Bob Fernley-Jones asks an important question needing wide discussion.
First, let’s quickly review the basics of the existing four or so laws.
[skip to dicussion]
Credit: Marc de Falco [1] (click full size)
- Zeroth Law: According to Arnold Sommerfeld, Ralph H. Fowler invented the title ‘the zeroth law of thermodynamics’ when he was discussing the 1935 text of Saha and Srivastava. They write on page 1 that “every physical quantity must be measurable in numerical terms”. They presume that temperature is a physical quantity and then deduce the statement “If a body A is in temperature equilibrium with two bodies B and C, then B and C themselves will be in temperature equilibrium with each other”… [Source Wikipedia]
- Law 1: The first law of thermodynamics is a version of the law of conservation of energy, adapted for thermodynamic systems. The law of conservation of energy states that the total energy of an isolated system is constant; energy can be transformed from one form to another, but cannot be created or destroyed… [Source Wikipedia]
- Law 2: …The German scientist Rudolf Clausius laid the foundation for the second law of thermodynamics in 1850 by examining the relation between heat transfer and work.[17] His formulation of the second law, which was published in German in 1854, is known as the Clausius statement: Heat can never pass from a colder to a warmer body without some other change, connected therewith, occurring at the same time. [Or] Heat cannot spontaneously flow from cold regions to hot regions without external work being performed on the system… [Source Wikipedia]
This is the form of law 2 that has been well defined by the humorous fun of Flanders and Swann (1963) , but ordinary folks should be alerted that despite the truth of the above, there have been “definition refinements” that maybe could be renumbered to Law 2.1:- Law 2 Updated: The second law of thermodynamics states that the entropy of an isolated system never decreases, because isolated systems always evolve toward thermodynamic equilibrium, a state with maximum entropy… [And much more: source Wikipedia]
- Law 3: The third law of thermodynamics is sometimes stated as follows, regarding the properties of systems in equilibrium at absolute zero temperature: The entropy of a perfect crystal, at absolute zero kelvin, is exactly equal to zero… [And much more: source Wikipedia]
Discussion
With publication of the book; SLAYING THE SKY DRAGON in 2010, some of these laws of thermodynamics were “revisited”, which in part resulted in the subtitle of; ‘Death of the Greenhouse Gas Theory’. I’ve only found time to read Tim Ball’s philosophical contribution about the IPCC and whatnot, but understand from various commentaries that the other eight authors have some more controversial theories.
Adding to this over the past three years or so, there have been various blog advocates that also dismiss the GHE; two standout campaigners being Doug Cotton & AlecM, both with apparently an enthusiastic following. Perhaps the most controversial idea is that physicists don’t understand the behaviour of electromagnetic radiation (EMR/light)
On the other hand, the ‘Wave/Particle Duality Theory of light’ is clearly entrenched in I would guess well over 97% of physicists. However, the innovations include, briefly:
- Where down-welling EMR (infrared light) is exactly opposite in alignment to upwelling waves that are equal in frequency and amplitude throughout the whole spectra, they form standing waves in which no energy is transferred. Consequently, there are thus no photons but only waves involved.
- Photons cannot leave home if they “know” they will at sometime encounter warmer matter or a “cancelling” standing wave.
- It is impossible for down-welling EMR to be absorbed by a warmer surface because it would contravene Law 2.
- Back-radiation does not exist. (and pyrgeometers tell fibs)
From all this it would seem that the laws of thermodynamics should be changed to establish the new revelations in quantum theory and whatnot. First though, I just wonder about a few things:
- No empirical evidence of EMR standing waves in the atmosphere has been demonstrated and the atmosphere is both unstable and of reducing T with altitude. Thus the amplitude of the EMR spectra diminishes with altitude and it seems doubtful that standing waves can exist apart from in the imagination.
- It is well established that EMR is spherically isotropic in the atmosphere (radiating equally in infinite directions) and established thermodynamic laws do not allow it to “know” where it is going. (or e.g. how to avoid going somewhere hotter)
- Examination of the EMR spectra in the image below shows that typically in the atmosphere there is overlap of IR energy levels. Thus, there are emissions from some parts of the cooler matter which are at higher energy level than in some parts in the hotter spectrum. It is therefore necessary to explain why there would be lower energy molecules in the hotter spectrum unreceptive to higher inputs from the colder spectrum.
- The mathematics of net heat transfer via EMR is unaffected by consideration of whether or not EMR is absorbed by hotter matter and then reemitted back towards the colder matter.
So, the question is; should the laws of thermodynamics be changed?
1. Graphic credit with changes: Marc de Falco
Tallbloke's Talkshop 
Hopefully someone can answer this question that has been nagging at me –
Does the interaction of IR radiation with matter in any way mirror the way UV light interacts with fluorescent substances?
If this so does this give anymore insight to IR interaction with water and CO2?
If it doesn’t, ho hum I’m confused again.
Just nitpicking .. the caption of the figure at point 3 has been probably taken from another figure. The picture appears to show a black body radiation. The atmosphere makes a very poor black body.
4.The mathematics of net heat transfer via EMR is unaffected by consideration of whether or not EMR is absorbed by hotter matter and then reemitted back towards the colder matter.
======
Why is it always “EMR is absorbed”? Reflection is a perfectly good and honest path of EMR. If reflection could not happen then radar would not work. Remember the three things that can happen are transmission, absorption, and reflection.
“No empirical evidence of EMR standing waves in the atmosphere has been demonstrated…”
“…it seems doubtful that standing waves can exist apart from in the imagination.”
>>>>>>>
WOW! (This article was really a 5-“WOWer”, but I’m trying to control myself.)
A demonstration of standing waves could easily be performed in lab situations. Standing waves, at all frequencies are well known and well documented. They EXIST.
Or, maybe we need new laws for electromagnetic waves?
The laws of thermodynamics deal with the net flow of energy. The actual flow of energy is actually going in all directions at all times. But the net flow only goes in the directions described by the laws of thermodynamics. Being confused about the difference between the flow and net flow is something that even the slayers had been severely confused about–until I pointed it out to them on PSI last fall.
Once the slayers, including Joe Postma, realized that they had been talking past their audience based on a semantic discrepancy/shortcoming they did the thing that all scientific combatants do when they realize they’ve been fighting windmills, they clam up, slink away, never admit their error, never bothering thank me for clarifying the issue–they just pretend it didn’t happen.
In the meantime, [mod: snip, try: some people with physics doctorates] struggle to re-establish some form of the semantic ambiguity that allowed him the temporary illusion that the silly notion of back-radiation makes sense, switching from PSI to this forum, finding new people to continue the endless, pointless discussion about something that exists only in the collective imagination of people that desire to believe.
Between IPCC Neophlogistique and Sky Dragon, there is just the classical thermodynamics.
It basically says that the addition of CO2 modify the radiative structure of the atmosphere and then alter the temperature gradient and, therefore, the concept of GHG forcing just does not make sense.
It is very curious that so long as it relates to climate, no one seems to understand the basics of thermodynamics.
The IPCC “science” that CO2 can “heat the planet” is seriously flawed. But, some people, for various reasons, still want to believe it. Obviously Bob FJ is one of those people.
By his list of 4 “innovations” (above), he shows his bias. He indicates that these four statements are supported by the folks that oppose the IPCC “science”. In other words, he attempts to put words in their mouths. He builds a false “straw man”. The fact is, many of us stand against the IPCC cr*p, but would not agree with his phrasing of the 4 statements. Either on purpose, or in error, he misrepresents the science he attempts to attack.
Mkelly @August 12, 7:21 pm
“Why is it always “EMR is absorbed”? Reflection is a perfectly good and honest path of EMR. If reflection could not happen then radar would not work. Remember the three things that can happen are transmission, absorption, and reflection.”
The main context is infrared radiation and as to how it is theorised to react with the surface. (or if is prevented from getting their). Reflection and transmission can be ignored for practical purposes of scale.
geran @ August 12, 8:19 pm
“…A demonstration of standing waves could easily be performed in lab situations. Standing waves, at all frequencies are well known and well documented. They EXIST…”
The context is different though, being mainly in the consideration of:
1) complex conditions in the atmosphere which discourage EMR resonance and,
2) net heat transfer via EMR.
Sure, reflection is a classic case where wave nodes are in phase, but surface reflection in the infrared is negligible and anyway, there is no heat transfer.
Incidentally, do you believe that there are standing waves in the atmosphere in solar wavelengths where there is significant reflection from the surface?
tom0mqson,
The brief answer to your question is yes, at least according to Richard Feynman. He wrote a book titled QED The Strange Theory of Light and Matter. He points out that general understanding of such things as reflection, absorption and transmission is generally incorrect, but useful in most day to day domestic activities.
The physics of the reality of what is occurring is obviously completely foreign to people who blather on about LWIR, downwelling versus upwelling radiation, back radiation and similar nonsensical climatological obfuscations.
Anyway, you might care to read Feyman’s short book. He has also written some longer ones which go into greater depth. I prefer Feynman’s view of QED to that of the mostly second rate minds of self proclaimed climatologists, who spend their days averaging weather parameters, pretending that climate is not defined as the average of numbers which have already occurred. As the weather changes, so does the climate. The whole concept of heating matter by surrounding it with CO2 is patently nonsensical, as observation shows.
Luckily, the whole charade is hopefully coming to an end, leaving us to wonder whether in the future will so much be spent, at the behest of so few, to achieve so little for mankind. Probably, but one can always hope!
Bob_FJ says:
August 12, 2014 at 11:59 pm
Incidentally, do you believe that there are standing waves in the atmosphere in solar wavelengths where there is significant reflection from the surface?
>>>>>>>
Of course. That is not to imply they are constantly in one place. They occur, based on conditions, then breakdown, then may reoccur again. Again, it is the same phenomena that can be observed with radio waves in bad weather, or in transmission lines that have intermittent faults.
Law 2 says heat won’t flow from cold to hot, but that’s achieved over trillions of interactions. Photons can travel from a cold object to a hot object no problem. It’s just that more will travel from the hot object to the cold object, so law 2 arises from the net transfer.
Mod adds,
New edition of Feynman book, link to text of new introduction
http://www.pupress.princeton.edu/titles/8169.html
geran, firstly @ August 13, 2:20 am
On the existence of solar radiation standing waves, you asserted:
“Of course. That is not to imply they are constantly in one place. They occur, based on conditions, then breakdown, then may reoccur again. Again, it is the same phenomena that can be observed with radio waves in bad weather, or in transmission lines that have intermittent faults.”
So are they different in stability and whatnot to the standing waves you assert that also exist for infrared spectra in the atmosphere?
geran, secondly @August 12, 10:29 pm
Amongst various things that you asserted:
“…Obviously Bob FJ is one of those people…” “…By his list of 4 “innovations” (above), he shows his bias…” (etcetera)
Briefly, although I’m puzzled how you reached such conclusions I beg your indulgence to hear:
• I think the IPCC is tantamount to committing crimes against humanity.
• I think that the ‘Dragon Slayers’ and others I discussed in my article may be peddling controversial science which does not help the sceptical broadstream.
“3. Examination of the EMR spectra in the image below shows that typically in the atmosphere there is overlap of IR energy levels. Thus, there are emissions from some parts of the cooler matter which are at higher energy level than in some parts in the hotter spectrum. It is therefore necessary to explain why there would be lower energy molecules in the hotter spectrum unreceptive to higher inputs from the colder spectrum.”
I don’t get this one. The Planck curves shown directly beneath this point neatly and visually explains how the spectral emissive power of a warmer object is always greater than that of a cooler object. At every wavelength along the whole spectrum.
So are they different in stability and whatnot to the standing waves you assert that also exist for infrared spectra in the atmosphere?
>>>>>>
“…it is the same phenomena that can be observed…”
“I think that the ‘Dragon Slayers’ and others I discussed in my article may be peddling controversial science which does not help the sceptical broad stream.”
>>>>>>
So, if you have some EXACT quotes, maybe we could discuss what you “think” is controversial. You have indicated, in YOUR phraseology, what YOU believe they are saying, yet you admit you have NOT read their book. In fact, your quote “but understand from various commentaries that the other eight authors have some more controversial theories.”, could easily be classified as “hearsay”.
Kristian @ August 13, 9:52 am
Yes, quite so if you only consider individual wavelengths and compare just the dark blue curve with the magenta curve. However, you need to compare the areas under both curves. (the integrals of the total energies/amplitudes of each frequency)
Geran @August 13, 10:41 am
In response to my part 1) you wrote IN FULL, (why the…?):
“…it is the same phenomena that can be observed…”
Could you please answer my question?
Concerning your response to my part 2), please look at my total commentary and be less selective in your hostile critique. If you answer part 1) OK, I’ll endeavour to untangle what you wrote Re part 2).
Kristian says: “I don’t get this one. The Planck curves shown directly beneath this point neatly and visually explains how the spectral emissive power of a warmer object is always greater than that of a cooler object. At every wavelength along the whole spectrum.”
Such curves are averaged over space and time. If you looked at a very small area and/or very small time interval, the curves would get noisy — with all sorts of peaks and valleys above and below those neat smooth curves. Over specific areas and times, parts of the curve from some parts of the cool surface can and will be above the curve from some parts of the warm surface.
Bob_FJ says, August 13, 2014 at 1:04 pm:
“Yes, quite so if you only consider individual wavelengths and compare just the dark blue curve with the magenta curve. However, you need to compare the areas under both curves. (the integrals of the total energies/amplitudes of each frequency)”
To me this is tantamount to saying the peak of the magenta line is higher than the far tail of the deep blue line, therefore the ‘peak magenta photons’ will warm where the ‘far tail deep blue photons’ escaped. It makes no sense in the real world.
We are not talking about individual photons here. There is no way we could ever track that anyway. We can only look at the net result of the exchange. And the ‘net energy’, what we can actually detect, the actual transfer of energy in a thermal exchange, is the ‘heat’. It always goes from hot to cold. According to the radiative heat transfer equation, the net is simply the dark blue line at each wavelength minus the magenta line at each wavelength. There will never be an increase in the internal energy and hence no warming of the already warmer object from such an exchange.
I simply don’t understand what you’re suggesting with this …
Bob FJ says: Could you please answer my question?
>>>>>>>
Your question was: So are they different in stability and whatnot to the standing waves you assert that also exist for infrared spectra in the atmosphere?
My answer was (quoting what I had written earlier): “…it is the same phenomena that can be observed…”
What part of “same phenomena” did you not understand?
Bob FJ says: Concerning your response to my part 2), please look at my total commentary and be less selective in your hostile critique. If you answer part 1) OK, I’ll endeavour to untangle what you wrote Re part 2).
>>>>>>>
“Untangling” is good. That’s what I am trying to do with your article.
This might be of interest. The website is broken for me so the link might act strange.
“Wolff realized that there are no solutions for spherical vector electromagnetic waves, and he had the foresight to try using real waves, which are scalar (described by one quantity, their wave amplitude, as discovered by Quantum Theory). He then discovered that when one spherical standing wave was moving relative to another the Doppler shifts gave rise to BOTH the de Broglie wavelength of Quantum Theory AND the Mass (Frequency, where E=hf) increase of Einstein’s Special Relativity.”
http://www.spaceandmotion.com/Physics-Richard-Feynman-QED.htm
I don’t like these rat holes, sucking sound toward practical useless so lines have to be drawn setting a boundary where working reality departs. There is no ultimate explanation, Newton for example is accepted but is mere correlation unless you can show me a cup of gravity.
My layman understanding of Planck curves… The level of the graph lines indicate the INTENSITY of the radiation at any point on the graph. Look at say the 15 micron point, the upper curve shows a good 5 W/m^2 more energy than the lower curve but does this mean that radiation from the warmer mass is heating the cooler mass at that frequency point??? NO!!! At that frequency point all photons from any object have EXACTLY THE SAME ENERGY POTENTIAL. It is possible that the cooler mass absorbs a photon from the warmer mass at that frequency point but since it is immediately emitted again (think speed of light) NO energy was stored in the cooler mass so no heating occurred.
To understand the WHY? of the above statement we need to do some science. We must look at how atoms share electron shells when they form a molecule. It is the movement of the electrons between electron shells that define emission/absorption of IR energy. As the electrons change shells so the vibration level of the molecule changes. It is the vibration of the molecule that defines ‘heat’. More vibration = hotter and more physical space is required and the mass expands.
Back to the Planck curve above, all available electron shell spaces will be fully occupied for any and all photons up to the peak radiation point of the lower curve at about 11 microns. There will be electron shell spaces in the cooler object for higher energy photons which will have wavelengths shorter than 11 microns. So although the cooler mass will be emitting some photons in the range above the peak temperature there will be electron shells available until the temperature increases to the new ‘peak radiation temperature’.
Think of it this way, the cooler mass has reached saturation level for all photons with energy levels below its ‘peak radiation temperature’ while it can still absorb photons with energy levels above ‘peak radiation temperature’ which will in turn raise the temperature of the mass giving it a new ‘peak radiation temperature’.
Bear in mind that those Planck curves shown above are ‘blackbody curves’. Let us assume the blue curve, at +10C, is radiation from the earth’s surface, it is close enough to a black body to qualify. Now assume the magenta curve is from some point up in the atmosphere at -10C, but the atmosphere is NOT A BLACKBODY! In fact 99.9% of the atmosphere CANNOT RADIATE AT ALL! But thank goodness we have some ‘greenhouse gases’ out there. I want to discuss only CO2 else this post will go on too far.
CO2 is a gas in the atmosphere, it is in fact 0.04% of all the DISCRETE MOLECULES in the atmosphere. CO2 has a well defined radiation/emission FINGERPRINT. It is not a blackbody but the electron shells in the CO2 molecule will behave exactly like a blackbody for the range of the energy shells available to the electrons in the CO2 molecule which in turn are limited by the possible vibration patterns the molecule can achieve. Each CO2 molecule is being constantly battered by other atmospheric molecules such, talking conduction now, that the CO2 molecule will be in thermal equilibrium with its local airspace. That mechanical battering the CO2 molecule receives changes the vibration level of the CO2 molecule, termed translation energy, so the electron shells will be at saturation for IR at whatever the local air temperature happens to be. We are talking here of air at -10C. CO2 has a very active radiative band at 15 microns, in fact this band is made of of some 3,800 lines of radiation covering the 13 to 17 micron bands. Because the CO2 has been conductively warmed by local air temperature each and every molecule will be radiating over that range so the pyrgeometers are NOT telling fibs. The radiation is real. IT IS NOT BACK-RADIATION. Air temperature would have to drop below -50C before emission from just the 13 micron band starts to drop.
CO2 has two other radiation bands at 2.7 and 4.3 microns but peak temperature for 4.3 microns is +400C !!! And 2.7 microns is +800C !!! No ways will you ever see radiation from CO2 at those frequencies. Yet CO2 CAN ABSORB PHOTONS FROM THE SUN at those frequencies. When a very cool CO2 molecule absorbs a very high energy photon the energy is shared such that some warms the atmosphere by conduction and some is radiated away at lower frequencies. The chance of CO2 re-emitting a high energy photon is remote and how would you know I came from CO2? Also any energy absorbed by CO2 in those high energy bands failed to reach the surface – a cooling process. As explained above all the high energy absorbed when the sun shines DOES NOT HEAT THE ATMOSPHERE by an equivalent amount and again as explained further above radiation from CO2 in the 13 to 17 micron bands CANNOT warm the surface if it is warmer than -50C. Thus CO2 in the atmosphere is a very effective cooling agent.
As far as this layman is concerned the laws of thermodynamics are just fine.
Bob JF says: Reflection and transmission can be ignored for practical purposes of scale.
No. You may be able to say transmission can be but not reflection. You have no idea how much of an IR emission is reflected.
Kristian @August 13, 1:32 pm
“I simply don’t understand what you’re suggesting with this”
Here is my Antipodean midnight quickie response:
You need to understand that the areas below the two Planck curves are not void of energy. Furthermore, the difference between the magenta and dark blue curves clearly shows that power levels are a function of the amplitude of the individual wave frequencies.
You need to take into account that there are a range of wave amplitudes at each frequency and thus some of those amplitudes in the colder body will be greater than some in the hotter body. (= a positive potential difference).
Richard says: “It is possible that the cooler mass absorbs a photon from the warmer mass at that frequency point but since it is immediately emitted again (think speed of light) NO energy was stored in the cooler mass so no heating occurred.”
It is certainly possible that the energy is very rapidly re-emitted, But it is not probably. The molecule can exist in the excited state for quite some time, and share that extra energy with surrounding molecules via collisions, thereby thermalizing the energy.
“It is the movement of the electrons between electron shells that define emission/absorption of IR energy.”
No, those movements between “shells” tends to be much higher energy (Near IR, visible, or UV). The IR absorption is related to vibrations of molecules (or solids).
“Think of it this way, the cooler mass has reached saturation level for all photons with energy levels below its ‘peak radiation temperature’ “
No, please do NOT think of it that way! First, there is still the issue of “vibration” vs “filled shells”. Beyond that, molecules do not get “saturated” with regards to vibrational energy. Molecules have a large number of quantized modes all separated by an energy = hf. So if a molecule has already absorbed one photon of energy hf, it can still absorb another photon of energy hf by simply vibrating with a larger amplitude. Your intuition about shells (eg the balmer lines for hydrogen) is clouding your thinking.
See for example http://www.physics.uoguelph.ca/~pgarrett/teaching/PHY-1070/lecture-23.pdf
“That mechanical battering the CO2 molecule receives changes the vibration level of the CO2 molecule, termed translation energy, so the electron shells will be at saturation for IR at whatever the local air temperature happens to be.”
“Translational energy” is KE of the molecule as a whole, and is NOT a term for vibrational energy.
Bob_FJ says, August 13, 2014 at 3:09 pm:
“You need to understand that the areas below the two Planck curves are not void of energy. Furthermore, the difference between the magenta and dark blue curves clearly shows that power levels are a function of the amplitude of the individual wave frequencies.
You need to take into account that there are a range of wave amplitudes at each frequency and thus some of those amplitudes in the colder body will be greater than some in the hotter body. (= a positive potential difference).”
But it makes no difference to the end result, Bob. So I still don’t see what you’re getting at here. Why is this point important? What in this suggests we need to rework the Laws of Thermodynamics?
I never could understand how scientists could say that a cold object could heat a warm object until I realised that when scientists said heat they meant send energy to whereas I understood heat as meaning raising the temperature.
Kelvin Vaughan says: August 13, 2014 at 5:02 pm
“I never could understand how scientists could say that a cold object could heat a warm object until I realised that when scientists said heat they meant send energy to whereas I understood heat as meaning raising the temperature.”
The Climastrologists use every opportunity to sow confusion. Scientifically the verbs “to heat” or “to warm” means exactly “add energy to”, when you heat a pan of boiling water you create more water vapor with no temperature increase, only if the heat is in the form of “sensible heat” does the temperature also increase Scientifically the adjectives “hotter” or “warmer” always mean an increase in temperature. A coat can make you feel “warmer” but only your internal metabolism is
doing any” warming”. If you ask any Climastrologist to define anything they must immediately change the subject or contradict themselves.
“3. Examination of the EMR spectra in the image below shows that typically in the atmosphere there is overlap of IR energy levels. Thus, there are emissions from some parts of the cooler matter which are at higher energy level than in some parts in the hotter spectrum. It is therefore necessary to explain why there would be lower energy molecules in the hotter spectrum unreceptive to higher inputs from the colder spectrum.”
At no frequency is there any crossing of the black body spectra of any two temperatures. You are speaking of a microscopic “noise” with always a mean in the direction of the lower temperature.
Thermodynamics “only” involves macroscopic properties an actions. All else is but an attempt sow confusion. Only Quantum Electro-Dynamics, even attempts to explain the differences in POV and try for understanding.
“So, the question is; should the laws of thermodynamics be changed?”
DEFINITELY NOT! This would only further sow confusion. Thermodynamics has been complete since the 1930’s. Thermodynamics does not apply to the microscopic, Planck’s constant, or anything relativistic. It is as limited as Newton’s Laws of Motion. Any “misapplication” is the error!
Any claim that it is statistical or kinetic is also an error. Heat has no momentum!
It would be very helpful if your Climastrologists would try to have some basic understanding of Maxwell’s equations. They would soon be forced to learn that EMR is not heat energy it is EMR. What any absorber does with that electromagnetic energy is up to the absorber. The thermal electromagnetic field strength from from any mass is proportional to its average temperature^4 not any noise that may be amplitude modulation of that field strength depending on the thermal mass and its time constant. Any resulting flux is always limited by any opposing field strength at every wavelength and in every direction. EMR is always relativistic, so need not be part of thermodynamics. With thorough observation and measurement thermal EMR is always spontaneous, always its transfer of electromagnetic energy is powered only by the sensible heat “entropy” of the emitter, and and always follows all of the laws if thermodynamics. In an open system it is one of only few ways of dispatching entropy over long distances.
@Bob_FJ
Bob, one of my hobbies is hunting rabbits with an airgun. For successful hunting during dark winter nights I depend on an IR telescopic sight fitted with a strong IR illuminator. The light reflected form the illuminator is reflected back to the image intensifier in the scope and allows me to clearly see rabbits, grass, trees e.t.c. out to 100yds, although in shades of green white and black rather than colour.
Strangely, rabbits eyes show up the strongest and a quick scan of a field can identify potential targets our to 200yds. Without IR reflection the device would not work. Unless you employ the magic of QED, which has so many holes it could double as a sieve.
Tenuc,
Are you sure? I’ll explain.
There are two kinds of night vision equipment, the older, cheaper kind which has been in use for many years; the relatively new. The military use the latter and no illuminator (could be used if wanted)
The first kind uses short wave IR and uses any wavelength photons it can get. An image intensifier is usually present but some solid state camera sensors do well.
If there is no light, nothing, they don’t work. Enter actinometers in the form of micro-bolometer arrays use long IR, an array of heat integrating thermometers fabricated on a chip. Heat balance can be seen hence “see” in the dark.
In addition as an aside there are cryogenically cooled sensors, a usage being with some space telescopes.
I think you use type 1.
Type 2 at sane prices are appearing, here is a police version. Note the lack of mention of illuminator (which is a giveaway of observation)
Click to access FLIR%2520HS-307%2520Patrol%252065mm.pdf
This might help
http://www.hurleyir.com/faqs.html
I believe there is a reluctance to the introduction of type 2 at low cost, the see through clothes problem and silly people. OTOH this is why police and border guards like them, can see concealed weapons.
Microbolometer array is akin to an array of pyrgeometers which are narrow field of view.
Tenuc says: ” … I depend on an IR telescopic sight fitted with a strong IR illuminator.
1) Every surface has some reflection. Bob is NOT saying there is no reflection of Thermal IR — only that it is relatively small.
2) Night vision used “near IR” (around 0.7-1.0 um). This is quite different from “thermal IR” (around 5-50 um) that matters in the GHE. The ability of objects like rabbits’ eyes to reflect near IR from your illuminator is not strongly correlated to the ability to reflect thermal IR. For example, this image (http://profhorn.meteor.wisc.edu/wxwise/satmet/lesson3/Spectralalb.gif) suggests that snow, grass and trees all reflect near IR well, but not thermal IR.
Will says: “ Scientifically the verbs “to heat” or “to warm” means exactly “add energy to” ”
Typically …
“To warm” means to increase in temperature (but has no strict scientific definition that i know of).
“To heat” means to add (net) energy to due to processes dependent on a temperature difference.” (but the term is used in various other ways colloquially by both scientists and non-scientist)
You can “add energy to” something without warming it or heating it.
You can “heat” something without warming it; you can warm something without heating it.
These three terms are NOT synonymous — not even close.
If you really want to avoid sowing your own confusion, you should either be more careful with the words, or (better yet) use symbols & equations to define what you mean.
Will says: “Thermodynamics does not apply to the microscopic
This is true. But at the same time, the microscopic does exist. Atoms exist. Molecules vibrate. EM energy is quantized. If you don’t want to deal with this level of detail, that is a perfectly legitimate (albeit limited) approach.
But if you want to talk about things at the microscopic level, then you can’t just use thermodynamics — you must move into the realm of kinetic theory and statistical mechanics. A single CO2 molecule does NOT produce an EM field uniform in time. The energy comes out in discrete bits of energy — ie the signal *is* noisy. When you try to make a macroscopic theory like “thermodynamics” apply to microscopic phenomena like atoms and molecular vibrations, that is indeed a “misapplication” and “an error”.
geran @ August 13, 1:44 pm
“My answer was (quoting what I had written earlier): “…it is the same phenomena that can be observed…” What part of “same phenomena” did you not understand?”
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
1) ‘Phenomena’ does not describe scale/magnitude of any individual event (a phenomenon) and is the plural of such; which might be merely a few thingies or could be rather many.
2) For a start, solar radiation is very different to terrestrial infrared in that incoming it is virtually unidirectional* whereas most of its quite significant reflections are diffuse. (but some are somewhat specularly divergent and thus also unable to form standing waves) On the other hand, both up and down infrared are omnidirectional. (Isotropic)…….
*As is demonstrated by sharp-edged shadows on a bright day
Repeat; please answer my question!
Kristian @ August 13, 3:34 pm,
“But it makes no difference to the end result, Bob. So I still don’t see what you’re getting at here. Why is this point important? What in this suggests we need to rework the Laws of Thermodynamics?”
I was presenting a counter argument to that of a small school of “Slayers” who claim that absorption of EMR by hotter matter contravenes law 2.
But yes, the end result is the same in terms of heat transfer, since it is the net of; out minus in, and thus law 2 works fine in that.
Bob FJ says:
1) ‘Phenomena’ does not describe scale/magnitude of any individual event (a phenomenon) and is the plural of such; which might be merely a few thingies or could be rather many.
2) For a start, solar radiation is very different to terrestrial infrared in that incoming it is virtually unidirectional* whereas most of its quite significant reflections are diffuse. (but some are somewhat specularly divergent and thus also unable to form standing waves) On the other hand, both up and down infrared are omnidirectional. (Isotropic)…….
>>>>>>>>>>
1) Okay Bob, my answer was “same phenomena”. If “phenomena” confuses you, go with “same”.
2) Yes, I did notice that you first asked about “solar wavelengths” (Aug 12 11:59pm) then after I answered, you switched to “solar radiation” (Aug 13 9:22pm). I didn’t know if you were trying to trick me, or just being inconsistent in your terminology. I assumed you were sincere, and answered accordingly. [mod: snip libel] [mod: snip, try: I think], you have gone so far as to now insinuate I do not know the difference between “solar radiation” and “terrestrial infrared”. [mod: snip]
[mod: snip ]
[mod: Cool it, I am having enough trouble with heavy issues elsewhere to get irritated at having to remove bad content.
You must leave room for Bob FJ to be mistaken. –Tim]
geran @ August 14, 12:41 am,
You continue to evade my questions on standing waves, a brief history being:
1) August 12, @ 11:59 pm: “…Incidentally, do you [geran] believe that there are standing waves in the atmosphere in solar wavelengths where there is significant reflection from the surface?”
2) August 13, @ 9:22 am: “…So [geran] are they [solar standing waves] different in stability and whatnot to the standing waves you assert that also exist for infrared spectra in the atmosphere?” [Bold emphasis added today]
3) August 13, 2014 at 1:14 pm: “…Could you [geran] please answer my question?…” [same as in 2) above]
4) August 13, 2014 at 11:51 pm: Repeat; please [geran] answer my question! [ditto]
This relates to various “slayer” claims that down-welling infrared radiation forms a wall of standing waves which prevent absorption of that portion of EMR by the surface. Your opening salvo on that matter lacked relevant context and was unhelpful:
“ WOW! (This article was really a 5-“WOWer”, but I’m trying to control myself.)
A demonstration of standing waves could easily be performed in lab situations. Standing waves, at all frequencies are well known and well documented. They EXIST…
You have not demonstrated that significant standing waves, in the context of the article, exist within the atmosphere
If you were to be gracious enough to adequately answer the question in 2) above, it would be helpful.
Tim Folkerts @ August 13 at 3:19 pm
Thanks for the pdf link. I recognise much of it from this link:
http://www1.lsbu.ac.uk/water/vibrat.html
This is a fascinating subject and as most of the comments in this thread indicate, we have problems expressing ourselves due to different levels of understanding.
For myself, if anyone can explain how CO2 gas in the atmosphere warms anything when the sun is not shining, I will apologise for my beliefs.
Can we not stop this total nonsense. There is illumination from the atmosphere at every wavelength even at night. The reflection at 0.9 microns from the eyes of every mamal is well known, Snake eyes not so much.
Tim, what is the purpose of this offshoot of the original post?
Tim Folkerts, Re: your several posts here,
I want to say that despite our “disagreements” in the past that I’ve liked your comments here to date. Thank you for tackling the lengthy post from Richard111; it was a tad technical versus my field exposure to handle.
WRT your comments on infrared vision technology and the complex aspects of illumination and wavelength etcetera, I think the following night-time photo is rather illuminating (sorry; pun):
Clearly, it must be in the near-infrared because it does not reveal any thermal emissions from the animals, and also there is strong reflection from their eyes and their drinking water, which you have shown in a graphic is probably atypical of longer wavelength terrestrial infrared.
(Incidentally, I would really like to see such a graphic that included water in its isotropic exposure to infrared.)
The source of the Zebra photo follows in an advertising link which delves interestingly into different methods of illumination etcetera from that supplier and contrasting photos:
http://www.trailcampro.com/Firsttimebuyersguide.aspx
I’ve long been impressed by near-infrared photography in daylight. Here is a beautiful one with the sun making shadows from the right:
If you zoom in to the birds you can see reflections from their eyes, which are pointing away from the sun!
Bob_FJ says: August 14, 2014 at 3:12 am
geran @ August 14, 12:41 am,
You continue to evade my questions on standing waves, a brief history being:
1) August 12, @ 11:59 pm: “…Incidentally, do you [geran] believe that there are standing waves in the atmosphere in solar wavelengths where there is significant reflection from the surface?”
2) August 13, @ 9:22 am: “…So [geran] are they [solar standing waves] different in stability and whatnot to the standing waves you assert that also exist for infrared spectra in the atmosphere?” [Bold emphasis added today]
3) August 13, 2014 at 1:14 pm: “…Could you [geran] please answer my question?…” [same as in 2) above]
4) August 13, 2014 at 11:51 pm: Repeat; please [geran] answer my question! [ditto]
There are no standing waves except in a carefully constructed resonant cavity.
The electromagnetic field strength is just a potential for energy transfer never any waves in any direction. This a field, just like a gravitational field, that requires no motion and no energy transfer.
-snip- much that has nothing to do with anything
Bob_FJ says: August 14, 2014 at 7:36 am
Tim Folkerts, Re: your several posts here,
I want to say that despite our “disagreements” in the past that I’ve liked your comments here to date. Thank you for tackling the lengthy post from Richard111; it was a tad technical versus my field exposure to handle.
Bob,
You would truly enjoy the videos from a LW FLIR of a cow over yonder taking a shit. Tail goes up then something like mount Vesuvius goes out and splats on the ground. Cow is still munching grass.
tchannon says: August 13, 2014 at 10:05 pm
“…I think you use type 1…”
Correct, Tim. It is an old Russian military 6X scope fitted with a modern Gen 2+ image intensifier tube which works in the IRA band. This is coupled with a Laser illuminator which delivers a tight beam of IR at 780nm and a very clear view of the target.
The point I was trying to make is that reflectance of inbound solar IRA is important, this IR band accounts for ~30% of SI at the surface of the Earth and this should not be dismissed as being small and unimportant.
Will Janoschka @ August 14, 9:10 am
Sounds like an interesting video Will. Do you have a link for it?
What I really want to say: (self snip)
What I have to say to get past Tim: Gosh, this is a really excellent article by Bob, totally factual with absolutely no bias, and Tim is a GREAT moderator.
Bob_FJ says August 14, 2014 at 11:53 am
Will Janoschka @ August 14, 9:10 am
“Sounds like an interesting video Will. Do you have a link for it?”
Bob-fernley-jones,
NO! You will have to do with my description. I know who was running the recorder, while we were both watching the night time cows over yonder. I doubt that he would offer such to the public domain. It was all just a “giggly” part of the job.
geran says: August 14, 2014 at 11:41 pm
“What I really want to say: (self snip)
What I have to say to get past Tim: Gosh, this is a really excellent article by Bob, totally factual with absolutely no bias, and Tim is a GREAT moderator.”
-Grin-. It was Tim’s article not Bob’s. I agree with Tim that all should politely let Bob make more of an ass of himself than he already did. Let me try:
Bob,
Please retract all of your writing in the article and in the comments! None of what you claim has any scientific basis. Electromagnetic radiation (EMR) is never heat, it is a different form of energy.
It is but electromagnetic radiation conforming to all of Maxwell’s equations. EMR flux is always strictly limited by any opposing field strength (FS) at each frequency, and in each direction. There is never an opposing EMR flux. EMR is always relativistic and has no place in thermodynamics.
Any surface with temperature has a field strength that is a function of temperature, frequency, and emissivity. The maximum possible thermal field strength at each frequency is carefully described by Planck’s equation. That function is different at each frequency, each temperature, and each emissivity, which has its own function of temperature, frequency, and direction. Not one thing ever has an omnidirectional FS, try as hard as we can. EMR “flux” (power transfer) is never determined by such field strengh, but always by the vector sum of all field strengths at that frequency and location. Such limitation need not be coherent. The “difference” in potential determines the maximum possible flux./// There are no photon bullets.
Where the energy comes from for EMR depends on the nature of the emitter. Where the absorbed EMR goes depends on the nature of the absorber. Tree leaves thermalize little insolation, all is transformed to chemical energy, the reduction of H2O, and the tremendous generation of latent heat, with no temperature change.
Tim Folkerts says: August 13, 2014 at 10:36 pm
(Will says: “ Scientifically the verbs “to heat” or “to warm” means exactly “add energy to” )
Typically …
“To warm” means to increase in temperature (but has no strict scientific definition that i know of).
“To heat” means to add (net) energy to due to processes dependent on a temperature difference.” (but the term is used in various other ways colloquially by both scientists and non-scientist)
“You can “add energy to” something without warming it or heating it.
You can “heat” something without warming it; you can warm something without heating it.
These three terms are NOT synonymous — not even close.If you really want to avoid sowing your own confusion, you should either be more careful with the words, or (better yet) use symbols & equations to define what you mean.”
No symbols or equations are required, only an attempt of understanding via words, rather than an attempt to confuse. The difference between transfering heat energy and changing temperature is easy to express, but only if you truly wish “not to confuse”. What kind of academic are you?
Tim Folkerts says: August 13, 2014 at 11:06 pm
(Will says: “Thermodynamics does not apply to the microscopic)
“This is true. But at the same time, the microscopic does exist. Atoms exist. Molecules vibrate. EM energy is quantized.”
Bull shit! EM energy is only quantized at the absorber when energy must be provided within a limited time interval, to create something like the photoelectric emission of an electron. Only when the integral of energy over a short time can provide sufficient “action”. Planck’s equation shows only a required limitation of “action” at very high frequencies. This physical need not comply with your fantasy.
“If you don’t want to deal with this level of detail, that is a perfectly legitimate (albeit limited) approach. But if you want to talk about things at the microscopic level, then you can’t just use thermodynamics — you must move into the realm of kinetic theory and statistical mechanics.”
Wrong! Kinetic theory and statistical mechanics have been falsified at every scale. Such may apply in some limited cases as do thermodynamics and Newton’s Laws of motion.
“A single CO2 molecule does NOT produce an EM field uniform in time. The energy comes out in discrete bits of energy — ie the signal *is* noisy. When you try to make a macroscopic theory like “thermodynamics” apply to microscopic phenomena like atoms and molecular vibrations, that is indeed a “misapplication” and “an error”.”
Indeed but every CO2 molecule being at a higher temperature than required by EMR, MUST already (at this time) radiate more outward to lower radiance than is ever absorbed from the below higher radiance.
Will Janoschka @ August 15, 5:03 am,
1) Re: “defecating cow video” I’m disappointed that you have no link. I imagine it would be quite an interesting thermal imaging study.
2) Re: geran @ August 14, 11:41 pm
“-Grin-. It was Tim’s article not Bob’s. I agree with Tim that all should politely let Bob make more of an ass of himself than he already did. Let me try:
Bob,
Please retract all of your writing in the article and in the comments! None of what you claim has any scientific basis. Electromagnetic radiation (EMR) is never heat, it is a different form of energy…”
In an earlier thread you recommended your favourite sweetish red wine from Arkansaw at a measure of a pint. I’ve got a funny feeling that maybe you tippled more than a pint, and even in those inferior smaller U.S. pints (versus real imperial pints) that could be rather a lot.
If you were to carefully re-read the article, you should be able to see that my comments are split into two sections both highlighted with points numbered 1) to 4). The first lot details my sincere understanding of the controversial views of AlecM and Doug Cotton and their band of followers, which from my reading of other commentary, I think seems to be a follow-on from the “Dragon Slayers” book.
The second lot of four points describes what I see as contrary issues with their claims such as; I suggest that it is rather unlikely that down-welling terrestrial IR can be prevented from reaching the surface by forming standing waves with the upwelling waves. (On the unstated popular physics that most matter radiates as a consequence of T and is not directionally discriminatory).
I feel quite cross that you accuse that I don’t know the difference between HEAT (in both the classical and modern physics definitions) and EMR. For instance some ten or twelve years ago I wrote to the McGraw Hill scientific and Britannica encyclopaedias complaining about articles which confused EMR with HEAT, and nonsense like when high cirrus ice clouds form, they rapidly heat the surface. (they both acknowledged and the articles were replaced…. but not much better!)
Or, if you don’t believe me you could perhaps look back on earlier threads.
An apology is in order.
Bob_FJ says: August 15, 2014 at 7:35 am
Will Janoschka @ August 15, 5:03 am,
Bob,
(“Please retract all of your writing in the article and in the comments! None of what you claim has any scientific basis. Electromagnetic radiation (EMR) is never heat, it is a different form of energy…”)
“In an earlier thread you recommended your favourite sweetish red wine from Arkansaw at a measure of a pint. I’ve got a funny feeling that maybe you tippled more than a pint, and even in those inferior smaller U.S. pints (versus real imperial pints) that could be rather a lot.”
So what. Please demonstrate any equivalance or other connection of electromagnetic energy and heat energy?
“If you were to carefully re-read the article, you should be able to see that my comments are split into two sections both highlighted with points numbered 1) to 4). The first lot details my sincere understanding of the controversial views of AlecM and Doug Cotton and their band of followers, which from my reading of other commentary, I think seems to be a follow-on from the “Dragon Slayers” book.
The second lot of four points describes what I see as contrary issues with their claims such as; I suggest that it is rather unlikely that down-welling terrestrial IR can be prevented from reaching the surface by forming standing waves with the upwelling waves. (On the unstated popular physics that most matter radiates as a consequence of T and is not directionally discriminatory).
I feel quite cross that you accuse that I don’t know the difference between HEAT (in both the classical and modern physics definitions) and EMR. For instance some ten or twelve years ago I wrote to the McGraw Hill scientific and Britannica encyclopaedias complaining about articles which confused EMR with HEAT, and nonsense like when high cirrus ice clouds form, they rapidly heat the surface. (they both acknowledged and the articles were replaced…. but not much better!)
Or, if you don’t believe me you could perhaps look back on earlier threads.
An apology is in order.”
I refuse to apologize to a self proclaimed idiot. There is no down-welling anything!
[mod: try and stay the right side of the line]
Will Janoschka,
Further my 7:35 am just above to you,
Perhaps if you don’t want to apologise, a basis for that might be on just one point, if you can quote anything I’ve written that suggests that I do not know that EMR is a different form of energy to HEAT. (regardless of how HEAT is dually defined)
Go ahead: Quote me!
Will Janoschka, @ August 15, 8:18 am
I refuse to apologize to a self proclaimed idiot. There is no down-welling anything!
I find that to be a puzzling statement, for instance do you claim (contrarily to the STANDARD PHYSICS) that radiation is only upwelling as a consequence of the T of matter?
I also await your quotes of me implying that I do not know the difference between EMR and HEAT.
And, why do you regard yourself as the ultimate authority in physics and that all others are idiots? [mod: not too hard please]
Mod,
And Will’s, “I refuse to apologize to a self proclaimed idiot [Bob_FJ].” is not too hard?
Will says: “Bull shit! EM energy is only quantized at the absorber …
So in one corner we have Will.
In the other corner we have me.
And Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantization_of_the_electromagnetic_field)
And Stanford University (http://web.stanford.edu/~rsasaki/AP387/chap3)
And the University of Berlin (http://www.physik.hu-berlin.de/nano/lehre/copy_of_quantenoptik09/Chapter2)
And Washington University (http://physics.wustl.edu/wimd/477EM.pdf)
Graz University of Technology (http://lamp.tu-graz.ac.at/~hadley/ss1/emfield/quantization_em.php)
And MIT (http://web.mit.edu/pshanth/www/casimirpaper_psv.pdf)
“Wrong! Kinetic theory and statistical mechanics have been falsified at every scale.”
Once again, we have you in one corner and everyone else in the other. Kinetic theory and Stat Mech are cornerstones of the modern understanding of gases and thermodynamics. I would love to have specific examples where you believe either of these have been falsified at any scale.
Personally, I choose to embrace the physics of the last 100 years, and to learn from the strange, subtle, fascinating results that have been proven over and over and over again.
Bob FJ says: “I suggest that it is rather unlikely that down-welling terrestrial IR can be prevented from reaching the surface by forming standing waves with the upwelling waves.”
It goes even beyond this. A standing wave *IS* two equal traveling waves heading in opposite directions. EVEN IF we use the language of continuous EM waves, we STILL have two waves in opposite direction. The downward wave does not “prevent” the upward wave. The two waves simple pass through each other unaffected (the superposition principle for EM waves).
Basically, we get the same result either way.
1) There are “n” photons heading down and “n+Δn” heading up, with a net upward flow of Δn.
2) There is a EM wave of amplitude “A” heading down and another EM wave of amplitude “A+ΔA” heading up, with a net EM wave of ΔA heading up.
Bob_FJ says: August 15, 2014 at 8:33 am
“Will Janoschka, Further my 7:35 am just above to you,
Perhaps if you don’t want to apologise, a basis for that might be on just one point, if you can quote anything I’ve written that suggests that I do not know that EMR is a different form of energy to HEAT. (regardless of how HEAT is dually defined)”
I added the “idiot’ only from your action, a “request for apology” with absolutely no defense of opinion or position. Fantasy only!
Go ahead: Quote me!
OK! You asked fot it, Lukewarmer!
Bob_FJ says: August 12, 2014 at 11:59 pm
“The context is different though, being mainly in the consideration of:
1) complex conditions in the atmosphere which discourage EMR resonance and,
2) net heat transfer via EMR.
Here is evidence of your misunderstanding of the differences and similarity of EMR and heat transfer. Electromagnetic energy need never be transformed to HEAT energy.
“Sure, reflection is a classic case where wave nodes are in phase, but surface reflection in the infrared is negligible and anyway, there is no heat transfer”.
Here again you refuse to define “wave”, ” nodes”, “phase”, “reflection”, or “heat transfer” You spout only with the intent to confuse! NO standing waves in broadband thermal EMR, ever!
Bob_FJ says: August 13, 2014 at 9:22 am
“Briefly, although I’m puzzled how you reached such conclusions I beg your indulgence to hear:
• I think the IPCC is tantamount to committing crimes against humanity.
• I think that the ‘Dragon Slayers’ and others I discussed in my article may be peddling controversial science which does not help the sceptical broadstream.”
So here you admit you agree with the Climastrologists claim of back radiation. The unpaid folk at
PSI claim “no back radiation”. Although PSI has no coherent explaniation, they are correct. All is carefully documented and explained in James Clerk Maxwell’s two volume, “Treatise on Electricity and Magnetism.” All is relativistic energy transport. EMR has nothing to do with thermodynamics,
kinetic theory, or stastical mechanics.
Bob_FJ says: August 14, 2014 at 3:12 am
“This relates to various “slayer” claims that down-welling infrared radiation forms a wall of standing waves which prevent absorption of that portion of EMR by the surface. Your opening salvo on that matter lacked relevant context and was unhelpful:”
This is but an attempt to explain an “unknown”. Bob, you express only an intent to confuse!
Bob, You demand knowledge, but accept fantasy, if numerically correct!
Bob_FJ says: August 13, 2014 at 3:09 pm
“You need to understand that the areas below the two Planck curves are not void of energy. Furthermore, the difference between the magenta and dark blue curves clearly shows that power levels are a function of the amplitude of the individual wave frequencies. You need to take into account that there are a range of wave amplitudes at each frequency and thus some of those amplitudes in the colder body will be greater than some in the hotter body. (= a positive potential difference).”
There is never energy expressed in any Planck equation. Only a radiance or potential. All EMR energy transport is determined by the “difference” in potential. Nothing else ever happens.
As a flux, Joules/(sec x meter^2) has none of your stastical BS integrated over a whole second, and a whole m^2. We have descovered no such instrumentation. All you claim is but hand waving fantasy.
Testing html tag for this site previous attempt failed
Tricky isn’t it. Also affected by whether you are logged in.
I raised the point on string theorist Motl’s blog and received a comment from a reader there:
“Nik FromNyc • a day ago
Speaking of climate, for me a rather cryptic Sky Dragon related post has appeared on the top European blog by Tallbloak, about new laws of thermodynamics:
“It is impossible for down-welling EMR to be absorbed by a warmer surface because it would contravene Law 2.”
https://tallbloke.wordpress.com…
Comment?
CIPig Nik FromNyc • 21 hours ago
Nonsense – easily refuted by anyone with a long wave IR sensor. Bloke may be tall, but he doesn’t understand the 2nd law of thermo.”
Tchannon @ August 16, 3:43 am
“ Tricky isn’t it. Also affected by whether you are logged in.”
• Yes, I find it tricky because unlike many sites, this one does not list the usable HTML tags as far as I can see. By testing I’ve found that italics bold and I think from memory
strikethroughall work ok, but not the additional one I tested today. What is this logging-in thing you mention? Into what and how/where, and why would it apply to the less usual HTML that I tried but not the regular stuff?• You were savage on snipping a comment by ‘geran’ that was quite rude and crude but which actually did not trouble me much, but rather made me smile. On the other hand Will J’ has implied that I’m a liar and has described me as an idiot etcetera, which I find far more offensive, yet there were no mod-snips, just a mild caution. In his latest insult (@ 2:20 am) did you notice that he short-quotes me and distorts the context? For example, his first corruption of what I wrote related not to my understanding of the difference between HEAT and EMR, but was pointing to geran’s claim of standing waves proven in the lab etcetera as not applicable to the atmosphere.
• I don’t get it. Does Will J’ have a special protected status? His recent tirade is an outrageous distortion of what I’ve written and I can’t be bothered to wade through all of it.
Tim Folkerts @ August 15, @ 8:08 pm and 8:16 pm,
Thank you Tim for providing some balance
NikFromNYC says:
August 16, 2014 at 4:45 am
“I raised the point on string theorist Motl’s blog and received a comment from a reader there:”
Motl is vey good at “what may be”, This must alway be considered, seldom accepted. His theory, fantasy, seems have no basis in this physical, with many measurements to attempt to determine what “is” right here right now. Motl has no illusion of kinetic everytning, or stastical BS promoted by your Climastrologists.
“Nik FromNyc • a day ago
Speaking of climate, for me a rather cryptic Sky Dragon related post has appeared on the top European blog by Tallbloak, about new laws of thermodynamics: “It is impossible for down-welling EMR to be absorbed by a warmer surface because it would contravene Law 2.”
https://tallbloke.wordpress.com…
Comment?
There is no down-welling anything. A complete intentional FRAUD brought about by your Climastrologists, for financial and political gain. A criminal offense.
Please go pet on another that truly requires your attention. This is called being nice!
Further my 6:02 am,
When I wrote:
“[Will J’s] recent tirade is an outrageous distortion of what I’ve written and I can’t be bothered to wade through all of it.”
I have actually read through it all several times and I’m gobsmacked. What I meant to say is that I can’t be bothered to wade through with a response to all of it
Bob_FJ says: August 16, 2014 at 6:02 am
“• You were savage on snipping a comment by ‘geran’ that was quite rude and crude but which actually did not trouble me much, but rather made me smile.”
Tim does not like rude and false.
“On the other hand Will J’ has implied that I’m a liar and has described me as an idiot etcetera, which I find far more offensive, yet there were no mod-snips, just a mild caution. In his latest insult (@ 2:20 am) did you notice that he short-quotes me and distorts the context?”
I gave no of indication of a liar only an an adjunct to your writing wich demands an apology
of what you cannot defend. A true definition of “idiot”
“For example, his first corruption of what I wrote related not to my understanding of the difference between HEAT and EMR, but was pointing to geran’s claim of standing waves proven in the lab etcetera as not applicable to the atmosphere.”
Please decribe your distinction of EMR and HEAT on, or anywhere around this planet?
• I don’t get it. Does Will J’ have a special protected status? His recent tirade is an outrageous distortion of what I’ve written and I can’t be bothered to wade through all of it.
Please show that anything of your fantasy can affect the temperature anywhere on the surface of this planet.
Bob_FJ says:
August 16, 2014 at 6:25 am
Further my 6:02 am,
When I wrote:
“[Will J’s] recent tirade is an outrageous distortion of what I’ve written and I can’t be bothered to wade through all of it.”
I have actually read through it all several times and I’m gobsmacked. What I meant to say is that I can’t be bothered to wade through with a response to all of it
OK /bob-fernley-jones. Please point out even one scientific error in my posts. I admit I have made countless errors in the past 50 years. All rectified by a rapid admission of misunderstanding.
What the [mod: snip] are you trying to do?
Will, your response was just goofy and factually unresponsive. If the extremely widely accepted greenhouse effect happens to be wrong, in no way would that constitute all caps FRAUD any more than if the sky was found to be blue due to some other mechanism than selective light scattering. Calling it a fraud severely detracts from exposure of blunt fraud out of the hockey stick team such as the bladeless input data of the latest Marcott 2013 hockey stick. From your response I assume your claim of criminal fraud also applies to outspoken skeptic Roy Spenser when he stated:
“Despite the fact that downwelling IR from the sky can be measured, and amounts to a level (~300 W/m2) that can be scarcely be ignored; the neglect of which would totally screw up weather forecast model runs if it was not included; and would lead to VERY cold nights if it didn’t exist; and can be easily measured directly with a handheld IR thermometer pointed at the sky (because an IR thermometer measures the IR-induced temperature change of the surface of a thermopile, QED)… Please stop the “no greenhouse effect” stuff. It’s making us skeptics look bad.”
But Will, where *is* the fraud? Is it contained in the IR detector designs? The greenhouse effect was established a century before contemporary climate alarm, so it’s a bit late to blame it on contemporary scammers. Al Gore could hardly hope to find a better set of mavericks to stereotype climate model skeptics with than retrograde back to the future claims of fraud by century old physicists.
“Please point out even one scientific error in my posts.”
Scientifically the verbs “to heat” or “to warm” means exactly “add energy to”
Kinetic theory and statistical mechanics have been falsified at every scale.
There are no photon bullets.
But much more common are confusing, half-correct statements. The two main ones I tend to see are 1) denying the value of microscopic understanding, and 2) statements that blur the distinction between “Q” (“heat” = the process of transferring energy) and “U” (“internal energy” = thermal energy of an object).
Some examples …
“… thermal EMR is always spontaneous, always its transfer of electromagnetic energy is powered only by the sensible heat “entropy” of the emitter”
First, the word “entropy” is completely out of place — entropy cannot power anything.
Second, there cannot be “heat of the emitter”, Q. The EMR is powered by the internal energy, U, of the emitter.
Finally, if you truly meant “powered by the heat, Q, (ie the energy being transferred from the emitter to the absorber)” , then you are saying that the EMR is heat!
“In an open system it [EMR] is one of only few ways of dispatching entropy over long distances.”
In classical thermodynamics, the “dispatching” of entropy is calculated by
ΔS = Q/T.
Thus “dispatching” entropy is accomplished by heat, and you just said EMR is one way of dispatching heat, so EMR is one form of heat.
On different topic where you might be technically correct but wrong for all practical purposes …
“There is illumination from the atmosphere at every wavelength even at night. The reflection at 0.9 microns … “
Yes, there is in principle light @ 0.9 microns, even at night. But the emissions @ 0.9 microns from room temperature objects is about the same as the emission of 0.7 micron (ie red light) from boiling water. No one would say that boiling water provides “illumination” of visible light!
oops .. I didn’t me the end of that last post to be bold. I must have left in the tags from some intermediate edit. 😦
[mod: not quite, wordpress got you, confusion over the closing bold tag so it sanitised automatically but omitted to close the tag, then started bold again where it didn’t exist.
Right, okay, I give up. –Tim]
NikFromNYC August 16, 3:35 pm,
It beats me why Will J’ denies that Pyrgeometers do actually indicate that infrared radiation goes indiscriminatorally up and down, despite various claims of inaccuracy. And of course, it is very well demonstrated that such EMR radiates isotropically, (hemispherically in the case of a flat body), and that light waves are easily shown to pass through each other, and, and ….. (where to stop?).
Your criticism of his use of “fraud” and whatnot also highlights an “attitude problem”, but Nick, please be careful; I’ve been cautioned thus: [mod: not too hard please] (on Will).
I’m trying hard to not snip or naughty step.
The reality of Pyrgeometers has been made very clear by me on the Talkshop without significant objection.
These show a heat flow from ground upwards of between 0 and ~150 Watts/sqm night and day dependent primarily on water content in the atmosphere. (upper limit at the site used is more like 110, wet atmosphere in England)
External to the actual instrument unwise people add on (literally) a static temperature field computed from the body temperature of the instrument and publish that. This is shown in the official documents of some pyrgeometer manufacturers. This manufacturer seems to have become dominant in the market.
Those are simple passive instruments. Better active instruments are rare. Spectrally resolving instruments seem to be hen’s teeth but such an instrument is the only way of providing a primary AGW dataset, moreover would have to be proper duplex, that I have not even heard about.
Similarly cryogenic instruments, if you really want to count photons… where are they?
Anyone thinking this is casual, I had to workaround copyright by producing a drawing. Similarly actual data has to be unearthed, the software written to decode stuff. Many hours goes into this stuff.
This is the only decoded data for the CNR4 so far. this is a duplex instrument looking both up and down, pyranometers and pyrgeometers.
I have a mountain of data. Doing things takes time and effort.
Bob_FJ:
I am tonight delightfully attacking skeptical voices, see here, on a less moderated blog.
I hate that your voice have been quenched.
MOD: YOU HAVE JUST SHOT ME IN THE HEART BY ACTIVELY DENYING MY FOE THE RIGHT TO CONFRONT ME, in kind.
No, moderator.
KILL YOURSELF, moderator.
LET PEOPLE TALK!!!!
Let science flow.
Or were you hired, MODERATOR…who the [snip] is a MODERATOR????????
NO…YOU are NOT a part of our future conversation.
You are just and [snip]
STOP PUSHING.
DIE [snip].
My good posts don’t show up because of BASEMENT ASSHOLE.
Love is censored.
O.K. I think I’m good:
“Life consists of rare individual moments of the highest significance and countless intervals in which at best the phantoms of those moments hover about us. Love, spring, a beautiful melody, the mountains, the moon, the sea – they all speak truly to our heart only once: if they ever do in fact truly find speech. For many people never experience these moments at all but are themselves intervals and pauses in the symphony of real life. – Frederich Nietzsche (“Human, All Too Human” 1878)
“My supreme game is to imagine myself dead, gnawed by worms. I find it excellent training, and have been doing this as far back as I can remember.” – Salvador Dali (“The Unspeakable Confessions of Salvador Dali” 1976; Dali had a younger brother of the same name who died a year before he was born, so he saw his own name on a gravestone.)
“The continued product of seminators by generation: the continual production of semen by distillation: the futility of triumph or protest or vindication: the insanity of extrolled virtue: the lethargy of nescient matter: the apathy of the stars.” – James Joyce (“Ulysses” 1929)
“Anyone who isn’t confused really doesn’t understand the situation.” – Edward R. Murrow
Just Physics:
“Here is a very massive black hole, some two and a half million times as massive as the sun, sitting in the middle of our own Milky Way galaxy. – Brian Greene (“The Elegant Universe” 1999)
“The rainbow comes and goes,
And lovely is the rose.” – William Wordsworth (“Ode. Intimations of Immortality” 1807)
“The incredible complex-unity of the evolutionary process – staggering, endless in its variety – why? Where is it going? etc., etc. The old questions and then the laughter of amused, ecstatic acceptance. Too much! Too great! Never mind! It can’t be figured out. Love it in gratitude and accept!” – Timothy Leary (In “Psychedelic Review “ 1966)
Then I get mad again:
“Greatness, in the last analysis, is largely bravery – courage in escaping from old ideas and old standards and respectable ways of doing things. This is one of the chief elements in what we vaguely call capacity. If you do not dare differ from your associates and teachers you will never be great or your life sublime. You may be the happier as a result, or you may be miserable. Each of us is great insofar as we perceive and act on the infinite possibilities which lie undiscovered and unrecognized about us.” – James Harvey Robinson
“The imitator dooms himself to hopeless mediocrity.” – Emerson (“The Divinity School Address”)
“A man cannot be extraordinary without being unlike others.” – Napoleon Bonaparte
Tim Folkerts says: August 17, 2014 at 12:46 am
(“Please point out even one scientific error in my posts.
Scientifically the verbs “to heat” or “to warm” means exactly “add energy to”
Kinetic theory and statistical mechanics have been falsified at every scale.
There are no photon bullets.”
“But much more common are confusing, half-correct statements. The two main ones I tend to see are 1) denying the value of microscopic understanding, and 2) statements that blur the distinction between “Q” (“heat” = the process of transferring energy) and “U” (“internal energy” = thermal energy of an object).”
Q (the noun) can be one form of internal energy, sensible heat or latent heat. Other forms of internal energy are momuntum (in all forms), chemical energy (latent heat is part of that), electrical energy (in all forms), and sometimes a differential pressure!
The verb form of “heat” is the only reference to any process. Throw away your post modern non-science. I use the microscopic and stastical to understand “noise”, the exact limitation that Boltzmann placed on his constant (k).
“Some examples …”
(“… thermal EMR is always spontaneous, always its transfer of electromagnetic energy is powered only by the sensible heat “entropy” of the emitter”)
“First, the word “entropy” is completely out of place — entropy cannot power anything.”
Entropy only collects at the lowest temperature of a closed system. It is precisely that internal energy divided by that lowest temperature. All this entropy can and does do work to a yet lower temperature, over yonder. This is evidenced by the interesting weather on this planet.
“Second, there cannot be “heat of the emitter”, Q. The EMR is powered by the internal energy, U, of the emitter.the noun”
With no alternate power source, thermal electromagnetic radiation is only powered by` (noun)sensible heat, the only connection to temperature via “specific heat”.
“Finally, if you truly meant “powered by the heat, Q, (ie the energy being transferred from the emitter to the absorber)” , then you are saying that the EMR is heat!”
Only in your fantasy. EMR is an energy transfer of only electromagnetic energy, never is (noun) heat. What what the absorber does with the with that absorbed electromagnetic energy is completely up to the absorber.
(“In an open system it [EMR] is one of only few ways of dispatching entropy over long distances.”)
“In classical thermodynamics, the “dispatching” of entropy is calculated by ΔS = Q/T. Thus “dispatching” entropy is accomplished by heat, and you just said EMR is one way of dispatching heat, so EMR is one form of heat.”
The correct form for “generating entropy” from energy, mathematically is ΔS = ΔQ/ΔT. However
S = Q/T by the definition of T. The exact same physical units as your illusionary photons. Dispatching entropy can only be done by an open system, such as the Sun, or this Earth and its atmosphere. What a wonderful planet, except for the fraudsters Tim!
NIk is on moderation.
Tim Folkerts says: August 17, 2014 at 12:46 am
wj:(“Please point out even one scientific error in my posts.
Scientifically the verbs “to heat” or “to warm” means exactly “add energy to”
Kinetic theory and statistical mechanics have been falsified at every scale.
There are no photon bullets.”
“But much more common are confusing, half-correct statements. The two main ones I tend to see are 1) denying the value of microscopic understanding, and 2) statements that blur the distinction between “Q” (“heat” = the process of transferring energy) and “U” (“internal energy” = thermal energy of an object).”
Q (the noun) can be one form of internal energy, sensible heat or latent heat. Other forms of internal energy are momuntum (in all forms), chemical energy (latent heat is part of that), electrical energy (in all forms), and sometimes a differential pressure!
The verb form of “heat” is the only reference to any process. Throw away your post modern non-science. I use the microscopic and stastical to understand “noise”, the exact limitation that Boltzmann placed on his constant (k).
“Some examples …”
wj: (“… thermal EMR is always spontaneous, always its transfer of electromagnetic energy is powered only by the sensible heat “entropy” of the emitter”)
“First, the word “entropy” is completely out of place — entropy cannot power anything.”
Entropy only collects at the lowest temperature of a closed system. It is precisely that internal energy divided by that lowest temperature. All this entropy can and does do work to a yet lower temperature, over yonder. This is evidenced by the interesting weather on this planet.
“Second, there cannot be “heat of the emitter”, Q. The EMR is powered by the internal energy, U, of the emitter.the noun”
With no alternate power source, thermal electromagnetic radiation is only powered by` (noun)sensible heat, the only connection to temperature via “specific heat”.
“Finally, if you truly meant “powered by the heat, Q, (ie the energy being transferred from the emitter to the absorber)” , then you are saying that the EMR is heat!”
Only in your fantasy. EMR is an energy transfer of only electromagnetic energy, never is (noun) heat. What what the absorber does with the with that absorbed electromagnetic energy is completely up to the absorber.
wj:(“In an open system it [EMR] is one of only few ways of dispatching entropy over long distances.”)
“In classical thermodynamics, the “dispatching” of entropy is calculated by ΔS = Q/T. Thus “dispatching” entropy is accomplished by heat, and you just said EMR is one way of dispatching heat, so EMR is one form of heat.”
The correct form for “generating entropy” from energy, mathematically is ΔS = ΔQ/ΔT. However
S = Q/T by the definition of T. The exact same physical units as your illusionary photons. Dispatching entropy can only be done by an open system, such as the Sun, or this Earth and its atmosphere. What a wonderful planet, except for the fraudsters Tim!
NikFromNYC says: August 16, 2014 at 3:35 pm
I assume your claim of criminal fraud also applies to outspoken skeptic Roy Spenser when he stated:
“Despite the fact that downwelling IR from the sky can be measured, and amounts to a level (~300 W/m2) that can be scarcely be ignored; the neglect of which would totally screw up weather forecast model runs if it was not included; and would lead to VERY cold nights if it didn’t exist; and can be easily measured directly with a handheld IR thermometer pointed at the sky (because an IR thermometer measures the IR-induced temperature change of the surface of a thermopile, QED)… Please stop the “no greenhouse effect” stuff. It’s making us skeptics look bad.”
Roy Spenser, Anthony Wassup, and obviously you are not sceptics. You are likewarmers. You promote all that the IPCC claims, including the fake application of Schuster-Schwarzschild two stream approximation to a nonluminous atmosphere. This was first used by Carl Sagan in his 1960 thesus, with regard to Venus. The start of post modern non-science. You will not find even one college textbook prior to 1966, that claims bidirectional thermal radiation can be. This is the FRAUD, your fraud, for promoting non-science. You could learn science if you would try. The first rule, challange everything, even the punctuation! Learning does not mean passing a test.
“But Will, where *is* the fraud? Is it contained in the IR detector designs?”
Not at all, they only radiate outward when directed toward a lower temperature mass. The opposing radiance or field strength of the sky always limits such outward flux in an analytic manner. There is no radiative flux in the direction toward the higher temperature detector.
From the analysis an approximation of the opposing temperature may be estimated. From this estimate a fake black-body radiance may be derived. This is then presented by fraudsters like Spencer, not as radiance, but instead as radiation or even worse “back radiation”. No such radiation has ever been detected.
“The greenhouse effect was established a century before contemporary climate alarm, so it’s a bit late to blame it on contemporary scammers.”
That old wives tale of greenhouse something never even considered thermal electromagnetic radiation in opposing directions. At that time JC Maxwell wrote three books carefully describing how such cannot happen. This is century old science!
“Al Gore could hardly hope to find a better set of mavericks to stereotype climate model skeptics with than retrograde back to the future claims of fraud by century old physicists.”
Please present any century old physicist that has made any claims of thermal electromagnetic radiative flux similar to the outragious claims of the IPCC. Al Gore has no science, only a good business plan. There is no down-welling anything. A complete intentional FRAUD brought about by your Climastrologists, for financial and political gain. A criminal offense.
——————————————————————————————————————
tchannon says:
August 17, 2014 at 4:25 am
NIk is on moderation.
Thank you. I think Bob_FJ does wish to understand, and has improtant questions,
like the claim of standing waves.
tchannon says: August 17, 2014 at 3:57 am
Anyone thinking this is casual, I had to workaround copyright by producing a drawing. Similarly actual data has to be unearthed, the software written to decode stuff. Many hours goes into this stuff.
This is the only decoded data for the CNR4 so far. this is a duplex instrument looking both up and down, pyranometers and pyrgeometers.
I have a mountain of data. Doing things takes time and effort.
Indeed, question all of the sales crap! If you can, find a worker bee, (engineer) Buy him a beer, he can explain all, including the sales crap.
Similarly cryogenic instruments, if you really want to count photons… where are they?
They are tremendously expensive most are still classified as “destroy before reading’.
Go find some Russian engineers, buy vodka, or Millers. These guys know much more than whatever has been classified. To them it is a sport!
Please observe this photo of quite rare competence.
http//:huffpost.com/gen/1969430/thumbs/n-IRAQ-AIRSTRIKES-large570.jpg
This is not a launch or take off. It is an aborted landing. At that point this F-18 pilot had all fingers and toeses crossed. It is only the trained in competence that allowed him to survive.
sorry http://i1.huffpost.com/gen/1969430/thumbs/n-IRAQ-AIRSTRIKES-large570.jpg
This is not a launch or take off. It is an aborted landing. At that point this F-18 pilot had all fingers and toeses crossed. It is only the trained in competence that allowed him to survive.
tchannon @ August 17, 3:57 am,
I hope you have not misunderstood my article WRT pyrgeometers! (I now get the impression that maybe you do)
My item 4) on the position of the “Dragon Slayers” and their ilk stated, (and I still believe this to be a true statement):
“4. Back-radiation does not exist. (and pyrgeometers tell fibs)
The counter arguments that I put forward included no mention of pyrgeometers, (because I was aware that it was a controversial issue), but the following points were relevant, (and I continue to think so):
“2. It is well established that EMR is spherically isotropic in the atmosphere (radiating equally in infinite directions) and established thermodynamic laws do not allow it to “know” where it is going. (or e.g. how to avoid going somewhere hotter)
“4. The mathematics of net heat transfer via EMR is unaffected by consideration of whether or not EMR is absorbed by hotter matter and then reemitted back towards the colder matter.
The fact is that some respected lukewarmers (such as Roy Spencer) do believe that there is some value in existing determinations of down-welling terrestrial infrared. Let me suggest that if the current modelling methodology is too inaccurate, that it might be relegated to a controversial POV.
But, if someone is trying to prove that such radiation in the atmosphere is only hemispherically upwards then might I ask by what mechanism could that be? Do photons respond negatively to gravity? /jest
The notion of backradiation is not assimilable by thermodynamics. Why bother to use it? Forget this superfluous and misleading concept, use Q = s (Th ^ 4 – ^ Tc 4). Forget IPCC neophlogistics, GHG forcing and other pseudo-scientific fabrications.
Then we can start thinking about the effect of adding CO2 on climate.
Bob_FJ says: August 17, 2014 at 8:16 am
tchannon @ August 17, 3:57 am,
TC “I hope you have not misunderstood my article WRT pyrgeometers! (I now get the impression that maybe you do) My item 4) on the position of the “Dragon Slayers” and their ilk stated, (and I still believe this to be a true statement):
“4. Back-radiation does not exist. (and pyrgeometers tell fibs)”
BFJ “The counter arguments that I put forward included no mention of pyrgeometers, (because I was aware that it was a controversial issue), but the following points were relevant, (and I continue to think so):“2. It is well established that EMR is spherically isotropic in the atmosphere (radiating equally in infinite directions)”
Never!! eletromagnetic radiation (flux) is always limited by opposing radiance or field strength as per Maxwell’s equations. This is the definitive difference in electromagnetic potential and always determines the maximum radiative flux in the direction of lower temperature.
“Established thermodynamic laws do not allow it to “know” where it is going. (or e.g. how to avoid going somewhere hotter). Thermodynamics has nothing to do with relativistic EMR. Totaly different constraints, with zero proper time.
“The mathematics of net heat transfer via EMR is unaffected by consideration of whether or not EMR is absorbed by hotter matter and then reemitted back towards the colder matter.”
This is complete nonsense. Thermal electromagnetic flux has nothing to do with anything thermodynamic.
“The fact is that some respected lukewarmers (such as Roy Spencer) do believe that there is some value in existing determinations of down-welling terrestrial infrared. Let me suggest that if the current modelling methodology is too inaccurate, that it might be relegated to a controversial POV.” But, if someone is trying to prove that such radiation in the atmosphere is only hemispherically upwards then might I ask by what mechanism could that be? Do photons respond negatively to gravity?”
Thermal electromagnetic flux is only and always in the direction of lower temperature, or lower field strength. Gravitation potential has a wee effect on velocity, never on flux.
phi says: August 17, 2014 at 10:05 am
The notion of backradiation is not assimilable by thermodynamics. Why bother to use it? Forget this superfluous and misleading concept, use Q = s (Th ^ 4 – ^ Tc 4). Forget IPCC neophlogistics, GHG forcing and other pseudo-scientific fabrications.
Then we can start thinking about the effect of adding CO2 on .climate.
There is no measurable effect. If anything ever in this atmosphere changes, the total atmospheric water vapor automagically compensates. Proving that this planet was not designed or constructed by earthlings. What a wonderful planet!
phi @ August 17, 10:05 am
But your …(Th ^ 4 – ^ Tc 4) works with consideration of either:
a) Your implication that EMR is directionally discriminating and only goes “upwards”, OR.
b) Downward EMR exists and is absorbed by the target and then reemitted “upward”s.
In other words there is no contravention of law 2 in either case.
BTW, what are your rules for lateral stuff at say plus or minus a few degrees from horizontal?
Ha comprende?
Will Janoschka says:
August 17, 2014 at 4:34 am
Q (the noun) can be one form of internal energy, sensible heat or latent heat. Other forms of internal energy are momentum (in all forms), chemical energy (latent heat is part of that), electrical energy (in all forms), and sometimes a differential pressure!
The EMR is powered by the internal energy, U, of the emitter.the noun”
EMR is an energy transfer of only electromagnetic energy, never is (noun) heat
Heat is Kinetic energy, momentum = mass x velocity
Radiation energy also depends on its velocity. As do sound and current electricity. They are dynamic forms of energy.
Unlike chemical, latent, nuclear, gravitational and static electricity ( charge ) which have energy depending on position. They are static forms of energy.
Radiation is dynamic energy like heat. Most other forms of energy are static.
Will says: “Q (the noun) can be one form of internal energy “
No! That is absolutely inconsistent with the use of “Q” in thermodynamics — heat, Q, is NOT a form of internal energy, U. Q is never a part of any system. It is ONLY a process that transfers energy from one system to another.
You seem to be thinking of the part of U that might be called “thermal energy”. This thermal energy, which we might label ‘U(thermal)’ but never ‘Q’, would include the translational, rotational, and vibrational KE of individual particles within the system.
Right. I’m back.
Blimey.
What is it about thermodynamics that sends people into a hissy fit with each other?
Will J: stop labelling people you don’t know.
Nik: Stop EFFING and BLINDING
Tim C: Take a well earned break, I’ll cover this one.
tallbloke says: August 17, 2014 at 7:45 pm
“Right. I’m back.
Blimey.
What is it about thermodynamics that sends people into a hissy fit with each other?”
It seems to be the differernt POVs
Pre-modern physical thermodynamics Based on mesurement.
Post-modern physical thermodynamics Based on kinetic theory and statistical mechanics.
Both having been falsified at every scale.
“Will J: stop labelling people you don’t know.”
OK!
Roger Clague says: August 17, 2014 at 2:48 pm
Will Janoschka says:August 17, 2014 at 4:34 am
(“Q (the noun) can be one form of internal energy, sensible heat or latent heat. Other forms of internal energy are momentum (in all forms), chemical energy (latent heat is part of that), electrical energy (in all forms), and sometimes a differential pressure!”)
“The EMR is powered by the internal energy, U, of the emitter.the noun”
Thermal EMR is only powered by the mass sensible “heat”, never any other form of internal energy like Newtonian “momentum”. Sensible heat is exactly
Qsh = mass x specific heat x temperature. The only relationship between (noun) heat and temperature. The temperature (difference) provides the potential, sensible heat provides the flux.
EMR reduces both temperature and entropy of that mass.
(“EMR is an energy transfer of only electromagnetic energy, never is (noun) heat”)
“Heat is Kinetic energy, momentum = mass x velocity”
So you mistakenly claim. Newtonian momentum is always a vector, (Noun) heat is but a property of that mass, never a vector. Temperature cannot be a vector!
“Radiation energy also depends on its velocity.”
So you mistakenly claim. 10 micron EMR has the same flux, whether propagating through vacuum or germanium at 1/4 the velocity.
“As do sound and current electricity. They are dynamic forms of energy.”
Not at all, They all are the rate of transfer of energy (verb), never energy (noun) itself,.
-snip continued BS-
Tim Folkerts says: August 17, 2014 at 6:59 pm
Will says: (“Q (the noun) can be one form of internal energy “)
“No! That is absolutely inconsistent with the use of “Q” in thermodynamics — heat, Q, is NOT a form of internal energy, U. Q is never a part of any system. It is ONLY a process that transfers energy from one system to another.”
Now we get down to pre-modern physics, and post modern physics.
If Q is only a process, please define temperature of a mass?
Way before your were born, the symbol (Q) was established as a symbol for the noun “heat”
both sensible and latent, a property of that mass, the ability to do work. You insist that “heat” can be only used as a verb like “to work”! This is nonsense, what powers the work? You may not arbitrarily change the meaning or symbol, of anything, especially a property. This is a deliberate attempt to sow confusion. I know what you teach Tim. I feel sorry for your students!
I feel sorry for my students too — I waste way too much time responding to the silliness that people like you write and that leaves less time to prep for my real job.
Rather than simply boldly asserting your position, please find EVEN ONE reference to support your position — that says that heat, Q, is anything like “a property of that mass” as you claimed. I would suggest something from between 1930 (when to suggest thermodynamics was completed) and 1960 (so it will still be before I was born). I would suggest a textbook or research paper in physics, although engineering or chemistry would also be fine.
With any luck, this post will be the end of this thread (or at least this sub-thread), because no such reference will be found.
Tim Folkerts says: August 18, 2014 at 3:44 am
“I feel sorry for my students too — I waste way too much time responding to the silliness that people like you write and that leaves less time to prep for my real job.
Rather than simply boldly asserting your position, please find EVEN ONE reference to support your position — that says that heat, Q, is anything like “a property of that mass” as you claimed. I would suggest something from between 1930 (when to suggest thermodynamics was completed) and 1960 (so it will still be before I was born). I would suggest a textbook or research paper in physics, although engineering or chemistry would also be fine.”
I need no reference. Please post any text (Authority) published prior to 1960, the birth of post modern non-science, that agrees with with any of your claims. There is no need for fake science,
except to confuse defenseless students.
BTW, drop “kinetic theory of everything” and “statistical nonsense”.
Tim Folkerts says: August 18, 2014 at 3:44 am nothing!
If Q is only a process, please define temperature of a mass?
Tim Folkerts @ August 18, 3:44 am,
Thank you again Tim for providing balance, although I have some sympathy with Will J’s comments on Q (HEAT) which I think (if I’ve untangled his stuff OK) is more aligned to let’s call it the classical view of HEAT. I don’t know if “youngster-engineers/chemists” have yet fully adopted the current physics definition that you apply, but might I suggest that when talking of HEAT it might be prudent if context/discipline is noted alongside.
For instance, this respected source:
http://www.dummies.com/how-to/content/how-to-calculate-heat-emission-from-a-blackbody-us.html
Gives that HEAT (Q) is a function of T^4 per S-B law (without any difference in potential) although, true, other sources do use other definitions and symbols.
(Sorry, but I guess you will get what I mean in this quick light vein)
Further my 5:44 am,
In other words, are you both being pedantic about philosophical semantics?
But, I condescend that I might be biased as an aging septuagenarian engineer, and Will J is I suspect also an aging engineer, but at least I indulge in decent Oz wine of euro heritage, and not that Arkensaw muscadine sweetish red stuff that he measures in pints.
Will Janoschka (August 17, 2014 at 11:02 am),
“There is no measurable effect.”
From additional CO2 ?
Maybe at the surface, but if there is something observed, it might be this:
Bob_FJ (August 17, 2014 at 1:20 pm),
Q=s(Th^4-Tc^4) qualifies radiative heat fluxes whatever direction or angle (an integral over solid angle), I do not understand your point.
The IPCC neophlogistic theory considers backradiations as a heating power (Qc=sTc^4) while it can only reduce radiative cooling (Th^4 – Tc^4). The big difference is that the ratio
convective/radiative fluxes is in relality modified and thus the temperature gradient is altered. It is likely that this is the explanation
of the divegence between modeled and observed tropospheric profiles in the graph above. In any case the
concept of GHG forcing derived from the notion of backradiation violates the second law.
Bob_FJ says: August 18, 2014 at 5:44 am
Tim Folkerts @ August 18, 3:44 am,
“Thank you again Tim for providing balance, although I have some sympathy with Will J’s comments on Q (HEAT) which I think (if I’ve untangled his stuff OK) is more aligned to let’s call it the classical view of HEAT. I don’t know if “youngster-engineers/chemists” have yet fully adopted the current physics definition that you apply, but might I suggest that when talking of HEAT it might be prudent if context/discipline is noted alongside.
For instance, this respected source:
http://www.dummies.com/how-to/content/how-to-calculate-heat-emission-from-a-blackbody-us.html
Gives that HEAT (Q) is a function of T^4 per S-B law (without any difference in potential) although, true, other sources do use other definitions and symbols.
Ok Bob, perhaps some progress at understanding.
From your reference they define HEAT (Q) as only the rate of energy transfer, ie power.
That may be heating (transfer) (verb)To heat, never never that energy itself, called. HEAT.
Heat (noun) is energy, of a mass, never a rate of energy transfer (power)
Heat (noun) is always the energy that powers (supplies energy) for such transfer of power (Joules/second), with always a decrease in HEAT (energy) of the transferor in every case.
Tim insists that HEAT can only mean the verb “to heat”: a total corruption in any language!
phi says: August 18, 2014 at 7:52 am
Will Janoschka (August 17, 2014 at 11:02 am),
“There is no measurable effect.From additional CO2 ?”
Maybe at the surface, but if there is something observed, it might be this:
OK please explain!
Bob_FJ (August 17, 2014 at 1:20 pm),
(“Q=s(Th^4-Tc^4) qualifies radiative heat fluxes whatever direction or angle (an integral over solid angle), I do not understand your point.”)
The the directional flux Ps never is your fictitious Q. Flux always is dependent on angle from normal always x Cosine (theta) even from a Lambertian surface wich never exists! The reflectivity of any physical surface increases greatly with angle from normal at every wavelength..
“The IPCC neophlogistic theory considers backradiations as a heating power (Qc=sTc^4) while it can only reduce radiative cooling (Th^4 – Tc^4). The big difference is that the ratio”
It is only the difference, not a ratio. In most IR wavelengths the surface delta T is less than than one degree Celsius. This atmosphere with WV does not limit surface EMR, it replaces surface EMR by a more efficient radiator called H2O vapour. The amount of atmospheric H2O determines surface temperature at every location.
Will Janoschka,
“OK please explain!”
http://www.climatedialogue.org/the-missing-tropical-hot-spot/#comment-791
“The reflectivity of any physical surface increases greatly with angle from normal at every wavelength.”
Of course, the equation is oversimplified but I do not see that this contradicts the general principle.
“It is only the difference, not a ratio.”
Convective and radiative fluxes do not have the same relationship to the gradient(http://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/4520911/Climate/Radiation/Radiation-Lapse-Rate.png), change the ratio of these flow modifies the gradient.
“…it replaces surface EMR by a more efficient radiator called H2O vapour.”
Partly, yes. But even without an increase of the absolute humidity, there is an effect on the gradient which tends to limit the warming of the surface by increasing the efficiency of convection. It’s these two combined effects which are probably observables in the tropospheric profile.
Bob_FJ said:” I don’t know if “youngster-engineers/chemists” have yet fully adopted the current physics definition that you apply, but might I suggest that when talking of HEAT it might be prudent if context/discipline is noted alongside.”
First of all, I looked at a few older books I could find easily on line. Ones from before ~ 1920 often did not make a clear distinction between “heat of an object” and “heat moving between different objects”. All the ones after 1950 did (including ones aimed at engineers)
At one level, I have no problem with people being a little colloquial about using terms. In context, if someone says “heat” it is generally clear whether they might mean “temperature” (T) or “thermal energy” (U) or “exchange of thermal energy” (Q). If people agree to try to understand, then it is easy to get past the words and get to the underlying science.
But I do get bothered when someone claims that Q means U, and then takes results for U and claims they apply to Q. Or when someone claims that all the “good” science was done before 1980 (or 1930, or 1900 or … ).
This is one of those rare occasions where I find myself in complete agreement with Tim Folkerts.
‘Heat’ (Q) refers to a spontaneous transfer of energy between two regions at different temperatures, always from hot to cold, solely as a result of the temperature difference. It describes both the transferring process itself and the energy being transferred (‘as heat’). They are one and the same.
And that’s it. A unidirectional thermal transfer of energy. The energy being transferred within a thermal exchange.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_law_of_thermodynamics
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carnot_Cycle
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/thermo/heat.html
From the last link (and I hope people actually read this):
“This example of the interchangeability of heat and work as agents for adding energy to a system can help to dispel some misconceptions about heat. I found the idea in a little article by Mark Zemansky entitled “The Use and Misuse of the Word ‘Heat’ in Physics Teaching”. One key idea from this example is that if you are presented with a high temperature gas, you cannot tell whether it reached that high temperature by being heated, or by having work done on it, or a combination of the two.
To describe the energy that a high temperature object has, it is not a correct use of the word heat to say that the object “possesses heat” – it is better to say that it possesses internal energy as a result of its molecular motion. The word heat is better reserved to describe the process of transfer of energy from a high temperature object to a lower temperature one. Surely you can take an object at low internal energy and raise it to higher internal energy by heating it. But you can also increase its internal energy by doing work on it, and since the internal energy of a high temperature object resides in random motion of the molecules, you can’t tell which mechanism was used to give it that energy.
In warning teachers and students alike about the pitfalls of misusing the word “heat”, Mark Zemansky advises reflecting on the jingle:
“Teaching thermal physics is as easy as a song:
You think you make it simpler when you make it slightly wrong.”
Zemanzky’s plea
Don’t refer to the “heat in a body”, or say “this object has twice as much heat as that body”. He also objects to the use of the vague term “thermal energy” and to the use of the word “heat” as a verb, because they feed the misconceptions, but it is hard to avoid those terms. He would counsel the introduction and use of the concept of internal energy as quickly as possible.
Zemansky points to the First Law of Thermodynamics as a clarifying relationship. The First Law identifies both heat [Q] and work [W] as methods of energy transfer which can bring about a change in the internal energy [U] of a system. After that, neither the words work or heat have any usefulness in describing the final state of the sytem – we can speak only of the internal energy of the system.”
The article by Zemansky was written in 1970. Zemansky himself died in 1981, being born in 1900.
Clearly a spearhead of Will’s evil post-modern non-science movement launched to fool the gullible populace into thinking heat is really a transfer of energy rather than energy contained within the mass of a body.
phi @ August 18, 7:52 am,
A step at a time then:
• Stephan determined by experiment and Boltzmann later via mathematics that a small flat surface radiated isotropically into a concave hemisphere. Does it not follow that a small spheroid would radiate isotropically from its entire surface? (and effectively rather similarly a small parcel of air?)
• When I wrote: “BTW, what are your rules for lateral stuff at say plus or minus a few degrees from horizontal?” …..consideration of the question prompts the issue of what is up and what is down. Clearly, most of it is sideways, but where is the transition between up and down?
• Unless there is something that physicists do not know about, surely there is radiation downwards from the air to the surface?
• Intuitively most of this infrared is absorbed by the surface and then reemitted, in which case Law 2 is not violated, because the net result is the same as in your …(Th ^ 4 – ^ Tc 4)
Kristian says: August 18, 2014 at 2:48 pm
“This is one of those rare occasions where I find myself in complete agreement with Tim Folkerts.”
Another beliver in post modern non-science, brought on by kenetic theory of everything.
(The first law of thermodynamics for a closed system states that the increase of internal energy of the system equals the amount of heat added to the system minus the work done by the system. Wikipedia). The verb used is “added” or “supplied” Just what is being added and what is the symbol of that being added? What is the symbol for the verb “added” itself?
“Zemansky’s plea
Don’t refer to the “heat in a body”, or say “this object has twice as much heat as that body”. He also objects to the use of the vague term “thermal energy” and to the use of the word “heat” as a verb, because they feed the misconceptions, but it is hard to avoid those terms. He would counsel the introduction and use of the concept of internal energy as quickly as possible.
Zemansky points to the First Law of Thermodynamics as a clarifying relationship. The First Law identifies both heat [Q] and work [W] as methods of energy transfer which can bring about a change in the internal energy [U] of a system. After that, neither the words work or heat have any usefulness in describing the final state of the sytem – we can speak only of the internal energy of the system.”
“The article by Zemansky was written in 1970. Zemansky himself died in 1981, being born in 1900.”
“Clearly a spearhead of Will’s evil post-modern non-science movement launched to fool the gullible populace into thinking heat is really a transfer of energy rather than energy contained within the mass of a body.”
Thank you for your clear example of the this non-science. Zemansky was four years behind that spearhead, but gladly joined.
Tim Folkerts says: August 18, 2014 at 1:54 pm
“But I do get bothered when someone claims that Q means U, and then takes results for U and claims they apply to Q. Or when someone claims that all the “good” science was done before 1980 (or 1930, or 1900 or … ).”
Tim please also answer my questions posed above as to the verbs, nouns, and their symbols?
Again, If Q is only a process, please define temperature of a mass?
To both,
I claim the difference between a thermos of hot water and a thermos of cold water is precisely termed sensible HEAT, only one part of internal energy, which is the sum of all energies independent of location of that mass. If I launch one of them I increase its internal energy U, but not its sensible heat Q. Is this some intentional misuse of the terms, or is it precise, with no confusion?
Will Janoschka says, August 19, 2014 at 12:11 am:
“Thank you for your clear example of the this non-science. Zemansky was four years behind that spearhead, but gladly joined.”
I really don’t get you, Will. What’s so non-scientific about distinguishing between energy transferred to/from a system (process) and energy contained within that system (state), the former defined as ‘heat’ (or ‘work’) and the latter as ‘internal energy’. Zemansky gave quite a good reason for why that’s a sensible distinction to make.
Also, he answers your question: “If Q is only a process, please define temperature of a mass.”
“To describe the energy that a high temperature object has, it is not a correct use of the word heat to say that the object “possesses heat” – it is better to say that it possesses internal energy as a result of its molecular motion. The word heat is better reserved to describe the process of transfer of energy from a high temperature object to a lower temperature one. Surely you can take an object at low internal energy and raise it to higher internal energy by heating it. But you can also increase its internal energy by doing work on it, and since the internal energy of a high temperature object resides in random motion of the molecules, you can’t tell which mechanism was used to give it that energy.” (My bold.)
Once again, Will, your use of the terminology is old-fashioned at best, and simply wrong at worst.
In modern (80+ years at least) terminology, heat = Q is ALWAYS a transfer of energy. “Sensible heat” would be a transfer whose result happens to be a change in temperature. “Latent heat” would be a transfer whose result happens to be a change of phase.
Your view is intuitive and could work for a variety of cases, but it is still at odds with the way every physicist and chemist and engineer is being taught. It is taught this way because it is more robust and more precise and more useful to have one name for energy transfers, and another name for energy contained within.
Persisting in your own unconventional terminology is the true cause of most of confusion that has been sown in this thread, not anything I have said. You have yet to find ANY support for your position. Can you at least entertain the possibility that if you are the only one with your position, then you are wrong and not everyone else?
Here’s a little challenge. Show this thread to any professor in physics or engineering at University you choose. Maybe pick someone about to retire so they have more historical knowledge. Ask which “side” is correct.
Bob_FJ says: August 18, 2014 at 11:46 pm
A step at a time then:
• Stephan determined by experiment and Boltzmann later via mathematics that a small flat surface radiated isotropically into a concave hemisphere. Does it not follow that a small spheroid would radiate isotropically from its entire surface? (and effectively rather similarly a small parcel of air?)
Interesting Bob,
A uniform sphere has a constant cross-sectional area and can uniformly radiate EMR to another lower temperature absorptive shell i.e. the universe! A flat surface cannot radiate isotropically.
The emissive area decreases according to Cosine(theta) (angle from normal) The integral into an hemisphere is no longer two PI steradians. but one PI steradian. that PI is built into Stefan’s constant. This is only for a surface that has constant emissivity in all directions. Next step:
• When I wrote: “BTW, what are your rules for lateral stuff at say plus or minus a few degrees from horizontal?” …..consideration of the question prompts the issue of what is up and what is down. Clearly, most of it is sideways, but where is the transition between up and down?
No physical surface has constant emissivity at each wavelength, and each direction. This assumption of a black-body is but one of the fantasies. Unfortunatly, the only method of determining emissivity of an opaque surface is by measuring total reflectivity, a method called Bidirectional Reflectance Distribution Function (BRDF). A truly painstaking process, requiring the whole worlds military budget. Most folk measure reflectance at selected wavebands and selected
directions, then guess, hoping geometry holds for all else. All measured physical surfaces are extremely reflective at grazing angles. My best guess for Earth surface including water, ice, and snow in the LW from 3-100 microns is a solid angle of 1.5 steradians, not PI. The atmosphere with WV is a much better emitter to space than the surface ever can be. Next step:
• Unless there is something that physicists do not know about, surely there is radiation downwards from the air to the surface?
No, There is a measured “radiance” of the atmosphere, a potential for radiation, not flux! This potential strictly limits upward flux at every altitude but outward flux accumulates all the way to 220 km. Next step:
• Intuitively most of this infrared is absorbed by the surface and then reemitted, in which case Law 2 is not violated, because the net result is the same as in your …(Th ^ 4 – ^ Tc 4)
There is never a need for downward EMR flux to a higher temerature. The radiance from Tc above strictly limits the only thermal EMR flux in the direction of a lower temperature. That subtraction is of radiance, not flux, hence the need for parentheses, the first mathematical operation to determine maximum flux between different temperature surfaces.
A violation of 2LTD is claimed by Climastrologists, but is never physically attemped.
Tim Folkerts and Kristian @ August 18, 1:54 pm & 2:48 pm,
Thank you for your PC advice, but dealing with a grumpy old engineer like me in which bad habits die hard can be uhm “difficult”. You might like to read this current entry in Wikipedia within the larger topic of HEAT (skip to section 15 in contents):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat
“Heat transfer in engineering
The discipline of heat transfer, typically considered an aspect of mechanical engineering and chemical engineering, deals with specific applied methods by which thermal energy in a system is generated, or converted, or transferred to another system…” [Continued]
As I’ve explained before to Kristian, I understand what the physics definition of HEAT is, but fail to understand the sense of losing the identity of the energy that is in the process of moving from A to B. For instance, in simple radiative HEAT transfer, what I think of as net EMR, you call HEAT.
And, BTW Tim, I fail to understand why you refer to terrestrial infrared as being thermal EMR but solar infrared no. Solar thermal power (intensity) is somewhat higher, I do believe. So I don’t see that as being PC. Professional discrimination wot? (Just like racial discrimination). /jest
Bob says: “I understand what the physics definition of HEAT is, but fail to understand the sense of losing the identity of the energy that is in the process of moving from A to B. For instance, in simple radiative HEAT transfer, what I think of as net EMR, you call HEAT. “
I would say that differently. “Heat” is an overarching term for all such transfers. In this case, thermal radiation is a specific example. If you think of a Venn diagram, one circle would be “EMR” and the other would be “heat”. So “radio antennas” would be in the first circle, “convection” would be in the other, and “net thermal EMR” would be in both.
“I fail to understand why you refer to terrestrial infrared as being thermal EMR but solar infrared no. “
That is mostly convention (and/or a bad habit). As Wikipedia says ” “NIR and SWIR is sometimes called “reflected infrared,” whereas MWIR and LWIR [3-15 um] is sometimes referred to as “thermal infrared.” ”
There is a long-standing convention to call 3-15 um (sometimes a little more; sometimes a little less) “thermal IR”. I was simply using such a convention. You are quite correct that at a fundamental level, both sunlight and “earthlight” are “thermal EMR”.
Will says: “The integral into an hemisphere is no longer two PI steradians. but one PI steradian.”
I agree in spirit. The factor-of-two is correct for the correct reasons, but I find your wording a little off.
A hemisphere is 2 pi steradians. Period. This does not change. Any integration over a hemisphere is an integration over 2 pi steradians.
As you point out, the intensity will drop off as you get to lower angles. The net result is one half as much radiation as you would get from truly isotropic radiation. So if you got a net flux of 100 W from the flat surface integrated over 2 pi steradians of a hemisphere, you would get 200 W over that same 2 pi steradians from a truly isotropic source.
Tim Folkerts says: August 19, 2014 at 2:31 am
I would say that differently. “Heat” is an overarching term for all such transfers. In this case, thermal radiation is a specific example. If you think of a Venn diagram, one circle would be “EMR” and the other would be “heat”. So “radio antennas” would be in the first circle, “convection” would be in the other, and “net thermal EMR” would be in both.
What total intent to confuse!. Convection is conductive heat transfer (note the verb “transfer” of the noun “Heat”) plus mass movement to increase or decrease the noun “heat”. Your furnace in the winter increases “heat” in your abode.The AC in summer decreases “heat” in your abode. both via the same convection of “heat”. The total amount of “heat” in your abode determines the temperature of your abode, never the transfer or rate of transfer of “heat”. A complete distortion of science by Tim. EMR on the other hand (the flux itself) has absolutly nothing to do with either “heat” or temperature.
“There is a long-standing convention to call 3-15 um (sometimes a little more; sometimes a little less) “thermal IR”.”
There is no such convention except by those that intend to confuse!
” I was simply using such a convention. You are quite correct that at a fundamental level, both sunlight and “earthlight” are “thermal EMR”.”
The only thermal is but that the electromagnetic field strength EMFS is determined by temperature, rather than by electrical means, lumpted constants, or cavity resonator, that can never achieve the wide bandwith and lack of coherence of a EMFS by a function of temperature. Any emitted EMR flux has nothing to do with “heat” ot “temperature”. If such were true tree leaves could never rip apart a water molecule to produce H2, more and more leaves. Without this difference, the same tree leaves could only increase in temperature and die. Quit, Tim with your intended confusing non-science! Please describe the difference between EMFS and EMR?
Tim Folkerts says: August 19, 2014 at 2:43 am
“Will says: “The integral into an hemisphere is no longer two PI steradians. but one PI steradian.”
I agree in spirit. The factor-of-two is correct for the correct reasons, but I find your wording a little off. A hemisphere is 2 pi steradians. Period. This does not change. Any integration over a hemisphere is an integration over 2 pi steradians. As you point out, the intensity will drop off as you get to lower angles. The net result is one half as much radiation as you would get from truly isotropic radiation. So if you got a net flux of 100 W from the flat surface integrated over 2 pi steradians of a hemisphere, you would get 200 W over that same 2 pi steradians from a truly isotropic source.”
You seem to refuse to accept that my intent intent inform, How to get to the effective radiating solid angle of a flat surface. I was trying to point out Bobs confusion about a flat surface area being ever isotropic (geometry). Why do you always attempt to confuse, and twist words? Was that one PI steradians built intom Stephan’s constant? Stephan was trying to be correct and prevent any misunderstanding of radiative solid angle of a flat surface. (geometry).
Take your view factor and shove it, teach proper geometry, for understanding..
Kristian @ August 19, 1:26 am,
“…Surely you can take an object at low internal energy and raise it to higher internal energy by heating it. But you can also increase its internal energy by doing work on it, and since the internal energy of a high temperature object resides in random motion of the molecules, you can’t tell which mechanism was used to give it that energy.” (Bob’s bold.)
AND
Tim Folkerts @ 2:31 am,
“…I would say that differently. “Heat” is an overarching term for all such transfers. In this case, thermal radiation is a specific example…”
Thank you again youngfellas. I realize that you are stuck with it, but there are a couple of things here that support my contention that the “classical understanding” of HEAT (which is not currently refuted in Wikipedia) does have good and more understandable value.
Kristian’s comment that I’ve partly bolded does not importantly validate changing the name of what was earlier called HEAT simply because it is possible that work was involved in getting that matter to a certain energy level. In many cases it does not matter how it got that hot anyway, and if there is an interest in how, then there is a remote possibility of attempting to work-out how.
Tim’s comment covers the same issue but in reverse and I would suggest, less retrospectively. In many cases my example of simple radiative heat transfer is not really possible on Earth, and Tim mentions accompanying convection. To me, to combine different forms of energy together and overarchingly call them HEAT is not a very good idea.
Incidentally, it seems less than a decade ago that I recall that Wikipedia or maybe some regular encyclopaedia defined HEAT at the molecular level as in the un-bolded part of the second sentence of Kristian’s comment above.
Bob_FJ says, August 19, 2014 at 6:53 am:
“Thank you again youngfellas. I realize that you are stuck with it, but there are a couple of things here that support my contention that the “classical understanding” of HEAT (which is not currently refuted in Wikipedia) does have good and more understandable value.”
I strongly disagree. It is very much refuted as an ‘understanding’ by wiki. It might be included to provide historical context.
You simply picked the one ambiguous sentence that could be interpreted to be ‘consistent with’ your view. If you happen to wear the right kind of glasses.
But it’s not. Even it specifically distinguishes between internal energy and heat/work, the former being energy residing within the object (state) and the latter energy transferred to/from it (process).
I’d say your use of the word HEAT indeed creates great confusion. Specifically when it comes to the matter of AGW. It’s the very reason why the whole idea about ‘back radiation heating’ still stubbornly sticks with us. Normal people walk around believing it to be real. Because they think all energy is equally able to ‘create heat’.
If considering heat as something that accumulates inside an object and the energy transferred to it – ending up as heat upon absorption – simply as say EMR, then you’re left with no straightforward way to dismiss the un-physical notion that ‘back radiation’ from the cool atmosphere actually does heat (as in ‘create heat in/at’) the warmer surface.
Tim Folkerts @ August 19, 2:43 am,
Whoops sorry, yes, although as I understand it the apparent or observed brightness from a flat black body seems to be isotropic, a better prescription would have been omnidirectional. My fading memory may have also been tricked in that Stefan’s “small flat body” sponsored thought of more of a point source. (And, the Sun is an interesting thingy).
I think you would agree that a sphere emits truly isotropically and that a small parcel of air can simplistically be compared?
Bob_FJ (August 18, 2014 at 11:46 pm),
“Intuitively most of this infrared is absorbed by the surface and then reemitted, in which case Law 2 is not violated, because the net result is the same as in your …(Th ^ 4 – Tc ^ 4).”
This is only the same for a static case, that is to say at constant atmospheric composition. In this particular case, an increase of the heating power does not change the cooling ratio radiative/convective. Now if you increase the rate of CO2, for the additional dQc, you have two theories.
Neophlogistic : dQc is a forcing which increases the heating power (thus violating the second law), the cooling ratio radiative/convective is unchanged, the gradient is not affected.
Classical thermodynamics: dQc represents a reduction of radiative cooling, the cooling ratio raditive/convective is changed and therefore the gradient too.
Kristian says: August 19, 2014 at 1:26 am
“I really don’t get you, Will. What’s so non-scientific about distinguishing between energy transferred to/from a system (process) and energy contained within that system (state), the former defined as ‘heat’ (or ‘work’) and the latter as ‘internal energy’. Zemansky gave quite a good reason for why that’s a sensible distinction to make.”
Only if you are trying to confuse by glomming together all sorts of different energies then applying one word internal, instead of distinguishing. the real differemces.
“Also, he answers your question: “If Q is only a process, please define temperature of a mass.””
“To describe the energy that a high temperature object has, it is not a correct use of the word heat to say that the object “possesses heat” – it is better to say that it possesses internal energy as a result of its molecular motion. The word heat is better reserved to describe the process of transfer of energy from a high temperature object to a lower temperature one. Surely you can take an object at low internal energy and raise it to higher internal energy by heating it. But you can also increase its internal energy by doing work on it, and since the internal energy of a high temperature object resides in random motion of the molecules, you can’t tell which mechanism was used to give it that energy.”
Is that supposed to be some definition of temperature?
Why not try to answer questions that would demonstrate that you must use “heat” as a noun (thing) not necessarily any process at all?
Tim Folkerts says: August 19, 2014 at 1:46 am the r4esul
“Once again, Will, your use of the terminology is old-fashioned at best, and simply wrong at worst.
In modern (80+ years at least) terminology, heat = Q is ALWAYS a transfer of energy. “Sensible heat” would be a transfer whose result happens to be a change in temperature. “Latent heat” would be a transfer whose result happens to be a change of phase.”
See you twice distinguish the result of a transfer, two different forms of the noun heat (contained within not any transfer itself. Both have a symbol (Q) potential for work
“Your view is intuitive and could work for a variety of cases, but it is still at odds with the way every physicist and chemist and engineer is being taught. It is taught this way because it is more robust and more precise and more useful to have one name for energy transfers, and another name for energy contained within.”
Not if you wish to distinguish between different types of energy that may be internal. EMR energy cannot be internal nor is it heat, or even to heat!
I do not care about those trying to confuse others with your post modern BS called Kinetic Theory of Everything. I much prefer remaining precise and understandable. I wish no part of your KTE proper. Try to answer the rest of my questions and even you will lean.
Will Janoschka says:
August 19, 2014 at 2:58 pm
EMR energy cannot be internal
Internal to what? Do you mean internal to matter? I agree that EMR does not require matter in which to travel.
But whatever EMR is it must in be travelling “in” something. I say that something is a photon.
Roger Clague says: August 19, 2014 at 3:23 pm
Will Janoschka says: August 19, 2014 at 2:58 pm
(“EMR energy cannot be internal”)
“Internal to what? Do you mean internal to matter? I agree that EMR does not require matter in which to travel. But whatever EMR is it must in be travelling “in” something. I say that something is a photon.”
It travels fastest in nothing. EMR is any form of electromagnetic flux/radiation. Once that flux is detached from the emitter it travels in a geodesic at varying velocities through any matter that does not absorb or reflect it. Once that wave packet is absorbed that energy can be converted to any form of internal energy including electric energy or even other radiance that is potential for emission if sufficient power is available. It is now considered that flux detachment is determined by the “photon” (gauge boson) that directs all amounts of wave packets in each direction.
Once detached that new wave packet repeats all above. EMR need never become heat energy. That is up to the nature of the absorber and again become whatever form of internal energy.
The appearance of some action at the absorber (emission of an electron) used to be called evidence for a photon, but that wave packet need never be absorbed so where is that kind of photon? Perhaps something like the Charlie on the MTA now MBTA.
Kristian @ August 19, 9:03 am,
Oh really? Here follows a longer extract from section 15 of the long Wikipedia article on the physics definition of HEAT and whatnot:
Heat transfer in engineering
“The discipline of heat transfer, typically considered an aspect of mechanical engineering and chemical engineering, deals with specific applied methods by which thermal energy in a system is generated, or converted, or transferred to another system. Although the definition of heat [in Physics] implicitly means the transfer of energy, the term heat transfer encompasses this traditional usage in many engineering disciplines and laymen language.
Heat transfer includes the mechanisms of heat conduction, thermal radiation, and mass transfer.
In engineering… [Continued @ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat ]
As far as I can see, this gives the longer traditional engineering application only in the present tense and compares it with the less traditional physics methodology. I don’t think that the implication that ‘laymen’ comprehend ‘heat transfer’ in engineering, is applicable though. (They mostly have a simpler view of HEAT, like ouch, that’s hot.)
Kristian and Tim Folkerts,
Further my 12:46 am; In addition to the Wikipedia article on HEAT, there is also one on HEAT TRANSFER, and the different engineering methodology, which is also given in the present tense throughout and from which I extract three points:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat_transfer
1) Overview:
…In engineering contexts, the term heat is taken as synonymous to thermal energy…
AND, rather contentiously but I’d better not omit it:
“…This usage has its origin in the historical interpretation of heat as a fluid (caloric) that can be transferred by various causes,[4] and that is also common in the language of laymen and everyday life…”
2) Engineering
Heat transfer has broad application to the functioning of numerous devices and systems. Heat-transfer principles may be used to preserve, increase, or decrease temperature in a wide variety of circumstances.[citation needed] Heat transfer methods are used in numerous disciplines, such as automotive engineering, thermal management of electronic devices and systems, climate control, insulation, materials processing, and power station engineering.
3) Heat transfer in the human body
The principles of heat transfer in engineering systems can be applied to the human body in order to determine how the body transfers heat. Heat is produced in the body by the continuous metabolism of nutrients which provides energy for the systems of the body.[25] The human body must maintain a consistent internal temperature in order to maintain healthy bodily functions. Therefore, excess heat must be dissipated from the body to keep it from overheating…
Bob_FJ says, August 20, 2014 at 12:46 am:
“As far as I can see, this gives the longer traditional engineering application only in the present tense and compares it with the less traditional physics methodology. I don’t think that the implication that ‘laymen’ comprehend ‘heat transfer’ in engineering, is applicable though. (They mostly have a simpler view of HEAT, like ouch, that’s hot.)”
This ‘discussion’ is now really skirting the margins of the original issue. But fine, Bob, you’re right. Engineers still use the outdated (by 150 years at least) caloric approach to heat. You’ve proven your point. That doesn’t, however, make it a viable alternative physical definition of the concept today.
Note how they’re careful in ascribing the ‘internal’ approach to heat to ‘traditional usage’. Nowhere do they state that this is still one way in physics and for physicists to view ‘heat’ as a phenomenon. What they basically do is relate the engineering usage to the layman usage.*
Which is fine. But leave it behind when solving physics problems. Because it will only cause confusion. Like ‘heating by back radiation’.
*Actually I think that the layman usage of the word ‘heat’ is just as much in accord with the physical definition of the term. If we see a hot (radiant) object, we would hardly say “Wow, that’s gotta contain a lotta heat!” We would just say it’s hot. It’s all about ‘hotness’ – high temperature. But we could definitely say “I can feel the heat” when holding your hand above it or if facing the sun. Heat in this sense is always about a TRANSFER of energy from some hot object (or surroundings on a hot day) to you. Even though we could also in some cases very well say “I can feel ITS heat”, which is where the lines are starting to get blurry. In these cases it would definitely sound awkward to rather pronounce the strictly physically correct “I can feel its (internal) energy being transferred to me as heat”.
In conclusion, Bob, we all use the word ‘heat’ in various ways to signify various things in our daily lives. We also have to deal with well-established terms, even in physics, that are strictly based on traditional caloric usage of the word such as ‘specific heat’, ‘heat capacity’ and ‘latent heat’. But that doesn’t change the fact that IN PHYSICS, the concept of heat itself has a very clear and distinct definition. And ONLY ONE. It is a thermal TRANSFER of energy from hot to cold. Period. And this definition has proven and proves still extremely useful, also within the realm of AGW.
I forgot the worst example of modern (caloric) misuse, BTW, which is ‘heat content’. That is seriously too silly. It’s a perfect oxymoron. Since ‘heat’ is specifically defined as NOT being a state function. It cannot be contained anywhere.
Kristian says: August 20, 2014 at 12:20 pm
“I forgot the worst example of modern (caloric) misuse, BTW, which is ‘heat content’. That is seriously too silly. It’s a perfect oxymoron. Since ‘heat’ is specifically defined as NOT being a state function. It cannot be contained anywhere.”
You also forget questions that would help counter delusions about Post modern Kinetic Theory of
Everything.
Please state “your” definition of thermodynamic temperature? Perhaps there is none for you,
“Please state “your” definition of thermodynamic temperature?”
I would refer you to the text by Zemansky — it has a rather good description of temperature scales . It was first published in 1937, so it certainly is not “post-modern”. In particular, temperature is defined in sections 1-9 and 8-10. Note that NEITHER of these definitions requires a version of “heat” that is “contained” within an object (although the second one uses the concept of heat that is transferred).
Here is the 5th edition (1968) https://ia601700.us.archive.org/10/items/HeatAndThermodynamics/Zemansky-HeatAndThermodynamics_text.pdf
Kristian says: August 20, 12:10 pm,
This ‘discussion’ is now really skirting the margins of the original issue. But fine, Bob, you’re right. Engineers still use the outdated (by 150 years at least) caloric approach to heat. You’ve proven your point. That doesn’t, however, make it a viable alternative physical definition of the concept today…
The main reason that the current physics definition is the only one viable for physicists is that you are stuck with it in your school. Applied scientists, such as engineers are those who could sit down using the old fashioned method and work through problems fine with the more precise understanding of HEAT. (versus your it could be any mix of energy). BTW, they are the ones that actually do stuff in the world, and are in my opinion not a lower life-form to physicists.
“…*Actually I think that the layman usage of the word ‘heat’ is just as much in accord with the physical definition of the term. If we see a hot (radiant) object, we would hardly say “Wow, that’s gotta contain a lotta heat!” We would just say it’s hot. It’s all about ‘hotness’ – high temperature. But we could definitely say “I can feel the heat” when holding your hand above it or if facing the sun…
I think you are confused there (my bold). Surely you can’t feel the HEAT, because you say it is the energy in transit, which is what an unbrainwashed engineer would see and call EMR and which would not become HEAT until absorbed and felt by the nerve endings in the skin. You would call that sensation as caused by thermal energy, not HEAT?
Bob_FJ says: August 20, 2014 at 3:12 am
Kristian and Tim Folkerts,
Further my 12:46 am; In addition to the Wikipedia article on HEAT, there is also one on HEAT TRANSFER, and the different engineering methodology, which is also given in the present tense throughout and from which I extract three points:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat_transfer
1) Overview:
…In engineering contexts, the term heat is taken as synonymous to thermal energy…
AND, rather contentiously but I’d better not omit it:
“…This usage has its origin in the historical interpretation of heat as a fluid (caloric) that can be transferred by various causes,[4] and that is also common in the language of laymen and everyday life…”
2) Engineering
Heat transfer has broad application to the functioning of numerous devices and systems. Heat-transfer principles may be used to preserve, increase, or decrease temperature in a wide variety of circumstances.[citation needed] Heat transfer methods are used in numerous disciplines, such as automotive engineering, thermal management of electronic devices and systems, climate control, insulation, materials processing, and power station engineering.
Bob a very nice explaination of a physical concept of heat, both noun and verb forms, instead of the fantasy theoretical of post modern physicists. A good for never having these physicists come any around this Earth. As we have noticed they have much fun with fantasy on computers.
This is why The Laws must not ge changed to suit some fantasy.
from of your discussion:
“On the other hand, the ‘Wave/Particle Duality Theory of light’ is clearly entrenched in I would guess well over 97% of physicists. However, the innovations include, briefly:………..”
The physicist consider “EM field-strengh” and “EM flux” synonymous as they have the same physical units. An engineer considers each distinct and very different.
Physicist’s synonymous allows complete misinterpretation all EMR and especially thermal EMR.
To define:
“EM field-strengh” A time vaying, but spatially static field, like a gravitational field and like that field
decreases at a 1/D^2 rate. To normalize the in W/m^2 units are devided by steradian and become W/(m^2steradian), radiometrically termed “radiance”. The field-strength is established at every surface with emissivity/absorptivity greater than zero and is independent at each frequency and in each direction. Planck’s function is that only of spectral “radiance” different at each frequency, but at each frequenct monotonic with temperature. it does not indicate flux.
“EM flux” is the actual and measurable electromagnetic power passing through a unit surface in W/m^2. This flux is only ever generated proportional to the difference in opposing “radiances”.
“Particle” is the unit of action delivered via EM Flux proportional to frequency. A wavlet over some interval, depending on the characterics of the absorber, measured in work seconds orJouleseconds. According th Planck, each cycle has action (h)
“Wave” is the EM field-strength, allowing that field to diffraction with itself, never any flux or delivery of some photon containing some unit of action.
Restating your innovations from electrical engineering, Maxwell’s equations, and Planck’s function.
Thus eliminating need for “standing waves:
1. EM flux is only directied to a lower opposing radiance at each frequency and in each direction.
2. No wavelets are emitted in a direction higher radiance, they are only absorbed from such.
3. EMR has nothing to do with thermodynamics.
4. Back-radiation cannot exist. (and pyrgeometers calculate “radiance” never flux)
The ClimAstrology practised by physicists has no science only fantasy.
Tim Folkerts says: August 19, 1:46 am
“…In modern (80+ years at least) terminology, heat = Q is ALWAYS a transfer of energy. “Sensible heat” would be a transfer whose result happens to be a change in temperature. “Latent heat” would be a transfer whose result happens to be a change of phase…”
AND Kristian says: August 20, 12:20 pm
“I forgot the worst example of modern (caloric) misuse, BTW, which is ‘heat content’. That is seriously too silly. It’s a perfect oxymoron. Since ‘heat’ is specifically defined as NOT being a state function. It cannot be contained anywhere.”
And “Sensible heat” and “Latent heat” and “specific heat”?
That stuff is all “contained somewhere”?
Tim Folkerts says: August 20, 2014 at 10:31 pm
(“Please state “your” definition of thermodynamic temperature?”
“I would refer you to the text by Zemansky — it has a rather good description of temperature scales ”
Gee , I ask for “your” and you refer to someone else now dead. Zemansky no longer needs a definition. 1-9 is a type of thermomometer 8-10 is a scale for temperature but no definition of what it is that needs that scale. I claim, because you continually spout nonsense here you need have definitions on hand not by referense. Please state “your” definition of thermodynamic temperature, in both understandable words and in math symbols?”
T= what? for any T.
After you do that please explain how that makes any sense without heat in something, with no transfer needed?
“Please state “your” definition of thermodynamic temperature, in both understandable words and in math symbols?”
That IS my definition — as well as the definition used pretty much throughout all of thermodynamics. It IS in understandable words and symbols. It DOES make sense without heat “in something”.
Are you expecting every scientist to have his/her own definition??? I could explain the whole thing over again, but why re-invent the wheel just for you just for this thread???
Einstein is attributed with a quote to the effect “make everything as simple as possible — but no simpler.” This definition of “temperature” is as simple as it gets in thermodynamics. This distinction between energy IN an object (internal energy U) and energy being transferred (Heat Q and work W) is also as simple as it gets if you want to have a robust, consistent way to express systems and interactions.
(Just for enlightenment, it might be fun to hear YOUR definition of “temperature”.)
Bob_FJ says: August 21, 2014 at 2:21 am
And “Sensible heat” and “Latent heat” and “specific heat”?
That stuff is all “contained somewhere”?
Nice, but specific heat is a property of a mass thar relates sensible heat, temperature, and mass.
Try a combination. 20 quarts water in the form of steam at 255 C and 40 atmospheres in a well insulated bottle nothing coming out. How much heat? How much internal energy at an Earth pole? How much at the equator? They likely never heard of real chemical energy like 1 mole of H2 and 0.5 mole of O2 in a hyperbaric weapon. Still internal energy but little heat energy untill ignition. Physicist guys are so fifth grade.
Tim Folkerts says: August 21, 2014 at 2:56 am
(“Please state “your” definition of thermodynamic temperature, in both understandable words and in math symbols?”)
“That IS my definition — as well as the definition used pretty much throughout all of thermodynamics. It IS in understandable words and symbols. It DOES make sense without heat “in something”.”
So you admit you have no definition is words or symbols for temperature!!
“Are you expecting every scientist to have his/her own definition??? I could explain the whole thing over again, but why re-invent the wheel just for you just for this thread???”
Are promoting yourself as a scientist?
“Einstein is attributed with a quote to the effect “make everything as simple as possible — but no simpler.” This definition of “temperature” is as simple as it gets in thermodynamics. This distinction between energy IN an object (internal energy U) and energy being transferred (Heat Q and work W) is also as simple as it gets if you want to have a robust, consistent way to express systems and interactions.”
Where is any definition? The definition of temperature is… It is nowhere in your reference.
So you deny the symbol T representing temperature. If T does not exist why a thermometer?
What happens when work
makes heat (Q) transfer to a higher temperature (T). Do you also deny refrigeration? What was moved to the higher temperature? hint: W+Q, now both part of (within), the higer temperature mass.
(Just for enlightenment, it might be fun to hear YOUR definition of “temperature”.)
Thermodynamic Temperature is defined as sensible HEAT divided by entropy. T = Q/S.
Do not give me a deltaQ/deltaS, or your nonsense deltaU either. Sensible HEAT is but a small part of internal energy of any mass. Your Zymansky talks of a small part, which shows a lot.
When the abolute was added to temperature, physics fell flat on its face, engineering stumbled then recovered.
Go somewhere and buy a clue about thermodynamics in this physical. Not in your computer fantasy sales brochure. (lesson plan).
There’s nothing left to do but smile. 🙂
Tim Folkerts says: August 21, 5:09 am,
“There’s nothing left to do but smile.”
I don’t entirely agree, and would appreciate it if you could advise if the following three examples of HEAT thingies are adequately defined by the school of physics:
“Sensible heat” and “Latent heat” and “specific heat”
Should they be renamed by that higher life-form? To:
“Sensible thermal energy” and “Latent thermal energy” and “specific thermal energy”
Or wot?
I’ve not come across such prescriptives in my travels.
Tim Folkerts says: August 21, 2014 at 5:09 am
There’s nothing left to do but smile. 🙂
I agree! There is other stuff like steady state vs. thermodynamic equilibrium!
Old timey thermodynamic equilibrium, is when no flux and no temperature spontaneously change!
Question: If the whole atmosphere has a time constant for old TE of less than ten minutes because of radiative something transfer, Is the atmosphere in that TE, or only pedalling very fast to always approach? Does this make any difference in ten or thirty years? I asked, so you can have the last word if you wish. 🙂 back
I do not think “new” laws need to be invented. Just that the old ones need to be applied correctly and in full. IMHO, where the “greenhouse” theory goes wrong is that is focuses on radiation transfer while soft peddling other means, yet we know every well that radiation is not the most efficient means of transporting thermal energy when there are others available.
phi @ August 19, 10:00 am
Sorry for the delay Phi, and I hope you are still around, but to be honest, whilst I guess you were trying to help, I didn’t really understand what you had to say in total, and was hoping Tim Folkerts or Will J or someone would respond to you, but no.
Could you elaborate for instance on your:
“…an increase of the heating power does not change the cooling ratio radiative/convective. Now if you increase the rate of CO2, for the additional dQc, you have two theories…”
Your d is I guess delta and c is carbon, but I’m still not comprehending all, even if that is right.
Bart says: August 21, 7:31 am,
I do not think “new” laws need to be invented. Just that the old ones need to be applied correctly and in full. IMHO, where the “greenhouse” theory goes wrong is that is focuses on radiation transfer while soft peddling other means, yet we know every well that radiation is not the most efficient means of transporting thermal energy when there are others available.
Oh yes indeed!
For instance the great oracle Kevin Trenberth in his IPCC cartoon gives that the radiative GHE (that’s other than the EMR in those wavelengths escaping directly to space through “the window”) is a mere ~14% of the total HEAT leaving the surface.
Bob_FJ says: August 21, 2014 at 6:49 am
Tim Folkerts says: August 21, 5:09 am,
(“There’s nothing left to do but smile.””
“I don’t entirely agree, and would appreciate it if you could advise if the following three examples of HEAT thingies are adequately defined by the school of physics:
“Sensible heat” and “Latent heat” and “specific heat””
Bob,
That was school of thermodynamics, never physics! Physicists tried to rewrite history because of refusal to acknowledge the precision of those words, by lower life forms.
All were exact that proper consideration, but were unable to describe outside that limited relm. They do not apply to superheated steam, rocket engines, EMR, or post modern science.
“Should they be renamed by that higher life-form? To:
(“Sensible thermal energy” and “Latent thermal energy” and “specific thermal energy”)”
Not an attemped renaming but a poorly attempted “re-meaning” of the “accepted” word HEAT.
This is equvalent to patients insisting on “re-meaning” scientific Latin words, because they do not understand doctor speak. Your Nuevo physicists should try that at any hospital, while also not understanding that doctors and nurses have scalpels and know where is, every vein and nerve. They can kill you without your noticing, as they are comitted to doing no harm. Harm of wot?
Restoring the laws to prior exceptional precision, in a limited field, is to be contemplated.
Rudy Clausius never wrote of entropy, only careful observations of spontaneity. When somthing never happens, it becoms a candidate for Law. Screw Statistics and Chaotic. 🙂 to you
Further my 8:48 am;
If you prefer the popular NASA graphic, it gives 15% not 14%
Bob_FJ says: August 21, 2014 at 7:34 am
phi @ August 19, 10:00 am
“Sorry for the delay Phi, and I hope you are still around, but to be honest, whilst I guess you were trying to help, I didn’t really understand what you had to say in total, and was hoping Tim Folkerts or Will J or someone would respond to you, but no.”
I could not comprehend enough to reply!
Bob_FJ says: August 21, 2014 at 8:48 am
Bart says: August 21, 7:31 am,
(“I do not think “new” laws need to be invented. Just that the old ones need to be applied correctly and in full. IMHO, where the “greenhouse” theory goes wrong is that is focuses on radiation transfer while soft peddling other means, yet we know every well that radiation is not the most efficient means of transporting thermal energy when there are others available.”)
“Oh yes indeed!
For instance the great oracle Kevin Trenberth in his IPCC cartoon gives that the radiative GHE (that’s other than the EMR in those wavelengths escaping directly to space through “the window”) is a mere ~14% of the total HEAT leaving the surface.”
I hate these insane averages! My calcs from the “surface” is 32 W/m^2. Little from the poles much from the equator. 13 W/m^2 to space 19 W/m^2 to bottom of clouds. All of this through the 8-13.5 Micron window. With this Earth’s radiative WV atmosphere, the surface need not radiate anything at all to space or clouds. The great emissivity of the atmosphere, not the surface is dominant. The atmosphere with variable WV can achive any composite temperature between 220 and 300 Kelvin aganst the Solar irradiance. Your ClimAstrologists have no clue as to what affects the careful control of atmospheric WV. 30 years and 120 billion and they still have no idea of what is, or what may be. Aren’t you glad that none of this is in control of earthlings?
Bob_FJ says: ‘If you prefer the popular NASA graphic’
The one that avoids saying ‘back radiation’ 😉
Bob_FJ says: August 21, 2014 at 9:02 am
Further my 8:48 am;
If you prefer the popular NASA graphic, it gives 15% not 14%
Looks like only 6% surface to space. That is better, at least nothing going backward.
You can buy NASA’s wild assed guess, I will stick with my wild assed guess, until some reliable information is available.
oldbrew says: August 21, 10:32 am,
Bob_FJ says: ‘If you prefer the popular NASA graphic’
The one that avoids saying ‘back radiation’
Yes true, although me myself personally, me thinks there must be some isotropic radiation from the air, ‘cos those naughty EMR thingies have no directional sense (or foreknowledge of what confronts them). As to their magnitude, well that is more difficult to guess.
Bob_FJ says:
August 21, 2014 at 9:02 am
How do you get the Nasa energy budget diagram in your comment? Is it because you are the top poster?
Questions about the diagram
The rising air and the latent heat form H2O(g), don’t they get returned to the surface, not radiated?
What is going on where the 16% absorbed by atmos directly from the sun meets and apparently cancels the 15% absorbed by the atmos from the surface?
My solution to these 2 problems is:
The two absorbed by atmos, 16% + 15% = 31%, go into the big radiated by atmos arrow.
They replace the rising air and latent heat , 7% + 23 % = 30%, which return to the surface.
Roger Clague @ August 21, 2:02 pm,
Thanks for your interest Roger, but I don’t want to go into further detail in the NASA or Trenberth cartoons because I’m an irascible old sod and it would stray even further off-topic than we are tending already. Perhaps you could propose a new article via the SUGGESTIONS tab?
“Is the atmosphere in that TE, or only pedalling very fast to always approach?”
Neither.
There are a couple reasons why the whole question is ill-posed.
1) Thermodynamic equilibrium cannot occur with active inputs and outputs of heat. Since there is heat input at the bottom (from sunlight warming the surface) and heat output at the top (EMR to space), there will ALWAYS be flux upward through the atmosphere. The atmosphere can NEVER be in equilibrium (which would require the atmosphere to be at a single temperature).
2) Perhaps you meant thermodynamic “steadystate” (where there can be temperature gradients and flux, but they are not changing in time) instead of “equilibrium”. Even that will not really happen due to cycles of summer/winter and day/night. If you want to “average out” these cycles, then you might say that the atmosphere is in some quasi-steadystate thermodynamic condition.
(I also suspect that 10 minutes for a time constant seems rather fast for a system that is ~ 10-20 km tall. Neither conduction nor convection is nearly that fast. Radiation energy transfer only occurs in bands where molecules emit well, which can only deliver relatively small amounts of energy relatively short distances (10’s of meters) before the energy gets absorbed again by other gas molecules.)
Bob wonders: ““Should they be renamed by that higher life-form? To:
(“Sensible thermal energy” and “Latent thermal energy” and “specific thermal energy”)” “
One starting bit of advice in discussions is “say what you mean, and mean what you say”. A corollary would be “agree on definitions”.
Since this is a technical discussion of thermodynamics, then it seems logical to me to agree to use the some specific technical definitions. And whether some people like it or not, every physics, chemistry, and engineering textbook about thermodynamics (for at least 50 years) distinguishes between “Q” (which is always an active transfer of energy between different systems) and “U” (which is internal to a system).
So if you mean “sensible heat”, then say “senisble heat”. If you mean “senisble thermal energy’ then say that.
So suppose I put 1 g of ice in contact with 1 g of water @ 80 C. I discover that later I have 2 g of water @ 0 C.
Focusing on “Q”, I could say “Q = 334 J of heat moved from the warm water to the cooler ice”. I could say “because the water was changing temperature, the heat leaving the water will be called ‘sensible heat’ ” and “because the ice was not changing temperature, the heat entering the ice will be called “latent heat”.
Focusing on “U”, I could say “the internal energy of the ice increased by U = 334 J and the internal energy of the water decreased by U = 334 J.” And again, I could also say “since that change in U for the ice did not change the temperature, I am going to give that bit internal energy the name ‘latent thermal energy’ “.
You can’t say either of these is “right” or “wrong” — they are just different definitions. I will say that the sources I checked tend to mean “sensible HEAT” (Q, not U) when they say “sensible heat”, so that suggests there is no reason to change the use of the phrase “sensible heat” since it is already being used in a consistent way.
Tim Folkerts says, August 21, 2014 at 3:44 pm:
“Since this is a technical discussion of thermodynamics, then it seems logical to me to agree to use the some specific technical definitions. And whether some people like it or not, every physics, chemistry, and engineering textbook about thermodynamics (for at least 50 years) distinguishes between “Q” (which is always an active transfer of energy between different systems) and “U” (which is internal to a system).”
Very good point, Tim. The top post questions the Laws of THERMODYNAMICS, yet the poster refuses to acknowledge the long since firmly accepted THERMODYNAMIC definitions of heat [Q], work [W] and internal energy [U]; rather he prefers to bicker on and on about what engineers (and many laymen) might think of when they hear the word ‘heat’. Yes, thank you, we all know now what they think. They think about energy statically contained inside objects. Fine. In thermodynamics, that’s called internal energy [U]. In thermodynamics heat [Q] (and work [W]) is very specifically energy IN TRANSIT, energy transferred from one system or region to another, heat always spontaneously from hot to cold by virtue of the temperature difference. They are not state functions. They are processes.
And those definitions work very well indeed. As well today as in the past. I’m sorry, but you just have to live with it. (And no, Will, it’s not post-modern non-science, it’s not a grand plot to bamboozle the world’s population.)
Can we all please now end this pointless arguing back and forth and move on to more interesting and relevant issues …?
Bob_FJ says, August 21, 2014 at 1:01 am:
“The main reason that the current physics definition is the only one viable for physicists is that you are stuck with it in your school. Applied scientists, such as engineers are those who could sit down using the old fashioned method and work through problems fine with the more precise understanding of HEAT. (versus your it could be any mix of energy).”
YOU think it’s more precise, Bob. Physicists don’t. And this is a physics (thermodynamics) problem. You started this thread challenging the Laws of THERMODYNAMICS. Then stick to it.
“BTW, they are the ones that actually do stuff in the world, and are in my opinion not a lower life-form to physicists.”
No one called engineers a lower life-form except you, Bob. The energy budget of the earth, the question of ‘atmospheric back radiation’ and whether it can itself heat the surface or not, is not an engineering problem. It’s a physics problem.
“I think you are confused there (my bold). Surely you can’t feel the HEAT, because you say it is the energy in transit, which is what an unbrainwashed engineer would see and call EMR and which would not become HEAT until absorbed and felt by the nerve endings in the skin. You would call that sensation as caused by thermal energy, not HEAT?”
You need to read the full context of what I’m writing, Bob. It’s a LAYMAN saying he can feel the heat. And he does so as energy is transferred from the hot object to him. You cannot ‘feel heat’ unless energy is thermally being transferred to you. If you stick your hand down into boiling water (would be foolish), you’re not feeling the heat INSIDE the water. You’re feeling the energy from the water being TRANSFERRED to your hand AS HEAT. Sure, it is only when this energy is absorbed by your skin tissue that your nerve endings are actually able to transmit the pain. But it’s the transfer that made it possible. And then the energy is no longer ‘heat’. It stops being heat when the transfer ends. Then the energy transferred to you as heat has been added to your ‘internal energy’, made the molecules inside your hand vibrate faster than they did before. If you skid across a hardcourt you might also burn, but this time from ‘work’ being done on your skin in the form of friction, not from a transfer of heat.
The energy is of course all the time the same when it first resides in the hot object, when it’s then transferred and when it finally resides in the cold object. In thermodynamics we simply want to distinguish between this energy being statically part of the objects (or regions, if you want) on one side and being part of the dynamic interaction between them on the other.
PS Will is going to have a difficult time with “Thermodynamic Temperature is defined as sensible HEAT divided by entropy. T = Q/S.”
You see, entropy was originally defined in thermodynamics in terms of Q & T. Thus this definition is circular. The only way out would involve turning to Statistical Mechanics for a microscopic definition of entropy. 🙂
Will Janoschka says: August 21, 2014 at 6:52 am
I agree! There is other stuff like steady state vs. thermodynamic equilibrium!
Old timey thermodynamic equilibrium, is when no flux and no temperature spontaneously change!
Question: If the whole atmosphere has a time constant for old TE of less than ten minutes because of radiative something transfer, Is the atmosphere in that TE, or only pedalling very fast to always approach? Does this make any difference in ten or thirty years?
Tim Folkerts says: August 21, 2014 at 3:17 pm
(“Is the atmosphere in that TE, or only pedalling very fast to always approach?””
“Neither. There are a couple reasons why the whole question is ill-posed.”
Your interpetation of my question is il-posed In your nonsense of TE is different than “steady state”, another of your fantasies. I clearlied the definition of TE I was using. You deliberately ignored that, and substuted your fantasy. Because of your fantasy you will refuse to define “equilibium” and how that may relate to “dynamics”
1) “Thermodynamic equilibrium cannot occur with active inputs and outputs of heat.”
So your fantasy claims with no evidence. So noun heat requires a verb to become a process.
“Since there is heat input at the bottom (from sunlight warming the surface) and heat output at the top (EMR to space), there will ALWAYS be flux upward through the atmosphere. The atmosphere can NEVER be in equilibrium (which would require the atmosphere to be at a single temperature).”
A single temperature is one form of thermostatic equilibrium, which also may include a temperature gradiant but no flux. The static troposphere is in equilibrum. Dynamically it is an isotherm, except for EMR. Every water molecule in the atmosphere is radiating outward to space
none of this EMR is absorbed as long as the atmosphere is in radiative equilibrium.
2) “Perhaps you meant thermodynamic “steadystate” (where there can be temperature gradients and flux, but they are not changing in time) instead of “equilibrium”. Even that will not really happen due to cycles of summer/winter and day/night. If you want to “average out” these cycles, then you might say that the atmosphere is in some quasi-steadystate thermodynamic condition.”
Under the condition stated and I even stated “that” TE there is no difference with your fantasy SS.
“I also suspect that 10 minutes for a time constant seems rather fast for a system that is ~ 10-20 km tall. Neither conduction nor convection is nearly that fast.”
As I stated “because of radiated”. Measured atmospheric time constant is 6-8 minutes!
“Radiation energy transfer only occurs in bands where molecules emit well, which can only deliver relatively small amounts of energy relatively short distances (10’s of meters) before the energy gets absorbed again by other gas molecules.”
Such a claim indicates complete misunderstanding of Maxwell’s equations and Kirchhoff’s Laws of Thermal Radiation. What you claim has been falsified over and over.
Please answer both of my questions? Not your version of such questions.
Will, it is more than clear that your understanding of Thermodynamics is different from mine. There is really no point in making any more explanations. I will leave it to the few remaining readers to judge what of value they can take away from this conversation.
Tim Folkerts says: August 21, 2014 at 6:31 pm
“PS Will is going to have a difficult time with “Thermodynamic Temperature is defined as sensible HEAT divided by entropy. T = Q/S.”
Thermodynamic temperature is separate from Thermometric temperature and Radiometric temperature. Even using the same scale, the numerical values of the same mass generally are different. Only physicists concern themselves with nonsense.
“You see, entropy was originally defined in thermodynamics in terms of Q & T. Thus this definition is circular. The only way out would involve turning to Statistical Mechanics for a microscopic definition of entropy.”
Everyone knew entropy was circular, including Rudy Clausius, who hated the term. Entropy is a conceptual and mathematical kluge invented to get around the “missing” energy in a closed system. In an open system like the earth, no one cares! There is never a need for your falsified Statistical Mechanics, and never a need for a microscopic definition of entropy!
Only physicists concern themselves with nonsense.
Click to access Where-is-Physics.pdf
Roger Clague says: August 21, 2014 at 2:02 pm
“Questions about the diagram
The rising air and the latent heat form H2O(g), don’t they get returned to the surface, not radiated?”
No. Both sensible heat and latent heat converted to to sensible heat, (condensation) are the source of energy (power) for EMR to space. Such cannot return as that energy is no longer part of the atmosphere. Raindrops try as increasing velocity, but the velocity is so limited 8m/s, that most Newtonian kinetic energy goes back to atmospheric sensible heat also to be radiated outward.
Let’s terminate this thread on a lighter note.
There are Irish jokes, Polish jokes, even violinist versus violist jokes and more. How about this one:
_______________________________________________________________
Q- How many physicists does it take to change a light bulb?
A- Two; One to hold the light bulb, and one to rotate the universe. (after carefully selecting which universe out of up to; is it eleven?)
_______________________________________________________________
OR, I don’t want to cause physical discomfort caused by work-done in laughter convulsions, but:
(Uh-Ut)~~~~~~~~~~~~~~(Q)~~~~~~~~~~~~~~(Uc+Ut)
^Not HEAT
May be visible but not hot ^
EMR is absorbed by the skin but is felt as U not Q^
Legend follows:
U = not HEAT
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ = EMR for the radiative case of HEAT transfer.
Q = Not a question but the physicist’s interpretation of EMR translated as HEAT
h = hot emitter
c = cold receiver
t = transferred stuff
_______________________________________________________________
OR, shifting to cousin sound waves instead of EMR:
Q- Where to hide a violin if you don’t want to lose it?
A- In a viola case.
Hopefully this will be a better scaled representation of the formula above:
(Uh-Ut)~~~~~~~~~~~(Q)~~~~~~~~~~~(Uc+Ut)
Bob_FJ says: August 23, 2014 at 6:54 am
“Let’s terminate this thread on a lighter note.”
OK did anything get answered?
“a parody in its title might be; Is there a 4th law of Thermodynamics?”
Well?
“THE BLOGGER’S LAMENT
I’m Spartacus! Claimed AlecM,
And my dog’s got no nose, now and then.
I’ve never been Georgy,
Nor even a Formby,
But it’s quite turned out nice, once again!”
Have you identified one or many? perhaps you need pointman’s help.
Turnedoutnice has identified himself, What a turnaround!