• Home
• Current News
• Gas Laws and Greenhouse Theory, or: Back Radiation? What Back Radiation?!

# Gas Laws and Greenhouse Theory, or: Back Radiation? What Back Radiation?!

Written by Dr Darko Butina

Every scientific paper tells a story that is based on one or more assumptions and the validity of the conclusions will obviously depend on the validity of the starting assumptions. For example, if one wants to correlate the effect of sunspots numbers on the temperatures observed at ground level on our planet, the validity of that correlation will depend on the accuracy of sunspot count and the accuracy of temperature measurements at ground level.

While the sunspots are real and can be confirmed, the use of the so called ‘annual global temperature’ to represent ‘temperatures’ is scientifically invalid since it cannot be measured, it cannot be validated and it has nothing to do with the physical reality observed on our planet. It, therefore, follows that the correlation between sunspot numbers and the temperatures that are represented by the ‘annual global temperature’ values is meaningless and nonsensical.

When it comes to the greenhouse gas theory (GHT), the situation is the same. If our planet is assumed to be a black body, a grey body or for that matter, a pink body and then given a full mathematical treatment with reference to the great names from the world of theoretical world of physics like Planck, Stefan and Boltzman, any conclusion based on those starting assumptions have to be wrong since our planet is NOT some sort of black body. In other words, there is no problem with Stefan-Boltzman’s treatment of black body, but there is a huge problem with treating the earth’s atmosphere as a black body!

Let us now start with the main topic and test whether the GreenHouse Theory, GHT, violates gas laws. To do that we first need to define the composition of earth’s atmosphere, and then apply the gas laws to it. The hard (experimental) numbers about our planet are:

1. Everything that has a mass is made of either atoms or molecules

2. 99% of earth’s atmosphere is comprised of two molecules, N2 and O2 and for simplicity their ratio will be taken as 4:1 or 80:20

3. The behaviour of the molecules depends on their individual physicochemical properties and these are absolute, i.e. they are the same during night and day and, further, are the same whether those molecules exist on our planet or on a planet in different galaxy

4. Our atmosphere’s primary surface starts at altitude of +100 km (top of atmosphere or TOA) and ends at sea level which represent the earth’s secondary surface

5. The mass of our atmosphere is about 5×10^18 kg

6. Every molecule has the ability to absorb heat, a property quantified by its heat capacity. Since the mixture that we call ‘air’  has heat capacity of 1 kJ per kilogram per 1C, i.e. 1C = 1kJ, heat energy from the sun will be used-up at the rate of 5×1018 kJ per 1C of warming.

Please note that statement like “CO2 has capacity to ’trap’ heat” is totally meaningless since every molecule has the capacity to absorb, or trap, heat! Furthermore, CO2’s heat capacity is less than those of both N2 and O2. Also note that since CO2 represents only 0.04% of the total mass of our atmosphere, its contribution towards the ‘ability to trap heat’ is exactly 0.0004 kJ/kg or 0.0004C per 1C of warming. Please also note that to compare planets where CO2 is a trace gas, like Earth, with planets where CO2 is the major component (>95%) is both nonsensical and totally irrelevant!

Now that we have all our facts established let us start with the gas law (Eq 1):
pV = nRT  (Eq 1)
where p = pressure, V = volume, n = number of molecules, R = the gas constant and T = temperature.

Gas Law applied to an open system

Our atmosphere is an open system where the gas molecules expand when heated and contract when cooled. For example, if we consider what happens at ground level where pressure is one atmosphere, Eq 1 is reduced to the equation 2:
V = nT  (Eq 2)

If we imagine a virtual cube measuring 1x1x1m and apply Eq 2, we will see that when the temperature increases, the volume will increase as well since the molecules are absorbing heat energy. The kinetic energy goes up, i.e. the molecules become ‘excited’, and to avoid collisions molecules start to leave the virtual box and so the number of molecules within the box, n, will decrease.

The property of molecules that describes the relationship between the volume and number of molecules within that volume is called density. So, when temperature increases, the density of the starting virtual box decreases. In simplistic terms, when the air is warmed it expands and rises, while when it is cooled, the density increases, it becomes heavier and therefore it falls. The gas law applies to every known molecule in its gas phase without a single exemption!

The conclusion – gas molecules of an open system are driven by temperature and it is physically impossible for gas molecules of the open system to control temperature in any shape or form.

Gas Law applied to a closed system (green house or a gas cylinder)

The closed system has to have the following properties:

 The walls of that system have to be made of the molecules in their solid form or phase, since the internal volume of that system must be constant

 The closed system has to be 100% closed, or 100% sealed, since a single hole in any wall of the system would make it an open system

In case of the ‘real’ green house, the molecules that form the ‘walls’ (glass) are based on the element silicon, Si, while in case of gas cylinder they would be based on the element iron, Fe.

Applying the gas law to the closed system leaves us with the Eq 3 below (V, n and R are constant):
P = T  (Eq 3)

So, if we increase the temperature of the closed system, the internal pressure must increase as well, and, therefore, even in the closed system it is the temperature that is driving the behaviour of the gas molecules. In terms of the thermodynamics of that system, the following set of equilibriums would be in operation:

1. The molecules of the walls would be trying to get into thermal equilibrium with the external molecules warming them, say molecules of H2O in their liquid state if an external water-bath was used to do the warming of, say, gas cylinder

2. At the same time, the molecules inside the cylinder, like air, would try to get into equilibrium with the molecules of the walls 3. The overall effect would be that the three sets of molecules end up in thermal equilibrium

It is extremely important to emphasise that the analysis so far is based on the findings of the thousands experiments performed under strict experimental protocols upon which the gas laws have been derived and formulated.

Since we are discussing scientific laws it must follow that there is NOT a SINGLE experiment in existence that falsifies/invalidates any scientific law.

Let me digress briefly and quote definition of the GHT and GHG: “Earth’s atmosphere includes some gasses which have a distinctive trait: They let sunlight pass through to heat Earth’s surface, but they capture energy that leaves this sun-warmed surface. These are called greenhouse gasses.”

If you now look back at the hard facts listed at the beginning of this report, it becomes obvious that if the starting hypothesis/assumption of GHT is wrong, the whole theory must be wrong. First of all, NO molecule in its gas/liquid or solid phase can behave differently during daytime from the night-time. Secondly, and most importantly, terms like ‘surface’, ‘air’ or ‘atmosphere’ are ALL abstract terms that have no physicochemical properties, but they describe the collection of molecules which DO have its own physicochemical properties.

The key point is that the Earth’s surface starts at +100 km high and ends at sea levels (0.0 km). That primary surface, i.e. our atmosphere is 100% full of molecules, in their gas phase, with the total mass of 5×1018 kilograms, 80% of N2 and 20% of O2 with both molecules ‘trapping’ the heat more efficiently than CO2. So, whatever is left of the sun’s heat energy after warming-up the primary surface, i.e. the atmosphere, it hast to then heat up 70% of the secondary surface that is made-up from water molecules in their liquid phase, and 30% of variety of molecules in their solid phase that make-up the land mass.

The physical reality is that the heat energy does NOT just ‘pass through’ the atmosphere and that the molecules that make-up our atmosphere must ‘trap’ the same amount of heat energy during day and during night. For example, the rate of a chemical reaction is the same during daytime as it is during night-time and the only thing that matters is the reactivity of the chemical bond that one is trying to break or make.

Let us now put all this together and try to find single experimental evidence that would validate GHT without falsifying the gas law. Please note that in real sciences it is sufficient to find single evidence that falsifies any given theory for that theory to be abandoned. As Einstein commented “99 experiments can’t prove me right, but 1 experiment can prove me wrong.”

By its name and definition, the GHT defines our atmosphere as a closed system despite the fact that ALL the experimental evidence tells us that it is an open system. Since the open system does not have any physical barrier it is impossible for that system to somehow ‘radiate back’ that extra heat! Furthermore, it is impossible for the same ‘system’ to be an open system during daytime and closed system during night-time.

Since our knowledge in field of chemistry is so advanced we should be able to detect this putative closed system using standard and approved instruments:

1. To detect molecules in their solid state that are forming that mystic ‘blanket’ and making part of our atmosphere 100% hermetically closed, but we don’t. All we can detect is that 99% of ALL the molecules in our atmosphere are those of N2 and O2, both in their gas phase. Only molecule present in the atmosphere in its liquid and solid phase is water, H2O, as clouds, but clouds constantly move (wind) leaving huge holes between them

2. Physical reality is that it takes 5×1018 kJ to warm-up our atmosphere by only 1OC during daytime; it would take the same amount of heat energy to warm-up the same atmosphere by the same amount during night-time. It follows that we should be able to detect this ‘night-time sun’ or night-time ‘hot-spot’ which supposedly generates such a huge energy, by a standard thermometer, but we don’t

3. The concept of ‘up’ and ‘down’ does not exist in the closed system full of molecules since the system reaches internal equilibrium very quickly due to the fast motion of molecules within the fixed volume. It follows that in terms of say pressure we should measure the same air pressure at altitude at  0 km and  at 10 km, but we don’t

4. The most important fact would be that any existence of the solid wall surrounding the planet would imply that no physical object could leave the closed system without breaking through that wall and therefore transposing the closed system into the open one. Since we all know that the airplanes are flying at different altitudes during night and day and also from day into night or night into day, without crushing into this mystic CO2-blanket it would be safe to conclude that there is no solid wall in existence anywhere in our atmosphere, and, therefore, it is impossible to ‘back-radiate’ something from nothing

5. If we sample 1 million molecules of air anywhere across the globe, the same results will be observed: 990,000 out of 1 million molecules belong to N2 and O2, while only 400 belong to CO2 and ALL of them in their gas phase and NOT solid phase.

As you can see, it is impossible to validate and prove existence of GHT by using scientific reasoning since ALL the experimental data and observations using approved instruments are telling us the same story – if our observations, knowledge and scientific laws are right, the GHT is wrong. Alternatively, if GHT is right then all our experimental sciences and observations are wrong.

The simple and the most important message to take away from this brief report is that if the goal of a scientific reasoning exercise is to discuss a property of the space that is full of real molecules, the first thing to do is to gain the knowledge about physicochemical properties of those molecules before starting the exercise. And that is the reason that the scientific competence is the driving force behind all scientific discoveries and why the research scientists spend their working life designing new experiments and extracting new knowledge.

——————

Read more from Dr. Darko Butina here.

Dr Darko Butina is a retired scientist with 20 years of experience in experimental side of Carbon-based chemistry and 20 years in pattern recognition and datamining of experimental data. He was part of the team that designed the first effective drug for treatment of migraine for which the UK-based company received The Queens Award. Twenty years on and the drug molecule Sumatriptan has improved quality of life for millions of migraine sufferers worldwide. During his computational side of drug discovery, he developed clustering algorithm, dbclus that is now de facto standard for quantifying diversity in world of molecular structures and recently applied to the thermometer based archived data at the weather stations in UK, Canada and Australia. The forthcoming paper clearly shows what is so very wrong with use of invented and non-existing global temperatures and why it is impossible to declare one year either warmer or colder than any other year. He is also one of the co-authors of the paper which was awarded a prestigious Ebert Prize as best paper for 2002 by American Pharmaceutical Association. He is peer reviewer for several International Journals dealing with modelling of experimental data and member of the EU grants committee in Brussels.

• ### Tim Folkerts

|

Pat says: [i]”Tim, I refuse to agree with anything a arrogant, academic, *&@#, may claim About black-bodies.. “[/i]

And that is precisely why discussions with you are pointless. You have already decided – independent of facts – what the “pat answer” is. Even when I am right, you will continue to disagee simply on principle! LOL

Outta here!

|

Despite my repeated attempts, you have refused to respond to a single one of my technical points. [/quote]Well, if you ever come up with an argument that doesn’t require your audience to confirm your anecdotal assumptions/speculations let us know.
[quote name=”Ed Bo”]I can only conclude that you are incapable of doing so. There is no point in continuing this.[/quote]But, but . . . you wouldn’t be doing it just for my benefit. You’d be doing it for all of the people out there who are wondering how it makes sense to ignore the thermodynamic realities of 98% of the atmosphere. Just think of all the problems having this explanation on hand would solve down the line with respect to a public that is increasingly starting to ask these questions.

• ### Ed Bo

|

Despite my repeated attempts, you have refused to respond to a single one of my technical points. I can only conclude that you are incapable of doing so. There is no point in continuing this.

• ### Pat Obar

|

[quote name=”solvingtornadoes”][quote name=”Pat Obar”]The rest of us, understand the difficulty of making measurement, and appreciate the effort in presenting that as something useful![/quote]
Well stated!

For some people, myself included, the laws of science define a framework within which we must operate. For others its source material.[/quote]
Thank you Jim,
To take an obtuse POV this is truly a “war”, between arrogant, academic, assholes, and all of the serfs.
With “war” is all is energy in any form or direction,to.destroy the enemy. The serfs have been lax on the uptake, but now very,very,many!
That “many” must determine the outcome of this War! Try to calculate that.”fool”!

• ### Pat Obar

|

[quote name=”Tim Folkerts”]Pat, This is clearly getting too personal. I am sure that you do have some good knowledge of energy transfer via radiation.[/quote]

Indeed, I have forgotten more of thermal electromagnetic radiative energy transfer than you will ever know!

[quote name=”Tim Folkerts”
I also see that we may be talking past each other on various points. For example, when you said [i]”an atmosphere, without a surface but only a cross sectional area, can and does radiate twice the the energy to cold, of a surface with the same normal emissivity, at every wavelength.” [/i] — well that sure SOUNDS like you mean an atmosphere radiates twice as much as a bare planet.[/quote]

A cross-sectional area of an gas atmosphere can and does radiate to 2-4 times the solid angle of any flat Lambertian surface. That gas only radiates (power x time) = energy, toward a lower temperature absorber, as described exactly by Boltzmann and Stephan (with two different temperatures) describing a differential potential that “may” result in some energy transfer, depending on a whole host of emissivity, at every frequency and at every direction. H/t to Gus Kirkhoff.

[quote name=”Tim Folkerts”
If you now say that I was mis-interpretting you, I will accept that we do indeed agree that a blackbody atmosphere radiates the same power to space as a spherical blackbody surface of the same size.[/quote]

Tim, I refuse to agree with anything a arrogant, academic, asshole, may claim About black-bodies.. I have observed only one near black-body cavity, that worked correctly from 320 Kelvin to 565 Kelvin.
The minders of such cavity,worth more than the GDP of most countries, would not let this reference go to 5700 Kelvin where all mass would be a vapour. Please report on what “is”

• ### Tim Folkerts

|

[i]”So you claim! “[/i]

This is getting to be laughable. You say the emissivity is ~0.64 because the B-V index is ~ 0.64. I point out that you are 100% wrong — the two are not even related. Rather than concede you are 100% wrong, you worry that I might be 1% wrong.

And for good measure, you add some more insults and strawman arguments.

To paraprhase advice normally given to lawyers: “When the facts are against you, pound the theory. When the theory is against you, pound the facts. When both are against you, pound the table”. Pat, you pound the table better than anyone I know! 🙂

|

[quote name=”Pat Obar”]The rest of us, understand the difficulty of making measurement, and appreciate the effort in presenting that as something useful![/quote]
Well stated!

For some people, myself included, the laws of science define a framework within which we must operate. For others its source material.

• ### Pat Obar

|

[quote name=”Tim Folkerts”]”Ok, they changed it again, “1995” Now the B-V colour index of of the Sun = 0.648 ± 0.006. The B-V index is how much the Sun is not a black body i.e. emissivity. “
Sigh. The B-V color index is NOT the emissivity. Not even close.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B-V_colour%5B/quote%5D

Tim Folkerts ([b]Deleted the name calling[/b]),
So you claim! For your claim please present the measured thermometric temperatures of the chromosphere and photosphere of the Sun. Then calculate emissivity at each wavelength to determine effective emissivity of such a gaseous thermal electromagnetic radiative source. Your emissivity number please?
The actual measurer’s of what “is”, try to present the data in a form that is recognisable to others, as the best way to present measurement as useful. That useful result is precisely the black body equivalent temperature of the Sun, 5776 Kelvin.
All but the arrogant academics understand that this is a useful equivalent. Only the theoretical, arrogant, academic, assholes, jerking off in the cloakroom. would think the Sun is a thermometric black body, at 5776 Kelvin.
The rest of us, understand the difficulty of making measurement, and appreciate the effort in presenting that as something useful! Please go learn some geometry!

• ### Tim Folkerts

|

Pat, This is clearly getting too personal. I am sure that you do have some good knowledge of energy transfer via radiation.

I also see that we may be talking past each other on various points. For example, when you said [i]”an atmosphere, without a surface but only a cross sectional area, can and does radiate twice the the energy to cold, of a surface with the same normal emissivity, at every wavelength.” [/i] — well that sure SOUNDS like you mean an atmosphere radiates twice as much as a bare planet. If you now say that I was mis-interpretting you, I will accept that we do indeed agree that a blackbody atmosphere radiates the same power to space as a spherical blackbody surface of the same size.

• ### Tim Folkerts

|

“Ok, they changed it again, “1995” Now the B-V colour index of of the Sun = 0.648 ± 0.006. The B-V index is how much the Sun is not a black body i.e. emissivity. “

Sigh. The B-V color index is NOT the emissivity. Not even close.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B-V_colour

• ### Pat Obar

|

[quote name=”Tim Folkerts”]
There are both theoretical and experimental results that confirm the sun should and does have an emissivity ~ 1. [i]YOU [/i]are the one “just claiming” that the emissivity is 0.628 (to three decimal places even!) with not one shred of theory or experiment to support your claim. [/quote]

Tim Folkerts shill/spammer,
Ok, they changed it again, “1995” Now the B-V colour index of of the Sun = 0.648 ± 0.006.
The B-V index is how much the Sun is not a black body i.e. emissivity. The astronomers for the last 200 years say so. The index is used to calculate the effective BB temperature of 5776 Kelvin. Just for arrogant academics that cannot measure, or do an integral, so they can hand wave about what they know not!
In radiometry all effective temperatures are equivalent BB temperatures, so fools can claim an emissivity of 1.00

[quote name=”Tim Folkerts”] And with that I will stop responding (unless you can find support from ANYONE that either a) the sun has an emissivity of 0.648. b) a blackbody gas sphere will radiate twice as much power as a blackbody solid sphere).[/quote]

Tim Folkerts shill/spammer,
Yes please stop responding with your arrogant nonsense! I never claimed blackbody gas sphere will radiate twice as much power as a blackbody solid sphere). I only claimed a body with a cross sectional area radiates into a larger solid! With the sphere, correctly, the body radiates its cross sectional area into 4 PI steradians. For a solid that becomes 4 x cross sectional area with near flat surface each part of that surface into PI steradians. It is nice how the math works out to the same result. Every atmospheric sphere with a one sq meter cross sectional area can and does radiate i8nto the outer colder hemisphere with a 2 PI steradian solid angle. The surface and the atmosphere must be treated differently in radiometry, their are no shortcuts!
The atmosphere at a lower temperature can and does radiate the same amount of energy as is adsorbed by the Earth and atmosphere from the Sun. This is the method of doing such, by adjusting the amount of aqueous water vapour in all of the atmosphere. On this planet there is no “Green House Effect”, no forcing, no feedbacks, no warming, just water vapour! Learn some geometry!!

• ### L.J.Ryan

|

Tim,

“emissivity of 0 . 628”

I’m not sure how Pat came up with such a precise emissivity, but he may have a point. That is, if you can fool yourself into believing a colder/less energetic atmosphere can make warmer a hotter surface, you would have to absolutely agree with 9000K…5770/9000 = .64.

So it appears you have an argument with yourself.

|

[quote name=”Ed Bo”]solvingtornadoes: “Surely you are not presenting this as comprehensive and definitive. Are you?”
If you actually understand basic thermodynamics, . . . [/quote]It just so happens I do. But I’m not running a hand holding service here. You are on your own in that respect.[quote name=”Ed Bo”]If you actually understood thermodynamics, you could grasp that it is possible for a simple analysis to be comprehensive and definitive.[/quote]You appear to have nothing substantive, empirical, peer-reviewed–same as every other alarmist on this planet. If you think you’ve found how to explain to the rest of the world how and why N2 and O2 are excluded from thermodynamic reality why don’t you write up a paper to that effect. If you are right you might win the Nobel prize. It would be a genuinely amazing discovery. What are you waiting for? You’re an expert in thermodynamics aren’t you? I mean, if you think you got it figured out why don’t you write a paper, get it peer reviewed. Otherwise, don’t expect people to be interested in your vague ramblings.

• ### Tim Folkerts

|

Pat, Pat, Pat,

It is almost comical to see you project your own shortcomings on to me.

There are both theoretical and experimental results that confirm the sun should and does have an emissivity ~ 1. [i]YOU [/i]are the one “just claiming” that the emissivity is 0.628 (to three decimal places even!) with not one shred of theory or experiment to support your claim.

You are the one who refuses to learn. It is very clear that you are wrong that the sun (or any atmosphere) should emit twice the energy to space as a blackbody.

In the end, about all you have is name-calling and false attacks (eg I never claimed to know the emissivity everywhere on the earth).

And with that I will stop responding (unless you can find support from ANYONE that either a) the sun has an emissivity of 0.628 b) a blackbody gas sphere will radiate twice as much power as a blackbody solid sphere).

• ### Ed Bo

|

“Surely you are not presenting this as comprehensive and definitive. Are you?”

If you actually understand basic thermodynamics, there are many cases in which a simple analysis can be comprehensive and definitive.

You assert that an N2+O2 atmosphere can continually cool the earth’s surface by conductive/convective means. Let’s look at that assertion.

For this to be true, it must be able to reject energy at the same rate it takes it in from the earth’s surface. There is only one place it could possibly reject energy to, and that is space. (Simple, but comprehensive and definitive.)

It has been completely understood for over a century, in ways that have been confirmed in countless controlled laboratory experiments, that there are only three methods of heat transfer – conduction, convection, and radiation. So we will consider each in turn.

Conduction: The mass density of space is so low that there can be no conduction to speak of, and certainly nothing approaching the hundreds of W/m2 needed.

Convection: Again, the mass density of space is so low that there can be no convective transfer to speak of, and certainly nothing approaching the hundreds of W/m2 needed.

Radiation: Here we must look a little closer. It is certainly possible for a good emitter to transfer the hundreds of W/m2 needed, but can N2 and O2 by themselves? We can start from the Planck curve for the ideal emitter at upper atmosphere temperatures. No substance can radiate more than that.

Then we compare the laboratory data for N2 and O2, taken from real measurements under controlled conditions, in the wavelength range where it is possible significant radiant transfer could occur. We see that both are such poor emitters in this range that they cannot come close to radiating enough power to space to match what is being absorbed from the earth’s surface.

So we have looked at all three possibilities and rejected them all, using fundamental engineering physics analysis, just as one would for analysis of an engineered system. If you actually understood thermodynamics, you could grasp that it is possible for a simple analysis to be comprehensive and definitive.

• ### Pat Obar

|

[quote name=”Tim Folkerts”]Pat says: [i]”The radiatively apparent emissivity of the Sun (measured) with respect to the radiatively apparent temperature of the Sun (5770 K) is 0.628 not 1.000. “[/i]

Do you always just make up numbers when you are losing arguments? Who possibly thinks the emissivity of the sun is 0.628? How do you possibly get that number? Is there anyone reading this discussion who agrees with you?
[/quote]
-snip total nonsense-
Tim Folkerts shill/spammer,
You will never learn anything because you claim you already know everything! I suppose you will claim that you have measured the emissivity of the Sun, just like you claim to know the emissivity of all parts of the earth’ surface! Yet you have no idea of how to do either.

• ### Tim Folkerts

|

Pat says: [i]”The radiatively apparent emissivity of the Sun (measured) with respect to the radiatively apparent temperature of the Sun (5770 K) is 0.628 not 1.000. “[/i]

Do you always just make up numbers when you are losing arguments? Who possibly thinks the emissivity of the sun is 0.628? How do you possibly get that number? Is there anyone reading this discussion who agrees with you?

[b]PS Just to be extra clear:[/b]
1) The main factor we are interested in is the total “radiant flux” (sometimes called “radiant power”) = Φ = the total power emitted by radiation from the an object, measured in Watts.

2) It is often convenient to look at the radiant flux relative to the size of a surface. The power per unit area is the “radiant exitance” (sometimes called “flux density” or “emissive power”; often labeled “j” or “M”) = total power emitted per square meter in all directions, measured in Watts/m^2
This is the number calculated by SB equation:
Φ/A = P/A = (epsilon) (sigma) T^4

3) The ” radiance” = L (which you appear to be calling “steradiancy”) is interesting, but secondary. This is the power emitted per square meter that goes in a given direction, measured in W/m^2/sr. Now L = (Φ/A) / π for a blackbody, (which is almost certainly related to your “π vs 2π” discussion).

4) I further suspect that you are comparing a [i]hemisphere[/i] of gas to a [i]disk [/i]of a solid and coming up with your factor of 2. Since the hemisphere has twice the area,it will emit twice the power. But a hemisphere of blackbody solid will emit as much power as a hemisphere of blackbody gas. Both will have the same radiant exitance; both will have the same “steradiancy”.

• ### Pat Obar

|

[quote name=”Tim Folkerts”]Pat, you said [i]”you refuse to consider that an [b]atmosphere[/b], without a surface but only a cross sectional area, can and does radiate [b]twice the the energy[/b] to cold, [b]of a surface[/b] with the same normal emissivity, at every wavelength.”[/i][/quote]

Tim, I hope your minders are paying you very well for such misdirection. Please demonstrate any error whatsoever in my quoted statement above. My statement is only based only on solid geometry. Never on Climate Clown Claims!

[quote name=”Tim Folkerts”]The sun is “an atmosphere”.
It has an emissivity very close to 1.
Yet it can’t and doesn’t radiate to cold twice as much energy as a solid surface with a same normal emissivity of 1. It radiates an identical amount.[/quote]

The radiatively apparent emissivity of the Sun (measured) with respect to the radiatively apparent temperature of the Sun (5770 K) is 0.628 not 1.000. Can your minders show different numbers by measurement. Please show any thermometric measurement of the photosphere temperature of them Sun. All of your claims are fantasy. No science whatsoever.

[quote name=”Tim Folkerts”]The total radiated to space is what determines the cooling of a planet. The total radiated to space is the same for a solid surface as it is for an atmosphere with the same emissivity.[/quote]
Indeed it is, but the colder atmosphere “must”

You have no “fact” Tim, only Climate Clown nonsense. The precise mathematical radiometry terms, usefully allow earthlings to compute what is likely. There is nothing physical in such conjecture. You have no “is”!

|

[quote name=”Ed Bo”]solvingtornadoes: You say, “You can’t just pretend to ignore the thermal influence of 98% of the atmosphere based on something somebody told you over a beer in the back yard.”

On the contrary, I studied this stuff formally at top universities.[/quote]Yet you can’t answer simple questions.[quote name=”Ed Bo”] You only have a grab bag of misunderstood snippets of concepts. They can be shown to be completely wrong through both analysis and real-world illustrations.[/quote]Really?[quote name=”Ed Bo”]

You keep asserting that N2 and O2 can radiate enough power to space in the UV to balance out the power absorbed from the surface. Let’s look at that carefully.

Let’s look at the perfect emitter (emissivity = 1.0) at 255K, a typical temperature for high in the atmosphere. If we integrate under the Planck curve from 0 to 400 nanometer wavelengths (all wavelengths shorter than visible light, including UV), we see that less than one part per billion of the radiation is in these wavelengths. And the total flux density for this perfect emitter is 240 W/m2. So we are talking about less than a microwatt per square meter in the UV, even for a perfect emitter, and N2 and O2 are far from perfect emitters.

But let’s say that N2 and O2 could radiate away the 240 W/m2 in the UV. When the sun is directly overhead, about 25 W/m2 of UV makes it to the surface, and most people have to be very careful of sunburn in these conditions. You assert that N2 and O2 radiate 10 times as much in the UV. It’s patently absurd![/quote]

From this you conclude we can ignore 98% of the atmosphere?

Surely you are not presenting this as comprehensive and definitive. Are you?

You were unable to find anything that is comprehensive and definitive on this subject. What do you think this tells us about the discipline of climatology?

• ### Tim Folkerts

|

Pat, you said [i]”you refuse to consider that an [b]atmosphere[/b], without a surface but only a cross sectional area, can and does radiate [b]twice the the energy[/b] to cold, [b]of a surface[/b] with the same normal emissivity, at every wavelength.”[/i]

The sun is “an atmosphere”.
It has an emissivity very close to 1.
Yet it can’t and doesn’t radiate to cold twice as much energy as a solid surface with a same normal emissivity of 1. It radiates an identical amount.

The total radiated to space is what determines the cooling of a planet. The total radiated to space is the same for a solid surface as it is for an atmosphere with the same emissivity.

• ### Pat Obar

|

[quote name=”Sunsettommy”][quote name=”Pat Obar”][quote name=”Sunsettommy”]Administrator Note:

[b]I want the name calling to stop![/b][/quote]

OK, You wish to have a discussion rather . than a WAR. Please explain your own personal reason for such a wish, and why that may possibly be BETTER?[/quote]

It is not a wish,but a demand for [b]civil[/b] debate.

You are free to call an opinion as absurd or stupid,but then you have to explain WHY you think so,otherwise it is considered by me the Administrator as name calling.

If people here can’t moderate themselves,then I have to do it for them and that means something is already failing.That means I have to spend time cleaning up the mess people make who can’t conduct themselves in debate in a reasonable manner.

You can have serious even heated arguments with people without the personal attacks and name calling in them.[/quote]

Please review my Pat Obar 2014-03-08 19:10 post. Please be constructive! Suggest different wording that would get the point across, with intended sarcasm. to all that may read your blog. I try to explain between sarcastic text intervals. Consider that punctuation. 🙂

• ### Pat Obar

|

[quote name=”Tim Folkerts”]Pat, go try your calculations for the sun. The temperature is well known. The surface area is well known. The total luminosity is well known. It is a ball of gas.
P = sigma T^4 * A
= 5.67e-8 * 5778^4 * 6.09e18
= 3.85e26 W
hmmm .. I looked up the and it is ALSO 3.85e26 W
No magical factor of two shows up. This is the same result one would get if the sun were a solid instead of a gas. Your mistake is understandable, but you are still wrong.[/quote]

Tim Folkerts shill/spammer,
Just what does your chicken scratching have to do with steradiancy or solid angle?
As I stated before Stefan’s constant (sigma) has a PI steradians built into it for a flat Lambertian surface. In terms of Boltzmann’s constant and Planck’s constant it is:
(2 x PI^5 x k^4)/( 15 x h^3 x c^2) = 5.67 x 10^-8 W/(m^2 x K^4) a radiance integral over PI steradians.
In radiometry the correct (sigma) is:
(2 x PI^4 x k^4)/(15 x h^3 x c&^2) = 1.8049192 x 10^-8 W/(m^2 x K^4 x sr) a radiance!
For a gas giant like the Sun, with no surface but a near constant cross-sectional area (a near isotropic radiator) radiance integrated over that cross-sectional area becomes a radiant intensity (W/sr). This radiant intensity integrated over all 4PI steradians of a sphere becomes radiant power (W). With each hemisphere having 2 PI steradians. The (2) has been there forever in solid geometry, right in front of your face, if you would look! Please demonstrate any such power transfer from the atmosphere to the lower,but higher-temperature, hemisphere.!
This radiant power pre-1982 was called luminosity, brightness, or candle power. All such terms were deprecated in 1982 as being way to wishy-washy. No scientific or technical person would use such terms, unless they were deliberately trying to confuse others! Did you get your Physics Phd from some cracker jack box?
In radiometry all terms are mathematically consistent if applied correctly. You Tim, deliberately misuse and confuse the terms in order to deceive, poor students!

|

[quote name=”Yelder Retep”]James McGinn is as much a fantasist[/quote]I have a fantasy that someday you’ll post something on topic. And every time I see a post from you on this website my hopes are reborn. Please, don’t let my fantasy die.

• ### Tim Folkerts

|

Pat, go try your calculations for the sun. The temperature is well known. The surface area is well known. The total luminosity is well known. It is a ball of gas.

P = sigma T^4 * A
= 5.67e-8 * 5778^4 * 6.09e18
= 3.85e26 W

hmmm .. I looked up the luminosity and it is ALSO 3.85e26 W

No magical factor of two shows up. This is the same result one would get if the sun were a solid instead of a gas. Your mistake is understandable, but you are still wrong.

• ### Ed Bo

|

solvingtornadoes: You say, “You can’t just pretend to ignore the thermal influence of 98% of the atmosphere based on something somebody told you over a beer in the back yard.”

On the contrary, I studied this stuff formally at top universities. You only have a grab bag of misunderstood snippets of concepts. They can be shown to be completely wrong through both analysis and real-world illustrations.

You keep asserting that N2 and O2 can radiate enough power to space in the UV to balance out the power absorbed from the surface. Let’s look at that carefully.

Let’s look at the perfect emitter (emissivity = 1.0) at 255K, a typical temperature for high in the atmosphere. If we integrate under the Planck curve from 0 to 400 nanometer wavelengths (all wavelengths shorter than visible light, including UV), we see that less than one part per billion of the radiation is in these wavelengths. And the total flux density for this perfect emitter is 240 W/m2. So we are talking about less than a microwatt per square meter in the UV, even for a perfect emitter, and N2 and O2 are far from perfect emitters.

But let’s say that N2 and O2 could radiate away the 240 W/m2 in the UV. When the sun is directly overhead, about 25 W/m2 of UV makes it to the surface, and most people have to be very careful of sunburn in these conditions. You assert that N2 and O2 radiate 10 times as much in the UV. It’s patently absurd!

• ### Sunsettommy

|

[b]I want the name calling to stop![/b][/quote]

OK, You wish to have a discussion rather . than a WAR. Please explain your own personal reason for such a wish, and why that may possibly be BETTER?[/quote]

It is not a wish,but a demand for [b]civil[/b] debate.

You are free to call an opinion as absurd or stupid,but then you have to explain WHY you think so,otherwise it is considered by me the Administrator as name calling.

If people here can’t moderate themselves,then I have to do it for them and that means something is already failing.That means I have to spend time cleaning up the mess people make who can’t conduct themselves in debate in a reasonable manner.

You can have serious even heated arguments with people without the personal attacks and name calling in them.

• ### Pat Obar

|

[b]I want the name calling to stop![/b][/quote]

OK, You wish to have a discussion rather . than a WAR. Please explain your own personal reason for such a wish, and why that may possibly be BETTER?

• ### Sunsettommy

|

[b]I want the name calling to stop![/b]

• ### Pat Obar

|

Are you seriously asserting that N2 and O2 at earth ambient temperatures radiate in the UV? Why aren’t we all sunburned?

Even incandescent light bulbs at over 10 times earth ambient temperatures don’t put out any UV to speak of.[/quote]

“Ed Bo” shill/spammer,
In the thermosphere O2, N2. NO and CO2 molecules and polymers (clumps) of these are at such a high temperature they absorb and emit in the UV. This energy is included in the irradiance from the Sun, never a fictitious Solar constant. 8 minutes or longer after a Solar CME, they can reach many thousand Kelvin (measured). The mean free path is so large that collisions rarely occur, each “mer” is in its own elliptical orbit, with mass centre of earth at one focus. They do exchange energy in the stratosphere. Thermal radiation (or possibly nuclear events) seem the only other way of dissipating such entropy!

• ### Pat Obar

|

[quote name=”Tim Folkerts”]Pat … please find even as SINGLE reference that supports your conjecture that “into a maximum of PI steradians (assumed in the S-B equation), “

Every reference I find addressing the SB equation says that this is the total energy, period. This energy is distributed over the entire upward 2 pi steradians. [/quote]

Tim Folkerts shill/spammer,
“This energy is distributed over the entire upward 2 pi steradians”. BUT not evenly from a 1 sq meter flat surface. This is “the” definition of a Lambertian surface with constant emissivity!
At the angle theta (from normal) of 45 degrees the apparent surface area at that angle is 0.707 sq meters. It gets smaller with increasing theta.
On page one or two of any text on thermal electromagnetic radiation will be a sketch and text on just how to resolve steradiancy, along with the whole calculation of how to integrate to get the steradiancy of a flat surface of exactly 1.000 PI steradians. not 2PI steradians. This was put at the beginning for those like you that have no understanding of solid geometry or of integral calculus. A gas,not having a surface, instead a constant cross sectional area at any angle. In an atmosphere with an optical depth emissivity of 75%, and a cross-sectional area of one sq meter, will radiate to a colder hemisphere 1.5 times that flux of a flat 100% emissive surface with the same area and same temperature!
Tim, you are worse at understanding anything than Ed Bo, Joel Shore, or even, Robert Brown. If it ain’t in the lesson plan, it ain’t, pity the poor students!

|

They’d have us believe that N2/O2 is nature’s natural insulator. And, therefore, the fact that cold air feels cold is really just an illusion.

• ### Pat Obar

|

[quote name=”Ed Bo”]Pat, you’re actually agreeing with me! James and ST asserted that N2 and O2 alone could continually cool the earth’s surface by conduction and convection alone. I pointed out that the atmosphere needs some component that can radiate energy to outer space or it will simply heat up until it can no longer take in energy from the earth’s surface. So we are in complete agreement here.

By the way, I never said anything about radiant transfer from the earth’s surface, let alone “100% surface emissivity”. We were all talking about conductive/convective transfers.

Now, all you need to do is to come to grips with the fact that a substance that is a good emitter at a frequency is an equally good absorber at that frequency, and to realize the follow-on implications of that fact. I’m not holding my breath, though…[/quote]

“Ed Bo” shill/spammer
I would never ever agree with anything you have to say!
Jim states that the cold N2/O2 atmosphere will always reduce the surface temperature via convection forever! This is exactly correct. You, in your grade school (sic) thermostatics, insist that the atmospheric temperature will increase to the temperature of the surface.
The temperature of the atmosphere (by measurement) does not do this! Why?? You deliberately ignore atmospheric aqueous water vapour! This atmospheric aqueous water vapour can and does radiate to cold space, more energy than can be radiated from the surface!
This is the only reason that all the atmospheric temperature is lower than that of the surface. The varying amount of atmospheric aqueous water vapour plus forced convection of the 98% N2/O2 is that, that moderates surface temperature of this Earth, at every location and at every instant of time!
Your politically invented “Green House Effect” is deliberate actionable FRAUD! The aqueous water vapour never raises the surface temperature. It is the gas that lowers the temperature of the atmosphere, which in turn lowers the temperature of the surface via convection. There is “no” thermal radiant flux from the colder atmosphere in the direction of the surface. No need for discussion over energy transfer from a fantasy that does not exist.
Thank you for your admitted participation in the FRAUD Your inventors, with their formal education, did know or should have known, of this grand social lie!

|

[quote name=”Ed Bo”]
If you have ever studied even the most basic thermodynamics . . . [/quote]

Do you or any of your whacko associated have anything remotely resembling an empircal based analysis of this issue. I’m about sick and tired of whackos expecting us to accept their bubblegum explanations. You can’t just pretend to ignore the thermal influence of 98% of the atmosphere based on something somebody told you over a beer in the back yard.

|

Are you seriously asserting that N2 and O2 at earth ambient temperatures radiate in the UV? Why aren’t we all sunburned?

Even incandescent light bulbs at over 10 times earth ambient temperatures don’t put out any UV to speak of.[/quote]

All you have is anecdote?

What do we conclude about a discipline that has been in existence, more or less, for sixty years and has nothing but anecdote underlying its central assumptions?

• ### Ed Bo

|

[quote name=”L.J.Ryan”]

So N2 and O2 absorb energy it’s temperature will rise. However because it’s has ” essentially no radiative capability at earthly temperature” it remains at an elevated temp. regardless of it’s surroundings.

Do I have that correct?

At what temperature will N2 and O2 radiate?[/quote]

Several commenters here have asserted than an N2 + O2 atmosphere can continually cool the earth’s surface by conductive/convective means only. I pointed out that for this to be true, it must remain at a lower temperature than the surface. This in turn requires that at some point it must put out as much power as it takes in from the surface.

How could it do this? If you have ever studied even the most basic thermodynamics or heat transfer, you know that there are only three modes of heat transfer: conduction, convection, and radiation.

N2 and O2 are such weak radiators that there is no way they could radiate out the hundreds of watts per square meter that the atmosphere would be absorbing from the surface. And there is no colder entity for conductive/convective heat transfer for the atmosphere as a whole.

Would this mean that a pure N2 + O2 atmosphere would heat up without end? No! When the bottom of the atmosphere reached the temperature of the surface, it would stop removing thermal energy from the surface.

There could be some higher frequency bands at which N2 and O2 could radiate significantly if the temperature were high enough, but that is completely irrelevant to the discussion at hand.

• ### Ed Bo

|

[quote name=”L.J.Ryan”]

Because N2&O2 make up 99% of the atmosphere and because heated N2&O2 takes much longer to cool, is it safe to assume the atmosphere is chock full pockets of hot air?[/quote]

At earthly temperatures and pressures, gas molecules collide literally billions of times each second. No chance for pockets of hot air to last.

• ### Ed Bo

|

Are you seriously asserting that N2 and O2 at earth ambient temperatures radiate in the UV? Why aren’t we all sunburned?

Even incandescent light bulbs at over 10 times earth ambient temperatures don’t put out any UV to speak of.

• ### Tim Folkerts

|

Pat … please find even as SINGLE reference that supports your conjecture that “into a maximum of PI steradians (assumed in the S-B equation), “

Every reference I find addressing the SB equation says that this is the total energy, period. This energy is distributed over the entire upward 2 pi steradians.

I will agree that I am sort of making a fool of myself — by even engaging in some of hte bizarre discussions here! 🙂

• ### Pat Obar

|

[quote name=”Tim Folkerts”]Pat — here is one rather fundamental error: [i]”A surface as a black Lambertian could only radiate to a colder with PI steradians. “[/i]

You have this bizarre idea that covering a planet with an atmosphere will double the radiation to space. If the surface of a planet is a “black Lambertian”, that surface is radiating the theoretical maximum power to space:
P/A = (sigma) T^4
Adding an atmosphere at the same temperature cannot double the power heading to space.[/quote]

P/A = (epsilon)(sigma) (Th^4-Tc^4) into a maximum of PI steradians (assumed in the S-B equation), The difference in radiance MUST be determined before other terms are applied.

Tim Folkerts shill/spammer,
Please go back to high school and learn a bit of geometry, and integrals! A lambertian surface (obeying Lambert’s law can radiate into a maximum of one PI steradian (assumed in the S-B equation! A mass that has no surface only a cross-sectional area (atmosphere) can radiate that cross sectional area into all of 4 PI steradians, but ONLY in a direction of less radiance. With the atmosphere that is the outer 2 PI steradian hemisphere. The atmosphere radiates no flux to the lower hemisphere,always being at a higher temperature, higher radiance at every wavelength.
You Tim, deliberately make a fool of yourself!

|

[quote name=”Ed Bo”]”You can stare at spectrum graphs all day long and it’s not going to give you any indication of magnitude of radiation.”

So graphs of radiation intensity don’t give any indication of the intensity (magnitude) of the radiation? Is that what you are seriously claiming?[/quote]Exactly. I’m saying you AGW whackos are always pretending to see the emperor’s new clothes. You pinheads assume that there is nothing thermally significant about UV radiation. You misguided notion that that atmosphere can only cool through a mechanism that involve IR is childish, dimwitted, and, frankly, just plain stupid. Looking at a graph and pretending you see the emperor’s new clothes isn’t science.

• ### L.J.Ryan

|

Tim Folkerts

“PS LJ Ryan , this is also an answer to your question . If there is no heat loss by conduction , then N2 would cool eventually , but it would take MUCH longer than for a similar amount of CO2 to cool”

Because N2&O2 make up 99% of the atmosphere and because heated N2&O2 takes much longer to cool, is it safe to assume the atmosphere is chock full pockets of hot air?

• ### Ed Bo

|

“You can stare at spectrum graphs all day long and it’s not going to give you any indication of magnitude of radiation.”

So graphs of radiation intensity don’t give any indication of the intensity (magnitude) of the radiation? Is that what you are seriously claiming?

• ### Tim Folkerts

|

Pat — here is one rather fundamental error: [i]”A surface as a black Lambertian could only radiate to a colder with PI steradians. “[/i]

You have this bizarre idea that covering a planet with an atmosphere will double the radiation to space. If the surface of a planet is a “black Lambertian”, that surface is radiating the theoretical maximum power to space:
P/A = (sigma) T^4

Adding an atmosphere at the same temperature cannot double the power heading to space.

• ### Tim Folkerts

|

[i]”They produce radiation at a constant rate just like any other gas. “[/i]

Yes, but that “constant rate” is orders of magnitude less than the rate for gas molecules with 3 or more atoms. So CO2 & H2O radiate orders of magnitude more thermal IR to space than do N2 & O2.

To make an analogy, this is like studying how fast air leaks from a balloon. There are two options: air can leak very quickly out the neck, or air can leak very slowly through the rubber walls. If the neck is tied shut, then the leakage through the walls is important. If the neck is open, the leakage through the walls can be safely ignored.

The orders of magnitude are actually similar — perhaps a million to 1. Air leaks out of the balloon in weeks rather than seconds when the “easy route” is removed. Similarly, the heat that would get emitted by a parcel of CO2 or H2O (the “easy route”) in seconds would take on the order of weeks (maybe days, maybe months) to get emitted by a similar parcel of N2.

PS LJ Ryan, this is also an answer to your question. If there is no heat loss by conduction, then N2 would cool eventually, but it would take MUCH longer than for a similar amount of CO2 to cool.

|

[quote name=”Tim Folkerts”]Things that make you go “hmmm”:
[quote]Infrared is not necessary to explain how the planet cools, you idiot.[/quote]
So the ONLY way for a planet as a whole to cool is not necessary to explain how the planet cools?! :o[/quote][quote name=”Tim Folkerts”]To see just how poorly N2 & O2 radiate, go to http://www.spectralcalc.com/spectral_browser/db_intensity.php

Include CO2, H20, N2 ^ O2, plot wavelengths from 4-40 um, weight the lines by atmospheric concentrations. N2 & O2 are lost in the noise.

PS I hadn’t noticed until today that you can approximate the atmospheric concentrations at different altitudes. It is interesting to watch the contribution of H2O drop as you go higher.[/quote]You warmies don’t know how to interpret basic data. You can stare at spectrum graphs all day long and it’s not going to give you any indication of magnitude of radiation. N2 and O2 molecules are not magic gasses. They produce radiation at a constant rate just like any other gas. The child like tendency of AGW advocates to stare myopically at N2 and O2’s lack of IR signature notwithstanding.

• ### L.J.Ryan

|

Ed Bo

“5 . N2 and O2 have essentially no radiative capability at earthly temperature , so they have no capability to radiate energy . There is also virtually nothing above the atmosphere to conduct or convect to , so a pure N2 / O2 atmosphere has no way of getting rid of any energy it absorbs from the surface . Therefore , its temperature will increase until it matches the surface temperature , at which point it will stop ” cooling ” the surface .”

So N2 and O2 absorb energy it’s temperature will rise. However because it’s has ” essentially no radiative capability at earthly temperature” it remains at an elevated temp. regardless of it’s surroundings.

Do I have that correct?

At what temperature will N2 and O2 radiate?

• ### Tim Folkerts

|

To see just how poorly N2 & O2 radiate, go to http://www.spectralcalc.com/spectral_browser/db_intensity.php

Include CO2, H20, N2 ^ O2, plot wavelengths from 4-40 um, weight the lines by atmospheric concentrations. N2 & O2 are lost in the noise.

PS I hadn’t noticed until today that you can approximate the atmospheric concentrations at different altitudes. It is interesting to watch the contribution of H2O drop as you go higher.

• ### Tim Folkerts

|

Things that make you go “hmmm”:
[quote]Infrared is not necessary to explain how the planet cools, you idiot.[/quote]
So the ONLY way for a planet as a whole to cool is not necessary to explain how the planet cools?! 😮

|

[quote name=”Ed Bo”]
That N2 and O2 have no significant emission/absorption bands in the far infrared was known through controlled laboratory experiments for decades before the AGW scare started. Nothing has changed since then.[/quote]You global warming fruitcakes think/believe that infrared is the only wavelength that has thermal significance. Its an urban legend. Infrared is not necessary to explain how the planet cools, you idiot.

• ### Ed Bo

|

[quote name=”solvingtornadoes”] They are not weak emitters. That is just part of the AGW propaganda. You whackos dream up these things.[/quote]

That N2 and O2 have no siginificant emission/absorption bands in the far infrared was known through controlled laboratory experiments for decades before the AGW scare started. Nothing has changed since then.

|

[quote name=”Ed Bo”]N2 and O2 are incredibly weak emitters (and absorbers) of radiation at the frequencies corresponding to earthly temperatures. There is no way they could come close to radiating away enough power to match the power from the earth’s surface.[/quote]They are not weak emitters. That is just part of the AGW propaganda. You whackos dream up these things.

• ### Ed Bo

|

[quote name=”solvingtornadoes”] N2/O2 cools–as does any gas at a temperature above absolute zero–by radiating out into space. [/quote]

At least you are finally addressing a technical issue! Too bad you are completely wrong… N2 and O2 are incredibly weak emitters (and absorbers) of radiation at the frequencies corresponding to earthly temperatures. There is no way they could come close to radiating away enough power to match the power from the earth’s surface.

|

[quote name=”Ed Bo”]. . . the atmosphere needs some component that can radiate energy to outer space or it will simply heat up until it can no longer take in energy from the earth’s surface.[/quote]This is where your whacko train takes a detour from the train tracks of logic. N2/O2 cools–as does any gas at a temperature above absolute zero–by radiating out into space. The notion that there need be some special mechanism to allow N2/O2 to cool is pseudo science. It’s AGW propaganda. It’s an urban legend.

• ### Ed Bo

|

Pat, you’re actually agreeing with me! James and ST asserted that N2 and O2 alone could continually cool the earth’s surface by conduction and convection alone. I pointed out that the atmosphere needs some component that can radiate energy to outer space or it will simply heat up until it can no longer take in energy from the earth’s surface. So we are in complete agreement here.

By the way, I never said anything about radiant transfer from the earth’s surface, let alone “100% surface emissivity”. We were all talking about conductive/convective transfers.

Now, all you need to do is to come to grips with the fact that a substance that is a good emitter at a frequency is an equally good absorber at that frequency, and to realize the follow-on implications of that fact. I’m not holding my breath, though…

• ### Pat Obar

|

You have not made a single actual thermodynamic, or even scientific, argument so far.

On the other hand, I have gone through detailed analyses of how N2+O2 atmospheres, both 100% and 98%, would behave, [i]according to the laws of thermodynamics[/i]. I have repeatedly invited you to state where you find fault with my arguments. You have repeatedly failed to do so.

I am becoming more and more convinced that you are absolutely incapable of discussing these issues even at the level of the first couple of weeks of an introductory thermodynamics course. Prove me wrong![/quote]

“Ed Bo” shill/spammer
Jim states that the cold N2/O2 atmosphere will always reduce the surface temperature via convection forever! This is exactly correct. You, in your grade school (sic) thermostatics, insist that the atmospheric temperature will increase to the temperature of the surface.
The temperature of the atmosphere (by measurement) does not do this! Why?? You deliberately ignore atmospheric aqueous water vapour! This atmospheric aqueous water vapour can and does radiate to cold space, more energy than can be radiated from the surface! Even using your ridiculous 100% surface emissivity.
This is the only reason that all the atmospheric temperature is lower than that of the surface. The varying amount of atmospheric aqueous water vapour plus forced convection of the 98% N2/O2 is that, that moderates surface temperature of this Earth, at every location and at every instant of time!
Your politically invented “Green House Effect” is deliberate actionable FRAUD! Your inventors, with their formal education, did know or should have known, of this grand social lie!

• ### Pat Obar

|

[quote name=”Tim Folkerts”]My turn. Surely you don’t agree with Pat when he says [i]”The radiative gasses surrounding this planet can only radiate to cold space more and in addition to any surface flux …” [/i]

Perhaps this gets at the crux of hte whole misunderstanding. If Pat’s statement were correct, then you guys would indeed be correct. But Pat is wrong.

The cold atmosphere does indeed emit IR to space, but this IR REPLACES some of the more intense surface IR, it is not IN ADDITION TO the surface IR.[/quote]

Tim Folkerts shill/spammer,
Please demonstrate any error in what I have written! The outward exitance increases all the way to 200 KM.
Please demonstrate via measurement, any thermal electromagnetic radiative flux from the Earth’s surface! You cannot so demonstrate, as you have not the required skill.
I can so demonstrate! the radiative flux from the surface is barely detectable above the huge convective heat flux. This small flux approximately 20 W/m^2 from a highly emissive surface is completely explained by emission in the 8-14 micron band, 10 W/m^2 to 1/3 space and 10 W/m^2 to 2/3 cloud bottoms.
Note: The clouds radiate at their temperature to cold space even with no radiation from the surface. That 10 W/m^2 is not enough to increase the temperature of any cloud by any measurable amount.

• ### David Cosserat

|

Ed Bo,

You are wasting your time on incoherent non-entities. Please do contact me at cosserat@gmail.com.

Best regards
David

• ### Ed Bo

|

You have not made a single actual thermodynamic, or even scientific, argument so far.

On the other hand, I have gone through detailed analyses of how N2+O2 atmospheres, both 100% and 98%, would behave, [i]according to the laws of thermodynamics[/i]. I have repeatedly invited you to state where you find fault with my arguments. You have repeatedly failed to do so.

I am becoming more and more convinced that you are absolutely incapable of discussing these issues even at the level of the first couple of weeks of an introductory thermodynamics course. Prove me wrong!

• ### Pat Obar

|

[quote name=”Ed Bo”]Only in the upside-down world of PSI could a step-by-step analysis using the laws of thermodynamics be considered “creative writing”. That certainly explains a lot![/quote]
Ed Bo” shill/spammer,
Your nonsense is inverted not mine!
“6. If the atmosphere has some gases that can radiate, such as H20 and CO2, even in small percentages, then the atmosphere is capable of rejecting energy to space. This means it can continue to absorb energy from the surface on an ongoing basis, because it can send as much energy to space, and stay cooler than the surface.”
H2O radiates to colder space through a very wide spectrum, through twice the solid angle as “can” the surface. Your #6 implies “from the surface” is “radiative” energy. This is false. Most energy radiated by H2O to cold space is from latent heat of evaporation converted to sensible heat to be radiated in a colder direction. This is not enough!
Each H2O molecule would quickly decrease in temperature and freeze out of the atmosphere. This does not happen because of the large sensible heat of the extra (25-98) N2 and O2 molecules near each H20 molecule transferred via conduction, both diffusion of “heat” and the transfer via electromechanical energy. The continuous powered lateral heat convection from surface to the atmosphere maintains the temperature of the surface and all of the atmosphere. Both thermal electromagnetic radiation from the surface and the emissive contribution by CO2 can easily be neglected in all thermal control processes within this Earth and its atmosphere.
All radiative exit flux originates in the atmosphere not the surface. The only reason this Earth “has” a surface is to prevent worthless earthlings like yourself from falling to the liquid iron core.
When total surface stupidity reaches a sufficient level, this Earth will intermittently disappear that surface “the dissipation of stupidity”, similar to “the radiative dissipation of entropy”!
What a nice planet!

|

[quote name=”Ed Bo”][quote name=”solvingtornadoes”]So, You’re saying that N2 and O2 are excluded from the laws of thermodynamics?[/quote]

I have laid out in detail a thermodynamic analysis of the behavior of an N2 + O2 atmosphere. [/quote] Nobody–certainly not me–is trying to suggest or slyly insinuate that you are not perfectly within your rights to pretend that 98% of the atmosphere doesn’t exist. So don’t let the fact that you’ve failed to describe this discrepancy in your thinking stop you from pretending that you have.

|

[quote name=”Tim Folkerts”]solving tornadoes asks: [i]”So, You’re saying that N2 and O2 are excluded from the laws of thermodynamics?”[/i]
[b]No.[/b]

[i]”Surely you are not suggesting that the thermodynamic effects of N2 and O2 can be ignored. Are you?”[/i]
[b]No. [/b][/quote]

Excellent! Then you agree with me that N2 and O2 provide significant cooling through conduction and convection. Right?

Thank you for answering the question (finally!). Why do you think Ed Bo is being so stubborn?

• ### Ed Bo

|

[quote name=”solvingtornadoes”]So, You’re saying that N2 and O2 are excluded from the laws of thermodynamics?[/quote]

I have laid out in detail a thermodynamic analysis of the behavior of an N2 + O2 atmosphere. I have broken it into simple steps and asked you at each stage whether you agree with me at the individual step.

I have repeatedly asked you for your response to this, but you won’t, or can’t engage. (At this point, I think I know which it is.)

Tim, do you disagree with any of my analysis in #220?

• ### Tim Folkerts

|

solving tornadoes asks: [i]”So, You’re saying that N2 and O2 are excluded from the laws of thermodynamics?”[/i]
[b]No.[/b]

[i]”Surely you are not suggesting that the thermodynamic effects of N2 and O2 can be ignored. Are you?”[/i]
[b]No. [/b]

This is yet another example of how badly you misunderstand what we are saying. On the other hand, your position tries to exclude N2 & O2 from the laws of physics — your atmosphere “wants” to be frigid and can siphon energy away from teh surface forever without warming!

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

Yes, convection carries energy away from the surface — estiamtes put that number around 20 W/m^2.

Yes, evaporation carries energy away from the surface — estiamtes put that number around 80 W/m^2.

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

My turn. Surely you don’t agree with Pat when he says [i]”The radiative gasses surrounding this planet can only radiate to cold space more and in addition to any surface flux …” [/i]

Perhaps this gets at the crux of hte whole misunderstanding. If Pat’s statement were correct, then you guys would indeed be correct. But Pat is wrong.

The cold atmosphere does indeed emit IR to space, but this IR REPLACES some of the more intense surface IR, it is not IN ADDITION TO the surface IR.

|

[quote name=”Tim Folkerts”]I have gotten to the place where I am merely bemused by their opinions.[/quote]Surely you are not suggesting that the thermodynamic effects of N2 and O2 can be ignored. Are you?

|

[quote name=”solvingtornadoes”]So, You’re saying that N2 and O2 are excluded from the laws of thermodynamics?[/quote]
Oops, I just realized you can’t answer that question. My bad. Would you prefer I retract the question? Consider it retracted if that is what you prefer.

No worries.

|

[quote name=”Ed Bo”]Only in the upside-down world of PSI could a step-by-step analysis using the laws of thermodynamics be considered “creative writing”. That certainly explains a lot![/quote]So, You’re saying that N2 and O2 are excluded from the laws of thermodynamics?

• ### Tim Folkerts

|

Ed,

The irony is that these three (in particular) are guilty of many of the things they accuse “us” of!

* They think everyone who understands science agrees with them, when in fact, they pretty much only agree with each other.

* They think a gas that absorbs & emits IR is “magic”, but a small bit of gas that acts as an eternal heat sink is perfectly normal.

* They insist on taking the discussion back to a primary school level of understanding and can’t address the sort of college-level thermodynamics you describe, but think they have the more advanced knowledge.

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

I have gotten to the place where I am merely bemused by their opinions.

• ### Ed Bo

|

Only in the upside-down world of PSI could a step-by-step analysis using the laws of thermodynamics be considered “creative writing”. That certainly explains a lot!

• ### Pat Obar

|

[quote name=”solvingtornadoes”][quote name=”Pat Obar”]Jim, You are arguing with a well paid shill/spammer[/quote]Judging by his creative writing skills, I think he’s deserving.[/quote]

He is deserving of what? Ridicule? Tis but water off a ducks back. Please buy an Elephant, that can easily stomp out flaming ducks! 😡

|

[quote name=”Pat Obar”]Jim, You are arguing with a well paid shill/spammer[/quote]Judging by his creative writing skills, I think he’s deserving.

• ### Pat Obar

|

[quote name=”James Rollins”]I checked you’re right: it’s 33C/60F.
You do realize your having to point out that grammatical error underscores, [u][i][b]THAT’S ALL YOU’VE GOT[/b][/i][/u? [/quote]

James, please do not feed the trolls!
Your inadvertent error was pointed out by several non-trolls. You seem to be one that can do! rather than only teach! Do not explain, just say AW shit, I did it again! All that can do, do this often, then fix it, before anyone importatent even notices. With good co-workers it is only “Pat you did it again, that PI belongs on the bottom not on the top”!

• ### Pat Obar

|

[quote name=”solvingtornadoes”][quote name=”Ed Bo”]You obviously cannot follow a logical argument.[/quote]You basically have three options. Answer one way and remove any doubt that you are a complete idiot. Answer the other way and, essentially, admit that your commitment to the AGW cause has been a complete waste of your time. Or, refuse to answer and hope nobody notices.

I see you’ve chosen the only one that has any chance of working.[/quote]

Jim, You are arguing with a well paid shill/ spammer that needs no consideration of your postings/arguments, whether logical or not!
Anything you say, even “Boo” demands a response from the paid idiot. Your own site, even though I disagree with your heavy wet air, has much more of anything interesting! Please interact with those that will at least “consider” what you post, before spouting the choir book nonsense.
Shill Bo, cannot say any temperature where flux from the surface will equilibrate. The surface! of this planet is not black nor Lambertian. It can equilibrate at any temperature. The radiative gasses surrounding this planet can only radiate to cold space more and in addition to any surface flux resulting in a lower temperature of all that is on or above the surface of this wonderful planet!! Might get to cold, never to hot, (the Clowns WARM). 😥

• ### Ed Bo

|

Only a complete fool with no reading comprehension and logical reasoning skills could believe that I have not answered your question fully.

In #220, I laid out my reasoning step by step and invited you at each step to challenge my reasoning. You have refused. I think it is obvious why.

|

[quote name=”Ed Bo”]You obviously cannot follow a logical argument.[/quote]You basically have three options. Answer one way and remove any doubt that you are a complete idiot. Answer the other way and, essentially, admit that your commitment to the AGW cause has been a complete waste of your time. Or, refuse to answer and hope nobody notices.

I see you’ve chosen the only one that has any chance of working.

• ### Ed Bo

|

I have already answered your poorly posed question in far, far more detail than it deserves. You obviously cannot follow a logical argument.

And you won’t answer my questions. Why not?

|

[quote name=”Ed Bo”]
Our entire electronics and computer revolution is based on this fact.[/quote]Let’s start over: Do you acknowledge or deny that N2 and O2 provide significant cooling through conduction and convection?

• ### Ed Bo

|

I’ve stated my reasoning in detail several times now. So let me break it down and ask you a question.

1. For the atmosphere to absorb thermal energy from the planet’s surface, thereby cooling the earth’s surface, it must have a lower temperature than the surface (2nd Law). Correct?

2. As the atmosphere absorbs energy from the surface, its internal energy, and therefore its temperature, increase (1st Law). Correct?

3. If the atmosphere cannot output as much energy as it is absorbing from the surface, its temperature will continue to increase (1st Law again). Correct?

4. If the atmosphere, or even just the bottom of it, reaches the same temperature as the surface, it will stop absorbing energy from the surface (2nd Law again). Correct?

5. N2 and O2 have essentially no radiative capability at earthly temperature, so they have no capability to radiate energy. There is also virtually nothing above the atmosphere to conduct or convect to, so a pure N2/O2 atmosphere has no way of getting rid of any energy it absorbs from the surface. Therefore, its temperature will increase until it matches the surface temperature, at which point it will stop “cooling” the surface.

6. If the atmosphere has some gases that can radiate, such as H20 and CO2, even in small percentages, then the atmosphere is capable of rejecting energy to space. This means it can continue to absorb energy from the surface on an ongoing basis, because it can send as much energy to space, and stay cooler than the surface.

You seem to disagree with Point 5. If a pure N2/O2 atmosphere is absorbing energy from the surface, thereby cooling it, how does it output this energy, so that it can stay at a lower temperature than the surface? We have already rejected all three modes of heat transfer: conduction, convection, and radiation.

By the way, small impurities matter a lot in many fields. Pure silicon is a very good insulator. Add a few parts per million impurities (“doping”), and it turns into a very good conductor. Our entire electronics and computer revolution is based on this fact.

|

[quote name=”Ed Bo”]A pure N2/O2 atmosphere: no.[/quote]You are saying it matters whether the N2/O2 is pure? Right? And you are putting this out there for the world to see even though you know full well that that is complete nonsense.

: No
Is that “No. N2/O2
[/quote]

• ### Ed Bo

|

I think this is the 4th time I’ve answered it. The Cliff Notes version:

1. A pure N2/O2 atmosphere: No

2. A primarily N2/O2 atmosphere with some radiatively active gases: Yes

|

[quote name=”Ed Bo”]Are you really that dense?[/quote]Before I’ve had coffee in the morning? Maybe. But in general? No, I don’t think I’m particularly dense.

• ### Ed Bo

|

Are you really that dense?

|

[quote name=”Ed Bo”]. . . because of the radiatively active gases.[/quote]
Uh, is that a yes or a no?

• ### Ed Bo

|

You seem to have a major problem with English comprehension. I’ve answered your question alreayd. But I will break it down into even smaller steps for you.

An atmosphere composed only of N2 and O2 has no radiatively active bands at earthly temperatures. Therefore, it has no capability of transferring energy to or from space. This means that it cannot, on any ongoing basis, absorb energy from the earth’s surface, because by taking in energy from the surface, but having nowhere to reject the energy, its temperature would increase until it matched the surface temperature.

But the earth’s actual atmosphere has radiatively active gases, mainly H2O and CO2. These gases can and do radiate energy to space. This means that the earth’s real atmosphere can and does absorb energy on an ongoing basis from the earth’s surface (thereby “cooling” the surface) through conduction/convection. But this is only possible because of the radiatively active gases.

|

[quote name=”David Cosserat”]I have complained to the moderator about anonymous “James Rollins” several times . . . [/quote]David,
Do you acknowledge or deny that N2 and O2 provide significant cooling through conduction and convection?

|

“Do you acknowledge or deny that N2 and O2 provide signifiant cooling through conduction and convection? Answer the question you evasive twit.”

Ed Bo:
A transparent atmosphere has no method of transferring energy to or from space. So it cannot, ON AN ONGOING BASIS (as I said), transfer energy from the planetary surface.[/quote]Aha, then you do deny that N2 and O2 provide significant cooling through conduction and convection. Right?

• ### Ed Bo

|

David:

“I have complained to the moderator about anonymous “James Rollins” several times.”

I think I’ve finally figured out who James Rollins really is – Charlie Sheen! Only he could crash and burn so spectacularly and come out screaming “Winner!!!”

• ### Ed Bo

|

You don’t even understand the issues in play. A transparent atmosphere has no method of transferring energy to or from space. So it cannot, ON AN ONGOING BASIS (as I said), transfer energy from the planetary surface.

If it started out colder than the surface, it could absorb energy from the surface for a while, but in doing so, its temperature would increase (because it is taking in energy but not rejecting any) until it matched that of the surface, at which point the heat transfer would stop.

However, if there are radiatively active gases in the atmosphere, the atmosphere can transfer energy to the cold of deep space on an ongoing basis, therefore remaining cooler than the surface, and therefore absorb energy from the surface through conductive/convective and evaporative mechanisms on an ongoing basis.

The necessary corollaries, though, are that a radiatively active atmosphere also absorbs radiation from the planetary surface, and that it emits radiation in all directions, not just to space.

Oh, and the N2/O2 coming out of my furnace is doing an excellent job as a heating, not cooling, agent.

|

[quote name=”Ed Bo”]So I’ll spell it out for you. If the atmosphere has no other avenue for heat transfer, and a transparent atmosphere does not, then it cannot add or remove power from the planet’s surface on an ongoing basis.[/quote]This is a perfect display of the whacko logic of AGW believers. Take notice of the ease with which Ed Bo dismisses James’ point. James has pointed out over and over again that N2 and O2 act as coolants (not refrigerants) and this nutcase, Ed Bo, does little more than make reference to AGW propaganda that, “the atmosphere has no other avenue for heat transfer (other than CO2 and H2O).” Demonstrating, once again, that AGW proponents are immune to reason.[quote name=”Ed Bo”]So your concept of a “refrigerant” N2/O2 atmosphere are simply bogus, as basic an error as your 33C/91F error (which any real scientist would catch immediately).[/quote]As you clearly saw, he used the word, “coolant,” not “refrigerant,” you delusional nutjob.

Ed Bo, address the issue, you loon. Do you acknowledge or deny that N2 and O2 provide signifiant cooling through conduction and convection? Answer the question you evasive twit.

• ### James Rollins

|

And as we can all see clearly

not a single one of them can explain why immersing sensor covered spheres into frigid, nitrogen/oxygen coolant compound refrigerated by water,

makes it magically hotter than if there were NO frigid refrigerated atmosphere scrubbing heat from the surface and blocking nearly a third energy in,
in the first place.

We have one who insists it has to be that way because it’s impossible for the wind blowing, to cool things,

and the other one admitting: he tried to get me banned for revealing the level they all think at, but it didn’t work! Drats! How dare PSI simply let words stand on their merits: their ability to persuade through debate.

So all in all I think we’ve had a good expose on what its like being a Green House Gas Effect Religious zombie:

things get hotter when they are immersed spinning in frigid nitrogen than they do NOT immersed spinning in frigid nitrogen,

because the wind blowing can’t cool things,

and those who think not shouldn’t be allowed to talk.

That’s Green House Gas Goofy in a nutshell, self defined, and self displayed.

If I told ya all, they believe every psychotic word of it ya wouldnt have believed me.

You all saw it

from their own hands.

• ### James Rollins

|

To all who are wondering what in the world gets into the minds of Green House Gas Religion Believers: the answer is, “insanity.”

• ### James Rollins

|

Nitrogen and Oxygen are coolants. They cool through conduction and through convection. Water is a coolant.

Water is also a refrigerant within the coolants that changes phase enhancing the convection and conduction of the other two.

After having these simple terms before you all your life: knowing of this discussion’s essence in principle for months if not years:

you’re still too befuddled to manage without adult supervision
taking you:
word,
by simple
word

– and you’re still utterly convinced fans don’t cool
wind doesn’t move,
cooling things.

[u][b]FANS DON’T REALLY WORK [/b][/u][u] is not the answer you need to try to be providing

for why you believe

immersing sensor covered objects into freezing, refrigerated baths,

makes them hotter than they would be in vacuum,

and not be laughed off this thread: but youre already past that point.[/u]

It’s borderline psychotic to claim that as legitimate scientific assessment of nitrogen and oxygen

as conductive/convective coolants.

You’ve gone from “cold gas on hot rocks makes them hotter than no cold gas at all

to “it has to be that way because wind can’t cool things.”

[quote name=”Ed Bo”]I noticed that you couldn’t answer my question. It appears that you don’t even understand the import of it. Not surprising given your demonstrated lack of technical sophistication.

So I’ll spell it out for you. If the atmosphere has no other avenue for heat transfer, and a transparent atmosphere does not, then it cannot add or remove power from the planet’s surface on an ongoing basis. So your concept of a “refrigerant” N2/O2 atmosphere are simply bogus, as basic an error as your 33C/91F error (which any real scientist would catch immediately).

What really ticks me off about you PSI folks is you let the alarmists dismiss skeptics as not knowing basic scientific principles.[/quote]

• ### James Rollins

|

You amateurs run your mouths a lot but then you also tend to believe immersing sensor covered spheres in freezing nitrogen makes them warmer than NOT immersing them in frigid baths.

You’ve got the perception of any other Magic Gasser: the conversation going your way or you whine, fawn, and harass the site owners till you don’t get humiliated for saying things that only make sense on a Green House Gas Effect poster.

So between the two of you we’ve got the concept fans don’t work and that I ought to be banned for reminding you.

You two people represent magic gas with all the dignity it’s represented everywhere else: like you represent the work of frauds, liars, fakes and thugs.

[quote name=”David Cosserat”]Ed,

Welcome to what has been rendered a madhouse thread by one obviously unstable troll.

Your point is an important one. This thread undermines the whole point of PSI as I understand it – which is to have sensible, substantive scientific debate – not deranged ya boo sucks rubbish.

Although I have complained to the moderator about anonymous “James Rollins” several times I have had no response and no action has been taken. There is no other blog I can think of that would tolerate this kind of behaviour without intervention.

And, most important of all, I agree with you that this plays right into the hands of the alarmists. Whatever is PSI up to?[/quote]

• ### James Rollins

|

You’ve tried to describe ‘coolant’ as ‘refrigerant’ and tried to claim nitrogen and oxygen havve no means of picking up heat from the surface of the earth. You’re one of those ”there’s no water in that air so it can’t be room temperature air” people.

You’ve got good reason for being too embarrassed to say what you wanted to.

Nitrogen and oxygen pick up heat from the surface of the earth, or else fans don’t work in dry atmospheres, and we know they do, so that just leaves you flapping on about more fantasy physics.

[quote name=”Ed Bo”]I noticed that you couldn’t answer my question. It appears that you don’t even understand the import of it. Not surprising given your demonstrated lack of technical sophistication.

So I’ll spell it out for you. If the atmosphere has no other avenue for heat transfer, and a transparent atmosphere does not, then it cannot add or remove power from the planet’s surface on an ongoing basis. So your concept of a “refrigerant” N2/O2 atmosphere are simply bogus, as basic an error as your 33C/91F error (which any real scientist would catch immediately).

What really ticks me off about you PSI folks is you let the alarmists dismiss skeptics as not knowing basic scientific principles.[/quote]

• ### David Cosserat

|

Ed,

Welcome to what has been rendered a madhouse thread by one obviously unstable troll.

Your point is an important one. This thread undermines the whole point of PSI as I understand it – which is to have sensible, substantive scientific debate – not deranged ya boo sucks rubbish.

Although I have complained to the moderator about anonymous “James Rollins” several times I have had no response and no action has been taken. There is no other blog I can think of that would tolerate this kind of behaviour without intervention.

And, most important of all, I agree with you that this plays right into the hands of the alarmists. Whatever is PSI up to?

• ### Ed Bo

|

I noticed that you couldn’t answer my question. It appears that you don’t even understand the import of it. Not surprising given your demonstrated lack of technical sophistication.

So I’ll spell it out for you. If the atmosphere has no other avenue for heat transfer, and a transparent atmosphere does not, then it cannot add or remove power from the planet’s surface on an ongoing basis. So your concept of a “refrigerant” N2/O2 atmosphere are simply bogus, as basic an error as your 33C/91F error (which any real scientist would catch immediately).

What really ticks me off about you PSI folks is you let the alarmists dismiss skeptics as not knowing basic scientific principles.

• ### James Rollins

|

I gave you your ”attaboy” for being a spunky grammar nazi ankle biter.
This isn’t a school. If you have a point make it.

We all know you don’t, you just can’t stand the burning humiliation having to watch what just went on in this thread.

• ### James Rollins

|

We’ve established you fixate on worthless grammatical error – even when everyone in the room knows it’s utterly irrelevant.

We’ve established you believe a cold reflective nitrogen/oxygen bath,

made the object immersed spinning in it, hotter than it was,

before it was chilled in the frigid reflective bath

and was receiving a third more energy to surface sensors.

In short we’ve established you’re a Green House Gas Religion believer.

Find the spine to make a point and say it
[quote name=”Ed Bo”]James,

You did exactly as I thought – found an equation that kinda sorta dealt with the value you wanted to compute, plugged some numbers in, and used the answer it spit out without the least bit of understanding of what was going on.

By itself, it’s not a big deal, but I see this all the time on the PSI site – using equations inappropriately because there is no understanding of what the equations mean. This is particularly true of energy balance equations, which are constantly misused here.

More times than I can count, including several times on this thread, PSI folk have forgotten to use a separate power input to one body when analyzing the radiant exchange between two bodies.

A couple of months ago, a prominent PSI member misused the partial pressure equation and got a result which said that O2 and CO2 constituted 99.4% of the atmosphere. He didn’t even have the sense to understand that this was a ridiculously wrong result.

Now, since you understand this stuff so well, I have a question for you: can a transparent (radiatively inactive, as N2 and O2 essentially are) add energy to, or remove energy from, a planet’s surface on an ongoing basis? Can it be a refrigerant?[/quote]

• ### Ed Bo

|

James,

You did exactly as I thought – found an equation that kinda sorta dealt with the value you wanted to compute, plugged some numbers in, and used the answer it spit out without the least bit of understanding of what was going on.

By itself, it’s not a big deal, but I see this all the time on the PSI site – using equations inappropriately because there is no understanding of what the equations mean. This is particularly true of energy balance equations, which are constantly misused here.

More times than I can count, including several times on this thread, PSI folk have forgotten to use a separate power input to one body when analyzing the radiant exchange between two bodies.

A couple of months ago, a prominent PSI member misused the partial pressure equation and got a result which said that O2 and CO2 constituted 99.4% of the atmosphere. He didn’t even have the sense to understand that this was a ridiculously wrong result.

Now, since you understand this stuff so well, I have a question for you: can a transparent (radiatively inactive, as N2 and O2 essentially are) add energy to, or remove energy from, a planet’s surface on an ongoing basis? Can it be a refrigerant?

• ### James Rollins

|

ed I’ve talked to men who had their livelihoods threatened outright for speaking about global warming and it being a scam. I am a scientist. I am far, far over quibbling with squirrels which is why Folkerts’ beat down was so one sided and sure.

It was a math modeling scam easily checkable. Cold baths don’t raise temps of objects they chill. That’s your statement: that’s Folkerts’ statement. That’s your political machines’ statement.

Your lies will reveal you by the frauds and losers and backed down street thugs like Mann. A bunch of scientific frauds and some thugs Ed. They’re not honest people.

And you’re excused for not forgiving me I understand you don’t know who I am. But there’s one thing you won’t be forgetting: your religion teaches objects warmed by light chilled with refrigerated nitrogen are warmer for it.

• ### James Rollins

|

Since “Magic Cold Gas Made It Hot” people can’t correctly predict anything except you’ll be changing your story

you don’t have a theory.

You have a scam.

• ### James Rollins

|

It was painful when you realized, you’re on the side of some clown who went around arguing immersion of a sensor covered sphere into frigid nitrogen resulted specifically in surface sensor temperature rise.

That’s what’s ‘painful.’

You’re as happy to be ankle biter as anything but your a ”cold gas made it get hotter” zombie yourself;

you can’t even understand why it’s all being done with such blunt instruments but you understand you don’t have one to unblunt the charge you got caught believing in magically warming,
frigid,
reflective,
atmopheric envelopes.

You’re not going to forget that.
That’s: what’s pain*ful to you.

That you had to sit around and watch someone you thought was a guru, be beaten down with wet rope of his own braid: his OWN story.

This quackery called Climatology doesn’t even have predictability going for it.

“The predictive power of a scientific theory refers to its ability to generate testable predictions.[citation needed] Theories with strong predictive power are highly valued because they have practical applications.[citation needed] The concept of predictive power differs from explanatory and descriptive power (where phenomena that are already known are retrospectively explained by a given theory) in that it allows a prospective test of theoretical understanding.
Scientific ideas that do not confer any predictive power are considered at best “conjectures”, or at worst “pseudoscience”. Because they cannot be tested in any way, there is no way to determine whether they are true or false, and so they do not gain the status of “scientific theory”
=======

[quote name=”Ed Bo”]James,
This is getting painful. Tim’s point is that if you block outgoing power more than you block incoming, you will get a temperature increase.
[/quote]

• ### James Rollins

|

The Green House Gas Religionists did pick out the error where I just threw in the quickest quasi authoritative 33c/F number I could find when I saw Timothy Folkerts in here and decided to nestle in for a little series of hilarity invoking flybys…

that was a big one. And there was when another Reality Based Atmospheric blogger misspelled a word.. wow. That was a biggie.

Now we’re going to let those magical glitterings shine, aren’t we CONSENSUS!?

Uh Consensus?

You can hear a pin drop from you mouth breathing political internet trolls.

You’ve got nuthin. Like Michael Mann in a lawsuit,

when it comes to show your cards,

you’ve got nothing but fraud, error, and political consensus.

And the sands of time to bury you the same way it buried the piltdown chucklers.

• ### James Rollins

|

THAT’S the difference between you and me Ed Bo.

You HAVE to care about that typo so you ”seem sciency.

I don’t HAVE to care about it because I know within the precise context I’m gonna say it, it’s utterly irrelevant.

And I don’t have to worry about ”seeming” sciency after everyone sees you go through a few weeks rolling around in your befuddled head, how some government employee had you convinced he had discovered it was possible to immerse an object spinning in frigid nitrogen gas, removing .3 of the energy to surface sensors,

and have every one of them report it didn’t get colder from being washed in cold, thermally conductive nitrogen, oxygen, and phase change cooled, with water:

it got HOTTER.

LoL.

You go roll THAT around I explained to you how I came up with the 33/91.

Now YOU,

explain to everyone here in words of your own choosing,

about the object which was illuminated by a light, and had it’s surface covered with sensors: heat sensors.

a frigid, phase change evaporation/convection refrigerated nitrogen/oxygen atmosphere scrubbed the surface,

simultaneously, blocking almost a third of the original, source energy, from even ever arriving on the

planet being scrubbed of heat by the
ICY
COLD
ATMOSPHERIC
ENVELOPE
IN
CONSTANT MOTION
AROUND IT.

Explain to us so we all understand with the obviously granular clarity you understand the difference between 60F and 90F,

how every surface sensor on that spherical object washed by that frigid refrigerated nitrogen oxygen bath turned up 33C/60C HOTTER

than when there WAS no

frigid

refrigerated

nitrogen oygen bath.

Driving it’s temperature

[u][b]DOWN.[/b][/u]

The anti Goofy Gas people have spoken for awhile on the Goofiness of your religion:

show us all what it is about all that

that doesn’t break the laws of thermodynamics.

You’ve had days here to watch, you caught my grammatical error, so now that’s corrected, we can get to you explaining better than Tim Folkerts obviously is ever going to be able to,

how those laws of thermodynamics got broken and you never saw any of it happen when that COLD GAS BATH made that OBJECT it BLOCKED ENERGY FROM

get warmer than when there was NO GAS BATH BLOCKING ENERGY FROM the earth.

• ### James Rollins

|

The truth is Ed Bo I kinda thought it was different from the beginning because when I was reading what people were saying, they were saying 59.this and 60.that and one day when I decided to mock some Magic Gas believer I just punched in 33C = _F in Google.

That’s one of the most great and hilarious things about being right all along, I don’t have to give a sh** about that small change bu***it, I’m not the one who got caught

believing somehow immersion into frigid nitrogen laced with reflective molecules blocking almost a third source energy to something illuminated with a light,

had that act cause every heat sensor on it’s surface to show a temperature increase 33C/60F above what it was,

WITHOUT BEING WASHED by the FRIGID thermally conductive gas, [u][b]LoL[/b][/u]

• ### James Rollins

|

I checked you’re right: it’s 33C/60F.
You do realize your having to point out that grammatical error underscores, [u][i][b]THAT’S ALL YOU’VE GOT[/b][/i][/u?

[quote name=”Ed Bo”]James,

Thanks for demonstrating your continued complete cluelessness. In #160, I described your approach as, “Just find some equation, any equation will do, and plug some numbers into it without the least understanding of what things mean.” You just illustrated that perfectly.

Try this: Take -18C, convert it to F. Now take +15C convert it to F. Subtract your first F value from the second, and tell me the difference. Then figure out where you went wrong before.

Finally, reflect on why no one would have any confidence that you could perform even an elementary energy balance calculation, which involves figuring out what to add, what to subtract, and when, if you get such a trivial problem wrong even after your error has been pointed out to you![/quote]

• ### Ed Bo

|

James,

This is getting painful. You’re just digging yourself deeper and deeper. If you can’t understand your very basic temperature error after it’s been pointed out to you multiple times, and even shown the source of your error, then there is no way you can understand Tim’s point that if you block outgoing power more than you block incoming, you will get a temperature increase.

You don’t have the conceptual background, or I suspect even the basic cognitive capability, to analyze these matters properly. You are beclowning yourself.

• ### James Rollins

|

This thread has ended in dismal defeat for Green House Gas Religion Political Party

as the inept have tried to defend the impossible with the magical ever changing story about ”yeah but what if?”

The what if

is what if someone told you the freezing cold nitrogen/oxygen bath whipping heat from the surface of a sensor covered sphere,

had also in it a 1% shot of water and that together

the nitrogen/oxygen coolant compound and phase change refrigerant

while blocking thirty percent source heat,

had heated it past the point where it would have been, were it

NOT scrubbed vigorously by an evaporative/convective phase-change refrigeration cycle,

and hotter than even when
the full 100% of energy actually arrived
and nothing helped, to take it off.

It is Green House Gas Theory and it is what the people who believe in it, want you to agree sounds like it is perfectly sane

and that it doesn’t violate the laws of thermodynamics to wash something heated in a vacuum with frigid gas,

that act heating it 91F/33C OVER what it was in vacuum with FULL energy to it.

At tear
is sum magical, magical, glittering

It was done in computer models for years where the rule was plug in more CO2 and plug in warming:

when people found out how basic and worthless the models were, Al Gore had already declared he thought the whole thing was real so pro democratic, pro environmental political hacks are embarrassed.

They wanted to teach poor people they should sterilize themselves for goodness sake it’s like a snake pit of who is evil in modern Western Politics.

• ### Ed Bo

|

James,

Thanks for demonstrating your continued complete cluelessness. In #160, I described your approach as, “Just find some equation, any equation will do, and plug some numbers into it without the least understanding of what things mean.” You just illustrated that perfectly.

Try this: Take -18C, convert it to F. Now take +15C convert it to F. Subtract your first F value from the second, and tell me the difference. Then figure out where you went wrong before.

Finally, reflect on why no one would have any confidence that you could perform even an elementary energy balance calculation, which involves figuring out what to add, what to subtract, and when, if you get such a trivial problem wrong even after your error has been pointed out to you!

• ### James Rollins

|

In science there’s a reason your keycard only opens the janitorial cabinet.

[quote name=”Tim Folkerts”][/quote]Don’t
In science if you lack the ability to maintain an objective perspective you will keep fooling yourself over and over again.[/quote]

• ### James Rollins

|

Your need to be noticed has proof below:

http://is.gd/33_C_is_91_F

[quote name=”Ed Bo”]James,

When you keep making the high school mistake of equating a 33C change to a 91F change, even after your error has been pointed out to you, you are not likely to convince anyone that you have any clue what you are talking about.

And writing in the pattern of a schizophrenic isn’t confidence-inducing either…[/quote]

|

[quote name=”Tim Folkerts”]You are allowing that the energy going in could increase due to the presence of a colder object, yet the temperature would stay the same.[/quote]Don’t put words in my mouth. I didn’t say the temperature would stay the same. I said it wouldn’t go up (as a result).

In science if you lack the ability to maintain an objective perspective you will keep fooling yourself over and over again.

|

Don’t over think it.[/quote]Don’t UNDERthink it either! You are allowing that the energy going in could increase due to the presence of a colder object, yet the temperature would stay the same. [/quote]Don’t put words in my mouth. I didn’t say the temperature would stay the same. I said it wouldn’t go up (as a result).

In science if you lack the ability to maintain an objective perspective you will keep fooling yourself over and over again.
Don’t over think it.[/quote]Don’t UNDERthink it either! You are allowing that the energy going in could increase due to the presence of a colder object, yet the temperature would stay the same. [/quote]Don’t put words in my mouth. I didn’t say the temperature would stay the same. I said it wouldn’t go up (as a result).

In science if you lack the ability to maintain an objective perspective you will keep fooling yourself over and over again.

• ### Tim Folkerts

|

Don’t over think it.[/quote]

Don’t UNDERthink it either! You are allowing that the energy going in could increase due to the presence of a colder object, yet the temperature would stay the same. Where does your energy go?

I have given you numbers — what do you disagree with in the calculations? You only give me the same soundbite in return. You may think you are upholding the 2nd Law, but you are actually violating the 1st Law.

dU = dQ + dW

In Case 1, we started with dQ = 0 & dW =0, so dU was zero (ie temperature was constant). Adding the cold object has increase dQ and made it positive; dW is still zero; dU must increase (ie it will get warmer).

• ### Tim Folkerts

|

Carl says: [i]”Since no one will ever know based on empirical observations of an atmosphere free Earth both positions are positions of faith. “[/i]

I disagree strongly with this from a philosophical standpoint. Science is about coming up with universal laws.

* I can’t make earth 10% more dense, but I can still apply the laws of physics to predict that the acceleration of gravity would be 10% higher.
* I can’t move earth 10% farther from the sun, but I can still apply the laws of physics to predict that a year would last 1.1^(3/2) times as long.

Similarly, even though I can’t remove the atmosphere, I can use the laws of physics to predict what would happen. Now in this case, there would be lots of potential changes and we would have to define our hypothetical changes carefully. The calculations would be a little more involved than the orbital period example above.

But there will be one answer that is consistent with the laws of physics, and other answers that would NOT be consistent. So I feel it is a cop out to imply that “no one could know, and any answer is as good as any other answer”.

• ### Ed Bo

|

James,

When you keep making the high school mistake of equating a 33C change to a 91F change, even after your error has been pointed out to you, you are not likely to convince anyone that you have any clue what you are talking about.

And writing in the pattern of a schizophrenic isn’t confidence-inducing either…

• ### James Rollins

|

No it’s not,
Green House Gas Religion
Claims Water and CO2 are responsible for a 91F/33C difference in temperature of the earth vs their not being there.

I’m not here to speak about it to people who won’t know what’s being discussed so anything I teach you about it’s worthless except for artifact value. There are simple experiments using reverse pumps to pull air from spaces proving the less air is there, the hotter an object gets because of conductive/convective losses.

I don’t have a good source for you explaining how we know what happens with and without gases as part of a total sorry.

[quote name=”carlallen”]It’s impossible to test whether Green House Gas is Real by Experiment.[/quote]

• ### James Rollins

|

Seeing what happened to Timothy Folkerts in here is what keeps main stream

Green House Gas Belief Blogs

banning you for mentioning the atmosphere is a frigidly cold nitrogen/oxygen coolant compound bath immersing a sensor covered sphere otherwise heated with a light in a vacuum.

Since that’s the situation
that’s not to ever be talked about on Green House Gas Belief sites:

because the obvious violation of every thermodynamical principle known starts flying by like the tornado of lies that threw it all into the line of questions about the magic inversions in the first place.

The hangers on of this governmental generated religion believe there is entropic flow against concentration gradient. Literally Magic energy.

They believe if you block 30% energy to a heat sensor it gets hotter than if you allow it all to arrive.

They believe the energy handling and mass ratios of water vs nitrogen/oxygen don’t form the tropopause and regulate everything in it.

They believe the atmosphere doesn’t cool the earth at night but keeps it warm as the nitrogen, oxygen, and evaporating dew, ‘keep the earth warm until the sun comes up again.’

Condensing water out of the air onto physical objects, THEN evaporating it off in phase change refrigeration helped

”warm” you as you were out camping.

When the refrigerator is closed and the light goes out, the very same refrigerated air cooling it with the light on,
starts ”keeping it warm, till the light comes on again.”

You just can’t let them pin you down something to be eradicated because

AS YOU HAVE ALL SEEN THROUGH THE YEARS, ANOTHER GREAT PART of their POLITICAL MOVEMENT is to ERADICATE the INCONVENIENT

people they plan to sterilize or ”cut out of peer review altogether”

or whatever they plan to do depriving people, of due process. Rough politics is back in business kids, start practicing with smaller gloves and helmets, you’re in for a bruiser if you plan to take your civilization from government internet-message savvy lying, manipulators.

• ### carlallen

|

[i]”Do you believe immersing a spinning sphere, it’s surface covered with heat sensors, illuminated with a light until it reaches full temperature in vacuum, into cold fluid, makes it get warmer, than when there was NO conductive, evaporative, phase change refrigerated, frigid nitrogen/oxygen compound bath?”[/i]

A few posts back I made this comment [i]“Whether or not the surface is warmer or cooler with or without an atmosphere is a non sequitur.” [/i]

The reason that this question is a non sequitur (an irrelevant question) is because it cannot be tested empirically, since we cannot remove the atmosphere to see what effect that would have on the “heat sensors” in your thought experiment. In your mind the clear answer is that the “heat sensors” would register a higher temperature and in Tim’s mind the clear answer is that the “heat sensors” would register a lower temperature.

Which one of you is correct? Since no one will ever know based on empirical observations of an [b]atmosphere free[/b] Earth both positions are positions of faith. You are therefore simply countering his statement of faith with your own statement of faith. If your criticism of the “greenhouse effect” hypothesis is that it is mere religious belief, then your rebuttal should be more than just an expression of a counter belief.

Beyond that your thought experiment doesn’t even apply to the planet Earth since it did not evolve as an atmosphere free planet that suddenly acquired an atmosphere only after “heat sensors” where in position. The Earth/atmosphere thermodynamic system evolved together (or was created together if you prefer) and has always been a single thermodynamic unit. As such the air touching the earth’s surface has never been a “frigid nitrogen/oxygen compound bath.” The current mean temperature of surface level air is 15 °C; even during the last ice age the mean global temperature of surface level air was above freezing at about 5 °C.

The real question then is whether or not a change in the concentration of “greenhouse gases” from their [b]present[/b] level will affect the global mean near the ground air temperature. Neither those who believe in the “greenhouse effect” nor those who don’t should assume that they know the answer to that question based on what they [b]believe[/b] the temperature of the surface of the Earth would be if it had no atmosphere.

Carl

p.s. Thermometers sense “temperature”; they do not sense “heat”

|

[quote name=”Tim Folkerts”]Your own words support the conclusion that the “colder object” has just raised the temperature of the “warmer object” from 255 K to 300 K. [/quote]

A colder object can (and will) impart heat upon (will radiate energy to) a warmer object but a colder object cannot raise the temperature of a warmer object.

Don’t over think it. And don’t pretend to speak for others.

• ### James Rollins

|

And each person who reads about this gargantuan fraud being perpetrated has some responsibility to memorize it and pass it on and catch someone claiming they believe in Green House Gas Effect Warming.

For a few years Al Gore had friends in media who simply steamrolled the truth.

But now everyone is being taught this crap is real science, you need to memorize the three questions I showed you above for proving they’re illucid frauds.

I don’t have to care much everybody told us working scientists that they’d handle it.

Obviously it didn’t get handled. So whats going to have to happen is a lot of young, strong, reasonably able people, are going to have to spread the word about the hilarious inversion of all thermodynamical reality by this scam.

Explain it along with the part where you tell them, the reason it floated for some time was it was being fed into computer models: more carbon dioxided, plug in more heat: but [u][b]OBVIOUSLY[/b][/u]

Your civilization: you better step up and get into some peoples’ faces and make it run right or they’ll be having you answer the three questions I FIRST put up: NO

• ### James Rollins

|

There’s a whole spectrum of ways to make these climate clowns look like what they are. Magic Gas Hicks.

I don’t mean it in a mean way but when they told me the respected scientists I feel, would have told me the truth about scientific matters were to be fired so they could be replaced by the mouth breather class non thinker who’d vomit this Magic Gas into the face of a class of young paying scientific students

at what point are you supposed to be insulted and pissed off? When they tell you that you’re every evil name that they themselves actually embody?

It must be remembered there haven’t BEEN any ”No Green House Gas Effect” scientists embarrassed by ANY experients ANYWHERE and indeed

we all know: it’s pure

political

fraud

peddled by politically motivated saps who wish to tell the world,

the laws of hotter vs colder, more heat arrived vs less arrived,

have been vetoed by the Governments of the World.

Oh
No
They
Haven’t.

• ### James Rollins

|

They get triple furious when you remind them their stupid a&&&s just tried to scam past you that

“surface heat sensors show
more energy arriving on them
than when there was
more energy arriving on them”

LoL..

You talk about one p.o.’d magic gasser.

Obviously I said it that way here because it’s so funny when properly, put that way. I arranged it so it went together fast said that way but the main thin for you to remember is this:

Green House Gas Believers, think you can put a freezing bath around the earth which is otherwise heated by the full sun in vacuum:

and they believe it makes it WARMER
than when there was NO frigid bath

warmer than when there was NO removal of 20-30% energy ACROSS the BOARD.

Oh, No… it got hotter.

It was a math scam in computer models, they were plugging in more CO2 and also plugging in more warming.

They got CAUGHT and now the CAT is out of the bag they’re desperate the whole face of the earth doesn’t realize wtf just happened.

Ask one who believes in it to predict which direction the thermometer will go if you present him the presentation of the earth just as described above.

Watch him turn so red and humiliated he’s been a government scam monkey he’ll have to excuse himself and refresh his drink LoL

• ### James Rollins

|

There’s only one group of people on earth who claim they think cold fluid baths make heat sensors rise.

That’s the Government Scam Belief Climateurs –

-the people who’ve become known as “the climate clowns”

who act as though asking them

“We haven’t cracked a book yet, we’re just checking to see if you’re even rational” questions is unethical.

After they answer the questions incorrectly.

Scientist:

“Do you believe immersing a spinning sphere,
it’s surface covered with heat sensors, illuminated with a light until it reaches full temperature in vacuum,
into cold fluid,

makes it get warmer,

than when there was NO conductive, evaporative, phase change refrigerated, frigid nitrogen/oxygen compound bath?”
===========================
Green House Gas Believer: “Yes.”
===========================

Scientist: “Do you believe physically reflecting 20% energy of the light from a fire, away from sensors on an object, will make surface energy sensors all over it, indicate more energy from the fire is arriving, than when, more energy from the fire is arriving?

============================
Green House Gas Believer “Yes.”
============================

Scientist: “Do you believe adding more reflective media, to a reflective insulating bath already blocking 20% energy from a light,
until it is blocking 21% of light energy in, will make energy sensors indicate even more energy arriving, than when just before, when
more energy was arriving?”
============================
Green House Gas Believer: “Yes.”
============================

That’s the caliber intellect you’re here discussing atmospheric energy with.

=====================
I want you to remember this and see how it is done and go wherever you see somebody say they believe in the Green House Gas Effect.

• ### Tim Folkerts

|

Doesn’t it at least make you pause a moment when every physics prof and every physic textbook (not to mention engineering and meteorology) contradicts your interpretation of basic physics. Are you REALLY that sure that you are smarter about this than 1000’s of PhD scientists???

CASE 1: The sun imparts 240 W/m^2 of power to a blackbody surface in deep space. The temperature of that object will settle in at ~ 255 K.

CASE 2: We add a shell around the surface which is held at 250 K (the “colder object”). We still allow the sunlight in. We agree that the [i]”colder object can (and will) impart heat upon (will radiate energy to) a warmer object”[/i] (although I slightly object to the use of the word “heat” here), so the colder shell imparts ~ 221 W/m^2 of radiant energy to the surface of the warmer object. The sun still adds 240 W/m^2 of power, for a total of 461 W/m^2. The surface must radiate away 460 W/m^2 once a steady-state condition has been achieved, so it must warm to 300 K due to the combined power of the two.

Your own words support the conclusion that the “colder object” has just raised the temperature of the “warmer object” from 255 K to 300 K. (Of course, there still needs to be an “even hotter object” (the sun) to make this all work. )

• ### James Rollins

|

The reply I meant to make was to the drivel below about ”all my friends and me we think”

I obviously have to do this in my between work times so…

[quote name=”Tim Folkerts”]
Go talk to some professors at your local university and see if “everyone who understands thermodynamics” agrees with you. :-)[/quote]

• ### James Rollins

|

Have that sap immerse an object heated to full temperature in a vacuum,

into frigid nitrogen gas spinning and come up with the correct temperature offset polarity,

and he can claim he understands thermodynamics. Till then he’s your

scientific peer.

[quote name=”solvingtornadoes”][quote name=”Tim Folkerts”]”Can GHGs raise the temperature of the surface?” To me, the answer to the question is clearly yes.[/quote]That’s fine, Tim. Maybe someday you will come to grips with the fact that for everybody else that knows thermodynamics the answer to the question is, clearly, no.[/quote]

• ### James Rollins

|

By the way I’m not going to spend weeks in this thread repeatedly kicking some Green House Gasser’s head against the curb of reality, everyone sees clearly the entire scam was a computer modeling math scam: add more CO2, program in more warming.

Once it gets into the real world it evaporates like all the excuses used to keep people from simply calling s*** science what it is:

Fraud.

Until a climate clown heats an iron bar covered with sensors with a light to full temp in vacuum,

immerses the bar spinning into frigid, water-refrigerated nitrogen/oxygen coolant compound and shows the world it got hotter by 91F/33C.

When immersing objects warmed to full temp in vacuum, spinning, into freezing baths, makes the temperature rise,

it won’t be scam science

• ### James Rollins

|

What you have in the greeen house gas religion nut,

is a simple mind that can’t figure out the impossibility of heating an object with it’s surface covered in heat sensors,

through immersion spinning, into a freezing cold nitrogen/oxygen coolant bath that’s also refrigerated by a 1+ percent shot of water.

Through blockage of 30% source heat – light from a fire –

the sensor covered surface of the target object which no longer gets full heat from the fire but gets closer to 2/3rds,

is suddenly showing that “Every heat sensor on the surface is showing a combined temperature rise of 91F/33C due to being

IMMERSED IN FREEZING COLD REFRIGERATED FLUIDS
that
BLOCK ALMOST A THIRD HEAT ENERGY IN.

The Green House Gas Religion quack believes in that.

It was full temperature with 100% available energy load,

and then LIKE MAGIC

WASHING it in the FREEZING COLD NITROGEN/OXYGEN BATH while BLOCKING a THIRD HEAT TO IT

It’s the sound of the Government fraud – the men running the fraud have been caught time after time –

telling people that think you can heat something immersing it in cold fluid,

they’re ”special” because they can ”understand the magic”.

|

[quote name=”Tim Folkerts”]SolvingTornadoes — and maybe some day you will realize that when you say “everybody else”, you actually mean “a couple dozen ill-informed skeptics”.

Go talk to some professors at your local university and see if “everyone who understands thermodynamics” agrees with you. :-)[/quote]That you could find others that are as equally as confused as you is nothing I dispute.

It’s the sloppiness in your use of terminology that renders you forever confused on this issue. A colder object can (and will) impart heat upon (will radiate energy to) a warmer object but a colder object cannot raise the temperature of a warmer object. You have a mental block that prevents you from realizing that these two statements are not contradictory.

• ### Tim Folkerts

|

SolvingTornadoes — and maybe some day you will realize that when you say “everybody else”, you actually mean “a couple dozen ill-informed skeptics”.

Go talk to some professors at your local university and see if “everyone who understands thermodynamics” agrees with you. 🙂

|

[quote name=”Tim Folkerts”]”Can GHGs raise the temperature of the surface?” To me, the answer to the question is clearly yes.[/quote]That’s fine, Tim. Maybe someday you will come to grips with the fact that for everybody else that knows thermodynamics the answer to the question is, clearly, no.

• ### Tim Folkerts

|

Carl says:
[quote]Whether or not the surface is warmer or cooler with or without an atmosphere is a non sequitur. The real question is whether or not an increase in the concentration of certain gases, water vapor for example, causes an increase in the mean temperature of the air near the ground … [/quote]

I was addressing the more fundamental question “can GHGs in principle raise the temperature of the surface?” To me, the question is clearly yes.

The next question would be “everything else being the same, would more GHGs further increase the temperature?” Again I think the answer is pretty clearly yet.

Your question is a little more subtle. Water vapor in particular introduces all sorts of variability and feedbacks – more incoming sunlight absorbed, more outgoing IR absorbed, latent heat, cloud-formation. These are certainly important questions, but this level of detail is pointless if people can’t even agree on the most basic issues.

• ### David Cosserat

|

Tim says: [i]The “big hose” won’t help and indeed will slightly hinder the outflow, leading to a deeper water level in the tank (higher temperature).[/i]

Output throttling then, huh? :=)

• ### carlallen

|

[i]”With no atmosphere, the surface dumps the heat “straight to space”. With an atmosphere, the surface dumps the heat to the ‘refrigerator, but then the refrigerator still has to dump the heat to space.
“Getting rid of the middle man is more effient, and produces a lower surface temperature.”[/i]

This is the “surface is warmer because there is an atmosphere, therefore the greenhouse effect hypothesis is true” argument. Whether or not the surface is warmer or cooler with or without an atmosphere is a non sequitur. The real question is whether or not an increase in the concentration of certain gases, water vapor for example, causes an increase in the mean temperature of the air near the ground, because that particular temperature is predicted to rise as the concentration of these “greenhouse gases” increase.

I recently did several studies of the affect of ground level humidity on the temperature of the air at ~5 km in altitude using downloaded radiosonde data from the University of Wyoming. What I discovered is that on average [b]variations in ground level humidity readings[/b], even increases as high as 600-700%, [b]have little affect on the temperature of the air [i]at and above[/i] an altitude of ~5 km.[/b]

What does this mean? When water vapor decrease in the lapse rate that decrease puts downward pressure on the temperature of the entire lowest 5 km of the atmosphere. What one sees graphically is a fixed temperature at about 5 km that acts like the knee in dog-leg which becomes more acute as the ground level humidity increases.

This, of course, conflicts from the popular notion that latent heat transfer simply moves heat up the atmospheric column, since the entire lowest 5 km of moist air is cooler than the lowest 5 km of dry air. It also belies the popular notion that an increase in the humidity forces the temperature near the ground to become warmer.

Carl

• ### Tim Folkerts

|

@ Ed #160.

I think it is more a case of not appreciating differences in scale. In “small” heat engines or refrigerators, there is always some “other place” to dump excess heat — the atmosphere or a pond for example. This is typically taken for granted (eg the atmosphere acts as an “infinite cold reservoir” for my car engine and I don’t have to worry about how the atmosphere deals with this energy.)

But when the “refrigerator” is the size of the whole planet, that changes things. With no atmosphere, the surface dumps the heat “straight to space”. With an atmosphere, the surface dumps the heat to the “refrigerator”, but then the refrigerator still has to dump the heat to space.

Getting rid of the middle man is more effient, and produces a lower surface temperature.

Or to make an analogy, it is sort of like having a tank that has a constant input of water (solar energy). At the bottom, there is a hose to empty the tank (IR radiation to space). As some point, water_in = water_out and the water level would reach a steadystate (steady temperature).

James’ proposal is like swapping out the small hose for a larger hose (his “phase change refrigerator”). This sounds great until we realize that the larger hose [i]STILL has to empty through the smaller hose[/i] (the refrigerator still has to cool to space with IR radiation).

The “big hose” won’t help and indeed will slightly hinder the outflow, leading to a deeper water level in the tank (higher temperature).

• ### Ed Bo

|

Tim, Tim, go easy on the poor boy James! Any lad who thinks that a change of 33C is equivalent to a change of 91F is clearly out of his league when trying to do energy balance calculations — no idea what to add, what to subtract, or when. Just find some equation, any equation will do, and plug some numbers into it without the least understanding of what things mean.

• ### PatiO

|

[quote name=”Tim Folkerts”]
1) The “refrigerator” that you envision is entirely within the boundaries of the atmosphere. What happens when you open a refrigerator within a room? Will it cool the room? The evaporation you discuss is entirely within the boundaries of the atmosphere. What happens when you blow air over water in a closed system? Will the system cool?

Your “phase change refrigerator” cannot provide net cooling for the system. The “frigid air” will rapidly approach the temperatures dictated by conservation of energy.[/quote]
What total Tim Folkert Bull Shit. The energetic Solar insolation powers the phase change, latent heat production of liquid to vapour with absolutely.no temperature change. this low density cold water molecule rapidly rises into a higher colder atmosphere. There the aqueous vapour molecule converts that latent heat to sensible heat of every atmospheric gas molecule this heat in turn is radiated outward to very cold space, the quite cold now liquid water returns to warmer surface to cool that surface. Perhaps the most efficient phase change refrigerator ever devised! Now disposing of waste heat at a temperature lower than what produced this waste heat. What a wonderful planet!!!
Even 7 billion earthlings cannot “fuck it up” no-matter how hard the earthling governments try!!

[quote name=”Tim Folkerts”]2) If I am the one being “religious”, why are you the one repeating (even YELLING) phrases without trying to re-express your ideas in new ways. Yes — I know that because of reflection, the earth’s surface is “DEPRIVED OF A THIRD HEAT”; but you must know that because of the IR gases, the earth’s surface is being “deprived of a large amount of radiative cooling”. Only by looking at BOTH will we see the NET results and be able to determine what should happen to the earth’s surface temperature.[/quote]

This is Tim Folkerts insane nonsense of what a partially dispersive atmosphere may, or may not do! Not worthy of reply or comment!

• ### James Rollins

|

(FROM) ever arriving above,

sorta obviously lol

keep up the fight for scientific inegrity PSI

• ### James Rollins

|

You believed washing an object in frigid nitrogen with reflective molecules mixed in

While keeping a third of it’s source heat ever arriving.

Thank yew,
PurFesser Bore Hole.

• ### Tim Folkerts

|

Two last thought for you to ponder, James.

1) The “refrigerator” that you envision is entirely within the boundaries of the atmosphere. What happens when you open a refrigerator within a room? Will it cool the room? The evaporation you discuss is entirely within the boundaries of the atmosphere. What happens when you blow air over water in a closed system? Will the system cool?

Your “phase change refrigerator” cannot provide net cooling for the system. The “frigid air” will rapidly approach the temperatures dictated by conservation of energy.

2) If I am the one being “religious”, why are you the one repeating (even YELLING) phrases without trying to re-express your ideas in new ways. Yes — I know that because of reflection, the earth’s surface is “DEPRIVED OF A THIRD HEAT”; but you must know that because of the IR gases, the earth’s surface is being “deprived of a large amount of radiative cooling”. Only by looking at BOTH will we see the NET results and be able to determine what should happen to the earth’s surfce temperature.

• ### James Rollins

|

That’s the regard I have for science fraud and the frauds who try to persuade people cold nitrogen baths make things hotter than they are in vacuum.

• ### James Rollins

|

Your religion TEACHES sensor covered sphere surfaces

DEPRIVED OF A THIRD HEAT

WASHED in WATER-REFRIGERATED NITROGEN/OXYGEN COOLANT COMPOUNDS

Get HOTTER by 91F/33C

than if it were

NOT BEING WASHED in

FRIGID, NITROGEN BATH

and had it’s source heat RAISED NEARLY a THIRD.

• ### Tim Folkerts

|

James, I do like much of what you say, but take exception to a few things.

let me try once more to convince you that you are half right, but you are also missing half the story. Think about the radiation balance for the earth as a whole.

[quote]You live on earth: it’s a sphere, we’ve covered with sensors.
The earth’s suspended spinning, in a vacuum.
Light Pat: from a fire, – the sun is a fire – impinges on this globe which is just a rock: there’s nothing special.
[/quote]

Consider a boundary 100 km above an initially airless planet (either a real physical completely transparent surface or simply a mathematical surface (like in Gauss’s Law problems that you certainly did back in engineering or physics classes)). If we give the planet time to reach a steady-state condition, there will be exactly as much power entering that surface as leaving that surface. The temperature will have settled in to some predictable temperature at the surface.

Now we add some atmosphere inside the surface. This atmosphere has gasses that absorb and emit IR. This atmosphere is frigid. This atmosphere reflects 30% of the incoming sunlight.

So … we have 70% as much power entering the outer boundary. But we ALSO have less power leaving out FROM the surface. Hypothetically, if the frigid gas is 1/2 as warm as the surface, and can absorb/emit Ir over the full thermal IR range (ie from ~4 um to ~100 um), then the radiation to space will be 1/16th as much = 0.0625% as much.

Think about that — originally the incoming solar power averaged ~ 342 W/m^2 and the outgoing thermal IR averaged 342 W/m^2. After adding the atmosphere, 0.7 * 342 = ~ 240 W/m^2 enters on average, but only 0.0625*342 = 21 W/m^2 leaves!

The earth is gaining energy at a rate of 240-21 = 219 W/m^2! That means that SOMETHING must be warming up inside the boundary! Yes, adding this atmosphere that BLOCKS 30% of the incoming light will WARM the planet! The net effect can be either warming OR cooling depending on the exact properties of the atmosphere (eg how thick it is, how well it reflects incoming light; how well it absorbs thermal IR).

• ### James Rollins

|

Pat the universe described is the one you’re in.

You live on earth: it’s a sphere, we’ve covered with sensors.

The earth’s suspended spinning, in a vacuum.

Light Pat: from a fire, – the sun is a fire –

impinges on this globe which is just a rock: there’s nothing special.

It’s in a vacuum. You can not have the amount of energy on an object greater than when it is in vacuum, other factors equal.

Particularly factors like your atmospheric envelope blocking almost a third of energy even heatin the planet.

The entire premise of Green House Gas Religion is that instead of the freezing cold envelope

which is phase change refrigerated by the global water cycle

lowering the surface temperature of the earth,

BEFORE there was a cold bath.

An atmospheric envelope blocking almost a third of the original, heat source.

The premise is impossible on it’s very face.

• ### Pat Obar

|

[quote name=”James Rollins”]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Predictive_power

Green House Gas Religion teaches predictive power is a relic of the past in science.

There’s a series of articles on Wikipedia about proper scientific endeavor and what constitutes actual science. [/quote] Jome

Does Green House Gas Effect’s cold nitrogen bath
heating the earth while blocking a third of it’s source heat

sound like something that is going to ever give anyone believing in it,

predictive power?
=======
James Rollins” you describes a universe that may be way over yonder at some future time. Please describe the measurements made now, here, at this instant of time, that is all the understanding of this physical. You seem to promote some hypothetical nonsense that is not.

-snip nonsense-

Hey, I like it from FARK:
“Who do you call for bail money when you pull your mom’s gun on your sister’s boyfriend?”.
A valid description of all of Climatology. 😥

• ### James Rollins

|

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Predictive_power

Green House Gas Religion teaches predictive power is a relic of the past in science.

There’s a series of articles on Wikipedia about proper scientific endeavor and what constitutes actual science.

Does Green House Gas Effect’s cold nitrogen bath
heating the earth while blocking a third of it’s source heat

sound like something that is going to ever give anyone believing in it,

predictive power?
=======

“Hey I suspended a big sphere spinning, in a vacuum, covered with heat sensors; and I heated it with a light.

When the temperature got stable,

I introduced a freezing bath, of nitrogen and oxygen, and refrigerated the sphere using water.

I used so much gas 30% of the light from the source heat light,

wasn’t even getting to the sphere any more.”

—–
“What happened?”
—–

The temperature of every single heat sensor on the sphere,

SHOT UP: 91F/33C ABOVE WHAT IT WAS,

when I was heating it in VACUUM,

*WITHOUT COOLING it with frigid refrigerated gas*

*when there was 30% MORE ENERGY ARRIVING ON IT*
——-

It’s a con. From the v.e.r.y. first w.o.r.d.

A perhaps unreasonably large cut-out from the article but just read what it says: and look at what’s being floated by the people telling you that you had better believe in this or you’ll be sorry you didn’t cave in to the mob’s stupidity:

Predictive Power IS Science:

“The predictive power of a scientific theory refers to its ability to generate testable predictions.[citation needed] Theories with strong predictive power are highly valued because they have practical applications.[citation needed] The concept of predictive power differs from explanatory and descriptive power (where phenomena that are already known are retrospectively explained by a given theory) in that it allows a prospective test of theoretical understanding.

Scientific ideas that do not confer any predictive power are considered at best “conjectures”, or at worst “pseudoscience”. Because they cannot be tested in any way, there is no way to determine whether they are true or false, and so they do not gain the status of “scientific theory”
=======
Green House Gas Pseudo-Science is part of the ghetto of Academics who believe lying to children at school is a good thing if it means college professors get to keep spending money on faked work.

[quote name=”Pat Obar”]Way off topic but I like it from FARK:
“Who do you call for bail money when you pull your mom’s gun on your sister’s boyfriend?”.
A valid description of all of Climatology. :cry:[/quote]

• ### Pat Obar

|

Way off topic but I like it from FARK:
“Who do you call for bail money when you pull your mom’s gun on your sister’s boyfriend?”.
A valid description of all of Climatology. 😥

• ### Pat Obar

|

[quote name=”James Rollins”]Blogging about hot vs cold only seems complicated because of one reason:
somebody is trying to make it hard to tell the truth.
I leave you the words by one Tim Folkerts as evidence of all I say to yas.
4Good luck in your science careers and you remember: you get in the faces of these Magic Gassers and you laugh at them until their very name is even MORE associated with Area 51/Bigfoot/Green House Gas
than it is now.[/quote]

Please differentiate between the fantasy vs. physical if these three. Area 51 has a physical location on the surface of this Earth. Easy to locate, hard to get to, courtesy
your lying US government. Everything classified is but justification for lying. Your US government claims “enemies”, yet the same enemies know more about what is classified, than what is known by the US government. All of us serfs can observe the physical SCAM. Pitchforks and torches anyone?

• ### Pat Obar

|

[quote name=”Tim #125 Folkerts”]Pat says: [i]”Even with maximum emissivity flux is strictly limited to a radiative solid angle of 1 PI steradians.”[/i]

That is one error. A small section of a sphere (eg 1 m^2 on the earth’s surface) can radiate into an entire hemisphere (eg the half of the celestial sphere above the horizon). This hemisphere is 2π steradians, not π steradians.
[/quote]
Any particular area on the surface of a sphere with maximum emittance (black, Lambertian) can radiate only into a solid angle of 1 PI steradian, as the projected area decreases with cos theta into solid angle directions
from normal.
I still make inadvertent geometrical mistakes with thermodynamics! Thermodynamics is 92% geometry, Tim Folkerts refuses to consider geometry or do a proper integral. How idiotically arrogant.
“For your claim to literally be true, then glowing lava could only be seen from above, but not when looking down within 30 degrees of the horizon.”
Glowing lava is nearly black and Lambertian.
Nearly 100% emissivity in every direction above its surface. The only near black thing on the surface of this Earth. From any angle the elements of the retina, lens, and, iris;
completely determine the projected solid angle from the eye (micro-steradian for 20/20). The lava surface being Lambertian has the same radiance in every direction (W/(area x steradian). Using geometry it is easy to show that the normal surface area within that projected solid angle has increased by secant theta (60 degrees, 1/0.866). Please learn some geometry!

• ### Pat Obar

|

[quote name=”Tim #123 Folkerts”]James says “you’re the amateur who thought …”

1) [i]”energy traveled back and forth during entropic relaxation, without charge differential,[/i]
Yes, there are standing waves in a cavity, ie cavity radiation exists. Whether you think of this as photons flying back and forth, or EM waves traveling back and forth, there is indeed energy travelling back and forth./quote]

Please demonstrate “any” energy “travel” or photons “flying” within this isothermal cavity? Your photon is but a sometimes a useful concept, never to be demonstrated as physical. This useful “concept” helps understanding of the “action” resulting from the absorption of an electromagnetic wave packet (proportional to the frequency “1/t” of that wave packet) “wavelet”. Your use of the word “PHOTON” is ludicrous.

[quote name=”Tim #123 Folkerts”]James says “you’re the amateur who thought …”
2) [i]”and that objects having radiation impinge on them absorb them”[/i]
They can also reflect the radiation, or allow the radiation to pass through, but yes, objects can absorb radiation. That is how the sun warms you. That is how antennas pick up signals. Do you really mean to imply that objects can’t absorb photons???[/quote]

Your imaginary photons are in no way physical.
No object can absorb thermal radiative electromagnetic energy from the direction of a lower temperature thermally emissive/absorptive surface. Such energy is never produced from the lower temperature surface as such can “only” absorb from the higher temperature surface direction. Please demonstrate any of your ludicrous spouting.

• ### Pat Obar

|

[quote name=”Tim @121 Folkerts”] [quote] @120 Please demonstrate any of your nonsense spouting![/quote]

[b]I am simply trying to clarify YOUR nonsenese![/b] YOU claimed that (And I am quoting your words) “an atmosphere … can and does radiate twice the the energy to cold, of a [solid] surface.”

The only two options I could think of is that YOU mean:
1) [i]P/A = 2 sigma T^4[/i] from the atmosphere to the cold of outer-space
2) [i]P/A = sigma T^4[/i] in two different directions (ie up and down, ie “forward radiation” and “back radiation”.

So explain to us — do you mean (1) or (2) or (3) ( = something else that you can you now clarify)?[/quote]
Clearly I stated #1) Not your erroneous [i]P/A = 2 sigma (T^4[/i] but instead P/A = 2 sigma T^4 of the atmosphere minus to the T^4 of cold outer-space) a hemisphere. there is no thermal electromagnetic radiation in the direction of the hemisphere with convexity toward the centre of mass of the Earth, which is always at a temperature higher that of that part of the atmosphere.
From all parts of the lower hemisphere comes thermal electromagnetic radiation that is passed transparently to cold space. This passed radiation adds to the radiant emission into 2 PI steradians of space. A flat surface can only radiate into 1 PI steradian, when the maximum emittance, a black Lambertian surface. Please learn some geometry.

• ### James Rollins

|

Blogging about hot vs cold only seems complicated because of one reason:

somebody is trying to make it hard to tell the truth.

Why were the political NGOs and the governmental employees driving this constantly claiming the science is settled,

and then having every
single
posit they put forth

shown to be

(1)devised by fraud: pure, simple, admitted in private emails repeatedly. It stopped warming the scammers swore it was warmer every year.

(2)found to be not just wrong: but literally based on the concept of removing energy and having more energy show up on thermal sensors.

(3)claimed repeatedly to be too big to adequately disprove through experiment: RELATIVITY WASN’T TOO BIG
but a HOT ROCK SPINNING IN COLD NITROGEN, IS?

It’s crime and I knew it in 1988 or ‘9 whenever it was, when I saw Hansen lie to Congress about the lack of data available at the altitude he was at that moment discussing, the altitude of the tropopause: aircraft fly through it hundreds of times per day.

He claimed the balloon data was horrendously inadequate when everyone in instrumentation at the time knew it was practically speaking just about as fine a platform as you can ever want, to loft an instrument into the sky and have it beep back readings about everything it could perceive.
These were the readings that put men on the moon, and put people into orbit. There was huge hay made over some trivial make-believe problem and the answer? Not to simply redeploy proper equipment and take the readings.

Nope the answer was to claim IT’S UNKNOWABLE so YOU CAN’T DOUBT WHAT I (whomever government employee was bullsh*tting) SAY.

But a lot of us DID doubt what they say and we’ve caught them from Michael Mann to Phil Jones to Tom Wigley to Kevin Trenberth misinterpreting data and willfully deceiving the public.

This Folkerts clown is just one of the political true believers whose deepest joy is to lie for fraud.

So for those of you who are relatively new to this fraud, it was fraud from the beginning,

and is nothing more nor less than some people in the computer modeling scam grants whoring business, inverting the effects, of atmopheric activity.

I leave you the words by one Tim Folkerts as evidence of all I say to yas.

Good luck in your science careers and you remember: you get in the faces of these Magic Gassers and you laugh at them until their very name is even MORE associated with Area 51/Bigfoot/Green House Gas

than it is now.

• ### James Rollins

|

Above I was highlighting and deleting words. Part of it should have read”
=======
“every, single, energy-entangled orbital is not just full: it’s full to overflowing

hence emitting
through the very atomic orbitals
Green House Gas Religion teaches

are absorbing, with utter disregard for the fact the precise quantity of energy in a given mass

*being able to be calculated and measured*

depends on the precise number of captured photons within it’s energy entangling, electron orbitals,

*being of precisely known frequency hence energy density.”
=======
It’s a pretty big re-write but I use a track pad a lot of the time and it’s easy to mis-edit

• ### Tim Folkerts

|

This conversation seems to have run its course. I will say in passing …

1) James has completely given up on addressing the science. His recent posts have become a characture of the very things he is complaining about — people who don’t invoke correct science, but instead want to make things political or personal.

2) There are plenty of places where “alarmists” can legitimately be critiqued — being too political; putting too much reliance on models; not paying enough attention to things OTHER THAN GHGs; over-hyping the impacts of warming. But the basic thermodynamics of the GHGs is not at issue. GHGs have IR properties, and those IR properties influence energy flows. Ultimatelely GHGs help to warm the surface and cool the top of the atmosphere. Even “skeptical” scientiest readily agree with this (Spencer and Lindzen come to mind).

• ### James Rollins

|

Above I was highlighting and deleting words. Part of it should have read”
=======
“every, single, energy-entangled orbital is not just full: it’s full to overflowing

hence emitting
through the very atomic orbitals
Green House Gas Religion teaches

are absorbing, with utter disregard for the fact the precise quantity of energy in a given mass

*being able to be calculated and measured*

depends on the precise number of captured photons within it’s energy entangling, electron orbitals,

*being of precisely known frequency hence energy density.”
=======
It’s a pretty big re-write but I use a track pad a lot of the time.

• ### James Rollins

|

Everywhere you go it’s always the same bizarre stories of magical absorption of free radiation of frequency lower than that, already being emitted; even though emissions at that level heat or above proves by definition,

that every, single, energy-entangled orbital is not just full:

it’s full to overflowing hence emitting through the very atomic orbitals

Green House Gas Religion teaches

are absorbing merrily with utter disregard for the fact the precise quantity of energy in a given mass depends on the precise number of captured photons within it’s energy entangling, electron orbitals.

Nothing tells you more about the fraud of Green House Gas religion: the religion that started out as a mathematical computer modeling scam

than watching someone discuss the Green House Religion with the believer.

Nobody really likest to have to stoop to do it, but it does make a lot of things obvious when they’re forced to talk about what they really believe are the bounding laws that cause the universe to operate as it does:

where things in space have to be reflectively protected from light because they can’t cool well without a conductive, convective bath,

where water evaporating, changing phase to lift heat far from the surface it’s cooling, emit energy skyward to change phase yet again and fall to repeat that Phase Change Refrigeration Cycle,

on and on the obvious, willful lies, go.

It’s fraud generated by government employees defended by such as you see defending it here.

Green House Gas Science

is on par with “Pot is Heroin” science.

Ginned up in government cauldrons of error and bulls** then foisted en mass onto the public in a deluge of falsehoods and unprovable, contradictory assertions,
with carefully orchestrated pretense you can’t be cool,

till you believe like all the other true believers.

• ### James Rollins

|

What you see when you watch Green House Gas Scammers

is people dredged up from the corners of the internet who will try to propagate falsehood simply because there’s a public venue

to do it.

Pathologically lying for ”the cause” as the Climate Gate email scammers called it.

To try to prop up a later, politically supported, mathematics scam discovered when an inconvenient truth the movie got made,

popularizing the findings, of the faked research.

That’s why everyone associated with it acts and talks like they’re an intoxicated political zombie without conscience.

Evidence from their own words to the words of those checking their story points to: fraud.

Nothing but,
nothing to mitigate it with ”maybe they didn’t know.”

It was a mathematical models fraud that got exposed accidentally when a politician tried to exploit it’s potential political value as an ecology interest boosting vehicle for his followers.

And utter lack of concern for the truth is what you see in here trying to prop it up.

• ### Tim Folkerts

|

[quote]You’re just a mentally ill scammer trying to claim the well recorded phase change refrigerating storm system, heats the earth.[/quote]

You are getting very sloppy with your terminology. Consequently, you confuse what I said. I never said anything even vaguely like “storm systems heat the earth”!

[b]1) “HEAT”.[/b] I haven’t claimed anything recently about “heat” because heat = Q has a very specific meaning in thermodynamics. If I were to claim aynything about heat, I would say that the sun heats the surface and the atmosphere and space. The surface heats both the atmosphere and space. The atmosphere heats only space.

[b]2) “THE EARTH”.[/b] It is important to clarify what you mean. Do you mean specifically the solid/liquid surface, or are you also including the atmosphere as part of “the earth.”

Conduction, convection and radiation ALL carry energy FROM the surface TO the atmosphere. As such, all three serve to COOL the surface and WARM the atmosphere.

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

So if you mean “the earth excluding the atmosphere”, then storms COOL the earth (and warm the atmosphere). For example, thunderstorms are driven by warm air rising (which warms the atmosphere), and cool air falling (which cools the surface). After the storm has passed, it is invariably cooler at the surface.

If you mean “the earth including the atmosphere”, then storms neither warm nor cool “the earth” as a whole — they simply move energy around, warming some parts and cooling other parts. All “warming” of the earth as a whole is via sunlight; all “cooling” of the earth as a whole is via IR radiation to space.

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

SUMMARY: if you are going to complain about what I say, please address things I *actually* said.

• ### James Rollins

|

To radiate it to the upper atmosphere hence space.

That’s what phase change refrigeration is:

cooling through evaporation
transporting heat in vapor to distant location
emitting it away from the cooled object
changing phase to fall and do it again.

• ### James Rollins

|

Even the rapid transport cooling of a phase change storm lifting prodigious heat from the surface to radiate it from a place far above it

it’s a heater.

No it’s a refrigerator and the atmosphere itself IS that refrigerator, HEATING ITSELF as it COOLS the PLANET.

• ### James Rollins

|

Tim Folkerts is too simple minded to realize the tops of those clouds create the platform from which radiation occurs miles above the surface after the power of evaporation cooled it.

Once again it’s simple minded shameless fraudulent claims of magical physics that denies the cooling effect of phase change refrigeration of an object,

evaporating coolant, transporting it to a distant location, releasing the heat there.

It’s a giant heater to him.

• ### James Rollins

|

You’re just a ([b]SNIPPED[/b] out the personal attack) trying to claim the well recorded phase change refrigerating storm system, heats the earth.

[quote name=”Tim Folkerts”]very briefly … James says: [i]”the phase change refrigeration of the atmosphere “[/i]
This is, of course, backwards. There is evaporative cooling (“phase change refrigeration) OF THE SURFACE due to the latent heat of water. But that means that there is “phase change WARMING” of the ATMOSPHERE as the water re-condenses to form clouds.

The actual cooling of the atmosphere is by passive IR radiation to space. (And a tiny bit by contact the few times the surface is actually colder than the air.)

Basically, James is arguing from a poor analogy. He compounds this with his incorrect understanding of refrigeration.

[Off to work. Have fun! 🙂 ][/quote]

[b]ADMINISTRATOR:[/b] Mr. Rollins stop the personal attacks.

• ### Tim Folkerts

|

very briefly … James says: [i]”the phase change refrigeration of the atmosphere “[/i]
This is, of course, backwards. There is evaporative cooling (“phase change refrigeration) OF THE SURFACE due to the latent heat of water. But that means that there is “phase change WARMING” of the ATMOSPHERE as the water re-condenses to form clouds.

The actual cooling of the atmosphere is by passive IR radiation to space. (And a tiny bit by contact the few times the surface is actually colder than the air.)

Basically, James is arguing from a poor analogy. He compounds this with his incorrect understanding of refrigeration.

[Off to work. Have fun! 🙂 ]

• ### David Cosserat

|

Carl at #107

Carl,

Thank you for your comprehensive and constructive responses to my reply at #75 concerning your original #72.

I agree with your point that gravitational potential is a form of external mechanical energy and therefore cannot be traded against the internal kinetic energy of a system. The PE gained from the expenditure of the rocket fuel in my example is lost, as you rightly say, by the external work done on the environment as it returns to the surface. This process is entirely unrelated to the internal KE of the system on board.

On a point of detail, when I said that the “mass/unit volume reduces in proportion to the height above the ground” I was not meaning to refer to what would happen to a particular parcel of air at ground level if it were to be [i]elevated[/i], for example up to 10km. Rather I was suggesting that each cubic metre of air in a hypothetical [i]motionless[/i] vertical stack of such air cubes, from the ground up to 10km, would be lower in pressure than the previous cube, due to the reducing mass of air above. Therefore, if (and only if!) Doug’s isentropic hypothesis is correct, the KE contained in each successive cubic metre going up the atmospheric column would be reduced compared with the KE in the previous one.

So on this I think we both agree that Doug was wrong to suggest that the KE in each successive cubic metre of air as one ascends the atmospheric column gets lower because its PE is higher.

Turning to my characterisation of Doug’s hypothesis that “a constant energy flowing up the atmospheric column induces a declining (and isentropic) temperature profile”, I should have been more careful in my use of the word “up”. Doug’s whole thesis as I understand it is that the atmospheric column tends towards an isentropic profile irrespective of where energy enters the atmosphere and irrespective of whither it flows. He is claiming (I think!) that energy will move by diffusion [i]either up or down[/i] as necessary to meet the imperative of his ‘isentropic profile’. I am not sure that he has claimed that this diffusive flow can be “downward against the temperature gradient” as you put it. If he is indeed claiming that then I would disagree with him. (One of the problems is that we are more than a little bit in the dark, at least until Doug’s book bursts upon the literary scene.)

I also agree with your important point that the temperature of a unit volume of gas isn’t just dependent on its pressure (and hence on its mass). In fact in an open system like the atmosphere, with a fixed flow of radiant energy in from the Sun and out to space, the temperature of any given cubic metre of atmosphere depends entirely on the local conditions, only one of which is pressure and another is the rate at which energy flows through it.

P.S. Your further comment at #117 has given me considerable pause for thought. I will reply when I have had time to think it through thoroughly. In the meanwhile thanks for your valuable contributions. I am merely an investigating professional scientist/engineer from another field. It’s good at last to be interacting with a fellow seasoned professional.

• ### James Rollins

|

Tim Folkerts you need to tell me so I, and any other competent scientist or student can understand,

the location you claim you get almost a third of the energy of the sun from with one Atmosphere’s pressure of freezing cold, water refrigerated, nitrogen/oxygen coolant compound.

Be very clear Folkerts. It’s a hot rock sprayed with cold gas.

Sound convincing.

• ### James Rollins

|

Folkerts is a revealed utter fraud.

• ### James Rollins

|

Matter of fact, I heartily encourage you all to read the last loop of looptard he spammed in my direction, and imagine, standing in front of a group of people at a party, saying it.

Woah. LoL. Since I quoted him it’s written extra large, and note how – well, it might not be every phrase this time,
but notice how often he blithely goes on describing these fantastically idealized environments where he completely forgets he assigns one set of values to an entity for one angle of his spam,

and then just redefine it as something completely different, a few sentences later in the same conversation.

Bottom line is:

He tried to tell you, blocking source energy from a fire to a sphere covered with sensors,

simultaneously immersing it spinning in cold nitrogen/oxygen compound refrigerated with water

made the temperature of the earth, rise.

91F/33C over what it’s temp will be without a frigid refrigerated gas bath

with 100% illumination input: in vacuum.

Cold bath blocking 30% source energy
makes object warmer than
No cold bath, and 100% source heat.

• ### James Rollins

|

Folkerts’ grasp of atmospheric mechanics

is that he doesn’t realize the phase change refrigeration of the atmosphere with water.

He also doesn’t understand most scientists are engineers; or at least that all engineers are scientists; we working scientists make the world run.

Research scientists of course are the kinds who thought you could block 22% total energy from a fire

and make the spherical object you shaded, have all it’s heat sensors rise to a temperature above what it was,

in vacuum –

not being washed by frigid nitrogen.
not having 30% source energy vanish.

The endless loopy spam of the deluded sociopath might be long, but it isn’t interesting long,

once you realize he thought the kind of goofy stuff we all – at least we regulars – see him say not occasionally –

but daily.

[quote name=”Tim Folkerts”]James,

1) No matter what the context, photons DO travel back and forth even between walls with no temperature difference. It would be simpler if you simply admitted you were wrong, rather than trying to change the subject.

But since you DO want to go back to the main point …

2) James says: [i]”… doesn’t make spheres heated in vacuum be warmed through immersion in frigid, refrigerated nitrogen.”[/i]
There are two misleading adjectives here. 1) Compared to the alternative (3K space) the atmosphere is not “frigid” but instead it is downright balmy.
2) the atmosphere is not “refrigerated”. “Refrigeration” implies some machine actively cooling something. Rather, the atmosphere is [i]passively [/i]cooled by radiation to space.

Let’s use your context. A sphere is heated in a vacuum (where the walls of the vacuum chamber are 3 K). Since you don’t specify, let’s suppose the sphere has an area of 1 m^2 with a 240 W electric heater. If the surface is close to a black body, its temperature will be ~ 255 K.

Let’s now consider two extremes for the atmosphere.

A) if the atmosphere is completely transparent to thermal IR, then the atmosphere is not be passively cooled at all. It will simply take on the temperature of the one object it is in contact with — the 255 K sphere. Such an atmosphere has no effect at all.

B) If the atmosphere is completely opaque to thermal IR, then the top of the atmosphere will settle in at a “frigid” 255 K (becasue we need to still radiate the 240 W to space). The surface will be warmer that 255 K since we know that 240 W of heat is moving from the surface to the topf of the atmosphere, and heat will only move if there is a temperature gradient. (The exact temperature will depend on details of sizes of the objects, the details of the atmosphere).

[Since you seem to trust engineers more than scientists, find a friend who is a chemical engineer and ask him to go over this with you. See if he has any objections to my reasoning.)[/quote]

• ### Tim Folkerts

|

James,

1) No matter what the context, photons DO travel back and forth even between walls with no temperature difference. It would be simpler if you simply admitted you were wrong, rather than trying to change the subject.

But since you DO want to go back to the main point …

2) James says: [i]”… doesn’t make spheres heated in vacuum be warmed through immersion in frigid, refrigerated nitrogen.”[/i]
There are two misleading adjectives here. 1) Compared to the alternative (3K space) the atmosphere is not “frigid” but instead it is downright balmy.
2) the atmosphere is not “refrigerated”. “Refrigeration” implies some machine actively cooling something. Rather, the atmosphere is [i]passively [/i]cooled by radiation to space.

Let’s use your context. A sphere is heated in a vacuum (where the walls of the vacuum chamber are 3 K). Since you don’t specify, let’s suppose the sphere has an area of 1 m^2 with a 240 W electric heater. If the surface is close to a black body, its temperature will be ~ 255 K.

Let’s now consider two extremes for the atmosphere.

A) if the atmosphere is completely transparent to thermal IR, then the atmosphere is not be passively cooled at all. It will simply take on the temperature of the one object it is in contact with — the 255 K sphere. Such an atmosphere has no effect at all.

B) If the atmosphere is completely opaque to thermal IR, then the top of the atmosphere will settle in at a “frigid” 255 K (becasue we need to still radiate the 240 W to space). The surface will be warmer that 255 K since we know that 240 W of heat is moving from the surface to the topf of the atmosphere, and heat will only move if there is a temperature gradient. (The exact temperature will depend on details of sizes of the objects, the details of the atmosphere).

[Since you seem to trust engineers more than scientists, find a friend who is a chemical engineer and ask him to go over this with you. See if he has any objections to my reasoning.)

• ### James Rollins

|

Changing the subject to tuned cavities

doesn’t make sensor covered spheres illuminated in vacuum, hotter when immersed in frigid refrigerated nitrogen.

Making simple minded statements so you have to be reminded the context within which the arguments flow,

doesn’t make spheres heated in vacuum be warmed through immersion in frigid, refrigerated nitrogen.

You believed it was possible to raise the temperature of an object by removing it’s source heat.

You will not recover from such illucidity changing the subject a dozen times.

Your Green House Gas Religion taught you that an object
heated to full temperature in vacuum through illumination with light from a fire,

got hotter when it was immmersed spinning in a frigid nitrogen/oxygen bath refrigerated with water.

The idiocy you’re barking is never going to change, and the people ridiculing you, are never going to end.

There are far more working competent scientists on this earth than there are people who will argue that it’s possible to remove source heat to raise temperature.

[quote name=”Tim Folkerts”]James says “you’re the amateur who thought …”

1) [i]”energy traveled back and forth during entropic relaxation, without charge differential,[/i]
Yes, there are standing waves in a cavity, ie cavity radiation exists. Whether you think of this as photons flying back and forth, or EM waves traveling back and forth, there is indeed energy travelling back and forth.

2) [i]”and that objects having radiation impinge on them absorb them”[/i]
They can also reflect the radiation, or allow the radiation to pass through, but yes, objects can absorb radiation. That is how the sun warms you. That is how antennas pick up signals. Do you really mean to imply that objects can’t absorb photons???[/quote]

[quote name=”Tim Folkerts”]James says “you’re the amateur who thought …”

1) [i]”energy traveled back and forth during entropic relaxation, without charge differential,[/i]
Yes, there are standing waves in a cavity, ie cavity radiation exists. Whether you think of this as photons flying back and forth, or EM waves traveling back and forth, there is indeed energy travelling back and forth.

2) [i]”and that objects having radiation impinge on them absorb them”[/i]
They can also reflect the radiation, or allow the radiation to pass through, but yes, objects can absorb radiation. That is how the sun warms you. That is how antennas pick up signals. Do you really mean to imply that objects can’t absorb photons???[/quote]

• ### Tim Folkerts

|

Pat says: [i]”Even with maximum emissivity flux is strictly limited to a radiative solid angle of 1 PI steradians.”[/i]

That is one error. A small section of a sphere (eg 1 m^2 on the earth’s surface) can radiate into an entire hemisphere (eg the half of the celestial sphere above the horizon). This hemisphere is 2π steradians, not π steradians.

Certainly the radiation would be stronger heading straight up from the surface but that is not what you claim. For your claim to literally be true, then glowing lava could only be seen from above, but not when looking down within 30 degrees of the horizon.

[i][I suspect that your point is related to the fact that — when looking head-on — a flat disk of area π r^2 emits the same power as a hemisphere of area [b]2[/b] π r^2. That could be the factor of two you find. But that is simply speculation.] [/i]

• ### Pat Obar

|

[b]I am simply trying to clarify YOUR nonsenese![/b] YOU claimed that (And I am quoting your words) “an atmosphere … can and does radiate twice the the energy to cold, of a [solid] surface.”

The only two options I could think of is that YOU mean:
1) [i]P/A = 2 sigma T^4[/i] from the atmosphere to the cold of outerspace
2) [i]P/A = sigma T^4[/i] in two different directions (ie up and down, ie “forward radiation” and “back radiation”.

So explain to us — do you mean (1) or (2) or (3) ( = something else that you can you now clarify)?[/quote]

It is all geometrically Number 3. A physical that you refuse to accept. Please learn some solid geometry! This has nothing to do with temperature only geometry of the surface on a sphere. Even with maximum emissivity flux is strictly limited to a radiative solid angle of 1 PI steradians. an atmospheric gas is not so limited. the cross-sectional area of this atmospheric gas “can” radiate into 4 PI steradians. This atmosphere does not do that. this atmosphere only radiates flux into the colder outer hemisphere. There is no flux even one pico-watt emitted in the direction of the under higher temperature. Please try to demonstrate any error!

• ### Tim Folkerts

|

James says “you’re the amateur who thought …”

1) [i]”energy traveled back and forth during entropic relaxation, without charge differential,[/i]
Yes, there are standing waves in a cavity, ie cavity radiation exists. Whether you think of this as photons flying back and forth, or EM waves traveling back and forth, there is indeed energy travelling back and forth.

2) [i]”and that objects having radiation impinge on them absorb them”[/i]
They can also reflect the radiation, or allow the radiation to pass through, but yes, objects can absorb radiation. That is how the sun warms you. That is how antennas pick up signals. Do you really mean to imply that objects can’t absorb photons???

• ### Tim Folkerts

|

@ Carl Allen #117

Bravo!

• ### Tim Folkerts

|

[b]I am simply trying to clarify YOUR nonsenese![/b] YOU claimed that (And I am quoting your words) “an atmosphere … can and does radiate twice the the energy to cold, of a [solid] surface.”

The only two options I could think of is that YOU mean:
1) [i]P/A = 2 sigma T^4[/i] from the atmosphere to the cold of outerspace
2) [i]P/A = sigma T^4[/i] in two different directions (ie up and down, ie “forward radiation” and “back radiation”.

So explain to us — do you mean (1) or (2) or (3) ( = something else that you can you now clarify)?

• ### Pat Obar

|

[quote name=”Tim Folkerts”]Pat says:
[quote]… you refuse to consider that an atmosphere, without a surface but only a cross sectional area, can and does radiate twice the the energy to cold, of a surface with the same normal emissivity, at every wavelength.[/quote]

hmmmm … so the atmosphere radiates energy up and radiates energy down, so that it radiates twice as much total energy as the sold surface of the earth?

What do you call that downward radiation? “Back-radiation”? Can this “back-radiation” that you claim warm the surface below it as it radiates down? 😉 [/quote]
Please identify and demonstrate any thermal
radiative flux in the direction of a higher temperature.

Or did you mean something else? Like a solid blackbody would radaite sigma T^4 to space, but a blackbody gas would radiate 2 sigma T^4 to space?
A surface as a black Lambertian could only radiate to a colder with PI steradians. A gas with only a cross sectional area radiates equally into all 2 PI steradians of the outward flux. No energy (FLUX) is ever radiated in any direction toward a higher temperature.

|

[quote name=”Tim Folkerts”]so the atmosphere radiates energy up and radiates energy down[/quote]
All matter (at different rates) is emitting radiation (or at some stage in the process thereof) at all times and in any and all directions. This is a given. It’s a backdrop of our reality from which we cannot escape. Everybody knows this. The rules of thermodynamics never stray outside the well defined boundaries of this reality. This is thermodynamics 101. You are trying to debate something that your opponents have conceded a long time ago.[quote name=”Tim Folkerts”]Can this “back-radiation” that you claim warm the surface below it as it radiates down?[/quote]
In the absolute sense, the answer to your question is, yes, of course. But the rules of thermodynamics were not set within the context of the assumption of an absolute universe. And that’s because . . . WE DON’T LIVE IN AN ABSOLUTE UNIVERSE WE LIVE IN A RELATIVE UNIVERSE.

Back-radiation can’t cause NET warming. In a relative universe all that matters is NET. The fact that the photons are actually moving in both directions is trivial.

If you make arguments from the perspective of the assumption of an absolute universe and the perspective of your audience is that of a relative universe you will find yourself very confused, not knowing why. Sound familiar?

• ### Pat Obar

|

[quote name=”carlallen”][i]“The system Doug is referring to is NOT CLOSED. It continually absorbs incoming energy from the Sun; and its GHGs near the top of the atmosphere continually radiate that energy back out to space . . . a constant energy flow up the atmospheric column induces a declining (and isentropic) temperature profile.”[/i]

What you are describing is called Steady-State Thermal Transmission. The Steady-State Thermal Transmission properties of various building materials are determined via testing in what is called a “hot box”. The “hot box” has two chambers, one hot and one cold and the building material is placed in between the two and left there until the temperatures on either side of the material stops changing. At that point “steady-state thermal transmission” exists and a stable temperature differential will be present between one side of the material and the other.

It is the attempt to apply the Steady-State Thermal Transmission construct to the atmosphere that has given rise to the notion that the atmosphere acts like insulation and that “greenhouse gases”, in essence, raise the R-value of the atmosphere. You have no doubt heard it said that when the concentration of “greenhouse gases” increase the atmosphere becomes a better insulator. Carl[/quote]

Carl Allen Brehmer
AGAIN THANK YOU,
Can you give your thoughts on the radiative heat transfer situation where thermal conductivity is not proportional to 1/length;
(resistivity), but is a constant non dissipative impedance of 377 ohms, independent of distance. Nor is the potential difference creating such flux linear with temperature difference. With thermal radiative Flux the potential for such energy transfer is dependent on the temperatures of both the emitter and the absorber. The potential difference of each temperature raised to the forth power. This is the only potential. that limits energy flux with a constant impedance from the higher temperature surface, in the direction of higher temperature to lower temperature surface. NO other thermal radiative flux has ever been detected, observed, or measured. ALL fantasy!
There is no spontaneous heat transfer to a higher temperature. Attempted violation of 2LTD. Thank you

• ### carlallen

|

[i]“ . . . a constant energy flow up the atmospheric column induces a declining (and isentropic) temperature profile.”[/i]

Within this statement you parenthetically label the temperature profile that is present within the troposphere “isentropic” from which I infer that you believe that “isentropy” is an equilibrium state. Indeed, within a gas column that progressively becomes less dense with altitude the temperature has to drop in order for the entropy of the gas to remain constant. Conversely, in an isothermic gas column within a gravitational field the entropy will increase with the altitude because the same kg of gas at the same temperature will be occupying a larger volume of space, but here is the question. “Is thermal equilibrium an ‘isothermic’ state or is it ‘isentropic’ state, because clearly a column of gas within a gravitational field cannot be both simultaneously?”

The second law of thermodynamics asserts that the entropy of the universe tends to increase, not that the entropy between two bodies of matter in thermal contact and in thermal equilibrium will have equal entropy (be isentropic.)

Within your atmospheric column there is “a constant energy flow.” Is this not because the thermal energy within that column is continually seeking (but never achieves) maximum entropy, i.e., an isothermic state? If isentropy were an equilibrium state would not energy stop flowing once the dry lapse rate was achieved? As it is spontaneous energy flow through the atmospheric column is working to decrease the dry lapse rate. If isentropy was an equilibrium state than energy would only flow up the atmospheric column when the lapse rate exceeded 9.8 C/km. Weather balloon sounding almost always show the lapse rate to be < 9.8 C/km and is even less in the humid lower 4-5 km of the troposphere. Carl

• ### Tim Folkerts

|

Pat says:
[quote]… you refuse to consider that an atmosphere, without a surface but only a cross sectional area, can and does radiate twice the the energy to cold, of a surface with the same normal emissivity, at every wavelength.[/quote]

hmmmm … so the atmosphere radiates energy up and radiates energy down, so that it radiates twice as much total energy as the sold surface of the earth?

What do you call that downward radiation? “Back-radiation”? Can this “back-radiation” that you claim warm the surface below it as it radiates down? 😉

Or did you mean something else? Like a solid blackbody would radaite sigma T^4 to space, but a blackbody gas would radiate 2 sigma T^4 to space?

• ### Tim Folkerts

|

Carl says:
[quote]An increase in the concentration of “greenhouse gases” can be observed to increases the atmosphere’s emissivity such an increase can only enhance the atmosphere’s “net radiation loss rate.”[/quote]

It is more subtle than that. As you increase the emissivity of the atmosphere, you will indeed enhnace the “net radiation loss rate” [i]from the top-most layers[/i]. But that top-most layer is ~ 220 K. The ~220 K layer is radiating more than it was before – but such cold air can never radiate well. And the extra radiation from the ~ 220 K layer is at the expense of even stronger radiation from lower layers at 250 K or 300 K that gets blocked on the way out.

The net result is LESS radiation to as GHGs get added. I know it sounds backwards, but think it through carefully. (Maybe look at some satellite spectra of outgoing IR radiation, and imagine what the spectra would look like with more GHGs or with less GHGs.)

• ### L.J.Ryan

|

[quote]On the other hand , a well – insualted box ( eg my house ) with a continuous input of power ( eg my furnace set to full power ) will warm simply by closing off paths for heat to leak out ( eg shutting the windows during the winter ).[/quote]

If I understand the GHE correctly you can eliminate your furnace altogether. All you have to do is insulate the walls and ceiling of your basement from radiant loss (GHG) and start collecting IR. Your ~12C basement floor will pump out the thermal radiation, and since the incoming terrestrial power = outgoing IR power and “blocking more surface radiation will raise the temperature”…you’ve got yourself a geothermal furnace.

Do I have this right?

• ### Tim Folkerts

|

[quote][quote]we all know that the temperature is determined both by how much energy is added AND by how easily the energy can leave.[/quote]
So a well insulated box will warm simply by closing it?[/quote]

Look at what you had just quoted!

For any object — such as a well-insulated box — “temperature is determined both by how much energy is added AND by how easily the energy can leave”. If you don’t add any energy to the warm box, then of course the temperature will drop at a rate determined by how easily the energy can “leak” to the cooler surroundings.

On the other hand, a well-insualted box (eg my house) with a continuous input of power (eg my furnace set to full power) will warm simply by closing off paths for heat to leak out (eg shutting the windows during the winter).

This sort of comparison of the heated earth to an unheated box is an incorrect analogy that I am amazed continues.

• ### carlallen

|

[i]“The system Doug is referring to is NOT CLOSED. It continually absorbs incoming energy from the Sun; and its GHGs near the top of the atmosphere continually radiate that energy back out to space . . . a constant energy flow up the atmospheric column induces a declining (and isentropic) temperature profile.”[/i]

What you are describing is called Steady-State Thermal Transmission. The Steady-State Thermal Transmission properties of various building materials are determined via testing in what is called a “hot box”. The “hot box” has two chambers, one hot and one cold and the building material is placed in between the two and left there until the temperatures on either side of the material stops changing. At that point “steady-state thermal transmission” exists and a stable temperature differential will be present between one side of the material and the other. From the temperature readings obtained one can determine the R-value and U-value of the building material, which quantify the [b]“conductivity”[/b] of the material.

It is the attempt to apply the Steady-State Thermal Transmission construct to the atmosphere that has given rise to the notion that the atmosphere acts like insulation and that “greenhouse gases”, in essence, raise the R-value of the atmosphere. You have no doubt heard it said that when the concentration of “greenhouse gases” increase the atmosphere becomes a better insulator.

The inadequacy of attempting to define the thermodynamics of the atmosphere using the Steady-State Thermal Transmission construct is three-fold:

1) The conductivity of air is irrelevant to the atmosphere’s ability to cool since heat is not being [b]conducted[/b] out into space.
2) The temperature lapse rate that evolves within a “hot box” is due to a delay in thermal conduction, whereas the temperature lapse rate that evolves within the atmosphere is due to the adiabatic process.
3) Since the air is transmissive, heat is being lost to space via the emission of IR radiation at every altitude, at least under clear skies. In fact, the “net radiation loss rate” from the air at sea level is much higher than the “net radiation loss rate” from the cooler and much less emissive air at the tropopause.

The construct that you describe has thermal energy entering the atmosphere at the bottom, moving its way through the atmosphere and then leaving out of the “top of the atmosphere.” The implausibility of that construct lies in the fact that the air at the tropopause is on average -60 °C and it emissivity is only about ~0.2 because it is so thin. It therefore only emits an average of ~25 W/m2 of IR radiation of which only ~3 W/m2 is its “net radiation loss rate” because of the ~22 W/m2 of counter radiation from the warmer stratosphere. Thus only 1.5% of the 198 W/m2 that the atmosphere emits out into space is coming from the “top of the atmosphere.” The rest has to be coming from the lower altitudes.

An increase in the concentration of “greenhouse gases” can be observed to increases the atmosphere’s emissivity such an increase can only enhance the atmosphere’s “net radiation loss rate.”

Carl

• ### Pat Obar

|

[quote name=”carlallen”][i]”So although you have correctly challenged Doug’s KE+PE comment, you have not dealt with the substance of his claim which (as I understand it) is that . . . a constant energy flow up the atmospheric column induces a declining (and isentropic) temperature profile.”[/i]

This is not what the gravito-thermal hypothesis asserts. It asserts that gravity induces energy to flows [b]downward[/b] through the atmosphere against the temperature gradient and that it is this downward flow of energy that creates the positive lapse rate that is seen in the troposphere. In your construct the energy flow through the troposphere is from the bottom up and out the top.
Carl[/quote]

Carl Allen Brehmer,
Thank you for Your posts that nicely describe the difference between “What is claimed”, in opposition to “What is”. All of us Serfs with limited understanding, appreciate your effort!
Was the popular Brehmer station GIF part of your work?

• ### L.J.Ryan

|

David Cosserat @ 104/105

Thanks for your measured response. I too tend to tune out bombastic blather.

I agree with much of your latest post. GHG does slow the loss of terrestrial IR, but slowing loss is can not statistically increase surface temperature. I think you would agree.

But the GHE claims to resolve the delta between conferred temperature of insolation and the 288K average temperature. This is not miniscule effect or statistically zero. The error in the construct of the GHE is in it’s mishandling of the solar radiation to the surface. The “accepted” flux is 240 W/m2…spreading the solar constant equally over a sphere as apposed to a disk. But the solar constant is not distributed over the entire Earth at any moment, it’s spread over a hemisphere at any moment. And in fact the distribution is not equally over that hemisphere. The smaller the angle of inclination, the greater the solar flux. So insolation starts off much higher then “consensus” norm. This realization is not mine, it comes from one of the “Slayers”…I think.

• ### James Rollins

|

I’m the professional working scientist in electromagnetic radiation for 30 years,

you’re the amateur who thought energy traveled back and forth during entropic relaxation, without charge differentialj,

and that objects having radiation impinge on them absorb them. In spite of the fact that would make it impossible to calculate the amount of energy in matter

Even the pretense I’m obligated to debate you is in error. I’m a professional design and research engineer who need only point out the many facts you’re in willful denial of regarding fundamental energy flow

to prove to people beyond doubt you’re an amateur peddling fraud.

End of story.

[quote name=”Tim Folkerts”]JAmes, you can keep repeating your mantras about “phase-change refrigerated” or “frigid nitrogen bath” [/quote]

• ### carlallen

|

[i]”So although you have correctly challenged Doug’s KE+PE comment, you have not dealt with the substance of his claim which (as I understand it) is that . . . a constant energy flow up the atmospheric column induces a declining (and isentropic) temperature profile.”[/i]

This is not what the gravito-thermal hypothesis asserts. It asserts that gravity induces energy to flows [b]downward[/b] through the atmosphere against the temperature gradient and that it is this downward flow of energy that creates the positive lapse rate that is seen in the troposphere. In your construct the energy flow through the troposphere is from the bottom up and out the top.

Carl

• ### carlallen

|

[i]“I take it that your ~9 times difference between water and iron objects assumes they have the same mass.”[/i]

Since internal energy is quantified in Joules/grams then yes my intention was gram for gram the internal energy of water is nine times that of iron at the same temperature.

[i]“But the air-water-iron system HAS gained PE, as would be evidenced if you tossed it out of the rocket, whereupon it would do work on its environment as it hurtled back to the ground.”[/i]

Gravitational potential energy is a form of [b]external[/b] mechanical energy; it is not [b]internal[/b] (thermal) potential energy, which was the subject of my post. The difference is that [b]external[/b] mechanical energy has a unified vector, while [b]internal[/b] (thermal) potential energy is non-vectored random energy that is stored within the intermolecular forces quantified by the Lennard-Jones potential curve. At atmospheric temperatures and pressures air does not have internal (thermal) potential energy because the molecules are too far apart to be affected by Lennard-Jones forces.

The gravitational potential energy in your scenario was gained from the combustion of rocket fuel; it was not gained by the cooling of the matter being hoisted aloft.

[i]“The mass/unit volume of air reduces in proportion to the height above the ground. Therefore the quantity of energy held in a unit volume at height 10km is much, much less than at ground level.”[/i]

Again, internal energy is quantified by mass (joules/grams) and not by volume. The simple fact that a certain mass of a gas doubles in volume, which would cut its pressure in half, will not necessarily result in a drop in its temperature if no work is done in the process, e.g., if the gas expands into a vacuum. See “Free Expansion of a Gas” [url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9qbAfWOZhMA[/url]

Therefore the temperature of a gas after “free expansion” will be the same as the temperature of the gas before “free expansion”; its internal energy in joules/grams will also remain unchanged, even though its volume has doubled and its pressure and density has halved.

That being said, in the troposphere rising warm air is not undergoing free expansion because it is doing work against its surroundings, which is the descending cooler air. Thus evolves the troposphere’s temperature lapse as rising air cools and descending air warms. When the air stops moving such as during ground level nighttime temperature inversions, at the poles in winter or in the stratosphere the temperature lapse rate collapses as can be seen in weather balloon soundings.

The air at the tropopause is about 70 C cooler than the air at sea level because its internal energy in Joules/gram is significantly less, not simply because it occupies kg for kg a larger volume of space. Take the 2 km thick layer of isothermal air that exists between the troposphere and the stratosphere. Even though its density drops by 260% its temperature doesn’t change because its internal energy in joules/gram remains constant.

Carl

• ### L.J.Ryan

|

[quote] we all know that the temperature is determined both by how much energy is added AND by how easily the energy can leave .[/quote]

So a well insulated box will warm simply by closing it? A closed empty thermos will always be hot? How long does it take for a thermos filled with ice become a container of boiling water?

• ### David Cosserat

|

[…continued from above]

I have spent the best part of a year now trying to follow the slayers’ logic. I did this from the perspective of a qualified investigative scientist and engineer because I thought that, if true, it would be a fantastic way of quashing the CO2 scare for once and for all.

But I am afraid I have now concluded that the slayers are entirely unable to articulate clearly their case. Like all extremists in a corner, they are very good at shouting and screaming abuse at their opponents, but they have failed to show why in principle a GHG (which, after all, is just a physical mass of molecules capable of absorbing and releasing energy) nevertheless does not IN PRINCIPLE create additional resistance to energy outflow from the earth’s surface to space, however miniscule the effect might be.

• ### David Cosserat

|

L.J.Ryan at #100

Thanks for your calm, polite, constructive and well intentioned contribution. It comes as a pleasant change from the illiterate and intemperate thread-bombing and armchair time wasting we have been experiencing here recently.

Tim Folkerts has answered you correctly and succinctly, as is his good habit. Let me be…er…a little more verbose!

1. As you say, the input power is not determined by the body itself but by the external power supply. In the case of the earth, that comes from the Sun (a constant energy flow if averaged over a sufficiently long period).

2. The body is a reservoir of sensible heat equal to the average kinetic energy (KE) of the particles contained within it. We measure this energy indirectly using the kelvin temperature scale.

3. As Tim says, the output power leaving the body depends on the resistance to outflow that it meets while conducting, convecting and/or radiating its energy away. If the resistance is too high for the body to shed as much power as it is receiving, the body’s temperature will rise (because the KE content of the body will be increasing).

4. The body’s temperature will stop rising when it can shed energy at EXACTLY the same rate at which it is absorbing it. At that point it will have achieved a ‘steady state’ temperature. In the case of the earth, the mean surface temperature is generally agreed to have a steady state value of around 15degC (288K).

So what is the nature of this resistance to outflow? First of all there is an
inherent resistance to energy flow that even theoretical black bodies radiating into a 0K vacuum would encounter. It is defined by the S-B equation: P = kT^4 where P is the power radiated out, T is the black body’s temperature, and k is a constant that varies according to the geometry of the radiating surface.

But in the case of the earth, its surface also has a surrounding atmosphere containing energy-absorbing molecules (in the jargon, GHGs). These resist the flow a tiny bit more than would be the case without them. This must be the case because it is no different from putting any other matter that absorbs energy (and therefore heats up) around the earth’s surface. [But, ironically, near the top of the troposphere, the GHGs are essential for absorbing the KE from the other non-radiating molecules, which outnumber them 2000 to 1, and radiating the energy to space.]

Now there is a VERY SMALL group of people dubbed as ‘slayers’ (definitely NOT the majority of members of PSI, by the way) who claim that people have got the fundamental physics all wrong and that EVEN IN PRINCIPLE GHGs don’t offer additional impedance to the up-flow of energy from the earth’s surface.

On the other hand, hard line climate change skeptics like me say that GHGs do IN PRINCIPLE have an effect but in practice the effect is un-measurably small and benign.

And then there are the warmists who say that GHGs do IN PRINCIPLE have an effect and that the effect is ALARMING.

[continued below…]

• ### Pat Obar

|

[quote name=”Tim Folkerts”]JAmes, you can keep repeating your mantras about “phase-change refrigerated” or “frigid nitrogen bath” but that won’t improve anyone’s understanding (especially your own).

The earth loses energy to space via thermal IR radiation.
If you really want to engage, then find something specific in what I said to address. Your strawman arguments don’t come even CLOSE to the views of scientist when they discuss the GHE.[/quote]

Scientists do not discuss your fantasy GHE Only Climate Clowns discuss fantasy. This discussion is not of GHE, but rather why your GHE fantasy is such a hoax.
You Tim promots GHG theory, AGW, “back radiation”, and of course their parent:
“All that has a temperature must generate, thermal electromagnetic radiation (flux) strictly proportional to its abs.temperature raised to the 4th power. without regard to any temperature of surrounding absorptive surfaces”.
Exactly as has been promoted by all Nuevo physics textbooks since 1980. Such fantasy has never been observed, thus rises not to the level of conjecture, but remains fantasy.

[quote name=”Tim Folkerts”]The interesting things (at least as far as “the greenhouse effect” go) happen as the energy leaves the surface. With no atmosphere, the IR radiation would leave straight from the surface to the frigid (3K) expanses of outer space. With an atmosphere, the IR leaves (at least in part) to the slightly cool (~220 – ~300K) atmosphere. This reduces the cooling of the surface (ie it leads to a “warming” the surface).[/quote]

More fantasy claims! Without an atmosphere and without spectral and spatial measurement of the surface emissivity of the earth at every wavelength and in every direction from normal of that surface, the surface temperature of this Earth could be any temperature between near abs. zero and the temperature near that of the Sun.
From your arrogant but poor understanding of EM radiation, you refuse to consider that an atmosphere, without a surface but only a cross sectional area, can and does radiate twice the the energy to cold, of a surface with the same normal emissivity, at every wavelength.
You seem so fixated on the concept of “Black Body Surface”, that you act the same as a child, with a new toy hammer,who considers everything a “nail”
Please try to attempt “some” science. Start with a long long private list of what “I do not know”!

• ### Pat Obar

|

[quote name=”James Rollins”]David you’re free to go and discuss your atmospheric energy you’re not one of the ones I came over to break.
Unless of course you want to tell me you believe in a Green House Gas effect.
In that case you’re exactly the person I came here to break.
Do you believe it possible for atmospheric infrared gases to create heating of the surface of the planet David?
Because if you do, then you can show everyone that ”serious conversation” on atmospheric energy to me.
And I, who knew Hansen was lying the day I saw him do it on television, can, if ya want,
turn you inside out and have you begging the owners of this site to ban me for daring to make you look like you want to be what I am.
A decades experienced degreed professional in generating, transmitting, capturing, and analysing electromagnetic energy through the atmosphere, space, and the industrial compounds I need to use to make that happen in the field of electromagnetic radiation communications and controls electronic engineering.
Because I say that anyone who believes the atmosphere warms the earth even a little is a rank amateur who I can befuddle never opening a book.

James,
I have no idea who or why you wish to break someone! David, however, is your best candidate. A True Warmest, that worships every word of the Rev James Hanson. David claims to be a sceptic Yet promotes GHG theory, AGW, “back radiation”, and of course their parent:
“All that has a temperature must generate, thermal electromagnetic radiation (flux) strictly proportional to its abs. temperature raised to the 4th power. without regard to any temperature of surrounding absorptive surfaces”.
Exactly as has been promoted by all Nuevo physics textbooks since 1980. Such fantasy has never been observed, thus rises not to the level of conjecture, but remains fantasy.
I have similar experience as yours, and agree.with your expressions. I much dislike fake science, and would like to bring about the admission by the Climate Clowns.that they have no idea of what they spout. No mater in public opinion or in court of law, such elaborate hoax, must be terminated, with prejudice, never to return. The HOAX must go into the volcano, those that wish to remain attached shall follow!
Have a nice hunt.

• ### Tim Folkerts

|

LJ Ryan says:
[quote]” Since the sun provides all energy, it is the sole determinate of warmth.”[/quote]
By that logic, the sole determinant of the warmth in my house would be the furnace, since it provides all the energy. In fact, we all know that the temperature is determined both by how much energy is added AND by how easily the energy can leave.

[quote] If the atmosphere was completely opaque to terrestrial IR and the insolation were cut in half, would the planet warm or cool?
[/quote]
Now we are looking at the right sort of question! You proposes one warming effect and one cooling effect — the answer is non-trivial.

[quote]Now according to the GHE, preventing any IR from escaping will skyrocket surface temperatures.[/quote]
Of course, you can never prevent all IR from leaving. Eventually a steady-state situation will develop with
(incoming solar power) = (outgoing IR power)
But yes, blocking more surface radiation will raise the temperature, and raising the altitude from with the IR escapes will ALSO raise the temperature.

• ### L.J.Ryan

|

[quote] With no atmosphere , the IR radiation would leave straight from the surface to the frigid ( 3K ) expanses of outer space . With an atmosphere , the IR leaves ( at least in part ) to the slightly cool (~ 220 – ~ 300K ) atmosphere . This reduces the cooling of the surface ( ie it leads to a ” warming ” the surface ).[/quote]

But slowing the loss of IR doesn’t “warm” the surface it only…slows the loss. Since the sun provides all energy, it is the sole determinate of warmth. If the atmosphere was completely opaque to terrestrial IR and the insolation were cut in half, would the planet warm or cool?

Now according to the GHE, preventing any IR from escaping will skyrocket surface temperatures. Yet in this scenario the meager solar radiation could only confer a temperature of -58C. So would preventing all IR loss “warm” the
surface?

• ### Tim Folkerts

|

JAmes, you can keep repeating your mantras about “phase-change refrigerated” or “frigid nitrogen bath” but that won’t improve anyone’s understanding (especially your own).

The earth loses energy to space via thermal IR radiation.

The interesting things (at least as far as “the greenhouse effect” go) happen as the energy leaves the surface. With no atmosphere, the IR radiation would leave straight from the surface to the frigid (3K) expanses of outer space. With an atmosphere, the IR leaves (at least in part) to the slightly cool (~220 – ~300K) atmosphere. This reduces the cooling of the surface (ie it leads to a “warming” the surface).

If you really want to engage, then find something specific in what I said to address. Your strawman arguments don’t come even CLOSE to the views of scientist when they discuss the GHE.

• ### James Rollins

|

Tim Folkerts is the kind of intellect whose concept of atmospheric energy is such that when the light goes off in the refrigerator the atmosphere washing his two liter soda keeps it warm till the next time the light comes on.

Like he thinks the Green House Effect helps keep him warm at night when the sun goes down.

• ### James Rollins

|

Trying to conjure up mythical scenarios where

you don’t have to talk about the fact

you invested intellectually

in one atmosphere’s pressure of frigid nitrogen

oxygen bath,

phase-change refrigerated by water

raising the temperature of the object it is

cooling

91F/33C

over what it’s temperature was in vacuum,
NOT washed by frigid refrigerated nitrogen

that also reflected away 30% total source energy

doesn’t make me forget you think it.

[quote name=”Tim Folkerts”]Let me try once again (on your words)

By Causing Less [i]SOLAR [/i] Energy to Arrive,
More [i]THERMAL INFRARED [/i] Energy Arrived.
(Or “less thermal IR energy left” — either way is fine).

As a VERY SIMPLE example, consider a rapidly rotating object 1 AU from the sun. For the sake of argument, suppose it is a blackbody. The temperature will be 255 K

Now coat the object with paint that reflects 30% of the incoming solar energy — but that also lowers the IR emissivity to 0.5. The temperature will RISE to 277 K.

No rules of physics are broken; no magic is needed.

So we need to know BOTH effects — how the coating (eg earth’s atmosphere) affects the incoming power and how the coating affects the outgoing power. You keep ignoring 1/2 of the equation![/quote]

• ### James Rollins

|

Trying to make me or all of us take you through the vast difference in sizes of the two energy streams isn’t going to make me forget you thought

the gases keeping 22% of the energy from reaching an object,

made it’s temperature rise 91F/33C by that act.

[quote name=”Tim Folkerts”]As I suspected, you did not even attempt to understand.

Suppose I have a house in the winter. I cut back on the power to the furnace while also adding more insulation (cutting the rate of power loss to the surroundings).

Q: Will the house get warmer or cooler?

Answer According to Scientist: it depends on how much you cut the power to the furnace and how much you cut the power out through the walls.
Answer According to James: If you cut the power in, it cools. Anyone who thinks otherwise has lost all credibility. :-)[/quote]

• ### Tim Folkerts

|

Let me try once again (on your words)

By Causing Less [i]SOLAR [/i] Energy to Arrive,
More [i]THERMAL INFRARED [/i] Energy Arrived.
(Or “less thermal IR energy left” — either way is fine).

As a VERY SIMPLE example, consider a rapidly rotating object 1 AU from the sun. For the sake of argument, suppose it is a blackbody. The temperature will be 255 K

Now coat the object with paint that reflects 30% of the incoming solar energy — but that also lowers the IR emissivity to 0.5. The temperature will RISE to 277 K.

No rules of physics are broken; no magic is needed.

So we need to know BOTH effects — how the coating (eg earth’s atmosphere) affects the incoming power and how the coating affects the outgoing power. You keep ignoring 1/2 of the equation!

• ### James Rollins

|

faces fact that the main compound in question water, is phase change refrigerant for the entire system it already helped block 22% energy into.

The Hadley/Ferrel/Polar circulations are seen to be obviously driven by the phase change refrigeration circulation of water within the larger, nitrogen/oxygen coolant compound mixture.

• ### James Rollins

|

I nor anyone need to ”suppose” anything.

There is a sphere: the earth.

Illuminated by light from a fire: the sun.

There is a cold nitrogen bath surrounding it containing reflective elements

which prevent almost one third 30% sun’s energy from arriving.

The majority of the light from the fire
blocked is by Infrared Reflective Gases.

Green House Gases block 22% source heat in.

Your claim is that removal raises surface temperature.

And that if more is put into the atmosphere

surface temperature could rise even more.

End of story.

You have a house. You insulate it.

The high energy side yard/house is the house.
The high energy side earth/sun is the sun.

The insulation preventing the high energy stream,
getting to objects past it,
keeps high-side energy from reaching the low energy side.

Less heat gets to the yard.

Just, as the earth – low energy side of atmospheric reflective insulation stopping nearly a quarter of the sun’s energy arriving

is colder
because insulation gets between the high energy
sun side
and the lower energy
earth side.

You claim the thrust of your fake physical supposition is the insulation’s value

[quote name=”Tim Folkerts”]As I suspected, you did not even attempt to understand.

Suppose I have a house in the winter. I cut back on the power to the furnace while also adding more insulation (cutting the rate of power loss to the surroundings).

Q: Will the house get warmer or cooler?

Answer According to Scientist: it depends on how much you cut the power to the furnace and how much you cut the power out through the walls.
Answer According to James: If you cut the power in, it cools. Anyone who thinks otherwise has lost all credibility. :-)[/quote]

• ### James Rollins

|

When I had my words deleted before

there was no typo,
there was no partly developed argument,

I said

*the belief in Green House Gas Warming,

demands acceptance that

the act of reflecting 22% of the light

from a fire: the sun

from a sensor covered sphere: the earth

caused every heat sensor on the sphere to show

that because less energy arrived,

temperatures rose.

In other words, more energy somehow made it to them.

But there is only one source and it had it’s input reduced by nearly a quarter, directly due to the class of gases called ”Green House Effect” gases

Therefore, for those who are articulate enough to follow the trail of assertions

Green House Gas Effect Believers make in the face of working scientists such as myself,

is that Because less energy arrived,

than when more energy arrived. 22% more.

That’s what you think. The shorthand version of the story is,

the version of the story we working scientists say to people like you, to show you we get just exactly what your claim is,

is this:

“By Causing Less Energy to Arrive,
More Energy Arrived,
than when
More Energy Arrived.

Its not a typo.
It’s not a mistake, it’s what you think.

And you’re not going to tell me or anyone else we didn’t think about the whole thing, you’re going to sit there and realize

that the thing you teach yourself and others

is literally such a joke at it’s core,

the description of your core position

is a joke.

• ### Tim Folkerts

|

As I suspected, you did not even attempt to understand.

Suppose I have a house in the winter. I cut back on the power to the furnace while also adding more insulation (cutting the rate of power loss to the surroundings).

Q: Will the house get warmer or cooler?

Answer According to Scientist: it depends on how much you cut the power to the furnace and how much you cut the power out through the walls.
Answer According to James: If you cut the power in, it cools. Anyone who thinks otherwise has lost all credibility. 🙂

• ### James Rollins

|

Your claim of creating elevated energy loss

through blocking almost a quarter source energy

is the end of any credibility you ever hoped for.

means ”more energy out” is all anyone who is

a working scientist, needs to know.

• ### James Rollins

|

The atmosphere blocks about 30% of total energy to the sensor covered sphere in vacuum, earth.

22% is kept from ever seeing an earth sensor by Green House Gases.

Blocking almost one fourth energy to a sensor covered object did not cause every sensor on that object to show surface temperature to rise average 33C.

Removal of energy is the inverse of raising energy level.

Greenhouse gases remove almost a quarter source heat.

You are done until you revoke that reality.

[quote name=”Tim Folkerts”]James,

I have rarely seen someone who so poorly understands what “believers” (ie scientists) think. You posts are pretty much strawmen from the beginning to the end.

Here is one SIMPLE idea to cosider.
* the atmosphere blocks some sunlight from reaching the surface = cooling effect for the surface (as you correctly conclude).
* The atmosphere blocks some of the outgoing IR from the surface from getting to space = warming effect for the surface.

The NET effect will depend on both of these. The question then becomes “which effect is larger?” Your hand-waving & rambling won’t answer that question. You look only at one idea, completely missing the second idea. You need to carefully consider BOTH effects.[/quote]

• ### Tim Folkerts

|

James,

I have rarely seen someone who so poorly understands what “believers” (ie scientists) think. You posts are pretty much strawmen from the beginning to the end.

Here is one SIMPLE idea to cosider.
* the atmosphere blocks some sunlight from reaching the surface = cooling effect for the surface (as you correctly conclude).
* The atmosphere blocks some of the outgoing IR from the surface from getting to space = warming effect for the surface.

The NET effect will depend on both of these. The question then becomes “which effect is larger?” Your hand-waving & rambling won’t answer that question. You look only at one idea, completely missing the second idea. You need to carefully consider BOTH effects.

• ### James Rollins

|

All the way down the line: all the way – it’s fraudulent claim after fraudulent claim.

Darko’s was around when the whole thing began and everyone who has told these wannabe experts the whole thing from first word to last has been told “Oh it’s real, you just don’t understand.”

And everyone who’s a working scientist is still fresh and unruffled and as capable as ever of proving every, single syllable, of what we say:

you can not block source energy with anything:
gas,
smoke,
translucent solids,
liquid

– anything

and create a rise in thermal emission from the target.

Endo of Story-O.

and every sophist who discovers lying about that on the internet can find another loud mouthed friend.

But science
demands everyone be able to replicate what is claimed;

and claiming the amount of infrared radiation in the air

rose because you reduced overall source illumination

is the sound of willing self deception about the fundamental concepts

“more” and “less.”

The argument put forth described by Butina here is one of several; he’s explained in depth multiple times the step by step impossibility of the entire Green House Gas Effect and is one of the first authors printing and distributing papers on the full-on impossibilty of Green House Gas Effect even conceptually.

The fact is everybody who says they believe in the Green House Gas Effect,
says they believe it’s so, because someone else says they do.

They try to claim they proved it mathematically:

but remember: this whole story is about mathematical fraud that got exposed when Al Gore made his “inconvenient truth” movie.

And you don’t calculate away, the concept of “more energy arrived” vs “less energy arrived.”

• ### James Rollins

|

The entire thing is and always was fraud, which is why Green House Gas believers try to claim they are above proving what they say through experiment.

• ### James Rollins

|

Scientist: “Do you believe immersing a sphere, it’s surface covered with sensors,
heated in vacuum, into a cold nitrogen/oxygen gas bath, can make it warmer than it was, when there was no cold, reflective gas bath?”

Believer: “Yes.”

Scientist: “Do you believe physically reflecting 20% energy in,
away from sensors on an object will make sensors all over it indicate more E arriving?

Believer: “Yes.”

Scientist”Do you believe adding more reflective media- gas molecules- to a frigid reflective bath already blocking 20% energy to sensors,

until it is blocking 21% of energy to sensors, will make energy sensors indicate more energy arrived?”

Believer: “Yes.”

The entire

• ### James Rollins

|

Again

Do you David Cosserat believe it possible to warm an object – the earth – to full temperature in vacuum,

then immerse it spinning into frigid nitrogen and oxygen bath phase change refrigerated with water,

and have that act raise the temperature of the object – the earth – 91F/33C?

Do you believe the presence of the class of gases that reflect 22% into space, are responsible for being the component of that frigid nitrogen/oxygen bath that actually raise the temperature of the earth above what it is, in vacuum?

Making up nearly a quarter of the sun’s energy with a mechanism you can’t name or quantify is called ”making things up as you go along without concern for whether it can be checked.”

Putting thermally conductive, and convecting, gas bath around an object in vacuum

can not raise the temperature of it.

When a solid object – the earth

is warmed by the light of a fire in vacuum- the sun

immersing and spinning it in a cold nitrogen bath refrigerated by water,

can not raise the temperature of that object 33C.

Not yesterday, not today, not tomorrow, which is why Green House Gas conjecture is forced to claim it is beyond experiment.

• ### James Rollins

|

What in the world the administrator is culling my posts for I don’t know but I haven’t said anything that’s inappropriate.

Some wannabe hurling invective and insult because we don’t agree got him told off. Too bad.

• ### James Rollins

|

You melted down
and blurted out

you suffered psychologically induced
inability to process speech

at seeing put into words,

the earth, a sphere,

lit by a fire, the sun,

by immersion spinning

into frigid

nitrogen-oxygen bath,

phase-change refrigerated by water.

by that alone, David.

You don’t really need to keep protesting you never heard of cold nitrogen baths not heating things.

• ### James Rollins

|

Oh and by break I mean break the argument of, for those not familiar with the rhetoric of multiple people bringing arguments on hard sciences to bear in single threaded arguments.

Most people have a favorite angle they prefer to attack a subject with because it allows the least wasted effort.

When someone’s an experienced debater
there comes obviously very shortly
a situation where various arguments become subject to the ”this breaks that argument” hierarchy.

When someone comes to a hotly debated topic they come to ‘break’ arguments: point out their weakness and display the weakness alongside another argument.

Until you can answer the three questions ”no” David

you’re in that group who don’t get a gold star.

Posturing, obtuse invective, or not.

• ### James Rollins

|

I might be wrong David you might not believe in the

Magically Hot
Cold Atmospheric Envelope

that made the temperature of every energy sensor on the surface of the object immersed spinning in it,

rise 91F/33C.

Above what the temperature would be,

illuminated otherwise to full temp in vacuum.

But people who do, always cry out, that signature refrain:

“Omg I’m blind!” “I can’t read those words!!”

So my take is you fervently believe the whole story hook line and sinker.

That’s your right of course but it also means anywhere a climate realist refers to the atmosphere as the cold nitrogen oxygen bath refrigerated by water,

that it obviously is,
you do run the risk of being struck blind/unable to process written speech any longer until the effect of seeing the truth written about it, wears off.

• ### James Rollins

|

I can show ya David this is atmospheric energy. Gas is the simplest phase of matter, this whole atmospheric thing isn’t very complicated.

It’s a frigid nitrogen/oxygen bath, refrigerated by water, it’s presence keeps 30% of the sun’s energy from ever arriving here.

about 22% of that energy never arriving at surface sensors of the planet is stopped by greenhouse gases mainly water,

and since it’s impossible to be a mechanism for keeping energy from ever reaching sensors,

than when more energy arrived,

any claim of a cold nitrogen bath heating a globe being obviously impossible on it’s face,

the very refrigerant that is simultaneously blocking nearly a quarter of total energy to the surface of the sphere,

likewise can not be responsible for any heating of any kind overall, since it is

again

the fundamental remover
of energy from earth surface sensors, by virtue of it’s simple existence kicking light to space.

So you run along with your ”illiteracy” and your other artifacts of being new to arguing utterly incorrect sophist mathematics and physics,

and whenever you want to answer a couple of questions so I can check whether you really grasp what you’re talking about, just answer the first three I posted.

* * *Readers should note all those who believe in a warming atmosphere* * *

so my take on it is, that yes, David, you’re a Green House Gas Effect/Warming Atmosphere believer.

• ### James Rollins

|

David you’re free to go and discuss your atmospheric energy you’re not one of the ones I came over to break.

Unless of course you want to tell me you believe in a Green House Gas effect.

In that case you’re exactly the person I came here to break.

Do you believe it possible for atmospheric infrared gases to create heating of the surface of the planet David?

Because if you do, then you can show everyone that ”serious conversation” on atmospheric energy to me.

And I, who knew Hansen was lying the day I saw him do it on television,
can,
if ya want,

turn you inside out and have you begging the owners of this site to ban me for daring to make you look like you want to be what I am.

A decades experienced degreed professional in generating, transmitting, capturing, and analyzing electomagnetic energy through the atmosphere, space, and the industrial compounds I need to use to make that happen in the field of electromagnetic radiation communications and controls electronic engineering.

Because I say that anyone who believes the atmosphere warms the earth even a little is a rank amateur who I can befuddle never opening a book.

David.

Do you think that can be done?

Let’s say you believe in the Magic Gas & Light.

You tell me “Hey down at the university they discovered, there is an enormous light in the sky, directly connected to CO2 and infrared resonant gases.”

And I say, “Oh, no, they didn’t.”

Is that the kind of conversation you think you’re up to having and winning David?

My ”illiterate innumerate drivel”

vs your new found faith in your grasp of all things down to the photon? Like I claim to have?

Because I’m not really interested in anything you don’t think you want to discuss with me,

I wrote, that all you have to do, is think about the Magic Gas and Light story to realize what it is:

the inversion of the polarity of a cold nitrogen bath, and the reflective elements within that immersive atmospheric envelope.

But you mind yourself about this David: you’re a new guy to arguing this and I’ve broken many a global warmer in half with the offhand ease,

of taking candy from a child.

Because the whole thing’s a hoax. From first word, to last.

• ### James Rollins

|

You need to take that huff & puff new guy act somewhere else.

New guy.

[quote name=”David Cosserat”]

James,

You make a number of claims about climate clowns:

1. That they don’t read technical books.
2. That they believe that immersing a warmer sphere into cooler nitrogen will make the sphere warmer.
3. That..(incomprehensible claim concerning sensors)
5. Algebraic inversion… (ditto)

Who, exactly, are you aiming this rubbish at? Can’t you even be bothered to explain what you are talking about in plain English?

PSI is a blog about scientific issues of great importance, principally concerning the great debate about whether increasing atmospheric CO2 is causing, or will cause in the future, alarming climate change.

Your illiterate, unreadable contribution does nothing at all to further the skeptical cause. In fact quite the reverse – it is positively dangerous because it permits warmists to make a laughing stock of us.[/quote]

[quote name=”David Cosserat”]Re. James Rollins at #73 and #74

James,

You make a number of claims about climate clowns:

1. That they don’t read technical books.
2. That they believe that immersing a warmer sphere into cooler nitrogen will make the sphere warmer.
3. That..(incomprehensible claim concerning sensors)
5. Algebraic inversion… (ditto)

Who, exactly, are you aiming this rubbish at? Can’t you even be bothered to explain what you are talking about in plain English?

PSI is a blog about scientific issues of great importance, principally concerning the great debate about whether increasing atmospheric CO2 is causing, or will cause in the future, alarming climate change.

Your illiterate, unreadable contribution does nothing at all to further the skeptical cause. In fact quite the reverse – it is positively dangerous because it permits warmists to make a laughing stock of us.[/quote]

• ### David Cosserat

|

Re. James Rollins at #73 and #74

James,

You make a number of claims about climate clowns:

1. That they don’t read technical books.
2. That they believe that immersing a warmer sphere into cooler nitrogen will make the sphere warmer.
3. That..(incomprehensible claim concerning sensors)
5. Algebraic inversion… (ditto)

Who, exactly, are you aiming this rubbish at? Can’t you even be bothered to explain what you are talking about in plain English?

PSI is a blog about scientific issues of great importance, principally concerning the great debate about whether increasing atmospheric CO2 is causing, or will cause in the future, alarming climate change.

Your illiterate, unreadable contribution does nothing at all to further the skeptical cause. In fact quite the reverse – it is positively dangerous because it permits warmists to make a laughing stock of us.

• ### David Cosserat

|

Re. carlallen at #72

Carl,

I have puzzled over your (laconic?) thought experiment for a couple of days.

1. Nobody could disagree with the outcome of your experiment. Yes, all three objects will indeed equilibriate at room temperature.

2. And, yes, when they do so, their energy contents (in joules) will indeed be different. (I take it that your ~9 times difference between water and iron objects assumes they have the same mass.)

3. I agree with your comment: [i]Thermal equilibrium is a function of KE only because there does not exist a force in nature that compels bodies of matter in thermodynamic contact to achieve internal energy unity[/i].

To see this is so, extend your thought experiment slightly by assuming it has taken place at ground level in a temperature-controlled portable enclosure maintained at 21degC. We now place this container inside a rocket and launch the rocket 10km vertically upwards. I would be as surprised as you if there were to be any change in the energy contents of the three bodies, air, water and water.

But the air-water-iron system HAS gained PE, as would be evidenced if you tossed it out of the rocket, whereupon it would do work on its environment as it hurtled back to the ground.

However there are two important points you have missed in responding to Doug’s KE+PE comment.

1. The mass/unit volume of air reduces in proportion to the height above the ground. Therefore the quantity of energy held in a unit volume at height 10km is much, much less than at ground level. It is true that, if you switched off the Sun, the temperature of the atmospheric column would (eventually) equilibriate to a uniform ~3K irrespective of height above the ground, just like your water and iron objects equilibriated at 21degC in ITS environment. However…

2. Your thought experiment deals with a closed system in thermodynamic equilibrium. The system Doug is referring to is NOT CLOSED. It continually absorbs incoming energy from the Sun; and its GHGs near the top of the atmosphere continually radiate that energy back out to space. This sets up a temperature profile way, way above 3K.

So although you have correctly challenged Doug’s KE+PE comment, you have not dealt with the substance of his claim which (as I understand it) is that, because of gravity and the consequent monotonic reduction in air pressure from ground level up to the tropopause (matching mathematically the change in PE, hence, perhaps, Doug’s error), a constant energy flow up the atmospheric column induces a declining (and isentropic) temperature profile; and that this is the measureable and dominant effect when compared with the weaker influence of the atmospheric GHGs (principally water vapour) in the lower atmosphere which, he claims, act anyway in the opposite direction.

Doug’s thesis may be wrong but not for the reasons you have given. So I think it still needs proper scientific consideration.

• ### James Rollins

|

What

the whole thing is,

is the algebraic inversion
of a cold nitrogen-oxygen bath,
refrigerated by water.

Simply
the very initial fundamentals
are algebraically inverted.

When they were doing it in computer models it could be hidden but once it’s out in the open the only option was threaten people.

Think about it. Look at the kooky things said all the time by Green House Gas Effect believers.

Tell the story and make sure people know you know. The children’s educations you save, could be your own children.

• ### James Rollins

|

The climateurs – claiming thay went tuh skool.

And thuh basic signts is reel.

Really really really real.

The people who’ve become known as “climate clowns,” who act as though asking them “we haven’t cracked a book yet, we’re just checking to see if you’re delusional” questions

is unethical.

After they answer the questions incorrectly.

Scientist: “Do you believe immersing a sphere heated to stable temp in vacuum, into cold nitrogen gas, makes it get warmer?”

Believer: “Yes!”

Scientist: “Do you believe physically reflecting 20% E away from sensors on an object will make sensors all over it indicate
more E arriving
than when
more E is arriving?

Believer: “Oh,Yes!”

Scientist: “Do you believe adding more reflective media to a reflective insulating bath already blocking 20% E in,
until it is blocking 21% of E in, will make energy sensors indicate more energy arriving than when there was
more energy arriving?”
Believer: “Oh yes, don’t you? Yes. That’s real science really! ”

W

• ### carlallen

|

[i]“If you did have isothermal conditions, then there would be unbalanced energy potentials because the higher molecules would have more mean gravitational potential energy and yet the same mean kinetic energy. So, at thermodynamic equilibrium (PE+KE) has to be homogeneous and, because the mean KE is what determines temperature, there is a temperature gradient.”[/i]

With this statement you are asserting that thermodynamic equilibrium is a function of the internal energy (PE+KE) of matter—potential energy + kinetic energy. You are asserting that two bodies of matter will be in thermodynamic equilibrium when their internal energies are equal. I therefore designed an experiment to test that hypothesis.

I connected a thermocouple to a block of iron at room temperature and put it into a gallon jar of hot water in which was suspended another thermocouple. I observed the temperature of the iron quickly rise until its temperature matched the temperature of the hot water. After that, the temperature of both the water and the block of iron cooled together until they both reached room temperature at which time they stopped cooling. At that point the water, the iron and the air were in a state of thermodynamic equilibrium and the flow of heat stopped.

Needless to say, because each of these bodies of matter has a different specific heat capacity even though the temperature of each was 21 °C and they were in thermodynamic equilibrium the internal energy present within each was significantly different.

Specific heat capacity of air = 1kJ/kg
Specific heat capacity of water = 4.184 kJ/kg
Specific heat capacity of iron = 0.45 kJ/kg

Ergo at equilibrium the internal energy of water is four time that of air and > 9 times that of the iron. [b]Thermal equilibrium is a function of KE only because there does not exist a force in nature that compels bodies of matter in thermodynamic contact to achieve internal energy unity. [/b] If there were then there would be no such thing as “room temperature” since every item in a room would be a different temperature relative to its specific heat capacity with those with the lowest specific heat capacity being the hottest.

If your thesis were not false; if in thermodynamic equilibrium the PE + KE of a system and its surroundings were “homogeneous” then the respective temperatures of air, water and iron would have to be the following for thermodynamic equilibrium to exist:

Air = 957 °C
Water = 21 °C
Iron = 2660 °C

Since this is manifestly not the case and matter seeks unity of KE only your thesis is manifestly false.

Carl

• ### David Cosserat

|

Alex at #68 says: I’m moving to a newer thread as this is just going in circles here.

Me too Alex and for the same reasons. But just before you go please do contact me at cosserat@gmail.com. I think we have a commonality of purpose and a lot of constructive things to talk about.

Best regards
David

• ### Pat Obar

|

[quote name=”Alex Hamilton”]Hence what Prof. Claes Johnson wrote in “Computational Blackbody Radiation” and what is in the PSI paper on Radiated Energy and the Second Law of Thermodynamics is correct, even if our friend Richard thinks he can rebut what happens in spontaneous radiation with an example of a mechanical device with energy input – wow, that takes the cake for the reddest herring I think I’ve ever encountered. It just shows how little understanding there is of valid physics in this forum. I’m moving to a newer thread as this is just going in circles here.[/quote]

You have nothing to write, nothing to offer, nothing but your insane fantasy! When can we expect a return of your insane Bull Shit, as Geo. Washington, or Tom Jefferson?.

Doug, you are worse at science than any of the alarmist, warmists, could ever possibly imagen..

• ### Pat Obar

|

[quote name=”Richard 2014″]”But radiating molecules cause thermal energy to be transferred only to cooler regions. When they emit radiation that strikes a warmer target that radiation is immediately re-emitted and all it does is slow radiative cooling. It never ever increases the temperature of the warmer target (the surface) as climatologists effectively claim it does. They are wrong. “

hence the use of thermal heat pumps, http://www.gsmlimited.com/what-we-do/air-source-heat-pumps-and-solar-thermal-systems/%5B/quote%5D

Richard,
Most of what you write is correct some is incorrect in (my opinion). You give no indication of how to communicate with you. Please tell us of your experience, your doing, and most importantly, your strong opinions of what is.
I am not a academic professor, who knows! I still make mistakes getting out of bed! Here are few that claim to know. Here are many that are convinced that those that claim they know,
have nothing true or scientific,to describe,

It is all Bull shit, Horse shit, Kitten shit, or even Alligator shit. There is no knowledge, understanding, or truth ever there.

Can you weld well? Drive a tractor well? Lay concrete blocks well? In all I have tried but failed. Yet I can explain to the good welder, what I wish, in terms the good welder understands. Try that here, some will insist.
Most will offer a different POV for your consideration. Please ask questions. The phrasing of your question give a good indication of where you are coming from!

• ### Alex Hamilton

|

Hence what Prof. Claes Johnson wrote in “Computational Blackbody Radiation” and what is in the PSI paper on Radiated Energy and the Second Law of Thermodynamics is correct, even if our friend Richard thinks he can rebut what happens in spontaneous radiation with an example of a mechanical device with energy input – wow, that takes the cake for the reddest herring I think I’ve ever encountered. It just shows how little understanding there is of valid physics in this forum. I’m moving to a newer thread as this is just going in circles here.

• ### richard 2014

|

“But radiating molecules cause thermal energy to be transferred only to cooler regions. When they emit radiation that strikes a warmer target that radiation is immediately re-emitted and all it does is slow radiative cooling. It never ever increases the temperature of the warmer target (the surface) as climatologists effectively claim it does. They are wrong. “

hence the use of thermal heat pumps, http://www.gsmlimited.com/what-we-do/air-source-heat-pumps-and-solar-thermal-systems/

• ### Alex Hamilton

|

Radiation from a colder source cannot raise the temperature of a warmer target, regardless of the duration. Yes it can slow radiative cooling, but it cannot slow non-radiative cooling because its electromagnetic energy is never converted to thermal energy in the warmer target, and so no extra thermal energy can escape by non-radiative processes. The radiation is “pseudo scaterred” in a resonating process described by Prof Claes Johnson.

Now, we know the radiating temperature of the whole Earth+atmosphere system is about 255K though not accurately that value. This temperature is thus the maximum to which the Sun can raise the mean temperature of Earth’s surface with direct radiation. However, it does raise local regions to higher temperatures because the mean is a 24 hour whole-surface mean, and obviously the cold poles and the dark hemisphere affect that mean.

But radiating molecules cause thermal energy to be transferred only to cooler regions. When they emit radiation that strikes a warmer target that radiation is immediately re-emitted and all it does is slow radiative cooling. It never ever increases the temperature of the warmer target (the surface) as climatologists effectively claim it does. They are wrong.

The autonomous thermal gradient produced and maintained by gravity is what determines minimum nightly temperatures at the surface, whilst the Sun just adds a few degrees durung the day and then radiative and non radiative processes all slow the cooling at night as the surface approaches the temperature determined by solar intensity, by gravity and by the height and specific heat of the atmosphere.

If there were no slowing of cooling at night, then the surface would continue to cool maybe by 2 or 3 degrees per hour as it can do in the afternoon. Then the mean temperature of the surface would indeed be about 255K, but because the minimums are limited at night, the 24-hour mean is higher around 287K.

• ### Alex Hamilton

|

Tim and Richard are talking about red herrings on Venus. If you wish, keep it simple and discuss the Uranus troposphere where there is no significant input of direct solar radiation from above, or internally generated energy from below. The radiating temperature is colder than 60K and that is about the temperature near TOA because nearly all the absorption and re-emission of solar energy takes place there. There is no surface at altitude -300Km but this base of the nominal troposphere is 320K. (See Wikipedia “Uranus | troposphere.}

If isothermal conditions could exist in that troposphere they would be evident by now because the planet has had ample time to cool off. Instead, its solid core is still about 5,000K and probably never was any hotter.

• ### Alex Hamilton

|

Perhaps Pat Obar would prefer to consider Planck functions. The Sun’s Planck function can be adjusted for the distance from the Sun and atmospheric absorption etc. The end result gives a flux represented by the area under the Planck function. If an object on Earth is heated artifically to, say, 500K then the Sun will not raise its temperature more – instead it will slow its rate of cooling. If it cools to ambient temperature that night, the Sun could raise its temperature by a few degrees the next day, but only until the flux from the Sun matches the outward flux from the object. However, back radiation would not do so. Frost in the shade of a tree can remain there all day without being melted by back radiation from a colder region.

• ### Tim Folkerts

|

Richard, the pressure at those altitudes is on the order of 0.0001 Atm, ie almost non-existant. This is very similar to the temperature & pressure at the mesopause on earth.

Sunlight easily goes in through this layer, so that is how the “heat” gets in. The “heat” gets out as thermal IR.

• ### richard 2014

|

how does heat get past this point on venus,

“The strangely cold region lies about 78 miles (125 kilometers) above the planet’s surface, and appears to host temperatures around minus 283 degrees Fahrenheit (minus 175 degrees Celsius). It’s sandwiched between warmer layers on both sides”

“Since the temperature at some heights dips below the freezing temperature of carbon dioxide, we suspect that carbon dioxide ice might form there”

• ### richard 2014

|

Kilometers per hr winds

• ### richard 2014

|

a little question i have, on earth I assume that winds were caused by temp differences – hot to cold, i am sure there are others.

What causes the 300km- 400kn winds on Venus.

• ### Pat Obar

|

[quote name=”Alex Hamilton”]I can’t resist pointing out that Tim apparently ignores SBL and does not think it tells us that, to raise the temperature of a perfect blackbody above 723K, we need a radiative flux of more than about 16,279W/m^2. Now that may not be an accurate value for the Venus surface, but we sure need more than 20W/m^2 or even 150W/m^2.[/quote]
Another Arrogant Academic unwilling to learn,just because that arrogance prevents him from acknowledging that he understands little or nothing,, and way less than anyone that has done some honest work. Tim does indeed ignore your SBL as there is now such Law, no-mater what Wikipedia says! There is a useful S-B equation that correctly computes the maximum possible flux between two parallel surfaces at different temperatures,with maximum emissivity for the higher temperature,, and maximum absorptivity for the lower temperature, at every wavelength, and in every direction.
No thermal electromagnetic flux may ever exceed this value. for those two temperatures
such one way flux “may be” at any value between zero and that maximum for the emitted flux to equal the absorbed flux both surfaces “must be infinite in extent and must have a heat source of infinite power for the higher temperature and a heat sink of infinite power for the colder temperature. there are no known such surfaces, sources, or sinks in this universe. For all other situations the S-B equation “only” is a check on any claim of a higher flux. No object ever ever can radiate a flux determined by only its own temperature.

[

• ### Pat Obar

|

[quote name=”Alex Hamilton”] Bye[/quote]

We can only hope!!!
[quote name=”Alex Hamilton”] To raise the temperature of an object we need two conditions .
(a) The radiation must be coming from a source which is hotter than the target, so radiation from a colder atmosphere can play no part in raising the temperature of a hotter surface, as Prof Claes Johnson pointed out in “Computational Blackbody Radiation.”
(b) The radiative flux must exceed the SBL value for a black or grey body, and in fact be even more if there is a simultaneous non-radiative loss such as occurs from a planetary surface.[/quote]

There is no S-B law! the S-B equation never has anything to do with raising a temperature, that depends on total sensible heat and flux. That equation only produces a maximum possible flux. You have just claimed a violation of that maximum. all else you write is nonsense as well!
[quote name=”Alex Hamilton”]Even if the planets and moons were all very hot in some initial state (which I doubt was due to anything but solar energy) they have had plenty of time to cool off, because we know Venus cools by 5 degrees in 4 months of night. We can deduce that it is solar energy keeping them in an equilibrium stste now, even down to their cores. [/quote]

Perhaps you will favor us and go to Venus to check on your fantasy. Doug! Alex Hamilton may work on WUWT!

[quote name=”Alex Hamilton”]It is true for Earth that the Sun can heat that part of the surface upon which it shines directly (at not too great an angle) because its intensity there is well above its mean intensity for the whole surface, and it is above the (adjusted) SBL value. But this does not happen on Venus or at the base of the Uranus troposphere.[/quote]

Doug never defines “to heat” just like the alarmists. There is no SBL. The solar irradiance, from the direction of the Sun is a constant at the earths radius from the Sun. The Sun’s “radiance” is a constant at any distance.
All you spout is but fantasy. Perhaps you will go to Uranus to check your fantasy Doug!!

• ### Alex Hamilton

|

I can’t resist pointing out that Tim apparently ignores SBL and does not think it tells us that, to raise the temperature of a perfect blackbody above 723K, we need a radiative flux of more than about 16,279W/m^2. Now that may not be an accurate value for the Venus surface, but we sure need more than 20W/m^2 or even 150W/m^2.

To raise the temperature of an object we need two conditions ..

(a) The radiation must be coming from a source which is hotter than the target, so radiation from a colder atmosphere can play no part in raising the temperature of a hotter surface, as Prof Claes Johnson pointed out in “Computational Blackbody Radiation.”

(b) The radiative flux must exceed the SBL value for a black or grey body, and in fact be even more if there is a simultaneous non-radiative loss such as occurs from a planetary surface.

Even if the planets and moons were all very hot in some initial state (which I doubt was due to anything but solar energy) they have had plenty of time to cool off, because we know Venus cools by 5 degrees in 4 months of night. We can deduce that it is solar energy keeping them in an equilibrium stste now, even down to their cores.

It is true for Earth that the Sun can heat that part of the surface upon which it shines directly (at not too great an angle) because its intensity there is well above its mean intensity for the whole surface, and it is above the (adjusted) SBL value. But this does not happen on Venus or at the base of the Uranus troposphere.

Bye

• ### Rosco

|

There’s nothing in this article I can’t read on Wikipedia – I don’t see how it adds anything new or original to any discussion.

• ### Rosco

|

Quote – “The conclusion – gas molecules of an open system are driven by temperature and it is physically impossible for gas molecules of the open system to control temperature in any shape or form.”

Tell that to the residents of the US where huge masses of cold air are currently displacing other air masses.

Tell that to my neighbours while huge masses of “rising heated air” coming from the tropics are displacing the cooler air we had only a few days ago and resulting in a 10 degree C increase in temperature.

Perhaps our systems are not open ?

|

[quote name=”Alex Hamilton”]David, I trust you can understand that I am reluctant to “go public” on this issue. I would rather you communicate direct with Doug
[/quote]I couldn’t figure out what Doug’s point was. I tried to engage him in a conversation a few times. I think the poor guy was so desperate for attention that he didn’t realize that his own thinking never was/is very accessible. Sad case.

What was his deal, anyway? Do you know? I mean, is there a point deep down under there?

• ### Tim Folkerts

|

Alex,

This has been sorta fun, but this better be the end. Just a couple last points.

1) That paper “Radiated Energy and the
Second Law of Thermodynamics” is mostly appeals to (incorrect) intuition. Intuition about advanced physics (especially by those with business or humanities degrees) is notoriously poor.

2) Regarding Uranus, I’ll let your ‘friend’ Doug Cotton explain that to you, since he actually gets that one right in his paper: [i]”Fortunately the crust and mantle beneath it act as very good insulators, retaining thermal energy in the core and only allowing a trickle to leak out.”[/i] He realizes that the planets (and moons and stars) are warm as they form, with vast amounts of thermal energy in the cores. The crust/mantle/core/gas layers prevent the energy from escaping quickly, so the planets (including Uranus) are still “trickling” energy to space as they slowly cool.

3) Once again, Doug’s paper disagrees with your interpretation of how incoming solar energy will impact the surface temperature. Read in section 4: [i]”So, in straight forward cases, the calculations are actually working with the area between the two curves.” [/i]

The ~730 K surface is radiating to the atmosphere nearby that is a small ΔT cooler than the surface. This means the “area between the curves” will be minuscule — maybe a few 10’s of W/m^2.

Doug also says: [i]”Solar radiation is nearly half made up of radiation in the infra-red, but the rest in the visible light and ultra-violet spectra can and does transfer even more thermal energy, [b]which warms the surface of the Earth.[/b]”[/i] So even Doug realizes that solar energy is absorbed and heats the ground, ie it does “go through the complicated process of being converted to thermal energy”. Thus a few 10’s of W/m^2 would be enough to prevent cooling of the surface; a few more 10’s of W/m^2 would be enough to start raising the temperature.

If you want to argue against these points, take it up with Doug! Tell him why those sections of his paper are wrong. 🙂

• ### Alex Hamilton

|

Sorry about the typo as I have a problem with my keyboard – it was obviosly meant to read ELECTRO-MAGNETIC energy.

And Tim, yes I consider Doug has correctly explained it all better than Verkley et al who did not recognise how inter-molecular radiation is the cause of the reduction of the thermal gradient to a less steep value than that which corresponds to isentropic conditions. Of course maximum entropy is an isentropic state – do you not notice the common letters “entrop” in each word?

• ### Alex Hamilton

|

Yes Tim. A small net input of THERMAL energy would raise the temperature. But the ELECTO-MANETIC energy in radiation does not go through the complicated process of being converted to thermal energy in a target which is warmer than the source. Instead, it is “pseudo scattered” in a resonating process as is known by physicists. You could read about it in the peer-reviewed PSI paper on Radiated Energy here in the Publications Menu. But I know you won’t bother. Just like you won’t bother to reiterate in appropriate detail how the required thermal energy gets down to the base of the Uranus troposphere. Sure we agree there’s a thermal gradient, but that does not explain how the energy gets there. The answer lies in the “heat creep” process which Doug described in his paper on planetary surface temperatures and no doubt in his forthcoming book.

You are indeed “running out the door” away from these questions which you cannot answer because you refuse to read such papers, or even Wikipedia. You might as well stay out the door.

• ### Alex Hamilton

|

David, I trust you can understand that I am reluctant to “go public” on this issue. I would rather you communicate direct with Doug because he is the author of the PSI paper on “Radiated Energy” (in the Publications Menu here) and also the paper on planetary surface temperatures which brought it all together in a very cogent argument. That paper was on the PSI PROM menu for most of last year I think, but does not appear now. I note that Doug has included his email address in this comment
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2014/02/95-of-climate-models-agree-the-observations-must-be-wrong/#comment-104557

It is pointless arguing with the “know alls” here who are not even prepared to read such papers and learn. They just have an agenda to attempt to rubbish valid science and protect their pecuniary interests in maintaining the status quo.

|

[quote name=”Pat Obar”]
Interesting thought Claudius,
Perhaps on a molecular level you are correct. I have no problem with such as I have no expertise in such.[/quote]No expertise is required. One need only consider a hot air ballon or blimp. Bouyancy is a simple concept. When people start trying to hide simple concepts there is always a reason. There is always an underlying conundrum that they can see but that they are pretending they can’t see. Do you really think Mr. Hamilton doesn’t understand the concept of convection? I assure you he does.[quote name=”Pat Obar”]Both completly adiabatic and isentropic lapse rate has nothing to do with thermodynamics,[/quote]I agree. It is not a process it is a state. There is no entropy (or very little) to be maximized.
[quote name=”Pat Obar”]In either case no thermodynamic process ie, “work” is required to statically maintain all three observed potential differences.[/quote]Exactly. Lapse rate meanderings are a red herring. It’s an attempt to create a process from a mundane observation and, thereby, explain the mixing (winds) that are observed in our atmosphere.

There is something missing in our understanding. There is mixing in our atmosphere that is unexplained. A thermodynamic process, yet undiscovered, drives this mixing. Meteorologists have misattributed the cause of storms to convection. Actually, the cause of storms is this same, yet undiscovered, thermodynamic process.

|

[quote name=”Alex Hamilton”]Regarding “convection” look up Wikipedia. Diffusion becomes advection when you are actually able to measure slow movement in the gas. Convection is a broad term covering both.
[/quote]

So, if we define both black and white as shades of gray then we can just assume they are the same color?

Convection requires bodies of air to have different weight/volume. Diffusion defeats this difference. The two terms have nothing whatsoever to do with one another!

When people start defining into existence parallels between concepts that are, obviously, not parallel it is because they are trying to hide from a fact that disputes their greater model.

Advection is a word created by meteorologists designed to draw attention away from the fact that they have failed to explain the origins of winds in our atmosphere.

• ### Tim Folkerts

|

Alex says: [quote]”Regarding Tim’s confusion, the state of maximum entropy is the isentropic state.”[/quote]
it is not [i]my [/i]”confusion”! It is Gibbs’ “confusion”. It is Boltzmann’s “confusion”. It is Verkley & Gerkema’s “confusion”. They even derive the isothermal result ion their paper. If you want people to believe you over them, you better be able to show the specific errors in their paper! Which specific calculation — which specific assumption — do they have wrong? Or do you just “know” they must be wrong?

[quote]”Tim has not explained why the thermal gradient on, for example, Uranus is not zero.”[/quote]
Yes I have. You simply have not listened.

Your misunderstanding of heat and energy and radiation would take muck too long to address right now as I need to be running out the door. Just remember that it is the NET energy flow that determines if the temperature rises or falls. Even a small energy input can raise the temperature if the outputs are limitied.

• ### richard 2014

|

New evidence hints that Venus may be volcanically active, which has long been a controversial topic among scientists.

Space.com

• ### richard 2014

|

in the end it will be simply down to heat from volcanoes.

Volcanoes less than 20 kilometres (12 mi) in diameter are very abundant on Venus and they may number hundreds of thousands or even millions. Seems they do not know if they are active or not active.

• ### David Cosserat

|

Alex,

Thanks for that. Much food for thought. I would be grateful if you would contact me at cosserat@gmail.com

Thanks
David

• ### Alex Hamilton

|

Regarding “convection” look up Wikipedia. Diffusion becomes advection when you are actually able to measure slow movement in the gas. Convection is a broad term covering both.

Regarding calculations for Venus, see Section 8 of Alberto Miatello’s paper on the PSI publications menu.

Regarding blackbody radiation look up the Stefan-Boltzmann Law and also read the PSI paper on Radiated Energy and Claes Johnson’s “Computational Blackbody Radiation” cited therein.

Regarding Tim’s confusion, the state of maximum entropy [i]is[/i] the isentropic state. You cannot have isentropic conditions until the maximum entropy state evolves, that is, until thermodynamic equilibrium evolves. An isothermal state does not have maximum entropy because higher molecules have more gravitational potential energy, and so there are unbalanced energy potentials.

Tim has not explained why the thermal gradient on, for example, Uranus is not zero. (Look up “Uranus|Troposphere” on Wikipedia for data.) Nor has he explained how solar energy absorbed in the colder Venus atmosphere gets into the hotter surface.

Regarding radiation, Tim, even if you had 10,000 watts per square meter from the Sun for a thousand years it would not raise the temperature of the Venus surface at all – not even by 0.001 degree. You display absolutely no comprehension of how radiation works, but hopefully the PSI-reviewed paper on Radiated Energy will help you learn.

Now that folks is my final free lesson in physics – normally I get paid for teaching such. Fair enough?

• ### Pat Obar

|

[quote name=”solvingtornadoes”][quote name=”Alex Hamilton”]Your article discusses convection and makes the common mistake of assuming it is all about air expanding and subsequently rising. In physics convection can be diffusion at the molecular level or advection or both.[/quote] If you have diffusion you can’t have convection. Convection require bodies of air to have different weight/volume. Would diffusion not defeat that?[/quote]
[quote name=”solvingtornadoes”][quote name=”Alex Hamilton”]Your article discusses convection and makes the common mistake of assuming it is all about air expanding and subsequently rising. In physics convection can be diffusion at the molecular level or advection or both.[/quote] If you have diffusion you can’t have convection. Convection require bodies of air to have different weight/volume. Would diffusion not defeat that?[/quote]
Interesting thought Claudius,
Perhaps on a molecular level you are correct. I have no problem with such as I have no expertise in such. In a thermal POV., I do not wish to use thermodynamic, an that always involves the movement or transfer of “heat” energy. I refuse to consider that as Newtonian
kinetic energy as it has no momentum either linear or rotational. Heat is a different form
kinetic, chemical, or electrical energy as has been demo demonstra5ted. The both completly adiabatic and isentropic lapse rate has nothing to do with thermodynamics, only with a thermostatic condition that needs no heat transfer to be correct.. In the Earth’s atmosphere above 0.1 bar the air is much mor constrained than in the stratosphere. In the lower atmosphere each gas molecule has its own volume determines by a slightly distorted sphere with radius one mean free path. The radius always decreases. from the tropopause to the surface.by the force of gravity, a static gravitational field. this reduction in radius produces two opposing static fields, one a pressure gradient, and the other a temperature gradient. With an an atmosphere of an ideal there would be no temperature gradient,ie.an isotherm, showing Maxwell correct, without further measurement
However further measurement demonstrates
a measurable lapse rate on this physical Earth.ie. Lowenschmidt is correct on this physical Earth. In either case no thermodynamic process ie, “work” is required to statically maintain all three observed potential differences. There is nothing in the measured lapse rate that needs demands that the temperature at ether end of the pressure gradient remain constant Nor even a constant pressure at either end All you have are two independent potential gradients.No magical fantasy is required for understanding.
I think Dr.Butina was attempting to give the same understanding from his knowledge of the well established gas laws I see no evidence of conjecture or fantasy in his presentation

• ### Tim Folkerts

|

David,

1) I have seen that 20 W/m^2 number thrown about, but I don’t haven’t seen a good source for it. I have also not seen if that is supposed to be an average over the surface, or the maximum at noon, or where a specific probe happened to land.

2) A google search showed ….
[i]”The spectrometer on Venera 11 provided direct data on the solar insolation at the surface as a function of wavelength. This paper by Landis and Vo provides a plot of the insolation as a ratio of the intensity at the surface to the intensity in space at Venus, i.e. just outside the atmosphere. Blue is gone completely, green is almost gone at about 0.02, red is better at 0.08 to 0.12, and infrared at about 0.1.” [/i]
The isolation at the top is ~ 3000 W/m^2. Visible light is ~ 40% of that = 1200 W/m^2 and IR is about 50% of that = 1500 W.m^2. With the numbers above, ~4% of 1200 W/m^2 = ~ 50 W/m^2 of visible light. There would also be 10% of 1500 W/m^2 = 150 W/m^2 of IR.

So 20 W/m^2 seems a bit low. Perhaps that is simply the energy in the visible part of the spectrum.

3) Some of the sunlight will be absorbed on the way down through the atmosphere, so that will also help warm the atmosphere.

4) Even with only 20 W/m^2, that would be ~ 2E8 J of energy during the 4 months of sunlight. Given that the heat capacity of rock (and air) is about 1000 J/kg*K, that would be enough energy to warm ~ 40 tons/m^2 of rock and/or air by 5 K. That would be rock ~ 10 m thick, or a smaller amount of rock and some of the atmosphere above the surface. (It would be more reasonable actually to assume a net loss of 10 W/m^2 at night and net gain of 10 W/m^2 during the day, so that would make it more like 20 tons/m^2 that could be warmed.)

|

[quote name=”Alex Hamilton”]Your article discusses convection and makes the common mistake of assuming it is all about air expanding and subsequently rising. In physics convection can be diffusion at the molecular level or advection or both.[/quote] If you have diffusion you can’t have convection. Convection require bodies of air to have different weight/volume. Would diffusion not defeat that?

• ### David Cosserat

|

Tim,

Yes but…do you really think that just 20W/m^2 of electromagnetic power arriving at the Venus surface during the course of its 4 month day is sufficient to raise it by 5K from 732K to 737K?

• ### Tim Folkerts

|

[b][i]”It is ironic that TF cites the well known paper by Verkley et al for, if I remember rightly, they concluded that the thermal gradient would be somewhere between the isentropic state and the isothermal state.”[/i][/b]
I had just quoted what the actual paper says. I provided a link. Despite this, you wishfully remembered the paper as supporting your desired conclusion.
* The equilibrium condition is isothermal. Period.
* A non-equilibrium system with certain constraints will be isentropic with the adiabatic lapse rate.
* The real atmosphere is “sort of constrained” so it is somewhere in between these two extremes.

[i][b]”The problem is that most climatologists do not know what the Second Law actually says these days. They have only to look it up in Wikipedia.
1. The Second Law says a state of maximum entropy will evolve spontaneously.[/b][/i]
Good. That can indeed be looked up in wikipedia as you state.

[i][b]”2. That state must be isentropic.”[/b][/i]
No. You say this is in wikipedia, but indeed it is not. “Isentropic” means “same entropy” not “maximum entropy” as you repeatedly claim. If a system starts in a condition that is not maximum entropy, then isentropic processes will HINDER the system from getting to a state of maximum entropy, not HELP it get to the state of maximum entropy.

[i][b]”3. In an isentropic state (PE+KE)=constant.”[/b][/i]
Also not it wikipedia. Furthermore, thermodynamics typically deals with U, Q, & W, not KE or PE. It sort of seems your mean U = PE+KE, but that could not be right. Perhaps you could either restate this in thermodynamics language, or tell us which KE & PE you mean. Or give a reference to a textbook that makes such a claim.

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

The thing is, once we are past the disagreements on esoteric fundamentals of thermodynamics, we don’t disagree that much.

Convection will occur in planetary atmospheres; a lapse rate will form; the bottom will be a higher temperature than the top. The height of the atmosphere is primary reason that Venus is hotter than the earth, not the difference in CO2 content.

• ### David Cosserat

|

Alex,

Thanks for that succinct and clear exposition of your position. It accords with my gut feeling and, obviously, those of others such as Harry Dale Huffman and Doug Cotton.

Please direct me to the PSI paper on planetary surface temperatures. Using the search function on PSI didn’t help me.

By the way, I don’t think you can be accused of plagiarism when you quote your sources. There is no monopoly on truth or opinion.

• ### Alex Hamilton

|

I don’t know what your plans are in regard to papers or articles on this, but I do not wish to participate further as I am not wanting to be accused of plagiarism. I have said all I need to in the above comments and those on WUWT.

• ### Alex Hamilton

|

Yes David.

The PROM paper on Planetary Surface Temperatures was indeed ground-breaking, and so too was Hans Jelbring’s [url=http://ruby.fgcu.edu/courses/twimberley/EnviroPhilo/FunctionOfMass.pdf]paper[/url] in which there is reference to the 5 degree variation on Venus. What I write is based on these papers.

The warming process on Venus is essentially the mirror image of the cooling process, and so it is not surprising that they each take the same time (4 months) to alter the surface temperature by 5 degrees. The other side of the debate (which assumes isothermal conditions in a non-radiating tropospere) is easily rebutted because no satisfactory energy budget can explain the observations.

The plain fact is that gravity in effect traps the energy under the autonomous temperature plot whose gradient is based on -g/Cp and whose overall level is determined by radiative balance with the Sun.

Downward diffusion does not in any way violate the Second Law. It is a direct result of the evolving process described in that law.

[b]The problem is that most climatologists do not know what the Second Law actually says these days.[/b]

They have only to look it up in [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_law_of_thermodynamics]Wikipedia[/url].

1. The Second Law says a state of maximum entropy will evolve spontaneously.

2. That state must be isentropic.

3. In an isentropic state (PE+KE)=constant.

4. It follows (in just two lines of calculations) that there is a temperature gradient -g/Cp in a non-radiating troposphere.

5. If the Sun adds extra energy that gradient will have to be maintained, so the new energy raises the whole temperature plot, and the surface, by 5 degrees on Venus.

6. As most new solar energy is absorbed in upper layers, more of the new energy travels down than up when thermodynamic equilibrium is being restored.

[b]Everything is based on the Second Law of Thermodynamics[/b]

• ### David Cosserat

|

Alex,

As far as I am concerned you are a very welcome addition to this discussion.

I sense that this question of “downward diffusion” of sensible heat through an atmosphere is now probably the key to explaining the elevated surface temperatures of those planets where it appears that not enough energy reaches the surface by radiation to sustain the temperatures that have been observed there.

But this is a qualitative assertion. I think to get a resolution we now need to overcome two hurdles:

1. The temperature of an object (in this case the Venus surface) depends not only the rate of arrival of energy but on the rate of its escape. I think Doug comes close to resolving this when he points out that the Venus surface temperature cycles up and down by several degrees over the 4 month day/night period. This gives us a broad empirical estimate of the time constant of rate of escape of energy. It indicates that the elevated surface temperature has to be sustained by inflowing energy on a short timescale and cannot simply be due to a gradual accumulation of heat over thousands (or even millions) of years just from the weak radiation that reaches the surface, as some have suggested.

I do think we need to resolve the above issue quantitatively to the satisfaction of both sides of the debate before it is worth moving on to step 2…

2. The philosophical block in this perennial discussion occurs because the proposition of downward diffusion appears to violate the 2LT as heat moves non-radiatively from cooler layers of the atmosphere to warmer layers. For me (and I hope everyone else here) any suggestion that the 2LT is somehow violated in a gravitational field is unacceptable. The 2LT has to be [i]accommodated[/i] if we are all to achieve agreement on this issue. (My experience of the “Verklely debate” is that it just leads to greater and greater obfuscation and nothing is ever resolved – just see the endless and largely incomprehensible debates on the Tallbloke site last year.)

If you agree with the above two proposed discussion steps, let us proceed, amicably and constructively as professional scientists and engineers must always aspire to do. 🙂

• ### Alex Hamilton

|

Pat Obar writes 2LTD has nothing to do with the fake “entropy”

The Second Law (in its modern form – as in Wikipedia and elsewhere) has everything to do with entropy. I suggest you look up such matters before you try to teach me physics.

• ### Pat Obar

|

[quote name=”Alex Hamilton”]On the one hand TF talks about how he thinks convection only transfers thermal energy “from a higher temperature to a lower temperature” (correction of definition) [/quote]
Do you have any demonstration of any other heat transfer? You combine the mass transport of an gas mass with high sensible heat which does involve work but no heat transferto a lower altitude (surface). At the surface, The gas mass may transfer sensible heat to the surface. But only if the surface is at a lower temperature. If the the temperature of the surface is higher than the gas mass, Sensible heat transfer “may” only be to that lower temperature potential. This is the precise meaning of 2LTD. Which in common language is:
1.) Spontaneously nothing goes uphill.
2.) Stuff. may spontaneously go downhill, sometimes. This is not required! 2LTD has nothing to do with the fake “entropy”!

Try to be as precise as Rudolf Clausius, no modern arrogant academic has ever been close.

• ### Alex Hamilton

|

On the one hand TF talks about how he thinks convection only transfers thermal energy from hot to cold, and so he expects all the convection in the Venus troposphere to be transferring energy only upwards. But then he talks about convection going downwards and the gas itself doing work (and presumably creating energy) as it gets compressed (by gravity I presume) and is presumably descending through the middle of all the upward rising gas.

He seems to forget lesson one – work requires energy, TF. Where does the new energy come from? It’s not all that hard to answer, you know. The only new energy each Venus morning is that from the Sun, and you might as well simplify it by assuming it is all absorbed in the upper troposphere. I know that’s an approximation, but even if 100% of the new solar energy were absorbed in regions of the troposphere that were colder than, say, 600K, then I maintain that the only way the necessary energy is getting into the Venus surface is by downward diffusion of kinetic energy at the molecular level, because of the temperature inversion caused when the newly absorbed energy disturbed the thermodynamic equilibrium. There has to be a slow heat transfer from the 600K region to the 732K surface in order to raise that surface to 737K. There is no net energy coming out of the surface when its temperature is going up. Virtually all convection (or diffusion) is downwards in the day and upwards at night on Venus.

• ### Alex Hamilton

|

It is ironic that TF cites the well known paper by Verkley et al for, if I remember rightly, they concluded that the thermal gradient would be somewhere between the isentropic state and the isothermal state.

It has been explained above why this is indeed the case. A non-radiating atmosphere develops a gradient based on the isentropic state (having maximum entropy) but then, when radiating gases (including H2O) are introduced there is inter-molecular radiation which has a propensity towards isothermal conditions.

Hence there is a balance between the two, as we see in the environmental lapse rate on Earth. That balance represents the final thermodynamic equilibrium state.

If such were not in equilibrium, and if an isothermal state were the equilibrium state (being not at all isentropic) then the Verkley paper had no purpose and its conclusions would be invalid. Furthermore, you would be left with no transfer of thermal energy by diffusion of kinetic energy that explains how the necessary energy gets into the surface of Venus.

• ### Tim Folkerts

|

Thanks for being a peace-maker, David. The truth is that there are lots of mostly-good ideas floating around, but often couched in poor terminology. There are also plenty of cases where both “sides” have some ideas that complement rather than contradict each other.

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

1) Alex is mostly right (but with the wrong word) when he says “that heat transfer being in effect downward convection.” The equation connected to this is idea the 1st Law:
dU = dQ + dW
During adiabatic convection (the assumption behind the adiabatic lapse rate), the heat = dQ = 0 by definition. There is no heat moving downward- not by conduction, convection or radiation.

But WORK = dW is being done on (by) the gas as is convects down (up) and compresses (expands). This means the internal energy will be increasing (decreasing) and hence the temperature will be increasing (decreasing).

Similarly David’s statement “the counterintuitive idea that energy can flow down the atmosphere’s thermal gradient by a diffusion process is nevertheless enormously appealing” is probably closely related to this idea that work = dW is done as the gas moves downward (rather than actual dQ from cooler to warmer).

[For real atmospheres, there will indeed be a bit of dQ upward from warm lower layers (including the surface) to cooler upper layers (including outer space; and including from one bit of air to another bit of air) so the adiabatic lapse rate will only be a good approximation. But in no case should we expect dQ = “heat” moving downward. ]

2) Convection is the de facto situation for all planetary and lunar atmospheres. Convection is driven by temperature differences, and there will always be temperature differences – both from the day side to the night side and from bottom to top (both from solar heating and geothermal heating). This means there will always be a lapse rate; the surface will always be warmer than the top of the atmosphere.

But please do not say this is the [i]equilibrium [/i] condition or that ([i]heat[/i] (dQ) is moving from warmer to cooler.

3) Both convection and radiation impact the surface temperatures. I apologize if I gave the impression that I thought radiation alone was the entire answer. Working out the relative importance of the two would be a rather involved undertaking.

• ### richard 2014

|

will this answer all the questions about Venus temp or is it a politically led experiment coming to the politically correct conclusion- co2 causes catastrophic warming!

• ### David Cosserat

|

Sorry, at #24, the last line should read… “atmospheres (Venus 96%; Earth 0.04%).”

• ### David Cosserat

|

…continued from above

Ned Nikolv & Karl Zeller subsequently observed that the tropospheric temperature profiles of ALL rocky planets in the solar system for which adequate data is available appear to follow the same tropospheric temperature gradient based solely on the ideal gas law rather and not at all on atmospheric composition.

So now we have (at least) five qualified scientists making the same claim, in each case with clarity and coherence. Against that we have the puzzling challenge that their theory is open to criticism on the grounds that it appears to violate the laws of thermodynamics. We are, in fact, right back to the Maxwell v. Loschmidt debate of the 1870s. To my mind Roderich Graeff’s experiment never resolved the issue one way or the other.

I think this is where we should now be hammering away, keeping in the forefront of our minds that Maxwell and Loschmidt were life-long friends despite their fierce disagreement on this and other thermodynamic issues. 🙂

• ### David Cosserat

|

I can see this interesting and potentially crucial new discussion is already in danger of breaking down due to ‘armchair buffoonery’. However I shall press on hoping that we will be able to maintain a genuine and polite scientific discussion in the face of such behaviour.

The author of this piece is quite wrong to say that GHT adherents assume that the earth-atmosphere system is closed, thermodynamically speaking. Energy flows in from the Sun and energy flows out to space. So it obviously is not. He thus sets up a straw man which he then proceeds to knock down, achieving no progress forward. As other skeptics before him have done, he is ascribing to (responsible) warmists views that they simply do not hold.

I fear there is a great danger of simply arguing over the meaning of terms. For example if we care to define that all parts of a system that is in ‘thermal equilibrium’ must be at the same temperature then we should simply stop using that term in relation to the earth-atmosphere system – which is obviously open to energy flows, in and out and which has a gigantic negative temperature gradient up through the atmosphere.

I suggest the better term to be using when discussing such an open system is ‘steady state’, meaning that temperatures in different parts of the system can be different from one another but are unchanging over time because the energy flows are constant. (Obviously in the case of the earth-atmosphere system we are talking here about long term averages.)

Alex Hamilton and Doug Cotton (‘visiting physicist’) should not be gunned down over terminology. That is just another straw man. Likewise neither should Tim Folkerts and his supporters such as Joel Shore and Robert Brown be gunned down for pointing out how terminology is generally used in the academic physics community. We have to put all that behind us and find a common language that exposes the realities rather than one that just creates more anger and confusion.

To me, the counterintuitive idea that energy can flow down the atmosphere’s thermal gradient by a diffusion process is nevertheless enormously appealing. As both Alex and Doug point out, insufficient radiation appears to reach the surfaces of planets such as Venus and Uranus to keep them as warm as they have been measured to be. In fact, Alex and Doug are following in the footsteps of others who have maintained the same argument over the years.

Harry Dale Huffman came to the conclusion that the Venus atmosphere must be heated by a diffusion effect from above because that is the only way of explaining why its tropospheric temperature gradient is the same as the Earth’s (when measured over the same pressure range and subject to inverse square law scaling to account for the varying distances from the Sun) despite the dramatically different GHG compositions of their atmospheres (Venus 96%; Earth 0.004%).

continued below…

• ### Tim Folkerts

|

The link above doesn’t seem to work. Try this one:
http://www.knmi.nl/publications/fulltexts/verkley_gerkema.pdf

The introduction is informative …
“The question of what [b]vertical temperature profile[/b] corresponds to the state of [b]maximal entropy [/b] was posed more than a century ago. At first, the discussion took place within the framework of classical thermodynamics; one considers an ideal gas in a gravitational field and seeks the state of maximum entropy under the constraints of 1) a constant mass and 2) a constant energy (internal plus potential). The answer—the profile will be [b]isothermal—was rigorously proven by Gibbs[/b] (in 1876, see Gibbs 1961, p. 144ff ) for rbitrary types of fluids. In the framework of the kinetic theory of gases,
[b]Boltzmann (1896, p. 136) arrived at the same conclusion[/b] by using his H theorem. Despite these proofs, the issue [b]remained a source of contention and confusion[/b]; for example, a common misconception was that gravity would change the nature of thermodynamic equilibrium so as to create a vertical temperature gradient.”

• ### Pat Obar

|

[quote name=”Tim Folkerts”][quote]Even Wikipedia explains …
“an inversion is a deviation from the normal change of an mospheric property with altitude.”
And as I already explained, the solar energy that does reach the surface (~ 20 W/m^2 for 4 straight months) will indeed warm the surface by a significant amount. (And other solar energy gets absorbed throughout the atmosphere, directly warming the entire atmosphere as well.) The solar energy that reaches the surface only needs to be greater than the net flow of heat from the surface for warming to occur.[/quote]

Tim please stop with your arrogant academic prattle. You have clearly demonstrated that you have no capability of what is in this universe. You can only prattle of your fantasy of what “may be” in some other illusory universe. This universe “requires” a measurement of “what is”. You have no such measurement. You have only an illusion from arrogant academic prattle! Show “any” measurement of your illusions.,
Tim, if you wish to learn, we can help! If you only wish to prattle, prattle elsewhere!

• ### Alex Hamilton

|

TF

I am not here to teach people like yourself basic physics. I get paid to do that.

You, sir, display a complete misunderstanding of radiation if you think such a small flux could raise the temperature of the Venus surface.

There is indeed a temperature inversion running throughout the troposphere on the sunlit side of Venus, and there is heat transfer from the far colder regions of that troposphere down into the far hotter surface, that heat transfer being in effect downward convection.

The warming of teh Venus surface would occur even if no radiation at all reached the surface. The downward convection happens because the state of thermodynamic equilibrium has a thermal gradient and so extra energy absorbed at the top of the troposphere flows downwards into warmer regions and into the surface in order to restore the normal gradient.

• ### Tim Folkerts

|

[quote]Even Wikipedia explains …
“an inversion is a deviation from the normal change of an atmospheric property with altitude.” [/quote]

Normal: yes.
Equilibrium: no.

The atmosphere simply is not at equilibrium. Not even close. There is a continuous flow her heat up through the atmosphere. It is a stretch to even call it “steady-state”, but that is at least much *closer* to the actual situation.

And as I already explained, the solar energy that does reach the surface (~ 20 W/m^2 for 4 straight months) will indeed warm the surface by a significant amount. (And other solar energy gets absorbed throughout the atmosphere, directly warming the entire atmosphere as well.) The solar energy that reaches the surface only needs to be greater than the net flow of heat from the surface for warming to occur.

• ### visiting physicist

|

In a gravitational field heat stops flowing when the temperature gradient is reached, not isothermal conditions. Surely you have heard of temperature inversions when the top is not as cold as the normal environmental lapse rate would indicate it should be. That is when heat actually flows towards the surface, even though the lower altitudes are warmer.

Even Wikipedia explains …
“an inversion is a deviation from the normal change of an atmospheric property with altitude.”

Until you can demonstrate how your guesswork can be applied to show how the necessary energy gets into the Venus surface to raise its temperature by 5 degrees, I have nothing to add.

• ### Tim Folkerts

|

[quote]And, Tim, your two blackbodies at top and bottom just help to demonstrate that radiation within the system does indeed reduce the temperature gradient…[/quote]
by allowing a heat flow, Q, from the warmer bottom to the cooler top, thereby increasing entropy by an amount S = -Q/T_hot + Q/Tcool.
As you recognize, “the whole thrust of the Second Law of Thermodynamics is that there is a propensity towards a state of maximum entropy”. We are increasing entropy as the heat flows from warm to cool. Entropy will continue to increase as long as heat can flow, reaching a maximum when heat stops flowing and the temperature is the same at the top and the bottom.

Period. End of story. There are no provisos in the 2nd Law that KE + PE must be constant. There are on provisos in the 0th Law that say horizontal is different than vertical.

• ### Pat Obar

|

Dr Butina,,
Thank you for such a well written article on atmospheric physics from your POV of mixed gas properties, Understand I have no desire to challenge your learned POV Which seems entirely reasonable to me. I have A different POV that does not disagree.but only observations from a different angle.
My measurements all concern the propagation of thermal electromagnetic energy through your partial dispersive mixed gasses.
The Climate alarmist claim a reduction in thermal exitance from the planet and its atmospheres because of changes in the atmospheric gas constituents. I can not discover or measure such a change.
Perhaps the integral of knowledge from all angles may result in some understanding!~

• ### visiting physicist

|

PPS The Venus surface temperature actually rises by about 5 degrees spread over the course of its 4-month-long day. It cools by 5 degrees at night, and so it could easily have cooled right down in a few centuries, but for the fact that energy from the Sun warms it up again from about 732K to 737K.

How does the required energy get into the Venus surface during its 4-month warming period, Tim?

Until you understand what is in my book you will have no valid answer because, if radiation were heating it, that radiation would have to be far more than even the Solar radiative flux which reaches the top of the Venus atmosphere, let alone the 20W/m^2 that gets through to the surface. You can never answer this Venus dilemma based on an assumption of isothermal conditions.

• ### visiting physicist

|

PS The oceans are hotter at the top (just like the stratosphere) for the simple reason that more energy is absorbed in the thermocline at a rate which is faster than it can spread by diffusion. Ocean currents also override the gravity gradient.

So if you want to observe the gravity-gradient in water I suggest you go to Antarctica in winter and there you will find a small isolated lake called Don Juan Pond which is so salty it never freezes and which I’m sure you’ll find will exhibit warmer temperatures at the bottom than at the top.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don_Juan_Pond

• ### visiting physicist

|

Tim, the statements you may read in Wikipedia or elsewhere about thermal equilibrium being included in thermodynamic equilibrium are indeed correct in a horizontal plane, but not a vertical plane.

The whole thrust of the Second Law of Thermodynamics is that there is a propensity towards a state of maximum entropy and that state by definition has no unbalanced energy potentials.

If you had isothermal conditions in a gravitational field then there would be a propensity for more downward motion than upward motion in the free flight of the molecules in the system, and so entropy can still increase. It’s as simple as that.

Funny how climatologists disregard energy flow from the core of the Earth, but you now want to make out that there is some energy flow from some never-convincingly-observed energy generation in the core of Uranus. Is such a minute energy generation, if it even exists, keeping the Uranus core at around 5,000K? That’s a tall order, Tim, especially when all the other comments above are explaining to you why there is a gravitationally-induced temperature gradient, and yet you still can’t understand why.

I have no more time to teach you, Tim. I suggest you re-read all comments above and try a little harder to understand. You could also read a far more detailed explanation in about 20 pages in my book “Why it’s not carbon dioxide after all” which, now that the text is finalised, I hear will be about 10 weeks in the production phase.

• ### Tim Folkerts

|

[quote]”Yes Tim, but who is talking about thermal equilibrium? Do you not yet understand that thermodynamic equilibrium is a totally different thing?”[/quote]

My goodness! Thermodynamic equilibrium INCLUDES thermal equilibrium (plus other things like mechanical equilibrium and chemical equilibrium). Thermodynamic equilibrium is MORE restrictive than simple “thermal equilibrium.So *you* are talking about thermal equilibrium! 🙂

[quote]”If you were correct then all 350Km of the Uranus troposphere would be at the radiating temperature of Uranus which is just under 60K. “[/quote]

No! Uranus is NOT at thermodynamic equilibrium! There is a small energy flow from the hot core to the cooler surface. The planet is still moving toward equilibrium — it just takes billions of years for an object that size.

[quote]My hypothesis works everywhere without exception… [/quote]

No, it only APPEARS to work, but none of the systems you mention are in thermodynamic equilibrium (all have thermal energy flowing up through the system), so your hypothesis doesn’t even APPLY to the situations you are discussion.

Here is one small challenge for you — why are the oceans cooler at the bottom? There is MUCH less potential energy at the bottom of the ocean, so your hypothesis predicts that the bottom should be MUCH warmer.

• ### visiting physicist

|

And, Tim, your two blackbodies at top and bottom just help to demonstrate that radiation within the system does indeed reduce the temperature gradient. That is because radiation transfers thermal energy from warmer to cooler regions at the speed of light, whereas the diffusion of thermal energy through molecular collisions is a far slower process.

So it’s all a matter of the relative effects of these two opposing processes.

We don’t have another Earth at the top of the troposphere. What we have is a very small percentage of radiating molecules trying to level out the temperature compared with all 100% of molecules participating in the diffusion process.

On Earth the inter-molecular radiation gets about a third of the way towards levelling out the gradient (and thus cooling the surface) whereas on Uranus I calculated that the radiation between the few methane molecules is only reducing the gradient by about 5%.

My hypothesis works everywhere without exception, Tim, even under the surface right down to the cores of Earth and the Moon, for example.

• ### visiting physicist

|

Yes Tim, but who is talking about thermal equilibrium? Do you not yet understand that thermodynamic equilibrium is a totally different thing? There are no unbalanced energy potentials when there is thermodynamic equilibrium.

If you did have isothermal conditions, then there would be unbalanced energy potentials because the higher molecules would have more mean gravitational potential energy and yet the same mean kinetic energy. So, at thermodynamic equilibrium (PE+KE) has to be homogeneous and, because the mean KE is what determines temperature, there is a temperature gradient.

If you were correct then all 350Km of the Uranus troposphere would be at the radiating temperature of Uranus which is just under 60K. Instead, the base of that troposphere is hotter than Earth’s surface, even though there is no significant internal energy generation or direct solar radiation or any surface there. So you and your associates are not correct. Nor is the radiative greenhouse conjecture.

Stop calling upon authority and start thinking for yourself. Einstein gave similar advice.

• ### Tim Folkerts

|

Alex says: [i]”That’s not physics. Try again.”[/i]

I have discussed this extensively with people smarter than either of us. All agree that true thermal equilibrium is indeed isothermal. And since thermal equilibrium is one necessary condition of thermodynamic equilibrium, then the true equilibrium condition is indeed isothermal.

Don’t take my word for it. Go to any local university and ask the prof who teaches thermodynamics whether you or I have the physics right.

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

I will grant that various process – radiation, conduction, and condensation — all play a role in driving deviations from the adiabatic lapse rate. Of course, the reason it was called the *adiabatic* lapse rate to begin with is because it was assumed no heat flow form one parcel to another, ie no conduction or radiation. When you remove this artificial restriction, the temperature profile starts to move toward true equilibrium, ie reducing the lapse rate.

This presents yet another argument that a lapse rate is not the equilibrium condition. Take a column of gas that does not radiate IR (He should be an excellent candidate). Set the initial conditions so that the temperature profile of the gas is the adiabatic lapse rate. Now put blackbody surfaces at the top and bottom. There will radiation from the warmer bottom to the colder top, ie a heat flow from the bottom to the top. As you know, this heat flow would further increase the entropy of the system. This heat flow will continue until the top and bottom are the same temperature. (Or if you are correct, the radiation will continue forever, in violation of the 2nd Law. )

• ### Alex Hamilton

|

Tim also thinks, as climatologists teach their climatology students, that the release of latent heat is what reduces the lapse rate over the whole troposphere.

Well it’s not the primary cause of any overall effect om the lapse rate. The overall effect is fairly homogeneous, so the mean annual lapse rate in the tropics, for example is fairly similar at most altitudes. But the release of latent heat during condensation is not equal at all altitudes and warming at all altitudes would not necessarily reduce the gradient anyway. In fact, one would expect more such warming in the lower troposphere.

The effcet of reducing the lapse rate is to cool temperatures in the lower 4 or 5Km of the troposphere and raise them in the upper troposphere, so that this all helps to retain radiative balance with the Sun, such as is observed.

So, Tim, where is all the condensation in the uppermost regions of the troposphere and why is there apparently a cooling effect from whatever latent heat is released in the lower altitudes below 4 or 5Km?

It’s nonsense what climatologists teach themselves, and the claims made by Tim are simply not backed up by physics.

(1) Gases diffuse and the thermal gradient in a non-radiating gas mixture is determined from -g/Cp where Cp is the weighted mean specific heat of the gas mixture. So the thermal gradient ends up being somewhere between the two initial gradients in the two gases before they mix. Thermodynamic equibrium is only achieved when the mixture is homogeneous.

(2) Radiation can transfer energy from warmer to cooler molecules within the system being considered, so this transfers energy far faster than the slow process that involves molecular collisions. That is why the gradient is reduced and the reduction also happens on other planets where no water is present.

• ### Alex Hamilton

|

Continuing from my comment at 17:07 (also on WUWT), the inevitable conclusion is that is is not greenhouse gases that are raising the surface temperature by 33 degrees or whatever, but the fact that the thermal profile is already established by the force of gravity acting at the molecular level on all solids, liquids and gases. So the “lapse rate” is already there, and indeed we see it in the atmospheres of other planets as well, even where no significant solar radiation penetrates.

In fact, because the “dry” lapse rate is steeper, and that is what would evolve spontaneously in a pure nitrogen and oxygen atmosphere, and because we know that the wet adiabatic lapse rate is less steep than the dry one, it is obvious that the surface temperature is not as high because of these greenhouse gases. Carbon dioxide (being one molecule in about 2,500 other molecules) has very little effect, but whatever effect it does have would thus be very minor cooling.

I don’t care what you think you can deduce from whatever apparent correlation you think you can demonstrate from historical data, there is no valid physics which points to carbon dioxide warming.

• ### Alex Hamilton

|

Well, Tim, that’s what you and climatologists think happens, but it is not what physics tells us. Your thought experiment is invalid because the two gases comprise a single system in which molecules will collide and intermix until a state of thermodynamic equilibrium evolves. Entropy cannot decrease Tim – you should know that. No perpetual motion is possible because entropy increases as much as it can within the constraints of the system. If those contraints keep the gases separate (as in two separate sealed cylinders) sure there will be different thermal gradients. So what? But if there are no sealed containers then you are visualising two gases side by side in two adjacent columns of an atmosphere and you are wrongly assuming that entropy would decrease and/or some perpetual cyclic motion would evolve still keeping the gases separate I suppose you think. That’s not the real world, Tim. That’s not physics. Try again.

• ### Tim Folkerts

|

Alex, a lapse rate ~ -g/Cp is indeed very common, but it is NOT the “equilibrium” condition. Instead it is the typical “steady-state” condition when there is a heat flow up through a gas (which there is in every atmosphere of every planet and moon in the solar system).

The simplest objection is perhaps that -g/Cp will depend on the gas. Thus two gases that are in equilibrium at the surface (say at 300K), would be different temperatures 10 km up (perhaps 200 K for one gas and 250 K for the other). But it is obvious that the two gases side by side at different temperatures are not at equilibrium.

PS, it is the condensation of water that is primarily responsible for the environmental lapse rate being less than the “dry adiabatic lapse rate” of -g/Cp

• ### Alex Hamilton

|

Your article discusses convection and makes the common mistake of assuming it is all about air expanding and subsequently rising. In physics convection can be diffusion at the molecular level or advection or both.

It is important to understand that the so-called “lapse rate” (which is a thermal gradient) evolves spontaneously at the molecular level, because the laws of physics tell us such a state is one with maximum entropy and no unbalanced energy potentials. In effect, for individual molecules the mean sum of kinetic energy and gravitational potential energy is constant.

So this thermal gradient is in fact a state of thermodynamic equilibrium. If it is already formed in any particular region then indeed extra thermal energy absorbed at the bottom of a column of air will give the impression of warm air rising. But that may not be the case if the thermal gradient is not in thermodynamic equilibrium and is initially not as steep as it normally would be. In such a case thermal energy can actually flow downwards in order to restore thermodynamic equilibrium with the correct thermal gradient.

What then is the “correct” thermal gradient? The equation (PE+KE)=constant amounts to MgH+MCpT=constant (where M is the mass, H is the height differential and T the temperature differential and Cp the specific heat.) So the theoretical gradient for a pure non-radiating gas is -g/Cp as is well known to be the so-called dry adiabatic lapse rate. However, thermodynamic equilibrium must also take into account the fact that radiation could be transferring energy between any radiating molecules (such as water vapour or carbon dioxide) and this has a propensity to reduce the net result for the thermal gradient. Hence we get the environmental lapse rate representing the overall state of thermodynamic equilibrium.

• ### richard 2014

|

“The statement should be phrased more like “capacity to ‘trap’ thermal IR” or “capacity to reduce the flow of heat from the surface to space””

by how long, once co2 absorbs thermal IR how long before it re-emits if it is instantaneous then so what.

• ### Tim Folkerts

|

[quote]Please note that statement like “CO2 has capacity to ’trap’ heat” is totally meaningless [/quote]

The statement should be phrased more like “capacity to ‘trap’ thermal IR” or “capacity to reduce the flow of heat from the surface to space”.

In this context, the idea makes perfect sense and is indeed true. CO2 (and other “greenhouse gases” can absorb and emit thermal IR (ie ~4 – 100 um wavelengths) rather effectively. N2 & O2 cannot. It is the IR properties that make all the difference. And since your analysis completely ignores the IR properties of the gases, it cannot accurately describe what effect this might have.

PS You make a big point about properties being the same both day and night. Where has anyone claimed that the fundamental properties of gases are different at different times of day?

• ### richard 2014

|

“That primary surface, i.e. our atmosphere is 100% full of molecules”

if co2 increases is there a reduction in any other gas?, if so, bearing in mind the following

“Please note that statement like “CO2 has capacity to ’trap’ heat” is totally meaningless since every molecule has the capacity to absorb, or trap, heat!”

then an in increase in co2 wouldn’t make any difference anyway.