By Definition, Aren’t All Gases ‘Greenhouse Gases’?

Written by Alan Siddons

Increasing observational evidence (not climate models!) proves that all gases, not just that trace amount of “dangerous” carbon dioxide (0.04%), operate in our atmosphere like a “greenhouse gas”. As more scientists accept such irrefutable truths the very foundation of the “theory” collapses, as explained below by Alan Siddons.baffled science

What I wrote in The Hidden Flaw in Greenhouse Theory (2010):

[M]eteorologists acknowledge that our atmosphere is principally heated by surface contact and convective circulation. Surrounded by the vacuum of space, moreover, the earth can only dissipate this energy by radiation. On one hand, then, if surface-heated nitrogen and oxygen do not radiate the thermal energy they acquire, they rob the earth of a means of cooling off — which makes them “greenhouse gases” by definition. On the other hand, though, if surface-heated nitrogen and oxygen do radiate infrared, then they are also “greenhouse gases,” which defeats the premise that only radiation from the infrared-absorbers raises the Earth’s temperature. Either way, therefore, the convoluted theory we’ve been going by is wrong.
So I was more than pleased to find a comment by ‘Myrrh’ on a WUWT page, which refers to a relatively new paper: The natural greenhouse effect of atmospheric oxygen (O2) and nitrogen (N2), by M. Höpfner, et al.
 
This peer-reviewed study tells us:
The effect of collision-induced absorption by molecular oxygen (O2) and nitrogen (N2) on the outgoing longwave radiation (OLR) of the Earth’s atmosphere has been quantified. We have found that on global average under clear-sky conditions the OLR is reduced due to O2 by 0.11 Wm2 and due to N2 by 0.17 Wm2. Together this amounts to 15% of the OLR-reduction caused by CH4 at present atmospheric concentrations. Over Antarctica the combined effect of O2 and N2 increases on average to about 38% of CH4 with single values reaching up to 80%. This is explained by less interference of H2O spectral bands on the absorption features of O2 and N2 for dry atmospheric conditions.
 
From their conclusion:
This work challenges a common perception on the negligible role of O2 and N2 as natural greenhouse gases in the Earth’s atmosphere compared to species like CH4 or N2O. It is in fact the large abundance of oxygen and nitrogen which compensates for their only weak interaction with infrared radiation through collision-induced absorption bands.

Tags: , , , , , ,

Comments (87)

  • Avatar

    Tim Folkerts

    |

    Anne, I think you misunderstood my point.

    While it is true many people here wouldn’t be considered “lay readers”, it is equally true that they would not be considered expert researchers in physics. Taking a few physics classes or even earning a degree in engineering does not make you an expert.

    This discussion is pretty much at the “college freshman” level of physics (maybe sophomore or junior, but certainly not post-graduate level. To make an analogy, we are at the “frictionless pulleys and massless ropes” level of sophistication. My point was that we need to be able to agree on the answer at the “frictionless pulleys and massless ropes” level of approximation before trying to include “friction in the pulleys”. And then include “mass of the ropes and angular momentum of the pulley”.

    People clearly are not approaching agreement on even the basic physics. Thus there is no point in even trying to discuss the more subtle physics in this forum.

    But that does NOT mean that no one understands the more sophisticated physics. It simply means people have to up their game to even be ready for the tougher issues.

  • Avatar

    Anne Ominous

    |

    [quote name=”Tim Folkerts”]Anne says “I am amused at how Tim tells us “real” AGW models don’t use flat earth assumptions, then he turns around and quotes a “flat earth” average of irradiance.”

    I also said that these sorts of simplifications are used to introduce the topics. You might be disappointed to realize that the discussions here are indeed “introductory level” to try to understand the fundamentals. Greg is trying to understand the impacts of rotation on a world with no atmosphere, and so far he is pretty much just ‘guessing’ that 15 C should be the answer. Until we can answer these simple models with some hard numbers, there is really no point in worrying about actual distributions of sunlight, or atmospheres with on GHGs, or atmosphere with GHGs, etc.[/quote]

    But Tim:

    (A) For the most part your audience here is not the lay public, and (B) you give away the whole thing with this statement:

    Quote: “Until we can answer these simple models with some hard numbers, there is really no point in worrying about actual distributions of sunlight, or atmospheres with on GHGs, or atmosphere with GHGs, etc.”

    I think this is a pretty good summary of what EVERYBODY ELSE has been trying to say here.

  • Avatar

    visiting physicist

    |

    Numerous pointsin the above comments by others are incorrect. The Earth’s surface is neither a black nor a grey body, because such bodies by definition absorb and emit energy only by radiation. This means they pretty well have to be in space. The Earth’s surface loses more thermal energy by non-radiative processes than by radiation.

    The mid-19th century (hot to cold) Clausius statement of the Second Law of Thermodynamics does not apply accurately in a vertical plane in a gravitational field. Heat can transfer up the thermal plot when thermodynamic equilibrium is disturbed by newly absorbed energy at upper levels.

    The temperature gradient in a planet’s atmosphere does not evolve primarily by any lapsing process involving a surface cooling off. It is set and maintained by gravity, whether or not there is a surface. The theoretical base of the Uranus troposphere at altitude -300Km (note the minus sign) is hotter than Earth’s surface even though no significant Solar radiation reaches down through 350Km of troposphere there. And there is no surface at that altitude anyway.

    You see, you are all conditioned by false and misleading concepts, and you need a paradigm shift in your thinking. That’s what my book [i]”Why it’s not carbon dioxide after all”[/i] is on about.

  • Avatar

    visiting physicist

    |

    [b]To all:[/b]

    Firstly: I am still awaiting an answer to the question about how the Venus surface warms by 5 degrees each Venus day.

    Secondly: Try to imagine Uranus with an isothermal atmosphere which would be at a temperature roughly equal to the radiating temperature which is less than 60K because it is about 29 times further from the Sun than Earth is. Now suppose the small solid core (55% the mass of Earth) were somehow raised to 5,000K which is thought to be the current temperature. If the night side of Venus can cool by 5 degrees in a mere 4 months, what makes you think that the Uranus 5,000K core could not have cooled off right down to the radiating temperature over the life of the planet if there were no supporting mechanism due to a gravitationally-induced temperature gradient?

  • Avatar

    visiting physicist

    |

    [b]Tim: [/b] If heat is “constantly flowing up through the atmosphere” of Venus, what is happening to cause its surface to warm (gradually) by 5 degrees every 4-month-long Venus day? I consider it reasonable to assume it has something to do with solar radiation, because it cools by 5 degrees during the night. So how does the energy from the Sun get into the Venus surface to raise its temperature? It is certainly not by direct radiation or back radiation, because over 16,000W/m^2 would be required and that is far more than is being received even at TOA. Less than 20W/m^2 is received at the Venus surface. When you can explain this by any other valid process I will be very interested.

    Be[b]nAW:[/b] I ask you all the above question also.

    If the temperature gradient were not the limiting state as thermodynamic equilibrium is being approached, then you have absolutely no explanation for why the gradient is observed throughout thousands of kilometres of the Uranus atmosphere, where no internal energy is generated in its core. Note that the specific heat increases with temperature, as it does in Earth’s mantle, so the gradient in these locations is somewhat less than in the outer crust or the troposphere.

    [b]To all:[/b] Yes, the core of a planet (or moon) will remain hot even with very little radiation input. It does not need internal heat generation. Gravity has trapped energy received from the Sun over the life of the planet. Any initial heat could easily have dissipated over the life of a planet. There is no need for there to have been any initial core energy, and probably wasn’t much in the case of the Moon.

    Uranus receives very little solar radiation. Why do you think the core of Uranus is 5,000K or the core of our Moon is far hotter than the surface? No one here has answered these questions.

  • Avatar

    Ben Wouters

    |

    [quote name=”Tim Folkerts

    *Gravity [i]does [/i]play a big roll in establishing the lapse rate — but the lapse rate is a [i]non[/i]-equilibrium situation with heat constantly flowing up through the atmosphere.[/quote]
    Glad to see some sensible remarks about gravity and the environmental lapse rate 😉

  • Avatar

    Tim Folkerts

    |

    @ #80 visiting physicist 2014-02-02 05:01

    Your comment shows exactly what is wrong with so many posts here (and frankly, what is wrong with many pro-warmist conclusions in many other places).

    [b]1) Fundamental misunderstanding[/b] (eg [i]”there can be … a slow heat transfer …from the cooler …[to the warmer]”[/i]).
    [b]2) Hubris[/b] ([i]”absolutely no other process can explain…”[/i] and [i]”You cannot fault what I have explained …”[/i]).

    The thing is, you are [i]close [/i]to right on many things.

    * Gravity [i]is [/i]responsible for (much of) the temperature gradient inside planets — but because of the in-fall of material forming the planet 4.6 billion years ago, not because that is the equilibrium condition. Your conjecture says that if we somehow dragged a Earth far from any sun, the surface would cool to ~ 2.7 K, but [i]the core would stay hot forever![/i]

    *Gravity [i]does [/i]play a big roll in establishing the lapse rate — but the lapse rate is a [i]non[/i]-equilibrium situation with heat constantly flowing up through the atmosphere. And yes that applies to the atmospheres of earth and Venus and Uranus.

  • Avatar

    visiting physicist

    |

    [i][b]Planetary atmospheric, surface, crust, mantle and core temperatures are not primarily determined by radiative flux but rather by the gravitationally induced temperature gradient. [/b][/i]

    Such a gradient is a necessary corollary of the process described in modern statements of the Second Law of Thermodynamics, namely that a state of thermodynamic equilibrium will evolve with maximum entropy within the states accessible to the system.

    Thermal energy absorbed from the Sun anywhere in the system can spread out in all accessible directions in order to follow the process described in the Second Law and thus re-establish the state of thermodynamic equilibrium referred to in that Law. So there can be, and is, a slow heat transfer by diffusion of molecular kinetic energy from the cooler top of a planet’s troposphere to the base of the troposphere at the surface interface. The warmer atmosphere keeps the surface warmer, as is very obvious on Venus where most solar energy is absorbed in the upper and middle atmosphere.

    [b][i]In effect, gravity has trapped thermal energy over the life of the planet.
    [/i][/b]
    I know this takes a lot of thinking to understand, but absolutely no other process can explain how the surface of Venus warms by 5 degrees during its four month long daytime, or why the core of our Moon is far hotter than the surface ever is, or why the core of Uranus is 5,000K when no internal energy generation is evident and no direct solar radiation reaches the surface of that solid core that is about 55% the mass of Earth.

    Physics is universal – applying throughout the universe. If you think you have an explanation of what happens on Earth (and no back radiation explains it) then try applying your conjectures to other planets.

    You cannot fault what I have explained herein and it is supported by all known temperature data in our Solar system. Greenhouse gases (water vapour, CO2 etc) do not warm as the IPCC bluffs the world to believe) because they cause lower supported surface temperatures by reducing the atmospheric temperature gradient with inter-molecular radiation.

  • Avatar

    Pat Obar

    |

    [quote name=”Tim Folkerts”]Pat says: [i]”… but you claim radiation pressure (radiance) Is the same as flux”[/i]

    Sigh.

    Radiation pressure is not the same as radiance.
    Radiation pressure is not the same as flux.
    Flux is not the same as radiance.
    Yes indeed!

    “Then you further claim that flux with a magnitude equal the that “radiance” transfers energy ‘to’ absolute zero”]
    I don’t even know what you are trying to say here! There is a good list here”‘

    Your claim is that radiance with a reference to absolute zero “is” flux. Such flux has never
    been observed.

    (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiant_flux). You are welcome to tell us what *you* claim, but please don’t pretend to tell us what I mean.[/quote]

    Sigh Yes all are precisely different, as in radiant intensity this is still known as candle power. That power comes from something with ‘no’ cross sectional area. an impossibility.
    No candle can ever radiate energy “to anything to a higher temperature candle the lower temperature candle can only absorb. from your reference Radiance corrects that error by dividing candle power by a cross-sectional area no matter how small.
    Radiance is but candle power divided by a projected cross sectional area provided by an observer with some measuring instrument with a some projected area. the Sun subtends an angle of~ 10 milli-radians for a solid angle of 68 micro-steradians. The Suns radiance at any wavelength has been measured with a detector with a subtense of 0.5 of a milli-radians in two orthogonal direction for a solid angle of0 0.25 micro-steradians. observing the Sun the center has the highest “radiance” At the center 62% emissivity.
    outward that radiance drops off much faster than cosine theta. The sun is never a block-body or a Lambertian surface Nor is the Earth with an atmosphere. Your attempt to use the S-B equation for determining the temperature of anything, is intentional and deliberate fraud!

  • Avatar

    Tim Folkerts

    |

    Pat says: [i]”… but you claim radiation pressure (radiance) Is the same as flux”[/i]

    Sigh.

    Radiation pressure is not the same as radiance.
    Radiation pressure is not the same as flux.
    Flux is not the same as radiance.

    They are certainly all somewhat related, but all have different units. Since you clearly do not understand the terms, you are not in position to explain any of these to others.

    [i]”Then you further claim that flux with a magnitude equal the that “radiance” transfers energy ‘to’ absolute zero”[/i]
    I don’t even know what you are trying to say here! There is a good list here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiant_flux). You are welcome to tell us what *you* claim, but please don’t pretend to tell us what I mean.

  • Avatar

    Pat Obar

    |

    [quote name=”Claudius Denk Solving Tornadoe”][quote name=”Tim Folkerts”]The ‘beauty’ of science is that a few relatively simple rules can explain a WIDE variety of observations.[/quote]the honest old minister went to the room where the two swindlers sat working away at their empty looms.

    “Heaven help me,” he thought as his eyes flew wide open, “I can’t see anything at all”. But he did not say so.

    Both the swindlers begged him to be so kind as to come near to approve the excellent pattern, the beautiful colors. They pointed to the empty looms, and the poor old minister stared as hard as he dared. He couldn’t see anything, because there was nothing to see. “Heaven have mercy,” he thought. “Can it be that I’m a fool? I’d have never guessed it, and not a soul must know. Am I unfit to be the minister? It would never do to let on that I can’t see the cloth.”

    “Don’t hesitate to tell us what you think of it,” said one of the weavers.

    “Oh, it’s beautiful -it’s enchanting.” The old minister peered through his spectacles. “Such a pattern, what colors!” I’ll be sure to tell the Emperor how delighted I am with it.”

    “We’re pleased to hear that,” the swindlers said. They proceeded to name all the colors and to explain the intricate pattern. The old minister paid the closest attention, so that he could tell it all to the Emperor. And so he did.

    The swindlers at once asked for more money, more silk and gold thread, to get on with the weaving. But it all went into their pockets. Not a thread went into the looms, though they worked at their weaving as hard as ever.

    http://www.andersen.sdu.dk/vaerk/hersholt/TheEmperorsNewClothes_e.html%5B/quote%5D
    The original is a good analogy to the CAGW fraud. Thank you! Is such fraud not punishable by law. We need many more that see no clothes.

  • Avatar

    Pat Obar

    |

    [quote name=”Tim Folkerts”][quote]So you agree, in your religion, there is no way to demonstrate what you claim![/quote]
    if you mean “Have I (or anyone else every actually built a sphere, put a heater inside, taken it far out into space where there is no sunlight, and then measured the temperature to see if it obeys the laws of physics”, then the answer is “no”.[/quote]

    So again you agree, in your religion, there is no way to demonstrate what you claim! You “claim” “back radiation” THAT is your religion! You can not even dream up a method for observing or measuring your false claim of “back radiation”, nor has anyone else because there is no spontaneous heat transfer to a warmer temperature by any means! Now the arrogant academics claim some foolishness about
    “net” Your net is the ONLY! That one way flux is easily measured If you claim to have flux in opposite directions it is a violation of the definition of “flux” and violation of 2LTD.

    [quote]”None of what you claim has ever been observed by anyone.”[/quote]
    [quote]
    * Conservation of Energy has been verified by innumerable experiments
    * S-B Law has been verified by innumerable experiments
    * the temperature of various planets has been observed.
    * radiation pressure has been observed.
    * The temperature of various surfaces with conduction. convection, evaporation, and radiation has been verified by innumerable experiments.
    * etc.[/quote]

    Yes all is true, but you claim radiation pressure (radiance) Is the same as flux with many many so called photons flying about in all directions, Then you further claim that flux with a magnitude equal the that “radiance” transfers energy ‘to’ absolute zero This is a mathematical impossibility for many reasons. You further claim magically that zero gives part of that energy back to the intermediate temperature object, Then that objects generates flux proportional to its own radiance, But that flux is not directed toward absolute zero, but instead to the higher temperature object. You have created a horror story beyond belief.

    [quote] The ‘beauty’ of science is that a few relatively simple rules can explain a WIDE variety of observations.[/quote]

    If you had actually made any observations or measurements at all; you would have noticed that science is ugly and the phical is truly unforgiving of any mistakes.

    [quote] So the question for you is “Do you have any reason to think that conservation or energy or the S-B law will work differently in this one particular circumstance than in the thousands of simplar circumstances where such laws have been shown to work?” [/quote]

    The S-B “equation” always works correctly when used correctly, at least for flat parallel black surfaces. You have never applied that mathematical “equation’ correctly!!’

  • Avatar

    Rosco

    |

    [quote name=”Tim Folkerts”]Pat, I don’t think we are rally all that far apart on most issues here. But I do see two significant differences.”

    2) The ‘reality’ of ‘back-radiation’.
    I would encourage you to look into the idea of energy density for cavity radiation. Planck derived his famous law by looking at the energy of quantized EM waves (ie photons) within an isothermal cavity. His derivation requires that photons be flying back and forth between the isothermal walls of the cavity. Radiation goes from from the left wall left to the right wall, and ‘back-radiation’ goes from the right wall to the left wall.

    Of course, the net flux is zero, but there are definitely photons moving every which way all the time. S-B is a consequence of Planck’s Law; Planck’s Law is a consequence of ‘back-radiation’ within the cavity.

    There is also the related idea of “radiation pressure”, which can become quite important in the cores of stars. Both of these ideas are predicated on a real, two-way flow of photons even within an isothermal container.[/quote]

    No-one denies there is “back radiation”.

    What has never been demonstrated is the ability of back radiation to induce any positive thermal in any object that is warmer than the “temperature” capable of being induced by the power of the “back radiation”.

    Until it can be shown that cold objects can radiate radiation that can increase the temperature of a warmer object it remains an unproven hypothesis and it is at odds with the principles of thermodynamics.

    The Stefan-Boltzmann equation shows a positive “net” energy flow is exclusively from hot to cold.

    The idea of photons flying around from one to the other is basically irrelevant and an unproven hypothesis if the “net” flow of energy means a hot object always supplies energy and therefore an increase in temperature of a cold object.

    If the hot object sends 10 photons to the cold one and receives one back the hot object is [b]not[/b] being heated by the cold one.

    There are literally hundreds of laboratories around the world capable of demonstrating the phenomenon you claim is proven but I cannot find any evidence of such an experimental proof of concept.

  • Avatar

    Rosco

    |

    [quote name=”Charles Higley”]Rosco wrote: “The heat received is thus stored up in the atmosphere, remaining there on account of the very low radiating power of a gas.”

    Actually you will find that the atmosphere is a good radiator, which is why the air chills so rapidly after the Sun sets.

    With no atmosphere, the surface would be 100 deg C in the Sun. Climate models do not do night—it’s Sun lit 24/7. With an atmosphere, the surface is at 15 deg C, so having an atmosphere cools the planet by 85 deg C. The key is that, by adding conduction and convection, the atmosphere offers the surface another and more powerful means of shedding energy than just by radiation. Only at night does the atmosphere effectively warm the surface by keeping it at about -17 deg C and not the -173 deg C of the dark side of the moon.[/quote]

    Actually I did not write that !

    An extremely well qualified and recognized scientist wrote that in 1909.

    Professor Wood simply demonstrated there was very little heating due to “trapping” long wave radiation in a glass enclosure contrasted to an enclosure which was transparent to such radiation – thus no trapping.

    People also forget that whilst glass is some 90 – 95% opaque to IR it is also an excellent emitter of such radiation with an emissivity quoted as 0.90 to 0.95.

    This does not suggest any “trapping” of “heat” ability to me.

  • Avatar

    Claudius Denk Solving Tornadoe

    |

    [quote name=”Tim Folkerts”]The ‘beauty’ of science is that a few relatively simple rules can explain a WIDE variety of observations.[/quote]the honest old minister went to the room where the two swindlers sat working away at their empty looms.

    “Heaven help me,” he thought as his eyes flew wide open, “I can’t see anything at all”. But he did not say so.

    Both the swindlers begged him to be so kind as to come near to approve the excellent pattern, the beautiful colors. They pointed to the empty looms, and the poor old minister stared as hard as he dared. He couldn’t see anything, because there was nothing to see. “Heaven have mercy,” he thought. “Can it be that I’m a fool? I’d have never guessed it, and not a soul must know. Am I unfit to be the minister? It would never do to let on that I can’t see the cloth.”

    “Don’t hesitate to tell us what you think of it,” said one of the weavers.

    “Oh, it’s beautiful -it’s enchanting.” The old minister peered through his spectacles. “Such a pattern, what colors!” I’ll be sure to tell the Emperor how delighted I am with it.”

    “We’re pleased to hear that,” the swindlers said. They proceeded to name all the colors and to explain the intricate pattern. The old minister paid the closest attention, so that he could tell it all to the Emperor. And so he did.

    The swindlers at once asked for more money, more silk and gold thread, to get on with the weaving. But it all went into their pockets. Not a thread went into the looms, though they worked at their weaving as hard as ever.

    http://www.andersen.sdu.dk/vaerk/hersholt/TheEmperorsNewClothes_e.html

  • Avatar

    Tim Folkerts

    |

    [quote]So you agree, in your religion, there is no way to demonstrate what you claim![/quote]
    if you mean “Have I (or anyone else every actually built a sphere, put a heater inside, taken it far out into space where there is no sunlight, and then measured the temperature to see if it obeys the laws of physics”, then the answer is “no”.

    [quote]”None of what you claim has ever been observed by anyone.”[/quote]

    * Conservation of Energy has been verified by innumerable experiments
    * S-B Law has been verified by innumerable experiments
    * the temperature of various planets has been observed.
    * radiation pressure has been observed.
    * The temperature of various surfaces with conduction. convection, evaporation, and radiation has been verified by innumerable experiments.
    * etc.

    The ‘beauty’ of science is that a few relatively simple rules can explain a WIDE variety of observations. So the question for you is “Do you have any reason to think that conservation or energy or the S-B law will work differently in this one particular circumstance than in the thousands of simplar circumstances where such laws have been shown to work?”

    Do you have so little faith in 400 years of science that every theory has to be re-verified in exactly the circumstances at hand? Your postion is akin to saying “a 1 kg rock has a weight of 9.8 N, and a 2 kg rock has a weight of 19.6 N, and a 4 kg rock has a weight of 39.2 N, but I haven’t weighed the 3 kg rock, so I have no idea what it would weigh. Maybe [i]w = mg [/i] doesn’t work for 3 kg rocks.”

  • Avatar

    Pat Obar

    |

    [quote name=”Tim Folkerts”]I was wrong … we ARE worlds apart.

    Science is a an effort to find patterns in the universe. It is a continuous process of:

    1) making observations (experiments)
    2) discerning patterns in the observations (theories)
    3) making predictions based on the theories to test the theories (calculations & models).
    Then you go back to STEP 1 and make new observations to test your theories. Eventually you become pretty sure of the theories and are confident that they will work in similar circumstances.

    “Your basics” include ONLY Step 1 — the experiments or as you say, “what you can measure”. And I will never agree that experimentation is all there is to science![/quote]

    So you agree, in your religion, there is no way to demonstrate what you claim! You have only belief, never science! Where in your spouting have you ever had #1 ? Some total intentional fake claims! My basics are only #1 as that “is” the basics. The rest is window dressing, or what may be elsewhere, a Religion. None of what you claim has ever been observed by anyone. You have not even a proper “conjecture”.

  • Avatar

    Tim Folkerts

    |

    I was wrong … we ARE worlds apart.

    Science is a an effort to find patterns in the universe. It is a continuous process of:

    1) making observations (experiments)
    2) discerning patterns in the observations (theories)
    3) making predictions based on the theories to test the theories (calculations & models).
    Then you go back to STEP 1 and make new observations to test your theories. Eventually you become pretty sure of the theories and are confident that they will work in similar circumstances.

    “Your basics” include ONLY Step 1 — the experiments or as you say, “what you can measure”. And I will never agree that experimentation is all there is to science!

  • Avatar

    Pat Obar

    |

    [quote name=”Tim Folkerts”]Pat, I don’t think we are rally all that far apart on most issues here. But I do see two significant differences.

    [b]1) We can always say “yes, but … “.[/b]
    No model is ever complete, and there is always the next step. I see my approach as focusing on the “yes” part — trying to get agreement on the basics before moving on to the more challenging details.[/quote]

    Tim, We are worlds apart on every issue. Your basics are only the fantasies of statistics and quantum anything! I refuse to accept aby of what you claim. My basics are “what you can measure”. Measurement is the physical! Your basics are some sort of philosophy or religion. Theory is fine, Sometimes a different POV from theory “may” lead to understanding. However all of your theories
    have a myopic POV and do nothing for the understanding of “what is”.

    *Yes, a uniform 240 W/m^2 will lead to a uniform 255 K for a blackbody sphere with no atmosphere”.

    Only if you can produce:
    1) A black.body sphere.
    2) a uniform 240 W/m^2.
    3) an absorber at zero Kelvin with broadband absorptivity of 100%.
    All of these are a physical impossible
    Theoretical OK but never in this universe. -Skip more spouting from the AGW religion-

    “If we can’t agree on the basics, then there is no point heading forward. “Showing my work” would entail first agreeing on the basics”.

    Will you ever agree to “my basics”? Demonstrate why “your basics” have any value.

    “I would encourage you to look into the idea of energy density for cavity radiation. Planck derived his famous law by looking at the energy of quantized EM waves (ie photons)
    within an isothermal cavity.”

    That is your ridiculous idea of what a photon may be! Max Planck has his famous integral never a law. Over any wavelength interval that integral will indeed determine the maximum radiative “potential” or in a different POV a radiative “pressure” a construct by R.Feynman to help the understanding of electro magnetic radiation.

    Not at all electro magnetic radiation! But it !works similar to a gas pressure or fluid pressure. in both cases mass flow through an orifice is proportional to the difference in pressure. in the case of thermal electromagnetic radiation, where is the the orifice. It is the impedance of free space. 377 Ohms at all frequencies or here the impedance of our atmosphere 325 Ohms. for low frequencies. i.e.

  • Avatar

    David Russell

    |

    [quote name=”BenAW”][quote name=”David Russell”][quote name=”BenAW”]

    Only question remaining: how did earth get to 290K AT in the first place.[/quote]

    It gets hotter than 290K on the day side, and doesn’t lose it all at night.[/quote]
    Wrong answer. The moon gets hotter on the dayside (~380K) and doesn’t lose it all on the nightside (80K and higher during lunar night), yet it’s average temperature is only ~197K.[/quote]

    Since there is no question that the Sun can heat the surface to temperatures much higher than 290K; perhaps the question should be how does the Earth’s average surface temperature stay hotter than 290K.

    A big part of the answer to that lies in the abundant water and its latent heats of fusion and evaporation, and the mass of the atmosphere that sets the pressure at which fusion and evaporation occur.

    The overall process that keeps the average above some theoretical average or minimum between cycles is sometimes called hysteresis.

  • Avatar

    Tim Folkerts

    |

    Pat, I don’t think we are rally all that far apart on most issues here. But I do see two significant differences.

    [b]1) We can always say “yes, but … “.[/b]
    No model is ever complete, and there is always the next step. I see my approach as focusing on the “yes” part — trying to get agreement on the basics before moving on to the more challenging details.
    * Yes, a uniform 240 W/m^2 will lead to a uniform 255 K for a blackbody sphere with no atmosphere.
    * yes, 480 W/m^2 on one hemisphere and 0 W/m^2 on the other will be 303 K on one side and 0 K on the other.
    * yes, 960 W/m^2 of sunlight heading parallel toward one non-rotating hemisphere will be 361 K at the center and 0 K at the edges, with an average of ~ 288 K (~ 15 C).
    * yes, a BB shell close around a heated sphere will cause the sphere to be warmer by a factor of 2^(1/4) than a similar heated sphere with no shell around it.

    You seem to be focusing on the “but”.
    * … but what about rotation?
    * … but what about non-uniform illumination?
    * … but what about heat capacity?
    * … but what about oceans?

    If we can’t agree on the basics, then there is no point heading forward. “Showing my work” would entail first agreeing on the basics. So far, we seem to agree on the numbers for a uniformly lit blackbody sphere with a nearby blackbody shell, which is a good step. Many people will even disagree that the planet would be above 255 K in this situation.

    The remaining (and there are indeed MANY remaining steps) must be built up and agreed on in succession, so that everyone involved agrees. We could add in rotation. We could add in heat capacity. We could add in dust. But that only makes sense when the previous simpler steps are agreed upon.

    2) The ‘reality’ of ‘back-radiation’.
    I would encourage you to look into the idea of energy density for cavity radiation. Planck derived his famous law by looking at the energy of quantized EM waves (ie photons) within an isothermal cavity. His derivation requires that photons be flying back and forth between the isothermal walls of the cavity. Radiation goes from from the left wall left to the right wall, and ‘back-radiation’ goes from the right wall to the left wall.

    Of course, the net flux is zero, but there are definitely photons moving every which way all the time. S-B is a consequence of Planck’s Law; Planck’s Law is a consequence of ‘back-radiation’ within the cavity.

    There is also the related idea of “radiation pressure”, which can become quite important in the cores of stars. Both of these ideas are predicated on a real, two-way flow of photons even within an isothermal container.

  • Avatar

    Pat Obar

    |

    [quote name=”Tim Folkerts”]
    “As for your suggested approach, you do realize that it will give the “warmist” answer, don’t you?”[/quote]

    Yes I do! I do the same with “NO’ fake “back radiation”. Your textbook or handbook gives the same answer but but with “NO” understanding!
    You try to create in your fake computer model, in a situation that has nothing to do with the geometry and other conditions on this Earth. All you do is theoretical BS with “NO” understanding of what is! You seem to be a Flat Land “warmest” with the “belief” of such. Into the volcano you go “heathen” of any science.

    -Skip much BS-
    If you move your absorptive/emissive “shell” to the radius of L1 or L2, both its temperature
    and that of the sphere will become lower” is that “cooling” rather than “warming” No! All is but an answer to longstanding thermodynamic equations with no “cooling” or “warming” ever involved. You wish to introduce this BS.
    This Earths atmosphere does way different than what your high school claims say. Do you have any idea of what “is”. Does a change atmospheric CO2 have any effect of What “is”? Show your work! I hope you do better than in your two nonsense spreadsheets
    I only challenge your claims. You need to prove, I do not! I am only convinced that your claims are knowledgeable fraud. You must prove your assertions. I do not know, you are that claims that you do know!

  • Avatar

    Tim Folkerts

    |

    Pat, it is mildly amusing that you fault the first spreadsheet for not waiting until it reaches steady-state (when the whole point was to see how things change on the way toward equilibrium), then fault the second for waiting until steady-state has been achieved.

    *************************************

    As for your suggested approach, you do realize that it will give the “warmist” answer, don’t you?

    Let’s assume the shell’s radius is 0.5% larger than the radius of the planet, so that the area is 1% larger. (This is actually an over-estimate, but it works for easy calculations.)

    [i]1. Know the power to be radiated.[/i]
    [b]P = 240 W/m^2 * A(planet)[/b]

    [i]2. calculate the flux from the shell by dividing power by surface area of shell.[/i]
    [b]240 W/m^2 * A(planet)/A(shell) = 237.6 W/m^2[/b]

    [i]3, calculate the temperature required to create flux to near abs zero. Call that Tshell ()note Tshell does not care how it got that power just that it did and must shed that power at whatever temperature to a “known” lower temperature. it cannot be abs zero.[/i]
    [b]Tshell = 254.4 K[/b]

    [i]4, do 2. for the sphere with its smaller surface area so that exiting flux must be higher.[/i]
    [b]P/A = 240 W/m^2[/b] which is indeed higher than 237.6 W/m^2 as you suggested.

    [i]5. Using the real S-B equation calculate the
    temperature required to exit that flux to a background of Tshell. Note again no “back radiation” is required and none has ever been observed.[/i]
    [b]Tplanet = 302.9 K[/b]
    You gave the “real S-B equation” earlier in this thread as
    P/A = (epsilon)(sigma)(Ta^4-Tb^4).
    In our case, Ta = Tplanet, Tb = Tshell = 254.4 K, epsilon = 1, and P/A = 240 W/m^2. Solving for Tplanet gives 302.9.

    ************************************

    You just gave the precise approach for showing the warming of the surface by a shell that “warmists” have been explaining for some time now! I am following YOUR steps exactly as you explained them!

    The correction for the extra area of the shell is minimal (~ 0.4 K cooler than if we simply assumed the shell was the same area as the planet). And of course, our hypothetical shell could be much closer to the planet than 30 km, so the correction could be much less than 0.4 K).

  • Avatar

    Pat Obar

    |

    [quote name=”Tim Folkerts”]oops forgot to post the link to the second spreadsheet:
    https:/tin/docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AgM8XE4GABYQdEw1d0toVzFEQ3FYdnE5MXJmLXRYTUE&usp=sharing
    the link to the First spreadsheet:
    The spreadsheet then follows the changing temperature of the planet and the IR blocking shell around it.
    https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AgM8XE4GABYQdHVZTDZLblNOaTBpSkxEckxUQXdSMEE&usp=sharing [/quote]

    Interesting, These two show the entire curriculum vitae for Tim Folkerts.

    First spreadsheet: In this one Tim does everything with some flux going in two directions to confuse all. Then he does not even let his nonsence go to equilibrium. if he had he would have (perhaps) seen that all the power power however much goes right through his Ir Blocking shell to near zero temperature outside it. Not part but all power. There is “no” power left to “back radiate”. The proper way to evaluate such a situation ( sunce you are looking at.thermodynamic equilibrium “with flux” is to make all thermal mass zero and solve the real S-B equation (if everthing is black and Lambertian.
    1. Know the power to be radiated.
    2. calculate the flux from the shell by dividing power by surface area of shell.
    3, calculate the temperature required to create
    flux to near abs zero. Call that Tshell ()note Tshell does not care how it got that power just that it did and must shed that power at whatever temperature to a “known” lower temperature. it cannot be abs zero.
    4, do 2. for the sphere with its smaller surface area so that exiting flux must be higher.
    5. Using the real S-B equation calculate the
    temperature required to exit that flux to a background of Tshell. Note again no “back radiation” is required and none has ever been observed.

    Second spreadsheet: Here Tim does even worse!
    He farts around with the earth tide locked to the Sun. not even Venus is that bad yet. Here Tim uses no thermal mass for the Earth yet 72% is ocean and damn near is a isotherm. and it spins with a equatorial velocity near 1000 MPH, way above the speed of sound in air!
    For a Phd.In physics both must be deleberate lies A senior in high school with one term in solid geometry and one term in thermodynamics. Would not make such mistakes. Flunk!!!!
    ..

  • Avatar

    Greg House

    |

    [quote]#61 Tim Folkerts: “The actual “correct” answer … This makes the global average only ~ -129 C, not -121 C.”[/quote]

    Even if you ridiculous method of getting -129°C was correct, it is still not the warmists’ -18°C. The warmists value is still false.

    Very amusing.

  • Avatar

    Greg House

    |

    #61 Tim Folkerts: “The actual “correct” answer … This makes the global average only ~ -129 C, not -121 C. [/quote]

    Even if you ridiculous method of getting -129°C was correct, it is still not the warmists’ -18°C. The warmists value is still false.

    Very amusing.

  • Avatar

    Tim Folkerts

    |

    You still don’t get it, do you Greg? [quote]I guess I do not need to elaborate why -18°C is wrong when -121°C (151°K) is correct, do I?[/quote]
    In this one sentence you are wrong THREE TIMES!

    1) The actual “correct” answer does not have uniform 480 W/m^2 over one whole hemisphere. The “correct answer” for your non-rotating earth has 960 W/m^2 at the point directly facing the sun >> 88 C, dropping off to 0 W/m^2 at the boundary between the sunny and dark sides >> -273 K. The actual average for this hemisphere is ~ 15 C (not the 30 C you get). This makes the global average only ~ -129 C, not -121 C. ALL of the models we are discussing here are simplifications so none of them can be “correct”.

    2) -18 C is known to only be an upper limit for global temperature using only sunlight, which corresponds to a surface at uniform temperature. It is the correct answer for the upper limit.

    Also, it is the uniformity of the EARTH’S temperature, not the uniformity of the SUNLIGHT, that matters. Since we know observationally that the temperature swings from day to night are not that great, then the “correct average” will not be too far below -18 C. Rotation and the fluids of earth combine to keep the temperatures fairly constant. (More important actually is the variation from poles to equator, rather than the variations from night to day.)

    3) Finally, no object is a BB for thermal IR, so the “correct” answer would be be higher than any of the numbers given. Your non-rotating, 480 W/m^2 model should more accurately be a bit ABOVE -121 C. For example, using 0.95 for emissivity would raise the sunny side by 4 C and hence raise the global average by 2 C.

    ***************************************

    If you want to talk details, then you will have to be open to more subtle thinking than “all warmist always calculate -18 C for any model of a planet with no atmosphere 1 AU from the sun.”

  • Avatar

    Greg House

    |

    [quote name=”Tim Folkerts”]The correct answer for YOUR MODEL (uniform 480 W/m^2 on one hemisphere; no rotation) is 151 K. The “warmist approach” as you call it gives exactly the same answer for your model (because here you indeed use the proper physics.)[/quote]

    Please do not lie.

    The warmist approach gives a different answer: -18°C, you know the calculation very well. They average the input 480 W/m^2 over the total area of the sphere, put this new value (240 W/m²) into the SB equation (which is not applicable to such a case), get the result -18°C and claim it to be the average temperature over the total area of the sphere.

    I guess I do not need to elaborate why -18°C is wrong when -121°C (151°K) is correct, do I?

    This example demonstrates how blatantly wrong the warmists approach is.

    Besides, the funny thing is that using the CORRECT approach, (which is calculating the temperature for each hemisphere separately and only then calculating the average) and exactly the same data the warmists use for their calculation, it is IMPOSSIBLE to determine the average temperature of the whole sphere, because it depends on the rates of cooling and warming, which warmists make no reference to! Since they ignore those rates, they only can correctly determine the [b]maximum[/b] possible average temperature, which is +30°C for each hemisphere, thus yielding the same +30°C maximum average.

    The less funny thing is that they teach that crap at their contaminated universities.

  • Avatar

    Tim Folkerts

    |

    PS. For anyone who is interested, here is another spread sheet that calculates temperatures across a hemisphere for a non-rotating planet for sunlight as the heating source. By changing the absorption (1 – albedo) in cell C3, the rest of the values will update.

    For example, with absorption = .89 (ie albedo = 0.11 like the moon) the “noon” temperature reaches 110 C and the “terminator” is -273 C (no CMBR). The average over the whole hemisphere is less than 40 C.

    Also, for a more “realistic” non-rotating earth (like Greg’s model but using varying sunlight rather than a uniform 480 W/m^2), the max temp is ~ 88 C, but the average of the sunny side is only ~ 15 C. So even the ‘sunny side’ of a non rotating earth will only average 15 C.

  • Avatar

    Tim Folkerts

    |

    Ben says: [quote]”Given our low rotation rate our AT [average temperature] will be closer to 151K then to 255K.”[/quote]
    “low” is relative. Personal experience tells us the earth only cools ~ 10 – 15 C ( 20 – 30 F) overnight, so experimentally we know that even rotating once per day the earth doesn’t cool very much much. Furthermore, unlike the moon, we have vast amounts of fluids (air and water) that serve to moderate the temperature. So so for both experimental and theoretical reasons, it is not unexpected for the “average temperature” to be much closer to 255 K than 151 K.

    [quote]Only question remaining: how did earth get to 290K AT in the first place.[/quote]
    I while ago I wrote up a spreadsheet that does exactly the sort of “floor heating system” calcualtions that you are looking at — but the spreadsheet updates the temperature as time passes. You can plug in various values for initial temperatures & heat capacities. The spreadsheet then follows the changing temperature of the planet and the IR blocking shell around it.
    https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AgM8XE4GABYQdHVZTDZLblNOaTBpSkxEckxUQXdSMEE&usp=sharing
    The spreadsheet assume uniform heating of the surface (eg like your heating system). The shell in this case has a fixed emissivity of 1.0. This means there is no “atmospheric window” in this model and hence the surface will be bit warmer than you would get for earth.

    The heated will asymptotically approach the steady-state results (with a time constant that depends primarily on heat capacity).

  • Avatar

    Tim Folkerts

    |

    Greg says:
    [quote]No problem. Since in the example I gave above the correct value is -121°C, but the warmists approach yields -18°C, the only conclusion is that the warmists approach is false. There is no way around it.[/quote]
    That is “bait and switch” pure and simple. The correct answer for YOUR MODEL (uniform 480 W/m^2 on one hemisphere; no rotation) is 151 K. The “warmist approach” as you call it gives exactly the same answer for your model (because here you indeed use the proper physics.)

    For a DIFFERENT MODEL, (either rapidly rotating or uniform 240 W/m^2 over the whole surface), the “warmist approach give a DIFFERENT CORRECT ANSWER!

    Usually this is modeled (for beginners) as 240 W/m^2 uniformly since this is easier to calculate. It is also easy to show that this is produces the MAXIMUM possible average. temperature. Since you are clearly not grasping even the simple model, there is really no point in trying to get to the vastly more complicated calculations for an actual rotating planet.

  • Avatar

    Ben Wouters

    |

    [quote name=”BenAW”] So a grey body at our distance from the sun rotating once every second will have an average temperature (AT) slightly below 255K (albedo .11 emissivity 1)and rotating once every orbit an AT slightly below 151K. Given our low rotation rate our AT will be closer to 151K then to 255K.[/quote]Albedo .11 should be .30 for earth.

  • Avatar

    Ben Wouters

    |

    [quote name=”David Russell”][quote name=”BenAW”]

    Only question remaining: how did earth get to 290K AT in the first place.[/quote]

    It gets hotter than 290K on the day side, and doesn’t lose it all at night.[/quote]
    Wrong answer. The moon gets hotter on the dayside (~380K) and doesn’t lose it all on the nightside (80K and higher during lunar night), yet it’s average temperature is only ~197K.

  • Avatar

    David Russell

    |

    [quote name=”BenAW”]

    Only question remaining: how did earth get to 290K AT in the first place.[/quote]

    It gets hotter than 290K on the day side, and doesn’t lose it all at night.

  • Avatar

    Ben Wouters

    |

    [quote name=”Tim Folkerts”]@ #39 BenAW

    I agree with pretty mucvh everything you said. These are indeed hte sorts of calcualtions that need to be performed to get the tmperature without any atmosphere.[/quote]
    So a grey body at our distance from the sun rotating once every second will have an average temperature (AT) slightly below 255K (albedo .11 emissivity 1)and rotating once every orbit an AT slightly below 151K. Given our low rotation rate our AT will be closer to 151K then to 255K.

    Turning things around: a planet in outer space, covered with a Floor Heating System (FHS), no heat can escape to the interior. Unlimited power supply, I’ll use the same energy labels as for solar.
    FHS turned off, balance temp. 2,77K
    FHS ON, 240W to every m^2, balance temperature now 255K, and radiating 240 W/m^2 to space. More heat, 400 W to every m^2, balance temp. now 290K, radiating 400 W/m^2 to space.

    Now we cover our planet with an insulation blanket, with the same thermal characteristics as our atmosphere: 290K on the inside results in 240 W/m^2 (equals 255K BB temp.) loss on the outside. With the blanket in place we can turn down the FHS to 240 W/m^2, and maintain an AT of 290K for ever.
    So no warming by the atmosphere required, only reduction of the energy loss to space.

    Only question remaining: how did earth get to 290K AT in the first place.

  • Avatar

    Greg House

    |

    [quote name=”Tim Folkerts”]For a rapidly rotating planet, the “warmist approach” would get -18 C.[/quote]

    This should not be neglected, it is another nice example how warmists fool people.

    For the record, that warmists calculation does not refer to rotation at all. Neither slow rotation, nor fast rotation. No rotation speed value is used in their calculation.

  • Avatar

    Greg House

    |

    [quote name=”Tim Folkerts”]For a rapidly rotating planet, the “warmist approach” would get -18 C.[/quote]

    Yeah… (sigh)We all know that.

    For the record,I have demonstrated earlier on this thread that that very approach is inherently false by giving an easy obvious example that the warmists approach leads to a wrong result. This one example proves that the warmists approach is false. Simple logic. As I can see, you can not drop it and would like to prolong the agony. No problem. Since in the example I gave above the correct value is -121°C, but the warmists approach yields -18°C, the only conclusion is that the warmists approach is false. There is no way around it.

    Now, the next step. Since the warmists approach is false, [b]any average temperature calculated by that approach must be false[/b] (except for a pure coincidence, if several errors “cancel” each other and coincidently yield the right value, but this is not the case concerning that -18°C value).

    So, the -18°C warmists calculate for the average surface temperature using the same false approach is false. Hence one of their key statements that the surface is in fact (+15-18=33°C) warmer than it “otherwise” would be [b]is false[/b].

    Of course, since we know without any calculation, for pure physical reasons, a)that for the surface to get to a higher temperature than the sunlight can induce requires a more powerful than the Sun source of energy and b)there is none, this -18°C must be a sheer nonsense, but it is still interesting to look into how exactly warmists fool people.

    It would be interesting to learn for the history, who was the first one to invent that trick with false application of the SB equation. As for now, the main suspect is the “warmist in chief” Hansen: http://www.knmi.nl/~laagland/KIK/Documenten_2013/Hansen_climate_impact_of_increasing_co2.pdf, p.957

  • Avatar

    Tim Folkerts

    |

    Pat says:[quote] At any wavelength,and in any direction flux can be zero or one way! That is the definition of any.flux![/quote]
    But just because the flux is zero does not in any way imply that there cannot be photons flying through space every which way. If the temperatures are the same, that only means that equal numbers of photons are flying each direction.

    Planck’s whole derivation of his famous law is about the energy in the quantized standing EM waves within a container at a fixed uniform temperature. In other words, he was finding how many photons of varying frequencies were within the cavity flying back and forth. You can read more about “radiation pressure” and “radiation energy density” to explore the reality of photons flowing back and forth continuously even when the net flux is zero.

    PS, how does any of this directly address whether or not gases can warm the earth? The net flow of photons (ie the flux) is (almost) always up form the earth to the atmosphere. But the atmosphere could and does affect how BIG that flux is by adjusting “T_cold”.

  • Avatar

    Tim Folkerts

    |

    Greg says
    [quote] I can do that for the third time on this thread….
    Assuming the warmists data is otherwise correct, we calculate the average temperature for a non-rotating planet by calculating first the temperatures of each hemisphere separately using the SB equation and then calculating the average. Thus we get +30°C on the one side and -273°C (0°K) on the other, the average is -151°C. Using the warmists approach we get -18°C.[/quote]
    And I can tell you once again that this it not “the warmist approach”.

    1) Their is no single “warmist approach”. There are many models of varying sophistication.

    2) For the planet you modeled (your non-rotating planet with uniform illumination over one half), the “warmist approach” would indeed produce -121C (I think your -151C was a simple arithmetic error or typo). You have the proper physics.

    3) For a rapidly rotating planet, the “warmist approach” would get -18 C. These are [b][i]two different situations[/i][/b], so it is to perfectly reasonable that you can get [b][i]two different answers[/i][/b]!

    [quote]”This example debunks the well known warmists calculation of -18°C they like so much. “[/quote]
    No, it just shows you are comparing apples and oranges.

    [quote]”The correct approach is to calculate the temperature for each hemisphere separately and then take the average.”[/quote]
    Yes! Yes! Yes!

    [quote]As I said, it would be up to 30°C on average on the light side and less on the dark side … [/quote]
    Yes, again! [b]This is where you need to “do the math”[/b] and actually calculate the temperature for each half separately! The question to be answered by calculation (rather than by guessing) is “how MUCH cooler than 303.3 K will the sunny side get, and how MUCH warmer than 0 K will the back side get?”

    We already agree that the non-rotating version is 303.3 K & 0 K for the two sides (or 2.7K if you want to throw in CMBR).
    If we rotate so slowly that the warm side cools just 1K to 302.3 K on average, the backside will jump up to ~ 104 K and the average has increased to 203 K! That’s pretty impressive for such a small cooling of the warm side!

    Cool the warm side by 2K, and the back side warms up further, to ~ 122 K, and the average goes up further.

    Cool the warm side by 15 K to 288 K (the nomimal “global average” for earth), and the back side will only be ~ 200 K

    But try as you might, you can’t get the average up above 255 K using this approach. I encourage you to try. Show us your approach and your numbers.

  • Avatar

    Pat Obar

    |

    [quote name=”Tim Folkerts”]Cladius, if my answer is blatantly false, then you must know the right answer (or you could not know my answer is false). So what are the correct numbers? If H2O does not provide ~ 20 C (give or take say 10 C) of warming, how much does it provide?[/quote]

    CO2 provides no warming!
    H2O provides no warming!
    O2 + N2 provides no warming!

    For a small temperature difference
    P/A = (epsilon)(4)(sigma)(T^3)(deltaT) .
    For larger temperature differences use the integral
    P/A = (epsilon)(sigma)(Ta^4-Tb^4)
    Such is only correct or for parallel plates of sufficent size to emit and absorb with a solid angle of PI steradian..
    If the result negative that same flux is from Tb (now emitter) to Ta (now absorber).
    At any wavelength,and in any direction flux can be zero or one way! That is the definition of any.flux!

  • Avatar

    Greg House

    |

    [quote name=”Tim Folkerts”]Show us the math that supposrts your claim.[/quote]

    No problem, I can do that for the third time on this thread. If you ask me again or distort my simple point, I will explain it again for you, you are always welcome.

    So, my claim is that the well known warmists calculation of the surface temperature “in absence of the “greenhouse effect”” based on the SB equation is only the result of a wrong unscientific application of this equation. I admit, however, that their trick is not so easy to recognize. The best and the easiest way to debunk a false approach is just by giving an example of this approach leading to a false result, so here we go (again):

    Assuming the warmists data is otherwise correct, we calculate the average temperature for a non-rotating planet by calculating first the temperatures of each hemisphere separately using the SB equation and then calculating the average. Thus we get +30°C on the one side and -273°C (0°K) on the other, the average is -151°C. Using the warmists approach we get -18°C.

    This example debunks the well known warmists calculation of -18°C they like so much. The correct approach is to calculate the temperature for each hemisphere separately and then take the average. As I said, it would be up to 30°C on average on the light side and less on the dark side, depending on how fast the heating and the cooling are.

  • Avatar

    Tim Folkerts

    |

    @ #39 BenAW

    I agree with pretty mucvh everything you said. These are indeed hte sorts of calcualtions that need to be performed to get the tmperature without any atmosphere.

    Maybe I should leave you to fight it out with Greg, since you keep advocating for average global temperature BELOW 255 K and he keeps advocaing for average global temperature ABOVE 255 K! 🙂

  • Avatar

    Tim Folkerts

    |

    Anne says “I am amused at how Tim tells us “real” AGW models don’t use flat earth assumptions, then he turns around and quotes a “flat earth” average of irradiance.”

    I also said that these sorts of simplifications are used to introduce the topics. You might be disappointed to realize that the discussions here are indeed “introductory level” to try to understand the fundamentals. Greg is trying to understand the impacts of rotation on a world with no atmosphere, and so far he is pretty much just ‘guessing’ that 15 C should be the answer. Until we can answer these simple models with some hard numbers, there is really no point in worrying about actual distributions of sunlight, or atmospheres with on GHGs, or atmosphere with GHGs, etc.

  • Avatar

    Tim Folkerts

    |

    Greg says
    [quote]Mathematically, yes, we can say that at any given moment the average input (considering both hemispheres) is 240 W/m², but we can not derive the temperature from this value using the SB equation, because it is not applicable to this average value.[/quote]

    Conservation of energy still applies. You seem happy to apply SB & conservation of energy to the sunny side and say it is 30 C becasue that is the temperature when 480 W/m^2 of incoming sunlight is blanaced by 480 W/m^2 of outgoing thermal IR. So if the planet never spun at all, this would be the temperature of hte sunny side (assuming that we really could distribute the energy evenly over that hemisphere.

    But if that works on the sunny side, then it must work on the night side simultaneously. Then night side will be 0 K! (well, 2.7 K). There is no energy left to radiate from the night side.

    Of course, you do something like shine the light alternately on the two sides. Then the “Side A” would start to cool from 30 C (303 K) and the “Side B” would start to warm from 0 K. You could switch back once Side A cooled to, say 0 C (to keep that half habitable).

    But here is the thing .. you can’t just wish that SIDE B warmed up all the way to 30 C in that time. You have to do the calculations. The calculations will show that Side B gets no where near 30 C in that time. So when you have to switch back to warm Side A back toward 30 C, Side B will plunge back toward 0K.

    Don’t take my word for it. And don’t assume I am wrong, either! Try the calculations. Show us the numbers you get using any sort of assumptions that you want for heat capacity, thermal conductivity, time that you light each hemisphere, etc. (I’ll even give you my ball-park estimate. If Side A averages 288 K (=15 c), then Side B will average ~ 200 K.)

    Show us the math that supposrts your claim.

    PS. you say “Using the warmists approach we get -18°C. -151°C is the correct value”.
    This is only half (or a third) correct. The correct value a planet evenly lit on one side and dark on the other would be 152 K (-151 C) as you suppose. The faster the planet rotates, the HIGHER this average will be. In the limit of a rapidely rotating planet, the HIGHEST average temperature possible is the 255 K (-18 C) result. The “warmists” are being generous to you! When “warmists” say that thermal radiation provides 33 K of warming, they are ONLY claiming the minimum effect! Any of your alternate scenarious would require MORE warming from thermal radiation!

  • Avatar

    Greg House

    |

    [quote name=”Anne Ominous”]I am amused at how Tim tells us “real” AGW models don’t use flat earth assumptions, then he turns around and quotes a “flat earth” average of irradiance.[/quote]

    I do not think that what they do can be correctly called “flat earth assumption”. Their approach to calculate the “effective radiative blackbody temperature” is equally false for a flat non-rotating planet, I hope to have successfully demonstrated that earlier on this thread.

  • Avatar

    Anne Ominous

    |

    @ #36 Greg House:

    I am amused at how Tim tells us “real” AGW models don’t use flat earth assumptions, then he turns around and quotes a “flat earth” average of irradiance.

  • Avatar

    David Russell

    |

    [quote name=”Tim Folkerts”]Pat says:
    [i]”Do not point to some … science textbooks.”
    and
    “… the falsified statistical mechanics”[/i]

    As I said before, you can choose to ignore the foundations of physics and thermodynamics as taught for decades in universities around the world. If you want to convince people that the very foundations of physics are wrong — that all physics textbooks are wrong — well, good luck with that.[/quote]

    The foundations of physics are sound, but you should ask for a refund on the textbooks that claim “greenhouse gasses” warm the surface or that the atmosphere would be isothermal without “greenhouse gasses”.

  • Avatar

    Ben Wouters

    |

    [quote name=”Tim Folkerts”]
    First, the rotation rate of the earth is ~30 times faster (one day instead of 1 month). This will have a big impact on how much the sunny side warms and how much the shaded side cools.[/quote]With a rotation rate of once every second a greybody will receive solar evenly spread over all longitudes. The difference between equator and poles still remains, so the 255K will NOT be reached, even at this rotational speed.
    Reducing the rotation to once every day will have a huge impact on the average temperature. (60*60*24 = 86400 times reduction in rotation rate).
    This of course all depends on the heat storage characteristics of the body under consideration.
    The thermal mass of our atmosphere is equal to that of ~3 meter of water, so a minor player in this respect.

  • Avatar

    Claudius Denk Solving Tornadoe

    |

    [quote name=”Tim Folkerts”]Cladius, if my answer is blatantly false, then you must know the right answer (or you could not know my answer is false). So what are the correct numbers? If H2O does not provide ~ 20 C (give or take say 10 C) of warming, how much does it provide?[/quote]If anything I said implied that I knew the right answer then I would hereby like to make a retraction and offer an apology.
    See how easy that is?

  • Avatar

    Pat Obar

    |

    [quote name=”Tim Folkerts”]Greg says: [quote]”The SB equation can only be correctly applied to a hemisphere.”[/quote]
    What??? where did that come from? The power emitted from a surface is

    P/A = (epsilon) (sigma) T^4

    There is nothing about shapes. The equation scan be correctly applied to any surface. (I should add for completeness that the surface can also be absorbing power from other radiating objects (for example, the sun or clouds)).[/quote]

    * P/A = (epsilon) (sigma) T^4
    Add this Blatently False to Mr. Denk’s
    * H2O is responsible for ~20 C of surface warming
    * CO2 is responsible for ~10 C of surface warming
    * N2 & O2 are responsible for ~0.1 C of surface warming.

    As Mr. Denk says
    “The incompetence that you displayed in this response should not, in my opinion, be used as evidence that you are incompetent in general. Nor should it be used as evidence that you are incompetent as a teacher or even as a scientists. It is, IMO, evidence that you are under the influence of a cult mentality.”
    The Holy Church of the Anthropogenic James Hanson Pastor.

    Can you gove any demonstration of any sort to what you incessantly claim? It seems characteristic. of both the Arrogant Academic” and the cult member to blatently misuse the knowledge and understanding of others, while
    at the same time “refusing to learn anything”.
    Can you demonstrate any radiative electromagnetic flux on the inside of an isothermal enclousure? Complete Fraud.

  • Avatar

    Greg House

    |

    [quote name=”Tim Folkerts”]
    No. If the whole globe were +15 K = 288 K, then the whole earth would be radiating 390 W/m^2, but it only absorbs an average of 240 W/m^2.[/quote]

    In reality input to each hemisphere is 480 W/m² according to the SB equation and this power determines the temperatures of both of them. Each hemisphere absorbs 480 W/m² (which corresponds to the +30°C average) and then cools when it becomes the dark side. Therefore the maximum possible average temperature would be +30°C and the real one depends on the rates of warming and cooling.

    Mathematically, yes, we can say that at any given moment the average input (considering both hemispheres) is 240 W/m², but we can not derive the temperature from this value using the SB equation, because it is not applicable to this average value.

    I have clearly proved this last point in my #25, but for well known obfuscater Mr. Folkerts here it is again:

    Assuming the warmists data is otherwise correct, we calculate the average temperature for a non-rotating planet by calculating first the temperatures of each hemisphere separately using the SB equation and then calculating the average. Thus we get +30°C on the one side and -273°C (0°K) on the other, the average is -151°C. Using the warmists approach we get -18°C. -151°C is the correct value, -18°C is a product of warmists “science”. What a disgrace.

    This example debunks the well known warmists calculation of -18°C they like so much. The correct approach is to calculate the temperature for each hemisphere separately and then take the average. As I said, it would be up to 30°C on average on the light side and less on the dark side, depending on how fast the heating and the cooling are.

  • Avatar

    Tim Folkerts

    |

    Cladius, if my answer is blatantly false, then you must know the right answer (or you could not know my answer is false). So what are the correct numbers? If H2O does not provide ~ 20 C (give or take say 10 C) of warming, how much does it provide?

  • Avatar

    Tim Folkerts

    |

    Dang! “introductory level” in the last post was supposed to be ITALIC, not BLOCKQUOTE! 🙁

  • Avatar

    Tim Folkerts

    |

    Anne, certainly the vast majority of [quote]introductory level[/quote] AGW warming models assume a “flat earth” that doesn’t rotate. Google “one-layer greenhouse effect” and you will find all sorts of links to models like you describe.

    But that is like recognizing that the vast majority of physics classes start by studying projectile motion without air resistance. It is merely a simplification to get started with the basic concepts; a stepping stone to deeper understanding.

    Google “general circulation model” and you will find that these climate models divide a spherical earth in to thousands of cells that are updated many times per day. These are MUCH more complex than the one layer, flat, non-rotating models you seem to be thinking of.

  • Avatar

    Greg House

    |

    [quote name=”Tim Folkerts”]There is nothing about shapes. The equation scan be correctly applied to any surface.[/quote]

    I meant of course the input from the Sun which is upon only a hemisphere at the same time, not the whole sphere. You know that and it was clear from the context.

  • Avatar

    Tim Folkerts

    |

    Greg says: [quote]”The SB equation can only be correctly applied to a hemisphere.”[/quote]
    What??? where did that come from? The power emitted from a surface is

    P/A = (epsilon) (sigma) T^4

    There is nothing about shapes. The equation scan be correctly applied to any surface. (I should add for completeness that the surface can also be absorbing power from other radiating objects (for example, the sun or clouds)).

    [quote]…we calculate the average temperature for a non-rotating planet by calculating first the temperatures of each hemisphere separately using the SB equation and then calculating the average. Thus we get +30°C on the one side and -273°C (0°K) on the other, the average is -151°C. Using the warmists approach we get -18°C.[/quote]
    This is all correct as far as it goes. Applying the same power in different ways will indeed lead to different temperatures.
    (In fact, your calculation assumes uniform sunlight over the entire hemisphere. If we take into account that the areas directly facing the sun will be warmer than +30 C, then the global average would be even LESS than -151 K.)

    [quote]Coming back to the rotating Earth, the maximum temperature of each hemisphere according to the SB equation (again, assuming the warmists data is otherwise correct) would be +30°C. The real average temperature depends on the rates of heating and cooling on both sides…[/quote]
    Yes.

    [quote]…so theoretically +15°C is a realistic value without inventing any absurd “greenhouse effect”.[/quote]
    No. If the whole globe were +15 K = 288 K, then the whole earth would be radiating 390 W/m^2, but it only absorbs an average of 240 W/m^2. You are violating conservation of energy by continuously radiating more power than you are absorbing. (And if the earth were not a uniform 288 K (eg 298 during the day and 278 at night, or 298 at the equator and 278 at the poles), then if would be radiating an average MORE THAN 390 W/m^2).

  • Avatar

    Anne Ominous

    |

    [quote name=”Anne Ominous”]
    “Nor, if I am mistaken…”
    [/quote]
    Should have been “… if I am NOT mistaken…”

  • Avatar

    Anne Ominous

    |

    [quote name=”#27 Tim Folkerts”]
    First, the rotation rate of the earth is ~30 times faster (one day instead of 1 month). This will have a big impact on how much the sunny side warms and how much the shaded side cools.

    As for the atmosphere, it has two big impacts on the surface temperature. Even without the radiative properties, the atmosphere is a fluid that convects. This will draw energy away from the warm areas (as air convects upward) and return enerrgy to the cool parts (as air returns back down).

    Both the faster rotation and the moderating effect of the atmospheric fluid will make the earth’s temperature much more uniform thah the moon’s — and hence make the average temperature much closer to the blackbody temperature. Throw in the fact that the surface is not a blackbody (which raises the temperature several degrees), and we are back pretty close to the BB temperature for the expected average temperature (before adding in the radiative effects).

    Then the radiative effects only need to supply on the order of 35 K of warming, which I *can* believe our “measly atmosphere” manages to achieve.[/quote]

    Tim: I am forced to ask:

    If these facts are so, then why do the vast majority of AGW warming models assume a “flat earth” that doesn’t rotate? And also, using a flat earth model, you can’t properly model convection. (Nor, if I am mistaken, do most of them even try.)

    So you are explaining effects that the AGW models in fact do not account for.

    Even if we agree with your arguments here, because they are NOT accounted for by the majority of AGW models, these arguments in fact are not arguments for the validity of those models.

  • Avatar

    Anne Ominous

    |

    [quote name=”Tim Folkerts”]Rosco, you should look at what Wood actually wrote. Here are the first and last paragraphs:

    1) He admits he only studied the situation at a shallow level.
    2) He recognizes that his experiment applies to familiar cases like actual greenhouses, with spaces enclosed by walls and glass.

    This is hardly a definitive study on heat flow in the atmosphere.[/quote]

    First, as your own quote shows, Wood wasn’t referring to an “experiment”, but rather to a “widespread belief”.

    Admittedly, that by itself isn’t “proof” of anything, as Rosco implied. But neither is it evidence of anything else. It was just a few paragraphs of speculation.

    On the other hand, as both experience and experiments have shown since, little to no actual “radiative forcing” is observed in real greenhouses… just as Wood observed.

  • Avatar

    Tim Folkerts

    |

    Ben says:
    [quote]”So we have to explain why earths average temp. is ~90K higher than the moons.

    I hope you will not claim that our measly atmosphere is capable of achieving that.”[/quote]
    First, the rotation rate of the earth is ~30 times faster (one day instead of 1 month). This will have a big impact on how much the sunny side warms and how much the shaded side cools.

    As for the atmosphere, it has two big impacts on the surface temperature. Even without the radiative properties, the atmosphere is a fluid that convects. This will draw energy away from the warm areas (as air convects upward) and return enerrgy to the cool parts (as air returns back down).

    Both the faster rotation and the moderating effect of the atmospheric fluid will make the earth’s temperature much more uniform thah the moon’s — and hence make the average temperature much closer to the blackbody temperature. Throw in the fact that the surface is not a blackbody (which raises the temperature several degrees), and we are back pretty close to the BB temperature for the expected average temperature (before adding in the radiative effects).

    Then the radiative effects only need to supply on the order of 35 K of warming, which I *can* believe our “measly atmosphere” manages to achieve.

  • Avatar

    Claudius Denk Solving Tornadoe

    |

    [quote name=”Tim Folkerts”]Cladius says: [i]”You presented information that is blatantly false.”[/i]
    Please be more specific. Name one specific thing I said that you consider “blatantly false”.[/quote]

    * H2O is responsible for ~20 C of surface warming
    * CO2 is responsible for ~10 C of surface warming
    * N2 & O2 are responsible for ~0.1 C of surface warming.

    Any more questions?

  • Avatar

    Greg House

    |

    [quote name=”Tim Folkerts”]…You both know the “standard” scientific answers to your questions.
    * the effective BB temperature is only ~ 255 K
    * the actual surface temperature is 30-35 K warmer.[/quote]

    This 255K (-18°C) value is false, it is the result of a false calculation. The error in the calculation is the putting the total area of the Earth (sphere) into the SB equation. The SB equation can only be correctly applied to a hemisphere. Applying it to the area of a sphere yields the wrong value.

    This is easy to demonstrate by an example. Assuming the warmists data is otherwise correct, we calculate the average temperature for a non-rotating planet by calculating first the temperatures of each hemisphere separately using the SB equation and then calculating the average. Thus we get +30°C on the one side and -273°C (0°K) on the other, the average is -151°C. Using the warmists approach we get -18°C.

    Coming back to the rotating Earth, the maximum temperature of each hemisphere according to the SB equation (again, assuming the warmists data is otherwise correct) would be +30°C. The real average temperature depends on the rates of heating and cooling on both sides, so theoretically +15°C is a realistic value without inventing any absurd “greenhouse effect”.

  • Avatar

    Tim Folkerts

    |

    Cladius says: [i]”You presented information that is blatantly false.”[/i]
    Please be more specific. Name one specific thing I said that you consider “blatantly false”.

  • Avatar

    Ben Wouters

    |

    [quote name=”Tim Folkerts”]
    I’m not going to claim any certainty that the “correct” value is 33 ± 0.1 K, but I would be pretty sure it is 33 ± 10 K. In any case, that would require SOME warming from the GHGs.[/quote]Looking further at the moon:http://www.diviner.ucla.edu/science.shtml
    The graph shows the equatorial noon temp. reaching the theoretical ~382K.
    (although some heat storage is taking place)
    Winter temp at lat89 seems to converge towards ~40K, even after >130 earth days the temp. is still not ~2,77K.
    Some craters near the poles have floors that never see any sun, and their temp is ~25K. Seems reasonable to assume a geothermal flux. So with a base temp of ~30K, the sun is increasing the average temp. ~167K to the measured 197K.
    Just a few degrees increase due to the rotation of the moon.
    Lets say earth is a bit colder than the moon due to albedo, and a bit warmer due the slightly higher rotational speed.
    So we have to explain why earths average temp. is ~90K higher than the moons.

    I hope you will not claim that our measly atmosphere is capable of achieving that.

    No need either, because earth is a planet consisting mainly of molten rock, with a core of molten metal.
    With a pretty simple mechanism our pleasant temperatures can be explained.

  • Avatar

    Claudius Denk Solving Tornadoe

    |

    [quote name=”Tim Folkerts”]Claudius,

    1) In my mind, if a topic is in multiple textbooks, then it is “standard”. Plate tectonics is ‘standard’ science; relativity is ‘standard science’; the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics is ‘standard’.

    2) And the “~” was intended to mean the number were only approximate, not “high precision quantities”. I am estimating that [i]around [/i] 2/3 of the warming is from water; around 1/3 is from CO2; around 0% is from N2. There are lots of sources that agree with the general magnitudes. For Example, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_gas suggest that CO2 is a bit less than 1/3, so maybe 1/5 would be a better rough estimate.

    3) I thought I did explain the methods I used (or at least give big enough hints that it should have been obvious enough).

    * The “BB temperature” comes from standard Stefan-Boltzman blackbody radiation calculations, which I am pretty sure you are familiar with. Experimental values for insolation, emissivity and albedo are known pretty well, so the answe should be reasonably accurate.
    * The average surface temperature is estimated by multiple sources (again I am sure you are familiar with HADCRUT, GISS, UAH, etc). While there is some variation between the different methods (and some question of what a “global average temeperature” should even mean), it is well established that the average surface temperature is ~30-35 K warmer than 255 K.
    * Lots of sources explain the ‘atandard physics’ behind the GHE. The very paper we are discuassing calculates the impact of GHGs on the outgoing radiation. If the atmosphere blocks more outgoing IR, the lower layers have to warm up. The lapse rate constrains the temperature differences.
    * The estimates of hte relative importances came from the paper They “magically” removed the IR effects of various gases and calcualted the immediate impacts on the radiation balance. (Of course feed-backs would come into play, but that is a more complicated issue than they are addressing).[/quote]

    The incompetence that you displayed in this response should not, in my opinion, be used as evidence that you are incompetent in general. Nor should it be used as evidence that you are incompetent as a teacher or even as a scientists. It is, IMO, evidence that you are under the influence of a cult mentality. You presented information that is blatantly false. My guess is that you gained this information so long ago that you can no longer recollect how you gained it. When I challenged you on the source of that misinformation the only honest response you could have given was to apologize and make a retraction. But you didn’t. Instead you did what the members of all cults do, you tried to obfuscate the issue by bringing up a lot of irrelevant facts. I’m not even going to bother asking you to substantiate your misinformation because one thing I’ve learned about members of cults is that they never give up. Not ever.

  • Avatar

    Pat Obar

    |

    [quote name=”Tim Folkerts”]Pat says: “The Stefan-Boltzman black body flux equation. calculates the maximum thermal electromagnetic radiant flux (one way only) between two isotherms of infinite flat, black surfaces “
    And we are supposed to believe this on your authority? [/quote]

    Tim, I have no athority, nor do I wish any!
    I only offer to others a considered but different POV Many wish to consider, I wish no converts to my POV If I can help change a POV through “understanding” I must! If your Religion denies any other POV then you “believe” so be it. Your belief limits your knowledge. !You can no longer “learn”..
    The “Holy Grail” is denied to such!

  • Avatar

    Pat Obar

    |

    [quote name=”Tim Folkerts”]Pat says: “The Stefan-Boltzman black body flux equation. calculates the maximum thermal electromagnetic radiant flux (one way only) between two isotherms of infinite flat, black surfaces “
    And we are supposed to believe this on your authority? No one else thinks that the equation is for “maximal flux”, or that the surface must be “infinite” or that there must be a “second surface.” Is there any other respected source that agrees with your additional requirements?

    PS. A flat surface radiates into 2 pi stereradins, not pi steradiands.[/quote]

    Is there any other respected source that agrees with your additional requirements?
    The ones I ca think of are Joseph Stefan, hisn student Ludwig Boltzmann, J.C. Maxwell, and his studfent John Poynting Max Planck, with Gus Kirkhoff in the background making sure the kids made no mistakes. Wh Scienceo have you got?

    A flat lambertian surface radiated into a hemispnere of 2PI steradiaqns. With emisivity of 100% at all angles from normal any flat surface of fixed area radiates into exactly PI steradians. Get someone that understands mathematics to do the integral for you. If they get anything other than PI steradians, find another one. Science my ass, Neuvo non-science only.

    PS. An atmosphere can and does radiate to the colder 2PI stereradins, as it is not a surface but only a cross sectionial area. One meter cross sectional arean with 50% emissivity rasiates to space the same as a one meter surface with 100% emissivity could! On this earth there is no need for any surface radiation. The atmosphere with its aqueous vapor is capible of emitting all solar flux absorbed with no measurable change in temperature. More CO2 can only lower all temperatures near earth..

  • Avatar

    Tim Folkerts

    |

    Pat says: “The Stefan-Boltzman black body flux equation. calculates the maximum thermal electromagnetic radiant flux (one way only) between two isotherms of infinite flat, black surfaces “
    And we are supposed to believe this on your authority? No one else thinks that the equation is for “maximal flux”, or that the surface must be “infinite” or that there must be a “second surface.” Is there any other respected source that agrees with your additional requirements?

    PS. A flat surface radiates into 2 pi stereradins, not pi steradiands.

  • Avatar

    Pat Obar

    |

    [quote name=”Tim Folkerts”]
    * The average surface temperature is estimated by multiple sources (again I am sure you are familiar with HADCRUT, GISS, UAH, etc). While there is some variation between the different methods (and some question of what a “global average temeperature” should even mean), it is well established that the average surface temperature is ~30-35 K warmer than 255 K. [/quote]
    I question of what a “global average temperature” may mean It certainly is not thermodynamic temperature which is precicely energy/entropy = Kelvin Please state how this ratio was measured? Temperature is an intensive property so cannot ever be added or averaged.

    [quote] Lots of sources explain the ‘standard physics’ behind the GHE. The very paper we are discuassing calculates the impact of GHGs on the outgoing radiation. If the atmosphere blocks more outgoing IR, the lower layers have to warm up. The lapse rate constrains the temperature differences.[/quote]

    What nonsense Standard physics is some bible?

    [quote] * The estimates of hte relative importances came from the paper They “magically” removed the IR effects of various gases and calcualted the immediate impacts on the radiation balance. (Of course feed-backs would come into play, but that is a more complicated issue than they are addressing).[/quote]

    More nonsense from the Standard” bible.
    “It is written, so you “must” believe!
    Well guess what!

  • Avatar

    Pat Obar

    |

    [quote name=”Tim Folkerts”]Pat says: [quote]Tim, please correctly define thermal electromagnetic radiation “and” the physical constraints under which it is produced and transferred. Show us “your’ understanding of thermal electromagnetic radiation! Feynman did it well because he did “understand”. You have demonstrated no such “understanding”
    Do not point to some off the wall nonsensical statements from some nueavo science textbooks or Wikipedia. We here have all read, and discarded such nonsense. Somehow they criminally pay you to lecture innocent students, while having no understanding of the subject. Poor students!!
    PS If you wist to quote me please quote what I said not what you think I said. [/quote]

    As I said before, you can choose to ignore the foundations of physics and thermodynamics as taught for decades in universities around the world. If you want to convince people that the very foundations of physics are wrong — that all physics textbooks are wrong — well, good luck with that.[/quote]

    Yes Tim, you have no knowledge of the foundations of science. You refuse to define any of those foundations in your own words. You can only refer to some nonsense authority
    Why would anyone accept any of what you mistakenly claim?.

  • Avatar

    Pat Obar

    |

    [quote name=”Tim Folkerts”]

    * The “BB temperature” comes from standard Stefan-Boltzman blackbody radiation calculations, which I am pretty sure you are familiar with. Experimental values for insolation, emissivity and albedo are known pretty well, so the answer should be reasonably accurate. [/quote]

    The Stefan-Boltzman black body flux equation. calculates the maximum thermal electromagnetic radiant flux (one way only) between two isotherms of infinite flat, black surfaces independent of the distance between the two surfaces. It can do such “only” because that geometry provides a constant solid angle of PI steradians (black Lambertian surfaces). Any decrease in emissivity of the surfaces or a decrease in transmissivity of the intervening transmission media will invalidate such calculation. Errors in the application:
    1) The use of the term isolation.
    2) The Sun, the Earth, are not flat, black, Lambertian, infinite, surfaces, or isotherms.
    3) The media between the two has less that 100% transmissivity.
    There are no conditions on the use of the S-B equation that you have not violated. yet you and others “with intent to deceive” make such claims on the surface temperature of the Earth.

  • Avatar

    Tim Folkerts

    |

    Pat says:
    [i]”Do not point to some … science textbooks.”
    and
    “… the falsified statistical mechanics”[/i]

    As I said before, you can choose to ignore the foundations of physics and thermodynamics as taught for decades in universities around the world. If you want to convince people that the very foundations of physics are wrong — that all physics textbooks are wrong — well, good luck with that.

  • Avatar

    Tim Folkerts

    |

    Ben says: [i]”Average greybody balance temp. for the moon is 161K. “[/i]
    This is still a “blackbody” calculation (since the emissivity you are using is still 1.0).

    [i]”Better calculation method would be to calculate the SB balance temp. for half the greybody. For the moon this gives ~322K. Temp. for the dark side is 0K (2,77K if you want to be precise)”[/i]
    That would indeed be a better calculation. We could get an even better calculation by finding the actual temperatures everywhere on the sunny side. For example, the spot where the sun is directly overhead would be ~ 382 K. 60 degrees away from this spot would be the 322 K you calculated; the lunar terminator would drop off to 2.7 K. This would lower the temperature even further below the 161 K number you calculated!

    [i]”Same calculation for earth gives 151K, so the temp. increase to explain is not ~33K, but ~137K.”[/i]
    Yes, but the calculation ignores rotation. The earth rotates too fast for the front to warm up all the way to the temperatures calculated, or for the back to cool to 2.7 K. The heat capacity of the ground and the convection to/from the atmosphere would limit the max and min temperatures. This means the “average” will be somewhere between 255K and 151 K. So the amount to explain is somewhere between 33K and 137K.

    Furthermore, this has all been calculated assuming that the earth is indeed a blackbody for IR radiation. The earth’s emissivity is somewhat below 1.00, which would raise the actual temperature. So the actual amount of warming to explain is somewhere between (a little less than 33 K) and (a little less than 137 K).

    I’m not going to claim any certainty that the “correct” value is 33 ± 0.1 K, but I would be pretty sure it is 33 ± 10 K. In any case, that would require SOME warming from the GHGs.

    It does make for some good mental exercises in any case. 🙂

  • Avatar

    Pat Obar

    |

    [quote name=”Tim Folkerts”]Claudius & Pat,

    You both know the “standard” scientific answers to your questions.
    * the effective BB temperature is only ~ 255 K
    * the actual surface temperature is 30-35 K warmer.
    * The combination of the thickness of the atmosphere and the presence of GHGs very nicely explains the difference.
    * The paper under discussion gives estimates of the relative impact of the various gases. H2O is most important; CO2 is about 1/2 as important; N2 has almost no impact.[/quote]

    Those are quite astonishing fantasies directly from the toilet. They are claims never once observed! All that from an academic that cannot correctly define thermal electromagnetic radiation or the physical constraints under which it is produced and transferred.

    Tim, please correctly define thermal electromagnetic radiation “and” the physical constraints under which it is produced and transferred. Show us “your’ understanding of thermal electromagnetic radiation! Feynman did it well because he did “understand”. You have demonstrated no such “understanding”
    Do not point to some off the wall nonsensical statements from some nueavo science textbooks or Wikipedia. We here have all read, and discarded such nonsense. Somehow they criminally pay you to lecture innocent students, while having no understanding of the subject. Poor students!!

    Please also demonstrate any such radiation on the inside of a isothermal enclosure. As far as knowledge of thermodynamics you have well demonstrated that your only concern is propagating the falsified statistical mechanics, with no regard to the physical,or whether such applies to this physical.

  • Avatar

    Ben Wouters

    |

    [quote name=”Tim Folkerts”]
    But since the sunny side is warmer than that and hte night side is colder than that, the average actually works out to be LESS THAN the BB temperature for non-uniformly lit objects.[/quote]
    Correct. So we can conclude that solar radiation at our distance from the sun is never going to achieve the 255K from this simple calculation. (if a grey body would rotate once every second you would come close)
    Better calculation method would be to calculate the SB balance temp. for half the greybody. For the moon this gives ~322K. Temp. for the dark side is 0K (2,77K if you want to be precise)
    Average greybody balance temp. for the moon is 161K.
    Same calculation for earth gives 151K, so the temp. increase to explain is not ~33K, but ~137K.

    Amazing what a fourth power in a formula can change things 😉

  • Avatar

    Tim Folkerts

    |

    Ben,

    The “blackbody temperature” is a very simplified calculation assuming uniform temeprature over the entire sphere. That would be the 270 K value you quote.

    But since the sunny side is warmer than that and hte night side is colder than that, the average actually works out to be LESS THAN the BB temperature for non-uniformly lit objects.

  • Avatar

    Tim Folkerts

    |

    Claudius,

    1) In my mind, if a topic is in multiple textbooks, then it is “standard”. Plate tectonics is ‘standard’ science; relativity is ‘standard science’; the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics is ‘standard’.

    2) And the “~” was intended to mean the number were only approximate, not “high precision quantities”. I am estimating that [i]around [/i] 2/3 of the warming is from water; around 1/3 is from CO2; around 0% is from N2. There are lots of sources that agree with the general magnitudes. For Example, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_gas suggest that CO2 is a bit less than 1/3, so maybe 1/5 would be a better rough estimate.

    3) I thought I did explain the methods I used (or at least give big enough hints that it should have been obvious enough).

    * The “BB temperature” comes from standard Stefan-Boltzman blackbody radiation calculations, which I am pretty sure you are familiar with. Experimental values for insolation, emissivity and albedo are known pretty well, so the answe should be reasonably accurate.
    * The average surface temperature is estimated by multiple sources (again I am sure you are familiar with HADCRUT, GISS, UAH, etc). While there is some variation between the different methods (and some question of what a “global average temeperature” should even mean), it is well established that the average surface temperature is ~30-35 K warmer than 255 K.
    * Lots of sources explain the ‘atandard physics’ behind the GHE. The very paper we are discuassing calculates the impact of GHGs on the outgoing radiation. If the atmosphere blocks more outgoing IR, the lower layers have to warm up. The lapse rate constrains the temperature differences.
    * The estimates of hte relative importances came from the paper They “magically” removed the IR effects of various gases and calcualted the immediate impacts on the radiation balance. (Of course feed-backs would come into play, but that is a more complicated issue than they are addressing).

  • Avatar

    Claudius Denk Solving Tornadoe

    |

    [quote name=”Tim Folkerts”]Claudius & Pat,

    You both know the “standard” scientific answers to your questions. [/quote]Tim,
    Thank you for the response.
    I honestly don’t have the slightest idea what “standard” you are referring to. And I really don’t understand why you would pretend to know what I know and then make an argument based on that pretense and that pretense alone. Moreover, if you really do possess some kind of special “standard” scientific understanding is there some reason you’ve chosen not to share it with the rest of the universe?[quote name=”Tim Folkerts”]
    * the effective BB temperature is only ~ 255 K
    * the actual surface temperature is 30-35 K warmer.
    * The combination of the thickness of the atmosphere and the presence of GHGs very nicely explains the difference.
    * The paper under discussion gives estimates of the relative impact of the various gases. H2O is most important; CO2 is about 1/2 as important; N2 has almost no impact.[/quote]That’s all very interesting. (I’m sure your friends and family consider you to be quite the entertaining fellow.) But it doesn’t answer the question I asked. Please reread my request. As stated, I’m hoping to reproduce the experimental results that allowed you to arrive at the highly precise quantities you indicated in your original post on this thread. I assure you this is not just a casual request. I’ve been looking for this evidence for seven years now.[quote name=”Tim Folkerts”]Since you choose not to believe the “standard” answers based on textbook thermodynamics, there is not really any reason to point you toward the myriad textbooks and papers that explain the thermodynamics involved.[/quote]Well, maybe I caught you at a bad time. If you ever do come across the reproducible experimental evidence/methods/data that would allow me to recreate the precise quantities that you have been so gracious to provide us please let me/us know.

    Along the same lines, I’ve also been looking for evidence of the Holy Grail. If you ever come across any evidence thereof, keep me in mind.

  • Avatar

    Ben Wouters

    |

    [quote name=”Tim Folkerts”]
    You both know the “standard” scientific answers to your questions.
    * the effective BB temperature is only ~ 255 K[/quote]
    Could you explain then how our moon can have an actual measured average temperature of only ~197K, while its effective BB temperature calculated in the same way as the 255K you quote is ~270K?? (different albedo’s)

  • Avatar

    Tim Folkerts

    |

    Claudius & Pat,

    You both know the “standard” scientific answers to your questions.
    * the effective BB temperature is only ~ 255 K
    * the actual surface temperature is 30-35 K warmer.
    * The combination of the thickness of the atmosphere and the presence of GHGs very nicely explains the difference.
    * The paper under discussion gives estimates of the relative impact of the various gases. H2O is most important; CO2 is about 1/2 as important; N2 has almost no impact.

    Since you choose not to believe the “standard” answers based on textbook thermodynamics, there is not really any reason to point you toward the myriad textbooks and papers that explain the thermodynamics involved.

  • Avatar

    Charles Higley

    |

    Rosco wrote: “The heat received is thus stored up in the atmosphere, remaining there on account of the very low radiating power of a gas.”

    Actually you will find that the atmosphere is a good radiator, which is why the air chills so rapidly after the Sun sets.

    With no atmosphere, the surface would be 100 deg C in the Sun. Climate models do not do night—it’s Sun lit 24/7. With an atmosphere, the surface is at 15 deg C, so having an atmosphere cools the planet by 85 deg C. The key is that, by adding conduction and convection, the atmosphere offers the surface another and more powerful means of shedding energy than just by radiation. Only at night does the atmosphere effectively warm the surface by keeping it at about -17 deg C and not the -173 deg C of the dark side of the moon.

  • Avatar

    Claudius Denk Solving Tornadoe

    |

    [quote name=”Tim Folkerts”]As an order of magnitude …
    * H2O is responsible for ~20 C of surface warming
    * CO2 is responsible for ~10 C of surface warming
    * N2 & O2 are responsible for ~0.1 C of surface warming.[/quote]I’m interested in reproducing these results. Can you tell us what experiments and/or methodologies were involved with how these numbers were determined? Did you do these experiments yourself? Do you still have the raw data? Was there a paper involved with this? Was it peer-reviewed? Can you provide a reference? Thanks in advance.

  • Avatar

    Pat Obar

    |

    [quote name=”Tim Folkerts”]

    As an order of magnitude …
    * H2O is responsible for ~20 C of surface warming
    * CO2 is responsible for ~10 C of surface warming
    * N2 & O2 are responsible for ~0.1 C of surface warming. [/quote]

    Those are quite astonishing fantasies directly from the toilet. They are claims never once observed! All that from an academic that cannot correctly define thermal electromagnetic radiation or the physical constraints under which it is produced and transferred. Please demonstrate any such radiation on the inside of a isothermal enclosure.

  • Avatar

    Tim Folkerts

    |

    Alan, you seem to live in a very black-and-white world. Not everything is either/or like you try to make it.

    Yes, both N2 and O2 absorb & emit IR thermal radiation. This is not news to anyone who has studied the issues. So pretty much ALL scientist [i]already[/i] accept this truth.

    But as you point out, the paper shows that N2 & O2 are way less effective than CH4, which is already way less effective than H2O & CO2. Rather than causing the ‘foundation to collapse’, we simply have a 1% correction to the theory.

    [quote]”if surface-heated nitrogen and oxygen do radiate infrared, then they are also “greenhouse gases,” which defeats the premise that only radiation from the infrared-absorbers raises the Earth’s temperature.”
    [/quote]

    You are contradicting yourself within this sentence! Since N2 & O2 do radiate (albeit very poorly) they are by definition part of the “infrared-absorbers” that raise the temperature of the earth (albeit very little since they are very poor absorbers). They are PART of the premise!

    As an order of magnitude …
    * H2O is responsible for ~20 C of surface warming
    * CO2 is responsible for ~10 C of surface warming
    * N2 & O2 are responsible for ~0.1 C of surface warming.

    Because N2 &O2 are such a small part of the overall effect, people often ignore them when explaining the main factors. But certainly for exact calculations, these small corrections should be included.

  • Avatar

    Tim Folkerts

    |

    Rosco, you should look at what Wood actually wrote. Here are the first and last paragraphs [emphasis added]:

    [quote]THERE appears to be a widespread belief that the comparatively high temperature produced [b]within a closed space covered with glass[/b], and exposed to solar radiation, results from a transformation of wave-length, that is, that the heat waves from the sun, which are able to penetrate the glass, fall upon the walls of the enclosure and raise its temperature: the heat energy is re-emitted by the walls in the form of much longer waves, which are unable to penetrate the glass, the greenhouse acting as a radiation trap.

    [b]I do not pretend to have gone very deeply into the matter[/b], and publish this note merely to draw attention to the fact that trapped radiation appears to [b]play but a very small part in the actual case[/b]s with which we are familiar.[/quote]

    1) He admits he only studied the situation at a shallow level.
    2) He recognizes that his experiment applies to familiar cases like actual greenhouses, with spaces enclosed by walls and glass.

    This is hardly a definitive study on heat flow in the atmosphere.

  • Avatar

    Rosco

    |

    Robert Wood wrote in 1909.

    The solar rays penetrate the atmosphere, warm the ground which in turn warms the atmosphere by contact and by convection currents. The heat received is thus stored up in the atmosphere, remaining there on account of the very low radiating power of a gas. It seems to me very doubtful if the atmosphere is warmed to any great extent by absorbing the radiation from the ground, even under the most favourable conditions.”

    Since that time climate “experts” have been denying this and invented a mechanism where cold layers of the atmosphere radiate energy that heats the much warmer surface of the Earth – the very surface that emitted the energy in the first place after absorbing it from the Sun.

    Note Wood did say the atmosphere does retain heat – but he proved there is no back radiative “greenhouse effect”.

    Keep up the great work Alan !

    Perhaps one day people will see how stupid this self heating mechanism is.

Comments are closed