Solar Collector

not to mention tectonic subduction.... well details come later...

that is part of #2, friction and convection.

Subduction is a geological process that takes place at convergent boundaries of tectonic plates where one plate moves under another and is forced or sinks due to gravity into the mantle. Regions where this process occurs are known as subduction zones.

The area of subduction, the plates are really aren't heavier, but yes it is friction.

Typically the overthrust belt layer is lighter due to a difference in temperature, and the subducted layer should be slightly cooler by virtue of being under water.

This my stance on that issue, as deranged as it might be.

It is clearly convection related, although mostly driven by plate motion, but what is driving the plate motion? Convection.

OH, snap, correction, I left off the compression of the subducted layer by the ocean, and the up-springing decompression of the overthrust layer sometime occurring long after such things as glaciers recede.

the real derangement... this started out as a solar collector... and now its onto plate tectonics/geology... can wait till it moves on and we start talking about trains...

well...a train must have tracks, and this discussion started off derailed AFAICT.

I would like a train for Christmas, but it has to be a windmill on tracks that generates power. With sails. And whaler-men for a crew. And Sea shanty songs. Lots of rum. Maidens. Buxom maidens.

The typical overthrust belt is continental shelf material which has a lower density than sea floor...not just a temperature difference. The contenents are floaties refusing to go down.

I would add one more source of internal heat, although it may not be considered "deep": the heating due to tidal distortion of the Earth and energy dissipation of ocean tides.

Sure is:

http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/2011/jul/19/radioactive-decay-accounts-for-half-of-earths-heat

Its another oversight in climate physics to assume that there isn't any energy already contained in Earth. The greenhouse gas theory assumes that the sun heats up the Earth from 0 K onwards.

My physics says that if you have something at a certain temperature and you add some more energy it will heat up a little more.

If Earth assumed black body temperature from its own energy is -21 Deg it would have a Blackbody radiation of 229 W/m2. Adding 161 W/m2 Energy input from the sun would amount to 390 w/m2 (as per greenhouse theory calculation) and it would not even need a back radiation to explain Earth theoretical average temperature.

The factvis alone could explain how little energy from the sun can warm up earth to the said 15 deg Celsius average temperature.

Where you are getting these numbers? I am intrigued, and truly want to know for sure.

The numbers are from Black Body radiation calculator in OP:

http://www.endmemo.com/physics/radenergy.php

... and from the Kiehl-Trenberth diagram.

The Stefan Boltzman law states that a body at a certain temperature emits a defined amount of energy from its surface. The calculator can be used with emissivity= 1, area=1 to obtain the black body flux W/m2.

Now in climate science in the above diagram Earth has an emissivity of 1 radiating 396W/m2 and therefore is at a cosy 16 deg C (not sure where I got this from. Searching for Kiehl-Trenberth should give you some selection of similar diagrams).

In a post above, with the same diagram, I exchanged just two numbers which leaves all balances the same only that Earth would be at a temperature of -8 deg C.

You can follow that with the calculator. Just convert to Kelvin as the calculator does not seem to like negative values.

What can be deducted from this diagram is, that the incoming energy flux at 161W/m2 is transported away from the surface by Latent heat (eva-transpiration), convection (thermals) and by the difference of the fluxes outgoing from the surface and incoming as back radiation.

The main point is that it is the difference of both fluxes that keeps the system in balance. Mathematically this means we have two unknowns or a pair of numbers with their difference defined but not its actual values. We know that surface temperature and atmospheric are coupled. Thermo-dynamically they are connected by all three main energy transfer forms.

And we also know that the energy to heat the atmosphere is coming from the surface.

The greenhouse gas theory assumes that the temperature in the atmosphere impacts the surface temperature. But this is wrong.

The diagram I posted above proves that the back radiation does not have the ability to change the surface temperature and unless someone can prove it is decoupled from the surface temperature the theory is wrong.

Equilibrium temp on a solar collector is going to depend on an energy balance equation. We had a neighbor with flat black water solar collector panels for hot water that would regularly have the panels boil during the summer if he didn't have hot water demand. I recall from one of my classes that a flat black receptor in vacuum with high emissivity finish on the solar side and low emissivity finish on the non-lit side could hit several hundred degrees, because that was how the radiant heat transfer balance equation worked out.

Yepp, thats the stuff we are talking about!

I had made a "phonon cell" with strips of copper and magnesium with a voltage of about 1.57 V, and once warmed in the sun, there was evidence the matrix was "boiling" off water. It contained a small percentage of graphite, but mostly epsom salt, potassium chloride, and alum. Output resistance for a sheet with polycarbonate cover plate of 11" square was ~3 Ω at 80°C.

Nothing to write home about, but one of the better of these I made. During water loss, I cannot be certain this cell was not galvanic, as there seemed to be nothing crystalline about it. Also, the matrix appeared to "self-organize" into rows over the magnesium strips, nearly leaving the copper bare. Isn't electricity wonderful?

The ocean and the sun have been around for a good while. I would think that any changes in temperature due to the interaction of the two would have long since reached an equalibrium of effect on temperature, i.e. it may be why the world is warmer than it might otherwise be, but it probably doesn't provide a good explanation for variations in temperature seen within recorded human history.

Thanks for answering my question. So if the oceans where to act as a selective emissivity solar collector they could explain the green house effect?

I agree it would not be able to explain climate variations. But there is again one of the issues. Climate science thinks the greenhouse effect makes world warmer in general and then the same effect could cause a climate variation.

I'd rather think these are two different processes.

Has to be.

Lets think for one moment that the back radiation increases, this would increase the surface temperature, it would increase the back radiation and so on.

Since we seem to have a rather balanced world, the green house gas theory does not work.

Climate variation is a different discussion.

I would say that liquid oceans that absord over a volume yet radiate mostly from the surface would act as a selective surface leading to higher temps than one would otherwise expect.

All gasses can be heated by UV radiation through changes to electronic state. Our atmosphere is fairly transparent to the visible range. The vast majority of the atmospheric composition is also transparent to infrared. To be heated by infrared the gas must be structured such that vibration and or rotation leads to a change in dipole moment....otherwise the varying electromagnetic field has nothing to which to couple.

So, N₂ and O₂ and Ar and He and H₂ are transparent to wavelengths longer than UV.

H₂O, CO₂, CO, NH₄, N₂O, NO, and the like are not transparent in the Infrared spectrum to varying degrees related to the vibrational/rotational degrees by which they can jiggle their dipoles. This is pretty straight forward to test and has been well established confirmed.

As a side note, CO₂ being symetrical is very limited in the ways is can jiggle its dipole...no twisting, no stretching, only the hip thrust. Water on the other hand is more versatile.

Since the peak radiation from the Earth is at a much longer wavelength than the incoming radiation from the sun, the idea that gasses not transparent to infrared have a positive effect on temperature.

Moreover, these two effects are not isolated. If the ocean is warmer than it would be if it were not acting as a selective surface, then water has a higher vapor pressure....meaning more of the atmosphere is water vapor....which is not transparent to infrared.

....but then again, water vapor can make clouds which reflect incoming light.

The whole thing is egregiously complicated with variables out the wazoo. The lack of decent prediction ability by the models shows we don't yet have a workable grasp of the dynamics.

I also am suspicious of like icecore data used for interpolation of past temperature and atmospheric composition. We don't yet have enough temperature and composition data to see if icecore sample analysis can be valitated by matching with known history.

All that said, it seems pretty straight forward that if more gas were introduced to the atmosphere that is not transparent in the infrared spectrum, that the immediate result would be toward a temperature increase. So that if you accept that the greenhouse effect has the Earth at a higher temperature than it would be without these dipole jiggling gasses, then increasing the concentration of said gasses shoukd have the primary effect of changing temperature upward.

One thing to accept is, that Earth surface is at a higher temperature than would be expected known as the "Green house" effect.

I do not accept the notion that it is because of the dipole-jiggling gasses.

The reason is that all these gasses do simply just relay the heat through and do not send it back to Earth at all. They are the agents that make the atmosphere cool through radiation on the very top of the atmosphere.

Have a look again at the Trenberth diagram. There is 239 W/m2 going out on the top.

But then lets have another look. The 161 W/m2 incoming flux is transported off the Earth surface by latent heat, by convection and radiated simultaneously. This is three open pathways to cool the Earth surface.

We know the effects of latent heat missing from our deserts: hotter in the day, cooler in the night.

Convection and radiation are in equilibrium and depend on the surface temperature.

If one was to construct a heating from greenhouse gasses you would have to argue that the Back-radiation becomes more without touching the convecticve/radiative equilibrium. For Trenberth this is 80 Latent heat, 17 Thermals, 64 radiation versus the 161 incoming.

Now you reduce the amount of energy that leaves the systems through the Atmospheric Window. Take a Watt off the 40 W/m2 and add it too the back radiation. Now you unbalance the system.

Theoretically you now only radiate 63 W/m2 away. You have to increase your thermals or latent heat. This again will increase Energy in the atmosphere. Eventually the system will have to settle by being a touch warmer.

So the big question is IF CO2 absorption is saturated or not, IF the atmospheric window can be closed more.

But my point is not about arguing if CO2 can cause a warming.

My point is if the Greenhouse gases are really causing the greenhouse effect.

I do not think they do.

No need to take anyones word for it.

The effect of the dipole jigglers is fairly straight forward to verify. Get two identical insulated containers with thin transparent tops and put matching thermometers in each. Keep just normal atmosphere in one and then enhance the other with supplemental dipole jigglers. Subject to effectively the same sunlight on a bright day and note the difference in temperature.

This will show us absorption. This will increase heat content. Radiation will decrease heat content. Since it heats up maybe CO2 does not emit energy? Is that a prove already?

If you can see absorption lines, does it mean there is no emissions in that wave length?

If there is no emission where is the back radiation coming from?

If there is emission is it maybe in a different wave length? Does CO2 by any chance have a selective emissivity?

".... If there is emission is it maybe in a different wave length? Does CO2 by any chance have a selective emissivity?..."

The selectivity is fundamental to the greenhouse gasses. It isn't an absolute selectivity, but it shows a strong statistical trend which is well explained by the jiggly dipole model, roughly as follows....

The spectrum from the sun recieved by the Earth is close to that of blackbody with far higher temps than the surface of atmosphere of the Earth. As such, the spectrum is shifted more toward shorter wavelengths. Specifically, much ultraviolet is inbound comparatively. All gasses can absorb or partially absorb UV typically with shift is electron energy....but not much gets reradiated with temperature too low for UV radiation... the only radiation route for most of the atmospheric gas.

The greenhouse gasses will interact with both UV as well as different portions of the IR depending on structure related to dipole. That will lead to the atmosphere being warmer due to incoming IR in the presence of greehouse gasses.

Check out the differences in radiation wavelengths....

Note that below around 3.75 μm the solar spectrum dwarfs the Earths spectrum and above that Earths spectrum lies.

Now look at the specific notes in the next graph detailing the ranges in spectrum for which greenhouse gasses are able to absorb and radiate....subtract out that medium size hump for 'earths surface' and realize that O₃ is a very limited constituent...

So considering inbound radiation it should be apparent greenhouse gasses make the atmosphere probably slightly warmer...though that is radiation that would have continued most likely to the surface otherwise...so not really causing things to heat up overall from that perspective.

When you consider outgoing radiation, the ability to retain some additional heat can be understood.

It is probably more helpful to think of the atmosphere as a glazing and not a selective surface. Iron bearing glass is selected for greenhouse glazing is in cold areas because it is not transparent to IR and the similarity in function eponymous to the gasses we're discussing.

Anyway, the surface of the Earth is at a higher temp than the atmosphere but even without that aspect if greenhouse gasses were not present, the IR would travel unimpeded out to space. However the greenhouse gasses absorb and radiate across large portions of the IR spectrum. When radiating, the direction is random. Radiation from Earth is going predominantly up, but about half the radiation from greenhouse gasses is predominantly down, and a much larger portion is either down or at some low angle that absorbtion is very likely.

This heats the atmosphere and the surface.

The same thing will happen in a glass terrarium with CO₂ held in with a thin plastic wrap cover or with a high iron glass lid.

Thanks - nice summary. Please state your references.

Links to all graphs are available by clicking on the graph in question.

The references begin with the comment to which my comment was responding; those parts will be in quotes.

The remainder of the references are an amalgamation of conventional class room and self directed study over more than 30 years. There is nothing novel therein, or it would be approptiately credited. I do not recall enough of the individual names to properly document specifically where I first encountered such explanations or supporting experiments, but I can say one of the first was an experiment on greenhouse by my classmate Ben Boyer in the mid 80s. Similar explanations and similar supporting experimental data can be found without shortage on the internet today.

Careful with the wording. I have seen heated debates about the phrase:

This heats the surface.

It is actually plain wrong as the heat comes from the sun, the Earth but not from the atmosphere with the exemption when the atmosphere is warmer than the surface. This is mostly at higher latitudes during winter the case.

The surface heats the atmosphere. Means heat is transferred to the atmosphere. It is not the other way around. The better description is, it reduces the heat that can be transferred from the surface into the atmosphere.

And since this is the case, the atmosphere receives less heat and is theoretically cooler!

Now again my point from above is that the surface and atmospheric temperature are coupled through convection and conduction. There is also latent heat that stores energy which is not visible on a thermometer. The coupling of both temperatures means that they work in unison and the only way of creating a new "equilibrium" is by making any of the two a bit hotter. But the equilibrium is not fixed. It shifts based on the true energy input.

The reason why it found its alleged for me semi-stable point of 15 deg C is that Earth produces its own energy plus processes like the selective emissivity of the oceans keep the surface energy state higher than should be expected by radiation energy alone.

A multitude of processes are responsible. Radiation is only one of them.

Well said! I think science should strife to get the details right. For a complex issue such as the climate, to use simplified models is not science.

Many a wrong word improves the sentence!!

Your spelling error made me laugh out loud, as it depicts some of the "combatants" here rather well!!!

Many thanks!!!

strife stride?

strife strīf/ noun

1. angry or bitter disagreement over fundamental issues; conflict. "strife within the community"

   synonyms:

   conflict, friction, discord, disagreement, dissension, dispute, argument, quarreling, wrangling, bickering, controversy; More

In all fairness he meant 'strive'. I thought this was obvious.

Strive:

make great efforts to achieve or obtain something.

"national movements were striving for independence", attempt, endeavor, aim, venture, make an effort, exert oneself, do one's best, do all one can, do one's utmost,

So I did.

"Strive" was I believe the word sought.....

You copied your information form others. Or you were just late, Andy?

Du liest nicht mit.

I simply answered the post when I saw it, reading down, one post after the other.

There are far more "problems" here than a repeated, accurate, post!!

Later I read the other answer. Whats the problem?

Thanks, Andy. I know of and occassionally use the noun, 'schadenfreude', but was unaware of the adjective.

My knowledge of german in basically nonexistent beyond just a few terms....but the terms or short phrases of which I am aware are wonderful and quite useful for at times..

fremdschamen, weltschmerz, ding an sich, gott ist tot, and zeitnot are some terms that come to mind.

Thanks for your interesting comments.

The word I previously mentioned, "Schadenfroh" loosely translates as "gloating" by many, but its more than just that.

In German, it actually means someone who takes "pleasure" in the misfortune of others, over anything.

Someone who likes also first "pointing it out" and then being "happy" about the others misfortune.....which was why I actually used it here.....

I have read about it being used in the USA quite recently, in articles and general usage occasionally, so apparently, in the USA, it is used and understood today, though I give no guarantee on that.

I personally find that its one of the least likable traits of any human, of any age and background.

It is also one of the more obvious (of the poor) traits demonstrated often by Sociopaths/Psychopaths. But they themselves do not see it as being so, by the way!

Such people as these, I simply try to avoid in my actual life.....though online they are best described as "trolls".

The usage of German words in US English, I personally put down to basically two things (there may be even more that I have not considered!):-

1) The large number, over a great many years, of German immigrants to the USA, naturally bringing their language with them

and

2) you can describe this poor "attitude" of some people, quickly and easily in one word. I personally am unaware of an English word that does EXACTLY the same, or I have simply forgotten it!

There are many everyday words in the English language, (which is considered to be a Teutonic language by experts), almost directly taken from the German, Kindergarten is one that springs to mind.

Here are a few more I found online (used mostly in US English!) ablaut, angst, autobahn, beer garden, bildungsroman, blitzkrieg, blutwurst, bratwurst.

Some of which I have heard used in English and US English, but also some here I have never ever heard used myself anywhere other than Germany and Austria!

See here:-

https://www.englisch-hilfen.de/en/words/loanwords.htm

I hope that this was of further interest to you and some others here. Apologies if not!

PS. I have just noticed that some kind person has given me a GA for my previous post on this subject! Firstly, many thanks to them! That was most unexpected.

But I suspect that the person I was actually originally referring to, will now go and cancel it! We will see!!! (Little things please little minds etc................!) Proving beyond doubt for me at least, that he has strong sociopath tendencies......

Andy,

do not worry. The same person most likely gives me OT's for anything I say.

Even for those that are rated OT already!

Its funny. The silent rate button pusher has nothing else to contribute here.

Just expressing his feelings about the topic and that I must be wrong!

Even now that the thread is off the top list he stalks this thread. Must be worth something!

Have a good Sunday and Advent!

You are completely right of course.

I wish you and yours also a great Advent Sunday too!

If that were true, all of your comments would have at least one OT vote.

Thanks for being selective in your OT's then!

Are you going only by grammar and spelling or is there something fundamentally wrong with what I am saying?

Care to educate us?

Hell, no; I wouldn't attempt to educate you on any subject whatsoever.

Well good then. I did not think you would!

"... This heats the surface.

It is actually plain wrong ..."

.

Perhaps this is where the crux of the disagreement has been hiding out.

Consider just radiation and ignore convection and conduction for the moment.

Assume infrared travels at the speed of light...it does since it is. Without violating causality (through ftl information transfer) how could an object with some non-negligible separation from another object "know" the temperature of the object its radiation in a given direction will strike in order to adjust accordingly?

It can't. No such adjustment occurs. Each object just radiates roughly according to temperature of its effective surface. Whatever gets in the way, gets in the way.

The idea of one object 'heating' the other and not the other way around is not fundamental. It is an abstraction of a second order phenomena not based soley on heat exchange just between the two objects.

In reality, possibly excluding things like black holes (with which I have insufficient first hand experience to speak with anything other than nervous conjecture) with two objects above absolute zero, if the radiation of one object falls upon the other, then some radiation from the second also falls upon the first. As such energy is being added to each....gross, mind you, not net necessarily.

This idea of 'heats' meaning an action of only one object upon another requires a comparison of the two amounts of energy radiated. Its a pretty silly idea to claim as anything fundamental to a real system because there are numerous conditions and boundaries upon which the outcome depends which must be arbitrarily defined.

You don't agree? Okay, let's consider two real objects in the vacuum of space. So there is relative motion, right? I mean, at best, it is periodic as they orbit roughly their combined center of gravity. So some average distance of separation can be known.

This 'one heat the other but not vice versa' idea; when exactly are we talking about? Even for objects tidally locked, not all the areas radiating toward the other object will be the recipient of radiation originating at the 'same time' from the other object. So some arbitrary time must be defined and outgoing radiation which should strike the other object compared to what is being received currently compared....or maybe radiation exactly at the midpoint... or the average over a full orbit...or... Not very fundamental.

Moreover, do we completely ignore all radiation if neither object experiences an increase in temperature due to the other? The must still be incident radiation even if both objects would not realize and increase in temperature due to that effect.

I say we abandon this 'one heat the other only' argument unless we expand our definitions to include also 'one cools the other only' argument....and while we are at it, let's legitimize things sucking, and not just blowing, from now on. HVAC guys are going to love this.

Until such a time as we modify the current meanings, one heating the other to the exclusion of the other heating the one, at least for radiative heat transfer will remain correct only in the realm of fantasy.

Now you go beyond what is being asked in thermodynamics. Heat as such is properly defined as the amount of energy that flows spontaneously from a warmer object to a cooler one.

For radiative heat transfer it is the amount of energy (net) transferred.

As such I stick to the notion that the atmosphere does not heat the surface. Having proper definitions helps us to explain the world around us. Here it helps us understand that there is no heating from the atmosphere as climate science wants us to believe.

You did say something that I see quite often:

Consider just radiation and ignore convection and conduction for the moment.

Now if there is a crux in the arguments, then this is one of them. We can and should not ignore these and neither should we ignore advection or latent heat.

They all play a role and limiting us to radiation when describing our climate is what we need to get away from.

Surface and atmosphere form a coupled system. The impulse to change this system will have to come from the outside and affect both simultaniously.

But the heating is directional due to its definition and while radiation goes in all direction, heat does not! I am entirely fine to call the atmosphere the cooling agent of the Earth surface. Call the other side of the fan the suction side. Technically its already done. Nothing to invent.

Admit it, you have overdone it, with the above!

"But the heating is directional due to its definition and while radiation goes in all direction, heat does not!"

There is not difference between heat and radiation. Both disperse in all directions.

You are mixing things up. If you mean from hot to cold you are right but that is a different issue.

I beg to differ. Heat goes only from hot to cold as per the definition.

There is a difference between heat and radiation.

And the issue is exactly the misuse of the word "heat" taken out of its physical context.

As lomg as you are okay with an object radiating without respect to the future or current temperature of some distant object, then you should have no problem realizing that radiation received and radiation radiated away affect the heat balance.

View these as photons if you want. A surface radiates roughly according to its effective temperature. The radiation received goes towards adding internal energy to the system. It isn't unreasonable to call things that.positively affect the heat balance equation as adding heat or heating up.

Is your disagreement with the concept of greenhouse gasses based mostly on your understanding of the definition of heat, i.e. are you of the notion that energy in the form of photons cannot be radiated from the atmosphere and end up striking the Earth's surface and having an effect that pushes toward greater internal energy?

.

I have a problem with the idea that energy coming from the atmosphere is called heat.

It is just radiated energy which offsets energy radiated from the surface and the net transfer which goes from hot to cold is called "Heat".

I thought you said earlier there are no photons ...

Check again the definition of the word "Heat" in the physical context.

With heat being transferred from the surface to the atmosphere, it is illogical to say atmosphere heats the surface, it does not.

The effect you are looking for, is that less heat would be transferred by radiation due to the little exchange of "Photons". And if surface and air have the same temperature it should come to a standstill (but its solid versus transparent gas so its not!).

And then there is convection and latent heat to pick up the slack to transfer whatever is there. We already established that it is a multi-dimensional system.

Did we not?

I'm with you on the multidimensional aspect.

I find the photon model often useful. Please direct me to where I denied the existence of photons.,.

The atmosphere isn't as transparent in other than visible frequencies....it isn't completely transparent even to the visible frequencies.

I think your fixation on the use of the term 'heats'(not even purely 'heat' or 'heat transfer', but the verb 'heats') is overblown. We aren't in disagreement about what is being claimed. Complaining about the use of the term 'heats the surface' isn't constructive.

In essence, the surface is warmer because the atmosphere is there, especially with greenhouse gasses.

This seems like a good place to repost my earlier question:

If greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere do not heat result in an increase in internal energy which is often realized as a higher temperature, why on a cloudless night is it so much warmer in a swamp than in a desert?

I am glad I already answered it and the main answer is, its energy storage!

Not sure where it was said or even if it was you that said it, that photons do not exist. It must have been another forum altogether and I apologize for associating you with this.

Using proper definitions and vocabulary makes sure we get the models right.

If atmosphere does not heat the surface it has to stay like this, saying anything to the contrary will get the climate model wrong.

And to make matters worse here a question for you, what if Earth had an atmosphere made up of Nitrogen only, would it be warmer or colder at the surface and why? The answer is not straight forward, but if you think about it, just make sure you do not ignore convection nor the missing radiation at the top of the atmosphere.

I may not be in agreement with all yout ideas, but many of your comments that are exactly 'on-topic' are being rated 'OT'....and certainly disagree with that more than someone simply stating an opposing view.

I am doing what I can to counter the unfair 'OT's.

Same here. Its the OT ordinario! He is not here to educate us, ya know!

Isn't that nice. But how are your educational efforts faring?

I have overdone it. I have provided a detailed enough off-the-cuff explanation to allow you room to get it tangled.... no inextricably, but formidably none the less.

You are obfuscating the important part of the discussion by focusing on semantics at the expense of reaching an understanding. I doubt you will let go of this so, lets untangle it first.

You are relying on a formalism of 'heat' being defined by what is transfered from a warmer object to a cooler one. This is analagous to the volume of a gas tank being defined by the amount of time at a certain volumetric flow rate of a liquid required to completely fill the tank. The tank still has a volume even when no one is filling or draining.

Please remember this is a model. As George E P Box was known to say "Essentially, all models are wrong, some are useful". A model should be valued as much as it is useful and put away for future use when it gets in the way of understanding.

If you want to consider what you are calling heat as heat transfer and the property I am calling heat as internal energy, that too could work....unless you are set on proving we can not agree.

Now aside from notational conveniences or pragmatic convention, do you really doubt that an object at a certain temperature radiates without respect to what might lie in the path of said radiation? Or do you really believe faster than light information transfer occurs so that the body knows not to radiate because there is a hotter object in the path light years away?

I asked you to 'ignore....for the moment' so that you might not get things tangled. I ask you again to attempt this. I am not asking you for forever foresake conduction and convection, just to put these on the back burner while we discuss radiation.

If you don't think the atmosphere warms the surface, and specifically greenhouse gasses like water vapor, ask yourself, why is it so much colder on a summer night in the desert than in the swamp?

So I ignore the first part as semantics, I do not believe in any what you said. I understand radiation. Not sure what you are trying to achieve to look better and more knowledgeable or its a shrewd way of trying to help.

I will answer the last question, because its important to forget for a moment all heat transfer options. In your little problem there is something at play that is called energy storage. In deserts little water is present. Swamps on the other hand side are not devoid of water, are they?

Do I need to explain to you how it is that in deserts there is no condensation heat available to heat the air? While in a swamp with falling temperature, condensation will set free the heat stored in the water vapour?

And no, the atmosphere can only radiativly warm the surface if it was transferring more radiation energy onto the surface than the surface into the atmosphere.

Ah, but you mistake the dynamic.

For the swamp to be warmer than the desert on a cloudless night, the swamp atmosphere needn't increase the temperature of the surface, it needs only to limit the heat loss of the surface....so you can't ride your one way heat transfer wild card on this one.

Moreover, the desert will become much colder than the swamp, even if the swamp doesn't reach saturation temp/dew point.

.

In another post you stated that filling a greenhouse with CO2 will not lead to an increase in temperature. Have you done this experiment...or something like it?

Wouldn't be difficult, and certainly could provide something far more convincing that arguing what can or cannot occur according to a specific interpretation of a single definition.

So you are saying that both atmospheres have the same content of CO2 and there is such a difference? How inconvenient for this particular "green house gas".

Should have done more for the temperature to be warmer in the desert!

The experiment you are asking has been done multiple times.

Most famous and hardest discussed is the R. W. Wood experiment, done in 1909.

What did you make out of the paper talking about CO2 emissions?

There seems to be a difference from black body radiation and real radiation from a radiative gas! Maybe the lack of active molecules per volume of air is made up by the volume, but if you bring optical depth in, do you really think that a few molecules do emit the same amount of energy that the atoms/molecules emit from the surface of a solid body?

Is that not reflected in the small emissivity number that CO2 really has?

BTW, since when is three a large number?

Its 4! Its not large enough yet is it?

"....A multitude of processes are responsible. Radiation is only one of them....."

Okay, I understood you to be talking about heat transfer. If you are not, please correct me as to what you were referring to...

If you are could you list the four heat transfer processes you are thinking of?

.

....so four, is a large number? I suppose there are some things that having four of would constitute a large number.

Cojones?

Walking might be a problem though!!

Semantics!

Let there be 4 and its still not a simple model!

The model isn't complicated, at least compared to reality. That is the essence of a model.

.

So you state the number of categories of heat transfer processes is 4. What do you call each?

I said it in another post. But if it comes to energetic processes that will have an effect on temperatures there is almost 5 but some are probably inclusive of others or not exclusive:

- Convection

- Latent Heat

- Conduction

- Advection

- Radiation

All these are in effect where we measure surface air temperature.

The complexity is even higher if we were to include chemical processes. While not necessary important they still exist.
You probably understand the Prandtl layer definiton and calculations. There ya go!

If it was simple it was easier to calculate the impact of each component. But its not!

I must have misunderstood you. I thought you were refering strictly to heat transfer.

does one of these tumblers contain Scotch? That makes me jiggle. Or was that giggle?

"....I do not accept the notion that it is because of the dipole-jiggling gasses....."

.

I think this is an interesting divergence. Can we explore this further?

Are you in doubt of the structure related degrees of freedom of a gas corresponding to the ability to absorb and radiate IR?

Do you disbelieve gasses can absorb and radiate IR?

Perhaps you doubt the magnitude of the effect of such absorbtion and radiation of IR?

The first link is interesting. It doesn't really suggest that CO2 and water vapor in combination don't have a so called greenhouse effect. If says that at that particular concentration of water vapor the effect of the combined co2 and water vapor is less than one would expect from the sum of the two independently.

It is a little odd to choose 5% water vapor. Getting to 5% requires saturation at over 100 F (40 C).... I'd be interested in seeing some info on more common conditions. Still, very interesting, thank you.

I can't be certain, but it seems like the author might be misinterpreting some of the statements made about co2 and water vapor. Sounds like the claims are that temperature increases due to co2 would be likely to yield additional water vapor in the air. The claims don't sound like they are claiming co2 enhances the greenhouse effect of water vapor.

I can't reach the second link. It just says 'downloading' but doesn't end up anywhere.

Its a link to a PDF. Maybe use another browser.

Else google "lapp_m_1960.pdf"

One other question that has bugs me for a while now is this:

The difference of radiation from a surface and from a gas is the dimension factor.

From a surface it is as seen from an area, hence it is given as a flux per square meter.

But a gas column is three dimensional.

Lets say the surface emits as a black body with 300 W/m2.

If gas was doing the same thing and we simplifying it in the climate model sense, then the gas emits at the same temperature 300 W/m2 downwards (as the so called back radiation) but also 300 W/m2 upwards.

Now the question is, where is that extra 300 W/m2 coming from?

Do we halve the radiation energy for gas or what?

This is almost OT but I leave it to OTnardo to mark it!

Atmospheric gasses are not well modeled by blackbodies. Those frequencies at which the gasses are transparent are not absorbed nor typically radiated.

The frequencies that are absorbed and also can be radiated are frequencies that are not wholely transparent. With sufficient thickness, at those frequencies the gas will be opaque.

There is no quandry concerning gasses radiating in more directions than solids. Every real solid we have encountered has more than just a front surface. They all have backs and sides too. Radiation will be happening in every direction.

Yet, the surface area of Earth is still an area, and can be calculated and seen as such. While the atmosphere is a 3D "body" where it is already hard to define the area from which it radiates.

The numerical issue is that it cannot receive 300 W/m2 from one area and emit 300 W/m2 into more than one direction.

If the count was zero and it must emit in all directions it can only emit 300 W times "area" energy received. If we define these two main directions that have an effect, one directs the emissions back to Earth and one towards space, then if the receiving "area" is the same as the emitting one (roughly spoken) the atmosphere can only direct 150 W backwards and 150 W upwards.

The atmosphere does not have a own energy source, so it can only emit the energy that comes from the surface. I think that it matters because think of the mistake one can make here by measuring the temperature of the gas and attributing SB radiation to the gas radiation, while in fact the energy is somewhat reduced in the viewing direction by minimum a factor of 2. No?

But is isn't just receiving radiation from one direction, the sun also heats the atmosphere. And what about the thermosphere that you pointed out gets so hot...it must be radiating.

Furthermore is it not isolated such that radiation is the only heat transfer process available.

As much as I understand it climate science claims that the atmosphere is transparent for most of the incoming solar radiation.

That this is not so we do know.

So we maybe missing a gain of energy in the atmosphere, that maybe affects the back radiation and could introduce this as a independent power source. But this is not how they explain this.

There is so many processes that it is fraudulent to claim that the radiative energy transfer is the all explaining energy transfer and that we can ignore all other aspects.

Well this is my takeaway anyway.

Where is this explanation of how climate is modeled?

At the top of the atmosphere from the sun there is roughly 1300+ W/m² which is reduced to roughly 1000 W/m² by the time it gets to the surface. Of course the atmosphere is being heated.

The atmosphere is fairly transparent in the visible range.

You need to read up on it.

The idea is that with the changing incident angle of the sun light the flux (energy per area) is reduced, so the 1300 W/m2 get reduced to 341 W/m2 as calculated average of what Earth receives on Energy from the sun.

This alone is subject for debate, since the sun only shines on one side only, we have rotation, we have parts on Earth that see almost the full solar constant as solar irradiance.

There is a lot of averaging going on, but climate science in the end is full of statistic.

I realize that the sun does not shine everywhere, and I even noted the rough average over the whole surface earlier. On this much I am fully up to speed, but thanks for your reading recommendations anyway.

You missed the point in your effort to jump at some (mis)perceived mistake. I'm not talking about the difference in the top of atmosphere incident radiatio. and the Earths surface average. Im talking just about the difference for an area perpendicular to incident sunlight at the top of the atmosphere vs the surface. The portion of that roughly 300 w/m² that is not reflected must be increasing internal energy of the atmosphere.

.

Also please note, your figure for average of radiation reaching the surface is signifcantly too high. We get a maximum of about 1000 w/m² at the surface on a clear day in the tropics for direct overhead sunlight. The surface area of a sphere is four times that of a circle with the same radius. That means what is reaching the surface averaged over the entire planet is somewhere around 250 w/m²

The averaging of sunlight over the entire surfacehs nothing to do with rotation or that some areas recieve light for more hours than others. This is really basic stuff. please link any serious debate about this subject you may hve encountered.

While we are discussing that model, please note it is not mine.

I am trying to unravel the physics behind the reality in this world. I am using the climate physics model as an example that they cannot fully explain 15 deg C average temperature. I believe the model is (partially) wrong. Again, not my model.

This is one site where you can find the base paper.

There is ample of sites that discuss it pro and con. Sites like wattsupwiththat, scienceofdoom, Richard Lindzen and skepticalscience are just some with vivid discussions. (easy to find in google search - sorry no endorsement for any of them hence no link)

NASA features some conclusions

A further read (haven't seen this before myself).

Have fun!

Oh well, i might as well post a link to something I can endorse a bit more.

The history and the comment from a Nick here

are well worth a read!

Yes, Dines boundary values to the differential equations of LF Richardson, got into the computer model as inputs in the 1940's despite Dines admitting before he passed (in the 1920's) that his numbers were nonphysical (not reality), and furthermore violated the laws of conservation of energy, and thermodynamics (he had a colder body of air warming the hotter ground, wow).

When doing term by term compilation of a model, the plus (+) and minus (-) signs do matter, and they must be physically logical.

I beg your pardon, I think the sun shines over its full circumference. Only the side radiating toward Earth gets intercepted by our planetary projection, and the angle of incidence does change considerably nearer the poles, and across seasons also, and yes only half the Earth receives radiation at any point in time.

"...I think the sun shines over its full circumference..."

I like your conjecture and tend to suppose that is likely the case as well... you conviction does seem particularly strong though. perhaps you have some evidence of proof that light is emitted in directions which we cab neither directly nor indirectly detect?

It seems improbable, but what support is there for the claim that light isn't merely being emitted in directions where it might be noticed?

I suppose the sun illuminates the planets and their moons even when they are opposite Earth's position in orbit. Surely someone has figured out how to see this in spite of intense glare from sunlight coming to us.

Sure, but that would be indirect detection.

The sun rotates on its axis, so I am told. Does that help you see all sides of the sun?

As much as I understand it climate science claims that the atmosphere is transparent for most of the incoming solar radiation.

That this is not so we do know.

So we maybe missing a gain of energy in the atmosphere, that maybe affects the back radiation and could introduce this as a independent power source. But this is not how they explain this.

There is so many processes that it is fraudulent to claim that the radiative energy transfer is the all explaining energy transfer and that we can ignore all other aspects.

Well this is my takeaway anyway.

This requires someone to actually take us all back to the very basics about the nature of interaction of light and matter.

We say black-body, and throw this term around as if someone has ever found one. No such thing.

Wein's Law is just wrong. This kind of leaves me cold.

Why stay there?

Lets question the Kirchhoff law as well!

We can go all the way!

Dr. Pierre-Marie Robitaille has some interesting things to say.

All that leaves us at the very beginning of our understanding.

Lets just say, science is not settled yet.

And probably not for a long time....

When has science ever been completely or even partially settled. We are the ones who are brash enough, bold enough to always question the paradigm, especially when we have direct observations that contradict previously held "laws" of physics.

Physics is the quest for truth regarding what we can discern of our universe, from the cosmos down to the smallest iota of matter or light. Mathematics is only a tool to help describe these observations, not something we use to attempt to bend the facts to fit our "language". Same thing with expecting observables to be corrected with dubious corrections to fit the "theory" or the political expectation or some other expedient of the day.

Interesting Blog, many thanks to all.

I have never studied much in this theoretical area, all my (minor) works were done on a practical basis only....but they did work!!

I am truly shocked surprised, at just how much dissension there is!!!

Meaning it is far more interesting to read than I thought it would be!

Thanks Guys and Gals.....

Why is nobody doing more to use the unending power of the oceans, wave power is 24/7 no sleeping for half the day it's constant.

If there is someone working on this, can anyone point me in the right direction.

Bazzer

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

Its been analysed.

https://www.csiro.au/en/Research/OandA/Areas/Marine-technologies/Ocean-energy/Wave-energy

Looks not bad and should be more continuous generation.

"... Why is nobody doing more to use the unending power of the oceans, wave power is 24/7 no sleeping for half the day it's constant. ...."

Well, in large part because nobody is the only one who has located this 24/7 constant wave power source. I bet once everyone else gets clued in to its location, people begin doing something...which will be more than the current nothing possible without knowing the location.

Wave power is not constant. It is variable and only somewhat predictable, about like the wind...which makes sense if you know a thing or two about waves.

There are a lot of people working on power generation by waves and also by tides. Tides are also variable, but far more predictable.

Part of the issue is that ocean and wind power are not unending, but are finite like everything else.

An issue just coming up is the effect of wind generation on changing air circulation with attendant pollution distribution, temperature and rainfall changes. At one point years ago there was a suggestion to put generating low speed turbines in the gulf stream. It hasn't happened yet because the technology and willingness to expend money to use it haven't come together. A big question, never answered, is what happens if the generation actually manages to alter or shift the gulf stream, which could drive significant climate change on the eastern seaboard of the us and northern Europe.

To use a not so appropriate cliché from Dirk Gently, "Everything is connected."

Are you building a satellite? Your solar constant is for outer space, at about the earths distance to the sun. Your sentence "It's a hot topic, but poorly technical as a mater of fact" makes no sense. What are you looking for?

Solar collectors can get quite hot. I once had some solar panels fail many years ago because the 60/40 solder that I used melted in desert heat. The insulating encapsulate allowed the heat to build up (more energy) so the temperature. Big mirror arrays reach in excess of 10,000F.

Stefan-Boltzmann isn't useful in predicting how much energy a solar heating device can collect on any point on earth. It isn't useful in predicting the temperature of any real object at any latitude on earth either. There are tables available based on real world observations of the solar energy on average for much of the planet, these would be more useful.

Someone with your name might be able to educate us on the solar collector arts.

But be aware big mirror arrays concentrate radiation on a smaller area and therefore do not fall in the category FLAT. Therefore I exclude those from the discussion.

If the SB law is not useful for the energy predictions then maybe we have the greenhouse effect wrong altogether. This would actually suit me. If you have more details I am all ear!

A link for those table would be excellent.

I am not building a satellite I try to build up confidence in man kinds understanding of what is going on around us. At least I want to know whats going on!

Ideasmith, sorry I dropped this thread way back and didn't respond to your reply months ago. It now seems some nutty denier has picked it up again.

Good guess on the solar collector arts, but for the last 40 years I have been making solar powered artworks and trying (some success) to sell them to science museums schools, and other venues in an effort to try to raise awareness of human interaction with nature and the possibilities of "alternative" energy sources.

As my artworks began to find homes away from my home in Boston, I began to have some real "Duh" moments, like the solder melting from captured heat in thick silicon encapsulations needed for waterproofing. Or when you design a sculpture with moving parts that works fine at 46 degrees latitude the solar panels might not collect much energy when moved to the equator and the sun angle swaps north to south with the season! But that was 40 years ago, I was out of art school..

As far as the temperature of a solar collector goes, the key word is collect. If you design a collector just for heat what you would want is insulation in the back, and insulated glass in the front with a reflective layer that captured IR and reflects it back to prevent reradiating the energy. On a sunny day if you didn't pull some of that heat out, say by circulating water through it, it could get very hot(temperature and heat are not the same thing)!

As for information on available sunlight available to be collected by flat plate collectors look for US Solar Radiation Resource Maps. There are a few available that power companies and solar installers use to size their systems. These are based on average weather, temperatures, cloudy days geography, real world observation.

As for the deniers, for the last 40 years , up until maybe the last 10, solar (and wind) energy were completely suppressed by political ideology. Finally economics, science, and engineering pushed it forward and it finally has become an accepted part of our society. If you are an engineer, and you still think alternative energy is impractical, you should either go back to school, or give up your license. If you are a denier you are too dumb to understand what is happening to our planet. The mass of the earths atmosphere has been measured ( no it doesn't go on forever and we can only use the first two miles) , the millions of tons of hydrocarbons consumed every year by our wasteful civilization is open source. The fact is we have been taking a big roll of the dice as we continue to change the composition of the air (which is causing the planet to warm) and what is the argument to do that when there are better alternatives?

See this interesting link on the origin of all climate models.

http://principia-scientific.org/breaking-1920s-brit-fatally-infected-government-climate-models/

Quote:

Lewis Fry Richardson, relied upon unchecked (and fatally flawed) numbers supplied by another well-known British scientist, W. H. Dines.”

See the comment section too.

I think it is only a matter of time until the whole Global Warming - Climate Change swindle will be exposed. To me it is nothing but fraud.

A source of good information is the Heartland Institute and their climate section.

https://www.heartland.org/topics/climate-change/