Send a Message
to Chimney1

Comments

23,592

Joined

Mar 25, 2012

Badges

Chimney1 Profile

Forums Owned

Recent Posts

Evolution Debate

"Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really Think"

How silly. What else did you expect except that a "mere physical property" of substances would be at the root of a scientific theory as to why the earth's ground surface is warmer than a naive application of SB predicts it should be? A metaphysical property of substances? Pixie dust? Godly decree?  (Dec 31, 2016 | post #52661)

Evolution Debate

"Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really Think"

On the contrary. I respect the experimental and observational evidence we already have. Its you whose standard of proof would require that the whole earth be put in a "test tube" and the GHG concentration be turned up and down at will in a controlled experiment. Well, that one is not available, but enough evidence is. Counting down to 2017.....should provide some respite from 2016, the hottest year on record, which followed 2015, then the hottest year on record, which follows 2014, then the hottest year on record. El Nino has fully passed, so expect a slightly cooler 2017.....not cool like El Ninas USED to be of course. But perhaps not 1.3C above the pre-industrial average, like 2016 is shaping up to be. Perhaps, just a little cooler than that. Phew, maybe a good blip in the multiyear trend.....  (Dec 31, 2016 | post #52660)

Evolution Debate

"Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really Think"

Gases in the current atmosphere absorb about 20% of solar incoming energy, and about 70% of the energy emitted from the surface. I am guessing this " as greenhouse gas increases geometrically heat is lost incrementally " is an attempt at stating that "as greenhouse gas concentration increases geometrically, its effect on surface temperature is predicted to increase arithmetically ", which is the prediction made by Arrhenius originally in 1896 and still a part of GHG theory. There is empirical support for the effect of rising GHG concentrations to be found in satellite measurements of the earth's emissions as observed from above the atmosphere. Emission intensity in the GHG absorption bands has measurably declined since the 1970s, as predicted with rising GHG concentrations. This fall in intensity corresponds to a rise in altitude of the effective emission surface for these wavelengths, as expected when GHG concentration increases. Absorption saturation breakdown will occur at higher altitude, and hence at a lower temperature, which means reduced emission intensity as per SB. Still rejecting the experimental evidence available? Still insisting that we should do nothing until science can put the whole earth into a test tube?  (Dec 31, 2016 | post #52659)

Evolution Debate

"Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really Think"

Are you one of those who think "atheist " means someone who is sure God is not possible? Then you are mistaken. All that atheists claim is that there is not sufficient evidence to believe in a God or gods. Given a lack of evidence, is it reasonable to believe something? You are free to find and present evidence for the existence of God or gods if for some reason you are convinced that it/they really exist(s). Just be aware that nobody seems to have been able to do so for the last 5000 years although an enormous number of assertions have been made by different people about God or gods. Many of them contradictory, none of them supported by strong evidence.  (Dec 31, 2016 | post #52658)

Evolution Debate

"Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really Think"

I would guess it means checking that your opinions are consistent with facts, and that you would also check that any speculations made by you or others were consistent with factsYes, but they "persist " on the basis that dark matter is at this stage known only as a hypothetical thing that could explain what is observed. Nobody has to "believe in" dark matter, nobody has to accept or reject dark matter. You do not seem to understand that science proposes explanations and looks for ways to test them. Until it can do so, the explanation is not regarded as being true or false. And even if a test confirms the predictions of the proposed explanation, the explanation is then seen only as having a claim to truth, rather than being True capital TWe do accept it. We accept that our access to some mythical realm of Absolute Truth is closed, and that our science is merely the best possible way to ascertain what is probably true and certainly not true....and that just may be the limit of our capacity to know truth. Fine. Better than nothingSuch paths have been proposed but have produced little of value, unless you regard fairy tales designed to make you feel better as having value. I don't. I feel perfectly fine that the scientific method has worked brilliantly and other approaches have led merely to crass superstition, fear, and madness, even at times a euphoric madness, while also being manipulated to control, oppress, and subjugate people.  (Dec 31, 2016 | post #52657)

Evolution Debate

"Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really Think"

Yawn. Once again, j* is emission intensity defined as watts per metre squared of the emitting surface.  (Dec 31, 2016 | post #52656)

Evolution Debate

"Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really Think"

Before stating a prediction of the "greenhouse effect", we need to define a greenhouse gas: Greenhouse gas (GHG) definition: a gas which absorbs significant EMR in the bands association with the thermal emission temperature range of the ground surface of a planet. For example Venus, peak surface emission around 3.9 microns. Earth, peak surface emissions approx 10 microns. Thus we can contrast N2, which is almost perfectly transparent in the wavelength range of the earth's thermal emissions, with CO2, which absorbs wavelengths in the range of significant emissions by the Earth's solid/liquid surface. N2 is therefore not a GHG, while CO2 is one. Establishing this point is simple - compare the absorption spectra of gases with the Planck black body emission wavelength curve at a particular temperature. If a gas absorbs significant EMR at the ranges emitted by the planetary surface at a given temperature range, then the gas will act as a GHG if it is part of the atmosphere of that planet. Now to the falsifiable prediction The presence of an atmosphere containing GHGs on a planet orbiting a star with a more or less constant energy flux, will result in a higher ground surface temperature than would be predicted by a simple grey body SB temperature prediction for the body. Falsification: the presence or absence of GHG will has no effect on ground surface temperature, which equals the grey body SB predicted temperature given only inward energy flux and the emissivity of the surface. ------------------ ----------- A simple black body analysis would predict a surface temperature of 278K. This theoretical maximum ignores the fact the the earth is not a black body but in fact reflects a significant portion of incoming light. A grey body analysis based on the measured albedo (reflectivity) of the earth at approximately 0.3 would result in a grey body prediction of 254K. Even colder. The actual surface temperature average of 288K is not only higher than the grey body prediction, its even higher than the black body prediction which unrealistically assumed ALL incoming light is absorbed perfectly. ------------------ --------------- Empirical evidence is consistent with the predictions of the GHG effect. Now, as we know this does not in itself prove the GHG effect is responsible. Scientists are free to propose any other explanation for the higher than predicted ground surface temperature, if they can find one consistent with the laws of thermodynamics, radiative energy physics, and so on. GHG theory is consistent with these and provides valid predictions. Still, that is not proof of its correctness since as we all know science does not offer that level of certainty. So go ahead IBDM, propose your alternative, and lets see if it stacks up as well as GHG theory has done consistently since 1896.  (Dec 31, 2016 | post #52655)

Evolution Debate

"Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really Think"

No, only at equilibrium temperature does total energy absorbed equal total energy radiated. When the surface is colder than the equilibrium, it will radiate less than it absorbs as it warms. When warmer, it will radiate more than it absorbs as it cools. Period. As usual, you are mistaking a static idealisation for the real thing and using it to claim the real thing cannot be real. Cart before the horseAn idealisation is any simplified model that departs from the real case. A grey body is still an idealisation. Firstly it is uniformly grey over all wavelengths (not true in reality). Secondly it has a single surface of uniform temperature (not true in reality). A simple grey body equation DOES tell us the average expected "surface " temperature and radiant intensity as viewed from outer space. But its naive to think that this "surface " actually corresponds to the ground level on the earth. The actual emitting surfaces are different for different wavelengths, and at very different temperatures, varying from the solid/liquid ground surface to surfaces high in the troposphere for GHG absorbed wavelengths. Since the AVERAGE must equal the SB prediction for the whole "surface " of 254K as viewed from outer space, and since GHG absorbed wavelengths are emitted at a temperature of 220-230K (upper troposphere), then other wavelengths MUST be emitted at intensities requiring a ground surface HIGHER than the average for the whole system. Hence 288K - and only because of the effect of the GHG gasesYou are right - we don't need to. We can measure the total emissions from a vantage point well above the atmosphere with satellites. They show that compared to an idealised grey body radiation curve, the earth has reduced emission intensity in exactly the GHG absorption bands. This reduction is consistent with a radiative surface of 220-230K which is consistent with upper troposphere temperatures and also consistent with concentrations of GHG's at that altitude falling to a point where emissions are no longer re absorbed on the way out. SInce the average intensity corresponds to 254K as per SB, this means that emissions in the GHG absorbed spectra have to be made up for by higher emissions in another part of the system. And this is the solid/liquid surface - which is at 288K, far above the SB "surface " prediction of 254KCorrect. You just cannot apply the theory correctly to the actual system.  (Dec 31, 2016 | post #52654)

Evolution Debate

"Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really Think"

No. In fact, Stefan-Boltzmann helps to explain the "greenhouse effect."  (Dec 29, 2016 | post #52611)

Evolution Debate

"Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really Think"

Yes, "warmiezombie " websites not to mention physics textbooks explain exactly how Stefan-Boltzmann DOES apply. Hell, I have even explained it to you. Your dogmatic insistence that its all a lie made up by a conspiracy of scientists has blinded you. Well that's a charitable interpretation for what may be merely blank incomprehension. But its rather simple really. SB describes the behaviour of a single surface at a single temperature with a single emissivity. So far so good. The problem is, that the earth with a selectively absorptive atmosphere is not single surface at a single temperature with a single emissivity.  (Dec 29, 2016 | post #52609)

Evolution Debate

"Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really Think"

Having claimed that surface area has nothing to do with SB, you cannot explain away the fact the j* is intensity of emissions expressed as watts per unit AREA of the emitting surface.... so we get baseless attack, with zero contentStrawman argumentMaterials can have very different absorption and emission properties over different wavelengths. Didn't you know that? Ever see a spectral chartSb is an idealised black body (later upgraded to include idealised grey bodies). In the real world, the total amount of incident energy absorbed depends on the properties of the material and is NOT uniform over different wavelengths. Funny here that I can actually apply SB and provide you with a predicted temperature using SB that is too low....and you cannot counter that. I use it, you merely prattle and claim the numbers (which you cannot challenge) must be "fabricated ". Fine. De-fabricate to your heart's content. Set albedo to zero. It won't help you - the result is still too cold. That is, for a NAIVE, SINGLE SURFACE, PURE BLACK OR GREY BODY MODEL. Which is apparently as far as you think SB can be applied. FalseI am not altering it. I am applying it. Something you seem incapable of doingAnd yet in SB terms its not emitting as a single body with a single surface at a single average temperature. SB applies - if you know how to apply it. Along with, of course, Planck's Law etc. For example as I showed you, the effective emission surface for the earth is the ground for frequencies not blocked by GHGs (the "window" ), at an average temperature today of 288K, whereas for frequencies that are absorbed by GHGs, the effective emission surface for the earth is the upper troposphere, at 220-230K We don't need to just rely on theory for this. Actual satellite measurements confirm it. The radiation curve (as defined for a given temperature by Planck) DOES have a range of wavelengths and the emission curves measured from outer space DO show different intensities associates with different emission curves over different wavelengths. Namely, colder, higher atmosphere emission curves for frequencies absorbed and emitted by GHGs. Given that these lower temperature curves reflect lower emission intensity, the other parts of the spectrum must radiate at higher intensity to restore equilibrium. That can only happen because the surface is hotter than its black body effective temperature This is not "collusion for political gain ". Nope. Its just science.  (Dec 29, 2016 | post #52608)

Evolution Debate

"Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really Think"

Yes and no. Without GHGs, the whole radiative spectrum of the earth's emissions would be emitted from the surface directly with an average temperature of 254K, and be transmitted directly into space from the surface with no atmospheric interaction. With GHG's, frequencies unaffected by GHG absorption will be emitted directly into space. But frequencies absorbed by GHG's will only be emitted into space at an altitude where the GHG content has fallen to the point where its ceases to reabsorb emissions in that frequency....such as the upper troposphere, at 220K. Emission temperature, for these frequencies, HAS decreased, meaning intensity has decreased. Emission intensity at 220K for those wavelengths is far lower than emission intensity of wavelengths that will be transmitted directly from the surface. In fact, given that intensity varies as the fourth power of temperature, emissions at 220K are only 56% of what they were at 254K. 44% of the energy at absorbed frequencies has gone missing! (hint, no it hasn't, its gone somewhere else). So how does the system adjust? It warms until emissions from the surface are at 288K, while emissions from the upper troposphere are at 220K, and the AVERAGE emission temp is back at 254K, the black body effective temperature required to maintain radiative balance with solar inflows. HOW does the surface get warmer, if solar insolation is constant? Look at the missing energy that was NOT radiated into space from the upper troposphere - with its lower intensity emissions due to the fall in temperature to 220K. Where has that energy gone? Its been emitted back to the surface, adding to the energy being provided by the sun. Hence 288K at the surface instead of 254K. It all adds up, all makes sense, and is all consistent with Stefan Boltzmann, the 1st law, and the 2nd law.  (Dec 27, 2016 | post #52544)