst about that was they faked the thermometers .. I did an image comparison ( a diff ) of the two images .. the only pixels that were different between the two thermometers was the mercury in them. This would be physically impossible. The shadows, the glare, everything was exactly, to the pixel, the same in both images. The only change was to the temperature reading (the mercury bar).
There is absolutely no doubt they had to have faked it.
Ddwieland
| #
How can the GHE theory account for the lack of correlation between continually rising CO2 and temperature trends that go up, down and sideways? And experiments with contained gases can’t possibly accurately represent an uncontained atmosphere, especially one with clouds.
Reply
Geraint Hughes
| #
Norman.
Stop blabbing. SHOW ME NOW!
Reply
Squidly
| #
Hey Norman, if what you say is true, then you should be able to provide me with this “proof” and be able to present a demonstration of this so-called “greenhouse effect”
Alas, after more than 25 years of researching this subject, I am still waiting ….
Reply
Risteard de Roiste
| #
I have strong doubts about this idea of Global Warming. I remember another another idea that was put out about 20 years ago that all computers would crash when the year 2000 would come. It was all a fake.
Reply
Terry Shipman
| #
Absolutely right. I lived through the Y2K hoax as a technician for the telephone company. All our equipment had to become Y2K compliant. I suggested that before all this money was spent each type of equipment be tested in the lab by resetting its clock to Dec 31 1999 at 23:59 and see what happens. Oh, no! We must buy millions in software happily sold to the company by the various equipment manufacturers which they would certify as Y2K compliant. It was a money-making scheme pure and simple. My entire crew was on overtime that night waiting for problems that never developed. It’s laughable that in poorer countries, that didn’t have money to waste on these expensive fixes, very little happened that night.
The same thing is happening right now with green companies wanting to cash in on fixing a non-existing problem.
Reply
George Cross
| #
In 1998 I reset the system clock on my pc and it ran quite well set 12 years ahead until I replaced it about 2002 <:o)
Reply
Pierre D. Bernier
| #
Korean war
Vietnam war
Acid rains
Ozone hole
DDT
Central Americas coups
South Americas coups
Middle Eastern wars
Reply
Andy Rowlands
| #
Nice one Geraint 🙂
Reply
Kevin Doyle
| #
Precisely.
The burden of proof in real science is upon the shoulders of the proponent of a theory. These proponents should demonstrate in a laboratory, or other empirical method, that CO2 does magically warm things.
Some evidence to the contrary is a simple, old Thermos bottle. I have one from the 1950’s. It is a plastic body containing a glass two-walled cylinder. The inner wall is separated from the outer wall by a vacuum. Reflective, mirror surface is along the outside of the inner glass.
When I put hot coffee inside, it doesn’t increase in temperature.
It attempts to stay the same temperature, but eventually cools.
“No further questions, your Honor.”
Reply
Kevin Doyle
| #
P.S. – Youtube appears to prohibit me (in USA) from viewing the video. Are they also corrupt?
Reply
CraigMob
| #
Bicycle training video
Reply
Norman
| #
Geraint Hughes
First of all your experiment does provide the evidence you believe it does. It is a fake experiment run by an uneducated phony. Duh! When you are in a vacuum state you have no conduction to remove heat. When you add any gas you will provide a new source of energy transmission NOT available in a vacuum called conduction. Maybe if you studied even the basics of heat transfer you could properly understand your silly experiment and what it is showing.
You want proof of the GHE I will “Show You”.
https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/webdata/tmp/surfrad_5dcf78b3579ea.png
This is a graph of measured energy values for this location (actual sensors). If you take the area under each line that will give you the total joules for each energy flux. If you take the time you will find that the solar input is much too small to sustain the energy emitted by the surface. With the back-radiation added you have an energy surplus to the surface. Then you have other heat transfer mechanisms to remove this excess and the surface does not continue to warm (convection and evaporation).
Here is also a real world experiment clearly showing a GHE or how back radiation will increase the temperature of a heated object.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2016/08/experiment-results-show-a-cool-object-can-make-a-warm-object-warmer-still/
Now you have two clear examples of a real GHE. You will ignore this in favor of your cult indoctrination. You throw out “liars” etc but you are deluding yourself and attempting to mislead others.
Reply
geran
| #
Norman, you always believe your links support your beliefs. But, you just can’t understand the links. Consequently, you are unable to understand why your conclusions are invalid. You can’t learn.
Reply
Norman
| #
Richard
Roy Spencer has also data showing warming in the lower troposphere. The warming is a reality. The issue is with the amount of warming but not the warming itself.
Reply
richard
| #
As we are not in a mini ice age you would expect there to be warming since the last one- not sure what your point is?
The interesting thing is are we heading into another one-
https://www.iceagenow.info/prepare-for-ice-age-now-says-top-paleoclimatologist-2/
Cold and snow info from the last few weeks (below). Funny how the MSM ignores the record cold- strange when they now call any climate or weather climate change. Guess the record cold doesn’t actually fit the climate change meme!!
Record cold across eastern two-thirds of US
Record snowfall in Cincinatti
Seven killed as 16 hours of incessant snowfall paralyzes Kashmir valley
New Zealand – South Island ‘snapping back to winter’
Heavy snowfall in Austria
Heavy snowfall blocks roads in Algeria
Typical January weather in Sweden – Except it is November
Huge amounts of snow in Tromsø – Most in almost a hundred years
Freezing from Texas to Maine
Record cold possible from the Great Lakes to the Gulf Coast
Anomalously severe cold in Siberia
Early start to skiing season in France
Heavy snowfall blocks roads in northern Spain
Second consecutive record snowfall in Milwaukee
Bitter cold all the way into the Deep South
Record October snowfall in Colorado
Tucson – 3rd coldest Halloween low temperature on record
Record October snowfall in Cañon City, CO
Historical snow amounts in Norway
Colorado snowpack more than double the average
Coldest October on record in Spokane
Coldest October Ever at Rapid City Airport
Missoula – Coldest October on Record
Many Hard Freeze Warnings in Southern California
Colder in New Orleans than in Boston
Record snowfall in Chicago
Denver – Cold records shattered three days in a row
All-time record cold sweeps Alberta
Freeze warnings from Texas to Michigan and the entire Mid-South
Pueblo, Colorado breaks 102-year-old snowfall record
Snowy travel chaos in Colorado Springs
More snowfall for up to 17 states
100+year cold records broken in Australia
US-Temperatures 10 to 40 degrees below average
Colorado – Summer was shorter this year
Two rounds of snow headed for the Plains and Upper Midwest
Arctic wildlife breeding season ruined by last year’s record snowfall
Colorado WINTER storm watch – In October
and on and on and on
Reply
Norman
| #
Are you sure that the MSM missed all the cooling? You seem to have an extensive list of information concerning the cold air mass. I am more than certain that this information came to you from some media source (unlikely you visited all those areas to get first hand information).
richard
| #
Norman,
Strange isn’t it that one heat record is help up as proof of global warming and repeated day after day. Record cold events , of which there many year on year don’t get a look in. There I was thinking all weather events are now proof of climate change- but which way!
Norman
| #
JDHuffman
You said the same things when I tried to reason with you on Roy’s blog. The conclusions are valid and real. You do not understand the points so resort to this bogus argument that I don’t understand the links. I understand quite well that you don’t have any idea of what the links show so you pretend like you do to impress people around you. That is all you can do. No one has ever seen you produce any valid scientific argument on any blog you post. Same person, same style endless mush, nothing solid.
Your fluff debating tactics work only with people who are not willing to look for the actual truth. Maybe you should stick to debating with Zoe Phin. She likes to make up physics as much as you do. I like to read the exchange between you and her as you both like to peddle some absurd ideas you make up.
Reply
geran
| #
Norman, you appear to be making comments from a template. Addressing someone else, when you want to address me, just indicates more of your confusion.
The Desert Rock data is just another example of a link you don’t understand. Look at the two IR curves. What happens at sunset? Both IR curves drop. What would happen if there were no sunrise? The IR curves would continue to drop. The IR is dependent on solar, not the other way around.
You can’t understand the basics, so all you can do is insult others. That’s why you are so hilarious.
Reply
Norman
| #
JDHuffman
You are correct that if the sun did not input energy to the surface that both IR curves would go down. I am not disputing this at all. Do you know what my statement is?
You can calculate, from this data, the amount of energy a square meter of surface at this location receives from the Sun in a 24 hour period. You can see at night it receives zero but the surface continues to radiate away energy anyway. The Solar input is lower than the amount of energy the surface would radiate without the downwelling energy. It is actually quite plain and easy to see if you wanted to. I can’t make you see it but the data is there.
geran
| #
Norman, I’ll let you see if you can find all the things wrong with your own words: ” The Solar input is lower than the amount of energy the surface would radiate without the downwelling energy.”
Hilarious.
More please.
richard
| #
Norman, where state of the art temp equipment is used that is future proofed against urban sprawl no increase in temps has been seen-
“In January 2005, NOAA began recording temperatures at its newly built U.S. Climate Reference Network (USCRN). USCRN includes 114 pristinely maintained temperature stations spaced relatively uniformly across the lower 48 states. NOAA selected locations that were far away from urban and land-development impacts that might artificially taint temperature readings.”
“The USCRN has eliminated the need to rely on, and adjust the data from, outdated temperature stations. Strikingly, as shown in the graph below, USCRN temperature stations show no warming since 2005 when the network went online. If anything, U.S. temperatures are now slightly cooler than they were 14 years ago”
https://www.realclearenergy.org/articles/2019/08/23/climate_alarmists_foiled_no_us_warming_since_2005_110470.html
“The U.S. Climate Reference Network (USCRN) was established to give the most accurate temperature readings compared to the old Cooperative Observer Network (COOP) which suffers from urban encroachment, siting problems, and a multitude of human induced inhomgeneities such as station moves, incomplete data, closed stations, and runway condition stations at airports that were never designed to report climate data”
Norman, you have been confused by fake, estimated temp data, across vast areas of the earth that have no data and bad temp data that has been compromised by Urban sprawl- hence the need of the state of the art temp stations -USCRN.
Reply
jerry krause
| #
Hi Richard,
When I read your mention of the “U.S. Climate Reference Network (USCRN)” I got excited. When I went to the link you provided and read ‘Contiguous U.S. AVerage Temperature Anomaly” at the top of the graph which was based upon the ‘data’ of the USCRN NOAA project I immediately became unexcited.
For averaged anything is not actual data. Averaging anything is merely an attempt to make an actual heterogeneous system into an artificial homogeneous system.
Until you and others understand actually measured air temperatures, or surface temperatures, or soil temperatures are seldom ever constant during a 24hr period, you will not understand the actual heterogeneous system.
It is a fact that this project does report the mean temperatures measured during the previous hour. But it is also a fact that this project also reports the actual maximum and minimum temperatures measured during the previous hour for the air temperatures and the surface temperatures. This actual data allows one to see how constant, or not constant, these actually measured temperatures were during the previous hour and how they compare with the mean temperature of the previous hour.
Because the soil temperatures are observed to not fluctuate near as rapidly during any previous hour, the actual maximum and minimum temperatures of the previous hour are not reported.
To understand the actual natural heterogeneous system that exists you must focus upon the actual maximum and minimum temperatures of the previous hour that are actually measured. And also measured and reported for the previous hour are the maximum and minimum solar radiation fluxes which must have some relationship to the temperatures.
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
richard
| #
Jerry , the USCRN is the best they have got –
you are missing out the elephant in the room-
“The U.S. Climate Reference Network (USCRN) was established to give the most accurate temperature readings compared to the old Cooperative Observer Network (COOP) which suffers from urban encroachment, siting problems, and a multitude of human induced inhomgeneities such as station moves, incomplete data, closed stations, and runway condition stations at airports that were never designed to report climate data”
Have a very good day.
Reply
jerry krause
| #
Hi Richard,
Of course you are correct when you do not address the averaging issue that my comment was plainly about.
Have a good day, Jerry
richard
| #
Hello Jerry,
It is now seen as state of the art temp data to replace the compromised old data. Run by NOAA it illustrates there has been a slight decrease in temps. This is all they have now.
A lot better than than the temp data on the African continent , one fifth of the world’s land mass , and pretty much now just estimated.
Have a very good day.
richard
| #
Dear Jerry,
Do write to – https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/data-access/land-based-station-data/land-based-datasets/us-climate-reference-network-uscrn
I am sure they will take your concerns seriously.
Have a very good day.
Reply
Zoe Phin
| #
Norman, there is no Downwelling IR.
https://phzoe.wordpress.com/2019/11/11/why-up-is-not-down/
Reply
Norman
| #
Zoe Phin
I looked at your link. Maybe you should go back and look at your physics books. EMR does not much interact with itself. You can have two sources of light move through each other and there is no change in either. The instruments used in the field work quite well. They can use ambient temperature because of the calibration.
Use that mind of yours. It is very similar to a balance. On one side you have known weight. The other you put your unknown weight. If the unknown is lighter that side moves up. If the unknown is heavier than the side moves down. With the IR detection they are calibrated in labs to give certain detectable voltage or current based upon incoming IR.
The downwelling is quite detectable and it is only downwelling because the IR from the surface (upwelling) cannot reach the sensor element inside it is screened by the casing. Only downwelling IR reaches the calibrated sensor. If the sensing surface is emitting 390 Watts/m^2 flux and the incoming Downwelling IR is 300 W/m^2 it will detect this amount by how its total heat content is changed. You have a known constant upwelling IR from the sensing element which is calculated for. The amount of incoming IR will affect the sensor. More IR will lead to a less voltage or current that is converted into a value based upon lab calibrations. If the Downwelling IR is the same as the sensor upwelling the voltage is at zero and the downwelling IR equals the sensor upwelling IR. You can read up on how they work.
Your ideas of geothermal warming are easy to disprove as I have already done with you on Roy’s blog. Dig down a few feet into the Earth (maybe 10 feet) and put a thermometer down there and record the temperature. You will find a colder reading than the surface. Yes the core of the Earth is very hot but that energy is not rapidly moving to the surface, only a very small amount (milliwatts/ m^2). Heat will move from the hot surface down. The cold ground below will not cause the surface to reach a temperature where is 390 W/m^2 yet only receives 240.
I
Reply
Zoe Phin
| #
Norman,
“The downwelling is quite detectable and it is only downwelling because the IR from the surface (upwelling) cannot reach the sensor element inside it is screened by the casing. Only downwelling IR reaches the calibrated sensor.”
LOL
Upwelling – Net_IR reaches the top sensor. Then the instrument warms the atnosphere.
The instrument records a NEGATIVE voltage, which means that energy MUST BE LEAVING (NOT entering).
“Yes the core of the Earth is very hot but that energy is not rapidly moving to the surface, only a very small amount (milliwatts/ m^2).”
The heat flux is in milliwatts/m^2. The heat flux is the amount of heat loss PER meter of ascending height. This loss has nothing to do with what comes out.
You are using the heat flux fallacy.
https://i.ibb.co/YhNq3Jq/postmafallacy.png
Reply
Zoe Phin
| #
Norman,
“If the sensing surface is emitting 390 Watts/m^2 flux and the incoming Downwelling IR is 300 W/m^2”
Then the instrument would be 690 W/m^2, but it’s not because 300 is what LEAVES the instrument.
“Downwelling” IR is actually Upwelling-from-instrument IR, and its intensity is:
εσ(Tsurface-qL/k)^4
Where q,L,k are parameters of the instrument.
Reply
Zoe Phin
| #
Norman,
In your upside down reality, Upwelling can’t reach the top sensor, yet magically, “Downwelling” can not only reach the bottom sensor but it even gains heat as it moves down. How silly.
Where does “Downwelling” IR get its energy? If you’re going to say from the sun-warmed earth, then the sun-warmed Earth lost energy to do that. You’re trying to copy-paste energy.
I debunk that here:
https://phzoe.wordpress.com/2019/11/01/why-the-greenhouse-effect-is-a-fraud-p1/
Norman
| #
Zoe Phin
No, not correct. Wrong! The instrument would not be 690 W/m^2. You have 390 leaving the instrument at a continuous rate and you have 300 being absorbed by the sensor. This alters the property of the sensor that can be measured. I really have a hard time understanding how you thought process works. You have 390 W/m^2 emitted (a loss of energy) and you have 300 W/m^2 absorbed by the surface and you add them? Why would you consider this an intelligent thing to do when you are opposite effects?
Norman
| #
Zoe Phin
In your “debunk” you are not including the Sun is continuously adding energy. It is an error made by most skeptics of the GHE and you seem to be following this erroneous thought process.
Since you do not grasp the radiant version of it, make is simpler. Use an analogy.
You have a water tank that you are adding a set amount of water to. The tank level goes up. You have a drain open and as water goes up the water flow out of the drain increases until the pressure is great enough in the tank that the incoming water equals the outgoing water. The tank level remains the same. Now you restrict the drain a bit so less water flows out. What happens to the water level in the tank?
Zoe Phin
| #
Norman,
“No, not correct. Wrong! The instrument would not be 690 W/m^2. You have 390 leaving the instrument at a continuous rate and you have 300 being absorbed by the sensor.”
390 leaving the instrument? LOL,
Upwelling IR is now leaving the instrument Downwards? LOL
“You have 390 W/m^2 emitted (a loss of energy) and you have 300 W/m^2 absorbed by the surface and you add them?”
No. 390 is emitted by the surface. 300 is claimed to be emitted by the atmosphere. Therefore instrument will receive 690. In reality, the instrument absorbs 390 from below and emits UPWARD 300. 90 is used up by the heat capacity of the instrument.
Zoe Phin
| #
Norman,
Heat is not water.
“What happens to the water level in the tank?”
If inflow is greater than outflow then water accumulates continuously.
In that case, by analogy, Earth’s temperature history should show nothing but continuing heating and outgassing.
Heat is not like water, but it is like a waterfall. You can capture some of the warerfall’s water in a cup, but you can’t actually capture the phenomena of water falling inside a cup.
If the Earth receives on average 164 W/m^2 from the sun … then emits 164 W/m^2 to the atmosphere … then 82 up and 82 down, then the surface never really has 390!
You forgot to subtract the 165 you sent to the atmosphere.
Now, if you have 164 from the sun and 236 from geothermal, then everything makes sense.
You don’t get to claim 236 came from the atmosphere.
Geraint Hughes
| #
Norman.
You fail.
You posted a stupid graph and a failed experiment that had no CO2 or any other greenhouse gas for that matter. There were also another dozen errors in that useless ice shield experiment, so many in fact I might write an article about it.
Therefore, please SHOW ME NOW-DIRECT PROOF THAT CO2 INDUCES WARMING.
Go on, girlfriend, you just cant.
Reply
Norman
| #
Geraint Hughes
You call the graph “stupid”. Not sure why, do you not understand it or are you so stuck in your deluded false physics you reject any information that proves your ideas wrong?
The graph is direct and valid proof that the GHE effect exists and warms the surface. Most of the GHE is from water vapor and clouds. CO2 is estimated to be about 10% of the effect around 30 some W/m^2.
It is highly doubtful you are at all honest about your request for any proof. You seem you will reject all that does not fit your fantasy belief system and it is unlikely any rational thought will change that state of mind. I guess you have too much emotional energy connected to your belief system that it is now impossible for you to consider that you are wrong about most of your knowledge of radiant physics.
Here:
http://lidar.ssec.wisc.edu/papers/dhd_thes/node3.htm
This is a measured spectrum of Downwelling IR. You can use this graph to calculate how much energy the CO2 in the atmosphere is returning to the surface if you know how to do the math.
Reply
Zoe Phin
| #
Norman,
“This is a measured spectrum of Downwelling IR.”
Your link actually says:
“Illustration of atmospheric downwelling radiance relative to values derived from the Planck function for various temperatures.”
DERIVED
Your “Downwelling” IR is nothing more than the energy LEAVING (negative voltage) the top of the instrument.
Reply
geraint hughes
| #
Norman,
Your seriously confused.
Which is why the vacuum resulted in highest temperatures and Argon resulted in warmer surface temperature higher than CO2, despite no IR present at all. You seem to think the opposite occurred. It didnt. The presence of IR coming back from a substance, is meaningless.
Which is why, if you read and understood this, you would know why filaments surrounded with mirrors do not experience higher peak temperatures than those with no mirrors.
https://principia-scientific.com/light-recycling-disproves-greenhouse-gas-theory/
I can show lots of graphs showing lots of IR coming back from the mirrors. What is the end result in temperature of the filament? Nothing.
I can show lots of graphs showing lots of IR being emitted by the CO2 in the chambers where I conducted my tests and even prove it with sensors. It would be pointless. What was the end result? Cooler surface temperatures in the presence of CO2.
Norman, its simple. YOUR A FOOL!
I can also, SEND BACK ALL ENERGY USING MIRRORS, to the filament, the result is no warming at all.
Geraint Hughes.
Reply
geran
| #
Norman, you continue to make the same mistake over and over:
“This is a measured spectrum of Downwelling IR. You can use this graph to calculate how much energy the CO2 in the atmosphere is returning to the surface…”
Downwelling IR and “returning energy” do NOT translate to raising the temperature of the surface. Both are equivalent to bringing ice into your 70 ºF house. You have added energy to your house, but ice will not increase the temperature.
Your pseudoscience is hilarious, but you should learn some physics.
Reply
Lauchlan Duff
| #
Norman. I have analysed all the ESRL SURFRAD (monthly means) data from the beginning period of each station to the end of 2018. I calculated the % differences between begiining and end for each parameter. I also added ML CO2 data and conducted the same % differences between the varying stations beginning and 2018 end times. Only full year data means were included to avoid seasonal biasing. I plotted all the %dparameter differences vs %dTemperature differences. The results in terms of linear trend R2 in order of fit were: DWIR 0.74/ Specfic humidity 0.35/ Total Net Radiation 0.28/Albedo 0.22/PAR 0.13/NetIR 0.09/DirectNormalSolar 0.08/RelativeHumidity 0.05/NetSolar 0.025/CO2 0.013/DWGlobalSolar 0.012 /Wind 0.004. So CO2 had the 10th lowest fit against temperature. And additionally, the linear plot of dDWIR vs dCO2 R2 was 0.0002. So it aint CO2 driving the DWIR and temperature. It is clouds by a long shot. Specific humidity second biggest driver of dT.
Reply
Norman
| #
Lauchlan Duff
You seem a fairly bright and intelligent person but I am not able to follow your post from the information you provide. If you are talking about the change in DWIR from the change in CO2 being small, that would be quite correct. It is a small change.
https://newscenter.lbl.gov/2015/02/25/co2-greenhouse-effect-increase/
“Both series showed the same trend: atmospheric CO2 emitted an increasing amount of infrared energy, to the tune of 0.2 Watts per square meter per decade. This increase is about ten percent of the trend from all sources of infrared energy such as clouds and water vapor.” So you see it is a very small value so your research is not at odds with other research. Since you covered one year of data you would come up with a value of 0.02 W/m^2.
Reply
Lauchlan Grant Duff
| #
Norman. My actual analysis of ESRL data covered 22 years of data for 3 stations, 19&20 years for 2 stations,and 17&14 years for the remaing stations. Yes, not easy to convey a series of data in this blog format. But If indeed CO2 had some measureable influence within the DWIR parameter you would think that ESRL would address this. ESRL conclusions on their work, and I have no idea what methodology they used to reach their conclusions, was clouds are the major driver. https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/about/theme2.html
Not a single mention of CO2 in their analysis.
What I am finding very common now is that scientists writing papers on radiative effects, always write a token sentence on CO2, usually in the introduction, and then proceed with the guts of the paper where CO2 isnt mentioned or analysed at all. I can give you many examples but will just metnion two papers here. 1) Trenberth etals 2015 paper entitled “Climate variability and relationships between top-of-atmosphere radiation and temperatures on Earth”. where the one sentence in the Introduction is “The predominant human influence is through the changing composition of the atmosphere, especially through burning of fossil fuels and increasing greenhouse gases, thereby interfering with the ability of the planet to radiate heat to space.”. Thereafter the paper addresses all valid radiative issues EXCEPT CO2s role in here. Second paper by Matus and L’Ecuyer 2017 entitled “The Role of cloud phase in Earths Radiation budget” with another token sentence in the Introduction:”Furthermore, mixed-phase clouds may have an even greater role in a future climate as increasing greenhouse gas concentrations are expected to change not only the spatial coverage of mixed-phase clouds but also their ice-liquid partitioning”-thereafter not a single comment on whether/how CO2 acts according to this sentence. Significant or not?
But no evidence that CO2 contributes 10% to the DWIR. All the data I have seen can put Trenberth et als Energy budget of back radiation of 340.3W/m2 (due to GHGs) and only 29.9W/m2 emitted by clouds, to sleep, to be forgotten. Not to mention these clearly incorrect energy budgets minor forcings of convection (18.4W/m2) and latent heat of 86.4W/m2.
Reply
WhoKoo
| #
Without the CO2 hypothesis introduction tokenism the scientists would have begun suffering “rejection abuse syndrome”.
Dan Paulson
| #
Norman,
Your supposed “actual” measured energy values are NOT physical measurements. Do us all a favor and learn how these instruments are actually calibrated and used. The results are rendered, using complicated math based on the SB constant. The actual physical measurement of upwelling LWR s a small fraction of the numbers produced. The downwelling LWR is therefore the product of netting the rendered upwelling radiation and the rendered downwelling radiation.
Reply
James McGinn
| #
Geraint:
I can show that CO2 does not warm, so why cant they show the opposite. Why not, BECAUSE THEY ARE LYING AND THEY KNOW THEY ARE LYING. So therefore I intend to write to many politicians and fake scientists asking for this direct hard proof.
Norman:
There is considerable proof of a real GHE.
Richard:
The reality is, Norman, that the longest, largest, increase in life, ever, on earth was during the Cambrian period that lasted millions of years when the CO2 levels were 15 x todays levels.
Norman:
Thanks for the information. I was aware of this. But it is not what I am saying.
James McGinn:
So, Norman, let me get this straight. Here you admit/convey/declare that you are aware that the premise that a causal link between atmospheric CO2 and atmospheric warming has never been demonstrated empirically. But you don’t want to talk about this, do you?
Answer my question, you evasive, lying POS.
Superstition and half-baked theory dominate the atmospheric sciences. Currently meteorological theories on atmospheric flow and storms maintain three superstitious and half-baked notions: 1) Convection. This is the superstition that evaporation makes air buoyant enough to power strong updrafts in the atmosphere (included in this is the strange belief that H2O in the atmosphere becomes gaseous at temperatures/pressures that have never been detected in a laboratory); 2) Dry layer capping. This is a superstition that imagines dry layers having structural properties that explain the how/why convection does not constantly produce storms and uplift; 3) Latent heat. This is the superstition that phase changes from a gaseous phase of H2O (which are purported to exist despite never having been detected and being inconsistent with what is indicated in the H2O phase table) to a liquid phase releases “latent heat” which itself has never been confirmed/verified.
In accordance with which, the current meteorological paradigm assumes hurricanes are caused by warm water. Actually the energy of hurricanes and all storms comes from jet streams and is delivered through vortices in the form of low pressure. Wind shear at low altitudes is the most important predictor of severe weather. This is because wind shear is the mechanism underlying growth of the vortices that are the transport mechanism of the low pressure energy. Warm moist air/water is not the source of the energy of storms, it’s the target of vortice growth.
The ‘Missing Link’ of Meteorology’s Theory of Storms
http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=16329
James McGinn / Solving Tornadoes
Reply
Norman
| #
James McGinn
Sorry you are too irrational to attempt a rational debate with. You make up hair-brained ideas that are wrong and act like you know what you are talking about.
YOUR irrational statement easily proven wrong by visual evidence: “1) Convection. This is the superstition that evaporation makes air buoyant enough to power strong updrafts in the atmosphere (included in this is the strange belief that H2O in the atmosphere becomes gaseous at temperatures/pressures that have never been detected in a laboratory); ”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_vfSs9-4OmM
I think you need to take a break on posting and learn how to think logically.
YOU: ” 2) Dry layer capping. This is a superstition that imagines dry layers having structural properties that explain the how/why convection does not constantly produce storms and uplift;”
The only thing you prove your ridiculous statements is that you are a deluded crackpot that likes to make up things and think they are real. There is medication for this you know.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MPsASCQQmCA
Reply
James McGinn
| #
YOUR irrational statement easily proven wrong by visual evidence: “1) Convection. This is the superstition that evaporation makes air buoyant enough to power strong updrafts in the atmosphere (included in this is the strange belief that H2O in the atmosphere becomes gaseous at temperatures/pressures that have never been detected in a laboratory); ”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_vfSs9-4OmM
That’s a cloud, moron. That is not an experiment. It is an observation.
The fact that you can imagine that being the result of convection doesn’t mean it is. You are a genuine moron.
I think you need to take a break on posting and learn how to think logically.
YOU: ” 2) Dry layer capping. This is a superstition that imagines dry layers having structural properties that explain the how/why convection does not constantly produce storms and uplift;”
The only thing you prove your ridiculous statements is that you are a deluded crackpot that likes to make up things and think they are real. There is medication for this you know.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MPsASCQQmCA
LOL. You got nothing, you lying POS.
Meteorology’s storm theory is phoney nonsense, just like global warming.
You got nothing, you lying POS.
Listen to thi:
https://anchor.fm/james-mcginn/episodes/Meteorology-has-failed-to-understand-storms-e91i9b
James McGinn / Solving Tornadoes
Reply
Norman
| #
James McGinn
You are a total lunatic devoid of even simple reasoning ability.
Yes the cloud is an observation and yes it clearly shows convection. Since you are a lunatic, irrational it appears attempting to reason with you is a wasted effort. Keep posting your ignorant ideas. See if anyone is dumb enough to believe them. I am sure you will convince a couple of people. The rest will consider you a lunatic and ignore the rantings of a madman. You seem somewhat belligerent for a lunatic, maybe you need counseling. You are getting upset with people who tell you the truth.
Reply
Geraint Hughes
| #
Someone get Norman some meds, he needs help.
James McGinn
| #
Norman:
James McGinn, you are a total lunatic devoid of even simple reasoning ability. Yes the cloud is an observation and yes it clearly shows convection.
James McGinn:
I doesn’t show convection. It shows a cloud moving. Nobody in the history of mankind has ever linked clouds to convection with any evidence. Just conjecture.
It’s all based on believing morons who have very little understanding of physical principles. Yes, meteorologists are morons in regard to real physics. Do you believe the words of morons? Apparently you do.
Convection is belief based. It is a matter of faith. It’s propaganda. It is no different than the belief that CO2 heats the atmosphere. It’s blatant pseudoscience.
Norman:
Since you are a lunatic, irrational it appears attempting to reason with you is a wasted effort. Keep posting your ignorant ideas. See if anyone is dumb enough to believe them. I am sure you will convince a couple of people. The rest will consider you a lunatic and ignore the rantings of a madman. You seem somewhat belligerent for a lunatic, maybe you need counseling. You are getting upset with people who tell you the truth.
James McGinn:
LOL. You got nothing, you lying POS. Also, you never answered my questions, you evasive jackass.
James McGinn / Genius
What You Don’t get about science and truth
http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=17161
Norman
| #
James McGinn
You are not a moron, just a belligerent crackpot who makes up garbage ideas (need to be thrown in the trashcan) and thinks he knows things. I know you can make up bad ideas, that is all I have seen from your ridiculous posts.
Lunatic idea! “Convection is belief based. It is a matter of faith. It’s propaganda. It is no different than the belief that CO2 heats the atmosphere. It’s blatant pseudoscience.”
NO! it is actually a simple thing to verify with multiple experiments. Only a complete deluded crackpot would post our nonsense.
Here is a simple experiment you can do to prove how loony your ideas really are. Not sure if you are proud of being a crackpot. I doubt reality will have much effect upon your state. Here is an attempt.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VooYmwTLVgY
There are many more experiments to show convection.
James McGinn
| #
Norman:
Lunatic idea! “Convection is belief based. It is a matter of faith. It’s propaganda. It is no different than the belief that CO2 heats the atmosphere. It’s blatant pseudoscience.” NO! it is actually a simple thing to verify with multiple experiments. Only a complete deluded crackpot would post our nonsense.
James McGinn:
Uh, yeah, hot air goes up. So, fire produces hot air. Where is the fire in the cloud video? Why are storms cold. You are a moron because you would have to be a moron to think that fire from a candle is analogous to storm clouds.
Norman:
Here is a simple experiment you can do to prove how loony your ideas really are. Not sure if you are proud of being a crackpot. I doubt reality will have much effect upon your state. Here is an attempt.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VooYmwTLVgY There are many more experiments to show convection.
James McGinn:
This isn’t an experiment, you moron. You are just one of many dull-witted science groupies who believes plainly stupid things.
James McGinn / Genius
http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=16329&start=150#p119465
Humans are delusional about H2O. And this delusion results in the following: 1) humans generally believe that H2O is simple and obvious and, 2) humans believe that our understanding of H2O is comprehensive and accurate, both in science and in general. The reality is that neither of these are true. Neither of these is remotely true. H2O is extremely complex and poorly understood by science. Currently there exists over 70 anomalies of H2O. That is 70 different observations about H2O (under various conditions) that are inconsistent with or completely unpredicted by theory. However, human delusion runs so deep that the meaning of anomaly has been altered in the context of H2O to essentially serve as an excuse for why theories of H2O fail to explain what is actually observed.
James McGinn
| #
Norman:
Yes the cloud is an observation and yes it clearly shows convection.
James:
You don’t see convection, moron. You see movement. The fact that meteorological morons put the label “convection” on it is meaningless.
Movement in the atmosphere is caused by vortice activity.
James McGinn / Solving Tornadoes
http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=16329&start=255#p122459
Jet streams are conduits that tunnel through the friction and general incoherence of the gases in the atmosphere to balance out what would otherwise be some extremes of heat/high pressures and cold/low pressures. Constructed from layers of spinning microdroplets of H2O with maximized surface tension, jet streams are a consequence of the principle that maximization of the surface area of H2O maximizes the tensional forces of H2O. These conduits emerge along moist dry wind shear boundaries, especially those associated with the extensive, flat boundary between the top of the troposphere and the bottom of the stratosphere, prime conditions for wind shear. The ensuing vortices of surface tension maximized spinning microdroplets provide a slick hydrophobic inner surface that channels moist air at speeds up to 300 mph.
Vance Lunn
| #
I agree with the author here. However, a little Devil’s advocate: How do you refute the condition of Venus? I love to study the planets, but every book and article on Venus forces me to endure a stupid lecture on global warming, as if me driving a car is going to turn Earth into a lead melting furnace like Venus. Do the extremely high amounts of CO2 in Venus’ atmosphere have that effect, or is it actually something else that caused Venus’ runaway warming?
Reply
Andy Rowlands
| #
I believe the reason Venus is so hot is firstly it’s much close to the Sun that we are, it’s very thick atmosphere has an atmospheric pressure is much greater than we have. Mars also has a high concentration of CO2, but it’s very cold, it’s atmosphere is very thin and has a very low pressure. Atmospheric pressure is a significant factor in atmospheric temperature.
Reply
Zoe Phin
| #
Venus is hot due to its geothermal energy. High temperatures create thick atmospheres with high pressure.
Reply
Ddwieland
| #
Isn’t another reason for Venus to be hot is its mass? Its stronger gravitational field means greater atmospheric pressure and density, which increases thermal capacity. The high percentage of carbon dioxide, which has a considerably higher molecular weight than oxygen and nitrogen, also increases thermal capacity.
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Ddwieland,
The fact that Venus has an atmosphere 100 times the size of Earth’s and no magnetic field to protect the atmosphere from the stronger solar winds would indicate that it has a stronger gravitational field. Unfortunately since it has less mass than the Earth people cannot accept this evidence and cling to the belief that gravity is a function of mass not energy.
Reply
Geraint Hughes
| #
Buy my book , I explain Venus with ease. https://www.amazon.co.uk/Black-Dragon-Breaking-Frizzle-Frazzle/dp/1949267008
Reply
Norman Grinvalds
| #
This IR proof of GHE is intended for the rational people who might post here (yes Jerry Krause that would be you, a fellow chemist).
JDHuffman will not understand it and will not be able to follow the math or logic that demonstrates it.
I will keep it simple to just two graphs. One of the measured total solar energy reaching a meter of ground in a desert location in summer. The other would be the measured upwelling IR (the amount of energy the surface continuously loses).
https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/webdata/tmp/surfrad_5dd07d328c910.png
Graph one is the total solar input being received by the surface it is the NET of total solar minus that which is reflected by the surface and not absorbed.
Using the equation of a parabola which this graph closely approximates you have your total joules that reach the surface in 24 hours as:
Joules = 2/3 X (Height) 800 joules/second X Base(14 hours of solar energy X 3600 seconds)
Joules =26,880,000 (approximately)
Now the Upwelling IR at the same location:
https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/webdata/tmp/surfrad_5dd07dc865954.png
You break this one up. There is a rough parabola for about 13 hours with a peak of 700 Watts/m^2 So one portion of energy lost by the meter would be 21,840,000 joules, this covers a 13 hour increment. The rest kind of flat-lines for 11 hours around 450 Watts/m^2
or another 11,880,000 joules. In the total 24 hour period the surface is losing a total of 21,840,000 + 11,880,000 joules or 33,720,000 joules.
So you can see that the solar input to a square meter of surface in 24 hours at 26,880,000 is less than 33,720,000 joules. The solar input cannot sustain the observed upwelling IR. With the GHE (Downwelling IR) you have the added energy needed to sustain this. You actually have more but the other heat loss mechanisms remove the excess from the surface (convection and evaporation and some conduction)
Not sure how to make it any more clear than reality. Only if you remove the glasses that keep you in the dark will you be able to see the simple truth. A reality based upon actual measurements not made up physics.
Reply
Zoe Phin
| #
Norman,
“With the GHE (Downwelling IR) you have the added energy needed to sustain this.”
GHE does not add energy. The energy comes from geothermal. There is no Downwelling IR.
https://phzoe.wordpress.com/2019/11/11/why-up-is-not-down/
Reply
Norman
| #
Zoe Phin
And you are completely wrong. It does not seem reason will appeal to you. As with the crackpot James McGinn you can keep posting your fake physics. It won’t convince anyone and but yourself and a couple of people who don’t know any science. Yes downwelling IR exists. You are incorrect. No geothermal is not what is responsible for the surface temperature. I told you to dig down about 10 feet where you live and tell me heat is moving upward from that level to the surface. You need to really give it up. Go back and relearn the physics you took. You are really far off on your correct understanding. When you make up your own ideas you can believe any of it is correct. Thankfully science is not built upon this silly notion.
Reply
Zoe Phin
| #
Norman,
“Dig down a few feet into the Earth (maybe 10 feet) and put a thermometer down there and record the temperature. You will find a colder reading than the surface.”
Yeah, for half the year that will be the case.
https://images.slideplayer.com/14/4213487/slides/slide_46.jpg
On average, there is barely any change. The only change is actually 0.09 W/m^2 * 10 meters – about 0.1 W/m^2 warmer as you move down.
Even you claim geotthermal heat flux is positive (except for water due to density characteristics), so how could it get colder going down? That would mean a negative geothermal flux.
Reply
Norman
| #
Zoe Phin
Two for you. This one goes with your graph.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geothermal_energy
“In addition to the internal heat flows, the top layer of the surface to a depth of 10 meters (33 ft) is heated by solar energy during the summer, and releases that energy and cools during the winter.”
The region of your graph is controlled by solar input.
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1029/2000GL012238
This is how they determine the geothermal flux at the surface.
It comes to an average of around 0.108 W/m^2. This is not enough energy to do much at all to surface temperature. Your conclusions are not very good. I think you might want to erase your geothermal convictions and start again. Learn how the GHE works and why it works. Don’t make up your own unsupported notions of EMR but read what is actually known about it.
Yes you can have a positive geothermal flux but it makes very little difference at the the surface except in isolated regions like volcanoes, thermal ducts, hot springs. Very small and localized effects. An insignificant player.
Zoe Phin
| #
Norman,
“This is how they determine the geothermal flux at the surface.
It comes to an average of around 0.108 W/m^2. This is not enough energy to do much at all to surface temperature. Your conclusions are not very good.”
You’re still committing the heat flux fallacy.
https://i.ibb.co/YhNq3Jq/postmafallacy.png
“The region of your graph is controlled by solar input.”
And the average of that control is: no control.
Herb Rose
| #
Zoe,
The make believe photon was created with no mass by Einstein. An object with mass cannot reach the speed of light. An object with no mass must travel at the speed of light. In order for light to bend Einstein changed the definition of 0 so that 0 times a real big amount is not 0. The photon is a load of crap. Light is a wave. If a photon has size and mass how can light from all directions go through the same point without colliding?
Your whole concept of physic is based on your belief in your own infallibility, which like your physics has no basis in reality.
geran
| #
Norman, once again you can’t understand the links you find.
The upwelling graph obviously has some problems. That level of flux would indicate a surface temperature of over 140 ºF! You would need the actual spectra to evaluate what was going on. You just want to believe the sky is heating the surface, but that fairy tale evaporates when you look at the UWIR at night time.
You have no clue.
Reply
Norman
| #
Geran
The upwelling graph has no problems. It is the temperature of the hot surface in the desert. The surface is much hotter than the air temperature above as conduction in air is not an effective heat transfer mechanism. Air is mostly an insulator and heat moves very slowly upward from it.
https://www.jstor.org/stable/2255549?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents
See how hot the surface temperature is for this location.
This one is even better as it has a direct measurement of surface temperature and air temperature above the surface.
https://pages.mtu.edu/~scarn/teaching/GE4250/mildrexler_BAMS11_HottestSpot.pdf
Temperature of the soil was 160.7 F. The air 4 feet above this was measured at 108.5 F.
The instruments are reading the IR given off by the surface and not measuring IR given off by the air.
Reply
Zoe Phin
| #
Norman
https://s.campbellsci.com/documents/ca/product-brochures/cgr3_cgr4_br.pdf
A pyrgeometet measures net flux between INCOMING and OUTGOING.
The incoming is from the surface upwards to the instrument. The outgoing is from the instrument to the atmosphere!
Yet you are claiming that there is TWO INCOMING!
“Temperature of the soil was 160.7 F. The air 4 feet above this was measured at 108.5 F.”
Yes! The surface is heating the atnosphere.
From my link:
“A pyrgeometer provides a voltage that is proportional to
the radiation exchange between the instrument and the sky
(or ground) in its field of view. The detector signal output
can be positive or negative.
For example, if the sky is colder than the pyrgeometer, the
instrument radiates energy to the sky and the output is
negative.”
Reply
Norman
| #
Zoe Phin
You might want to reread your link and look at others as well. The direction the instrument is placed is what determines which IR flux is detected. If pointed toward the surface the IR from the surface hits the internal sensor and causes an effect that can be calculated into an energy flux. If pointed to the sky only the downwelling IR can enter the sensor and cause a change in the sensor. These devices do not have IR windows on both top and bottom. They have only one IR window and whichever way you point this window is the IR flux you will measure. When the window is pointing skyward, the IR from the surface is totally absorbed by the instrument casing. No surface IR reaches the IR sensor inside the unit. This energy just becomes part of the temperature of the internal sensor and is used in the calculation to produce the downwelling IR flux.
Zoe Phin
| #
Norman,
No you did not read the link.
“Net Long-wave radiometer
Net long-wave radiation can be calculated using two pyrge-
ometers, one looking up and one looking down. The CGR 3 is
especially designed so that two instruments can be mounted
base-to-base and fitted with the optional mounting rod. In
this case the temperature of the pyrgeometers is the same and
is irrelevant for the net radiation calculation.”
If you put the instrument upside-down, nothing changes. The surgace heats the “top” and the “bottom” heats the atmosphere.
The sensor emits in accordance to its temperature. There is no way to prevent that. Just because it’s pointing at the sky doesn’t mean it stops emitting at the sky. You can call this emission “Downwelling” if you like, but in reality it’s the device emitting from hot to cold, and never from cold to hot while hot emits nothing.
Norman
| #
Zoe Phin
You have your understanding of radiant physics wrong. Probably from some phony you read on a blog. Both the atmosphere and the surface emit. There is not a one way emission. Two plates at different temperatures are both emitting IR based upon their temperatures and property of the surface (which emissivity factor covers in the equations). Yes cold objects emit to hotter ones. They do not stop emitting just because a hotter object is present. Your physics is really wacko if you would stop a really deeply think about it. Not sure you will.
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/thermo/seclaw.html#c1
On this link please read this: “It is important to note that when it is stated that energy will not spontaneously flow from a cold object to a hot object, that statement is referring to net transfer of energy. Energy can transfer from the cold object to the hot object either by transfer of energetic particles or electromagnetic radiation, but the net transfer will be from the hot object to the cold object in any spontaneous process. Work is required to transfer net energy to the hot object.”
This is the same thing all textbooks state. No valid science textbook makes any other claim nor is there a logical reason to make such claims. Think about what produces EMR.
Net energy flows from hot to cold. It is just because a hot object emits more energy than a cold one. So if you have a hot object and a cold one both exchange energy with each other. The hot object exchanges more energy than the cold one so its temperature drops while the cold one absorbs more energy than it emits and it warms up. It is that simple and the other claims world really require exotic physics such that the presence of a hot object would stop a colder surface from radiating. Just does not work that way. As long as you believe this false physics you will not correctly understand the truth of the issue. I am hoping for you.
Zoe Phin
| #
Norman,
There is no two-way energy flows.
You’re confusing an abstract concept of radiating potentials with energy flows.
Planck never detected colder energy emitting to his cavity. Only heat flowing FROM the cavity.
You can quote as many people who are wrong as you want. They all rely Planck, and Planck made no such observation.
But if you want to think abstractly, there is negative downwelling IR.
Negative and Down = Up
There is only abstract negative downwelling, no positive downwelling, i.e. the source heats positively upward, and not the sink positively downward.
Zoe Phin
| #
Norman,
Your link has nothing to do with two-way energy flows.
Here is a better link:
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/thermo/stefan.html#c2
“While the typical situation envisioned here is the radiation from a hot object to its cooler surroundings, the Stefan-Boltzmann law is not limited to that case. If the surroundings are at a higher temperature (TC > T) then you will obtain a negative answer, implying net radiative transfer to the object.”
James McGinn
| #
Norman (to Zoe):
You have your understanding of radiant physics wrong.
James McGinn:
Yes, Zoe is confused on this.
Norman:
Two plates at different temperatures are both emitting IR based upon their temperatures and property of the surface (which emissivity factor covers in the equations). Yes cold objects emit to hotter ones. They do not stop emitting just because a hotter object is present.
James McGinn:
You are absolutely correct. Zoe is wrong. So are many others on this issue.
Norman:
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/thermo/seclaw.html#c1
On this link please read this: “It is important to note that when it is stated that energy will not spontaneously flow from a cold object to a hot object, that statement is referring to net transfer of energy. Energy can transfer from the cold object to the hot object either by transfer of energetic particles or electromagnetic radiation, but the net transfer will be from the hot object to the cold object in any spontaneous process. Work is required to transfer net energy to the hot object.”
James McGinn:
Yes, and let me assure you, they will never change. Humans believe deeply in all kinds of stupid shit. Just like you will never stop believing that observation of movement in clouds is an observation that confirms convection these morons will never stop believing their one way nonsense.
Many scientific disciplines take full advantage of this shortcoming of the human intellect. You see, here’s the thing. Many humans can’t tell the difference between an analogy and empirical evidence. So, many psuedoscientific disciplines (both meteorology and climatology are largely devoted to pseudoscience) have resorted to using models based on analogies and blatant oversimplifications which they represent as robust, well tested theories. Convection model of storm theory isn’t a theory or even a hypothesis. It’s nothing but an analogy to a pot boiling on a stove. Another example of a BS analogy standing in for real science is the “greenhouse” effect.
The unfortunate reality is that much of science has been dumbed down to appeal to what the public wants to believe. It’s especially bad in the geographic sciences, like meteorology and climatology, because geography does not have the empirical tradition that we see in subdisciplines whose roots are physics and chemistry.
Norman:
As long as you believe this false physics you will not correctly understand the truth of the issue.
James McGinn:
Right. If you believe nonsense you are blocked from understanding truth. And humans are incredibly gullible and if you try to get them to discuss the lack of support for their obviously stupid beliefs they just change the subject–exactly like you are doing here.
The fact is, you lying POS, you absolutely failed to explain why you believe CO2 causes global warming.
You still got nothing!!!
James McGinn / Genius
http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=16329&start=360#p125466
I discovered the empirical shortcomings of meteorology after I discovered them in climatology. My reasoning was very simple. Knowing that the origins of climatology are in meteorology, I reasoned that if AGW is as bad as it appears then meteorology must also have skeletons in its closet. So I did something that nobody has done before, I looked at the convection model of storm theory with scrutiny. I found numerous fatal flaws and I found that meteorologists have long ago established a tradition of ignoring these fatal flaws.
My point is that you/we cannot defeat a conversational science based on empiricism because conversational sciences are based on allegories that appeal to the base sensations of the public. The only way to defeat a conversational science is to reveal it as such to the public. And the best way to reveal it to the public is to start with meteorology since this is the spring from which it sprang (or is it sprung?). The conversational tradition is the problem and its roots are in meteorology, not climatology.
Zoe Phin
| #
“Norman:
Two plates at different temperatures are both emitting IR based upon their temperatures and property of the surface (which emissivity factor covers in the equations). Yes cold objects emit to hotter ones. They do not stop emitting just because a hotter object is present.
James McGinn:
You are absolutely correct. Zoe is wrong. So are many others on this issue.”
No, James, I’m not wrong.
Radiation exerts a pressure. Pressure can move an object a distance.
If rafiation pressure from H (hot) is greater than radiation pressure from C (cold), then the photons from H “beats back” photons from C, until C doesn’t emit any photons in the direction of H.
A stronger force (pressure/area) beats a weaker force and drives it back home … essentially the weaker force never leaves the house.
I don’t know why people have suvh trouble understanding photon pressure.
Norman
| #
Zoe Phin
Maybe read this:
https://www.englishforums.com/English/NetEffect/zhmqv/post.htm
After taking the time to read this read your link again.
Note the words “net radiative transfer”. This clearly means all the energy transfer. The hotter surroundings are transferring more energy to the object than the object is transferring to the surroundings so the “net effect” is a heat loss from the surroundings to the object. The result is negative because the object is gaining energy and warming. I fail to see how this disproves a two-way transfer of radiant energy. Photons do not act like solid objects, they move through each other.
Also in most kinetic energy interactions with solid objects you still get a two-way energy exchange.
Look at these:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elastic_collision
Look at the little graphics. They have a “head-on” collision. The higher energy block transfers its energy to the slower moving block, but the slower moving block in turn transfers its energy to the faster moving block. A two-way exchange of energy. It is the norm not the exception. The only time you have only a one way exchange of energy is if one block is not moving or a surface is at absolute zero and emitting zero radiant energy. The one-way energy transfer is the exception not the rule.
James McGinn
| #
Zoe:
If radiation pressure from H (hot) is greater than radiation pressure from C (cold), then the photons from H “beats back” photons from C, until C doesn’t emit any photons in the direction of H. A stronger force (pressure/area) beats a weaker force and drives it back home … essentially the weaker force never leaves the house.
James:
Uh, so, Zoe, other than amongst this ideologically motivated, narrow-minded collective of retired and retiring engineers here on PSI, is there anybody else on the planet earth that agrees with your characterization here that photons “can’t leave the house”?
One more thing. Can you provide more details on how photons, according to you, bully each other around?
Maybe on your website you can write an article describing the details of how larger photons boss around smaller photons. If nothing else I’m sure your description will be very entertaining.
You know it’s never too late to return to school and get a real eduation.
James McGinn / Genius
http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=16329&start=360#p123034
The sheath of a tornado is a form of surface tension. It is a plasma of spinning, churning H2O molecules. It has structural strength and a surface—common characteristics of plasmas. But the origin of this strength doesn’t involve the forces associated with ionic bonds, as is the case with most plasmas. Instead this is a kind of plasma that involves the forces associated with hydrogen bonds. I thought of it as surface tension that is expressed in three dimensions—surface tension on steroids!
conjectured that hydrogen bonds must be distinctive from covalent or ionic bonds in that with hydrogen bonds the force that creates the bond must be deactivated by the bond itself. And so, whereas with a covalent bond or an ionic bond the force that brings them together remains, with hydrogen bonds the force that brings them together is deactivated–neutralized. Accordingly, the fewer bonds that an H2O molecule shares with other H2O molecules the stronger are these bonds. Conversely, the greater were the number of bonds an H2O molecule shared with other H2O molecules the weaker were these bonds—all the way down to having zero strength when fully bonded.
Norman
| #
Zoe Phin
Your understanding of EMR is very wrong and misleads you to incorrect conclusions. Yes light will exert pressure on solid objects, it is energy. It does not exchange energy with itself. You have a completely wrong understanding of light energy and how it behaves. It might do you good to learn your errors and correct them.
Read this, it will educate you on light and how it interacts with itself.
https://physics.info/standard/
Zoe Phin
| #
James,
Take two pressurized water hoses. Make them face each other and enclose that in a very rigid tube.
Turn them on so that one is stronger than the other. Soon, the weaker one will not be emitting any water because the stronger one will have put its water back in its place.
Photona have mass and radius. They must be similar to rigid objects.
James McGinn
| #
Zoe:
Take two pressurized water hoses. Make them face each other and enclose that in a very rigid tube.
James McGinn:
Zoe, this is the kind of retarded analogy that has turned science into a cartoon (ie. “greenhouse effect, convection model of storms, dry layer capping, latent heat)..
If you can’t refer to known laws of thermodynamics to make your point then I suggest you find another hobby before you further embarrass yourself.
James McGinn / Solving Tornadoes
http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=16329&start=165#p122167
The ‘plasma’ of my model is novel, unfamiliar and, therefore, hard to accept. But that is the case for any scientific discovery. Alfred Wegener proposed continental drift in 1912. It took geologists 50 years to warm up to the idea. Now, however, when you look at a map of the southern Atlantic ocean the congruence of the eastern and western shorelines jumps out at you. When it came to deducing the molecular composition of atmospheric vortices and arriving at the conjecture that they contained wind shear generated, rapidly spinning polymers of H2O, I feel that I had a huge advantage that allowed me to avoid a common misassumption that traps others. I knew that the sheath of the tornado must involve some kind of molecular distinction.
These principles prevented me from making the common error of casually assuming that the molecular composition of tornadoes was the same as that of air and/or moist air. I’ve encountered a number of other tornado theorists and it is very common for them to casually assume that a tornado is just fast spinning air. They don’t take into account the fact that the sheath needed to possess the ability to resist itself from casually mixing with the surrounding air molecules. In other words, my principles of entitiness allowed me to realize that tornadoes could not persist as entities if the molecules that comprise the sheath of the tornado did not possess some kind of internal resilience greater than that of just air. Otherwise the molecules in the sheath would casually mix with those outside the sheath and the tornado would not have persistence.
geran
| #
Thanks for confirming my comment Norman. Of course that also confirms that you were wrong.
Hilarious.
Reply
Norman
| #
Geran
Exactly how would my comment confirm I am wrong? You can post more than a few words. You can elaborate if you want, I will not get freaked out by a longer post that has meaningful information.
geran
| #
Norman, why can’t you figure anything out for yourself?
Here’s what I said: “That level of flux would indicate a surface temperature of over 140 ºF! You would need the actual spectra to evaluate what was going on. You just want to believe the sky is heating the surface, but that fairy tale evaporates when you look at the UWIR at night time.”
Then you responded: “See how hot the surface temperature is for this location. Temperature of the soil was 160.7 F”
I said over 140 ºF, and you confirmed what I said.
And, you avoided your other problem of what happens at sunset. You’re just wrong again.
Norman
| #
Geran
The problem here is your claim of what I said is not valid.
YOU: “You just want to believe the sky is heating the surface, but that fairy tale evaporates when you look at the UWIR at night time.”
I do not claim the sky is “heating” the surface. That is your incorrect interpretation. The sky is adding energy to the surface but at a rate less than the surface loses energy. It is the combination (which you will not accept for some reason) of solar energy plus the downwelling IR that allow the surface to reach the higher temperature and radiate away more energy than the Sun alone provides. If you get the semantics correct your error in logic fades away the same you think the GHE goes away at night. It does not even if you believe it does.
Zoe Phin
| #
Norman,
“It is the combination (which you will not accept for some reason) of solar energy plus the downwelling IR that allow the surface to reach the higher temperature ”
If you deny geothermal, only the sun can warm the atmosphere. To warm the atmosphere, the sun-warmed surface must cool.
“The sky is adding energy to the surface but at a rate less than the surface loses energy.”
Actually you claim the atmosphere heats 236 vs the sun’s 164. You then double count the sun – which heated the atmosphere by cooling the surface, then you tack on another fudge factor to match 390.
Zoe Phin
| #
Norman,
If you put a pyrgeometer on top of a 400 °F hot plate, you will then stupidly think that it is the sky that suddenly raised its “Downwelling” IR to extreme levels. Don’t be ridiculuous.
Zoe Phin
| #
Norman,
“Yes light will exert pressure on solid objects, it is energy. It does not exchange energy with itself.”
Energy is force times distance. Pressure is force over area. Force is mass times acceleration. Energy makes things move. Photons have mass and radius and so they can be moved.
“Note the words “net radiative transfer””
A pdf search reveals you fabricated words that don’t exist in the text.
They do use the term “net”, but it’s different than yours. Their net is the difference between Upwelling IR and Upwelling-from-instrument IR. Their net is how much energy is sucked up by the instrument. Their net is not referring in any way to the minimally two two-way radiative exchanges that you hypothesize must exist at the top and bottom of the instrument.
Reply
jerry krause
| #
Hi Norman,
I know there a multitude of observations to support: “The surface is much hotter than the air temperature above as conduction in air is not an effective heat transfer mechanism. Air is mostly an insulator and heat moves very slowly upward from it.”
But I am curious what is your explanation that ‘vertical convection’ does not quickly carry this hot atmosphere away from the surface.? I have my answer for this but would like to read your answer. Or anyone else’s answer.
It seems the old guys of Spencer’s blog are having a reunion here at PSI and appear to be doing a pretty good job here.
Have a good day,
Reply
geran
| #
Norman, that’s another long hilarious rant, full of your usual hilarious pseudoscience, but you avoided my comment above, which was:
Norman, I’ll let you see if you can find all the things wrong with your own words: ” The Solar input is lower than the amount of energy the surface would radiate without the downwelling energy.”
Avoiding your own words is funny.
More please.
Reply
Norman
| #
JDHuffman
Science is hard for you when you are not able to understand logic and reason and you have about zero math skills. You have the magic solution. Make up your own and pretend. Also don’t forget to look up some words like Poynting Vectors to throw in the mix even though you don’t have the slightest notion of what that means.
Reply
JDHuffman
| #
Norman, I believe I was the first one to mention the Poynting vector to you, not Geran. I say that based on the fact that you had never heard of the Poynting vector, and you still don’t understand it.
Nothing new.
I mentioned the Poynting vector because it is just one of the ways to explain that fluxes can not be added by simple arithmetic. Flux is not a scalar. You couldn’t understand then, and you can’t understand now.
Nothing new.
And, you still confuse me with Geran. You believe that several of us skeptics are all the same person. Life must be so confusing and frustrating for you….
So, keep being confused about everything, it makes for great comedy.
Reply
Norman
| #
Okay Geran .
Reply
richard
| #
Morning Norman-
“More than 232 million people shivered in temperatures of areas 32 degrees (freezing) or lower yesterday morning.
“Freeze warnings continue into the Deep South, with freezing temperatures in Florida this morning,” said CNN meteorologist Dave Hennen yesterday morning.
Crushing 100-year-old records
“Hundreds of cold temperature records have been set over the last few days, including some dating back over a century to 1911,” Hennen said. The freezing temperatures made it as far south as Houston, New Orleans and the Florida Panhandle, he said.
By Thursday morning, the Mid-Atlantic region to Maine could suffer record-low temps, warned CNN meteorologist Michael Guy.
https://www.cnn.com/2019/11/13/us/winter-weather-wednesday/index.html
WhoKoo
| #
Hi Richard..
With those temperatures the CO2 is obviously having an extinction rebellion climate strike and taken the roof off the greenhouse.
Tell that CO2 to “get with the programme” or be sent back to the re-education camp.
(satire)
geran
| #
Richards, poor Norman is immune to facts and logic. He believes he can heat his house with ice cubes.
James McGinn
| #
Geran:
Richards, poor Norman is immune to facts and logic. He believes he can heat his house with ice cubes.
James McGinn:
You are so clueless. It is remarkable that after all this time you still don’t get it. All objects (above absolute zero) emit and absorb radiation constantly. This includes ice cubes. So, both the ice cubes and the house are heating and cooling each other constantly, along with every other object in the universe. The net rate of exchange will be from hotter to cooler and its magnitude will be determined by the physical characteristics (ie. heat capacity and heat conductivity) of the objects.
James McGinn / Genius
http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=16329&start=165#p122133
the plasma in this article is very different from the plasma in my model. The plasma in my model is, actually, a combination of air and nanodroplets of H2O. Or, I should say, that is how it starts out; also, in my model these H2O nanodroplets are spinning very rapidly. The spinning is a consequence of wind shear. (Did you ever wonder why tornadoes are associated with wind shear in the lower troposphere? Well, keep reading.)
geran
| #
Poor James is also immune to facts and logic. But, like Norman, he loves to pound on his keyboard.
Peas in a pod….
james McGinn
| #
Geran:
Poor James is also immune to facts and logic. But, like Norman, he loves to pound on his keyboard.
James:
LOL! You got nothing you lying POS.
James McGinn / Genius
http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=16329&start=75#p114928
Nonsense. This is science, not science fiction. A vortice without a sheath isn’t a vortice. It’s just spinning air that quickly is overwhelmed by chaos and ensuing friction. Without a sheath you have no isolation between the fast-moving air going up the vortice tube and the vortice tube itself. And the sheath had better have a surface (ie. plasma) and internal coherence (ability to maintain a form) or the sheath and the fast-moving air will mix producing chaos and not the highly ordered structure that is plainly observable in a tornado vortice.
Francois Stallbom
| #
Lies and madness here in Australia. Reduce emissions by 50% (WTF is emissions?CO2?). Australia’s “emissions” are 1,5 molecules out of every 100,000 in the atmosphere. Approximately the size of a golf ball in an Olympic swimming pool. The lairs have convinced the sheeple by halving the golf ball they will avoid the current climate emergency.
Reply
Paul Rybak
| #
I must say that this the most amusing reply column I’ve seen in a long time. BTW, I agree with the article.
Reply
Squidly
| #
Hey Norman .. show me how the surface can heat itself. Show me how anything can heat itself .. you’re such an idiot!
Reply
Norman
| #
Squidly
The only obvious point in your post is that you do not understand radiant physics and would not accept anything outside of your cult beliefs. Like talking to a “flat-earth” fanatic. Nothing I can say to you would be able to show you your error of thought.
First of all your point is ludicrous and nonsense. It is clear you are not fully rational by your comment and it seems you are of the type that cannot develop rational thought. You seem to be mired in blind emotional thinking.
Where would you come to the conclusion I stated a surface can heat itself? Since this is a bizarre interpretation of what you believe I stated it does not seem an intelligent discourse with you is possible.
Reply
geran
| #
Norman, is that your usual long-winded answer that you can’t support your belief that something can heat itself?
As usual, there’s no science there, but great humor.
More please.
Reply
james McGinn
| #
Geran:
Norman, is that your usual long-winded answer that you can’t support your belief that something can heat itself?
James McGinn:
Don’t be putting words in people’s mouths, you dishonest, ideologically motivated, nitwit. Norman never stated anything along the lines of something heating itself.
James McGinn / Genius
http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=16329&start=210#p122351
In the 1950s they considered ways to potentially stop or steer a hurricane . . .
I believe hurricanes can be steered and even stopped. And the way to do so involves attacking them where they are most vulnerable, at the boundary layer in the tropopause that is the raw material for the vortices that deliver the energy of storms.
Reply
geran
| #
James, you science-illiterate child, Norman believes the atmosphere returns IR from the surface, back to the surface, thereby raising surface temperatures. IOW, he effectively believes the surface warms itself.
James McGinn
| #
Geran:
Norman believes the atmosphere returns IR from the surface, back to the surface,
James McGinn:
Norman is correct. You are wrong. Sorry. Don’t blame me. I’m just the messenger.
It’s not my fault that you didn’t pay attention when this was explained to you by university teachers. Or, possibly, your university teacher was also confused.
The simple fact, moron, is that all object emit and absorb constantly. This includes clouds! The exchange is always two way. But the net exchange is from hotter to cooler.
You are clueless.
http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=16329&start=150#p117292
One great thing about the internet is that it has a perfect memory. The worst mistake you can make as a science theorist is to allow your own explanation to seduce you into thinking that you understand it better than you actually do. And the reason it is such a fatal error is because you will then, unavoidably, use that as an excuse to ignore evidence that contradicts with your model or ignore evidence that your model fails to explain. (And once you’ve started doing this you have lost the war.) Don’t allow yourself to be so seduced. Always endeavor to find and explicate all contradictory evidence and always explicate why your model should be excused from expaining what it appears to fail to explain. [When you hide, you lose. And there are lots of ways to hide. It’s easy. Meteorologists have been hiding for almost 200 years now.])
geran
| #
Nice try, child, but your deception won’t work. You don’t get to take my words out of context.
Let me help you, Here’s my exact words, with bold for emphasis:
“James, you science-illiterate child, Norman believes the atmosphere returns IR from the surface, back to the surface, thereby raising surface temperatures. IOW, he effectively believes the surface warms itself.”
Remember, it’s “the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth”. But, that’s probably only for adults….
James McGinn
| #
Geran:
You don’t get to take my words out of context.
James McGinn:
I quoted you directly!!! In contrast, you refuse to quote Norman directly. Instead you keep misrepresenting his thoughts with your inaccurate paraphrasing of Norman’s thoughts.
Geran:
Let me help you, Here’s my exact words, with bold for emphasis:
“James, you science-illiterate child, Norman believes the atmosphere returns IR from the surface, back to the surface, thereby raising surface temperatures. IOW, he effectively believes the surface warms itself.”
James McGinn:
You fucking did it again!!! NORMAN NEVER, EVER CLAIMED THAT THE SURFACE TEMPERATURE WAS RAISED (INCREASED) BY THE NET EXCHANGE OF RADIATION. THAT IS YOU DISHONESTLY PUTTING WORDS IN NORMAN’S MOUTH. YOU ARE ONE DESPERATE, IDEOLOGICALLY MOTIVATED, LYING POS.
James McGinn / Solving Tornadoes
http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=16329&start=60#p114924
For example, do you concur with the notion that moist air contains gaseous H2O? Yes? No? Do you dispute my assertion that this notion is nonsense? Yes? No? Undoubtedly we will never know because, like all science pretenders, you are determined to ride the fence, play it safe. And that is too bad. Science isn’t about looking or even being right. It’s about being specific so that if you are wrong you can realize you are wrong when you are wrong. Because realizing you are wrong when you are wrong is the hardest part of any scientific endeavor. More than anything else, science is about defeating your minds desire to take the easy path and just believe.
geran
| #
No child, you took my words out of a sentence. Your purpose was to distort my point. Your desperation gives you away.
What you left out is in bold:
“James, you science-illiterate child, Norman believes the atmosphere returns IR from the surface, back to the surface, thereby raising surface temperatures. IOW, he effectively believes the surface warms itself.”
More desperation, please.
James McGinn
| #
Geran:
James, you science-illiterate child, Norman believes the atmosphere returns IR from the surface, back to the surface, thereby raising surface temperatures. IOW, he effectively believes the surface warms itself.
James:
Geran, you stubborn, dishonest, moron. I don’t know what Norman believes. Nor do you. I only know what he has written.
You got nothing!!!
James McGinn / Solving Tornadoes
http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=16329&start=255#p122459
Jet streams are conduits that tunnel through the friction and general incoherence of the gases in the atmosphere to balance out what would otherwise be some extremes of heat/high pressures and cold/low pressures. Constructed from layers of spinning microdroplets of H2O with maximized surface tension, jet streams are a consequence of the principle that maximization of the surface area of H2O maximizes the tensional forces of H2O. These conduits emerge along moist dry wind shear boundaries, especially those associated with the extensive, flat boundary between the top of the troposphere and the bottom of the stratosphere, prime conditions for wind shear. The ensuing vortices of surface tension maximized spinning microdroplets provide a slick hydrophobic inner surface that channels moist air at speeds up to 300 mph.
geran
| #
Sorry child, but Norman has indicated his beliefs numerous times. That’s all he has, just his beliefs.
Which puts him in your category–wrong most of the time.
Hilarious.
James McGinn
| #
Geran:
Sorry child, but Norman has indicated his beliefs numerous times. That’s all he has, just his beliefs. Which puts him in your category–wrong most of the time.
James McGinn:
Stop putting words in other people’s mouths, moron.
James McGinn / Solving Tornadoes
Superstition and half-baked theory dominate the atmospheric sciences. Currently meteorological theories on atmospheric flow and storms maintain three superstitious and half-baked notions: 1) Convection. This is the superstition that evaporation makes air buoyant enough to power strong updrafts in the atmosphere (included in this is the strange belief that H2O in the atmosphere becomes gaseous at temperatures/pressures that have never been detected in a laboratory); 2) Dry layer capping. This is a superstition that imagines dry layers having structural properties that explain the how/why convection does not constantly produce storms and uplift; 3) Latent heat. This is the superstition that phase changes from a gaseous phase of H2O (which are purported to exist despite never having been detected and being inconsistent with what is indicated in the H2O phase table) to a liquid phase releases “latent heat” which itself has never been confirmed/verified.
In accordance with which, the current meteorological paradigm assumes hurricanes are caused by warm water. Actually the energy of hurricanes and all storms comes from jet streams and is delivered through vortices in the form of low pressure. Wind shear at low altitudes is the most important predictor of severe weather. This is because wind shear is the mechanism underlying growth of the vortices that are the transport mechanism of the low pressure energy. Warm moist air/water is not the source of the energy of storms, it’s the target of vortice growth.
The ‘Missing Link’ of Meteorology’s Theory of Storms
http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=16329
James McGinn / Solving Tornadoes
James McGinn
| #
You idiots with your brain-dead attachment to the plainly wrong notion that radiation (EMR) only travels from hot to cold have made Norman look like a genius in comparison.
Reply
E.N. Tropy
| #
Radiant energy from a lower energy source may travel to and arrive at a higher energy station but it won’t alight. It won’t be absorbed. It’ll just be reflected and continue on its journey until it does arrive at a lower state station.
Reply
James McGinn
| #
E.N. Tropy:
Radiant energy from a lower energy source may travel to and arrive at a higher energy station but it won’t alight. It won’t be absorbed. It’ll just be reflected and continue on its journey until it does arrive at a lower state station.
James McGinn:
Why in the world do you think it wouldn’t be absorbed?
Reply
WhoKoo
| #
Fulluh falls in da water when da water is 3 degrees c. Fulluh dies from da hypothermia widdin 20 minutes.
Fulluh obsorbed nuttin from da lower energy, colder water.
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi WhoKoo,
Water transfers energy by convection/conduction where the kinetic energy of a molecule is shared by collisions. This is the predominate means of energy transfer in the troposphere. Radiating energy is when the movement in or by a molecule creates a disturbance in the electromagnetic field. This energy is transferred to the atoms of a molecule or the entire molecule depending on the length of the electromagnetic waves and the length of the bonds or fields of the molecule. It is the same as how the length of an antenna determines what radio waves it receives.
The 3C water is radiating energy that the human body receives but it is insignificant compared to the energy being lost by conduction.
Herb
geran
| #
Herb, the flux from the 3 ºC cold water would be REFLECTED by the human body at 37 ºC.
Quit trying to confuse issues.
Herb Rose
| #
Geran’
Whether an object reflects, absorbs, or transmits energy depends on the bonds forming the object. The bonds do not change unless the molecule is converted to a different structure. A body that absorbs energy from hot water will also absorb energy from cold water.Energy is not reflected by other energy.which seems to be what you believe. Every object above absolute zero radiates energy and every object absorbs radiated energy.
geran
| #
Wrong again, Herb.
And your pseudoscience is so easy to disprove. Try adding cold water to a bowl of hot water. The temperature of the mix will NEVER go above the original temperature of the hot water.
That’s why you can’t bake a turkey with ice cubes, although ice is emitting energy. And, it’s why a cold sky cannot warm a cold Earth surface.
Now, it’s time for you to be wrong, again….
james McGinn
| #
Geran:
Try adding cold water to a bowl of hot water. The temperature of the mix will NEVER go above the original temperature of the hot water.
James McGinn:
Pay attention, moron. And stop putting words in other people’s mouths you dishonest twit. Nobody said the temperature would go up, you lying POS.
James McGinn / Genius
http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=16329&start=120#p115048
Here is an interesting concept that might get you back on the right track and into the right frame of mind. Did you know that the instant before water that is being heated in an enclosed container (as in a steam engine, for example) flashes into steam it goes through a phase (maybe no longer than a billionth of a second) in which it is as hard or harder than ice? When you understand why this is the case you will also understand why it is totally impossible for evaporation (at ambient temperatures) to produce gaseous H2O.
geran
| #
Well child, if you now admit that cold water cannot raise the temperature of cold water, and you cannot bake a turkey with ice cubes, and the cold sky cannot warm Earth surface, then you’ve learned something.
Glad to help.
James McGinn
| #
Geran:
Herb, the flux from the 3 ºC cold water would be REFLECTED by the human body at 37 ºC.
James:
Surreal. You still don’t get it. All object emit and absorb radiation from all objects constantly. The difference is the rate at which they do these things which is dependent on their temperature and other thermal characteristics like density, heat capacity, heat conductivity.
James McGinn / Genius
http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=16329&start=165#p122186
“McGinn’s discovery of vortice plasma was not that big of a deal. He didn’t do any experiments or make any original observations. In other words, he didn’t discover any of the pieces of the puzzle. All he did was correctly interpret the pieces of the puzzle–something that would have happened anyway–and then he put the puzzle together. No big deal.”
geran
| #
Very good James.
And that is why a cold sky cannot raise the temperature of a warmer surface.
Now, don’t forget.
James McGinn
| #
Squidly:
Hey Norman .. show me how the surface can heat itself. Show me how anything can heat itself .. you’re such an idiot!
James McGinn:
Don’t be putting words in people’s mouths, you dishonest twit. If you can’t quote people directly, honestly, and politiely stay out of the discussion.
Reply
Matt
| #
This is not discussion. This is abusers abusing genuine contributors and each other and abusing the inheritance left by scientists who honoured and still honour the scientific method.
Human dignity is being despoiled here.
You are making the global warming alarmist orchestrators appear constant and dignified.
Have a nice day. Matt
Reply
James McGinn
| #
James McGinn:
So, Matt, do you think Geran’s tendency to misrepresent other peoples thoughts is dignified?
James McGinn / Genius
http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=16329&start=150#p119465
Humans are delusional about H2O. And this delusion results in the following: 1) humans generally believe that H2O is simple and obvious and, 2) humans believe that our understanding of H2O is comprehensive and accurate, both in science and in general. The reality is that neither of these are true. Neither of these is remotely true. H2O is extremely complex and poorly understood by science. Currently there exists over 70 anomalies of H2O. That is 70 different observations about H2O (under various conditions) that are inconsistent with or completely unpredicted by theory. However, human delusion runs so deep that the meaning of anomaly has been altered in the context of H2O to essentially serve as an excuse for why theories of H2O fail to explain what is actually observed.
Reply
James McGinn
| #
WhoKoo:
Fulluh falls in da water when da water is 3 degrees c. Fulluh dies from da hypothermia widdin 20 minutes. Fulluh obsorbed nuttin from da lower energy, colder water.
James McGinn:
Hmm. Okay, so we have the water, at 3 Celsius. Human body temperature is 37 Celsius. First, let’s convert to Kelvin so we get a sense of their relative temperature. Water is at 310 Kelvin and whereas the water is 276 Kelvin. So, the human is only about 12% hotter than the water.
While the person is in the water the water is radiating and the person is absorbing radiation from the water. At one and the same time the person is radiating and the water is absorbing the radiation. (Note: the magnitude of the exchange is going to be greatly effected by the fact that liquid water has a huge heat capacity and a high rate of conductivity.)
Obviously the person will experience a net loss of energy while the water will experience a net gain. But the exchange is two ways. Always.
James McGinn / Solving Tornadoes
http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=16329&start=360#p123034
The sheath of a tornado is a form of surface tension. It is a plasma of spinning, churning H2O molecules. It has structural strength and a surface—common characteristics of plasmas. But the origin of this strength doesn’t involve the forces associated with ionic bonds, as is the case with most plasmas. Instead this is a kind of plasma that involves the forces associated with hydrogen bonds. I thought of it as surface tension that is expressed in three dimensions—surface tension on steroids!
conjectured that hydrogen bonds must be distinctive from covalent or ionic bonds in that with hydrogen bonds the force that creates the bond must be deactivated by the bond itself. And so, whereas with a covalent bond or an ionic bond the force that brings them together remains, with hydrogen bonds the force that brings them together is deactivated–neutralized. Accordingly, the fewer bonds that an H2O molecule shares with other H2O molecules the stronger are these bonds. Conversely, the greater were the number of bonds an H2O molecule shared with other H2O molecules the weaker were these bonds—all the way down to having zero strength when fully bonded.
Reply
Ed Bo
| #
geran, you say: “a cold sky cannot raise the temperature of a warmer surface.”
Let’s consider the following scenario:
You are outside in the woods on a very cold (-20C) winter day. You do not have heavy enough clothing on, and despite all your body’s compensatory mechanisms, you cannot maintain proper body temperature. Your core temperature has dropped from 37C to 35C. You have hypothermia, and you are in serious trouble.
I see you struggling from my cabin in the woods, and offer to let you come inside to warm up. My cabin is at +20C — nothing in it is warmer than that.
By your logic, since my cabin is still colder than you are, you say “a cold [cabin] cannot raise the temperature of a warmer [body].”
That is the clear implication of your logic. It makes you a prime candidate for a Darwin Award!
Reply
geran
| #
Sorry Ed Bo, but that is a clear implication that you do not understand thermodynamics, heat transfer, or photon absorption.
And likely can’t learn….
Reply
Ed Bo
| #
So you have no answer. Once again, you cannot provide an actual argument, so you just spew invective.
And since you bring up photon absorption… You claim above that all photons emitted by a body at 3C will be reflected by a body at 37C. Let’s consider photons corresponding to a 15um wavelength. What is the mechanism by which a body at 37C will discern between a 15um photon from a body at 3C and reflect it, and a 15um photon from a body at 40C and absorb it.
Please provide a link to a reference supporting your argument so the rest of us can learn from your genius.
Reply
geran
| #
Wrong Ed. I gave you an answer. It is your job to understand it.
A 15 μ photon corresponds to the peak energy from a BB surface at about -80 ºC (-112 ºF). If you believe that will warm a human body at 37 ºC, then you have explained why you can’t understand.
I don’t mind helping you, but first you have to demonstrate respect for truth and reality. Otherwise, I’m just wasting my time.
Reply
Ed Bo
| #
geran:
Plenty of substances at 40C and above emit 15um photons. Do you believe that these photons are absorbed by the human body at 37C? (Human skin is very close to a graybody absorber with 95% absorbtivity across the LWIR spectrum.
If you asserted your (mis)understanding of Wien’s Law in any introductory thermo class, you’d be laughed out of the room!
geran
| #
Ed, you are the one that mentioned the 15 μ photon. I just showed you how little energy it contained. But, here again, you demonstrate no respect for truth or reality.
Instead, you appear to want to pervert reality. Your “freezing in the woods” failed, your 15 μ failed, and now you’re trying a fictitious “thermo class”. Another FAIL.
Learn some physics.
Ed Bo
| #
geran: I keep noting that you are not actually answering any questions. I’ll give you one more chance to demonstrate you are not a total fraud:
Do you believe that 15um photons emitted by bodies at 40C and above can be absorbed by a body at 37C? Simple question…
geran
| #
In a “perfect” situation, no. But in the real world there are bandwidths of absorption. So it might be possible for some lower energy photons to be absorbed, but the net effect would be to lower the average temperature of the absorber.
Now your turn to answer a siimple question: Do you now realize how your “freezing in the woods” nonsense just revealed how little you know about the relevant physics?
Ed Bo
| #
geran, you say: ” the net effect [of a 37C body absorbing 15um radiation from a warmer body] would be to lower the average temperature of the absorber.”
That’s a new low even for you! It is one of the most basic concepts of radiative heat transfer that absorbing a photon increases the energy of the absorbing body by the quantity of energy in the photon. For it to be otherwise would violate the 1st Law of Thermodynamics.
For all your bluster, you still have not even attempted to advance an argument as to why my “freezing in the woods” example reveals ” how little [I] know about the relevant physics.” Why not?
geran
| #
Ed, the “colder” photon adds to total energy, but it does NOT increase the average molecular vibration. So, it does NOT increase the temperature. It’s analogous to adding an ice cube to hot coffee. The total energy in the cup has increased, but the temperature does not.
Learn some physics.
Also, I answered your simple question, but you avoided answering mine.
Hilarious.
James McGinn
| #
Ed Bo:
Do you believe that 15um photons emitted by bodies at 40C and above can be absorbed by a body at 37C? Simple question…
Geran:
In a “perfect” situation, no. But in the real world there are bandwidths of absorption.
James McGinn:
Irrelevant (and outside the context of Ed’s question). Geran, you are supremely confused. The correct answer is, Yes, it can be absorbed.
Geran:
So it might be possible for some lower energy photons to be absorbed, . . .
James McGinn:
It makes absolutely no difference what energy level they are at.
Geran:
. . . but the net effect would be to lower the average temperature of the absorber.
James McGinn:
Right. The net effect after all inputs and outputs have been accounted for would be to lower the average temperature.
James McGinn / Genius
http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=16329&start=150#p117292
The worst mistake you can make as a science theorist is to allow your own explanation to seduce you into thinking that you understand it better than you actually do. And the reason it is such a fatal error is because you will then, unavoidably, use that as an excuse to ignore evidence that contradicts with your model or ignore evidence that your model fails to explain. (And once you’ve started doing this you have lost the war.) Don’t allow yourself to be so seduced. Always endeavor to find and explicate all contradictory evidence and always explicate why your model should be excused from expaining what it appears to fail to explain. [When you hide, you lose. And there are lots of ways to hide. It’s easy. Meteorologists have been hiding for almost 200 years now.])
geran
| #
All wrong James.
But, it’s funny, like calling yourself a “genius”. Hilarious.
More please.
Ed Bo
| #
Geran:
When an IR photon is absorbed, the result is ALWAYS to increase the molecular vibration. This is Spectroscopy 101, and you are obviously completely unfamiliar with it.
And your “ice cube in the coffee” example is NOT analogous. You are adding mass of lower average energy to the coffee, so the resulting diluted coffee will have a lower average energy, and therefore temperature.
But the photon adds NO mass to the absorbing body, but does add energy, so the temperature increases.
On the contrary, my “freezing in the woods” example shows how I can explain non-intuitive physics concepts to interested parties. Mediocre high school students get it quickly — why can’t you?
geran
| #
Wrong again, Ed.
I’ve explained it to you once. It’s your job to understand, or at least have a responsible question. All you have is your failed false religion.
Don’t bother to learn any physics. Just stick with your comedy.
Ed Bo
| #
Are you really still trying to argue that adding energy to an object without increasing its mass will LOWER its temperature?
Seriously?
geran
| #
Ed, do some research on how temperature is measured. Then consider a photon, with frequency “f” being absorbed by an object with average frequency of all molecules = 1.1f. Does the average frequency increase or decrease?
IOW, learn some physics. Or, stay with your career in climate comedy.
Entirely your choice.
Seriously.
Ed Bo
| #
Geran:
Please provide us with a reference to a textbook, any textbook, that remotely corresponds in any way to your version of kinetic molecular theory or radiative heat transfer.
geran
| #
Ed:
Please provide us with some evidence, any evidence, that remotely demonstrates, in any way, that you could understand kinetic molecular theory or radiative heat transfer.
And you didn’t answer my second question either.
It’s almost as if you’re just all fluff and no substance, huh?
Ed Bo
| #
Geran:
I refer you to the textbook on heat transfer by MIT professor John Lienhard and his son. It can be found here:
https://docs.zoho.com/newpdfview/2bvxiba134293a84943ca9348a0c891785ced/view?frameorigin=https://docs.zoho.com&issshowview=true&docsparam=#pf16
It is used as the introductory text for Mechanical Engineering students at MIT. It presents the material in fundamentally the same way as when I studied ME at MIT over 40 years ago.
There is an overview of radiative heat transfer in the introductory chapter, starting on p26. I specifically refer you to p32, with the paragraph starting with “Radiant Heat Exchange”.
The detailed chapter on radiative heat transfer starts on p525. The first section is titled “The Problem of Radiative Exchange”.
The word “exchange” is key here, in that it demonstrates a two-way transfer of energy, with a real cold-to-hot transfer (but less than the hot-to-cold transfer). The net hot-to-cold transfer is simply the difference between these two gross transfers.
There is NOTHING in the textbook that backs up your assertions that the absorptivity of an object to any wavelength is dependent on the the temperature of the emitting object.
This text — and many like it — completely back up my arguments, and completely contradict yours.
Oh, and if you stop asking questions based on completely false premises, you might actually get an answer.
geran
| #
You can’t learn about photon absorption from an ME heat transfer book, Ed. But at least you show, once again, that you’re all fluff and no substance.
And, you still haven’t answered my question.
James McGinn
| #
Geran:
All wrong James.
James:
LOL. You got nothing, you vague nitwit.
James McGinn / Genius
http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=16329&start=360#p125466
I discovered the empirical shortcomings of meteorology after I discovered them in climatology. My reasoning was very simple. Knowing that the origins of climatology are in meteorology, I reasoned that if AGW is as bad as it appears then meteorology must also have skeletons in its closet. So I did something that nobody has done before, I looked at the convection model of storm theory with scrutiny. I found numerous fatal flaws and I found that meteorologists have long ago established a tradition of ignoring these fatal flaws.
My point is that you/we cannot defeat a conversational science based on empiricism because conversational sciences are based on allegories that appeal to the base sensations of the public. The only way to defeat a conversational science is to reveal it as such to the public. And the best way to reveal it to the public is to start with meteorology since this is the spring from which it sprang (or is it sprung?). The conversational tradition is the problem and its roots are in meteorology, not climatology.
But, it’s funny, like calling yourself a “genius”. Hilarious.
More please.
Ed Bo
| #
Geran: You ask me to “consider a photon, with frequency “f” being absorbed by an object with average frequency of all molecules = 1.1f. Does the average frequency increase or decrease?”
As I already said, this question is based on a completely fallacious premise. Average frequency of molecules is not what determines temperature. So the question is unanswerable.
Now you need to consider your own microwave oven. It produces photons with a frequency of 2.4GHz. This is less than 1/10,000 the frequency of the IR radiation we have been discussing.
You claim that 15um IR radiation has too low a frequency to increase the temperature of ambient-level objects. Yet your microwave oven, at 1/10,000 of this frequency, can boil water.
And by Wien’s Law, this radiation is the peak of an object at 0.025K. (Yes, that is 1/40 of 1K.) By your analysis, there is absolutely no way your microwave oven could possibly work. But it does…
geran
| #
Wrong again, Ed. But your microwave effort is even funnier than your MIT textbook effort. Such desperation just points to your lack of knowledge about the subject. It’s just a case of all fluff and no substance.
A microwave oven does not emit photons based on surface temperature. A device called a magnetron, powered by high voltage, ejects electrons that produce physical oscillations that produce the photons. It is somewhat similar to early radar systems, where the photons are directed by a waveguide.
More desperation, please.
Ed Bo
| #
Geran:
I wasn’t talking about the emission of those photons. I was talking about the absorption (or lack thereof).
I asked you earlier how a body could discern a photon striking it of a given wavelength/frequency that was emitted from a warmer object from one of the same wavelength/frequency emitted from a colder object.
You dodged that question. (I wonder why…)
I now extend that question: How can a body discern a photon striking it that was thermally emitted from one that was not thermally emitted? Your arguments show that you think this is possible.
By your latest argument, your previous argument that a photon of lower frequency than the frequency of molecules in the target object has a loophole for non-thermally generated photons.
Come on! Share your brilliance with the rest of us!
geran
| #
Ed, all photons, that have the same wavelength, are the same. Asking such questions just indicates, once more, your lack of understanding.
You are confused because you don’t understand photon absorption/emission, thermodynamics, or heat transfer.
You have tried to use Wien’s Law with a microwave!
And before that, you were trying to claim that a system receiving more energy would somehow violate the 1st Law of Thermodynamics, if the system temperature did not increase! Ed, the 1st Law does NOT involve temperature. It’s a simple law. It just involves the fact that all energy/mass must be accounted for.
And like all GHE believers, you have no clue about the 2nd Law. That’s why the microwave oven confuses you.
You have a lot to learn.
jerry krause
| #
Hi Fellows,
Have you considered what Richard Feynman taught his students at Cal Tech about 42–5 Einstein’s laws of radiation Vol 1, The Feynman Lectures on Physics. The following is just a portion.
“Einstein assumed that Planck’s final formula was right, and he used that formula to obtain some new information, previously unknown, about the interaction of radiation with matter. His discussion went as follows: Consider any two of the many energy levels of an atom, say the mth level and the nth level (Fig. 42–2). Now Einstein proposed that when such an atom has light of the right frequency shining on it, it can absorb that photon of light and make a transition from state n to state m, and that the probability that this occurs per second depends upon the two levels, of course, but is proportional to how intense the light is that is shining on it. Let us call the proportionality constant Bnm, merely to remind us that this is not a universal constant of nature, but depends on the particular pair of levels: some levels are easy to excite; some levels are hard to excite. Now what is the formula going to be for the rate of emission from m to n? Einstein proposed that this must have two parts to it. First, even if there were no light present, there would be some chance that an atom in an excited state would fall to a lower state, emitting a photon; this we call spontaneous emission. It is analogous to the idea that an oscillator with a certain amount of energy, even in classical physics, does not keep that energy, but loses it by radiation. Thus the analog of spontaneous radiation of a classical system is that if the atom is in an excited state there is a certain probability Amn, which depends on the levels again, for it to go down from m to n, and this probability is independent of whether light is shining on the atom or not. But then Einstein went further, and by comparison with the classical theory and by other arguments, concluded that emission was also influenced by the presence of light—that when light of the right frequency is shining on an atom, it has an increased rate of emitting a photon that is proportional to the intensity of the light, with a proportionality constant Bmn. Later, if we deduce that this coefficient is zero, then we will have found that Einstein was wrong. Of course we will find he was right.
Thus Einstein assumed that there are three kinds of processes: an absorption proportional to the intensity of light, an emission proportional to the intensity of light, called induced emission or sometimes stimulated emission, and a spontaneous emission independent of light.”
Have a good day, Jerry
Ed Bo
| #
Geran:
You can’t even keep up a coherent argument. You are now arguing against yourself, and you don’t even realize it!
YOU were the one that claimed that a hotter object (37C in your example) would reflect all of the radiation from a colder object (3C in your example). I pointed out that objects at above 37C radiate many of the same wavelengths as an object at 3C.
For your claim to be correct, there would have to be some way for the target object to discern whether the radiation of a GIVEN wavelength (using 15um as an example) came from a hotter or colder object. So I asked you what that way was. You offered no answer.
Now you say “all photons, that have the same wavelength, are the same.” Congratulations! It’s the first thing you’ve gotten correct in this entire thread!
But it completely undercuts your previous arguments!
YOU were the one who invoked Wien’s Law erroneously, arguing that since 15um is the peak wavelength for an object at -80C, it cannot add energy to an object at ambient temperatures.
YOU were the one who argued that EMR of a low frequency could not add energy to an object of a higher “frequency”, implying that the LWIR from the cooler atmosphere could not add energy to the warmer surface.
Following YOUR logic, I considered the case of the 2.4GHz radiation of a microwave oven. This has a frequency of about 0.0001 times that of 15um LWIR. By your argument, if the 15um radiation cannot increase the energy of ambient temperature objects because its frequency is too low, there is absolutely no way this much lower frequency microwave radiation could either.
And because YOU used Wien’s Law in your argument, I simply applied it to this case as well, simply to show the error in your argument.
You protested that the microwave radiation was not thermally generated. While true, it is completely irrevelant to the subject at hand. As you now say, “all photons, that have the same wavelength, are the same.” So it does not matter whether these photons were generated by thermal radiation at 0.025K or the klystron in the oven.
But it is obvious that these photons of very low frequency corresponding to an incredibly low Wien’s Law temperature can boil water at 100C! This means that your previous arguments invoking frequency and Wien’s Law cannot be correct.
Again, you have completely undercut your previous arguments.
As to the basics, when an IR photon is absorbed, it increases the kinetic energy of the molecule(s) in the absorbing body. Since temperature is a measure of the average kinetic energy (“internal energy”) — not “frequency” — of an object, this MUST lead to an increase of temperature.
For you to argue that the absorption of the IR photon and the energy it contained could decrease the temperature (and therefore the internal kinetic energy) of the absorbing object just shows you don’t have the most basic grasp of the 1st Law.
Zoe Phin
| #
Ed,
“As to the basics, when an IR photon is absorbed, it increases the kinetic energy of the molecule(s) in the absorbing body. ”
Only raises kinetic energy if the electron was at at a lower energy level.
There is no conservation of photons. Either it raises kinetic energy and dies or it doesn’t raise kinetic energy and dies.
In the cavity radiation work of Boltzmann, Planck, Einstein, etc. wall-to-wall interactions are counted only once!
Yet there are people like you who believe in two-way normal photon exchange.
If you were correct then Boltzmann, Planck, Einstein should have accounted for TWICE as many photons for each dimension.
But they don’t, because they know that, on average, only one wall is emitting (from hot to cold) or each wall spends half the time absorbing (colder) and half the time emitting (emitting)
All radiation quackery stems from not reading or misinterpreting the original nobel prize winning authors.
Where’s the two-way photon exchange in Planck’s oven that should add to photon gas density?
Hmm?
Ed, do you have an answer?
geran
| #
Ed, when clowns run out of ways to pervert reality, they just start rambling aimlessly in long, circular comments.
Have you ever noticed that?
Ed Bo
| #
Zoe:
You say: “Only raises kinetic energy if the electron was at at a lower energy level.”
We’re talking about IR photons here, which do not have enough energy to raise electron energy levels. That requires shorter-wave radiation with higher energy photons. IR photons can excite vibrational or rotational modes of molecular bonds. Rookie mistake.
Then you say: “There is no conservation of photons. Either it raises kinetic energy and dies or it doesn’t raise kinetic energy and dies.”
If the photon raises the kinetic energy of the target, it is extinguished (“dies”), with its energy transferred to the target. Yes. But if it does not raise the kinetic energy of the target, it continues on, retaining its energy. What you assert would be a blatant violation of the 1st Law of Thermodynamics, because energy is not conserved.
This is a gross error at the most basic level, which shows you do not have even a fundamental conceptual foundation. You desperately need this before you can even grapple intelligently with more complex aspects of the field.
James Clerk Maxwell, the guy who figured out electromagnetic radiation, believed in radiative heat exchange. He referred to it as the “ascending” and “descending” “transmission of heat” – with “ascending” and “descending” referring to the temperature difference.
Every heat transfer textbook I have ever seen – engineering or physics based – teaches radiation heat transfer with the concept of “radiative exchange” – that is, two way exchange. I referenced one such textbook upthread for Geran – he ignored it. Here is the link for you:
https://docs.zoho.com/newpdfview/2bvxiba134293a84943ca9348a0c891785ced/view?frameorigin=https://docs.zoho.com&issshowview=true&docsparam=#pf16
Engineering students have universally been taught this analysis for over a century now, and have gone on to use it in designing thermal systems for the past century. Somehow they have been successful using it, but you think they are completely mistaken. Hmmm…
Ed Bo
| #
Geran:
As always, when you can’t answer a question to your liking, you just respond with insults.
So predictable…
geran
| #
No 500-word rambling typing-fest this time?
Ed, you must be slipping.
How about linking to another irrelevant MIT textbook that you can’t understand? Or how about claiming the atmosphere is a microwave oven?
Surely you can come up with some more hilarious pseudoscience.
I can’t wait….
Zoe Phin
| #
Ed,
“Every heat transfer textbook I have ever seen – engineering or physics based – teaches radiation heat transfer with the concept of “radiative exchange” – that is, two way exchange. ”
That’s nice. Where did they get that idea?
The expetimentalists and originators of blackbody radiation theory didn’t include two-way photons as part of their photon gas density in a box with a hole. Since that’s the case, why do textbook authors confuse radiating-potenetials-to-0-Kelvin as actually energy flows? Energy flows from hot to cold. Period. And we call that heat.
Do you know how a 12V battery works? 737V worth of electrons travel in one direction and 725V worth of positrons travel in the other. Knowing all technology can only measure net transfers you can’t prove my nonsense wrong! 12V proves my B.S. must be true! This is what you sound like to a rational person. You insist a nonfalsifiable abstract exists and you argue against materialist empiricists who can only measure actual physical transfers.
Ed Bo
| #
Geran:
If you can’t understand the “macroscopic” analysis in the text I provided (and it’s clear that you can’t), there’s no point in going on to the “microscopic” analysis.
Baby steps, Geran, baby steps. Don’t strain that little mind of yours.
Ed Bo
| #
Zoe:
In a comment above, you stated: “If ra[d]iation pressure from H (hot) is greater than radiation pressure from C (cold), then the photons from H “beats back” photons from C, until C doesn’t emit any photons in the direction of H.”
When Norman and James challenged you, you doubled down with: “Take two pressurized water hoses. Make them face each other and enclose that in a very rigid tube.
Turn them on so that one is stronger than the other. Soon, the weaker one will not be emitting any water because the stronger one will have put its water back in its place. Photon[s] have mass and radius. They must be similar to rigid objects.”
Let’s test this. We’ll go into a dark room with two flashlights, one with fresher batteries than the other. First, we shine them at right angles so their beams intersect. If you are right, there should be at least some light leaving the point of intersection at an intermediate angle to the two beams.
Hmmm… I don’t notice any.
Now we stand at opposite ends of the room and shine the flashlights at each other. We see that the weaker flashlight still creates as bright a spot on the far wall even when passing through the beam of the strong flashlight shining in the opposite direction.
Zoe, elementary school kids understand this easily. Beams of light (EMR) pass through each other unimpeded. Your water hose analogy is completely mistaken.
Someone such as you who cannot understand this trivial fact has absolutely NO business lecturing anyone else on ANY matters related to EMR.
By the way, my first heat transfer textbook, written in the 1960s, starts with the photon gas density you describe, then step by step derives the principles of radiative exchange I have been using. There is no contradiction!
And once again, with your battery analogy, you completely confuse potential variables (voltage here) with flux variables (current here). It is possible to have bi-directional flux in an electric circuit – when you get down to the microscopic level, not all charge movement is in the same direction. When we talk about amperes of current flow, we are discussing the “net” current flux.
Zoe Phin
| #
Ed,
“By the way, my first heat transfer textbook, written in the 1960s, starts with the photon gas density you describe, then step by step derives the principles of radiative exchange I have been using. There is no contradiction!”
Liar. Show us the inclusion of two-ways photons.
“two flashlights”
I’m talking about 100% normal perpendicular radiation. Isn’t that obvious, you idiot?
What else is a pipe for? Without the pipe, some water can go through and to the side.
The question is about two parallel surfaces emitting to each other only normal radiation. Any non-normal radiation doesn’t exist on average.
Don’t be an idiot, Ed.
Ed Bo
| #
Zoe:
Flashlight beams are well collimated, and could be virtually perfectly collimated. (I’ve worked professionally on collimating optics.) There has never been any evidence of ANY blockage as in your water hose analogy. Reflective tubes assisting in the collimation won’t change that.
The two-parallel-plate problem is usually the first radiative problem a starting student gets on the subject of radiative transfer. Usually, the plates in these problems are large enough relative to their spacing that you can ignore edge effects, which means that you can assume the non-normal radiation cancels out.
This problem is solved by calculating the upward radiation from the lower plate (which is a flow of photons) and then the downward radiation from the top plate (which is also a flow of photons).
The rate of heat transfer is the difference between the radiative power transfer of these two flows. This is effectively the same as two flashlights shining at each other.
I repeat that someone who thinks that beams of EMR collide like streams of water, in defiance of evidence a schoolchild could understand, has absolutely no business lecturing ANYONE on the subtleties of EMR physics.
Zoe Phin
| #
Ed,
“Flashlight beams are well collimated, and could be virtually perfectly collimated.”
LMAO
Take two flashlights point them at each other 10 cm apart, and between two walls 2 meters apart. Do you see two shadows? Not well columnated.
“This problem is solved by calculating the upward radiation from the lower plate (which is a flow of photons) and then the downward radiation from the top plate (which is also a flow of photons).”
There is no two way radiation. If your eyeball was could see normally through a flashlight shining out to a weaker flashlight shining in, you would not detect the weaker photons. They don’t exist. You failed to make your case. Your case was non-normal light passing through spacing of non-normal light.
You can’t prove two way normal photon exchange. There is no technological equipement to detect such a thing and so your hypothesis is stupid and worthless to science.
And as far as your discussion of potentials, don’t you understand that only potentials make things flow? Stacks of energy do not flow unless there is a potential, and only the potential (difference) flows. You want to take two stacks and claim they both flow, and the difference is the ‘net’ flow. Sorry, but that is just unnecessarily stupid.
Atmospheric Physicist
| #
You are mistaken Ed Bo. A mathematical calculation of the difference in Stefan-Boltzmann calculations for source and target does not PROVE that there is a two-way heat transfer just because it gets the right answer.
There is another explanation that is in accord with the laws of physics.
Radiation from cold to hot is pseudo-scattered. The heat transfer is only from hot to cold for radiation and it is quantified by the area between the Planck curves of source and target (after attenuation for distance etc) because that is the radiation which cannot resonate and so its energy is converted to thermal energy in the target which must be cooler. That is (in effect) the calculation done by engineers and physicists.
Prof Claes Johnson explained this about a decade ago and you can read more in the peer-reviewed paper “Radiated Energy and the Second Law of Thermodynamics” which cites Prof Johnson’s work and extends it by explaining the calculations as above.
Reply
Ed Bo
| #
Go away Doug! Your ridiculous imaginary concepts like “pseudo scattering” have gotten you banned from almost every blog, and for good reason!
atmospheric physicist
| #
It was Prof Claes Johnson who wrote about resonant (or “pseudo” scattering Dear Ed.
Waffle as much as you like Ed Bo, without a word of valid physics in your response. Pathetic really…..
Speak to those who reviewed the PSI paper (named at the end thereof) and argue with Claes Johnson, Professor of Applied Mathematics, and tell him where his computations are wrong. http://principia-scientific.org/publications/psi_radiated_energy.pdf
Ed Bo
| #
Johnson’s work — and yours — is based on the completely erroneous concept that separate portions of an indivisible process, such as radiative exchange, must each obey the 2nd Law. Since you cannot ever stop EMR from Point A to Point B without stopping EMR from B to A as well, the process is not divisible, and only the whole process must obey the 2nd Law.
This is 1st-year undergraduate subject matter. Yet you do not understand it at all!
Michael Clarke
| #
Hi All,
I was an electronics engineer, before you could get a university degree in electronics.
A boron coated cathode when heated in a vacuum is surrounded by a cloud of electrons all of which don’t like being next to each other. Introduce an anode with a positive voltage and a current will flow. Turn off the voltage and it will stop. The important thing to notice here is that the boron coated cathode is in no way depleted. The electrons are merrily going round and round the circuit driven by the energy source and returning to the cathode.
Zoe Phin
| #
Ed,
Have you actually read about hypothermia?
You’d still die in a 20 degree C cabin.
You need active rewarming, something at least 30-32C.
Reply
Ed Bo
| #
30-32C is still colder than a 35C body temperature, so by geran’s logic, it couldn’t help.
And have you never had the experience of being outside for a long time on a cold winter day, when your body lets your limbs cool down to maintain core temperature, then coming inside to a building at about 20C and feeling yourself warm up (even if you weren’t technically hypothermic)? It seems that geran has never done that.
Reply
Zoe Phin
| #
30-32C is the easiest case. If you’ve been exposed for too long you will need to drink liquids anove 37C.
Your body has a regulator. Radiative surfaces don’t.
Reply
Ed Bo
| #
“Your body has a regulator.”
That’s why I went to the hypothermic case. The regulator had failed. I made that explicit in my post.
But you are still missing the point that warmer surroundings, even if still colder than your body, CAN result in increasing your body temperature. geran considers it a thermodynamic impossibility. Do you?
james McGinn
| #
Ed Bo:
“Your body has a regulator.”
That’s why I went to the hypothermic case. The regulator had failed. I made that explicit in my post.
James McGinn:
Bo, if you are hypothermic you are not dead. Your body is still burning calories and the waste heat from that combustion is still if effect.
Ed Bo:
But you are still missing the point
James McGinn:
Ed, Geran is not missing the point. You introduced a new element into the conversation by including a human in the scenario that generates its own heat. So your example was out of the context of Geran’s point.
Ed Bo:
that warmer surroundings, even if still colder than your body, CAN result in increasing your body temperature.
James McGinn:
The cabin isn’t warmer than the person. It is at 20 the person is at 35. (How did you miss that?)
Ed Bo:
geran considers it a thermodynamic impossibility. Do you?
James McGinn:
Geran is correct. It is a thermodynamic impossibility for something colder to increase the temperature of something hotter. The cabin is not making the person warmer. It is making them cooler. However, it is making them cooler at a slower rate than if they were outside the cabin. It is their own internal body heat that makes them warmer.
James McGinn / Solving Tornadoes
http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=16329&start=255#p122459
Jet streams are conduits that tunnel through the friction and general incoherence of the gases in the atmosphere to balance out what would otherwise be some extremes of heat/high pressures and cold/low pressures. Constructed from layers of spinning microdroplets of H2O with maximized surface tension, jet streams are a consequence of the principle that maximization of the surface area of H2O maximizes the tensional forces of H2O. These conduits emerge along moist dry wind shear boundaries, especially those associated with the extensive, flat boundary between the top of the troposphere and the bottom of the stratosphere, prime conditions for wind shear. The ensuing vortices of surface tension maximized spinning microdroplets provide a slick hydrophobic inner surface that channels moist air at speeds up to 300 mph.
Ed Bo
| #
James:
When Zoe and I were discussing the body’s “regulator”, we were talking about the body’s compensatory mechanisms to modulate metabolic power generation to maintain body temperature. What she missed (and you seem to be missing as well) is that when I used the hypothermic case, I used the case where the body was MAXIMIZING power generation but still unable to maintain body temperature. In no way did I assert that the body was not generating any power — in fact, just the opposite.
With regard to my discussions with geran, you are tripping yourself up arguing semantics. Yes, your body in the cabin is NET transferring energy to the cabin. And yes, without the body’s metabolic power input, its temperature would not increase.
But that is not what geran was arguing. He was arguing that a cooler body could not transfer ANY energy to a warmer body. He claimed that “the flux from the 3 ºC cold water would be REFLECTED by the human body at 37 ºC”, which you have already argued was wrong. I am agreeing with you!
In these discussions, I said “warmer surroundings, even if still colder than your body, CAN result in increasing your body temperature.”
You replied: “The cabin isn’t warmer than the person. It is at 20 the person is at 35. (How did you miss that?)”
No, I didn’t miss that! I EXPLICITLY STATED that! (“still colder than your body”). Do you even know how to read???
Are you really so divorced from reality so that you don’t understand that your body could be warmer in a +20C ambient than a -20C ambient, other things being equal?
James McGinn
| #
Ed Bo:
In no way did I assert that the body was not generating any power — in fact, just the opposite.
James McGinn:
Good!
Ed Bo:
Yes, your body in the cabin is NET transferring energy to the cabin. And yes, without the body’s metabolic power input, its temperature would not increase.
James McGinn:
Excellent!
Ed Bo:
But that is not what geran was arguing. He was arguing that a cooler body could not transfer ANY energy to a warmer body.
James McGinn:
Right. And I called him on it. And he explained that he had mispoke He didn’t mean to put forth the fallacious assertion. He meant to say that the cooler body could not increase the temperature of the hotter body.
Ed Bo:
He claimed that “the flux from the 3 ºC cold water would be REFLECTED by the human body at 37 ºC”, which you have already argued was wrong. I am agreeing with you!
James McGinn:
Yes. And I do appreciate that you are agreeing. But Geran agrees too. He mispoke and he has since promised that he will be more careful with his wording.
Both you and Geran should team up and go explain all of this to Joe Postma so that Joe doesn’t continue to embarass himself.
James McGinn / Genius
http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=16329&start=210#p122376
You can’t understand tornadoes (and/or jet streams) unless and until you understand how the composition of the sheath of a tornado is molecularly distinct from that of the air that surrounds it and that moves up through it.
Zoe Phin
| #
Ed,
“But you are still missing the point that warmer surroundings, even if still colder than your body, CAN result in increasing your body temperature. geran considers it a thermodynamic impossibility. Do you?”
In the case of hypothermia, it’s not as if your entire body is below 37°C, only some parts are. Those parts that are at 35°C are not warming the 37°C, so why would you think a 20°C cabin would?
The heat in your body is produced from a small place in your body, and nothing will make it warmer due to backradiation. Chemistry can, but backradiation can’t.
You believe a colder body can force a hotter body to warm itself due to its own reflected rafiation? Weird.
How about for two equal temperature bodies? Do they warm each other up as they block each other from colder space?
Ed Bo
| #
Zoe:
You are getting lost in the weeds here, so let’s simplify the problem.
Let’s take a vessel of water with an electric immersion heater. Working in a -20C ambient chamber environment, the electric power input is of a level that causes a steady-state temperature of +35C.
Now you move this vessel into an ambient chamber of +20C, keeping the same electric power input. What do you think happens to the temperature of the water in the vessel?
If you want to isolate this to radiation, you could do this in a vacuum. NASA has huge vacuum chambers for testing its spacecraft. They spend millions on super-cooled “shrouds” on the walls of these chambers, so the craft can be tested in the radiative environment of space, simulating the conditions above the atmosphere, with its radiating gases.
Why do they spend so much money on this?
You say: “The heat in your body is produced from a small place in your body, and nothing will make it warmer due to backradiation.”
First of all, the heat is produced in the mitochondria of EVERY SINGLE CELL in your body as they metabolize food in exothermic reactions. (Blood flow can redistribute this.)
Second, as you are reading this, you are in an ambient field of backradiation of about 400 W/m^2. (T~=296K, e~=0.95) You are so used to this, you don’t even notice it. (Your skin emits about 500 W/m^2.)
Open up your freezer, and let the cold air fall out. Stick your face close to the freezer, but not in it, so you still have the warm air of the kitchen for conduction/convection. Still your face can “feel” the cold, as it is only receiving about 250 W/m^2 of “back radiation”. Imagine what 0 W/m^2 would feel like!
You ask: “You believe a colder body can force a hotter body to warm itself due to its own reflected ra[d]iation?”
Ever hear of reflective “space blankets”? I keep some in my survival kit. Do you? Go to a camping clothing store. You will find all sorts of jackets, etc. with inside reflective surfaces. There’s a reason for that!
You ask: “How about for two equal temperature bodies? Do they warm each other up as they block each other from colder space?”
Here’s an easy and fun experiment. Get in bed with clothes and coverings that make you comfortably warm. Now have a second person — hopefully someone you like! — join you in bed and cuddle with you. This person has an equal temperature to you, but you will become uncomfortably warm and probably start to sweat as your body tries to compensate.
Zoe Phin
| #
Ed,
‘Still your face can “feel” the cold, as it is only receiving about 250 W/m^2 of “back radiation”
LMAO. No, silly goof, what you’re feeling is 250 W/m^2 of warmth LEAVING your face.
Your backradiation is unfalsifiable, because it’s always the reverse of forward radiation. Any attempt to measure it yields forward radiation. Being unfalsifisble makes it a worthless scientific hypothesis a la Karl Popper.
“Working in a -20C ambient chamber environment, the electric power input is of a level that causes a steady-state temperature of +35C.
Now you move this vessel into an ambient chamber of +20C, keeping the same electric power input. What do you think happens to the temperature of the water in the vessel?”
The radiation from your electric source remains the same. The radiation from the sun-at-earth remains the ~same. Do you even know what you needed to prove?
Ed Bo
| #
Zoe:
I asked you to put your face in front of an open freezer so you could feel the difference in ambient (“back”) radiation toward your face compared to room-temperature surfaces.
I said that “your face can ‘feel’ the cold as it is only receiving about 250 W/m^2 of ‘back radiation’.”
You objected to this, saying “what you’re feeling is 250 W/m^2 of warmth LEAVING your face.”
At most, you have a semantic quibble, talking about the net transfer of (500 – 250) W/m^2. Even if you view it this way, you have to compare it to the net transfer to a room-temperature surface of (500 – 400) = 100 W/m^2.
On my question of what happens to the TEMPERATURE of a vessel of water with constant electrical immersion heater input when you move it from -20C to +20C ambient, I noticed that you completely dodged the question. You’re almost as good at that is Geran is. Why the dodge? It’s a simple question!
Zoe Phin
| #
Ed,
“I noticed that you completely dodged the question.”
Your hypocrisy is hilarious. You claim gases raise the surface temperature beyond what the sun provides, and now that you haven’t proven that with your gedanken B.S. you’re dodging an apology.
Ed Bo
| #
Zoe:
I asked you a very simple question to try to understand your analysis. This is the type of question I would ask of a student early in an introductory thermosciences class.
Your answer might not agree with mine — but why don’t you even provide your answer? I’m not even asking for a quantitative result, just whether the water temperature goes up, down, or stays the same. Should be simple, but it seems to be beyond you.
Zoe Phin
| #
Ed,
You’re a low class sophist. Quit while you’re behind.
Ed Bo
| #
How difficult is it to answer such a simple question? I think you’re afraid…
James McGinn
| #
Ed Bo:
By your logic, since my cabin is still colder than you are, you say “a cold [cabin] cannot raise the temperature of a warmer [body].”
James McGinn:
Geran is correct on this point. Ed, you are failing to account for the fact that humans have our own internal heat generator.
The person becomes warmer in the cabin. But the cabin isn’t making them warmer it is actually making them cooler. The reason the person get warmer in the cabin is because the rate of cooling is less in the cabin than it is outside. And the rate of cooling is less than the rate of warming from the person’s own internal heat generator.
James McGinn / Solving Tornadoes
http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=16329&start=270#p122469
One can only imagine how you envision the consensus. Academia is mostly concerned with the politics of keeping the flow of funding flowing. Scientific theories (models) are just a means to that end. And that often means that scientific institutions adopt a model and employ all kinds of political tactics to evade scrutiny of their model. It can also mean that they will dumb down their model so that it appeals to the lowest common denominator of the voting public.
Reply
Ed Bo
| #
James, you say: “Ed, you are failing to account for the fact that humans have our own internal heat generator.”
But the earth has its own thermal generator as well. It’s called the sun, whose radiative output is thermalized by the earth.
And for a given amount of solar power input, the earth’s surface is warmer when it is in an effective radiative ambient of about 255K (-18C) than it would be in a radiative ambient of 3K (-270C) with no LWIR-absorbing gasses in the atmosphere. This is true DESPITE the fact that -18C is still colder than the surface.
This is by direct analogy to my case of the human with his metabolic thermal source being warmer in a +20C ambient than a -20C ambient, other things being equal.
Reply
James McGinn
| #
Ed Bo:
But the earth has its own thermal generator as well.
James McGinn:
True, but this is irrelevant to the point being discussed.
James McGinn / Solving Tornadoes
http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=16329&start=240#p122413
Have you ever noticed that snowflakes are flat?
Reply
Ed Bo
| #
How is it “irrelevant to the point being discussed? The earth and the human body both have thermal generators (the sun and metabolism). Both are in ambient conditions that are cooler than they are by varying amounts.
The parallels should be obvious.
James McGinn
| #
Ed Bo:
How is it “irrelevant to the point being discussed?
James McGinn
Jesus Christ, Ed. Are you that dense? I responded to the words you actually put in the post. I did not respond to the words you imagined you put in the post, BECAUSE i COULDN’T SEE THEM!!!
James McGinn / Solving Tornadoes
http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=16329&start=165#p122167
The ‘plasma’ of my model is novel, unfamiliar and, therefore, hard to accept. But that is the case for any scientific discovery. Alfred Wegener proposed continental drift in 1912. It took geologists 50 years to warm up to the idea. Now, however, when you look at a map of the southern Atlantic ocean the congruence of the eastern and western shorelines jumps out at you. When it came to deducing the molecular composition of atmospheric vortices and arriving at the conjecture that they contained wind shear generated, rapidly spinning polymers of H2O, I feel that I had a huge advantage that allowed me to avoid a common misassumption that traps others. I knew that the sheath of the tornado must involve some kind of molecular distinction.
You ia thermal generator into an argument that had
The earth and the human body both have thermal generators (the sun and metabolism). Both are in ambient conditions that are cooler than they are by varying amounts.
The parallels should be obvious.
Ed Bo
| #
Huh? I had already explained the direct parallels and therefore the relevance. I thought that maybe you would catch it if I explained it again slightly differently.
Reply
Zoe Phin
| #
Ed,
“And for a given amount of solar power input, the earth’s surface is warmer when it is in an effective radiative ambient of about 255K (-18C) than it would be in a radiative ambient of 3K (-270C) with no LWIR-absorbing gasses in the atmosphere. This is true DESPITE the fact that -18C is still colder than the surface.”
This is completely wrong.
The sun delivers ~164 W/m^2
Geothermal delivers ~234 W/m^2
Case closed. Fourier was wrong, the atmosphere is a heat sink. Not it or anything in it makes the surface warmer. The surface warmth and availability of untrapped gases determines the amount of atmosphere. And the surface warmth is determined by insolation and geothermal.
Reply
Ed Bo
| #
Zoe, you say: “Geothermal delivers ~234 W/m^2”
Completely wrong! The correct amount, from actual measurements (boreholes and the like) is under 0.1 W/m^2. You are off by a factor of well over a thousand!
Zoe, you have some actual technical chops, unlike most of the denizens here. You have spotted Postma’s BS, for example. But you have no idea yet how to approach thermodynamic analysis. Please spend some time learning some formal analysis so you don’t keep making a fool of yourself.
Zoe Phin
| #
Why am I not surprised that you don’t know what the heat flux measurement you’re citing means.
For comparison the HEAT FLUX through the atmosphere is ~0.16 milliWatts per square meter.
You’re committing the heat flux fallacy.
https://i.ibb.co/YhNq3Jq/postmafallacy.png
You’re quoting “q”. But “q” is not geothermal emission. q is the heat “loss” for every 1 meter of ascending height. What is “lost” per 1 meter of ascending height is not what comes OUT.
Ed Bo
| #
Zoe:
You continue to demonstrate complete confusion about the most basic concepts. In this comment, as in others I have seen of yours, you can’t keep straight the difference between “potential” and “flux” variables.
In electrical systems, voltage is the potential, and current is the flux.
In fluid systems, pressure is the potential, and mass flow is the flux.
In conductive thermal systems, temperature is the potential, and heat flow is the flux.
In radiative thermal systems, the 4th power of temperature multiplied by the emissivity is the potential, and net radiative heat flow is the flux.
(In atmospheric science, a reference to thermal flux really means “flux density”.)
In your linked diagram, you actually show a value for conductive geothermal flux density that agrees with my figure (0.1 W/m^2) and is nowhere near the 234 W/m^2 that you asserted. This agrees with thousands of measurements.
But then you go completely off the rails. You say that “q is the heat ‘loss’ for every 1 meter of ascending height. What is ‘lost” per 1 meter of ascending height is not what comes OUT.”
NO!!!!
If you notice, the units of the flux are watts per square meter. A square meter defines an area, not a length. And it refers to an area perpendicular to the direction of transfer, not along the direction of transfer.
So what a vertical flux density of 100 mW/m^2 means is that 100 millijoules per second pass vertically through a horizontal area of 1 square meter.
Oh, and no energy is “lost” in this transfer – otherwise the 1st LoT would be violated. (You keep having trouble with that pesky 1st Law…)’’
What is “lost” in this vertical transfer is temperature (potential, not flux), which decreases with height.
The tiny figure for (vertical) atmospheric heat flux (density) is true for the conductive transfer only. It is so small that it is usually just ignored when compared to the convective and radiative transfer fluxes, which often amount to hundreds of W/m^2.
Postma isn’t often correct, but he is correct here that the geothermal flux is insignificant in determining the surface temperature compare to the fluxes to and from above the surface.
If you were correct, polar temperatures would be basically the same as equatorial temperatures. They most certainly are not!
Your argument is akin to asserting that the occasional penny you find on the ground determines your bank account balance more than your salary input and your spending output.
Zoe Phin
| #
Ed,
Imagine a metal 1×1×1 meter cube in space. It is irradiated on one side with 1000 W/m^2. Let’s say the thermal conductivity coefficient is 1.
q = k (Th – Tc) / L
Can you figure out what radiation comes out from the other end?
“If you were correct, polar temperatures would be basically the same as equatorial temperatures. They most certainly are not!”
No, because you forgot to add insolation to geothermal.
“So what a vertical flux density of 100 mW/m^2 means is that 100 millijoules per second pass vertically through a horizontal area of 1 square meter.”
If you go down 10 meters below the surface, it’s the same temperature as 1 meter above. The sun doesn’t touch this areax and yet you think 100 milliwatts produces that? Wrong.
The heat flux is a vertical gradient. For every meter you ascend what Earth could potentially radiate is reduced by 100 milliwatts. It says nothing about what the surface ends up radiating as a result of this gradient.
Imagine you lost a dollar a day. Can you afford a cheeseburger? You don’t have that information.
By “lost” I mean soaked up in the heat capacity and increased mass of larger radius from center.
Zoe Phin
| #
Ed,
“In your linked diagram, you actually show a value for conductive geothermal flux density that agrees with my figure (0.1 W/m^2) and is nowhere near the 234 W/m^2 that you asserted. This agrees with thousands of measurements.”
In my diagram, the surface is 1000°C, while the sun provides 165 W/m^2. I used an extreme example to get my point accross, and yet you missed it.
If this planet has a lot of avaiable untrapped gas molecules, it will have a super-thick atmosphere.
You will believe it’s the greenhouse gases that make the surface hot, because Fourier and Arrhenius said so. Those dead experts must be right, so you can stop thinking now.
Ed Bo
| #
For God’s sake, Zoe, stop embarrassing yourself!
In your diagram, your surface at 1000C (1273K) would radiate over 141,000 W/m^2 to space with an emissivity of 0.95. The solar flux of 165 W/m^2 and the geothermal flux of 0.1 W/m^2 (or even 234 W/m^2) don’t even come close to balancing that, not even a significant fraction of 1% of what would be needed.
It is obvious that you have never done even the most basic thermodynamic analysis, and you are completely out of your depth here.
You say: “The heat flux is a vertical gradient. For every meter you ascend what Earth could potentially radiate is reduced by 100 milliwatts.”
NOOO!!! The vertical gradient is in temperature (potential), not in flux. You continue to have this fundamental confusion between potential and flux variables, and it makes your analysis ridiculous. No flux is “lost” (in the steady state, and that is what we are discussing here), otherwise the 1st LoT would be violated.
You try to invoke the increased radius for some of the losses. Starting from a radius of 6400 km at 10m below the surface, we reach a radius of 6400.01 km at the surface. So a 1.0m^2 cross section 10m down corresponds to a 1.000003 m^2 cross section at the surface.
Do you realize how foolish you sound?
Zoe Phin
| #
Ed,
“In your diagram, your surface at 1000C (1273K) would radiate over 141,000 W/m^2 to space with an emissivity of 0.95. The solar flux of 165 W/m^2 and the geothermal flux of 0.1 W/m^2 (or even 234 W/m^2) don’t even come close to balancing that, not even a significant fraction of 1% of what would be needed.”
So you admit it was geothermal that created 1000°C? Wow, you lack forethought. q is just conductive heat flux through the material. It tells you nothing about the emission that emerges out of the material which is just the SB law applied to the surface temperature.
Tell me retard, what is radiated at the top of this diagram?:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/276542253/figure/fig1/AS:669015789809677@1536517202569/An-example-of-geothermal-gradient-through-a-sample-of-earth-structure-Source-Banks.png
If you claim it’s 70 mW/m^2, congratulations, you’re a retard!
“NOOO!!! The vertical gradient is in temperature (potential), not in flux”
And you don’t know how to apply SB law?
Don’t forget that conduction mostly stops at the surface, but that doesn’t stop radiation!
“So a 1.0m^2 cross section 10m down corresponds to a 1.000003 m^2 cross section at the surface.”
Yes, and don’t forget heat capacity.
– –
Look at my diagram again!
Don’t you understand that given a certain temperature at a depth (100 meters for example) a SMALLER q produces higher emission from the surface?
Gosh, so many idiots think that q is what is emitted, and since it’s so small it’s irrelevant.
No, retard, the emission is NOT q.
I don’t understand why so many seemingly smart people can be so insanely stupid.
In Postma’s case he thinks the sun is enough. But in other’s case, their greenhouse junk science prevents clear thinking.
Zoe Phin
| #
Ed,
“But if there were no solar flux – say, on the permanent night side of a “locked” planet without an atmosphere – it would radiate only 70 mW/m^2 steady state. Applying the SB law, this would result in a surface temperature of 33.3K for unit emissivity.”
Congratulations! You are an imbecile. The temperature at the surface is 10°C. Do you know how to apply SB law to 10°C?
Remove 400 meters from the top the surface and it will be emitting SB(21.7°C).
But according to you, geothermal can’t do 21.7°C or 10°C, they must just be figments of the imagination.
IF geothermal was isothermal from core to surface, q would be ZERO. You’d believe it would emit 0 W/m^2 and not the SB(5000°K) it actually would.
You are an indoctrinated imbecile. You can’t think. You are just a stupid parrot.
Sure, the sun provides 165 W/m^2. But at the top of the atmosphere it provides 340 W/m^2. Let’s say the height is 11,000 meters. The radiative heat flux from the sun through 1 vertical meter is:
(165-340)/11000 = – 16 millWatts/m^2
See? That’s a small number.
You are such a retarded hypocrite. For the sun, you let it pass through all 11,000 meters and see what’s left. But for the Earth, you chop it down per 1 vertical meter, get a small number and then ignore it. You’re comparing oranges to apple seeds, but too stupid to see it.
Zoe Phin
| #
Ed,
My argument has never changed, you are just too stupid to understand the nuance.
“I was talking about REFLECTED light from the surface.”
Yes, 30% of the light is reflected! That’s why we don’t add that energy to the surface energy budget!
“But what about fires? They produce visible light due to thermal emission. I can see them from above even when there is downward solar radiation of the same wavelength.”
What about fires? Their intensity is higher than the sunlight. Of course you can see a hotter object in a colder field. What is the albedo of fire? Don’t know, but you’ll see this fire even better at night.
The relevant question is: will the fire see the sun?
Zoe Phin
| #
Ed,
If you’re not blocking the sunlight from reaching the fire, then that sunlight is NOT NORMAL to the path between the fire and your eye. None of your scenario is normal.
Do you ever sanity check your B.S.?
I rely on infrared objects being able to absorb solar uv/light. Geran doesn’t doesn’t believe this happens, but I do. I know that 163 W/m^2 from solar adds to 235 W/m^2 from geothermal.
Ed Bo
| #
Zoe:
It takes 12 milliseconds for a photon to go from the surface to an altitude of 1 kilometer (or 120 milliseconds to get to a more typical flying altitude of 10 km).
If my plane is traveling at a typical speed of 900 km/hr, it will travel 3 meters in this 12 msec (or 30 meters in the 120 msec needed for the photon to get to 10 km).
Let’s say I’m viewing the surface with a CCD 1 centimeter across, or consider the whole camera at 10 cm across. It is aligned to be looking down precisely parallel to the the path of sunlight. When a visible-light photon from the fire was emitted directly toward the sun, nothing was blocking it. Not far above the fire, the upward intensity from the fire is less than the downward intensity of sunlight.
12 (or 120) msec later, the camera breaks this line, and absorbes this photon (and many others) on its CCD. By your physics, this should have been beaten down already.
Your arguments remind me of the Ptolemaic geocentrists, who kept adding epicycle after epicycle to try to paper over the contradictions in their model.
geran
| #
Ed has managed to alter the speed of light, to go with the rest of his pseudoscience.
Hilarious.
Ed Bo
| #
Do you believe the speed of light to be infinite? That’s all that matters.
geran
| #
What matters Ed is that you are unable to catch your own mistake.
You just keep pounding on your keyboard.
Hilarious.
Ed Bo
| #
Geran:
You can’t even catch any of your myriad mistakes after they are explicitly pointed out to you.
“Hilarious” is not an argument.
geran
| #
There’s no argument Ed. There’s only your denial.
You can’t even do high school level physics: “It takes 12 milliseconds for a photon to go from the surface to an altitude of 1 kilometer.”
Maybe if you pound on your keyboard some more….
Ed Bo
| #
I didn’t deny my error. Thank you for catching it, by the way.
Now when are you going to acknowledge even a single one of your many, many more fundamental errors?
geran
| #
Ed, your making things up does not translate to me making errors. You don’t have enough background in physics to understand any of this.
I caught your error when I first saw it. I didn’t even have to get my calculator. I knew you had made a mistake just based on how far you thought the airplane could fly. You have no experience in physics, so you just went on to design your problem around your mistake!
We need to commemorate this properly, as in a new nickname for you. Do you prefer:
1) Ed Blow (short for “blowhard”), or
2) Ed Bozo (in honor of your clown abilities)
If you don’t have a preference, I’ll just go with my mood at the moment.
And, thank you for your hilarious performance here today.
Ed Bo
| #
Says the man who simultaneously believes that:
1.) The physics of radiative absorption mean that low-frequency photons cannot add energy to higher temperature objects.
2.) All photons of the same wavelength/frequency act the same (which must include however generated)
3.) The extremely low-frequency photons from a microwave oven source can add energy to 100 C water
4.) Identical photons from a thermally generated source cannot add energy to 100 C water.
The inherent contradictions here have been pointed out multiple times.
“Hilarious” doesn’t even begin to describe it.
geran
| #
Ed Blow, your making things up does not translate to me making errors.
More examples of your desperation, please.
Ed Bo
| #
Zoe:
You ask: “So you admit it was geothermal that created 1000°C?”
NO! I am saying that your example makes no sense at all! It’s not even internally consistent. There is absolutely no way the surface could maintain a temperature of 1000C with just those inputs. Not even close. If you had ever done the most basic thermodynamic analysis, this would be immediately obvious to you.
You ask: “What is radiated at the top of this diagram?”
There isn’t enough information to say, because it doesn’t provide any information about what contributions from above the surface are. But if there were no solar flux – say, on the permanent night side of a “locked” planet without an atmosphere – it would radiate only 70 mW/m^2 steady state. Applying the SB law, this would result in a surface temperature of 33.3K for unit emissivity.
This is very obvious from a trivial energy conservation analysis, as anyone with even middling intelligence would realize (this seems to exclude you).
If the surface also had a constant 165 W/m^2 solar input, the surface would need to radiate out 165.07 W/m^2 to maintain steady state conditions. Again applying the SB law, this would result in a surface temperature of 232K.
You desperately need to take real thermodynamics and heat transfer classes, because you have absolutely no clue what you are doing here.
Reply
Zoe Phin
| #
Ed,
“But if there were no solar flux – say, on the permanent night side of a “locked” planet without an atmosphere – it would radiate only 70 mW/m^2 steady state. Applying the SB law, this would result in a surface temperature of 33.3K for unit emissivity.”
Congratulations! You are an imbecile. The temperature at the surface is 10°C. Do you know how to apply SB law to 10°C?
Remove 400 meters from the top the surface and it will be emitting SB(21.7°C).
But according to you, geothermal can’t do 21.7°C or 10°C, they must just be figments of the imagination.
IF geothermal was isothermal from core to surface, q would be ZERO. You’d believe it would emit 0 W/m^2 and not the SB(5000°K) it actually would.
You are an indoctrinated imbecile. You can’t think. You are just a stupid parrot.
Sure, the sun provides 165 W/m^2. But at the top of the atmosphere it provides 340 W/m^2. Let’s say the height is 11,000 meters. The radiative heat flux from the sun through 1 vertical meter is:
(165-340)/11000 = – 16 millWatts/m^2
See? That’s a small number.
You are such a retarded hypocrite. For the sun, you let it pass through all 11,000 meters and see what’s left. But for the Earth, you chop it down per 1 vertical meter, get a small number and then ignore it. You’re comparing oranges to apple seeds, but too stupid to see it.
Ed Bo
| #
Zoe:
You just keep demonstrating that you don’t have the foggiest notion what you are talking about. The diagram you cite doesn’t say anything about what other power fluxes are present.
For a surface at 10C and emissivity of 0.95, it would radiate upwards a power flux density of 346 W/m^2. In steady-state conditions, this must be balanced by 346 W/m^2 of input. The 0.07 W/m^2 geothermal flux doesn’t come close. Adding 165 W/m^2 solar still doesn’t get you halfway there.
There must be yet another power flux that permits the surface to radiate a steady 346 W/m^2 and maintain a 10C temperature. I wonder what that could be???
This is the kind of very basic energy balance analysis that people learn in the first couple of weeks of an introductory thermodynamics class. It is obviously completely unknown to you.
Your argument is akin to asserting that you can deposit 7 cents a week into your bank account, withdraw $346 per week, and maintain a steady balance in the account week after week. Your error is that basic!
You screw up your analysis of radiative flux through the atmosphere even worse! Let’s accept your figures of 340 W/m^2 flux at TOA, and 165 W/m^2 at the surface, 11km below, reduced by reflection and absorption on the way down. For simplicity, we’ll also accept your estimation that the reduction rate is constant, amounting to 16 mW/m^2 per meter of height.
But your conclusion is completely wrong. This value is NOT a flux, it is a rate of change of flux. Its units are NOT those of flux — they are W/m^2/m, or W/m^3. Do you even know how to check your units?
Since you obviously don’t understand the issue in the abstract, I’ll give you a concrete example. Take a 1-meter high section of a column in the atmosphere where the solar flux into the top surface is 250.000 W/m^2. The flux out of the bottom surface is 249.986 W/m^2.
The -16 W/m^2/m is the REDUCTION in flux. The actual power flux out of the bottom that you would use in all thermodynamic calculations is still 249.986 W/m^2.
By contrast, the 70 mW/m^2 upward geothermal flux is a REAL power flux. By confusing the two separate issues, you are just demonstrating that you don’t have the conceptual foundation to begin to analyze these issues properly.
Zoe Phin
| #
Ed,
“The -16 W/m^2/m is the REDUCTION in flux.”
“By contrast, the 70 mW/m^2 upward geothermal flux is a REAL power flux.”
Wrong, you retard hypocrite, they’re both reductions in flux.
Tell is, retard, why is 21.7°C at 400 meters depth? You argue it can’t be geothermal, because it only provides 70mW or 33°.3K.
Zoe Phin
| #
Ed,
Let’s just repeat this so people can have a good laugh at you:
IF geothermal was isothermal from core to surface, q would be ZERO. You’d believe it would emit 0 W/m^2 and not the SB(5000°K) it actually would.
Zoe Phin
| #
Ed,
You’re a moron.
“For a surface at 10C and emissivity of 0.95, it would radiate upwards a power flux density of 346 W/m^2. In steady-state conditions, this must be balanced by 346 W/m^2 of input. The 0.07 W/m^2 geothermal flux doesn’t come close. ”
The input is not 0.07 W/m^2, the input is from the meter below it, which is at 10+0.07/2.4 = 10.029°C.
Ed Bo
| #
Zoe:
You say: “they’re both reductions in flux.”
Look at the freaking units! They don’t have the same units, so they can’t be of the same type. The 16 mW/m^2/m is the CHANGE in flux per unit length. The 70 mW/m^2 is just the AMOUNT of flux.
You should have learned the results of unit analysis in your first high school science class. The fact that you still don’t understand it is very telling.
In any introductory heat transfer class, the very first equation you deal with is Fourier’s one-dimensional conduction law. It is clear that you don’t really understand it. (You seem to have a real problem with Fourier…)
Applied to the present case of the vertical geothermal conductive flux density, the equation is:
q/A [W/m^2] = -k [W/m/K] * (dT/dz) [K/m]
In the diagram you provide, the top layer has a material conductivity value k of 2.4 W/m/K (verifiable by laboratory measurements if necessary). The measured temperature gradient dT/dz is -0.029 K/m. We simply multiply these values together to get a q/A conductive power flux density of:
-2.4 [W/m/K] * 0.029 [K/m] = 0.07 [W/m^2]
A problem like this is going to be the very first problem you are asked to solve in your first heat transfer class. You obviously don’t really understand it!
Anyway, this is how the conductive power flux density is calculated, given actual measurements of the material conductivity and the temperature gradient.
You ask: “why is 21.7C at 400 meters depth?”
Because the energy balance at the surface (with fluxes much greater than the geothermal) sets a temperature of 10C, the geothermal flux sets a temperature at 400m depth of:
10 [C] + 0.029 [C/m] * 400 [m] = 21.7 [C]
Then you say: “You argue it can’t be geothermal, because it only provides 70mW or 33°.3K.”
Here, you are hilariously, and completely erroneously, plugging numbers into a totally irrelevant radiation equation when the issue is conduction. Once again, you are just proving that you don’t understand the most basic concepts.
Zoe Phin
| #
Ed,
“Because the energy balance at the surface (with fluxes much greater than the geothermal) sets a temperature of 10C, the geothermal flux sets a temperature at 400m depth of:
10 [C] + 0.029 [C/m] * 400 [m] = 21.7 [C]”
Ofcourse a GH gas retard would make the argument that it’s the sun and GHGs that make the temperature of the subsurface increase with depth. What a moron.
Let’s say you have a metal bar in steady-state conduction. You are arguing that it’s the COLD side and the heat flux in reverse that make the HOT side hotter than the cold side, rather than the reverse. Don’t be a moron. Thermodynamics runs from hot to cold, and it’s geothermal that provides both 21.7 and 10°C. The sun does not heat the core to over 5000°K with the aid of geothermal gradient, moron.
q = k(Th-Tc)/L
Tc = Th – qL/k
Cold is a result of hot. You can’t reverse this and claim:
Th = Tc + qL/k
It may work mathematically, but you’re neglecting causality. You’re taking the cold tempetature as a given input, rather than a physical output.
According to US Standard Atmosphere the difference between tropopause and surface is 71.5°K. The height of the bottom of the tropopause is 11,000 meters, and the thermal conductivity of air is 0.025 W/(mK).
Therefore q = 71.5*0.025/11000 =
0.0001625 W/m^2
That’s the q caused by sun that delivers 340 W/m^2 to the TOA (ignoring geothermal here).
Now compare that with q in geothermal!
Perhaps you should ignore q and just acknowledge the fact that the Earth has its own heat source that is capable of creating 10°C in that diagram without any input from the sun?
You’re sitting on a 283°K frying pan, there’s a 232°K heat lamp shining down on you, and you think it’s the heat lamp and some gases generating the frying pan’s temperature. What an imbecile!
Zoe Phin
| #
According to Ed:
https://people.highline.edu/iglozman/classes/physnotes/media/heat_t6.jpg
This process must really run backwards!
Insolation and greenhouse gases together with q and k causes the subsurface temperature to increase with depth all the way to the core!
Cold is responsible for Hot. Can you believe his sheer insanity? Unfortunately he’s not alone.
Ed Bo
| #
Zoe:
Surface temperatures in the tropics are higher than those in temperate zones. Surface temperatures in temperate zones are higher than those in polar zones.
In all zones, real measurements from boreholes show a sub-surface geothermal flux density of 70 mW/m^2.
Your analysis cannot explain these real-world facts. Mine can. The difference between these zones is the amount of solar flux hitting the surface. A schoolchild understands that this is why we see these surface temperature differences. But you can’t!
You have a large downward flux from the sun reaching the surface. You have a tiny upward flux from the core of the earth. The closer you are to the surface, the more the temperature is a function of the solar flux. The closer you are to the center, the more the temperature is a function of the geothermal flux. (I never claimed that the sun controlled the core temperature.)
In your ignorance, you try to argue against me with a simple diagram illustrating the Fourier 1D conduction equation. You state that “thermodynamics runs from hot to cold”.
Let’s consider your diagram with some specifics. The “hot” end of your bar is in a large reservoir of boiling water at 100C. The “cold” end is in a large reservoir of ice water at 0C. The bar is totally insulated along its length. At the middle of the bar (at L/2), the temperature will be 50C.
Now we increase the temperature of the cold reservoir to 20C. What happens to the temperature at the middle of the bar. According to your analysis, nothing. In fact, it would increase to 60C!
I would make the problem more analogous to our case, by setting fluxes at each end of the bar, but since you always confuse potential and flux variables, it would be beyond your ability to grasp.
Part of my job involves thermal testing of electronics. I have been doing it for decades. We have to make sure that our electronics do not overheat in any of the ambient conditions they would be used in.
So we have temperature chambers we use to test our electronics. We set the controlled temperature of the chamber and operate our electronics so they emit constant power.
We repeat this test at various chamber temperatures, with thermocouples measuring the key component temperatures. What do we notice? That the higher the chamber temperature (even though always colder than the components), the higher the component temperatures.
But you say: “Cold is a result of hot. You can’t reverse this…”
My decades of actual testing say otherwise!
Look – I have to get this stuff right, or I lose my job (and I have no intention of doing so). You can spout whatever nonsense you want on the Internet without real consequences (other than showing everyone you’re an idiot).
One more thing before I go. You say: “According to US Standard Atmosphere the difference between tropopause and surface is 71.5°K. The height of the bottom of the tropopause is 11,000 meters, and the thermal conductivity of air is 0.025 W/(mK). Therefore q = 71.5*0.025/11000 = 0.0001625 W/m^2.
Several things about this are hilarious. First, you used the Fourier conduction equation for radiative transfer. Second, you were careless about the sign, and didn’t realize this conductive flux is an UPWARD flux.
Yes, since the atmospheric temperature decreases with height, there is upward conductive heat transfer. But as you calculated, it is tiny, less than 1mW/m^2. As a result, knowledgeable people just ignore it, because other fluxes can be a million times greater.
But this has NOTHING to do with the level of the radiative flux through the atmosphere.
When are you going to get tired of making a fool of yourself???
Zoe Phin
| #
Ed,
Let’s have another laugh at your hypocrisy.
“Because the energy balance at the surface (with fluxes much greater than the geothermal) sets a temperature of 10C, the geothermal flux sets a temperature at 400m depth of:
10 [C] + 0.029 [C/m] * 400 [m] = 21.7 [C]”
“-2.4 [W/m/K] * 0.029 [K/m] = 0.07 [W/m^2]”
So here you decided to use the tiny flux and multiply it through to argue that temperature increases downward. But before you said only 0.07 W/m^2 per meter flows through each progressive vetical meter.
There we go! You are low life scum.
So tell us again why it is 21.7°C @400m deep. Do deny some more that it is because it is 21.7°C @400m deep minus the tiny flux MULTIPLIED through with thermal consuctivity that explains 10°C at the top.
Hey genius, the sun provided an AVERAGE of 163 W/m^2 at the surface and then you add 235 from geothermal. You have to be a moron to believe 235 originates in the atmosphere. Look at the energy budget. The “greenhouse gas” backradiation theory requires that 398 W/m^2 emerges from the surface while the sun provides only 163. There is an energy loop created out of knowhere. GHGs don’t have the energy to “backradiate”.
https://phzoe.wordpress.com/2019/11/01/why-the-greenhouse-effect-is-a-fraud-p1/
https://phzoe.wordpress.com/2019/11/05/nasas-subtle-diagram-fraud/
Only an imbecile would think the missing 235 W/m^2 comes from the atmosphere.
Ed, the reason its hotter than in the tropics than in the poles is because there is more insolation to add to geothermal. Duh
Zoe Phin
| #
Ed,
“Now we increase the temperature of the cold reservoir to 20C. What happens to the temperature at the middle of the bar. According to your analysis, nothing. In fact, it would increase to 60C!”
Without the 100°C on the hot end, to raise cold end to 20°C would require 420 W/m^2.
But thanks to the 100°C on the hot end, you only need an additional 105 W/m^2 to do the same.
Thanks to geothermal providing a 235 W/m^2 base at the surface, the sun’s average 163 W/m^2 boosts the surface temperature to 398 W/m^2.
Zoe Phin
| #
Ed,
You missed the entire point of the calculations. Fluxes look tiny when you slice them per 1 vertical meter. This is done on purpose to make geothermal look tiny in comparison to solar. But it is not done for solar. We need to compare like with like.
I chose to shrink the sun in the atmosphere. We can also expand geothermal.
@ 400m depth Earth can emit 429 W/m^2. If you dug a bore hole, that is what will come out of the bore hole. Because you cite conductive heat flux measurement from a borehole which use a thermal conductivity coefficient that uses W/(m*K), you get a tiny flux of milliwatts. Even if you found lava at the bottom of your 90° hole and that lava is now radiating to space 50,000 W/m^2, your “q” will still be small.
Your analysis of borehole measurements is stupid.
You attempted to show that it’s 21.7°C @400 because
10+0.07/2.4*400 = 21.7
That was harious! The whole time I was trying to show you that it’s 10 @ the surface because
21.7 – 0.07/2.4 * 400 = 10
But you don’t want that to be true, because you’re not interested in science, only promoting your crackpot ideology.
Ed Bo
| #
Zoe:
If there were 235 W/m^2 of upward geothermal flux from below the surface through a material with conductivity k of 2.4 W/m/K (from the diagram YOU provide to try to support your argument), we get by applying Fourier’s conduction equation:
q/A = 235 [W/m^2] = -2.4 [W/m/K] * dT/dz [K/m]
Solving for dT/dz, we get:
dT/dz = -235/2.4 = -97.9 [K/m]
At a depth of 400m, the temperature increase would be 39,166K!!!!
With a surface temperature of 10C, the temperature 1 meter down would be 107.9C, hot enough to boil water!
Of course, nothing remotely like this exists anywhere.
I must repeat that this equation is the VERY FIRST one a student encounters in their first heat transfer class. And you have absolutely NO IDEA what its implications are!
You are off by a factor of 3,350!
If my heat sink designs were off by a factor of 1.2 (20% error), I would be in big trouble.
If you spend a couple of years studying thermodynamics and heat transfer, you might then be able to contribute something useful. But now you are just blowing smoke!
Ed Bo
| #
Zoe:
Your latest missive is completely unintelligible (not even wrong, as they say)!
“Fluxes look tiny when you slice them per 1 vertical meter.” WTF? The “m^2” in W/m^2 refer to horizontal cross section for vertical flux, not vertical meters. Once again, you don’t understand units like a mediocre 15-year-old could.
“I chose to shrink the sun in the atmosphere. We can also expand geothermal.” WTF? You are openly admitting to making sh*t up!
“Because you cite conductive heat flux measurement from a borehole which use a thermal conductivity coefficient that uses W/(m*K), you get a tiny flux of milliwatts.”
Again, WTF? The result has nothing to do with the specific units used, as long as the units are consistent (which I was very careful to be – that’s why I always listed the units explicitly, which you seem not to understand).
A lot of universities use introductory thermodynamics as a “washout” course, to eliminate students who do not have the fundamental technical ability for a related course of study. Having taught related technical subjects at a major university, I have no hesitation in saying I would have drummed you out immediately.
Zoe Phin
| #
Ed,
What is wrong with you?
“Let’s consider your diagram with some specifics. The “hot” end of your bar is in a large reservoir of boiling water at 100C. The “cold” end is in a large reservoir of ice water at 0C. The bar is totally insulated along its length. At the middle of the bar (at L/2), the temperature will be 50C.”
Let’s say k = 1, L = 10
q = k * (Thot – Tcold) / L
So q = 10.
But q is not what emerges from the cold end. The cold end is 0°C and hence emitting 315 W/m^2.
Your new junk math appears to be taking this 315 W/m^2 and claiming it as q, and then trying to stick that back into the equation while q is really 10.
235 W/m^2 is what emerges from the conductive material (Earth), it is not q for god’s sake, it’s
235 W/m^2 = sigma*(Thot-qK/L)^4
How retarded can you be?
If you spend a couple of years studying thermodynamics and heat transfer, you might then be able to contribute something useful. But now you are just blowing smoke!”
100% projection. Take your advice, moron.
q is not what emerges! It’s sigma*Tcold^4
Gosh, how the eff did you get an engineering degree?
Ed Bo
| #
Zoe:
YOU provide an example of conductive heat transfer, and then try to apply radiative equations to it.
Earlier you try to analyze the sun’s radiative heat transfer with equations of conduction (and don’t even get the sign right!).
You ask: “How the eff did you get an engineering degree?”
Well, by understanding the difference between radiative heat transfer and conductive heat transfer for one thing.
Which is more than I can say for you!
Zoe Phin
| #
Ed,
Wow, you are a moron. You don’t understand that the thermal conductivity constant is in W/(m*K), which means that k and q use a 1 meter vertical slice.
I don’t have a problem with the /m^2 you pathetic moron, it’s the /m inside k which effects q that I have a problem with.
When we apply the /m standard to the sun and/or the atmosphere we get small numbers too.
You are a pathetic imbecile can’t follow simple arguments or logic.
Ed Bo
| #
Zoe:
You say: “I don’t have a problem with the /m^2…it’s the /m inside k which effects q that I have a problem.”
By your logic, I would get different physical result when describing a speed of 60 km/hr as 60,000 m/hr.
I can’t believe I have to repeat this, but the units used in an equation do not matter for the actual result as long as the units are consistent.
You seem to have a very fundamental problem with units.
Then you say: “When we apply the /m standard to the sun and/or the atmosphere we get small numbers too.”
The problem is NOT the particular length used in the units. It’s first that you are trying to apply conductive values to radiative transfer. And second, that conduction in the atmosphere IS very small (but that’s irrelevant).
Stupid is too kind a word for your so-called “logic”.
Zoe Phin
| #
Ed,
“Earlier you try to analyze the sun’s radiative heat transfer with equations of conduction (and don’t even get the sign right!).”
How could I have gotten the sign wrong when I was talking about the difference? Did I claim the tropopause was hotter? Shut your filthy lying mouth.
I used the sun’s and geothermal surface flux to explain a 71.5°C difference between 11,000 meters using conduction. What’s wrong with that? I don’t claim to find surface flux using conduction. I only show you that q is misleading when you try to claim it is a radiative flux.
So, tell me, moron, does the metal bar radiate 315 W/m^2 on the cold end due to 100°C input on the hot end in your example, or not?
Do you understand how your little conductive q of 10 W/m^2 produces 315 W/m^2 of radiation on the cold end?
Or do you believe the cold end will only emit 10 W/m^2?
Now admit you’re a moron.
Zoe Phin
| #
Ed,
“It’s first that you are trying to apply conductive values to radiative transfer. And second, that conduction in the atmosphere IS very small (but that’s irrelevant).”
You can’t use “radiative transfer” to explain why the tropopause emits 125 W/m^2 to space. You can use conduction or lapse rate formula. The lapse rate formula is also not “radiative transfer”.
How dare you accuse me of doing things right when you don’t even have a method of doing it wrong.
Ed Bo
| #
Zoe:
You are hopeless!
You say: “I used the sun’s and geothermal flux to explain a 71.5C difference between 11,000 meters using conduction. What’s wrong with that?”
Basically everything! When you have an upward radiative flux from the surface of over 300 W/m^2 and convection also able to carry hundreds of W/m^2 upward, the 0.00016 W/m^2 conductive transfer you calculate is completely irrelevant. And when you asserted it in the context of the solar radiation, completely wrong,
You ask: “does the metal bar radiate 315 W/m^2 on the cold end due to the 100C input on the hot end in your example, or not?”
The end of the metal bar at 0C in the ice water radiates 315 W/m^2 as a function of its temperature (regardless of “cause”). But, the ice water at 0C also radiates 315 W/m^2 to the bar, so the net radiative transfer at the end is zero.
And if you work through the math, if the end of the bar is slightly warmer than the ice water, the conductive transfer is much, much greater than the transfer.
Zoe Phin
| #
Ed,
“And when you asserted it in the context of the solar radiation, completely wrong,”
How is it completely wrong if it gets the right result? The tropopause emits 125 W/m^2 to space.
How about you calculate it using your “radiative transfers”. LMAO
“But, the ice water at 0C also radiates 315 W/m^2 to the bar, so the net radiative transfer at the end is zero.”
What’s on the other end of your imaginary ice? Another energy source? Not fair. What keeps the ice at 0°C?
We can extend your stupidity further. The hot end that gets 100°C merely radiately back to its own heat source and hence the whole metal bar gets NOTHING. But you agree that that’s not the case. So why the stupid hypocrisy on the cold end?
Ed Bo
| #
Zoe:
Recently, I flew across the country on a sunny day. I looked out the window at the ground on which the downward solar radiative flux was falling. I thought I saw cities, farms, and mountains.
But now that I think about it, for me to have seen those things, it would have required upward flux of visible light, the opposite direction from the downward solar flux.
But you say “There is no two way radiation.” So I guess I must have been imagining it…
You say that a 10C surface radiates upward 363 W/m^2, when there is a downward 165 W/m^2 radiative solar flux. But wait, “there is no two way radiation”.
Zoe, ONE of things that causes you to keep generating ridiculous results (like turning 0.07 W/m^2 into 235 W/m^2) is that you think radiation can only be one way. But in reality, as every textbook you can find on the subject says, radiation can be two (or more, even all) ways.
Do you really think that all our engineers and physicists for the last century have been taught this fundamental a mistake? If you do, why are you wasting time arguing with me on an obscure blog, when you should be out trying to get all those mistakenly designed thermal systems created by miseducated engineers and scientists!
Because you cannot grasp the concept of radiative exchange, as explained in all of these textbooks, you are continually comparing large gross radiative flows to much smaller net conductive flows. Apples and oranges.
Enough for now. Life intrudes.
Zoe Phin
| #
Ed,
There is no two way radiation of SAME frequency photons. What do you not understand? UV/Light and Infrared can easily pass through each other.
But Ed, didn’t your conductive q of 10 W/m^2 produce 315 W/m^2 when it came out the other end? Again, what is it that you don’t understand?
“Do you really think that all our engineers and physicists for the last century have been taught this fundamental a mistake? ”
Unlike you, I have looked into Planck’s photon gas oven and Einstein’s elaboration of it. There is no two way radiation of photons.
As far as engineers, their words are inconsequential because all technological devices can only measure what you call ‘net flows’, and what smart people like me just call ‘flows’.
Zoe Phin
| #
Ed,
Here is Planck’s Law:
https://wikimedia.org/api/rest_v1/media/math/render/svg/732a1339c992084dcad37b9c1cf90044d8065e62
There reason there is a 2 in front is because:
“A photon has two possible polarization states.”
But if what you said (“two way photon exchange between walls in thermal equilibrium”) was true then there would be a 4, not a 2.
So you’re dead wrong, genius. The faster you own up to it the more respect you will get.
Ed Bo
| #
Zoe:
You say: “There is no two way radiation of SAME frequency photons.”
Umm, Zoe – I’m talking about visible light down and visible light up.
How could I possibly see green plants from above, when there is downward green solar radiation?
You just committed what is known as an “epic fail”!
Zoe Phin
| #
Ed,
You don’t seem to understand the difference between emission and scattering. You will only see the green plants when inward and outward light is not 100% normal. The earth doesn’t emit light, it only gets scattered from the sun by the atmosphere.
Ed Bo
| #
Zoe:
You keep changing your argument. First, you say: “There is no two way radiation”.
I point out that you believe there is upward radiation of IR while there is downward solar radiation. So your backup claim is that “There is no two way radiation of SAME frequency photons.”
So I also point out that you can see visible light looking down from above, which means there must be upward radiation of photons through the downward visible solar radiation.
Now you say: “The earth doesn’t emit light, it only gets scattered from the sun by the atmosphere.”
I was talking about REFLECTED light from the surface.
But what about fires? They produce visible light due to thermal emission. I can see them from above even when there is downward solar radiation of the same wavelength.
I do have to admit, though, Zoe, that you come up with the most creative imaginary physics I have ever encountered.
Zoe Phin
| #
Ed,
My argument has never changed, you are just too stupid to understand the nuance.
“I was talking about REFLECTED light from the surface.”
Yes, 30% of the light is reflected! That’s why we don’t add that energy to the surface energy budget!
“But what about fires? They produce visible light due to thermal emission. I can see them from above even when there is downward solar radiation of the same wavelength.”
What about fires? Their intensity is higher than the sunlight. Of course you can see a hotter object in a colder field. What is the albedo of fire? Don’t know, but you’ll see this fire even better at night.
The relevant question is: will the fire see the sun?
Ed Bo
| #
Zoe:
It is great fun to watch you desperately backtrack and try to cover up your errors with assertions of “nuance”.
First it was no two way radiation, period.
Then it was no two way radiation of the same wavelength.
Then it was no two way radiation in exactly opposite directions.
Then it was no two way radiation of thermal emission.
Now you qualify it with intensity
Let’s continue, shall we?
I don’t have to be far above the fire on a sunny day for the intensity of downward visible solar radiation at my altitude to be greater than the intensity of upward visible radiation from the fire. Yet I can still see the fire from great altitudes. The upward radiation from the fire had to pass through a much greater intensity of oppositely directed solar radiation of the same wavelength to reach my eyes.
How is that possible? What new restriction (“nuance”) are you going to add?
On your newly added requirements of same wavelength and opposite direction for this beatdown to occur – what are the tolerances on this? What is the wavelength (or frequency) band where this occurs? What is the direction tolerance (in degrees)?
Zoe Phin
| #
Ed,
The very first question I asked you is whether two objects in thermal equilbrium send photons to each other. Since two objects in thermal equilbrium all have the same frequency ranges and intensities there was no need for further nuance. Gosh, you are such a pedantic tiny prick.
Zoe Phin
| #
Ed,
“for the intensity of downward visible solar radiation at my altitude to be greater than the intensity of upward visible radiation from the fire. ”
What are you talking about, idiot?
The spectrum of a 1200°C fire far exceeds the solar visible spectrum.
In any case, why do you think I suggested an experiment with a water pipe? So that there is no sideways radiation.
You are too stupid to understand the nuance.
The relevant question is whether the fire sees the sun.
Ed Bo
| #
Zoe:
You say: “The spectrum of a 1200°C fire far exceeds the solar visible spectrum.”
Ummm, the sun’s surface temperature is about 5500C (5770K), and it emits as very close to a blackbody. About 45% of this is in the visible spectrum.
Only a couple of percent of the spectrum of a 1200C fire is in the visible range. The VAST majority is in the infrared.
Do you really believe that the W/m^2 intensity from a fire when viewed from a kilometer up exceeds the ~1000 W/m^2 intensity coming down from the sun (when it is high in the sky)?
Do you ever do sanity checks on the nonsense you put out?
Zoe Phin
| #
Ed,
For a 1200°C fire, 121.77 W/m^2 will be between 400 and 700 nanometers.
The sun, with 1361 W/m^2 at peak and 30% albedo will have only 111.15 W/m^2 between 400 and 700 nanometers.
Do you ever do sanity checks on the nonsense you put out?
P.S. A fire is actually 1400°C apparently.
Ed Bo
| #
Zoe:
You calculated the fire’s intensity right at the fire, but the sun’s intensity 150 million km from its surface.
I specifically talked about a km up from the fire, where its intensity is far, far less. (Inverse square law and all that…)
I repeat my question — do you ever do sanity checks?
jerry krause
| #
Hi James,
Luckily I refrained from making the point that our bodies are continually generating heat because I wanted to see if anyone would make the point you have made..
As I read what you have written here and there observed fact that sun rises in the Willamette Valley OR USA have begun to look like sunsets and the sunset are even more beautiful (spectacular) than usual here, that I have seen more lightning and heard thunder more times this summer than in more than 10 years past, that the colors of the trees cannot get have leaves more strongly colored, and we have low temperatures (due to circulation from the dry, cool air from the north which it not normal at the beginning November. etc.
So there is great opportunity to study what might be causing these dramatic changes
And I am beginning to maybe consider more thoughtfully what you are writing. For I know that friction creates static electricity. The electroscope and the fur and the amber rod and some other fiber (which I cannot remember) and the glass rod (a guess). So even though we have only recognized the the existence of the jet stream for only about 75 years there can be little doubt about the relationship the jet stream and the weather which occurs beneath it. One mechanism of its impact upon weather is the fact it cools the top of local thunder storms making them longer lived and more violent. For we have long known that a heat engine will destroy itself in the ‘waste heat’ produced while doing work is not removed from the vicinity of the engine.
But I have just began acknowledging that there is a boundary between the great velocity of the jet stream and the lesser velocity of the atmosphere below and above it which must cause friction and a layer of turbulence. Something which you might be writing about that I have not really considered.
But I ask you: Where did most of the jet streams originate that carried hydrogen balloons carrying incendiary devices from Japan to the continental USA as far east as the Midwest during the winter? And I have my answer, but would like to read your answer.
Have a good day, jerry
Reply
James McGinn
| #
Hi Jerry,
My theory is very different from anything you can even begin to imagine.
I’ve started a podcast to help others understand it:
https://anchor.fm/dashboard/episode/e93euk
https://anchor.fm/dashboard/episode/e91i9b
Regards,
James McGinn / Solving Tornadoes
Reply
jerry krause
| #
Hi James,
I must admit I made a mistake in trying to have a conversation with you again. When you write: “My theory is very different from anything you can even begin to imagine.”, you are being so arrogant that you cannot l learn anything from others. Galileo is said to have written (as translated by someone): “I have never met a man so ignorant that I couldn’t learn something from him.”
Have a good day, Jerry
tom0mason
| #
The problem is that ‘climate science™’ has resolve to not make the numbers fit the observations…
http://www.climate4you.com/images/SolarIrradianceReconstructedSince1610%20LeanUntil2000%20From2001dataFromPMOD.gif
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Ed and Norman,
The source of your mistaken belief in the GHGT is your belief that the nitrogen and oxygen in the atmosphere do not absorb energy from the sun.
A molecule forms when the combining of atoms results in a molecule with less energy than the atoms that form it. In order to split those molecules you must add enough energy to the atoms to overcome the bond holding them together.
In the upper atmosphere oxygen and nitrogen exist as atoms because the ultraviolet light from the sun transfers enough energy to atoms in the molecules to break the bonds. Why wouldn’t the ultraviolet light that breaks the bonds in an oxygen molecule creating the ozone layer in the stratosphere also react with the oxygen molecules higher in the atmosphere? The resulting atoms have enough kinetic energy to prevent the molecules from reforming until they lose some of the energy by radiation which causes the molecules to reform but with increased kinetic energy of then molecules. The molecular bonds are converting the energy from ultraviolet light into kinetic energy. The fact that nitrogen and oxygen do not absorb infrared radiation is irrelevant. They gain kinetic energy from uv radiation and enough energy to split molecules to form the ionosphere.
Scientist say that space has no temperature because there are too few molecules to register on a thermometer. At what concentration of molecules do thermometers become inaccurate? The answer is that thermometers are designed and calibrated for liquids and they are inaccurate at indicating the kinetic energy of molecules in all gases. To determine the kinetic energy of molecules in a gas you must use the universal gas law.
Herb
Reply
Norman
| #
Herb Rose
Not my mistake. The scientists already include the amount of energy the atmosphere absorbs from the Sun. It is not a new revelation.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth%27s_energy_budget#/media/File:The-NASA-Earth's-Energy-Budget-Poster-Radiant-Energy-System-satellite-infrared-radiation-fluxes.jpg
An average of 77.1 W/m^2 of incoming Solar energy are absorbed by the atmosphere.
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Norman,
I take exception to the reflection of 77.1 W/m^2 by clouds. Clouds are composed of water droplets and water is clear. When light strikes a clear sphere in penetrates the sphere and is refracted in the interior of the sphere or is reflected at an angle equal to the angle of incidence by the surface of the sphere. When the absorbed light leaves the droplets some is reflected back into the droplet while most leaves the droplet in a different direction than what it entered. The reason the clear water in clouds appear white is because the water droplets are emitting light in all directions just a frosted glass redirects light. The clouds are dispersing energy into the atmosphere rather than reflecting light back into space. The only light being sent higher into the atmosphere (not into space) is the small portion being emitted in that direction. When you drive through fog the visibility problem is not from the light emitted by the headlights being reflected back into your eyes but the light being dispersed in all directions limiting the forward visibility.
Herb
Reply
geran
| #
Norman, it IS your mistake. Believing in pseudoscience IS a mistake.
Once again, you don’t understand the links you find. That link shows the incoming solar divided by 4. But, dividing flux is not scientifically correct.
But false religions don’t care about science, huh?
Reply
geran
| #
Ed, here are the simple points that you must avoid/deny/repudiate, to protect your false religion:
1) A cold object can NOT raditively raise the temperature of a hotter object. (This alone destroys the GHE nonsense.)
2) Not all photons are always absorbed. A wavelength mismatch can cause a photon to be reflected.
3) Even if a photon with frequency “f” were absorbed into an object with average molecular vibration frequency “1.1f”, the newly absorbed photon would reduce the overall average vibration frequency, thereby reducing the temperature.
You are confused by things like a microwave oven, because it can boil water with low energy photons. With your inexperience, that means “cold” is warming “hot”. You believe a microwave oven is violating laws of physics, so then the sky can violate the laws of physics. You merely demonstrate your lack of understanding.
The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, simply stated, says that a cold object cannot raise the temperature of a hotter object, without “help”. IOW, for a microwave oven to do what it does, there must be “help” added to the process. And, of course, there is. A microwave oven is specifically designed for the purpose, using special materials in extraordinary arrangement. External energy is then added to the design to allow the oven to do what it does. Plenty of “help” is added. There is no violation of the 2nd Law. “Design” and external energy reduce the system entropy, allowing a microwave oven to function.
Learn some physics.
(I started down here so that you could have plenty of room for a 1000-word rambling, nonsensical, hilarious rebuttal. Go for it.)
Reply
Ed Bo
| #
Geran:
A wise man once said: “all photons, that have the same wavelength, are the same.”
So listening to that wise man, I conclude that the 2.4 GHz photons emitted by a microwave oven’s electrically excited klystron tube “are the same” as 2.4 GHz photons emitted thermally by an object at 0.025K.
We all know that the 2.4 GHz photons in a microwave oven can boil water at 100C, which means they are absorbed by that 100C water and add energy to that water.
Therefore, we can conclude that “identical” photons from a source at 0.025K can also be absorbed by the same water and add energy to that water. This is true even though those photons have about 1/10,000 of the frequency of LWIR photons.
Just following the arguments of that wise man…
You say: “The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, simply stated, says that a cold object cannot raise the temperature of a hotter object, without “help”. I agree! (At least, that it is a consequence of the 2nd Law.)
Let’s go back to my example of a hypothermic person with body temperature at 35C, moving from an ambient of -20C to +20C. I had to simplify it for Zoe, changing the problem to a given vessel of water with an electric immersion heater applying constant power to the water. In an ambient chamber at-20C, the applied power causes the water to come to a steady-state temperature of 35C.
We move this vessel to an ambient chamber at +20C, keeping the same applied power from the electric immersion heater (the “help”), and let the water reach steady-state conditions again. Does the SS temperature go up, go down, or stay the same?
Zoe still dodged the question. Will you?
Reply
geran
| #
Wow Ed, that’s quite a lot of rambling just to ask if you can raise the temperature of a system by adding the right kind of energy. Of course you can.
But, that confuses clowns because they do not understand “right kind of energy”. You can NOT raise the temperature of a cup of coffee by adding an ice cube.
Clowns should learn some physics, huh?
Reply
Ed Bo
| #
Geran: That’s a lot of rambling to avoid — once again — answering a very simple question.
Why are you so cowardly?
Reply
geran
| #
Ed, were you not unable to understand: “Of course you can.”?
Or do you just try to insult people because you can’t understand the physics?
Ed Bo
| #
Geran:
As always, you’re very slippery, not answering the actual question. You say, “you can raise the temperature of a system by adding the right kind of energy.”
So is the energy from the +20C ambient the “right kind of energy” to raise the temperature of the water in the vessel with an immersion heater that had reached a steady-state temperature of +35C in a -20C ambient?
Painfully simple question, but it seems to stump you…
geran
| #
Nope. 20 C can NOT increase the temperature of 35 C, Ed.
Learn some physics.
Ed Bo
| #
Geran:
Thank you for finally answering the question.
This is a question that can easily be experimentally verified, and I have actually done it. And you are completely wrong.
Part of my professional responsibilities involve thermal testing of electronics. We have very precisely controlled temperature chambers for testing of our products. We need to test them over a variety of ambient temperatures while powered to make sure they operate correctly
I have actually used these chambers to perform this test. With a constant electrical power input to a vessel of water, I wait for the vessel temperature to stabilize at a low ambient temperature in the chamber.
Then I increase the chamber ambient temperature, but still to a level below that of the old steady-state temperature of the water, and wait for the temperature to stabilize again.
According to your argument, the temperature should not go up. But it does!
For decades, we have tested our electronic devices in these chambers. We put thermocouples on the key components, and power them in a variety of ambient conditions. We start with cold ambient, noting the component temperatures. Then we increase the ambient levels, wait for stabilization, then record the temperatures again. Every time we increase ambient (but always below the old component temps), the component temperatures increase.
Even the technicians in the test group without a whole lot of formal education understand this easily. Why can’t you???
geran
| #
Sorry Ed, 20 C air can NOT increase the temperature of 35 C water.
Learn some physics.
(Have you ever noticed that the more desperate you get, the more you pound on your keyboard?)
Ed Bo
| #
Geran:
You keep saying “Learn some physics.”
Well, the first rule of physics – or of any science, for that matter – is that experimental evidence trumps theory.
And I have decades of experimental evidence that increasing the ambient temperature around a powered object, even if to a level less than that of the object, results in an increase in the temperature of that object.
As far as the theory goes, the key in my above statement is “powered object”. This “power” provides the “help” you cite. If the object did not have this power source, increasing the ambient to a level below that of the object would only result in a reduced rate of temperature decrease.
But with the “help”, as you call it, the increase in ambient temperature can and will result in the increase of temperature of the powered object.
geran
| #
Ed, all of your “decades” of making the same mistake over and over haven’t helped you.
Turn the power off and see what happens. 20 C air can NOT raise the temperature of 35 C water. A thermodynamic system can sometimes be hard to understand, even for those that are able to think for themselves.
Ed Bo
| #
Geez, Geran, do you even know how to read???
I say in my last comment: “If the object did not have this power source, increasing the ambient to a level below that of the object would only result in a reduced rate of temperature decrease.”
You come back with: “Turn the power off and see what happens.”
Duh…!
So if your reading comprehension is not good enough to handle that simple an argument, I’m not surprised that you miss distinctions that have a bit of subtlety.
The problem I gave to you and Zoe involved “a given vessel of water with an electric immersion heater applying constant power to the water. In an ambient chamber at-20C, the applied power causes the water to come to a steady-state temperature of 35C. We move this vessel to an ambient chamber at +20C, keeping the same applied power from the electric immersion heater (the “help”), and let the water reach steady-state conditions again. Does the SS temperature go up, go down, or stay the same?”
You can get the right answer — that the temperature goes up from 35C — without claiming that it is the 20C ambient that does it. You can simply consider that the increased ambient just reduces the heat loss from the powered vessel.
As you say: “A thermodynamic system can sometimes be hard to understand.” But I’m afraid it is you that are having trouble understanding.”
Whensomebody points out a fallacy of yours, you try to pin the fallacy on them, and when somebody correctly argues a point that you agree with, you try to claim they don’t understand it.
geran
| #
I think somewhere in all that confused rambling you now understand that 20 C air can NOT raise the temperature of 35 C water.
It took long enough, but you finally got there.
Simple Simon
| #
Doesn’t the ambient temperature simply affect the resistance of the electronic component thus increasing or decreasing its temperature?
Ed Bo
| #
Some components increase resistance slightly with temperature, others decrease. Most silicon components do not change appreciably with temperature.
We monitor electrical power input carefully during testing and do not see any significant change at different ambient temperatures.
Zoe Phin
| #
Stupid Ed,
The microwave can warm the water only because it can output radiation equivalent to a hotter temperature. The moment it can’t, the water doesn’t get hotter.
Reply
Ed Bo
| #
Zoe:
Geran claimed above that 15 um radiation was too low a frequency and equivalent to too low a temperature (he stated -80C by Wien’s Law) to be able to increase the temperature of ambient objects.
I simply pointed out that that the 2.4GHz radiation of a microwave oven has a frequency a factor of 10,000 less than 15 um LWIR, and is “equivalent” to a temperature of 0.025K (which is NOT a hotter temperature, last time I checked), but it can still boil water at 100C.
Reply
geran
| #
Ed, you can’t learn.
The 15 μ photon cannot warm Earth by itself. It needs “help”. I explained the basic thermodynamics of a microwave oven above:
You are confused by things like a microwave oven, because it can boil water with low energy photons. With your inexperience, that means “cold” is warming “hot”. You believe a microwave oven is violating laws of physics, so then the sky can violate the laws of physics. You merely demonstrate your lack of understanding.
The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, simply stated, says that a cold object cannot raise the temperature of a hotter object, without “help”. IOW, for a microwave oven to do what it does, there must be “help” added to the process. And, of course, there is. A microwave oven is specifically designed for the purpose, using special materials in extraordinary arrangement. External energy is then added to the design to allow the oven to do what it does. Plenty of “help” is added. There is no violation of the 2nd Law. “Design” and external energy reduce the system entropy, allowing a microwave oven to function.
Earth’s atmosphere is NOT a microwave oven.
Learn some physics.
Zoe Phin
| #
Ed,
It’s not only the frequency that matters, but intensity. You really have no idea how a microwave oven works.
Ed Bo
| #
Zoe:
It is not I who is confused. Geran made a very broad claim about low-frequency photons not being able to increase the temperature of higher temperature (“higher frequency” in his lingo) objects – DUE TO THE PHYSICS OF THE ACTUAL ABSORPTION.
I simply pointed out that the operation of microwave ovens, which emit very low frequency photons, yet can boil water, was an absolute disproof of his argument.
Geran’s been backpedaling since, talking about the mechanism of emission in these ovens. But since he himself has admitted that “all photons, of the same wavelength, act the same”, he hasn’t even made an attempt to defend the argument he made originally.
You say: “It’s not only the frequency that matters, but intensity.” BING, BING, BING, we have a winner!!! The issue with thermal emissions from low-temperature objects is not the frequency, it’s the low intensity.
P.S. Why won’t you answer my question about the water vessel temperature?
geran
| #
Wrong Ed. I haven’t been backpedaling. I explained to you how a microwave oven works. You had to backpedal because a microwave oven is designed to organize energy.
How many microwave ovens are in the atmosphere?
Ed Bo
| #
Geran:
What have I had to backpedal on? I simply pointed out that microwave ovens could boil water, which is obviously true, and that this FACT is inconsistent with your theory about low-frequency photons.
This is not the first time that, when somebody points out a fallacy in your arguments, that you try to pretend it is the other person’s fallacy…
geran
| #
How many microwave ovens are in the atmosphere, Ed?
Ed Bo
| #
Geran:
You’re dodging the issue. You claimed that it was an inherent property of low-frequency photons that they could not add energy to “higher frequency” objects. There was nothing in your arugment about the source or the intensity of that low-frequency radiation, and in fact, you argued that all photons of a given frequency/wavelength are alike.
I simply pointed out that the observed operation of microwave ovens showed that THIS argument of yours could not be true. It is the high INTENSITY of low-frequency radiation from the oven that permits it to boil water.
I have been DISTINGUISHING this case from thermally generated radiation in the atmosphere, so your argument that there is only thermally generated radiation in the atmosphere in no way invalidates my argument.
geran
| #
“ZERO”.
There are ZERO microwave ovens in the atmosphere, Ed.
Learn some physics.
James McGinn
| #
Geran:
” . . . raise the temperature of . . . ”
James:
Geran, thank you for using the more explicit phrase, “raise the temperature of,” rather than the ambiguous word, “heat.” I’ve been trying for a long time to get people to start using more precise language on this subject.
Thanks for listening.
James McGinn:
Superstition and half-baked theory dominate the atmospheric sciences. Currently meteorological theories on atmospheric flow and storms maintain three superstitious and half-baked notions: 1) Convection. This is the superstition that evaporation makes air buoyant enough to power strong updrafts in the atmosphere (included in this is the strange belief that H2O in the atmosphere becomes gaseous at temperatures/pressures that have never been detected in a laboratory); 2) Dry layer capping. This is a superstition that imagines dry layers having structural properties that explain the how/why convection does not constantly produce storms and uplift; 3) Latent heat. This is the superstition that phase changes from a gaseous phase of H2O (which are purported to exist despite never having been detected and being inconsistent with what is indicated in the H2O phase table) to a liquid phase releases “latent heat” which itself has never been confirmed/verified.
In accordance with which, the current meteorological paradigm assumes hurricanes are caused by warm water. Actually the energy of hurricanes and all storms comes from jet streams and is delivered through vortices in the form of low pressure. Wind shear at low altitudes is the most important predictor of severe weather. This is because wind shear is the mechanism underlying growth of the vortices that are the transport mechanism of the low pressure energy. Warm moist air/water is not the source of the energy of storms, it’s the target of vortice growth.
The ‘Missing Link’ of Meteorology’s Theory of Storms
http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=16329
James McGinn / Solving Tornadoes
Reply
Scientist
| #
I suggest you people read this excellent summary, noting pp.87 to 89 of 128 at https://www.researchgate.net/publication/333746713_Climate_Change_-_A_review.
Reply