Simple physics disprove CO2 warming e...
LessHypeMoreFact

Etobicoke, Canada

#41 Sep 27, 2013
Aether wrote:
<quoted text>
I agree that a person standing 1 AU from the sun would be heated by its rays. And I agree that a person standing 1 AU from two stars of the same temperature would be heated more quickly.
However a person at the same temperature as the both stars would be heated not at all.
Which argues that their is a difference between the flow of heat from a hotter to a colder body and the energy flow between two bodies at the same temperature as I read it.
Aether wrote:
<quoted text>
The issue here is the earth's 'back-radiation''reflecting' from the CO2 layer and hitting the earth again. This cannot cause warming.
I disagree. If, instead of two suns, we put a mirror behind me, both the front and rear side will get roasted, again. The flow of energy DOES depend on area and direction while the non-flow of energy between bodies at the same temperature is a different problem.

Getting hit by both the direct and reflected heat means more warming.
Aether wrote:
<quoted text>
If CO2 were a perfect thermal reflector and allowed no thermal radiation to escape, then the earth would not be able to radiatively cool in the thermal spectrum. To put this in thermodynamic terms, the earth would emit a photon, using up its heat energy, resulting in a drop in its temperature. The photon would then return to the surface of the earth -- which is now colder than when it emitted the photon -- and thus upon absorption re-heat the earth to its original temperature.
Yes. A body in a perfect insulator will gain and lose no heat.
Aether wrote:
<quoted text>
BUT CO2 is not a perfect thermal reflector. It isn't a reflector of any kind.
False. A GHG molecule will absorb an UPWARD flowing IR photon from the surface (the SOURCE of the heating) and reradiate it in ALL directions,'reflecting' about half back towards the source.
Aether wrote:
<quoted text>
The warming mechanism requires that CO2 absorb radiation in its absorption bands and re-emit it isotropically. This means for all outgoing radiation in these bands, a minimum of 50% escapes to space.
No. 50% continues on an upward track while 50% is reflected. Note that this is somewhat irrelevant to the troposphere where most energy is moved by convection. The real issue comes at the troposphere to stratosphere boundary where convection gives way to radiation and only radiation can LEAVE the planet.

Note too that you are treating the problem as one of a STATIC temperature while the real model is one where the surface is continually warming from insolation and the heat flux received must be radiated away past the insulation effect of CO2 in the stratosphere (at the 'radiative surface' where the chance of a photon making it to space without a second to Nth capture is 50%)

There is an inherent difference between the static models you set up and the real world of a heat FLOW.
Aether wrote:
<quoted text>
Any 'trapped' thermal radiation between the CO2 layer and the ground will lose 50% to space for every 'bounce'(that is, every absorption and re-emission from the CO2 layer and subsequent absorption and re-emission from the ground). Again: This only increases the path length the radiation must travel in order to escape to space, it does not change the amount of radiation escaping.
But it sets up a GRADIENT of temperature to drive the flow outward against the 'resistance' of GHG capture. The surface MUST be hotter than the temperature of an airless body in order that the amount ESCAPING is equal to the incoming insolation.
LessHypeMoreFact

Etobicoke, Canada

#42 Sep 27, 2013
Aether wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm a student of physics trying to make sense of this proposed warming effect from first principles. I don't care for the politics of global warming at all, I am just here to discuss the physics.
I get that. But are there no T.A's or professors that can point out your error better than I. I am NOT a physics student, just an educated amateur who has delved into the subject for personal growth. Even if you argue me into a 'whatever' post, it will not resolve the issue.
Aether wrote:
<quoted text>
I may well be wrong in my analysis -- but you have not provided any valid correction or physical counter-argument to my reasoning.
I agree. But there are some posters here that might be able to better argue the point. Good enough? Maybe not. You might want to move the debate to an AIP blog where the debaters would have more physics and math background. MOST posters here ARE concerned with the politics and not the science. And I include both 'warmists' and 'denialists'.
Aether wrote:
<quoted text>
I think it is quite obvious to those following the thread that you are not of a physics background, and are therefore simply making an arse of yourself in a thread where you do not belong. Again: Kindly leave.
Unfortunately I am not sure that you are not doing the same. So the debate remains 'open to all'. I hope that you do not expect to be vindicated (as he points out) and overthrow the physics of the many professional researchers. Your 'tone' has been a bit arrogant and that produces an equal and opposite reaction here in line with Newtons Law of Topix Posting.. ;-)

Since: Sep 13

Location hidden

#43 Sep 27, 2013
LessHypeMoreFact wrote:
<quoted text>
Which argues that their is a difference between the flow of heat from a hotter to a colder body and the energy flow between two bodies at the same temperature as I read it.
<quoted text>
I disagree. If, instead of two suns, we put a mirror behind me, both the front and rear side will get roasted, again. The flow of energy DOES depend on area and direction while the non-flow of energy between bodies at the same temperature is a different problem.
Getting hit by both the direct and reflected heat means more warming.
If you put the mirror in front of you so that you were receiving your own back-radiation, not a second lot of solar radiation, do you believe you would be burnt or heat up?

The radiation emitted from your body has a maximum frequency or 'cut-off frequency' according to Wien's displacement law. When you receive your own blackbody radiation reflected back upon you it is unable to heat you because you are already a perfect absorber and re-emitter of those wavelengths due to your temperature.

I've basically repeated myself 20 times in this thread and no one seems to get it: The frequency of incident radiation IS important for the transfer of heat energy via that radiation. And the frequency is determined by temperature. Radiation from a body at 300K is unable to heat another body at 300K.

Since: Sep 13

Location hidden

#44 Sep 27, 2013
LessHypeMoreFact wrote:
<quoted text>
I agree. But there are some posters here that might be able to better argue the point. Good enough? Maybe not. You might want to move the debate to an AIP blog where the debaters would have more physics and math background. MOST posters here ARE concerned with the politics and not the science. And I include both 'warmists' and 'denialists'.
<quoted text>
Unfortunately I am not sure that you are not doing the same. So the debate remains 'open to all'. I hope that you do not expect to be vindicated (as he points out) and overthrow the physics of the many professional researchers. Your 'tone' has been a bit arrogant and that produces an equal and opposite reaction here in line with Newtons Law of Topix Posting.. ;-)
Please do give me a link to a real forum / debate channel if you have one.

Incidentally reflection is not emission. CO2 absorbs and re-radiates IR in its absorption bands. It does not reflect anything, sorry.

Since: Apr 08

"the green troll"

#45 Sep 27, 2013
Aether wrote:
<quoted text>
And what does the textbook say of blackbodies of the same temperature radiating to eachother? Does it say that this scenario can increase the temperature of one of the bodies?
What about a body radiating to itself in a mirror? What about a body radiating to itself in a half silvered mirror?
As before you evade the central point of the argument, either because you do not understand or you are unwilling to answer.
No, because it's a stupid argument.
SpaceBlues

Tomball, TX

#46 Sep 27, 2013
Aether wrote:
<quoted text>
Please do give me a link to a real forum / debate channel if you have one.
Incidentally reflection is not emission. CO2 absorbs and re-radiates IR in its absorption bands. It does not reflect anything, sorry.
Have you heard of the APS?[apparently not]
budd

Pattaya, Thailand

#47 Sep 27, 2013
Aether wrote:
Imagine a blackbody at 300K surrounded by a perfect mirror which is also at 300K. The blackbody emits radiation according to its temperature. The radiation is then reflected by the mirror and returns to the blackbody. The blackbody absorbs this radiation. The mirror is also emitting its own radiation (due to being at 300K) which is also absorbed by the blackbody.
The blackbody is not warmed by the incident radiation despite receiving more than twice as much as it initially emitted. This is because the radiation is not of sufficiently short wavelength to cause it to increase its temperature.
Consider that if it were possible for this radiation to lead to a temperature increase in the blackbody then this would necessarily be a colder body heating a warmer body, which is forbidden by the second law of thermodynamics.
Applying this to AGW:
If we model the earth as a blackbody and the CO2 layer(s) as a half-silvered perfect mirror (CO2 absorbs and re-emits in both directions) we can see that the same scenario exists. For the absorption bands of CO2, the CO2 will 'reflect' 50% of the earth's emitted blackbody back to the ground, where it will have exactly no effect on the temperature of the ground, because it is of insufficiently high wavelength to cause a temperature increase. The earth is forced to re-emit this 'extra' radiation as soon as it is absorbed with no corresponding temperature increase. The re-emitted radiation travels back to the CO2 layer where it is split again, 50% goes into space and 50% returns to earth.
After several 'reflections' back and forth the 'trapped' radiation is undetectably small, and given the velocity of light the time taken for this 'trapped radiation' to escape is a tiny fraction of a second.
I believe this conclusively disproves AGW.
Comments?
What is it about students of physics that makes them so arrogant. Much like Gord and digitap, Aether proposes a thought experiment that bears no resemblance to the system he attempts to describe, then jumps to the conclusion that he has conclusively dis-proven AGW.

Were you correct you would not be refuting AGW, you would be dis-proving the Greenhouse effect in general not just the man made portion.

Aether's thought experiment fails because it ignores the fact that the Earth and its atmosphere are dynamic. The Earth rotates on its axis every 24 hours. The sunny side of the Earth and atmosphere are heated. The shady side of the Earth and atmosphere cools. The atmosphere does not have to heat the Earth to have an effect. A warmer atmosphere will result in less cooling on the shady side. So the shady side of the planet reaches the sunny side at a higher temperature than it would without the greenhouse effect.
LessHypeMoreFact

Etobicoke, Canada

#48 Sep 27, 2013
Aether wrote:
<quoted text>
If you put the mirror in front of you so that you were receiving your own back-radiation, not a second lot of solar radiation, do you believe you would be burnt or heat up?
If the mirror was a space blanket and the radiation was coming from me burning food, it believe that I would get warmer. Blocking the heat from the sun would cause me to cool (probably to 4K or so).
Aether wrote:
<quoted text>
The radiation emitted from your body has a maximum frequency or 'cut-off frequency' according to Wien's displacement law. When you receive your own blackbody radiation reflected back upon you it is unable to heat you because you are already a perfect absorber and re-emitter of those wavelengths due to your temperature.
If you are talking about a STATIC temperature, then a body in a perfect reflector will indeed stay at the same temperature. BUT the actual model is one of heat FLOW and blocking the exit of heat from the body would increase the temperature. One of the biggest problems in the 'cold of space' by space vehicles or space suits is actually getting rid of generated heat. You keep forgetting this point and making faulty models... this may be your 'blind spot'.
Aether wrote:
<quoted text>
I've basically repeated myself 20 times in this thread and no one seems to get it: The frequency of incident radiation IS important for the transfer of heat energy via that radiation. And the frequency is determined by temperature. Radiation from a body at 300K is unable to heat another body at 300K.
And the problem is NOT one of a body at a static temperature of 300K but of heat flow from a body that is HEATED by incoming radiation and must LOSE that heat steadily to keep the same temperature. In the tradition of 'tit for tat rudeness', You are very hard of listening.. Stop a moment and think about it.
LessHypeMoreFact

Etobicoke, Canada

#49 Sep 27, 2013
Aether wrote:
<quoted text>
Please do give me a link to a real forum / debate channel if you have one.
I didn't but I do know how to 'just google it'.

http://physics.about.com/od/physics101thebasi...
Aether wrote:
<quoted text>
Incidentally reflection is not emission. CO2 absorbs and re-radiates IR in its absorption bands. It does not reflect anything, sorry.
I said that the source radiation is from the surface and once re-radiated, half of the radiation is returned back towards the surface. This is effectively a reflection. It depends on the fact that the earths SURFACE is warmed by solar insolation which then has to flow OUTWARD to space. This asymmetry is what drives the 'reflection'. If the GHG were receiving IR from all directions equally, then it would not be a reflector.
LessHypeMoreFact

Etobicoke, Canada

#50 Sep 27, 2013
Fair Game wrote:
<quoted text>
No, because it's a stupid argument.
His error is seeing the model as static. The heat FLOW is the issue. Like heating one end of an iron bar while cooling the other, the conductivity retards the flow of energy and produces a 'gradient' of temperatures from the hot to the cold side. Same with GHGs, the GHGs retard the FLOW of energy from the hot side (surface) and produces a gradient of energy to the 'radiative surface' which is at -18C in equilibrium as defined by Stephan Boltzman radiative equilibrium. He may be a bit blind but he is not stupid.

Since: Sep 13

Location hidden

#51 Sep 27, 2013
LessHypeMoreFact wrote:
<quoted text>
His error is seeing the model as static. The heat FLOW is the issue. Like heating one end of an iron bar while cooling the other, the conductivity retards the flow of energy and produces a 'gradient' of temperatures from the hot to the cold side. Same with GHGs, the GHGs retard the FLOW of energy from the hot side (surface) and produces a gradient of energy to the 'radiative surface' which is at -18C in equilibrium as defined by Stephan Boltzman radiative equilibrium. He may be a bit blind but he is not stupid.
The model may be viewed as static because the heat capacity of the earth is very large. We are talking about a split second for radiation to be emitted from the surface, absorbed by the CO2 layer, re-emitted by the CO2 layer, re-absorbed by the surface. This happens continuously.

The speed at which light travels and its relative path-length in the model (i.e. the length it has to travel to get out to space, whether it be a direct line, one bounce, two bounces, three bounces, etc) negates any need to consider the changing temperature of the earth. The surface of the earth changes its temperature in matters of minutes and hours, not in fractions of fractions of seconds.

I have been called a lot of names on this forum, including, repeatedly being called arrogant. I don't think it is arrogant to require my argument be refuted by a proper physical refutation.

Yes I am challenging the entire greenhouse effect. I cannot see how back-radiation is responsible for additional warming. Increasing the path length of escaping radiation does not change the amount of radiation escaping. Even if the radiation must travel between the sky and the ground 100 times before it gets to space, if it is of insufficiently high frequency to re-heat the ground then it must all return to space.
budd

Pattaya, Thailand

#52 Sep 28, 2013
Aether wrote:
<quoted text>
I have been called a lot of names on this forum, including, repeatedly being called arrogant.
You have been called arrogant exactly twice. You want to know why? I'll show you.
Aether wrote:

I believe this conclusively disproves AGW.
Comments?
You come to this forum and present a lame thought experiment that you believe "conclusively disproves" nearly 200 years of Earth Science. You have been called arrogant because you have demonstrated arrogance.

I agree with less, you're not stupid, but you're not nearly as clever as you seem to think you are.
Fun Facts

Huntsville, AL

#53 Sep 28, 2013
Aether wrote:
<quoted text>
If you put the mirror in front of you so that you were receiving your own back-radiation, not a second lot of solar radiation, do you believe you would be burnt or heat up?
The radiation emitted from your body has a maximum frequency or 'cut-off frequency' according to Wien's displacement law. When you receive your own blackbody radiation reflected back upon you it is unable to heat you because you are already a perfect absorber and re-emitter of those wavelengths due to your temperature.
I've basically repeated myself 20 times in this thread and no one seems to get it: The frequency of incident radiation IS important for the transfer of heat energy via that radiation. And the frequency is determined by temperature. Radiation from a body at 300K is unable to heat another body at 300K.
There are a few of us who do 'get it'. But the group you are responding to will never understand.

I agree with your premise and you have been preceded by others who have presented the same arguments, it doesn't matter to the believers.
SpaceBlues

United States

#54 Sep 28, 2013
Fun Facts wrote:
<quoted text>
There are a few of us who do 'get it'. But the group you are responding to will never understand.
I agree with your premise and you have been preceded by others who have presented the same arguments, it doesn't matter to the believers.
NONSENSE..

You ignorance of science is bleeding... get help ... quick..

Just for fun: why do you agree with it?

Since: Sep 13

Location hidden

#55 Sep 28, 2013
budd wrote:
<quoted text>
You have been called arrogant exactly twice. You want to know why? I'll show you.
<quoted text>
You come to this forum and present a lame thought experiment that you believe "conclusively disproves" nearly 200 years of Earth Science. You have been called arrogant because you have demonstrated arrogance.
I agree with less, you're not stupid, but you're not nearly as clever as you seem to think you are.
Still no counter-argument.

I just want a simple, accurate physical counter-argument which demonstrates why I'm wrong....

If my argument is so lame, then why not just refute it? Instead you and others resort to personal insults, appeals to authority, misrepresentation of my argument, and appeals to popular belief -- all of which are not valid responses in the domain of science.

If you want to talk physics, I will certainly listen.

Since: Apr 08

"the green troll"

#56 Sep 28, 2013
Fun Facts wrote:
<quoted text>
There are a few of us who do 'get it'. But the group you are responding to will never understand.
I agree with your premise and you have been preceded by others who have presented the same arguments, it doesn't matter to the believers.
What happened to Gord anyway?

Gone to join the choir invisible, I guess.
LessHypeMoreFact

Etobicoke, Canada

#57 Sep 28, 2013
Aether wrote:
<quoted text>
Still no counter-argument.
If my argument is so lame, then why not just refute it?
I have given you counter arguments but you still continue to believe what you believe. You just aren't smart enough to go to a physics discussion group that give you chapter and verse on why your sophomoric errors do not truly challenge the work of the last century.

That is not just arrogance, that is psychotic. You might be having mental health issues. And I know something of the symptoms (delirium from B12 deficiency, plus my wife was bipolar). The first episodes tend to be in the late 20's during late university so you wouldn't be the first..

Now. Back to my rebuttal.}

On the issue of your model of a sphere within a hollow bubble, both black bodies. I checked with a friend of mine that has more physics background. His answer was that in a static model like that, every unit of area will received and emit exactly the same amount of photons, which floods the cavity. Because the emission is exactly balanced with the capture, neither object will change temperature (no work done). That clears up my uncertainty at least. I can see that it is a valid argument.

It conclusively disproves your claim that the sphere will 'heat up' from the incoming radiation and therefore emit more.

Back to your other post now.
LessHypeMoreFact

Etobicoke, Canada

#58 Sep 28, 2013
Aether wrote:
<quoted text>
The model may be viewed as static because the heat capacity of the earth is very large.
No. The model is NOT static since it has heat FLUX and work is being done. The 'heat capacity' is irrelevant, except that it slows temperature change form an unbalanced flux.
Aether wrote:
<quoted text>
We are talking about a split second for radiation to be emitted from the surface, absorbed by the CO2 layer, re-emitted by the CO2 layer, re-absorbed by the surface. This happens continuously.
Partly. The real situation is that most IR passes by because it is not in the 'capture bands' and the atmosphere is transparent to it.

In the case of the GHG capture bands, there is a flux of photons from the surface (heated by the sun) which move upward from layer to layer, part of each layers flux being captured and 'reflected' back towards the surface.

However the flux in the troposphere is mostly carried by convection. Like the conductive model of a metal bar heated at one end and cooled at the other, there is a gradient from the surface to the 'radiative surface' defined as the altitude at which LW IR has a 50% chance of escaping to space.

The back radiation is effectively the returned flux AT the FIRST layer above the surface, no matter what layer contributes to it.

Now, the situtation is that the radiative surface moves up or down as the concentration of GHGs increases or diminishes, since the level at which the upward movement is statistically not blocked depends on the concentration of GHGs at that level.

It is important to note that the GHGs at this upper atmosphere have wider capture bands (the capture bands for CO2 at sea level are 'saturated'). This 'broadening of the bands' at the radiative surface is crucial to understanding why there is still a capacity to warm from higher GHG level today. The bands are wider so they are not 'saturated'.

Now, we can look at the troposphere. It is stable only with a specific 'lapse rate' or cooling with altitude since otherwise the PVT equations will cause convention to move the heat to where it is stable.

The temperature profile is essentially that the 'radiative surface' at the level where photons can permanently escape to space is in equilibrium with the incoming solar radiation so Stephan Boltzmann equations define that this level should be at -19C or so. From there, the lapse rate per unit area and the distance to the surface set the temperature of the surface in equilibrium. The fact that the surface is 33C warmer than the 'SB equilibrium' is hard evidence of the Greenhouse effect. You cannot disprove or dispute the Greenhouse effect without explaining the warming of the surface relative to the SB black body formula.

So. If C is the SB equilibrium temperature, X meters is the distance to the ground, and L is the 'lapse rate per meter, then you have T(surface)= C +(L*X). As the 'radiative surface moves upward with higher GHG concentration, X is replaced by (X+dX) and the new surface temperature is C +(L*X + L*dX). This is AGW or at least the GHG contribution to it.
LessHypeMoreFact

Etobicoke, Canada

#59 Sep 28, 2013
Aether wrote:
<quoted text>
The speed at which light travels and its relative path-length in the model (i.e. the length it has to travel to get out to space, whether it be a direct line, one bounce, two bounces, three bounces, etc) negates any need to consider the changing temperature of the earth.
Wrong again. As I said, the situation at the surface is 'SATURATED' for the capture bands. The relevant LW IR at that point is completely blocked which is why the FIRST layer in the model returns half of the outgoing radiation back to the surface.
LessHypeMoreFact

Etobicoke, Canada

#60 Sep 28, 2013
Aether wrote:
<quoted text>
I have been called a lot of names on this forum, including, repeatedly being called arrogant. I don't think it is arrogant to require my argument be refuted by a proper physical refutation.
I have. And you can get a more mathematical debate on any physics forum. They too will call you arrogant. You did not come here to be educated. You came here to claim that you know more than anyone else. We can see your topic subject line. Nuff said.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Global Warming Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Global warming 'undeniable,' scientists say (Jul '10) 1 hr WHAT 36,946
News Hundreds Of Scientists Urge Trump To Pull Out O... 1 hr Patriot AKA Bozo 780
News STUDY: Antarctic Sea Ice Loss Driven By 'Natura... 12 hr Fuggleton 3
News Once slow-moving threat, global warming speeds ... (Dec '08) 13 hr Ms Sassy 63,859
It's -57 below 0 in Antarctical 16 hr Fuggleton 2
Global Cooling (Apr '15) Jun 22 Common Sense 2,514
News Interior Department agency removes climate chan... Jun 18 C Kersey 22
More from around the web