Solar Collector

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_effect

Smart! Care to explain how it works? How exactly does it rise the temperature again?

Hiding as AP makes it easier to dismiss your false claim!

Claiming that Wikipedia information is a <...false claim...> is abstruse, as anyone can correct, or add to, any content of Wikipedia at any time.

Go for it.

Oh I see. I need to change Wikipedia to suit my idea.

I was going to check my idea first before I change Wikipedia!

But then maybe somebody else might have had the idea and changed Wikipedia already to suit his/her cause?

I thought we could discuss the issue here first!

Ok, I knew I was in trouble for claiming that Wiki does not by any means realistically explains the Temperature inconsistency of energy received and temperature measured.

I add a graph below and claim that the Earth should have 8 degrees Celsius!

I even claim that Earth can have -18 deg Celsius despite back radiation! Do the math!

You said, " do the math ". I am not arguing with you.

Can you show the math ? I hope its a linear equation, I like linear equations. If there are symbols in the math, can you offer an explanation of the symbols meanings. Also a reflection of the equation showing numbers in place of symbols. Learning something new is good, math is fun :).

Tony, I had some of the math further down.

Here for this graphic just check out the surface temperature.

The associated radiation is 354 W/m2 which in the SB law is 8 deg C.

If 40 W/m2 are radiated away into space directly you have 314 W/m2 going into the atmosphere.

You have 161 W/m2 incoming from the sun. Of this 17 W/m2 leave as thermals and 80 as latent heat. This means that there is a difference of 64 W/m2.

This difference is heat that is lost to the atmosphere by radiation.

In order to achieve this the back radiation has to be 314 - 64 W/m2 (difference of the radiative energy exchange). So the back radiation brings the surface energy into balance.

Please note it does so for the 161 W/m2 and not for the original incoming assumed average energy from the sun.

This is pure arithmetic. Easy to follow.

Now you can try this for any other configuration and you will find that it always balances over the 161 W/m2 for any given surface temperature.

I let you draw the conclusion for it, since you did not ask only for the math!

Easy to follow should be followed by Easy to understand. Thank you,

Except that it totally ignores electric charge distribution, current, and magnetism effects, and these (it turns out) may entirely dominate the force equation.

So there.

There is some nice equations that do indeed use gravity to explain the lapse rate. And if gravity was found to be of electric origin ...

I am not that bold to claim that here. But I am not saying that selective emissivity is the only factor to get us to cosy 15 deg C. I am just asking if it could play a role and the answer for now is: Yes it should be considered as an option along with all the other possibilities!

When light falls on an absorbing substance (dark colored) the energy is converted to thermal vibrations (heat). This heat is re-radiated as far infrared radiation (about 10 microns wavelength). Glass is opaque to this radiation so it is trapped inside the greenhouse, reflected from the glass. At some point, the greenhouse will get hot enough that the amount of energy radiated is the same as the amount coming in.

Rixter, do you agree that the solar constant puts a limit on the temperature for anything that is not covered with glass?

Is there records of Glass/Green houses that could obtain more than 120 deg C without special coatings? I do not believe so.

Suppression of convection still would not get you over the line, but we can discuss this more in depth. Fact is that atmosphere lives with convection and unless in a Death Valley you wont have much of suppression in convection.

The comparison of Earth as a greenhouse is as old as it is wrong for the reason that there is no suppression of convection!

Yes! That, plus the fact that as the atmosphere heats up more clouds form causing more IR energy to be reflected back into space, AND additionally lowering the temperature accumulation by the all the things, for which those clouds provide shade. Diehard climatologist, just can't catch a break what with mother nature working against them, and their 'cause'! Perhaps that is why so many of the have been caught 'fudging' the real numbers, because reality just refuses to cooperate with their agenda!

The , glass , is that in the link posted by AP ?

A glass or green house used to grow plants, vegetables or flowers works by allowing sun light in and due to prevention of convection gets warmer than the surrounding uncovered area to suit the plants. If you add CO2 you do not make it warmer but you are adding plant food, so the plants grow better and are more healthy.

The comparison of atmosphere with a green house, or green house gases with a blanket are wrong.

Red herring. I'm beginning to think you aren't interested in figuring it out, so much as desiring to confuse the issue.

Thats not the greenhouse effect being described....you knew this though, right? You might as well call the lack of convection just the 'house effect'.

The greenhouse part being related to gasses is the quality of greenhouse glass of high transmittance in the visible range but pppr transmittance in the mid to far IR range.

.

So you say you can ignore the missing convection in a greenhouse?

How comes opening the sides of a Greenhouse is used to regulate the temperatures?

I said nothing of the kind.

I am saying that 'greenhouse' in 'greenhouse gas' notes the similarity in spectral variation in transmittance of said gasses to tranditional greenhouse glass.

It doesn't really provide any insight into greenhouse gas dynamics. No one said the gasses behave exactly like a greenhouse. The gasses are just called that in light of similarities in spectral transmittance.

But, I wouldn't want you to complain that I had failed to respond to a querry. So irrelevance be damned, I'll attempt to answer:

The reason the sides are opened is to mix cooler outside air (that hasn't been in the space which allows visible spectrum to heat things up but doesn't allow as much far IR to leave) with warmer inside air.

If it was about convection, wouldn't they need to open the top too?

So now you are saying, while the greenhouse gasses exhibit the same properties as some glass, it does not give us insight into the thermodynamic effects that has?

You just said: The reason the sides are opened is to mix cooler outside air..

... with the air inside... (my addition).

That'd be the reason not to open the top. The cold air already gets in!

Looks like we agree on some points. One of those points is that attempt divination of dynamic effects via inspection of a popularized naming convention is unlikely to be more sucessful at useful prediction than random guesses.

You confuse me here. What do we agree on?

That climate science has not put proper definitions in place to describe processes, that have been falsely described to begin with, using populist unscientific terminology, that never can make a correct prediction and has been proven so, been wrong but been used to push a folly dangerous believe system?

Ok, I think we have an agreement.

Do we also agree that there is a possibility that oceans acting as selective emissivity solar collectors would be partially responsible for the "Green House Effect" and should be taken into consideration when we try to dissect our climate systems?

This is a water planet, and water is in more than one way special.

Ignoring over 70% of oceans covering Earth surface, which does not emit as a black body emitter is scientifically wrong.

Thanks for playing!

Your insistence on being at odds is amusing.

I have no doubt there are multitudes (far more than three or even four) of things upon which we can disagree and othet multitudes of things upon which we can disagree.

I think you understand that many processes catch popular names, yet this doesn't mean the knowledge of that process is related more than superficially to that name.

I'm not sure you are able to consider things related to atmosphere or heat transfer openly and without acrimony, so please consider an example from a different venue....

Lets look at a family of proteins and their names. The family of proteins is called hedgehog. The hedgehog family consist of three proteins in the signaling pathway, namely: desert hedghog, Indian hedgehog, and Sonic hedgehog.

You might suspect these were discovered in hedghogs first, but that would be incorrect. Hedghog was first identified in fruitflys. You might assume if not first discovered in hedgehogs, that hedgehog has some function particular to hedgehog species, but no.

Hedgehog is important to hedgehog development, but no more important than to other species, such as humans or dogs. The name hedgehog for the protein is said to have come from the spines that grow on fuitfly larva when the protein is missing.

In the same way that it is silly to fault climate science for the popular term used to describe gas molecules with dipoles able to jiggle, it would also be silly to fault geneticists for using the term hedgehog. The geneticists, like the climate scientists are not attempting to learn the subtleties of their respective subjects with attempts to tie the actual phenomena to the namesake.

.

Please understand on this subject of climate change, I am not playing, and you apparently don't even see the field well enough to descern accurately who is pushing what and typically why.

.

I believe the case for anthropogenic global warming via CO₂ is flawed on several levels and that the extrapolated historic temperatures and atmospheric compositions are inadequately validated.

I am NOT however claiming some huge conspiracy for the unlikely goal of riches from government funding for science. I don't believe there is widespread ill intent and missing integrity.

The argument doesn't need that, or any screaming or frankly any playing. Those who question the legitimacy of the so called consensus on climate science are lumped in one group. Those ranting about widespread coverups and conspiracies might as well join the scientific consensus, because they are detracting from the legitimacy of questioning the consensus.

No one serious is ignoring the ocean. No one is modeling the climate after an actual greenhouse. Most climate scientists are not stupid, evil, nor in a widespread conspiracy to destroy the economy and return the earth to snowball conditions. That doesn't mean they are correct, but it does mean treating them as evil dishonest conspiritors is unlikely to help you to be taken seriously.

When did I bring up the conspiracy thing? I did not, but one can try to read into it if one wishes.

All I am trying to discern is, how does Earth assume the current level of 15 Deg C calculated average "surface" temperature.

I do care how this is seen in the media and by people around me, what I care more about is that I want to understand what the real cause is. Lets just say its supposed to keep me sane and everyone who wants a way forward in science rather than regurgitating mantras and "you are not right" consensus talk.

For all I know there is a possibility for CO2 to have an impact as I have shown here in the thread. But that process is different from what the real driver for these 15 deg C is.

If separating the two things throws a stick into the wheel of AGW and thats ok.

Lack of air convection is not the only cause of the greenhouse effect.

And reputable firm or college will not allow using Wikipedia as a reference.

And when it comes to a climate related topic I would refrain from even using some scientific papers.

considering that one has to be cautious even from the liberal educational complex.

If one is going to use Wikipedia,... use Wikipedia's references and verify them. That's what I did in college., and one will be surprise about that. Its like CR4 here with climate change, a false narrative from both sides.

Well I hope one cannot defeat logic, but then those who do not understand logic cannot be defeated!

that's so true... and I offset your OT.

Thanks. Seen it last night. Th OT troll without a voice has "spoken".

One of the problems with climate science is the number of unknowns. (Which is compounded by the 'unknown unknowns' - aspects of the Earth's climate system that scientists aren't even aware of.) The entire globe cannot be hooked up to a system of temperature and humidity probes. The surface reflectivity cannot be measured everywhere, and certainly not across all wavelengths.

Even more of a problem is the atmosphere itself. It's not just a 'surface', it's a volume roughly 100 miles thick. Not only can the atmosphere NOT be monitored for temperature, humidity, and reflectivity everywhere, but the the makeup of the atmosphere cannot be monitored. One vexing problem is understanding the role of aerosols, which are notoriously difficult to study.

aerosols-and-their-relation-to-global-climate-102215345

Satellites help provide information about difficult to reach areas. The discrepancy between so many climate models and satellite data is a major issue with climate science and is a primary reason for legitimate skepticism about climate modeling in general.

I agree! But besides what we can measure and cannot measure there is some fundamental issues in the Green house gas theory that needs to be talked about.

The above graphic, that I just added shows the invalidity of the logic of the green house gas theory.

Regardless of the surface temperature, we can always find a balance in the radiative forcing. The only way that the radiative forcing does influence the surface temperature is if it exists independent to the surface temperature. This would require that the atmosphere has a energy source other than the heat radiated from the surface.

The logic error is, that it is assumed, that the temperature of Earth depends on the back radiation, which in turn depends on Earth surface temperature.

If we can agree on this then the next step is to look for the real driver of Earth temperature. Hence my the question if Earth could be seen like a big solar collector.

Yes but the warming is at ground level, this is a space within a space...CO2 is a heavy gas that clings to the surface of the planet like a blanket....and the difference is only 1° every 10 years or so....What is easier to observe are the physical changes to the Earth that are taking place, like melting glaciers and such....the changes are very subtle, so the warming issue and causes can be argued either way rather effectively to the layperson....this then triggers the 'flat earth syndrome' that scientists don't know everything and make mistakes all the time, this healthy scepticism has been earned at great expense by the public over time, having been fooled before....Add to that the temperature is always changing and you can see that the difference is unremarkable at face value....

To my knowledge CO2 is distributed unevenly but it still is part of the upper atmosphere. It certainly is not a blanket. This is what we are let to believe to easier accept the "warming" properties.

To be clear we are not talking about warming, but about the issue that it is warmer at the surface than would be expected from the incoming amount of energy.

Well yes it mixes into the atmosphere by the winds, and is distributed throughout the atmosphere....but it is the heaviest molecule and is produced chiefly at ground level...but the density of the atmosphere decreases with altitude....

https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080122160443AAOjPLQ

http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/co2_measurements.html

What fool, who has obviously never flown a small plane, doesn't know that when you fly in icing conditions you ALWAYS fly lower to get out of the sub zero conditions, so that the de-icing system will work!

There is no warmer layer of air aloft acting like a lid keeping the cold air at the surface! That is absolutely the stupidest statement I have ever seen on this forum! When relatively warm wet air rises, the water condenses out of the warmer air, it cools and the IR energy continues to be reabsorbed perpetuating the convection within the clouds, as it moves up to the top of the clouds through being dispersed and recirculated in the cloud which causes even more cooling, and freezing making the rain, snow or hail as the IR energy, which caused the whole storm, finally radiates out of the top of the cloud and out into space!

Yes! Warm air rises, but it doesn't stay "warm" (relatively speaking) for very long at all! That is why nighttime under a cloudless sky in the desert gets so unspeakably cold! That is also why it invariably gets colder the further up you go, no matter what the weather conditions! The relatively colder air in the clouds which have the proper temperature and dew point will keep the warmer air at the surface, NOT the other way around!

Obviously you have never operated an apple orchard, nor apparently heard of a temperature inversion. Your comments were completely uncalled for.

Yes! I have heard of temperature inversions, but they far between and even then VERY short lived, due to natural convection, and in the case of orchard tending are usually artificially induced with smudge pots and sometimes covering the trees to help the process.

The poster presented gave the impression that people are supposed to 'buy' that this is an everyday occurrence to make their point. 'THAT' was what prompted my post. It is certainly not something you can count on.

There is a place near me where a 100 ft cliff is above the highway going over a mountain, and on the other side is about a 1500 fd drop. I have seen the effects when the clouds pour over that cliff across that road into the valley like a river. That is the result of very specific set of temperatures and dew point, which in my area happens about once a year if that. Topography is usually a major factor in their formation naturally.

I beg to disagree in the point that when water condenses it cools the air.

It actually warms it, since the latent heat that was used for the evaporation becomes available again. Is that what you meant to write?

All the rest does not make much sense for me either. Dispersion and re-circulation causing cooling?

I had one beer too many last night and it still reverberates in my head. So I might have this wrong altogether...

Above where you fly, silly pants, is the inversion layer in the atmosphere, and the temperatures measured there are in fact higher. Your silly little ICE would run out of air long before reaching this layer. Go back to flying low, or deep diving, whatever it is you do best.

Thanks for the last link.

A thousand meter of ever-changing CO2 concentration. Who would have thought.

Here is a nice video to show seasonal changes.

Do you really want me to trust and believe another climate model??? by these so-called climate scientists? The term Climate Scientist has become a very bad term to accepted as valuable simply due to 99% to 100% being wrong. The term gives me the shivers. The models are just produced to justify their salary. They have no scientific basis as only very few elements and conditions are included and by no means the whole spectrum of contributing factors.

Besides, even NASA and NOAA have falsified data. How can one trust such predictions and models?

"... The term Climate Scientist has become a very bad term to accepted as valuable simply due to 99% to 100% being wrong. The term gives me the shivers. The models are just produced to justify their salary. They have no scientific basis ...."

.

Can anyone help me think of the term used to describe the act of having agents join the opposing faction in order to exaggerate the claims beyond what is reasonable, thereby delegitimizing the opposing factions argument?

Can anyone help me think of the term used to describe the act of having agents join the opposing ....

How's about false narratives

or

• NewsWeek
• CNN
• FOX
• TIME
• NBC
• ABC
• Al Gore

truth is not a compromise: "Can you use it in a sentence?...."

p911: "Sure", "Hey, I don't mind you talking about the weather, ... Just don't go all CNN on me."

truth is not a compromise: "Thank you, p911"

One cannot. I agree that there are lies, damned lies, and statistics in the realm of climatology, and also in cosmology. Why is it that when science begins with a question, charlatans are always so eager to usurp the most sophomoric "facts", and extend them to the level of inviolability as to make them religious, while the other side of their mouth renounces religion. Odd in the extreme.

#60 is showing a link to a data visualization, not a predictive model, sheesh!

Gerald Pollack, Esteemed Professor of Science at University of Washington (in Washington State, doh), was seen giving a talk at one of the Electric Universe conferences.

This talk asked simple questions:

• Does wind come from barometric (gravitational) effects of the mass of gases or could it arise from differences in atmospheric electric charge distribution between day and night?
• Why do heavier gases mix into the atmosphere (why do we not suffocate at sea level due to high level of argon, and insufficient oxygen)?
• Can charge distribution in lower atmosphere account for "trade winds" and "westerlies"?
• Can charge distribution in upper atmosphere account for the jet stream?

This is the video I saw. It is interesting to ask these questions, I am not asking anyone to accept questions as answers, nor as dogma.

I'm glad you are not too vested in the ideas proposed in this video.

There is much that doesn't stand up to mild scrutiny.

If air pressure is due to electric field and electric field is 50 times greater in the day than at night....shouldn't pressure be significantly greater in the day than at night?

The claim about the Earth needing something to keep it spinning is a bit silly. It is slowing down, just to set the record straight.

Even if it did need something to keep it spinning, how could the wind do that? Even conjuring assistance from electrodynamics doesn't absolve the need for an equal and opposite force....what is being spun up in the other direction to counter whatever the esteemed professor imagines is slowing the Earth so strongly that it would stop in a few thousand years at most?

He is doing a disservice to the Feynman lectures.

Professor Pollack seems to be better when he sticks to E water, the exclusion zone, and topics he has (and his graduate staff) researched fully.

Interesting questions. I am not convinced that winds are not assisted by electric fields, for we know the fields are there, and the field voltages are different relative to one another, etc. I do not see how we arrive at sufficient frictional force to drive Earth rotation, nor do I feel that Earth spin is not largely sustained by other factors in the solar system (and I understand basically how lunar tidal forces have influenced Earth spin and diurnal cycle over the years). I also (being a physical chemist) suspect that pressure in the lower atmosphere is largely dominated by the mass of air column, i.e. barometric equation tells all, and that at nominal pressure and temperatures of the lower atmosphere, thermal gradient induced mixing of air masses produces at least some wind (maybe most), and all aspects of gas molecule transport from lower to higher, and back. In the upper atmosphere, I suspect that deviations from the barometric equation may possibly be explained by the diurnal variation in electric field intensity, perhaps. I fail to see how trade winds and westerlies would not cancel out any frictional contributions to rotational acceleration of Earth spin. The jet stream in the northern hemisphere is from west to east. Is there not a southern counterpart that rotates contrary to the jet stream?

Oh, you got an OT of this. How wrong, because this is the way to think about this world. New ideas, shovel up the possibilities and not hiding them under "We know it all" statements.

The elctric universe theorie puts the light on from the other side. Alone for that they deserve a price for trying: trying to explain and trying the stigmata in this world. Not for being right, just to question what we think we know!

Ah and who ever voted OT is stigmatic to the bits! Get that!

Are you talking about stigmata? Signs of Christ on hands and feet? Or were you referring to that other term - paradigm.

In science and philosophy, a paradigm /ˈpærədaɪm/ is a distinct set of concepts or thought patterns, including theories, research methods, postulates, and standards for what constitutes legitimate contributions to a field.-Wikipedia.

A paradigm in science, consists of sanctioned research (i.e. funded) and accepted as to the general basis of the research by a consensus of senior members of the scientific community that review published results. Often, one must press ever so hard against the boundaries of the paradigm in order to extend the boundaries of science just that one inch forward. Those that do any research outside the sanctioned institutions (institutes, universities, government, and military centers) are usually not considered to be within the paradigm at the start, since any funding present is internal, not external, and the interests of said research may already lie outside the boundaries of agreed upon science (even though every single aspect of this research is clearly supported by aspects of science that are known, maybe in different context).

Honestly I can not see much science in "climate science". Tweaked statistics to serve a purpose of making you believe is not mathematics.

Wrong models to describe a complex system, with the outcome being the input of what they are trying to figure out, here the 15 Deg C is the input for the back radiation, that in turn makes the Earth 15 Deg C. Its a nice loop!

"... The only way that the radiative forcing does influence the surface temperature is if it exists independent to the surface temperature. This would require that the atmosphere has a energy source other than the heat radiated from the surface...."

.

This doesn't seem right. Could you explain further, or perhaps rephrase these two sentences?

The first sentence seems to be a denial of the existence of dynamic effects.

The second seems to ignore the reality of a full spectrum of energy coming from our sun, including infrared, visible and ultraviolet light. Solar UV specifically should be responsible for sigificant heating of the atmosphere.

No denial of dynamics effect if we speak about an "equilibrium" as it is for example provided to explain the Green House theory.

Lets break it down:

Surface heats up through the sun. Atmosphere cools surface and increases its temperature. The surface is the cat and the atmosphere the tail.

Now lets talk about if the tail can wag the cat or not! The answer is it does not because it has no brain! The atmosphere is tagged onto Earth and changes will have to come from there. Unless of course the tail grows a brain and independently decides to wag the cat.

Ok next case:

Solar UV specifically should be responsible for significant heating of the atmosphere.

The sun is the cat and the Earth is the tail. Yes but then changes in the atmosphere are not independent to what happens to the sun. It would be another discussion entirely to try to understand climate changes. But this is not the question of this thread.

We know there is heating from the sun directly in the atmosphere. The Trenberth diagram takes this out of the equation to explain the greenhouse effect.

The main receptor is Ozone and probably any of the other gases more or less. Ozone as the main receptor is said to cause the temperture inversion in the Stratosphere.

If you look further up we have the Thermosphere, which makes a good case to look at if you want to know what the true potential is of the sunlight to heat things up around and on Earth. Even so it is suggested that the solar constant limits temperatures to the SB equivalent of teh W/m2 received, this is only true for emitters that are not selective. The UV light and other short wave radiation originates from the hot outer layer from the sun. This shows up in the Thermosphere where temperatures could soar up to 2000 deg C (from here).

Anything hot and not in agreement with SB is maybe just selective welcoming UV absorption while being lazy in the long wave radiation!

Hope this explains it a bit better!

Thanks for pointing out my shortcomings in communicating my ideas.

I am still learning!

I had no idea the thermosphere got that hot. Very interesting. Thank you.

Sure, it was an eyeopener for me!

It lead me to the solar collector!

And now I am here!

"... Now lets talk about if the tail can wag the cat or not! The answer is it does not because it has no brain! The atmosphere is tagged onto Earth and changes will have to come from there. Unless of course the tail grows a brain and independently decides to wag the cat.

Ok next case:...."

.

I appreciate your confidence in your explanation....except it is unwarranted.

I suspect this still a remnant of your 'cooler things cannot increase the temp of things warmer'argument.

if someone is camping in the desert at night and puts on an insulating blanket, the blanket is at a lower temp than the body, yet the body can be warmer this the use of the blanket. you.

Even if a body is at a higher temp than a tblanket (and so losing energy), using a blanket can cause the body to be warmer than it would without the blnket. If the effect of a blanket is. higher temp than without, the result is the same, even if previously the effect seemed hung up on semantics earlier.

.

I am sure you do know exactly how a blanket works.

Make a test, do put a 40 deg C heated object under the sky in your said desert night and put one under a blanket.

Check temperatures frequently. I can assure you the blanket will not keep your object warmer. Both will eventually assume the same temperature.

The difference is time! But do not get hung up on the idea that the one with blanket cools slower. It might indeed cool faster due to the fact that if it is covered there will be thermal conduction, since the blanket is cold it will suck heat out of the object faster than you can look. And since it has a larger area it might radiate away heat faster too.

Now you are talking of an object that does warm itself, the human body. This body regulates its temperature. Do you realise that this a bad example? You know the human body needs to make sure that it does overheat?

You are using a wrong model and as I said above a populistic excuse without reference to the subject at hand.

We are not talking about a blanket, the atmosphere is no blanket, its gaseous atmosphere.

Your model is wrong!

You model then is unusually useless!

What you fail to understand is that the blanket does not make the anything warmer, aka higher temperature. Its simply does not. And if you take the human body, which is a self regulated system it will take a lot of burning fuel in the cells to overheat the body and loss of water too.

You have not really thought this through have you? The body is bound not to get hotter than 37 deg C.

Now if you replace the body with an object that is 37 deg C it will not heat up. It will cool down slower maybe but not get warmer by placing a blanket over it.

If you draw a blanket over yourself you feel cold for the first seconds. Why? Because you lose heat to the blanket that you have to warm up first.

All you are trying to tell me is that in a dynamic environment, when you start adding continuously energy, that the presence of another body with an elevated temperature (other than zero K) that the heat transfer under the condition of heat=constant will see the emitting body at a higher temperature. Its the concept of ambient temperature.

This is the concept of back radiation and how much energy is transferred and what temperature does the emitting body of interest have.

You use the blanket as model, why not use parallel plates? Because you knwo neither one of them fully describes the system at hand and therefore will lead you to wrong conclusions.

Lets look what I said in OP and what my point is.

There is 161 W/m2 arriving on Earth. This will have to be transferred through the lower atmosphere.

The point is that regardless what temperature the Earth has, it will transfer that amount of energy. This includes the back radiation and convection and latent heat, because we are assuming equilibrium conditions. (something that will be hard to find in the chaotic system atmosphere - Thats one point where we are missing a better model)

Back to the GHE model (Kiehl Trenbert diagram for example) . For all we know Earht has to get rid of 161 W/m2.

It sheds 64 W/m2 by radiation plus 40 W/m2 going straight out trough the atmospheric window.

If it does not shed 64 W/m2 by radiation, convection or latent heat has the opportunity to transfer that energy. In the green house model it should not matter. For all we know its a multi dimensional system and the sum of all transfers in the equilibrium state has to be 161 W/m2.

What matters is that the radiative energy transfer is NOT determining the surface temperature. It is the surface temperature that determines the level of radiative transfer in combination again with latent heat and convection and conduction and so on.

If you want to go back and test this then put Earth to 5 Deg C on the surface and you will find a stable condition that suits all transfers and yet Earth is at 5 Deg C assumed average surface temperature. Now you tell me you can deduct a dependency of the surface temperature from the radiative heat transfer.

Please try.

And to reinforce the learning's about ambient temperature. If you have a fire on in the desert and you move your sore old cold body close to the fire, it will not make the fire warmer!

Well, except that a blanket can make something warmer, by reducing rate of heat loss. It is you who has not thought this through beyond simplistic steady state.

If someone is suffering hypothermia, one of the treatments is ....yup, provide a blanket.

And if you need a piece of metal just taken out of a furnace to be at a higher temp five minutes from now than it would be without a blanket....you use the blanket.

There is energy coming in, so limiting the outgoing energy does indeed lead to a higher temp.

Very basic stuff here that you are denying.

Let put it straight: If you have an object like metal, that is not internally heated by a source it will not be able to assume a higher temperature with or without a blanket. It will only cool slower with that blanket, but it is time dependent. Not what we are looking for in a explanation that banks on equilibrium!

If you heat water to 70deg C put it in a thermo, it will not get warmer. It will cool slower but it will not be more than 70 deg C at any point in time.

Also for the exact same external temperature it will assume the exact same temperature as the one with out isolation. And the amount of heat transferred is also the exact same amount.

You cannot make the fire warmer by moving a colder body towards it.

There is an inherent limit with heat radiation: nothing can be heated to a higher temperature anymore than what the original emitting temperature suggests. If heat is transferred only in a limited bandwidth like IR, then you cannot make anything warmer than the source.

Its is different if the energy is transferred in a wider bandwidth that carries high energy as a small portion (UV for example).

Need to grab a coffee now. be back later.

But why are you trying to model as if the surface does not have sources adding energy.

Estimates for the core of the Earth and the effective temperature of the Sun are both somewhere above 5000° C. The surface is receiving energy from both sides.

Moreover, the heat within the Earth is not just a slowly cooling thermal mass. Decay heat from uranium and thorium decay chains are significant.

.

"... You cannot make the fire warmer by moving a colder body towards it. ..."

If by 'colder body' you mean a body with an effective suface temperature less than the 'fire', then assuming by 'fire' you mean something that is continually releasing energy with some chemical or nuclear source and subject to absorbtion and radiation similar to a backbody, then no, that is not correct.

So long as the 'cool body' is warmer than the remainder of what is surrounding the 'fire', moving it closer will indeed cause the body on fire to increase in temperature. This is because net radiative loss will be reduced as more of the available area in which to radiate it take up by the 'cooler object' (cooler than the fire object, but not as cool as background say of space). Since the energy input from the fire remains, but the net radiative loss is reduced, the temperature of the fire object is indeed increased until it can lose as much energy as is being gained.

.

You are arguing hard against very basic fundamentals here. Take a step back, gather your thoughts. It seems like you might have strayed from your original position and all manner of extraneous (and erroneous) positions are being caught up and glummed on to your argument in your vehement objection.

Ok,

I get the internal energy input. I get the solar power input. I hope you understand that the climate models ignore the internal heat input fully. Hence they try to explain that Earth would be at - 18 Deg C from what the sun delivers to us. Now if you say the Earth has the internal energy giving it its temperature then you fully agree that other source of energy or processes make our Earth 15 deg C calculated average surface temperature.

So with other words posed as a question, what would be the temperature of Earth at the surface without solar input!

Now that cool body to move next to the fire was at ambient temperature or less.

The little difference in Watt for ambient versus human, almost frozen to death is almost negligible, since we have not talked about distance and the crackling stick of wood gets a bit of an boost from a wind gust.

I am not arguing against it, because I never denied the fact how the radiative energy transfer works. All I am saying is that it is not the full explanation for that 15 Deg C as climate scientist would as let believe.

Show me why radiation should have that impact, if as per the GHE model all it does it limits the energy being transferred by radiation. But it would do so for any given temperature on Earth.

This means the radiative transfer is not the reason that Earth is at these 15 Deg C.

Assume for a minute Earth just receive solar radiation. How (on Earth) would it ever get above these assumed -18 Deg C? How?

It would stick there forever with all green house gases in the air. It would not raise the surface temperature.

Again the back radiation is fed by the surface radiated energy. If Earth was -18 Deg C then air could not radiate more than what comes from the surface. How did Earth assume a higher temperature is the question.

"...Show me why radiation should have that impact,..."

It is the dominant process of energy removal from the Earth because it is effectively the only source of energy removal from the Earth. You could consider various missions to other planet and the likes of Voyager 1 and 2 as removal of energy as well, but these are dwarfed to such a great degree as to be effectively nothing.

There is also some loss of gasses from the top of the atmosphere of which some molecules will be at above average energy. Again, in comparison to radiation, effectively nothing.

The heat added by decay and residual heat from the Earths interior provides somewhere on the order of 0.1 W/m² which is dwarfed by the 250 W/m² or so average of energy reaching the surface over the entire surface. But even then, that 0.04% is balanced out by radiation into space.

Ok, lets put it another way. Lets use the 0.1 W/m2.

This is a flux, it is not a temperature. It leaves the temperature of the surface undefined.

It is simply a flux that leaves Earth for the given cooling conditions and for the given temperature on Earth. You will not be able to determine the temperature from just that number of a flux.

The GHE model has a flux of 161 W/m2 at the surface. Again it is not defining the surface temperature, otherwise we would claim that Earth was only -42 Deg C.

But then we want to claim that 341 W/m2 flux can define the surface temperature as -18 Deg C. And two fluxes are seen to add up to a surface temperature of 15 Deg C.

If this does not sound odd to you? Fluxes do not add up like this.

I say it again. If a body is at a certain temperature and receives some energy it will heat up and cool down. Earth surface could be at -18 deg C, receive 161 W/m2 and shed in the equilibrium state 161 W/m2 and could be seen with an equilibrium temperature of -18 Deg C.

The same can be constructed for 15 deg C.

Receive 161 W/m2, get rid of 161W/m2 by whatever means and be at 15 deg C.

The way the heat transfer is impacted has no bearing on the surface equilibrium temperature. And the reason is that the simple model has to allow the heat transfer. It has to allow it because it is right, because the heat transfer is happening.

So what I am looking for a the none-simplified, complex hard to explain real explanation why we would be able statistically come up with that 15 Deg C average surface temperature.

I think one answer is the interior heat, but I also think that there is maybe a component of selective emissivity in there.

If the thermosphere can get 2000 Deg C at times there is plenty of reasoning that a few degrees might be attributed to the way UV light interacts on Earth surface.

Selective emissivity is part of the model you are railing so hard against. It is in exactly the jiggly dipole part (among other places) you say you disbelieve.

No real object is really a perfect blackbody. Every real object will exhibit some degree of selective emissivity. UV interacting with relatively cool objects is a good example as not much UV will be radiated away so variations in longer wavelength radiation can have profound effect on temperature. Same thing with visible light though usually to a lesser degree.

".... The way the heat transfer is impacted has no bearing on the surface equilibrium temperature. ..."

As it reads, this is not true. Not certain if that is exactly what you intended. Heat transfer in/out will be equal when equalibrium is reached, however mismatches lead to changes in temperature until a new equalibrium is reached.

"... Now that cool body to move next to the fire was at ambient temperature or less. ..."

.

....but why? What are you attempting to model with that. Certainly you realize that the atmosphere is not at or lower than the background of space.

I am not trying to model anything. First of all the radiative energy exchange of the fire and the body are just part of the equation. In reality the wind gust will throw out the temperature model by a far larger scale.

More Oxygen will make the flame be hotter, the wind gust also promotes energy transfer by convection.

Again there is the missing part in the multi-dimensional problem. While the radiative component had a somewhat positive outcome if the body was a bit warmer than ambient, if it was the same, the change would be dependent on the difference in emissivity. For a colder body you do implement a heat sink.

So if space was our ambient, then there cannot be any change of the energy content of Earth if there was no change in energy input.

Do you agree or not agree with this statement?

"... So if space was our ambient, then there cannot be any change of the energy content of Earth if there was no change in energy input. ..."

.

I disagree with this statement. Look at your flat plate solar collectors. Different flat plate solar collectors with the same area can reach different temps at stagnation under the same conditions of sunlight and ambient temp. Obviously more than just input and ambient temp matter.

Since when is the Earth ever to be considered as a closed and equilibrium system? Have you totally lost it?

This is a good question to ask the climate scientists that came up with that simplified CO2 blaming model. Its not my model that we discuss here!

the Solar Constant, is meant to be the upper limit of solar radiation arriving on a perfect absorber at Earth (LEO), out of the atmosphere.

There is far less 1 kW/m² at surface on any point of Earth's surface.

The greenhouse effect from water vapor is far greater than that from atmospheric carbon dioxide. Always has been, always will be.

It why we don't always need "blankies" at night.

You can refer to the graph to see the numbers for the average of energy arriving at Earth. In reality some areas get close to solar constant, but I would assume never more.

The intriguing issue is that solar collectors manage to harvest more energy from the sunlight than it initialy contained in the whole bandwidth.

A 200 deg C radiator would radiate a whopping 2842 W/m2 but only receives solar constant. No tricks, no bends (those are flat solar collectors) and yet defying the climate physics and logic.

We do need blankets at night mainly to prevent us from losing too much energy through convection and radiation. CO2 and water vapor never helped warming in the presence of any walls and the roof that are already at ambient temperature at the inside.

That must be why I keep kicking off the covers!

Your 200 °C radiator, do you have a link to that as a real object? The number you throw out there, is that for a perfect black body radiator? Have you ever found one?

By ITS-solar Ltd, South Africa - http://www.its-solar.com/wp-content/uploads/flat-plate-vs-evacuated-tube1.pdf, CC BY-SA 2.5, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=9407634

I could not find such a high temperature on first search, not even the solar sensor. Next search found stagnation temperature of 200, using selective coatings.

The flat-plate systems normally operate and reach the maximum efficiency within the temperature range from 30 to 80 oC (Kalogirou, 2009), however some new types of collectors that employ vacuum insulation can achieve higher temperatures (up to 100 oC). Due to introduction of selective coatings, stagnant fluid temperature in flat-plate collectors has been shown to reach 200 oC.

http://cr4.globalspec.com/edit/newcomment?objectid=116697&objecttype=THREAD&c=1230516&rnd=81767

Selective coatings (or additions of specific elements to lamp fill) have been known for quite some time that convert lower energy radiation back into the visible spectral range. Thus, heat that would be radiated away if upconverted, could be absorbed, and raise the temperature of the medium even further.

The above shows the principle. I have not found a good link from a vendor.

The 200 deg C is most likely the stagnation temperature. Its exceeding the 120 deg C of the black body assumption, so its all I need to know.

But then the black body radiation is just a principle and just another issue with the explanation of the green house effect.

Thanks for sharing the above.

Haha, there is certainly someone clowning around with OT.

Since there is no reply to this post, the one who thinks this is OT has certainly nothing to contribute other than the rating button.

Well done.

Clowning around is putting it mildly. There is an active coalition here to promote " their " view.

I recently posted on a blog about light and crime an image and I get a " good " score, then I post a counterpoint and I get an " off topic " ! It's educational and entertaining at the same time.

I see that, and I voted against the 1 OT.

Appreciated.

Its sad that this is being used instead of a thoughtful discussion.

But its a hot topic going against the grain I suppose, so had to be anticipated.

The intriguing issue is that solar collectors manage to harvest more energy from the sunlight than it initialy contained in the whole bandwidth.

Greenhouse solar collectors do not harvest more energy from sunlight than they receive. Don't confuse temperature with energy. A greenhouse stores energy as heat analogous to the way a capacitor stores electric charge. You can also increase temperature with lenses or reflectors. There is no increase in energy in either case, just concentration in time (greenhouse) or concentration in space (lenses or reflectors).

A higher temperature does increase the efficiency (Carnot efficiency) of converting this heat energy into other forms of energy.

The greenhouse may be 200 C on the inside, but on the outside, it is radiating no more energy than it is absorbing, which cannot be more than the incident sunlight. Energy accumulates (temperature rises) until emitted energy equals absorbed energy. The better the thermal insulation, the hotter it will get before equilibrium occurs.

Here is another example. Imagine a resistor enclosed in a perfect insulator. Pass a current through the resistor and it gets hotter. The temperature will increase without any limit other than when the resistor or insulator is destroyed.

Yes.

To understand how it is possible to increase the temperature one has to understand the nature of light.

Lets take just two parts that I already mentioned in above for the selective emissivity: Short Wave and Long Wave

An example of short wave is Ultra Violet light. We know it arrives on Earth and can burn our skin. UV light has more energy. Material that absorbs those wave length, transforms them into heat and emits badly in short wave do eventually heat up.

In my layman terms short wave light carries a different "temperature signature" than long wave. It is emitted at a hotter temperature. It therefore also enables absorbing material to take on that hotter temperature until, as Rixter says, the energy emitted is the same as the one absorbed.

Now if we look at the diagram above this is exactly the case on Earth.

161 W/m2 are received and eventually emitted and otherwise (convection and latent heat in the diagram) transported away.

The incoming Energy is spread out over the wave length. The outgoing is long wave. The transition can create higher temperature, which we would not be able to explain by incoming radiation values W/m2 and Stefan-Boltzmann.

There is no perfect insulators.

And the solar collector will not get hotter than 120 deg C if it does not have selective emissivity.

This is correct.

Not sure where you get the idea that we are talking green house here. Its more about the greenhouse effect and solar collectors.

My wording above was wrong and James already explained why.

I know about the concentration of solar light where the absorbing area is less than the collection area. Thats why I stated in my OP that we are talking about flat collectors where a square meter is a square meter.

The question is if the ocean is a rather big solar collector.

And it this one with selective emissivity!

A greenhouse is a glass enclosed space that is heated by sun radiation and the glas enclosure prevents the gained temperature rise form being distributed by wind and the surrounding atmosphere by mixing.

We have no glass enclosure in the upper atmosphere hence no greenhouse effect exists. Just think about it. It is all based on a political agenda. Just listen to Al Gore's mumbling. His arguments have no scientific basis whatsoever.

If a heat gain is caused somehow, it should not be called 'greenhouse effect'. There is no greenhouse in the atmosphere and the same effect that warms a greenhouse is not present anywhere above the ground.

You are missing or misunderstand a crutial function of traditional greenhouses.

I was under the impression that the tropics do see 1kW/m2.

Yes we do. Thats why it is hard to understand that we should be surprised to see temperatures on Earth that in average are below the maximum solar input.

The general way climate works is, we have the tropics warming up, heat gets transferred towards the poles and is lost some where in between or latest at the cold poles that receive the least of the sun energy.

in fewer words...

There are three main sources of heat in the deep earth:

1. heat from when the planet formed and accreted, which has not yet been lost;
2. frictional heating, caused by denser core material sinking to the center of the planet;
3. heat from the decay of radioactive elements.

And no one yet has honed pressure - temperature physics of iron (and other elements) to the point that precise temperatures may be measured. There is a large expectation range in the solid core, the liquid core, mantle, even in lower crust.

Very active and useful area of research to budding physicists and geophysicists out there.