JAPANESE SPACE AGENCY AGREES WITH SKEPTICS ON CLIMATE CHANGE

Written by Terri Jackson MSc (Physics)

Higher carbon dioxide levels are coming from undeveloped countries in equatorial Africa and South America not from UK, EU and US, shows Japanese government satellite data.  Japan abandons its CO2 targets as separate scientific evidence suggests Earth is fast approaching a new ice age.fig 1

Japanese climate satellite data supports climate realist Professor Murry Salby in rejecting global warming theory; humans are not responsible for measured increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) affirm evidence in Report from Japanese Aerospace exploration agency (JAXA).The Japanese Aerospace Exploration Agency (JAXA) has revealed that its climate satellite IBUKI data shows that the growth in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is coming from third world under developed forested equatorial regions of Africa and South America. 

The Japanese satellite maps show that the asphalt and concreted industrial nations are “mopping up” carbon dioxide faster than their manufacturers and consumers can emit it.  Astonishingly, this is the opposite to what is being relayed to the public from an unswerving alarmist climate media lobby.  The JAXA evidence shows that US and western european nations are areas where the carbon dioxide levels are lowest! 

 

In personal communication with leading climate scientist, Richard Lindzen, emeritus professor of atmospheric physics at Massachusetts Institute of Technology, he told this author that there was no surprise that the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere comes mostly from high vegetation forested low industrial areas rather than developed countries like the US, UK and EU.

In the  IBUKI climate satellite map (fig 1 above) regions coloured red represent high emission CO2 emissions, regions coloured white represent low or neutral CO2 emissions while regions coloured green represent no CO2 emissions only CO2 absorption! 

This is the opposite effect predicted by alarmist global warming theory. While the Japanese rely on verifiable physical evidence as observed by satellites the climate alarmists base their doomsayig claims on ‘homogenized’ (computer-manipulated) ground-based temperature recording stations. 

Independent analysts say the data from ground-based recording stations has been deliberately altered to show an imaginary warming trend not borne out by the ‘raw’ (unadulterated) temperature reasdings. Moreover, the number of sites for such ground thermometers have been reduced from 6,000 to 1,500 over several years, with most of those in cooler regions now omitted. (For more on this see “While the Earth Endures”  by Rev Philip Foster St Matthew Publishing  www.stmatthewpublishing.co.uk ). 

The upshot of this systematic cherry-picking gives temperature data that is skewed towards painting a (false) picture of a rapidly warming climate. By contrast satellite data, by its very nature of coming from satellites, cannot be altered by human hands (see figure 2 [right] from Murry Salby lecture in House of Common, November 6, 2013).Salby data

In this satellite image the blue colour in the northern hemisphere represents low carbon dioxide emissions from the industrial nations of the US, UK and EU. The red colour in the southern hemisphere represents high carbon emissions from forested vegetation areas in equatorial regions. This is precisely the opposite of what an alarmist and quiescent mainstream media would have you believe.

For a detailed account of the lecture by Professor Salby see the Scottish climate and energy forum web site:  www.scef.org.uk

What an increasing number of independent experts are seeing is that earth is cooling, and many predict we are on the cusp of a new Little Ice Age, due to the decline of the bi-cenntenial component of the total solar irradiance.  Bern fig 3

Figure 4 (below)  shows the decline (credit: Dr H Abdussamatov Director of Space Physics at Polkovo Observatory St Petersburg). As such, there will be no further global warming this century!    

 Scientists accuse IPCC of fraud in use of Bern Climate Cycle formula

A formula used by the International Panel on Climate Change (see page 34, ARA4, WG1 Technical Summary) represents the decay of a pulse of CO2 with time t.  The first constant ao has a value of 0.217.  As this first term is constant the CO2 level will always go up and never down! 

However as Dr Jonathan Drake,  noted UK climate researcher, and Mr D Alker of Principia Scientific International (PSI) pointed out at the Edinburgh meeting with Professor Murry Salby, all records of atmospheric CO2 concentrations past, proxy or present show that CO2 varies both up and down on any time scale relevant to climate. Thus, the formula used by the IPCC (right) allows them to claim wrongly that CO2 will always increase, a convenient ploy engineered since the inception of the modern era of climate change alarmism.ipcc formula

It has also pointed out by Mr Alker that because the models are only dependent upon CO2 to change temperature the ao term means that all the climate models of the IPCC can only produce warming! Essentially, this means that 21.7 percent of each year’s human emissions of CO2, according to this rigged IPCC formula, NEVER leaves the atmosphere, thereby leading to an assumed accumulation of human-emitted atmopsheric CO2, entirely the product of statistical shennanigans.

Pollution of the atmosphere is already taken care of by the clean air acts in force now in most countries including the UK and the US. We may reasonably infer from the pronouncements of climate alarmists who vilify fossil fuels, that they wish to return mankind back to the days before the industrial revolution, when lifespans were half what they are today and when poverty and disease were widespread.

Regardless of such extreme ambitions today’s CO2 levels stand at a miniscule 0.04 percent of the atmosphere.  The lowest it has ever been in geologic time and dangerously low for plant life.  In fact many species of plants are dying due to the low CO2 levels – and if they die we die!

In short, the earth needs more CO2, not less. The present rise over the last couple of centuries is trivial compared with previous ages and most likely due to the earth coming out of the Little Ice Age (LIA) when records show frost fairs were extremely common and ice skaters frolicked on the frozen River Thames. The LIA ended in 1850.

Independent scientists who study climate say that present climate change is almost all caused by a combination of temperature induced and moisture induced natural releases from vegetation areas in equatorial regions of the earth, and also from deep ocean warming during the Medieval Warm Period; it takes several hundred years for oceans to  respond by outgassing CO2.

However with the sun now changing due to its declining total solar irradiance and with the present static global temperature for the past 18 years, it is clear the new Little Ice Age could be here already (see Fig 4, right).  An entirely natural phenomena nothing to do with humans but totally in God’s control.Fig 4 Polkovo

References and web sites:

JAXA, Japanese Aerospace Exploration agency, Greenhouse Gas Observation satellite(IBUKI) (GOSAT), accessed online 30 October 2011;

Professor Murry Salby UK tour (November 2013); House of Commons and Scottish Parliament lecture (http://scef.org.uk

Dr Tim Ball: file:///C:/Documents%20and%20Settings/Terri/My%20Documents/Dr%20Tim%20Ball%20%20Japanese%20satellite%20data.htm

John 0Sullivan (CO2 Insanity): file:///C:/Documents%20and%20Settings/Terri/My%20Documents/CO2%20insanity%20JAXA%20satellite.htm

Repeal the UK Climate Act:  www.repealtheact.org.uk

Rev. Philip Foster: www.stmatthewpublishing.co.uk 

Nigel Lawson (Global Warming Policy Foundation):  www.thegwpf.org

Piers Corbyn (Fellow of the Royal Meteorological Society: www.weatheraction.com  http://scientificqa.blogspot.co.uk     

Principia Scientific International: http://principia-scientific.org

The Oregon Petition (signed by over 30,000 qualified skeptical scientists) http://petitionproject.org

Some recent books:

Darwell, Rupert, The Age of global Warming, Quartet, 2013.

Foster, Philip, While the Earth Endures: Creation Cosmology and Climate Chang, St Matthew publishing.

The Greatest Hoax:  How the global warming conspiracy threatens your future, US Senator James Inhofe, WND Books, Washington DC, United States (Senator Inhofe was the recent former chair of the US Congress environment committee.)

Man made climate change theory collapsing!

Japan has abandoned its carbon targets,  Australia is repealing all green levies and taxes, Poland has rejected the IPCC climate change strategy.  Over 1000 international scientists in a report to the US senate have said they desist from the unproven man made climate change theory.  A recent poll of Swedish politicians has revealed that 6 out of 10 Swedish politicians no longer believe in man made climate change.       

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , ,

Comments (63)

  • Avatar

    bill hunter

    |

    [quote name=”Tim Folkerts”]
    I doubt you will believe me. Take this conversation to any physics department and find the prof who teaches Thermodynamics. Ask which interpretation is closer to correct. to[/quote]I think that has been done hundreds if not thousands of times and at some point that professor or some professor someplace needs to “show” the answer, rather than “hypothesize” it.

  • Avatar

    Tim Folkerts

    |

    [quote]I have no idea of what “the entropy of the universe” may be…
    I can do such calculations …[/quote]
    So, you don’t know what the entropy of the universe is, but you can calculate it 🙂

    [quote]”You show your calculations that show that an isolated transfer of sensible heat from a lower temperature surface to a higher temperature surface does not decrease entropy of the two surfaces” [/quote]
    You are not reading carefully. That is NOT what I said.

    I have said that [i]photons [/i]can move from a colder object to a warmer object. [i]EM waves[/i] can move from colder to warmer. [i]Energy [/i]can move from colder to warmer.

    But I never said that [i]heat [/i]moves from colder to warmer! “Heat” is always the net transfer of thermal energy. The net transfer of photons/EM waves/energy is indeed always from warmer to colder. Entropy of your system consisting of a warm surface and a cold surface still increases even when some small number of photons go the “wrong way”.

    (Similarly, if you put a warm block of metal in contact with a cooler block, [i]some[/i] of the collisions will transfer energy FROM a fast moving atom in the cool block TO a slow moving atom in the warm block. This “back conduction” is never questioned, and does not violate the 2nd Law.)

    [quote]You keep trying to violate 2LTD .. [/quote]

    You keep THINKING that I am trying to violate the 2nd Law, but in fact I am not. If you had a good, fundamental understanding of the second law and heat, you would grasp what I say, rather than inventing mis-interpretations of what I say.

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

    I doubt you will believe me. Take this conversation to any physics department and find the prof who teaches Thermodynamics. Ask which interpretation is closer to correct. to

  • Avatar

    Pat Obar

    |

    [quote name=”Tim Folkerts”]Pat says: “*I am glad that your ultimate scientific reference Wikipedia, finally got something correct. radiation is indeed a process, always easily measured by a fluxmeter. [b]Not your illusory “potential for such radiation to a surface near absolute zero.[/b] This potential state, not a process, is termed “radiance” not radiation to a surface near absolute zero.”
    I never said any such thing. This is entirely *your* misunderstanding][/quote][

    Every time you claim and have claimed that Radiance equals radiation you are claiming just such Radiance is always a state potential for “flux to a near zero black surface. All radiometric terms except ‘actual measured flux”. are always refereed to near absolute zero. ,it is a scientific and linguistic convention,Even irradiance is not a flux incident it is a calculation of the flux that would be incident if the absorber were near absolute zero.

    [quote name=”Tim Folkerts”]Radiance is not a “potential state”. Radiance is a measure of power of the waves/particles emitted from or passing throught or reflected by a surface in a particular direction ]/quote]

    Not at all. Thermal radiance is always bit a
    radiative potential that is independent in distance from the emitter The actual power or flux is dependant on the difference in the two
    opposing radiative potentials with the sign of that difference indicating the direction . The only flux ever measured. All of your claims a a fantasy from some textbook written with the intent to confuse and limit the understanding of electromagnetic radiation.

    “Back radiation” Never happens, violation LTD.”
    [quote name=”Tim Folkerts”]Radiation is emitted from all objects in all directions all the time without violating the 2nd law in the least. [b]If you thing there is a violation, please show a calculation where the entropy of the universe increases. [/b][/quote]
    Another Tim Folkerts fantasy simply demonstrate what you claim. I have no idea of what “the entropy of the universe” may be. Do you have any idea of what yopu mean? Please point out the meter that shows the amount of entropy, or the increase in entropy of the universe. I can do such calculations but will not do your homework. You show your calculations that show that an isolated transfer of sensible heat from a lower temperature surface to a higher temperature surface does not decrease entropy of the two surfaces, 2LTD has nothing to do with entropy.it is a physical law based on long-standing observation of what happens spontaneously. The entropy theorem that explains why the 2LTD is always true, is not the law itself, it is only a theorem, that can be falsified with your entropy meter. You keep trying to violate 2LTD with your fantasy. You fail! You can not demonstrate “back radiation”, Your “net” is but your fraudulent attempt to confuse what is, and what can be measured. Your fantasy is truly non-science.

  • Avatar

    Tim Folkerts

    |

    You are welcome to your interpretations, Solvingtornadoes, but personally I think you are over-analyzing the words. For the most part, these are terms taken from OTHER pre-existing usage.

    “Thermal IR” has a long history, referring to IR that would be created by objects at typical terrestrial objects (ie 250- 300 K or so; longer than ~ 3.5 um). Other names include “Mid-wavelength infrared” and “IR-C”, to distinguish it from

    “Back-radiation” doesn’t imply to me that the atmosphere only radiates back toward the ground — the gas at any given location will naturally radiate in all directions equally.

    The one case I would agree (sort of) with you is the word “Greenhouse”. But again, “Greenhouse gas” is long-standing name meaning “gases that can absorb significant amounts of the IR generated by the surface”. I would prefer “IR active gas” or some such, but again this is not central to the science.

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

    [i]”It’s an attempt to load the device of your larger argument…”[/i]

    No. I use these words because they are the words that are used.

    [i]”When their semantic weapons are taken from them warmies generally … “[/i]
    I am perfectly happy (and perfectly capable) of discussing the science using any appropriate words. So are most scientists. What *I* see is *you* overly focusing on semantics. *You* are the one making this about the words, not me!

  • Avatar

    solvingtornadoes

    |

    [quote name=”Tim Folkerts”]SOLVINGTORANDOES: “Back” is merely an adjective to describe the radiation — to clarify which radiation we mean. It could also be called “atmospheric” radiation if the semantics mean that much to you. It’s just a word![/quote]It’s an attempt to load the device of your larger argument. (Also, it’s inaccurate. It implies that all of the radiation in the atmosphere is coming back, returning, which isn’t always the case and which may involve other mechanism, not just the “greenhouse” effect.) Global warming propaganda is peppered with these little semantic tricks. Another one is the term “greenhouse,” gas itself (the unstated [and blatantly false] assertion being that other gasses in the atmosphere have no thermal significance). Another one is to refer to IR as “thermal” IR (the unstated assumption being that other wave lengths are non-thermal [and, therefore, we can dismiss the role of N2 and O2 with respect to cooling and warming in the atmosphere] which is wrong). Global warming propaganda is all about semantic tricks. When their semantic weapons are taken from them warmies generally become passive (no debate) and bitter. Then the name calling starts.

  • Avatar

    David Cosserat

    |

    Tim,

    I agree. As I understand it, the term radiance, as generally used, means the flow of electromagnetic energy from a surface. It is the sum of the emission from that surface and the reflection from that surface. I have never seen radiance used as a term for “potential radiative emission” from a surface. I should take no further notice of armchair fanatics.

  • Avatar

    Tim Folkerts

    |

    Pat says: “Not your illusory “potential for such radiation to a surface near absolute zero. “
    I never said any such thing. This is entirely *your* misunderstanding”

    Radiance is not a “potential state”. Radiance is a measure of power of the waves/particles emitted from or passing throught or reflected by a surface in a particular direction.

    “Back radiation” Never happens, violation 2LTD.”
    Radiation is emitted from all objects in all directions all the time without violating the 2nd law in the least. [b]If you thing there is a violation, please show a calculation where the entropy of the universe increases. [/b]

  • Avatar

    Pat Obar

    |

    [quote name=”Tim Folkerts”]PAT: The first sentence of wikipedia is a pretty good definition for radiation: [i]”In physics, radiation is a process in which energetic particles or energetic waves travel through a vacuum, or through matter-containing media that are not required for their propagation. “[/i][/quote]
    I am glad that your ultimate scientific reference Wikipedia, finally got something correct. radiation is indeed a process, always easily measured by a fluxmeter. Not your illusory “potential for such radiation to a surface near absolute zero. This potential state, not a process, is termed “radiance” not radiation.
    [quote name=”Tim Folkerts”]SOLVINGTORANDOES: “Back” is merely an adjective to describe the radiation — to clarify which radiation we mean. It could also be called “atmospheric” radiation if the semantics mean that much to you. It’s just a word![/quote]

    Yes it is a fradulant and misleading adjective.
    “Back radiation” Never happens, violation 2LTD.
    Your fradulent attempt to mislead the serfs. We will not forget!

  • Avatar

    Tim Folkerts

    |

    PAT: The first sentence of wikipedia is a pretty good definition for radiation: [i]”In physics, radiation is a process in which energetic particles or energetic waves travel through a vacuum, or through matter-containing media that are not required for their propagation. “[/i]

    SOLVINGTORANDOES: “Back” is merely an adjective to describe the radiation — to clarify which radiation we mean. It could also be called “atmospheric” radiation if the semantics mean that much to you. It’s just a word!

  • Avatar

    Pat Obar

    |

    [quote name=”solvingtornadoes”][quote name=”Tim Folkerts”]The term ‘back-radiation’ means nothing more or nothing less than this.[/quote]Why not just call it radiation.[/quote]

    Tim cannot answer such a direct question! He has only obtuse writings. He has been brainwashed. His “back radiation” to a higher temperature is not an actual rate of energy transfer. His “back radiation” is but
    a potential for such energy transfer to a near zero temperature absorptive surface, that does not exist. A deliberate FRAUD.

  • Avatar

    solvingtornadoes

    |

    [quote name=”Tim Folkerts”]The term ‘back-radiation’ means nothing more or nothing less than this.[/quote]Why not just call it radiation.

  • Avatar

    Pat Obar

    |

    [quote name=”Tim Folkerts”]
    The “T1^4” term is the “forward radation” [quote name=”Tim Folkerts”] You seriously misunderstand “warmies”. Of [(or upward radiation or the radiation in the +y direction).[/quote] ———-
    [quote name=”Tim Folkerts”]
    The “-T2^4” term is the “back radation” (or downward radiation or the radiation in the -y direction).[/quote]

    [quote name=”Tim Folkerts”]
    The fact that the “net thermal radiation” upward from the surface is ~ 60 W/m^2 (when back-radiation is included) then ~ 390 W/m^2 (if backradiation were suddenly magically turned off) is the crux of the “greenhouse effect”.[/quote]

    What total nonsense. It is only your Fraudulent claim of “back radiation” In your Fraudulent “claim” of the the ‘fantasy”
    that your non-existent “back radiation” can or may increase the temperature of the surface.

    A total and deliberate intentional FRAUD, by arrogant academics. Please understand that the
    serfs have both pitchforks and torches. They all wish to eat all arrogant academics. and all of their children. Think of your children!
    Please, please, try to be nice, not the illusionary correct!!

  • Avatar

    Pat Obar

    |

    [quote name=”Tim Folkerts”] Null [/quote]

    Tim. Please give an exact and unambiguous definition of the scientific term “radiation” Here limited to Thermal electromagnetic “radiation”. There seems a big difference in the definition of ‘radiation” between the arrogant academics, and all of the serfs, with pitchforks and torches.
    From my POV:
    Academics: A potential fir the rate of energy transfer from a surface with a temperature
    to a lower near absolute zero temperature surface. Please understand this a “state” Never a process.

    Serfs: The actual and measurable process of rate of energy transfer between two surfaces at different temperatures each with different emissivity/absorptivity. at each frequency and at each direction! (courtesy The Gus Kirchhoff exact radiation Law) Never a Arrogant Academic fantasy.

  • Avatar

    Tim Folkerts

    |

    Solvingtornadoes says
    [quote]All matter constantly emits electro magnet energy.

    … to give the AGW whacko’s false hope that backradation exists.[/quote]
    But ‘back radiation’ simply [i]*is*[/i] the electromagnetic energy that the atmosphere constantly emits that happens to be heading toward the surface of the earth. The term ‘back-radiation’ means nothing more or nothing less than this. Since you adamantly agree that such radiaion must exist, you are agreeing that back radiation exists!

    [quote]But the warmies don’t know that net is already assumed within the equations.[/quote]
    You seriously misunderstand “warmies”. Of [i]course [/i] we know (assuming that you count me as a “warmie”) that “net” is assumed in
    P/A = (sigma) (T1^4 – T2^4).

    The “T1^4” term is the “forward radation” (or upward radiation or the radiation in the +y direction).
    The “-T2^4” term is the “back radation” (or downward radiation or the radiation in the -y direction).

    The fact that the “net thermal radiation” upward from the surface is ~ 60 W/m^2 (when back-radiation is included) rather then ~ 390 W/m^2 (if backradiation were suddenly magically turned off) is the crux of the “greenhouse effect”.

  • Avatar

    solvingtornadoes

    |

    [quote name=”Pat Obar”]No, never, not at all![/quote]You are wrong.[quote name=”Pat Obar”] A body with a temperature and some emissivity may[/quote]There is no “may” about it. All matter constantly emits electro magnet energy. There is nothing the slightest bit controversial about this statement.[quote name=”Pat Obar”]spontaneously emit or absorb Thermal electromagnetic energy depending on the thermal radiative potential in each opposite direction There is no such flux ever going in opposite directions. At the same temperature there is “no” flux between the bodies!.[/quote]Flux *is* net flow.[quote name=”Pat Obar”]Wrong!!! Science is the attempt to understand the physical,(not all). That “all” is Philosophy which includes religion, dreams, and nightmares as real. Science is the study of the physical that excludes religion and conjecture, and “depends” on observation and measurement Your “Net” is a straw-man promoting “fraud”.[/quote]No it isn’t. Your ignorance of the relativistic nature of reality accomplishes nothing but to give the AGW whacko’s false hope that backradation exists. They see you make ignorant comments and from this they conclude that this invalidates your methods and conclusions, which simply isn’t the case. The methods and conclusions that “slayers” make are sound. But ignorance of the relativstic nature of realithy is something for which you should be embarassed.[quote name=”Pat Obar”]The S-B equation is a useful theoretical limiting equation. That is all![/quote]Agreed. The S-B equation incorporates net flows (flux). So the whole thing is non-issue. Which is exactly my point, and the reason I called Tim out for making a strawman argument. You deniers of the relativistic nature of reality need to stop supplying Tim the straw.[quote name=”Pat Obar”]That equation provides (and almost observed), limit of thermal radiation (flux) from a surface temperature to a lower surface temperature. This flux is strictly limited, not only by the difference in thermal radiative potential, but also by space permittivity, and permeability, 377 non dispersive ohms impedance. Such high theoretical flux has “never” been so measured. The measured flux has always been less, hence the “emissivity?” term in that equation, A “fudge” to make it both correct and nearly measurable.[/quote]I agree with everything you are sayng here. Moreover, there is no practical reason to refer to “net” since it is already incorporated into the laws of thermodynamics and since measuring equipment can only measure net flow anyways. But the warmies don’t know that net is already assumed within the equations. And, unfortunately, they know enough about the relativistic nature of reality to be perpetually confused. But you are adding to that confusion with your ignorance about the relativistic nature of reality.

  • Avatar

    Pat Obar

    |

    [quote name=”Tim Folkerts”]Pat, you HAVE been notified! You simply refuse to hear. Look up “photon gas”. Try “radiation pressure” and “radiation energy density” while you are at it. There are 100’s of references in standard physics textbooks that go back to Planck (and even Maxwell).[/quote]
    Demonstrate your false, photon gas!
    Correctly, that is “radiative” energy density. It is only radiative field strength with no reference to any energy transfer, It is a potential only, never a power flux. Pushing with a force on an immovable wall is only a potential, never any “work”. Please try to learn the careful equations of Jimmy Maxwell.
    Stop being so ridiculously sloppy!

  • Avatar

    Pat Obar

    |

    [quote name=”solvingtornadoes”][quote name=”Pat Obar”]Thank you Greg, I hope to get to get to a Demonstration of the intentional FRAUD. Promoted by the lying Climate Clowns and the insistent nasty false spouting, of such Climate Clowns.[/quote]

    Do you agree with the following:
    All matter that is at a temperature above absolute zero is producing an outflow of EMG (electro magnetic energy) at all times. Yes or no?

    Just answer the question.[/quote]

    No, never, not at all! A body with a temperature and some emissivity may spontaneously emit or absorb Thermal electromagnetic energy depending on the thermal radiative potential in each opposite direction There is no such flux ever going in opposite directions. At the same temperature there is “no” flux between the bodies!.

    Wrong!!! Science is the attempt to understand the physical,(not all). That “all” is Philosophy which includes religion, dreams, and nightmares as real. Science is the study of the physical that excludes religion and conjecture, and “depends” on observation and measurement Your “Net” is a straw-man promoting “fraud”.

    The S-B equation is a useful theoretical limiting equation. That is all! That equation provides (and almost observed), limit of thermal radiation (flux) from a surface temperature to a lower surface temperature. This flux is strictly limited, not only by the difference in thermal radiative potential, but also by space permittivity, and permeability,
    377 non dispersive ohms impedance. Such high theoretical flux has “never” been so measured. The measured flux has always been less, hence the “emissivity?” term in that equation, A “fudge” to make it both correct and nearly measurable.

  • Avatar

    David Cosserat

    |

    WHAT, not HOW…

    The biggest mistake that people arguing a philosophical point can make is to fail to distinguish carefully between WHAT and HOW. Practical people understand the distinction, possibly because they are not quite so prone to endless philosophical discussion about HOW things work and are generally more concerned about WHAT works.

    WHAT HAPPENS?
    (1) A hotter object at steady state temperature T1 (due to a constant input power P) sinks its power by radiation to a cooler object which is an infinite heat bath at fixed temperature T3.

    (2) We now introduce an intermediate absorbing object and wait for it to attain a steady state temperature T2.

    Will the temperature T3 increase as a result of this intervention?

    Almost all the physicists and engineers I have ever discussed this with, and practically all the theoretical tomes that I have studied, say YES.

    The fundamental energy flow equation Q = K(Tx^4- Ty^4) correctly describes the flow of energy between a body X at temperature Tx and a body Y at temperature Ty, for a given geometry K.

    When applied to the 2-body situation in (1) above, the equation correctly predicts the corresponding experimental result, namely the value of T1 given T3 and P. When applied to the 3-body problem in (2) above, it correctly predicts the corresponding experimental result, namely the higher value of T1 than before, given the same T1 and P.

    This is not new stuff. [i]It is the daily diet of engineers involved in real engineering systems that involve radiation.[/i]

    HOW DOES THAT EQUATION WORK?
    Who the heck cares. Those who plunge into such sophistry deserve to wallow in their own eternal frustration. The rest of us have a planet to save – in my case from the grasp of the alarmists who would have us assume that CO2 is a dangerous warming gas in the context of its increasing atmospheric concentration. But this is quite a different question from the fruitless fundamentalism under way here, mostly conducted by muddled people who feel that their climate scepticism is being compromised. It isn’t.

  • Avatar

    solvingtornadoes

    |

    [quote name=”Greg House”]

    You seem to be trying to shift the burden of proof.
    If you mean that a cold body radiates to the warm body and this radiation affects the temperature of the warmer body, just provide [b]the physical proof[/b] of it.
    So far warmists only refer to the second term in an equation, which is not a physical proof, because there are a lot of easy examples where there are 2 terms in an equation but only one physical process in only one direction.
    So, are you going to keep faking the language of the 2nd Law and misrepresent algebra, or present a physical proof of your concept?[/quote]
    Your argument isn’t with me it’s with reality. Maybe you can explain to us how the cooler object, somehow, knows it’s the cooler object and, somehow, turns off its constant outflow of EMG. If nothing else I’m sure your response should be good for a few laughs.

    Obviously you’ve been mistaught. No biggie. The point is academic anyways.

    There is a deeper point here about the relativistic nature of reality that, it seems, is beyond you.

  • Avatar

    solvingtornadoes

    |

    [quote name=”Greg House”][quote name=”solvingtornadoes”]
    Do you agree with the following:
    All matter that is at a temperature above absolute zero is producing an outflow of EMG (electro magnetic energy) at all times. Yes or no?[/quote](no response)[/quote]

  • Avatar

    Greg House

    |

    [quote name=”solvingtornadoes”]
    Do you agree with the following:
    All matter that is at a temperature above absolute zero is producing an outflow of EMG (electro magnetic energy) at all times. Yes or no?[/quote]

    You seem to be trying to shift the burden of proof.

    If you mean that a cold body radiates to the warm body and this radiation affects the temperature of the warmer body, just provide [b]the physical proof[/b] of it.

    So far warmists only refer to the second term in an equation, which is not a physical proof, because there are a lot of easy examples where there are 2 terms in an equation but only one physical process in only one direction.

    So, are you going to keep faking the language of the 2nd Law and misrepresent algebra, or present a physical proof of your concept?

  • Avatar

    solvingtornadoes

    |

    [quote name=”Greg House”][quote name=”solvingtornadoes”]The laws of thermodynamics don’t contradict this because the laws of thermodynamics were cast according to net flow of EMG from matter (and between different objects).[/quote]

    This is so typical for warmists: faking the 2nd law of thermodynamics by inserting the word “net” into it.

    In the known historical formulations of the 2nd law there is neither mention nor implication of any “net”. So, yes, your “net” does contradict the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

    You are welcome, of course, to refute the 2nd Law, but you have to prove that there are indeed 2 flows in opposite directions. I am looking forward to the [b]physical [/b]proof. Just making things up is not science.[/quote]
    All matter that is at a temperature above absolute zero is producing an outflow of EMG (electro magnetic energy) at all times. Yes or no?

    Obviously the answer to this question is yes. Accordingly the only time the EMG flow between entities goes one way would be in the extremely unlikely event that one of them is at absolute zero. Right?

  • Avatar

    Greg House

    |

    [quote name=”solvingtornadoes”]The laws of thermodynamics don’t contradict this because the laws of thermodynamics were cast according to net flow of EMG from matter (and between different objects).[/quote]

    This is so typical for warmists: faking the 2nd law of thermodynamics by inserting the word “net” into it.

    In the known historical formulations of the 2nd law there is neither mention nor implication of any “net”. So, yes, your “net” does contradict the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

    You are welcome, of course, to refute the 2nd Law, but you have to prove that there are indeed 2 flows in opposite directions. I am looking forward to the [b]physical [/b]proof. Just making things up is not science.

  • Avatar

    solvingtornadoes

    |

    [quote name=”Pat Obar”]Thank you Greg, I hope to get to get to a Demonstration of the intentional FRAUD. Promoted by the lying Climate Clowns and the insistent nasty false spouting, of such Climate Clowns.[/quote]

    Do you agree with the following:
    All matter that is at a temperature above absolute zero is producing an outflow of EMG (electro magnetic energy) at all times. Yes or no?

    Just answer the question.

  • Avatar

    solvingtornadoes

    |

    All matter that is at a temperature above absolute zero is producing an outflow of EMG (electro magnetic energy) at all times. (IOW, Tim is right that the photons always go in both directions between two objects.)

    The laws of thermodynamics don’t contradict this because the laws of thermodynamics were cast according to net flow of EMG from matter (and between different objects).

    Measuring equipment doesn’t contradict this because measuring equipment only has the ability to measure net flow. IOW, the relative nature of reality is both unavoidable and inescapable.

    Given the fact that the relative nature of reality is both unavoidable and inescapable there is no practical reason to draw attention to it–the measuring equipment can’t detect it and the laws already account for it. Being practical minded (having real world experience) slayers tend to not mention it. Many of them have forgotten the distinction. (Which is an artifact of the fact that the distinction serves no practical end.)

    Being academic minded (lacking real world experience) alarmist (not realizing that the distiction is undetectable and already incorporated into laws of thermodynamics) assume that it is some kind of conspiracy that the slayers aren’t referring to it (in this case, “it” being “backradiation”) explicitly.

  • Avatar

    Pat Obar

    |

    [quote name=”Greg House”][quote name=”solvingtornadoes”]
    The reasons aren’t scientific. The reasons have to do with removing any ambiguity …[/quote]

    So, you do not know if using that “net” word is scientifically correct, right? Or you know that it is incorrect, but should be used nevertheless “to remove ambiguity”?

    To your [i]”Just remember, when slayers talk they mean “net” even though they rarely state “net” explicitly”[/i] again. How do you you know that “slayers” mean “net” when they do not use the word “net”?[/quote]

    Thank you Greg, I hope to get to get to a Demonstration of the intentional FRAUD. Promoted by the lying Climate Clowns and the insistent nasty false spouting, of such Climate Clowns.

  • Avatar

    Tim Folkerts

    |

    Pat, you HAVE been notified! You simply refuse to hear. Look up “photon gas”. Try “radiation pressure” and “radiation energy density” while you are at it. There are 100’s of references in standard physics textbooks that go back to Planck (and even Maxwell).

  • Avatar

    Pat Obar

    |

    [quote name=”solvingtornadoes”][quote name=”Tim Folkerts”] (BTW, this is where your “Never< never ever demonstrated even conceptually." is shown false -- here is experimental confirmation of photons leaving the surface even if the surface is facing an equal or warmer temperature surface.)[/quote] Do you really want to resurrect this straw man?[/quote] Thank you Claudius,
    Tim gives no reference to his claims. If such “experimental confirmation of photons leaving the surface even if the surface is facing an equal or warmer temperature surface.” had been ever done, I would have been notified within 12 hours of such by many of those 200 that say maybe, but not Pat’s version! All would say Haha you were wrong!

  • Avatar

    Greg House

    |

    [quote name=”solvingtornadoes”]What we end up with is two sides talking past each other, basing their arguments on dogmatic interpretations of what the other side is unable to express in an unambiguous manner.[/quote]

    Fine, now your side can express in an unambiguous manner if there is the “net” thing in reality or not. Please, go ahead, clarify this for both sides.

  • Avatar

    solvingtornadoes

    |

    [quote name=”Greg House”][quote name=”solvingtornadoes”]
    The reasons aren’t scientific. The reasons have to do with removing any ambiguity …[/quote]
    So, you do not know if using that “net” word is scientifically correct, right? Or you know that it is incorrect, but should be used nevertheless “to remove ambiguity”? [/quote] Obviously, it depends on the context. Right?[quote name=”Greg House”]
    To your [i]”Just remember, when slayers talk they mean “net” even though they rarely state “net” explicitly”[/i] again. How do you you know that “slayers” mean “net” when they do not use the word “net”?[/quote]That slayers often say things that mean other than what they think they mean is as much a part of the problem as the alarmists misinterpretations. What we end up with is two sides talking past each other, basing their arguments on dogmatic interpretations of what the other side is unable to express in an unambiguous manner.

  • Avatar

    Greg House

    |

    [quote name=”solvingtornadoes”]
    The reasons aren’t scientific. The reasons have to do with removing any ambiguity …[/quote]

    So, you do not know if using that “net” word is scientifically correct, right? Or you know that it is incorrect, but should be used nevertheless “to remove ambiguity”?

    To your [i]”Just remember, when slayers talk they mean “net” even though they rarely state “net” explicitly”[/i] again. How do you you know that “slayers” mean “net” when they do not use the word “net”?

  • Avatar

    solvingtornadoes

    |

    [quote name=”Greg House”][quote name=”solvingtornadoes”]Just remember, when slayers talk they mean “net” even though they rarely state “net” explicity. I too wish they would state it explicitly …[/quote]

    Why exactly should anyone use this “net” word, for what scientific reason?[/quote]
    The reasons aren’t scientific. The reasons have to do with removing any ambiguity that can be misinterpreted by people that have an agenda to misinterpret.

  • Avatar

    solvingtornadoes

    |

    [quote name=”Tim Folkerts”] . . . you seem to agree with would violate the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics.[/quote]
    So, now you’re putting words in my mouth?

  • Avatar

    Greg House

    |

    [quote name=”solvingtornadoes”]Just remember, when slayers talk they mean “net” even though they rarely state “net” explicity. I too wish they would state it explicitly …[/quote]

    Why exactly should anyone use this “net” word, for what scientific reason?

  • Avatar

    Tim Folkerts

    |

    My wish is quite similar to yours, solvingtornadoes. However, my impression of “slayers” is quite different. Repeatedly and directly, many of the publications of PSI state that the sort of two-way radiation that you seem to agree with would violate the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics.

    If everyone wants to agree that the IR properties of atmosphere slow the loss of heat from the surface and that the IR properties of the atmosphere thus make the planet warmer than it would be without those IR properties, then I would be more than happy to move on! 🙂

    (Actually, I may well move on anyway. Debating here has been interesting, but ultimately I don’t see either “side” getting any closer to agreeing on fundamental physics (let alone the much more complicated applications of those fundamental principles to the complex, chaotic atmosphere & oceans).

  • Avatar

    solvingtornadoes

    |

    [quote name=”Tim Folkerts”]. . . they exchange photons.[/quote]

    Yes, everybody knows this. Issue resolved. The differences were semantic and not substantive. Move on.

    (Just remember, when slayers talk they mean “net” even though they rarely state “net” explicity. I too wish they would state it explicitly so that it doesn’t result in this kind of misinterpretation that opens the door to your strawman tactics.)

  • Avatar

    Tim Folkerts

    |

    What strawman?

    I hate to speak for Pat, but he seems to be saying that two surfaces at the same temperature do not exchange photons. I say they do (just with equal fluxes in both directions).

    Radiation pressure says they exchange photons. Planck’s derivation says they exchange photons. Physics textbooks (and even many engineering textbooks, and even before ‘climate science’ might have ‘contaminated’ the thinking) say they exchange photons.

  • Avatar

    solvingtornadoes

    |

    [quote name=”Tim Folkerts”] (BTW, this is where your “Never< never ever demonstrated even conceptually." is shown false -- here is experimental confirmation of photons leaving the surface even if the surface is facing an equal or warmer temperature surface.)[/quote]
    Do you really want to resuurrect this strawman?

  • Avatar

    Tim Folkerts

    |

    Pat, science is never “right”; science only attempts to find theories/models/laws/equations that best explain observations.

    BOTH of us conclude that the net transfer for infinite parallel plates is
    [i](sigma) A (T1^4 – T2^4)[/i].
    (Both of us could also come up with identical new equations for other geometries or emissivities.)

    At this point, either explanation is as good as the other at predicting this observation. Either explanation will suffice for engineering applications (ie your Navy Handbook). It is a stalemate.

    So what OTHER observations can we make? Well for starters, there is radiation pressure, which can be observed and which only fits with the theory that photons/EM waves are flying around even when all surface are the same temperature. (BTW, this is where your “Never< never ever demonstrated even conceptually." is shown false -- here is experimental confirmation of photons leaving the surface even if the surface is facing an equal or warmer temperature surface.) There is also the fact that your interpretation of S-B Law is a stand-alone theory. My version is derived from more fundamental ideas — Planck’s derived S-B and other results assuming standing EM waves/photons traveling back and forth within a cavity at uniform temperature. [b]Since my version with photons moving both directions gives the same numerical results for energy transfer for any situation [i]AND explains other phenomenon AND fits with broader theories[/i], it is pretty clear which is better. [/b]

  • Avatar

    Pat Obar

    |

    [quote name=”Tim Folkerts”][quote]The radiation from a solid or liquid surface may be evaluated by the following equation:
    q = (sigma) A e T^4 [/quote]

    Never< never ever demonstrated even conceptually. Pure, sometimes evil, fantasy. Tim the Navy book I referenced above even has this on page 1-8 about radiative terms (I hope I can keep the columns correct). Table 1-6 Chinese Restaurant Nomenclature
    A | B | C | D
    Incident |Total |Energy |Through a surface
    Scattered |Spectral |Entropy |Radiance
    Reflected |Weighted |Power |Irradiance
    Absorbed |Photopic |Photon |Intensity
    Transmitted |Scotopic |Photon rate | Radiance/meter
    Emitted | Thermal |Momentum |

    One Price only! Pick one from A, B, C, D. See what you get on your plate. This has not been an easy field to get accepted into!

  • Avatar

    Pat Obar

    |

    [quote name=”Tim Folkerts”][quote]The radiation from a solid or liquid surface may be evaluated by the following equation:
    q = (sigma) A e T^4 … the net exchange of energy between the bodies can be evaluated by the Stefan-Boltzmann equations, thus:
    q = (sigma) A (T1^4 – T2^4) (Fa)(Fe)
    Elements of applied thermodynamics, by Robert M. Johnston, William A. Brockett [and] Arthur E. Bock. Annapolis, United States Naval Institute, [b]1951.[/b][/quote].

    Please understand all radiometric terms are referenced to absolute zero, Absolute zero both mathematically and physically does not exist, it is an asymptote! Evaluating the S-BB equation for the lower temperature being abs zero results in (asymptote^4) ==> NAN Conceptually the very center of some four dimensional space. Even projected onto a one, two or three dimensional manifold still makes no sense! Mathematically an asymptote can be approached to whatever accuracy, but never achieved

    “Q = (sigma) A ( T1^4 – T2^4)”

    Thank you again but more BS.
    Please define your Q! Your equation is correct but incomplete in that it is the flux integral between two isotherms with no limit.
    What do you have that is the energy source for the higher temperature source and the energy sink for the lower temperature, both necessary for the maintenance of the two isotherms with a one way flux.

    Thermal electromagnetic radiation cab be considered as a transfer of Entropy as it is the only method of transferring local energy as completely converted to entropy (everything at one temperature) to something external at a lower temperature, htus again increasing entropy.

    “Thermal electromagnetic radiation has a defined dimension of energy -> Joules, never an imaginary flux. Radiation is the transfer of energy in the form of entropy to a lower temperature. If the absorber, a near black body like the Moon cannot convert that absorbed thermal electromagnetic radiation back to usable energy doing “work”. it remains an increase in entropy (same energy/ lower temperature) that can only be radiated as entropy to a yet lower temperature.
    You seem to be confusing radiation, with the limiting process of radiative transfer power times or divided by 377 ohms impedance, depending on what you consider as potential and what you consider its conjugate “flux”.
    The Earth’s atmosphere, and perhaps the ocean can and does convert some entropy back to useful energy as it has lower temperatures than what did the absorbing. This is the power that powers all of the weather, nasty or nice, on this planet. That Solar entropy partially converted to energy (without any decrease in “whole entropy”)by the atmosphere ( just borrowing to convert back to more entropy), powers all of your so called “green” windmills.
    Your so called Climate scientists, most all arrogant academics, have not one clue as to what is! All they have are statistics created from “The Handbook of Creative Statistics vol2”. Vol2 is a cookbook describing how to prove “anything” from a large set of lousy numbers!
    I hope I have written nothing here, vague or subject to misinterpretation.

  • Avatar

    Pat Obar

    |

    [quote name=”Tim Folkerts”][quote]The radiation from a solid or liquid surface may be evaluated by the following equation:
    q = (sigma) A e T^4

    … the net exchange of energy between the bodies can be evaulated by the Stefan-Boltzmann equations, thus:
    q = (sigma) A (T1^4 – T2^4) (Fa)(Fe)[/quote]
    Elements of applied thermodynamics, by Robert M. Johnston, William A. Brockett [and] Arthur E. Bock.
    Annapolis, United States Naval Institute, [b]1951.[/b]
    Thank you! I did not know this nonsense went back that far My reference for thermal electromagnetic radiation is: “The Infrared Handbook (revised edition) Published by The Office of Naval Research, Department of the Navy, Arlington,Va (1985). IBSN: 0-9603590-1-X This text is the third revision of The Handbook of Military Infrared Technology (1973), now technically depreciated, but interesting for historical reasons. We were all stumbling over our one asses back then! That 1985 edition is now considered “the Bible’ for correct terminology regarding Thermal electromagnetic radiation. Most of us just use the words in the GE Elecro-Optic Handbook, An engineering, not scientific publication. when conversing, not publishing.

    [quote]Stefan and Boltzmann, working independently of each other, concluded that energy emitted by a black body was proportional to the fourth power of the absolute temperature of the body. In accordance with the Stefan-Boltzmann law, the heat radiated by a body can be calculated from the equation: Q = (sigma) A t^4
    … so the net radiated heat (Qr) transferred from the hot plane is:
    Q = (sigma) A ( T1^4 – T2^4)[/quote]
    Fundamentals of thermodynamics. Carroll Mendenhall Leonard
    Englewood Cliffs, N.J., Prentice-Hall, [b]1958.[/b][/quote]
    Boltzmann was Stefan’s student! Finally Boltzmann fixed Stefan’s constant then 5.7^-8
    by using Boltzmann’s own constant (k) Planck’s constant (h) and lotsa PIs and Cs. Stefan’s constant includes PI steradians to convert radiance to irradiance but “only” for “black, flat, Lambertian surfaces” and a non dispersive transmission media. Not applicable to anything involving the Sun, Earth’s atmosphere, Earth’s surface, and space.

  • Avatar

    Tim Folkerts

    |

    [quote]The radiation from a solid or liquid surface may be evaluated by the following equation:
    q = (sigma) A e T^4

    … the net exchange of energy between the bodies can be evaulated by the Stefan-Boltzmann equations, thus:
    q = (sigma) A (T1^4 – T2^4) (Fa)(Fe)[/quote]
    Elements of applied thermodynamics, by Robert M. Johnston, William A. Brockett [and] Arthur E. Bock.
    Annapolis, United States Naval Institute, [b]1951.[/b]

    [quote]Stefan and Boltzmann, working independently of each other, concluded that energy emitted by a black body was proportional to the fourth power of the absolute temperature of the body. In accordance with the Stefan-Boltzmann law, the heat radiated by a body can be calculated from the equation:
    Q = (sigma) A t^4

    … so the net radiated heat (Qr) transferred from the hot plane is:
    Q = (sigma) A ( T1^4 – T2^4)[/quote]
    Fundamentals of thermodynamics. Carroll Mendenhall Leonard
    Englewood Cliffs, N.J., Prentice-Hall, [b]1958.[/b]

  • Avatar

    Pat Obar

    |

    [quote name=”Tim Folkerts”]I think we all need to sit down with a white board and markers. There is lots of interesting stuff being said, but I suspect we all feel like we are fighting a hydra — we address one point and two more pop up.

    Without the ability to address one or two points at a time — to define terminology as we go along — to clarify the models we are using — to probe others’ level of understanding — until that time it looks like we are going to move sideways or backwards rather than forwards.[/quote]

    Indeed. please start with your definition of “moving forward”? Your forward seems only, that all shall agree with the false science of the “arrogant academics”. Such arrogance is but a false belief of self knowledge. It is but a fake religion, never science.
    Another start would to identify the arrogant academic that first put the phrase ” “all objects with temperature and emissivity radiate electromagnetic flux proportional to there absolute temperature^4, independent of the temperature of surroundings”.
    This happened after 1970. Before that time no one would ever seriously consider such. That concept is fine for a Superman comic, but has no place in science or engineering.
    I hope I have written nothing here, vague or subject to misinterpretation.

  • Avatar

    Rosco

    |

    [quote name=”cementafriend”]Correct, visiting physicist, but further the Stefan-Boltzmann formula applies only to surfaces. This is part of the definition in engineering texts. A gas does not have a surface. Also the formula was derive from data measured in a vacuum (mainly by Fourier). Fourier, himself said when there is an atmosphere everything changes with respect to heat transfer.[/quote]

    Can you please provide a reference to “the formula was derive from data measured in a vacuum (mainly by Fourier).”

    It seems highly unlikely to actually be true for the following reasons :-

    Stefan was born at least 5 years after Fourier died – they were never contemporaries !

    Stefan first published his law in 1879 – “This law was mathematically derived from the measurements of French physicists Dulong and Petit.”

    “The law was deduced by Jožef Stefan (1835–1893) in 1879 on the basis of experimental measurements made by John Tyndall and was derived from theoretical considerations.”

    All of the diagrams portraying Tyndall’s work are not performed in a vacuum !

    If the work were performed in a vacuum the Stefan-Boltzmann constant would be useless except for a vacuum – I think the manufacturers of [b]IR thermometers [/b] may disagree with you !

    If the experiments were performed in a vacuum [b]how could they account correctly for the obvious omnipresent background radiation without the use of the formula being derived ??[/b].

    Such experiments would necessarily be performed in some vacuum chamber and the vacuum chamber must be at some temperature and therefore emitting radiation into the vacuum – how could they possibly have dealt with all the geometrical considerations and radiation-temperature relationships without the Stefan-Boltzmann equation or Planck’s relationship in the first place ???

    Please,please explain this to me !

    Why would they even bother with a vacuum – that is obviously not the natural state on Earth ?

    Who says the SB equation only applies to surfaces ? Reference please. Again many manufacturers produce devices to measure for example the temperature of gases in blast furnaces for example using optical measurements as thermopiles tend to actually melt.

    In fact the very work Tyndall performed was based on gases – [i]” His measuring device, which used thermopile technology, is an early landmark in the history of absorption spectroscopy of gases.”[/i]

    Please provide me with an actual reference for your claim – please – I will read it religiously !

    Until then I will maintain my faith that the Stefan-Boltzmann equation and Planck’s relationships were derived in our atmosphere – there is no need to use a vacuum chamber to use them.

    The Stefan-Boltzmann equation therefore is applicable in our atmosphere and [b]there are thousands of precise measuring devices that use this relationship in their electronic circuitry.[/b]

    There is no doubt the SB equation seems perfectly sound. – the emission radiance at a known temperature is correctly calculated.

    The SB constant may well have a different value in a vacuum.

  • Avatar

    Tim Folkerts

    |

    I think we all need to sit down with a white board and markers. There is lots of interesting stuff being said, but I suspect we all feel like we are fighting a hydra — we address one point and two more pop up.

    Without the ability to address one or two points at a time — to define terminology as we go along — to clarify the models we are using — to probe others’ level of understanding — until that time it looks like we are going to move sideways or backwards rather than forwards.

  • Avatar

    Pat Obar

    |

    [quote name=”Tim Folkerts”][quote]”under the situational factors you stipulated … the now cooler atmosphere will produce a NET cooling at the surface. See how that works?”[/quote]
    Ummm … you are making my point for me! The stipulated conditions were “less GHG”, which you seem to agree would lead to a cooler surface! See how that works? [/quote]
    Cladius is saying that more CO2 can only lead to a colder surface! See how that works?
    [quote name=”Tim Folkerts”][quote] Infrared is a small player in the net energy budget of our atmosphere.[/quote]
    Energy IN (Trenberth’s estimates):
    78 W/m^2 (absorbed sunlight)
    80 W/m^2 (evaporation)
    17 W/m^2 (thermals/convection)
    23 W/m^2 (IR from surface)
    ——–
    198 W/m^2
    Energy OUT
    199 W/m^2 (IR to space)[/quote]
    All the radiation is done by the atmosphere, not the surface. Radiation from the surface is a small player. Only the 23 W/m^2 is from the surface with 14 W/m^2 relayed by atmospheric clouds to space with no attenuation.
    [quote name=”Tim Folkerts”]Since the net energy budget would be Energy IN – Energy out, and IR is the [i]ENTIRE [/i]energy OUT, I can’t see how you consider that a “small player”[/quote]
    Between Sun, Earth’s atmosphere, and space, all is radiative. The surface is not involved. The surface could be black or highly reflective. No change in temperature would result.

  • Avatar

    Pat Obar

    |

    [quote name=”Tim Folkerts”][quote]”The “net” being asserted is not limited to the top of the troposphere.”[/quote]
    For all practical purposes, the only part that we really care about is the very bottom. Will the 10 meters directly adjacent to the surface be warmer or cooler? The answer is “the bottom 10 m would be cooler without the GHGs.”[/quote]

    That is only your “care about”. You cannot demonstrate that what you claim may be true.
    [quote name=”Tim Folkerts”][quote]”… you also have to include the fact that they serve to absorb and block infrared from the sun reaching the surface. Right?”[/quote]
    Quite true. But since these gases block very little of the incoming solar radiation and very much of the outgoing thermal IR (and one or two other reasons I can think of), the net effect would seem to be toward warming not cooling. Until you can provide more than a ‘hunch” that the net effect should be cooling, there is really no reason to take your “hunch” over the hunches of generations of scientists.[/quote]
    Please check the “energy < 5 microns" absorbed by the N2, O2, O3, CO2, and H20. All of this "energy" is converted to sensible heat "in the atmosphere" to be radiated to cold space by H20
    molecules. Such radiative energy never comes close to the surface. You fail to accept that thermal radiation is powered by sensible heat, not by temperature, which is only a potential.
    [quote name=”Tim Folkerts”][quote]”What “hotter molecules?”” [/quote]
    I am sure you are familiar with the lapse rate. The lower down in the atmosphere we look, the hotter it will be. [/quote]
    Nice, That lapse rate is an adiabatic lapse rate with no thermal heat transfer. That adiabatic lapse rate is the only reason
    for the surface temperature to be higher than the top of the troposphere. never any fictitious “back radiation”. It is an adiabatic thermostatic condition, not a thermodynamic process!

  • Avatar

    solvingtornadoes

    |

    If generations of scientists have been working on this and all they have is a “hunch” maybe we should start asking what in the hell we’re paying them for.[quote name=”Tim Folkerts”][quote]”What “hotter molecules?”” [/quote]
    I am sure you are familiar with the lapse rate. The lower down in the atmosphere we look, the hotter it will be.[/quote]Is that even relevant? If so I can only say I’m not seeing it. It seems we’re talking in broad generalities and getting broader and broader as we go. And this is not a good thing.[quote name=”Tim Folkerts”][quote]”under the situational factors you stipulated … the now cooler atmosphere will produce a NET cooling at the surface. See how that works?”[/quote]
    Ummm … you are making my point for me! The stipulated conditions were “less GHG”, which you seem to agree would lead to a cooler surface! See how that works?[/quote]Your point lacks sharpness in that nobody is disputing that GHG’s reduce the rate of surface cooling. Right?[quote name=”Tim Folkerts”][quote] Infrared is a small player in the net energy budget of our atmosphere.[/quote]

    Energy IN (Trenberth’s estimates):
    78 W/m^2 (absorbed sunlight)
    80 W/m^2 (evaporation)
    17 W/m^2 (thermals/convection)
    23 W/m^2 (IR from surface)
    ——–
    198 W/m^2

    Energy OUT
    199 W/m^2 (IR to space)

    Since the net energy budget would be Energy IN – Energy out, and IR is the [i]ENTIRE [/i]energy OUT, I can’t see how you consider that a “small player”[/quote]You are shifting the context of this original statement. The statement was made with respect to what causes the atmosphere to heat up. Right?
    [quote name=”Tim Folkerts”][/quote]Trenberth can put up any numbers he wants and nobody can dispute him or ask him for details as to how he arrives at these numbers because he counts himself amongst the self-righteous that are morally opposed to discussing/debating the underlying details of their thinking.

    I don’t know if IR is the primary form of radiation that escapes our planet. I know it’s not the only one though because if it was earth would be invisible from space. Moreover, all gasses heated above absolute zero emit some wavelenths of light. That would mean the whole atmosphere must be emitting in other wavelengths (not IR) right?

    By getting you to be so myopically focused on IR the AGW alarmists have won the argument with you before it ever started.

  • Avatar

    solvingtornadoes

    |

    [quote name=”Tim Folkerts”][quote]”The “net” being asserted is not limited to the top of the troposphere.”[/quote]
    For all practical purposes, the only part that we really care about is the very bottom.[/quote]Which is a different issue altogether.[quote name=”Tim Folkerts”] Will the 10 meters directly adjacent to the surface be warmer or cooler? The answer is “the bottom 10 m would be cooler without the GHGs.”[/quote]I would have guessed hotter, due to the fact there would be more infrared and visible radiation making it to the ground. Why do you assume cooler?[quote name=”Tim Folkerts”][quote]”… you also have to include the fact that they serve to absorb and block infrared from the sun reaching the surface. Right?”[/quote]
    Quite true. But since these gases block very little of the incoming solar radiation[/quote]Are you saying I should take your word on this? Tell us how you know this. Do clouds no block the sun’s infrared and visible radiation? What is your evidence?[quote name=”Tim Folkerts”] and very much of the outgoing thermal IR (and one or two other reasons I can think of), the net effect would seem to be toward warming not cooling.[/quote]I think if this is something you know then you should explain how you know it. If this is something you believe then you should stop believing it until you have examined all the factor involves and are able to make a detailed argument to that effect.[quote name=”Tim Folkerts”] Until you can provide more than a ‘hunch” that the net effect should be cooling, there is really no reason to take your “hunch” over the hunches of generations of scientists.[/quote]

  • Avatar

    Pat Obar

    |

    [quote name=”Tim Folkerts”]
    solvingtornadoes says: [i]”H2O and CO2 in the atmosphere provide a NET cooling…”[/i]

    These molecules provide a net cooling [i]for the top of the troposphere.[/i] The GHGs do indeed “steal” energy from the KE of the molecules around them as you suggest and radiate some of that energy to space.[/quote]

    The only thermal electromagnetic radiative flux
    ever detected has been in the vector direction of a lower thermal electromagnetic radiative potential i.e. a lower temperature. All heat energy (that you falsely call KE) is and “must be” radiated to a lower temperature. All of your IR radiating gasses can only lower the temperature of the surface never raise that temperature by any means.l

    [quote name=”Tim Folkerts”]But again, what would happen if those GHGs were NOT there? Then GHGs even lower in the atmosphere would be stealing EVEN MORE energy from the EVEN HOTTER molecules and thus radiating EVEN MORE energy to space. (And with no GHGs at all, the EVEN WARMER ground would directly radiate EVEN MORE energy to space.) [/quote]

    So you claim, but can never demonstrate such nonsense. Of the near objects, with a significant atmosphere, Venus, Earth, Jupiter
    Saturn, and even Titan. need no “surface” (solid or liquid) to maintain radiative equilibrium with the Sun and space. All is done by the atmosphere, never by a “surface”.

    [quote name=”Tim Folkerts”]Being [i]appropriately [/i] focused on infrared is required to understand the global energy budget.[/quote]

    Indeed, please be [i]appropriately [/i] focused on infrared radiation. IR radiation can in no way determine the temperature of the surface of this planet. To claim such is to be a party to the most egregious scientific fraud ever attempted.]

  • Avatar

    Tim Folkerts

    |

    [quote]”The “net” being asserted is not limited to the top of the troposphere.”[/quote]
    For all practical purposes, the only part that we really care about is the very bottom. Will the 10 meters directly adjacent to the surface be warmer or cooler? The answer is “the bottom 10 m would be cooler without the GHGs.”

    [quote]”… you also have to include the fact that they serve to absorb and block infrared from the sun reaching the surface. Right?”[/quote]
    Quite true. But since these gases block very little of the incoming solar radiation and very much of the outgoing thermal IR (and one or two other reasons I can think of), the net effect would seem to be toward warming not cooling. Until you can provide more than a ‘hunch” that the net effect should be cooling, there is really no reason to take your “hunch” over the hunches of generations of scientists.

    [quote]”What “hotter molecules?”” [/quote]
    I am sure you are familiar with the lapse rate. The lower down in the atmosphere we look, the hotter it will be.

    [quote]”under the situational factors you stipulated … the now cooler atmosphere will produce a NET cooling at the surface. See how that works?”[/quote]
    Ummm … you are making my point for me! The stipulated conditions were “less GHG”, which you seem to agree would lead to a cooler surface! See how that works?

    [quote] Infrared is a small player in the net energy budget of our atmosphere.[/quote]

    Energy IN (Trenberth’s estimates):
    78 W/m^2 (absorbed sunlight)
    80 W/m^2 (evaporation)
    17 W/m^2 (thermals/convection)
    23 W/m^2 (IR from surface)
    ——–
    198 W/m^2

    Energy OUT
    199 W/m^2 (IR to space)

    Since the net energy budget would be Energy IN – Energy out, and IR is the [i]ENTIRE [/i]energy OUT, I can’t see how you consider that a “small player”

  • Avatar

    solvingtornadoes

    |

    [quote name=”Tim Folkerts”]solvingtornadoes says: [i]”H2O and CO2 in the atmosphere provide a NET cooling…”[/i]These molecules provide a net cooling [i]for the top of the troposphere.[/i][/quote]The “net” being asserted is not limited to the top of the troposphere. That is your own idiosyncratic interpretation. The “net” being asserted is in the context of the whole atmosphere. (You need to resist the temptation of bringing your own indiosycratic interpretations into the discussion. It’s irritating as all hell.)[quote name=”Tim Folkerts”]The GHGs do indeed “steal” energy from the KE of the molecules around them as you suggest and radiate some of that energy to space.[/quote]”Steal,” is your word not mine. Let’s just say GHGs become excited by the KE of the molecules around them and radiate some of that energy to space (as infrared).[quote name=”Tim Folkerts”]But again, what would happen if those GHGs were NOT there?[/quote]Okay. That’s fine. But if you are going to consider a change in the net effect of them not being their you have to incorporate into that understanding the effect they have on infrared coming in from the sun. IOW, if you are going to consider the net effect of their not being their (upper troposphere let’ say) then you also have to include the fact that they serve to absorb and block infrared from the sun reaching the surface. Right?
    [quote name=”Tim Folkerts”]Then GHGs even lower in the atmosphere would be stealing EVEN MORE energy from the EVEN HOTTER molecules[/quote]What “hotter molecules?”
    [quote name=”Tim Folkerts”] and thus radiating EVEN MORE energy to space.(And with no GHGs at all, the EVEN WARMER ground would directly radiate EVEN MORE energy to space.) [/quote]Right. As you state, the GROUND (under the situational factors you stipulated) will radiate more infrared to space than it would have without the situational factors you stipulated. But the atmosphere is now cooler than you stipulated. Right? And since the main mechanism of heat exchange in our atmophere is kinetic and not infrared the now cooler atmosphere will produce a NET cooling at the surface. See how that works?[quote name=”Tim Folkerts”]Being [i]appropriately [/i] focused on infrared is required to understand the global energy budget.[/quote]Wrong. Infrared is a small player in the net energy budget of our atmosphere. This misinformation is part of the bait and switch tactics of AGW propaganda. By getting you to myopically focus on an insignificant aspect of the atmosphere they pull the wool over your eyes getting you to ignore the most significant thermal process in our atmosphere which involve kinetic energy, not radiation, not infrared.

  • Avatar

    Tim Folkerts

    |

    solvingtornadoes says: [i]”H2O and CO2 in the atmosphere provide a NET cooling…”[/i]
    These molecules provide a net cooling [i]for the top of the troposphere.[/i] The GHGs do indeed “steal” energy from the KE of the molecules around them as you suggest and radiate some of that energy to space.

    But again, what would happen if those GHGs were NOT there? Then GHGs even lower in the atmosphere would be stealing EVEN MORE energy from the EVEN HOTTER molecules and thus radiating EVEN MORE energy to space. (And with no GHGs at all, the EVEN WARMER ground would directly radiate EVEN MORE energy to space.)

    Being [i]appropriately [/i] focused on infrared is required to understand the global energy budget.

  • Avatar

    solvingtornadoes

    |

    [quote name=”Tim Folkerts”]Brian says: [i]”So powerful is this radiation that it almost obscures the view of the planet surface.”[/i]

    But what if that CO2 were magically removed? The surface would no longer be obscured. So the satellite would not be seeing the “weak” radiation from the CO2 in the “cold” upper atmosphere, but instead it would see the “strong” radiation directly from the “warm” surface. So MORE radiation would be reaching the satellite = more energy leaving the earth = cooling effect.

    You are arguing very effectly for why CO2 & H2O have a [i]warming [/i] effect![/quote]Read it carefully. He doesn’t indicate warming. He indicates a reduction is rate of cooling. H2O and CO2 in the atmosphere provide a NET cooling in that most of the energy they recieve (on a molecule to molecule basis)comes NOT from infra red but from kinetic energy, much of which is radiated out into space, some of which is radiated back to the ground to reduce the rate of cooling. The biggest player here is not infrared, the biggest player here is kinetic energy. And all constituents of the atmosphere, including N2 and O2, play a role in kinetic energy transfer from molecule to molecule. Being myopically focused on infrared is one of the conceptual errors of AGW mythology.

  • Avatar

    Tim Folkerts

    |

    Brian says: [i]”So powerful is this radiation that it almost obscures the view of the planet surface.”[/i]

    But what if that CO2 were magically removed? The surface would no longer be obscured. So the satellite would not be seeing the “weak” radiation from the CO2 in the “cold” upper atmosphere, but instead it would see the “strong” radiation directly from the “warm” surface. So MORE radiation would be reaching the satellite = more energy leaving the earth = cooling effect.

    You are arguing very effectly for why CO2 & H2O have a [i]warming [/i] effect!

  • Avatar

    Brian

    |

    [quote name=”JohnnyBoy”]@ #4 visiting physicis

    Any references on the cooling claim?
    Would be nice to see an explanation.[/quote]

    Look at any IR image from a weather satellite, you will see that the atmospheric envelope of planet Earth radiates in the characteristic IR wavebands of CO2 and H2O. So powerful is this radiation that it almost obscures the view of the planet surface.
    Nuff said?

  • Avatar

    JohnnyBoy

    |

    @ #4 visiting physicis

    Any references on the cooling claim?
    Would be nice to see an explanation.

  • Avatar

    cementafriend

    |

    Correct, visiting physicist, but further the Stefan-Boltzmann formula applies only to surfaces. This is part of the definition in engineering texts. A gas does not have a surface. Also the formula was derive from data measured in a vacuum (mainly by Fourier). Fourier, himself said when there is an atmosphere everything changes with respect to heat transfer.

  • Avatar

    visiting physicist

    |

    Carbon dioxide, whether natural or anthropogenic, has absolutely no warming effect what-so-ever – only a very small cooling effect not worth worrying about. That’s what valid physics tells us. Radiative forcing would violate the Second Law of Thermodynamics. Planetary surface temperatures are not primarily determined by radiation at all. The Stefan-Boltzmann Law is inapplicable for the internal surface-atmosphere boundary which is not a black or grey body. Why does PSI even bother with discussing carbon dioxide levels?

  • Avatar

    Tim Folkerts

    |

    The top figure (or at least one very much like it) can be found here:
    http://www.jaxa.jp/press/2012/12/20121205_ibuki_e.html

    That map is for July. The map is primarily showing that plants in the Northern Hemisphere are growing during the summer. The map for January shows the reverse. As such, these maps by themselves cannot tell us what regions are net emitters or net absorbors over the course of the year.

  • Avatar

    jsullivan

    |

    Rosco, figures now added to the article, apologies for the delay in upload.

  • Avatar

    Rosco

    |

    Australia is unlikely to be able to repeal all green levies and taxes – our senate will prevent that for at least another six months and possibly forever.

    It would have been nice to see the figures – why aren’t figures being displayed ?

    The links to a couple of the references are obviously a local computer reference – would be nice to link to them.

Comments are closed