I was merely trying to illustrate Tom’s line of thought. Or rather, his line of denial in regard of his using black body assumptions to explain grey body reality. ie, pseudo science.

00

“Sorry, but I have no need to restate the physics of radiative transfer yet again, in any sort of detail. That’s been done probably 50 times on this thread already. I’m not a CAGW fan, Will. Not even close. But neither am I a “Slayer”, and I’ve done battle with forms of physics-slashing. You can’t tell me that a molecule above absolute zero does not radiate energy in accordance with its measured emissivity; that is well understood, textbook physics”.

What complete nonsense from your nonsense textbooks. Any molecule at any temperature may emit to a lesser temperature or absorb from a higher temperature. Nothing else has ever been observed or measured. Your textbooks “physics” are but a complete fantasy!
Please show your “measurements” of anything else?

00

You certainly seem to buy into the Climate Clown Claims of thermal electromagnetic radiation through a translucent but thick atmosphere.

Sorry, but I have no need to restate the physics of radiative transfer yet again, in any sort of detail. That’s been done probably 50 times on this thread already. I’m not a CAGW fan, Will. Not even close. But neither am I a “Slayer”, and I’ve done battle with forms of physics-slashing. You can’t tell me that a molecule above absolute zero does not radiate energy in accordance with its measured emissivity; that is well understood, textbook physics.

Earth does not have to be a specific sort of body of any “color” to radiate, and it’s quite simply silly to attempt to ignore radiative events when (a) all radiatively absorptive molecules also emit, (b) all energy leaving the earth (with the tiny exception of mass loss events) departs by radiative means, and (c) the moon gives us a clear model for radiative absorption and emission of a “rock” in absence of atmospheric intervention.

all radiative flux can be one way only, toward the colder mass

“net flux”: correct. All radiative flux: horse feathers. All objects emit, even “colder” objects. Textbook understanding, and if that makes your head rattle then set up proper experiments to challenge the thought. I suggest a large spherical vacuum vessel with insulated and mirrored inside surface, with two separate identical objects suspended and isolated inside, each with the power to be heated from the inside, both with temperature sensors to record delta-T over time. You figure out the rest. If at the end of the day you still think “all radiative flux” only goes one way, there’s not much hope for you in physics, because photons just don’t care about their target’s temperature.

Coupled with the rest of your argument, that’s the core of the Slayers arguments, which I find indefensible. I’ll start and end with this: since it is impossible for you to measure conductance of heat in isolation from radiative transfer, the suggestion that conduction/convection and pressure gradient behavior are “sufficient” … is irrational.

Every time this comes up, a song keeps playing in my head, as I must argue with CAGW people claiming the sky is boiling on one side, and with Slayers who are simply bent on eliminating radiative transfer events as having any meaning whatsoever except at TOA, where they are FORCED to admit it happens, in spite of the fact you can FEEL and MEASURE the radiative emissions from the surface, as well as the from the sky. That song? Stealers Wheel “Stuck in the Middle With You”. Heard it again during Happy Hour at a local pub tonight, giving me a smile.

You go ahead and have the last word, because I’m not going to change your mind, and you’re not going to change mine (I trust my physics and mathematics education over you, any day).

00

00

00

BTW I never claimed anything of"emissivity".
I claimed that an isotropic volume of atmosphere with a cross sectional area is not limited to one PI steradian as any surface must be. but instead 4 PI steradians. The 2 PI from a higher temperature passing flux through to the lower temperature outside.
Where are your numbers, Tom in Oregon City?

00

Oh: different teacher, who was talking about differential calculus, and you were finally corrected by that fellow from U/Calgary, as I recall. Multiplying by “1″, by the way, is, by definition (multiplicative identity: check an actual 9th grade book), a “no effect” operation, as stated in the definition, “1xa=a”. Happy to correct you on that, as well, as it is typical for even people with a moderate education in mathematics to forget that UNITS (feet, joules, apples, whatever) are the only thing that can change the result of “1x” from “no change” to “change”. As in, 1 second x 5 watts = 5 joules, whereas 1x 5 watts = 5 watts.

Thank you that you have again demonstrated your aversion to actual physics and mathematics education, being addicted as you are to the very reason for this thread existing. Your suggestion that only in pseudo-science can it be said that energy radiates to space slightly slower through an atmosphere gives me a second wonderful laugh of the day, since you have supported a small delay on energy radiation transport to space ON YOUR GROUP PAGE!

(My first big belly laugh of the day was a report by a grounds keeper in Chicago that his stadium field now had permafrost 36″ below the surface, hampering his duty to prepare the field for opening day)

Glad to see you still have a day job, though! It’s good to keep busy.

You may most assuredly have the last word, if you care to.

01

Tom states – “Last time I looked at your page you were arguing with some teacher about Calculus applied to power and energy… and losing.”
I suppose if you think multiplying by one is not converting by 100%, then yes, you would think incorrectly I might have been “losing” the discussion. BUT, that would be wrong, because x1 IS a 100% efficiency conversion, not that the person I was discussing with understood that….

Tom further states – “It hardly matters whether the surface is “black” or “grey”,”
BLACK BODY Tom, not surface. A completely different thing / matter / “theory” / explanation. Nice try….

Tom then goes off into gaga land with – “and it doesn’t matter how much ocean there is.”
HEAT CAPACITY…. Slow to warm, slow to cool. The black body “Bare earth” model does not apply to earth, full stop. For starters, “bare earth” does not allow whatsoever for heat capacity…. It is pseudo science, BECAUSE a black body is imaginary…… An imaginary black body may be construed to get the same or similar answer to that which we can observe, yes, but, and obviously, FOR COMPLETELY DIFFERENT REASONS. QED – Black body DOES NOT explain, and should not be used to explain grey body reality….

Tom nicely rounds up his madness when he states – “With an atmosphere, earth emits radiation to space slightly slower than if it had no atmosphere.”
You can not possibly say this WITHIN SCIENCE. Within pseudo science, yes, you could say that, and you could assume black body applies to grey body reality, yes, BUT NOT within science.

Glad I stopped wasting my time with you a long time ago. I just came back to check you have not moved on, and you have confirmed you have not. Thanks for confirming.

10

It hardly matters whether the surface is “black” or “grey”, and it doesn’t matter how much ocean there is.

With an atmosphere, earth emits radiation to space slightly slower than if it had no atmosphere. You can learn that from a pinball machine at the local pub. That briefly-detained-but-still-departing energy represents additional heat in the atmosphere. Were it not so, the moon would neither heat nor cool faster than the dry rock surfaces of earth (even in the same temperature ranges found on earth).

I know Sky Dragon apologists want radiative events in the atmosphere to count for nothing, but the laws of radiative transfer will never oblige the fantasy.

01

Please explain your thinking!

Sure, Will: Without atmosphere, IR emitted from the surface is immediately and permanently dispatched into space. With a IR-emissive atmosphere, some radiation is inevitably absorbed and radiated back toward the surface, thus slowing its permanent departure into space. Or did you find an exception that only permits radiation to go “up”? You might also want to rethink your idea that emissivity of radiative gasses exceeds that of most surface solids, or back that up with numbers.

00

“you neglect the fact that since heat energy must depart a bit slower than if there was no atmosphere”.
Please explain your thinking!

Well, for starters, earth with an atmosphere has oceans, that cover 70% of the surface, and have an average depth of 2 1/2 miles. Their heat capacity will have an effect. Sometime the bare earth model ignores.

Mind you earth is not a black body either, which the bare earth model assumes it is….

It would also be helpful if people remembered that peak frequency of emission = power of emission = amount of emission is ONLY for a black body. That is yet another black body assumption being misapplied to grey body reality. Gases become far less emissive with reduced pressure……

00

“you neglect the fact that since heat energy must depart a bit slower than if there was no atmosphere”.
Please explain your thinking! An emissive atmosphere can and does emit more thermal electromagnetic radiative exitance than can any surface,with the limitation of one PI steradian. Any cross sectional area of the atmosphere can and does provide exitance “uniformly” into the two PI steradians of the outer colder hemisphere.

00

Once we establish you found some H.I.C.K. who understands how to “IMMERSE a SPINNING SPHERE into a FRIGID BATH making it WARMER than when HEATED in a VACUUM CHAMBER” and explains it”

Once we establish you found some H.I.C.K. who understands “THE SUN GIVES OFF MANY TIMES MORE INFRARED ENERGY than the EARTH”

Once we establish you found some H.I.C.K. who understands “THINGS washed by MORE frigid air cool faster than things washed over by LESS frigid gas” and shows working grasp of fans

You’ll be moving on to explaining how the

INFRARED ASTRONOMY FIELD based on EARTH OR in SPACE aren’t keeping us up with the daily BACKERDISTICAL WARMINGS AS shown by their SOPHISTICATED ASTRONOMY FIELD which you apparently think can’t track a GIANT LIGHT on in the SKY 24/7/365, or just DOESN’T REALIZE WE’RE ALL CHECKING? Is THAT what it is HICK? THEY DIDN’T REALIZE WE ALL WANTED to KNOW? Is THAT your answer?

[Snipped ...this was going nowhere. Make a logical point without 'waffle' and with citation or reference if possible......Mod]

00

girls?

While you cheerfully advise of the reduction of insolation — a fact I don’t think is missed by many here — you neglect the fact that since heat energy must depart a bit slower than if there was no atmosphere, we get enormous benefit from the negative feedback of those IR-absorbing gasses, water vapor chief among them: we get warmer nights and cooler days, when compared to our close neighbor, the moon, which shares our insolation but not our atmosphere.

You also neglect to mention that IR radiation makes up a relatively small part of insolation, while the earth emits almost exclusively IR radiation back into the atmosphere, and from there into space. That means the IR-absorbing gases, while not directionally biased, are busier absorbing and re-radiating OUTGOING than incoming radiation.

And refrigerators work against the natural flow of heat, so the metaphor is not useful. But when talking about cooling, you should take note that the moon cools more rapidly than the earth does: dry ground on the earth cools more slowly than the equivalent patch on the moon, in the same temperature ranges. And that’s in spite of the fact that the earth’s surface is cooled by two methods (IR emission as well as conduction/convection) while the moon must get all its cooling accomplished by IR emission alone. Not exactly refrigerator-like functionality, is it?

Nice to have the thread pop open again, though.

11

But this, girls, is not possible. The atmosphere constitutes a screen which blocks a big part of the energy of the sun from ever touching the earth.

The CO2 and water and methane in the atmosphere as a class, are REJECTING a HIGH VOLUME STREAM of INFRARED PHOTONS 24/7/365.25. This N.E.V.E.R. ever EVER is NOT the case for a thousandth of a second.

In BLOCKING what EVERY the infrared gases block, THEY in fact are interdicting and REPELLING FAR, FAR more energy, than their presence, delays leaving.

When you have a planet without atmosphere and without sun, yet with internal energy (we know’s derived originally from that sun but turn the sun off till earth cools to non atmosphere, deep space temps.

Add sunlight again. 100% sunlight strikes earth, give it a while, it stabilizes, the temperature’s higher. The original “High” temperature.

Add the atmosphere. The atmosphere blocks some percentage of the light that WAS coming in. Say it blocks, 100%.

Temp goes down to effectively, over time a dash lower than before the sun was turned on: Cold. No incoming heat energy.

Take away atmosphere until you’re blocking 50% of the sunlight. Temps go up, about halfway between no sun, sun without atmosphere.

What is the temperature of the earth with the 50% block of sunlight energy?

Don’t be shy or believe you’ve been tricked, what will the temperature be?

It will be warmer than if there was no sun at all, but it will be cooler than if there was no atmosphere at all,
by about 50%.

This isn’t complicated at all and never was, those computer modelers made people stop telling the truth about their fraudulent scams.

The atmosphere we have, BLOCKS ABOUT 20% of INCOMING SUNLIGHT ENERGY from REACHING EARTH. About 40% of the infrared is blocked before it gets in. I think that’s about how it shakes out, you can look it up easily, but in any case,

The earth would have a higher temperature with no shield from the sun. There wouldn’t be any conductive atmosphere touching the surface removing heat, and convective cooling is the lateral movement along the surface caused by rising air and that’s a form, of contact, conduction cooling that can ONLY BE PRESENT TO HELP REMOVE THERMS IF THERE IS A GAS IN CONTACT WITH THE EARTH.

So there’s NO QUESTION that if you THROW MORE GAS UP into the PATH of the SUN and MORE is BLOCKED, you SHADE the planet more.

THEN,
AFTER THAT,

there’s the more pragmatic look at the atmosphere as a heat engine. Is the atmosphere a heat engine? Y.E.S.

The ATMOSPHERE is a FRIGID, FLUID, GAS BATH with a warm rock immersed in it spinning a thousand miles an hour.

It has a one percent shot of phase change refrigerant added, WATER. The water EVAPORATES and rises, driving even more than normal, convection drafting nitrogen and oxygen in to do cooling behind the water,

and that water rises and driven by gravity and pressure differential at altitude, the water spontaneously emmits energy through the upper atmosphere out toward space. It then contracts into ice: falls to the ground pulled by gravity to change phases in evaporation, to rise and dump energy upward out of the system again.
THIS IS A HEAT ENGINE
and THAT HEAT ENGINE is a REFRIGERATOR.

Not maybe not Thursday not sometimes. That’s how it is.

The ATMOSPHERE is a REFRIGERATED, FRIGID, FLUID gas BATH.

Refrigerated frigid fluid gas baths don’t heat.

Not Thursday, not maybe sometimes. That’s how it simply is.

11