Over on realclimate, (remember them?), Stefan ‘there is no pause’ Rahmsdorf has posted an article about why OHC makes a lousy climate policy target. I’ve left a comment concerning a sentence further down in the post, but here’s the intro:
The New York Times, 12 December 2027: After 12 years of debate and negotiation, kicked off in Paris in 2015, world leaders have finally agreed to ditch the goal of limiting global warming to below 2 °C. Instead, they have agreed to the new goal of limiting global ocean heat content to 1024 Joules. The decision was widely welcomed by the science and policy communities as a great step forward. “In the past, the 2 °C goal has allowed some governments to pretend that they are taking serious action to mitigate global warming, when in reality they have achieved almost nothing. I’m sure that this can’t happen again with the new 1024 Joules goal”, said David Victor, a professor of international relations who originally proposed this change back in 2014. And an unnamed senior EU negotiator commented: “Perhaps I shouldn’t say this, but some heads of state had trouble understanding the implications of the 2 °C target; sometimes they even accidentally talked of limiting global warming to 2%. I’m glad that we now have those 1024 Joules which are much easier to grasp for policy makers and the public.”
This fictitious newspaper item is of course absurd and will never become reality, because ocean heat content is unsuited as a climate policy target. Here are three main reasons why.
– See more
Just in case my comment gets censored, I’ll post it here for the record:
Your comment is awaiting moderation.
Stefan says: “the ocean is on average 3700 meters deep (thus has a huge heat capacity) and is heated at a low power input of the order of ~1 Watt per square meter of surface area.”
The oceans are heated at a rate of up to around 1kw at zenith by the Sun, and have to lose that energy at the same rate as it is input in order to be somewhere near equilibrium. In order to overcome the restrictions placed on the ocean’s energy emission by sea level pressure and the insulative effect of the overlying air, the ocean’s surface has to rise to a temperature at which it can evaporate and radiate the same amount of energy as enters it.
Longwave back-radiation does not heat the ocean directly, but raises the temperature of the near surface air, reducing the temperature differential between the air and the ocean’s surface. Given that oceanic energy emission supports the night-time temperature of the near surface air, and daytime evaporation produces dominant energy transport to altitude it is evident that the level of back-radiation in the air is more an effect of ocean surface temperature (and heat content) than a cause of it.
Tallbloke's Talkshop 
As expected, the comment has been censored by those paragons of objectivity and open debate at R-C.
He says we should continue to use the temperature metric. No biggie ….
Except that his position is firm that the “hiatus” is a temporary situation of no import to the models or future warming. Everything hinges on a near-term cooling period predicted by the 60 year cycle of global temperatures and solar/magnetic/cloud parameters.
The argument is so difficult.
The weird, unidirectional adjustments and “corrections” just never got any traction. Even the Australian and New Zealand ad/corr didn’t. Nor did the bizarre claim of sea level rise acceleration coincident with different satellites and different from tidal records. Nor the failure of all but 3 of the 117 model run AVERAGES to follow observation (without any model of how we go from the 1988 to 2014 pattern and jump to the catastrophic 4.5C rise that the warmists shriek about, same comment applicable to the sea level rise).
CAGW is a pea under a moving tea cup. It is really, really hard to keep that in mind, and – apparently – impossible to keep that in public attention.
Even if the world governments don’t agree, don’t follow through on big fossil-fuel pullbacks, this foolishness is still going to harm us. Paterson could not have been more explicit, but is he going to have an impact? I don’t know how politically the current governors can save face on Climate Change if they come to realize that the story was bogus – the catastrophic part that drives everything.
There is so much money and personal self-image invested in the IPCC narrative, I can’t imagine a rapid way out. The witchcraft frenzy did end, however, so the madness of the moment can go away. But I think it really requires the retirement and passing-on of the zealots, rather than a coming back to reason (although the Salem fathers DID publicly apologize years later for what was done, but back then there was no thought about legal accountability in admitting you were wrong).
As I have commented elsewhere, the alarmists know that the evidence and the science is against them. That is the reason they censor and yell that “the debate is over”. “We have a consensus!”
If the little cowards really wanted to convince the world that they were right they would post your comment and then jump all over it with facts, figures, graphs, theory, and so on. But, they don’t have the mental powers to do that so best to sick their fingers in their ears and yell “I can’t hear you”.
If the mainstream media had any real reporters this fantasy would never have gotten off the ground.
” … it is evident that the level of back-radiation in the air is more an effect of ocean surface temperature (and heat content) than a cause of it.”
Roger, I got lost in that part. Could you expand on it a bit when time allows?
~Mark
Rog,
just a quick note that your comment at RC appears to have made it through moderation.
There may have been an outbreak of reasonableness at RC. We may have to install pig screens on our windows 😉
Hi TB. Some statements in your post may give you grief.
“The oceans are heated at a rate of up to around 1kw at zenith by the Sun, and have to lose that energy at the same rate as it is input in order to be somewhere near equilibrium. In order to overcome the restrictions placed on the ocean’s energy emission by sea level pressure and the insulative effect of the overlying air, the ocean’s surface has to rise to a temperature at which it can evaporate and radiate the same amount of energy as enters it.”
‘In order to overcome the restrictions placed on the ocean’s energy emission by sea level pressure and the insulative effect of the overlying air,’ is inaccurate. The defining factor is ‘vapour pressure’!
Energy from the water ‘may/may not’ eject a water molecule through the surface barrier. If this ‘ejection’ occurs, the molecule may survive in a gaseous state if conditions within the atmospheric surface interface are favourable (RH). These ‘conditions’ amount to ‘vapour pressure’ for evaporation rates and latent energy loss for the water surface. Not “sea level pressure”, or “the insulative effect of the overlying air”!
“Longwave back-radiation does not heat the ocean directly, but raises the temperature of the near surface air, reducing the temperature differential between the air and the ocean’s surface. Given that oceanic energy emission supports the night-time temperature of the near surface air, and daytime evaporation produces dominant energy transport to altitude it is evident that the level of back-radiation in the air is more an effect of ocean surface temperature (and heat content) than a cause of it.”
‘Longwave back-radiation’ heats the evaporative surface of the ocean, but I can’t see how it heats the air at the a/o interface. If it did, it would ‘increase’ the “temperature differential between the air and the ocean’s surface” (perhaps it does).
The release of ‘latent energy’ at altitude will certainly produce a ‘back-radiation’ towards the surface. This would provide the a/o atmosphere side of the interface with the energy needed to promote an escaping molecule of water towards the atmosphere and away from the ocean to promote ‘ocean cooling’.
It’s late.
Best regards, Ray.
According to data collected by NASA and other US government agencies the rate of heating is not one watt per square meter. Closer to half that amount.
Moreover the error bars in the best estimates from the data bracket zero.
As if that that were not enough, inter-annual variations of surface radiation budget are twice as big as the best estimate of ocean heating, also bracketing zero.
I conclude that the best data is not precise enough to say whether or not the oceans are warming, cooling or fluctuating between warming and cooling.
http://geoscienceenvironment.wordpress.com/2014/09/04/the-emperors-of-climate-alarmism-wear-no-clothes/
“Perhaps I shouldn’t say this, but some heads of state had trouble understanding the implications of the 2 °C target; sometimes they even accidentally talked of limiting global warming to 2%. I’m glad that we now have those 1024 Joules which are much easier to grasp for policy makers and the public.”
Written by a naive or pillock…
If understanding 2C is too tough the chances of comprehending an exponential number is zero.
Not that we have a clue on OHC, as fake as whatever that 2C represents. Isn’t that the original problem, ain’t properly stated?
Methinks worse, various obfuscating ploys are wide open. 1024 is a dodgy pattern given confusion with 1000, all that geek stuff.
Okay so there needs to be a sensible number, how about 1? 10^24 = 1
That’s the starting point.
How long to reach 2? (20^24)
Fall back to temperature, but it’s K, trying to scare people with 290 moving to 292
I wonder, could it be folks are not stupid?
Hi TB
The link to my earlier article you posted above reminded me that I recently came across a Figure on page 749 of the May 2014 U.S. Global Change Research Program, U.S. National Climate Assessment Report entitled “Climate Change Impacts in the United States”.
http://nca2014.globalchange.gov/downloads.
which attempts to explain the recent pause in global warming. I reproduce it below for your attention and amusement. It looks just like some of the graphs I posted, even down to the blue stripy (but unfortunately no red stripy) wallpaper. And the Figure explanation agrees with my conclusion – that the stair-step warming pattern is “associated with modes of natural variability such as El Niño and La Niña that redistribute heat between the ocean and the atmosphere”
It’s nice to be vindicated, especially when the other guys shoot themselves in the foot in the process. 🙂
@suricat. I believe the physical term you are describing is the enthalpy of vaporization. It is dependent on pressure and in the case of the oceans determines their equilibrium point.
I tried to add a comment at RC –
Before policy should come solid science. In terms of climate on our ocean planet, OHC remains a critical metric. Effecting OHC are such factors as cloud cover, mineral and biological turbidity, wind speeds and component variation in TSI. However one factor that is provably negligible in OHC is DWLWIR.
Currently climate modelling has critical flaws when it comes to modelling solar heating of the oceans. The most basic 2D modelling treats the oceans as SW opaque, and this leads to grave errors, in particular the basic 255K assumption for “surface without atmosphere”. Some more advanced modelling does try to address the depth of solar absorption issues. Sweeny et al is a fair example –
Click to access SWpen_Sweeney.pdf
Simple empirical experiments can show that DWLWIR is a negligible factor in OHC and depth of UV/SW absorption by contrast a critical factor. But to address modelling issues more precise empirical environmental measurement is needed. Dr. Rahmstorf mentions the development of Deep Argo which will be a great resource. It could be a fantastic resource with the addition of two extra instruments –
1. Optical turbidity sensor.
2. Multi wavelength solar penetration sensor.
There have already been some disturbing moves to use just atmospheric CO2 concentration as a metric driving policy without regard to actual measurable climate effects. Abandoning OHC as a climate metric would be allowing politics to drive science, when science should be driving policy.
– but I think I may have gone a little too far for the dear believers…*sniggers*
“Longwave back-radiation does not heat the ocean directly, but raises the temperature of the near surface air, reducing the temperature differential between the air and the ocean’s surface.”
Huh!?
Nice photo of Rahmsdorf, but I thought he was pushing something, not pulling.
From IMDb “Early Edition” TV series web page:
His name is Gary Hobson. He gets tomorrow’s newspaper today. He doesn’t know how. He doesn’t know why. All he knows is when the early edition hits his doorstep, he has twenty-four hours to set things right.
Gary Hobson yesterday. Stefan Rahmsdorf today. We don’t need any Batman.
At least this fantasy is more like a brief outline, and not a dreary derivative bit of SF fluff.
Alan Poirier says: October 21, 2014 at 5:05 am
“@suricat. I believe the physical term you are describing is the enthalpy of vaporization.”
Well observed Alan! Many would see this as ‘entropic decay’ on a macroscopic scale, but within Earth’s systems there are ‘no losses’ from the atmospheric hydrological cycle . Thus, no entropy, as the evaporation/condensation cycle is 100% efficient.
However, this process ‘moves’ the ‘radiation to space’ for surface absorption of insolation to ‘~mid tropo altitude radiation’ for ‘any’ water that evaporates. It’s a natural ‘heat pump/refrigeration’ device for Earth’s surface energy absorption.
“It is dependent on pressure and in the case of the oceans determines their equilibrium point.”
Well no. In a lab experiment, perhaps (dependant on the experiment), but ‘vapour pressure’ incorporates a bit more than just “pressure” per se. It involves the kinetic theory of gasses;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinetic_theory
and a bit more.
I’m open to questions on this.
Best regards, Ray.
suricat says:
October 22, 2014 at 1:17 am
////////////////////////////////////////////
Kinetic theory is what best explains why incident LWIR has a negligible effect on ocean temperatures.
Just as with gases, molecules in water all have different kinetic states. Some have higher velocity, some lower. When we measure the temperature of water we are simple measuring the average of these velocities.
At the gas/liquid interface of the skin evaporation layer, if an individual molecule has high enough velocity, it can break surface tension and evaporate. In doing so it reduces the average of the velocity of the remaining molecules ie: cooling.
When an IR photon is intercepted by a water molecule in the skin evaporation layer it will increase the velocity of that molecule. Slower molecules will have their velocity increased but remain constrained by surface tension thereby increasing average molecular velocity. Faster molecules however will be “tripped” into evaporation as their velocity will be increased enough to break surface tension, thereby reducing average molecular velocity.
If a faster molecule is tripped into evaporation by an IR photon, it will remove not just the original kinetic energy of the molecule but also the energy of the intercepted photon from the skin evaporation layer.
This does mean that for warmer water, DWLWIR could have a slight cooling effect, and for colder water a slight warming effect. However globally the effect will be negligible. DWLWIR cannot be raising ocean temperatures by 33C, yet the whole sorry edifice of AGW depends on the false claim that it can do so.
Konrad, tb and everyone,
There’s a very simple way to figure out whether IR-active gases in the atmosphere contribute radiatively to the warming of the surface, almost a rule of thumb.
First of all, forget about the DWLWIR. It is nothing but a mathematical, conceptual (potential) term. There is no use trying to look for the effect of single photons in a radiative heat transfer situation. That makes as much sense and is as possible as looking for the effect of single electrons in an electric current.
This is all about temperature gradients through air. If you somehow reduce the temperature gradient away from the solar-heated surface, then the surface will warm. Any process the WORKS TOWARDS reducing the temperature gradient away from the solar-heated surface will be a process inherently WORKING TOWARDS warming (insulating) the surface. Conversely, any process that works towards steepening the temperature gradient away from the solar-heated surface will be a process inherently working towards cooling the surface.
So, do IR-active gases in the atmosphere work towards reducing or steepening the tropospheric temperature gradient, the temperature profile from surface to tropopause?
No need to involve inferred and calculated UWLWIR or DWLWIR ‘fluxes’ here. Only the actual radiative transfer of energy, the ‘heat’ (Q), matters.
Do the presence of IR-active gases in the atmosphere make the tropospheric temperature gradient less steep than if they were not there?
Konrad says: October 22, 2014 at 2:19 am
“DWLWIR cannot be raising ocean temperatures by 33C, yet the whole sorry edifice of AGW depends on the false claim that it can do so.”
This can be confusing. Earth’s temperature signature is ~33C above the ‘known'(?) average global surface temperature when measured by satellite instrumentation. However, the ~33C temperature increase originates from ~mid-tropo altitude, but proponents of CAGW don’t mention this. They ‘do’, however, talk of ‘land surface temperatures’ and invoke ‘SB calculation’ to arrive at a ‘BB’ energy flux.
These calculations don’t work for ocean surface, or ‘wet land surface’ (bog, savannah and forest), where ocean surface per se is a black body absorber which emits no EMR of value to the adjoining atmosphere (ignoring ‘angle of incidence’ reflection) and ‘wet land surface’ is cooled by ‘latent transport’ (water evaporation).
Moreover, the ‘ocean surface : land surface’ ratio is ~7:3, so Earth has more than twice as much ocean surface than land surface, making ocean surface emission more than twice as dominant than land surface emission.
This poses a question. Why do proponents of CAGW invoke SB equations for Earth’s surface temperature calculation? I don’t know, but the ‘odds’ on their accuracy are less than 7:3 on for winning.
Where does this put the ~33C anomaly? IMHO it’s the ‘EMR’ IR spike from latent energy released at altitude superimposed on Earth’s surface IR. We know the temperature at this altitude is too low, so EMR emission in IR spectra is the only scenario I can think of.
Best regards, Ray.
Kristian says: October 22, 2014 at 11:54 am
“Konrad, tb and everyone,
There’s a very simple way to figure out whether IR-active gases in the atmosphere contribute radiatively to the warming of the surface, almost a rule of thumb.”
Er, I think the current subject is ‘latency’ Kristian. However.
“First of all, forget about the DWLWIR. It is nothing but a mathematical, conceptual (potential) term. There is no use trying to look for the effect of single photons in a radiative heat transfer situation. That makes as much sense and is as possible as looking for the effect of single electrons in an electric current.”
Perhaps.
“This is all about temperature gradients through air. If you somehow reduce the temperature gradient away from the solar-heated surface, then the surface will warm. Any process the WORKS TOWARDS reducing the temperature gradient away from the solar-heated surface will be a process inherently WORKING TOWARDS warming (insulating) the surface. Conversely, any process that works towards steepening the temperature gradient away from the solar-heated surface will be a process inherently working towards cooling the surface.”
For radiative states of ‘gasses’, I concur.
“So, do IR-active gases in the atmosphere work towards reducing or steepening the tropospheric temperature gradient, the temperature profile from surface to tropopause?”
This is altitude sensitive. At near surface “IR-active gasses” reduce the gradient, but at higher altitudes “IR-active gasses” ‘steepen’ the gradient. However, their effect is ‘negligible’ (minor).
“No need to involve inferred and calculated UWLWIR or DWLWIR ‘fluxes’ here. Only the actual radiative transfer of energy, the ‘heat’ (Q), matters.”
??? “Heat (Q)” ‘isn’t’ compatible with an EMR “flux”! ‘Q’ is a ‘quantum’ of ‘stored energy’ and ‘flux’ is a ‘rate of energy transport’. IMHO you’ve confounded ‘coulombs’ with ‘current’ in an electrical analogy. Perhaps you could offer a better explication?
“Do the presence of IR-active gases in the atmosphere make the tropospheric temperature gradient less steep than if they were not there?”
As I said above, the effect is altitude sensitive. “IR-active gasses” in the strat ‘cool’, but at near surface ‘warm’. However, the effect is almost ‘imperceptible’ IMHO.
If you’re into lapse rates, ‘latent energy’ from the atmospheric hydrological cycle is the ~only proponent for altering the temperature gradient.
Best regards, Ray.
Kristian says:
October 22, 2014 at 11:54 am
//////////////////////////////////////////////
Kristian, your question is a good one and the answer is that radiative gases make the gradient steeper. That is to say steeper than if convective circulation and the adiabatic lapse rate so generated could magically continue without radiative subsidence. Radiative gases do double the work in cooling the atmosphere than they do in heating it. As the cooling occurs at altitude, radiative gases will increase the slope of the vertical temperature gradient.
A better question to ask is “What is an accurate figure for surface temperature in absence of atmosphere?”
This question assumes the oceans could be retained without and atmosphere. Here climastrologists calculated 255K, well below our current surface average of 288K. But to obtain 255K they simply treated the surface as a near blackbody being illuminated by a constant 240 w/m2.
They should have treated the oceans as a selective surface or greybody, translucent to SW and IR opaque, internally convecting and intermittently illuminated with SW peaking at over 1000 w/m2. The estimated ocean surface temperature difference between greybody and blackbody is huge ~80C. That global 255K figure should have been ~312K. Given that current surface temperatures are lower than this it means only one thing. The net effect of our radiative atmosphere is surface cooling. In turn the atmosphere needs a way to cool and that is radiative gases.
This is the simplest dis-proof of the radiative GHE and AGW hypotheses there is. The empirical experiments demonstrating this huge error are also very simple to replicate.
suricat says:
October 22, 2014 at 11:52 pm
//////////////////////////////////////////////
Ray,
you ask “Why do proponents of CAGW invoke SB equations for Earth’s surface temperature calculation?”
This is a question for the ages. It is the fundamental mistake in the foundation of the radiative GHE hypothesis. As I wrote to Kristian above –
They should have treated the oceans as a selective surface or greybody, translucent to SW and IR opaque, internally convecting and intermittently illuminated with SW peaking at over 1000 w/m2. The estimated ocean surface temperature difference between greybody and blackbody is huge, around 80C. That global 255K figure should have been around 312K.
I should have also added that for water, effective IR emissivity could be as low as 0.7 while SW absorptivity is higher around 0.92.
For these conditions standard SB equations assuming constant illumination for a near blackbody could never give the right answer for the oceans. Why on earth did they do this?
Correcting 255K to 312K utterly rules out AGW due to CO2 as current surface temps are around 288K. Climastrologists didn’t get it “a little bit wrong”. They got it totally wrong. The net effect of our radiative atmosphere is surface cooling not warming.
Konrad 7:23am: “Why on earth did they do this?”
Because “they” (meaning modern relevant text book authors, voluminous relevant paper authors) in discussing earth satellite and L&O surface physics for Tmean ~255K understand tests and correctly apply atmospheric Planck tested distribution, Kirchhoff tested law & 1st law basic physics way better than unpublished Konrad. Publication citations supplied, Konrad ignored.
“..for water, effective IR emissivity could be as low as 0.7 while SW absorptivity is higher around 0.92.”
Incorrect for the yearly (long term) diurnal & seasonal earth cycles, see top post: “The oceans are heated at a rate of up to around 1kw at zenith by the Sun, and have to lose that energy at the same rate as it is input in order to be somewhere near equilibrium.”
Here Konrad fails to state or even understand when all natural beam directions, all natural beam frequencies, all natural L&O surface temperatures are measured over earth yearly diurnal cycle, or 4 years or 10 years, per Kirchhoff law, as in top post statement, earth all ocean water emissivity = absorptivity ~ 0.96. Near steady state equilibrium does mean the energy is lost at the same ~rate as it is acquired over 1 or 4 or 10 years measured from precision instruments within reasonable small measured anomaly
Incorrectly restating surface Tmean 255K to 312K Konrad utterly ignores Planck distribution, Kirchhoff law, atmosphere optical depth and 1st law tested principle conditions upon which earth surface Tmean= ~255K is calculated. Due that ignoring, it is Konrad that is wrong. Knuckle biting mistakenly Konrad wrong. For years Konrad has been wrong, even though the text books & papers are readily available (and even cited!) from which Konrad can learn.
Konrad simply has own personal agenda, has not cutting edge science atm. physics understanding. Konrad shows no sign of working to acquire relevant science understanding.
Konrad. says, October 23, 2014 at 7:10 am:
“Kristian, your question is a good one and the answer is that radiative gases make the gradient steeper.”
I prefer to say ‘work towards making it steeper’, just like the solar heating of the surface does. Because they don’t actually manage to. Convection sees to that. The global mean tropospheric temperature profile – the ELR – is predetermined to be what it is, kept on a short leash by the gravity-based (and latent-heat-release-influenced) ALR. The tight interaction between radiation always trying to make it steeper and convection always bringing it back down is the control.
But other than that, we agree on this particular aspect. Which is a crucial one. Thanks.
Konrad. says, October 23, 2014 at 7:23 am:
“They should have treated the oceans as a selective surface or greybody, translucent to SW and IR opaque, internally convecting and intermittently illuminated with SW peaking at over 1000 w/m2. The estimated ocean surface temperature difference between greybody and blackbody is huge, around 80C. That global 255K figure should have been around 312K.
I should have also added that for water, effective IR emissivity could be as low as 0.7 while SW absorptivity is higher around 0.92.
For these conditions standard SB equations assuming constant illumination for a near blackbody could never give the right answer for the oceans. Why on earth did they do this?
Correcting 255K to 312K utterly rules out AGW due to CO2 as current surface temps are around 288K. Climastrologists didn’t get it “a little bit wrong”. They got it totally wrong. The net effect of our radiative atmosphere is surface cooling not warming.”
The thought process is clearly short-circuiting in the AGW/rGHE camp when it comes to this topic.
I would say it’s a pretty obvious fact, almost to the point of being an intuitive one, that a body of water heated to depth by solar SW will not be able to also shed this particular amount of energy within a similar period of time by radiating (LWIR) back out from its surface. At any time. Why? First of all, the energy coming in as SW is absorbed across the three dimensions of the volume of water, but the energy going back out as LW is only emitted from the twodimensional surface.
The SW energy is after all not instantly able to warm the body of water up to the point where its surface temperature correlates to an LW emission flux equal to the originally absorbed SW flux.
In a purely radiative setting, this would pose no problem. The system would simply move towards a steady state, by incoming (SW) energy gradually accumulating in the volume until the point where such a surface temperature did result. At this point, the incoming and outgoing radiative fluxes would match and there would be no more warming.
On our planet, however, there’s an atmosphere on top of the solar-heated body of water, and the ocean releases most of its energy into this atmosphere by way of evaporation.
This means that on real Earth, the water surface will reach its steady state temperature long before radiative balance has been accomplished, i.e. as much energy is released from the surface as taken up by the volume of water per unit of time even at much lower temperatures than the ideal Stefan-Boltzmann blackbody situation would seem to demand. Courtesy of the release of latent heat through evaporation.
Am I correct in assuming that this is the gist of your argument, Konrad?
– – –
This highly asymmetrical relation between incoming and outgoing to the ocean is also reflected in the responsiveness to changes in surrounding conditions.
This is where for instance Peter Minnett falls through in his interpretation of his results from the tropical Pacific in 2004-6.
It has long been a well-known fact that in the tropics, clouds and cloud cover have a net cooling effect on the surface beneath. The effect of blocking the incoming solar from being absorbed at or below the surface (slowing surface warming) turns out to be much stronger than the opposite one, the effect of slowing down surface cooling. Minnett clearly knew this as well. And still he chose to ignore it, thus failing to incorporate it into his analysis. What he observed were short-term (transient) energy transfer responses to change at the air/sea interface, not to the overall energy balance.
The crucial point is this: The surface responds directly and nearly instantly to the changes – cooling is slowed as clouds cover the sky (this involves all the energy transfers, not just the radiative one); the bulk of the water, though, is much more sluggish in its response. The solar input is diminished with increased cloud cover, but this doesn’t show up as a decrease in surface temperature until the change has propagated though the whole volume of water influenced by it.
Cooling happens directly at the air/sea interface. Warming, on the other hand, occurs throughout the volume of water, and so a change in input will need more time to move towards a new steady state.
Minnett’s cloud results would thus naturally have been inverted if he only let them settle into a new steady state rather than focus solely on the initial, transient responses at the very surface.
Kristian says:
October 23, 2014 at 4:21 pm
////////////////////////////////////////////
Your interpretation of the SW selective surface effect is correct. For selective surface experiment 1 –
– the energy flow during heating can be shown as –
– for block A all SW is absorbed at depth and must conduct back to the surface to be radiated away. For Block B all SW is absorbed at the surface and is more easily radiated away before conducting into the block.
For continuous solar illumination the average equilibrium temp of block A is around 20C higher than block B, however the surface temps will be similar. To make the surface temps diverge as well all you need do is make the solar illumination intermittent (simulated diurnal cycle)
Surface temperatures will also diverge even with continuous illumination if the SW transparent material can convect –
After doing these experiments I found out that these effects were old news. Researchers at Texas A&M found the same when working on evaporation constrained solar ponds in 1965.
That 255K used as a base assumption by climastrologists should be around 312K (possibly higher). Evaporative cooling by a radiatively cooled atmosphere is what is reducing ocean temps to 288K. AGW is just not physically possible.
Trick says:
October 23, 2014 at 2:44 pm
///////////////////////////////////////////
No Trick, the calls to authority, the Alisky techniques, none of it will work. If you want to save climastrology you would need to erase that shameful 255K figure from ever text, every paper, every model and every corner of the Internet. This is impossible, therefore the shame of the climastrologists is eternal.
Flap your hands about Planck and Kirchhoff all you like, nothing I am showing is in violation. That 255K figure is a direct result of applying standard e=a SB equations to an opaque BB surface illuminated by a constant 240 w/m2.
The ocean temperature provably cannot be modelled this way. The oceans are –
– SW translucent
– IR opaque
– Intermittently illuminated
– Internally convecting
– Have effective (not apparent ) IR emissivity lower than SW absorptivity
These factors were provably ignored in the generation of that 255K figure. For the oceans empirical experiment shows it in error by around 80C.
Trick, you are pointlessly trying to argue against empirical evidence as old as 1965.
konrad,
Not that I am an old bu**er, have you considered simulating the experiments?
Konrad 1:10am: ”These factors were provably ignored in the generation of that 255K figure.”
None of those factors in Konrad’s list are ignored at all in the calculations for 255K. If Planck, Kirchhoff, 1st law are correct (they are), then earth Tmean 255K calculation is correct and Konrad’s 312K is provably wrong.
Here are only some of the factors Konrad 12:52am misses in arriving at his impossible 312K claim “(That 255K used as a base assumption by climastrologists should be around 312K (possibly higher)” – which is not an assumption but proven by test – for earth Tmean:
Arrows for Block A clear acrylic block & clear coat reflection of SW and LW, the LDPE film reflection of SW and LW, absorption in clear coat from acrylic block & its equivalent emission, “insulation” radiation arrows outgoing and incoming over the spectrum in all directions, clear acrylic block radiation arrows over the spectrum in all directions. And that’s just Block A. And Konrad wants me (& others) to believe his test interpretations instead of text books & specialist papers (all cited). Not that gullible Konrad.
For experiment 2, Konrad completely misses the reflective properties of the black dye particles. A Konrad interpretative exercise in futility. Konrad needs to discuss at least the major diameter of those particles vs. wavelength of interest.
******
Tim C. 2:01am: ”…have you considered simulating the experiments?”
Yes Tim, good point, need Konrad’s numbers both test and reasonable analysis thereof. That would be far beyond the capability Konrad has demonstrated so far. This is why he gives no numbers. Just misguided assertion. His measured numbers won’t line up with his agenda, at all, so he doesn’t even try. Because the numbers will all follow Planck distribution, S-B, Kirchhoff, and 1st law to precision instrument accuracy and not Konrad’s agenda. Forever revealed on the internet.
Tim,
I have considered computer simulation. I have built and run both the selective surface experiments –
This means just like the lunar regolith simulation, there is empirical data to check against. I understand that Gallopingcamel is on other projects at the moment, however his multi layer FEA approach should work well on experiment 1. CFD however would be needed for experiment 2.
The advantage of computer simulation particularly CFD is that it can answer what standard SB equations cannot. There have been many experiments into SW selective surface effects in evaporation constrained convecting solar ponds. However to answer “surface temperature without atmosphere” for the oceans is difficult to precisely answer with empirical experiment. The reason is that for this type of solar pond (convecting not salt gradient) it is known that the deeper it is built the more surface Tmin converges on surface Tmax. However no one has built one 200m deep.
In the past I have proposed this –
– but this would be very expensive and convection restriction and faster “diurnal” cycle would be a imprecise approach.
Building a 200m deep version of this at 6000m altitude (little DWLWIR) in the Atacama desert –
– is somewhat impractical.
CFD (computational fluid dynamics) does appear the logical next step.
Trick says:
October 24, 2014 at 2:40 am
////////////////////////////////////////////
None of those factors in Konrad’s list are ignored at all in the calculations for 255K.
Come on, now you are outright lying again Trick. That 255K figure is simply the result of applying the short form SB equation to an opaque near blackbody in vacuum reviving 240 w/m2. Claiming otherwise is utterly ridiculous. Just how many times have you cited Bohren chapter 7 showing it is exactly as I claim?
Your nit picking about the experiments shown is just that, nit picking. Of course the experiments have conductive losses and reflection issues. But they are common to both blocks/tubs. The only significant difference between each of the samples is depth of SW absorption. The experiments are not supposed to give exact numbers for the oceans in absence of atmosphere, they simply demonstrate the dramatic equilibrium temperature differential for varying the depth of SW absorption. Just as shown by researchers at Texas A&M in 1965.
Depth of SW absorption, intermittent illumination and convection are all provably critical factors in determining equilibrium temperature in a SW translucent, IR opaque material. 255K is a foundation assumption of the AGW hoax. If you said you could show where these factors were included at the time that 255K claim was first made you would be lying. Climastrologists provably calculated for blackbody instead of SW selective surface. You cannot change history, and you cannot change the future. There will be no soft landing for the AGW hoax or its fellow travellers.
Konrad 3:44am: “That 255K figure is simply the result of applying the short form SB equation to an opaque near blackbody in vacuum reviving 240 w/m2….Just how many times have you cited Bohren chapter 7 showing it is exactly as I claim?”
Not so Konrad. Bohren 2006 Chapt. 1.6 p.33 shows the 255K is from the long form of SB annual cycles applied to L&O surface w/all measured 1bar atmosphere input to 1st law, radiation integrated over the spectrum in 1bar atm. (and the reflections of black dye particles in water btw). Bohren 1998 Chapt. 7 discusses Fourier Conduction, Newton’s Law of Cooling and Convective & Radiative energy transfer. Reading & learning all of these will improve Konrad test interpretations. Citing an actual authority traceable to test is not fallacious appeal as Konrad asserts.
“The experiments are not supposed to give exact numbers for the oceans in absence of atmosphere…”
Therefore Konrad admits has no exact data, Konrad’s Tmean 312K claims are in fact admittedly baseless. Before data w/exact numbers, any theory can be asserted.
Try reading “A Scandal in Bohemia” one of A.C. Doyle’s early works Konrad. S. Holmes therein says: “It is a capital offense to theorize before one has data…” Konrad admittedly has no exact data. Konrad’s claim for 312K earth surface Tmean demonstrably is theory before Konrad has exact data as he just wrote tests pictured “not supposed to give exact numbers”; while the surface Tmean 255K uses data to capability of precision of instruments from in situ test measurements, basic Planck, S-B, Kirchhoff full law over earth diurnal/annual cycle, 1st law.
“Just as shown by researchers at Texas A&M in 1965.”
The oceans are much, much, MUCH deeper, this work is irrelevant to oceanography. Very relevant for solar pond study.
“255K is a foundation assumption”
The 255K is not an assumption, not even a foundation; 255K is from reliable, reasonable test backed by numbers exact to precision instrument measurement and proper application Planck distribution in 1bar atm., integrated over the spectrum by full S-B, full Kirchhoff law allowance for reflection (unlike Konrad interpretations) and 1st law theory.
“Climastrologists provably calculated for blackbody instead of SW selective surface.”
Not at all; this is Konrad incorrect assertion only. The relevant text book authors & specialist papers (cited) provably calculated earth near blackbody SW selective surface accurately over yearly seasonal and diurnal cycles, and to date, 4 years and 10 years of actual data.
“There will be no soft landing for the AGW hoax or its fellow travellers.”
Irrelevant. “It is a capital offense to theorize before one has data…”
Konrad – please don’t keep circling back, move the discussion forward, obtain the exact data on Tim’s point. Konrad will then learn first hand Planck distribution, full S-B, full Kirchhoff, and 1st law are usefully accurate & show the conditions for earth surface Tmean 255K with all measured data.
Trick says:
October 24, 2014 at 4:52 am
//////////////////////////////////////////////
I may have got the chapter wrong, but my claim of Bohren using the black body assumption for the surface is solid, right there on page 32. And yes the short form e=a is being used. Further, yet again the 240 w/m2 average is being used. You provably cannot obtain a correct figure for a SW translucent IR opaque substance using an average instead of diurnal cycle. Intermittent illumination of selective surface experiments 1 & 2 prove this beyond any doubt.
Therefore Konrad admits has no exact data, Konrad’s Tmean 312K claims are in fact admittedly baseless. Before data w/exact numbers, any theory can be asserted.
312K is a conservative estimate based on empirical experiment. I and others easily achieve Tmax of 80C in convecting solar pond experiments. Others have shown that as depth increases, surface Tmin rises toward Tmax. This estimate will improve with CFD simulation, but it wont be dropping below 312K 😉
The oceans are much, much, MUCH deeper, this work is irrelevant to oceanography. Very relevant for solar pond study.
Still not getting it? Empirical experiment shows that for evaporation constrained convecting ponds, increasing depth increases average surface temperature.
255K is from reliable, reasonable test backed by numbers exact to precision instrument measurement and proper application Planck distribution in 1bar atm., integrated over the spectrum by full S-B, full Kirchhoff law allowance for reflection (unlike Konrad interpretations) and 1st law theory.
Nope. Climastrologists provably use environmental apparent emissivity numbers for water, not effective emissivity. Remember the dangers of Hohlrumn/cavity effect. Got any experiments to show effective emissivity of water with background temperature dropped to 3K? Thought not…
You say that 255K is “reliable” Trick? Well then you should be able to show a lab experiment of conductively and evaporatively isolated water under a 3K ”sky” cooling to 255K when exposed to a diurnal SW cycle peaking at over 1000 w/m2. But like always you will not be able to produce such a basic experiment. Just like the LWIR heating water thing, climastrologists just assumed, they never ran the simplest of checks.
Trick, it is you that keeps circling back, not me. You just cannot move on from that 255K assumption, because to do that would be to renounce your AGW faith.
Konrad 7:16am: “Well then you should be able to show a lab experiment of conductively and evaporatively isolated water under a 3K ”sky” cooling to 255K when exposed to a diurnal SW cycle peaking at over 1000 w/m2.”
See the Clouds and the Earth’s Radiant Energy System (CERES) experimental data confirming 255K.
“312K is a conservative estimate based on empirical experiment.”
“It is a capital offense to theorize before one has data…” Without exact data, Konrad’s impossible 312K is baseless. Once Konrad obtains his exact data, Konrad’s experiments will all, each & every one, be based on principles, confirm 255K under conditions specified. No circling back Konrad, move forward, get the exact data, find confirmation for 255K. Learn about oceanography. Solar ponds just won’t do.
Trick says: October 23, 2014 at 2:44 pm
“Konrad 7:23am: “Why on earth did they do this?”
Because “they” (meaning modern relevant text book authors, voluminous relevant paper authors) in discussing earth satellite and L&O surface physics for Tmean ~255K understand tests and correctly apply atmospheric Planck tested distribution, Kirchhoff tested law & 1st law basic physics way better than unpublished Konrad. Publication citations supplied, Konrad ignored.”
That’s a bit unfair Trick. Ocean surface is a ‘selective surface’ that transcends the ability of radiative analysis! How can a ‘radiative analysis’ acount for energy that has NO temperature component? It can’t!
““..for water, effective IR emissivity could be as low as 0.7 while SW absorptivity is higher around 0.92.”
Incorrect for the yearly (long term) diurnal & seasonal earth cycles, see top post: “The oceans are heated at a rate of up to around 1kw at zenith by the Sun, and have to lose that energy at the same rate as it is input in order to be somewhere near equilibrium.”
Here Konrad fails to state or even understand when all natural beam directions, all natural beam frequencies, all natural L&O surface temperatures are measured over earth yearly diurnal cycle, or 4 years or 10 years, per Kirchhoff law, as in top post statement, earth all ocean water emissivity = absorptivity ~ 0.96. Near steady state equilibrium does mean the energy is lost at the same ~rate as it is acquired over 1 or 4 or 10 years measured from precision instruments within reasonable small measured anomaly”
Enough. It’s hard enough to follow and respond to your posting format Trick, but why ‘knock’ Konrad??? The ideology here, surely, is to improve collective understanding by sharing individual points of view/understanding and NOT heap ad hominem upon a collegiate/fellow poster.
IMHO a radiative analysis shows energy transport that isn’t/doesn’t sunk/sink into an energy attractor. IOW, this energy only generates ‘temperature’ with its interaction with mass on a kinetic level. This means that a temperature analysis only reveals the ‘residuals’ of ‘insolation’ and not the effect of the total insolation product. Let’s get on with the ‘major’ attractor of energy in Earth’s systems. Water!!!
I see the discussion has advanced a little, but there isn’t any real recognition of the ‘base’ relationship between ‘air and water’ that ‘vapour pressure’ dictates due the the ‘properties’ of water. It’s late and I’ll follow this up in another post.
Best regards, Ray.
Trick says:
October 24, 2014 at 1:01 pm
///////////////////////////////////////////
Around in circles again Trick? Tim Folkerts tried the CERES escape back on the “toy planets thread remember? The Planet Aluminium and Planet White Titanium Oxide examples proved that just radiation in and out at TOA tells you nothing about surface temps without knowing surface properties.
See the Clouds and the Earth’s Radiant Energy System (CERES) experimental data confirming 255K.
Trick, if you are claiming CERES confirms a “surface without atmosphere” temperature of 255K, then that claim is false. CERES is doing is looking for radiation imbalance. Given the known errors in TSI measurements it’s not even very good at that. All CERES can say is that a planet absorbing around 240 w/m2 will appear to have a radiant temperature of 255K. It can’t tell you anything about surface temperature if you don’t have the surface properties right.
without exact data..
Sorry, the data obtained just from selective surface experiments 1 & 2 is more than enough to conclusively prove that treating the oceans as a near blackbody was a critical error and the 255K claim is impossible. Measuring to 0.1C or .001C for experiment 1 makes no difference. The 20C differential resulting from just altering the depth of absorption is so great that no further accuracy is required.
Trick, I’m not the one circling back. I have been moving steadily through a series of experiments testing the base assumptions of not just the AGW but net radiative GHE hypotheses. You lost the 255K debate many threads ago. Remember when you tried claiming that no, no, no, that 255K was for oceans with evaporation? (despite 255K meaning the oceans would be solid ice) Or when you tried claiming it was for the rock below the oceans? (despite sunlight not penetrating more than 200m).
The oceans “clearly” are not a near blackbody, you need to move on.
Konrad 3:18am: Does not make any scientific progress at all, in any way, no countering cites given, all my posts above in this thread remain intact; Konrad’s claim of 312K is baseless. Got any new debate Konrad?
******
But to plod on, bear with me in response if you must, it is spinach time again, one can live a good life not reading circling back responses to incredulous unfounded Konrad claims, responding does help me understand the well founded basics better:
“The Planet Aluminium and Planet White Titanium Oxide examples proved that just radiation in and out at TOA tells you nothing about surface temps without knowing surface properties.”
Concur, top post applies to both these model planets herein: “The oceans are heated at a rate of up to around 1kw at zenith by the Sun, and have to lose that energy at the same rate as it is input in order to be somewhere near equilibrium. In order to overcome the restrictions placed on the ocean’s energy emission by sea level pressure and the insulative effect of the overlying air, the ocean’s surface has to rise to a temperature at which it can evaporate and radiate the same amount of energy as enters it.”
Concur also in that need surface properties measured for analysis and the global thermometer field emplaced for global surface Tmedian kinetic temperature.
“Trick, if you are claiming CERES confirms a “surface without atmosphere” temperature of 255K, then that claim is false.”
Unimpressed. The claim is true, though it is not just mine. Current conditions CERES finds global Tmedian ~ 255K over 4 (TFK09) and 10 years of observations (Stephens 2012) – this is not in dispute. Thermometers find global surface kinetic Tmedian ~288K with current conditions optical depth.
Tests show if optical depth of earth atm. is thinned, CERES would still find 255K approx. LT balance. If the optical depth of earth atm. is thinned to minimum at current conditions, CERES would still find 255K nearly (1.5m) above the L&O surface in agreement with kinetic thermometers at Tmedian ~255K. If the atmosphere is eliminated, and before the surface is sufficiently pounded into powder, CERES would still find 255K at surface since no atm. This tested knowledge base is useful for exoplanet research (Catling&Robinson 2013 Letter).
While the modeled oceans are boiling off to vacuum there would be plenty of water vapor, under current conditions, probably leaving some solid water behind. If the water vapor is removed too, the earth surface powder and moon surface will eventually be ~same Tmedian (Diviner observations, Vasavada 2012).
“CERES is doing is looking for radiation imbalance.”
CERES has radiometers taking data for incoming radiation over the spectrum up/down & calibrating themselves to known targets (NASA, Langley, TRW), it isn’t “looking” for anything. The CERES radiometer data can be used to compute an in/out imbalance. CERES is “a lab experiment of conductively and evaporatively isolated water under a 3K ”sky” cooling to 255K when exposed to a diurnal SW cycle peaking at over 1000 w/m2” which is what Konrad challenged me to be able to show. I complied.
“Sorry, the data obtained just from selective surface experiments 1 & 2 is more than enough to conclusively prove that treating the oceans as a near blackbody was a critical error and the 255K claim is impossible.”
Now Konrad does claim to have data disproving generally accepted science that he disclaimed previously in this thread: “The experiments are not supposed to give exact numbers for the oceans in absence of atmosphere…”.
Fine. Please impress, now show/publish your exact data Konrad, and all the proper energy transfer arrows (radiative (reflection, absorption/emission, transmission), conductive, convective) properly placed for block A and B et. al. and their magnitude and direction with balances and if not in equilibrium, imbalances clearly marked. As has been done for earth system by many tens of authors.
If by this data, Konrad’s 312K solar pond claim is somehow demonstrated true for deep ocean earth system, then Planck distribution, S-B, full Kirchhoff law, and 1st law results (Bohren 1985, 1998, 2006) will have been shown to be unfounded. All relevant modern text books will need new editions when Konrad publishes his exact data and becomes generally accepted.
“You lost the 255K debate many threads ago.”
Sorry, but no Konrad I don’t see the evidence. The evidence of this will be republished new editions of all the modern atmospheric thermodynamic and atmospheric radiation text books in compliance with all the new Konrad science laws replacing 1st law, Planck law, Newton law of cooling, Kirchhoff law, and S-B as applied to earth system.
In reality, Konrad has won no credible debate anywhere AFAIK that 312K solar pond result is proper and 255K is not proper physics for deep ocean earth system. Reason: 312K IS for solar ponds, 255K comes from properly tested earth system deep oceanography and meteorology.
The oceans “clearly” are a near blackbody reflecting only about 4% incident LW radiation over a yearly cycle which is sometimes rounded to L&O 0% with no serious loss of fidelity, no serious errors for basic intro. 101 meteorology study (Bohren 2006), Konrad needs to move on, accept it.
Or Konrad needs show exact data thereby overturning century+ of relevant generally accepted science progress. Publish the data Konrad and become generally accepted. I’ll be then impressed, you will have then stopped circling back to incredulous claims of 312K (as they will have become credible – they won’t) & made forward science progress (Konrad won’t – earth system is not equivalent to a solar pond).
Trick, CERES is not measuring a 255K temperature for the Earth system or for any specific layer therein. It is simply measuring the mean radiative flux emitted by Earth to space. It happens to be ~240 W/m^2, balancing the average incoming flux from the Sun. The 240 W/m^2 is simply the amount of energy the Earth system as a whole needs to shed per unit of time to balance the incoming, nothing more, nothing less. It says nothing about temperatures.
The 240 W/m^2 could only correlate to a temp of 255K (through the S-B equation) if it all originated from one specific blackbody surface alone. It doesn’t, so the connection is dead.
Trick says:
October 25, 2014 at 6:39 am
//////////////////////////////////////////////
A whole two pages? Still stuck on that false 255K claim?
Does not make any scientific progress at all, in any way, no countering cites given, all my posts above in this thread remain intact
Making plenty of progress, currently replicating the old gas column experiments with CFD. And no your cites don’t remain intact. Bohren provably used the blackbody assumption.
Konrad’s claim of 312K is baseless.
Do you seriously think if you keep repeating than claim and it’ll come true?
Got any new debate Konrad?
Plenty 😉
K – “The Planet Aluminium and Planet White Titanium Oxide examples proved that just radiation in and out at TOA tells you nothing about surface temps without knowing surface properties.”
T- Concur
Would you then concur that surface properties of our planet matter? That the oceans provably being a SW selective surface might be an issue?
K – “Trick, if you are claiming CERES confirms a “surface without atmosphere” temperature of 255K, then that claim is false.”
T – Unimpressed. The claim is true, though it is not just mine. Current conditions CERES finds global Tmedian ~ 255K over 4 (TFK09) and 10 years of observations (Stephens 2012) – this is not in dispute. Thermometers find global surface kinetic Tmedian ~288K with current conditions optical depth.
What?! Of course CERES would show the planet radiating at 255K for 240 w/m2 absorbed, I have never said otherwise! That wasn’t the issue. You were trying to argue that CERES confirmed the 255K “surface without atmosphere” assumption. That claim is false.
While the modeled oceans are boiling off to vacuum there would be plenty of water vapor..
No Trick, that won’t do. You know the climastrologists were assuming a impossible “near blackbody” ocean without atmosphere that didn’t boil off for their 255K assumption.
The oceans “clearly” are a near blackbody
False, near blackbodys don’t absorb SW below the surface, let alone internal transport energy by convention.
Now Konrad does claim to have data disproving generally accepted science that he disclaimed previously in this thread: “The experiments are not supposed to give exact numbers for the oceans in absence of atmosphere…”.
Now? I have posted the data for the selective surface experiments many times. Further the experiments are clearly labelled “selective surface experiment 1 & 2”, I am not claiming they model the oceans exactly, just that they prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that climastrologists didn’t do it correctly.
Please impress, now show/publish your exact data Konrad, and all the proper energy transfer arrows (radiative (reflection, absorption/emission, transmission), conductive, convective) properly placed for block A and B et. al. and their magnitude and direction with balances and if not in equilibrium, imbalances clearly marked. As has been done for earth system by many tens of authors.
Not actually necessary Trick. Remember peer review (now discredited after climategate) is just part of scientific bureaucracy, not scientific method. Repeatable experiments are part of the scientific method. Have you ever bothered to replicate? Of course not…
I don’t work in science, I work in engineering and design. When engineers do an initial review, particularly of someone else’s mechanical design, the first step is a sanity check looking for obvious flaws and weak links using quick estimates. If the design passes this, more detailed analysis may be warranted. AGW totally fails this initial sanity check in not 1 but 3 areas –
1. Radiative energy loss at altitude is critical for tropospheric circulation and lower atmospheric temperatures.
2. The surface is better at conductively heating the atmosphere than it is at conductively cooling it.
3. Oceans are a Selective surface not near blackbody.
When its this bad there is no need for much further detailed analysis. I’m not overturning centuries of working science, just a few decades of drivel in a very limited field.
Just on point 1 remember that old gas column experiment you couldn’t work out? –
Remember how you didn’t build it and run it? –
http://tinypic.com/r/15n0xuf/6
Remember the pattern I said you could image with just 9 thermometer positions? –
http://tinypic.com/r/zmghtu/6
Say hello to my little friend – CFD –
Trick, the bottom line is you don’t pass the engineering sanity check.
Kristian says:
October 25, 2014 at 11:46 am
////////////////////////////////////////////////////
Spot on. CERES has nothing to say of what drives surface temps. You got it. Trick didn’t. For surface and atmosphere absorbing 240 w/m2 apparent radiant temperature will be 255K, but without surface properties correctly modelled, that tells you nothing about surface temps.
Modelling the oceans as near blackbody instead of SW selective surface means that not just the AGW hypothesis but the entire radiative GHE hypothesis does not pass the engineering sanity check.
Kristian 11:46am: CERES is measuring the brightness temperature of the scenes it observes. This is why the measured properties of the medium are important. Same as Diviner.
Konrad 1:10pm: Covers no new ground, offers no supporting cites. Konrad presents no data, is therefore just another poster with an opinion whereas I have posted cites with data, not opinions. Free your data Konrad.
Trick says: October 25, 2014 at 6:26 pm
/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
Nice response, but CERES observes only the ‘radiance brightness’ of Earth’s ‘total emittance’ as seen from space. The ‘depth of observation’ into Earth’s atmosphere, however, varies. Are you saying that surface emission is the ‘only’ data observed? If so, How?
Trick says: October 25, 2014 at 6:33 pm
/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
My apologies Trick. It would seem that it’s your posting format that just ‘looks’ like an ad hominem remark. You would be wise to alter this format if you want more receptive replies.
However, Konrad DID ‘free his data’ (this isn’t what I wanted to post tonight, but that’s life)!
Best regards, Ray.
suricat 12:47am: Substance over style. Surface emission is not the only irradiance incident on CERES sensors. Where is Konrad’s data as you write it is set free? Much energy transfer is missing as shown for Block A and B et. al.
Trick says: October 26, 2014 at 1:03 am
“Much energy transfer is missing as shown for Block A and B et. al.”
I’m not conversant with this “A and B et. al.” ‘block’. Please elucidate.
“Where is Konrad’s data as you write it is set free?”
Where his ‘experiments/observations’ were shown above.
BTW, what has “style” to do with “substance”?
Best regards, Ray.
suricat 1:45am: See Konrad post 12:52am. Block A and Block B are missing many energy transfer arrows (for instance ALL the reflections) and no data is shown for any of them. The substance of writing is important over style of writing.
suricat says: October 26, 2014 at 12:47 am
Trick says: October 25, 2014 at 6:26 pm
/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
“Nice response, but CERES observes only the ‘radiance brightness’ of Earth’s ‘total emittance’ as seen from space. The ‘depth of observation’ into Earth’s atmosphere, however, varies. Are you saying that surface emission is the ‘only’ data observed? If so, How?”
Trick has no idea of what CERES tries to measure, while not doing anything properly. Brightness temperature is a term used to denote the equivalent BB temperature in a limited wavelength interval. Your MW oven has a BT of 1200 Kelvin, some radars 10,000 Kelvin, a CO2 laser 2,000,000 Kelvin. Brightness temperature has no relationship, or correlation with any thermometric temperature. BT was invented by EE’s, very tired of the post modern “science” radiometric alphabet soup. The soup can be corrected, but that would be sowing understanding, rather than the intended confusion!.
Best regards, -will-.
Will 1:28am: “Brightness temperature is a term used to denote the equivalent BB temperature in a limited wavelength interval.”
CERES radiometers are integrated over the entire spectrum per specialist papers – see ref.s in Stephens 2012.
“Brightness temperature has no relationship, or correlation with any thermometric temperature.”
CERES and predecessor instrument brightness temperatures are confirmed by thermometers carried on radiosondes. There is a whole subfield in remote sensing reporting that work. Dig in.
Trick says: October 26, 2014 at 1:48 am
(Will 1:28am: “Brightness temperature is a term used to denote the equivalent BB temperature in a limited wavelength interval.”)
“CERES radiometers are integrated over the entire spectrum per specialist papers – see ref.s in Stephens 2012.”
That is the nonsense claim. There can be no correlation without spectral emissivity of whatever is radiating, from the surface to the outward radiating atmosphere to an altitude of 220 km.
(“Brightness temperature has no relationship, or correlation with any thermometric temperature.”)
“CERES and predecessor instrument brightness temperatures are confirmed by thermometers carried on radiosondes. There is a whole subfield in remote sensing reporting that work. Dig in.”
The space measurements of specular radiance. is indeed viciously interpreted to correspond to atmospheric thermometric temperature. No interpretation is possible, unless spectral emissivity is separately measured.The instruments are indeed measuring something that is a function of air thermometric temperature. Those measurements are also influenced by wind speed, relieve humidity at every altitude, loud clapping, where the current Superbowl happens, and Trick farts!. Any inference of the temperature of anything, is but FRAUD!
suricat says: tober 21, 2014 at 3:03 am
“Longwave back-radiation does not heat the ocean directly, but raises the temperature of the near surface air, reducing the temperature differential between the air and the ocean’s surface. Given that oceanic energy emission supports the night-time temperature of the near surface air, and daytime evaporation produces dominant energy transport to altitude it is evident that the level of back-radiation in the air is more an effect of ocean surface temperature (and heat content) than a cause of it.”
Please give any evidence of “any” EMR energy transfer in a direction of higher field strength at any wavelength?
‘Longwave back-radiation’ heats the evaporative surface of the ocean, but I can’t see how it heats the air at the a/o interface. If it did, it would ‘increase’ the “temperature differential between the air and the ocean’s surface” (perhaps it does).”
No “back radiation”. Both the surface and atmosphere spontaneously transfer excess in the direction of lower potential (space)!
“The release of ‘latent energy’ at altitude will certainly produce a ‘back-radiation’ towards the surface. This would provide the a/o atmosphere side of the interface with the energy needed to promote an escaping molecule of water towards the atmosphere and away from the ocean to promote ‘ocean cooling’.”
Nonsense, the conversion of “latent” heat to “sensible” heat maintains the radiative temperature at any altitude for EMR to space. Without this conversion, the exitance of energy to space, must must reduce atmospheric sensible heat and temperature.”
“It’s late,” And here also dronk!.
Best regards, -will-
Trick says, October 25, 2014 at 6:26 pm:
“Kristian 11:46am: CERES is measuring the brightness temperature of the scenes it observes. This is why the measured properties of the medium are important. Same as Diviner.”
Come on, Trick. You’re not this stupid. Do you seriously believe that the CERES instrument (or any satellite-borne instrument) functions as a ‘catch-all’ thermometer and directly reads the physical temperature of Earth AS A WHOLE, the final temperature of the full ensemble of scenes and depths, as if the total radiative flux from the planet came from ONE blackbody surface? And that this is how they came to arrive at the planetary temperature of 255K? That this just happens to match the straightforwardly S-B-calculated emission temperature of a blackbody giving off a flux at 240 W/m^2 to space?
I know you do your utmost to live up to your screen name, Trick, but this simply takes the cake. It’s been quite some time since I witnessed a more obvious case of sheer duplicity. And that says a lot.
The Diviner instrument has a relatively easy job. All the radiation from the Moon comes from ONE two-dimensional surface, the actual solid surface observed. You can’t do the same thing with Earth. Its ‘surface’ is a three-dimensional one, and yet all the radiation you receive from it (drawn from contributions from the entire volume) on your satellite in space, is coming out the top of it. This doesn’t mean that the top layer (the ToA) is the source of all this radiation. In fact, this means there can be no specific (single-source) temperature stamp on this particular flux. ‘Brightness temperature’ or not. You can start at the other end, of course, and estimate the temperatures of all individual layers within the volume (quite a job), but adding them all up in the end won’t give you 255K as an average, I’m afraid.
No, all you can ever do is collect the final ToA flux, measure its total intensity and then, just for the fun of it, calculate a theoretical temperature based on it, as if the Earth were in fact a solid single-surface blackbody in space.
This and ONLY this is the way you obtain the 255K figure, Trick. And everybody knows it. So why try to pretend it’s not?
Kristian 6:26pm: Again offers no cites or data supporting 1st principles. Nothing new. Top post is correct Kristian: “The oceans are heated at a rate of up to around 1kw at zenith by the Sun, and have to lose that energy at the same rate as it is input in order to be somewhere near equilibrium.”
“Do you seriously believe that the CERES instrument (or any satellite-borne instrument) functions as a ‘catch-all’ thermometer and directly reads the physical temperature of Earth AS A WHOLE, the final temperature of the full ensemble of scenes and depths, as if the total radiative flux from the planet came from ONE blackbody surface?”
Yes, seriously Kristian. This is in every relevant modern text book, crack one open. But the irradiance incident on CERES radiometers is known not to come from a single BB surface, not even terra L&O emits from single surface. Nothing emits from single surface not even solid steel. Watch the pea carefully Kristian.
In the field of remote sensing there are many cites I could point to, pick one Kristian likes, radiosonde data demonstrate thermometric kinetic temperature = CERES brightness temperature especially when integrated over 4 & 10 years for 255K to within precision instrument accuracy. Or why would anyone go to the expense of repeatedly putting up CERES (and the like) instrument experiments on separate satellite platforms for climate study? Seriously, who is being stupid here? CERES 1997 on TRMM (tropical rainforest), Earth observing system (EOS Terra), Aqua observatory, S-NPP (Suomi Ntl. Polar Orbiting). If Kristian were correct, what a waste of time orbiting all those.
“All the radiation from the Moon comes from ONE two-dimensional surface…”
Respectfully, no Kristian. Please read Dr. Planck’s original paper to find the un-duplicitous truth. See especially paragraph 29. Some of the rays incident on Diviner are emitted within the moon’s surface just like on terra -agl, each ray from interior “modified along a path by the effect of emission, absorption, and scattering.” This iswhy knowing the surface properties for regolith emissivity, polarization ability are important. Science is fairly convinced in knowing the surface properties of terra firma & ocean water thru oceanography and meteorology fields.
http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/40030?msg=welcome_stranger
“You can start at the other end, of course, and estimate the temperatures of all individual layers within the volume (quite a job), but adding them all up in the end won’t give you 255K as an average, I’m afraid.”
Concur for each individual scene. Each CERES scene observed has rays emitted from all altitudes at many temperatures at many frequencies consistent with Planck formula even some from -agl.
“This and ONLY this is the way you obtain the 255K figure, Trick. And everybody knows it. So why try to pretend it’s not?”
No pretending, data driven. CERES measures the 255K brightness temperature of all the scene data integrated over 4 or 10 years as confirmed by radiosonde kinetic temperature measurements to within precision instrument accuracy. Konrad writes CERES results would be 312K “conservatively” not 255K, for majorly optically thinned earth atm. This is impossible, not an accurate data driven conclusion. Konrad does not show his test data, thus has only an opinion.
Trick says, October 26, 2014 at 2:27 pm:
“Top post is correct Kristian: “The oceans are heated at a rate of up to around 1kw at zenith by the Sun, and have to lose that energy at the same rate as it is input in order to be somewhere near equilibrium.””
Yes. And?
“Yes, seriously Kristian.”
So you’re serious about it. It’s worse than I was hoping for, then …
“This is in every relevant modern text book (…)”
What is, Trick? You’re just babbling.
“But the irradiance incident on CERES radiometers is known not to come from a single BB surface (…)”
Exactly. Hence, you collect the full average of 240 W/m^2 and CALCULATE a BB emission temp of 255K based on it.
“In the field of remote sensing there are many cites I could point to, pick one Kristian likes, radiosonde data demonstrate thermometric kinetic temperature = CERES brightness temperature especially when integrated over 4 & 10 years for 255K to within precision instrument accuracy.”
*Sigh* This is so trite. The whole point of this discussion, Trick, is how do they accomplish the 255K figure? They do it by calculation from an average of 240 W/m^2 emitted through the ToA to space. It is the 240 W/m^2 figure which is within ‘precision instrument accuracy’ as you call it.
Your whole aim here seems to be to obfuscate by pretending to suggest they actually ‘measure’ the 255K temperature directly like a thermometer. Well, if they did, the temperature of WHAT in particular would they be measuring? What air parcel represents the ‘Earth’s temperature’ in space?
“Seriously, who is being stupid here?”
There can’t be much question about that, can there …?
“Please read Dr. Planck’s original paper to find the un-duplicitous truth. See especially paragraph 29. Some of the rays incident on Diviner are emitted within the moon’s surface just like on terra -agl, each ray from interior “modified along a path by the effect of emission, absorption, and scattering.” This iswhy knowing the surface properties for regolith emissivity, polarization ability are important. Science is fairly convinced in knowing the surface properties of terra firma & ocean water thru oceanography and meteorology fields.”
More pointless blather. This nitpicking is irrelevant to the point I’m making, and you know it. Only put up for diversion.
“CERES measures the 255K brightness temperature of all the scene data integrated over 4 or 10 years as confirmed by radiosonde kinetic temperature measurements to within precision instrument accuracy.”
No, Trick. CERES measures radiative flux to space. That’s not measured in K. It’s measured in W/m^2. Put the 240 W/m^2 into the Stefan-Boltzmann equation and you get 255K for a blackbody.
Radiosondes measuring the temperature of individual sections of atmosphere can not confirm your overall ‘Earth temperature’ of 255K based on the average measured radiative flux to space (240 W/m^2) as recorded by the CERES instrument.
In what way do they confirm the 255K?
Kristian 4:57pm: Very good questions, like a student in class raising a hand. Congrats. “Yes. And?”
And thus earth system is in near steady state equilibrium, an important top post starting point for Kristian to comprehend.
“What is, Trick? You’re just babbling.”
Remote sensing explained. Don’t rely on me (or any poster) to teach, pull the relevant text books Kristian. No babbling.
“..how do they accomplish the 255K figure?”
Explained in detail remote sensing text books. Generally accepted science accomplishes from measuring the emission properties of the medium of interest (here over annual periods) and consult the Planck ref. I supplied as amended & improved finding the 255K brightness temperature from integrating over the spectrum for years as shown in there. Do you need a paragraph ref. in it? Better to read & find on your own study Kristian. But ask, I can supply page number cites if you need them.
“…pretending to suggest they actually ‘measure’ the 255K temperature directly like a thermometer.”
Huh? No. Even mercury or steel spring thermometers don’t measure T in C,F,K directly, they are calibrated too. They measure expansion/contraction & convert to T. Reading comprehension issues Kristian? CERES carries calibrated & re-calibrated radiometers for observations. While it has thermometers or thermisters to check on its own health, CERES uses radiometers for data taking as I’ve written over & over. And OVER.
“There can’t be much question about that, can there …?”
Concur. There isn’t. The interesting thing is that being dumb can be cured by reading & comprehending the relevant remote sensing text books. Becoming informed. Being stupid is incurable as demonstrated by circling back all the time.
“No, Trick. CERES measures radiative flux to space. That’s not measured in K. It’s measured in W/m^2. Put the 240 W/m^2 into the Stefan-Boltzmann equation and you get 255K for a blackbody.”
For a grey body always & everywhere, BBs don’t exist anywhere (though curiously BB radiation exists) as all objects possess reflection and some possess transmission. Measurements of the medium of interest show amount of grey. Kristian makes progress here, I attempted the enabling, sometimes it sticks, evidence is no circling back same questions.
“Radiosondes measuring the temperature of individual sections of atmosphere can not confirm your overall ‘Earth temperature’ of 255K based on the average measured radiative flux to space (240 W/m^2) as recorded by the CERES instrument.”
More progress Kristian, you understand need for acquiring science data now. Need lotsa’ radiosondes, just one won’t do. See the remote sensing texts for the bulk of them listed. They even go to the subarctic regions to release balloons, must be an important reason to endure all that and the expense (even use sounding rockets!). Me, I’d volunteer for the tropics. And an oceanography cruise there too.
“In what way do they confirm the 255K?”
Extensively.
9:04am: ”…live up to your screen name, Trick”
An individual on the hockey team I follow, did just that Fri. night. First hat trick for the team in about 6-8 years ON THE ROAD. Quieted the crowd 3 times. Me? To live up to that performance, I’d need an undefended net. Put me on D.
Trick,
Why are you still arguing about this? The more you dig, the more stuck in the dirt you get.
The 255K figure is solely and simply based on a direct Stefan-Boltzmann calculation from the measured (averaged) radiative flux of 240 W/m^2 from Earth to satellite-borne instruments like CERES, meaning, if Earth were theoretically a blackbody emitting into the vacuum of space an isotropic, continuous frequency spectrum radiation flux of 240 W/m^2, then its solid, single (two-dimensional) surface would be at 255K. That’s all there is.
This is a fact as obvious as sunshine on a sunny day, Trick. Continuing to deny it only makes you look more and more silly.
But by all means, do go on. I’m done.
Kristian 7:21pm: ^Ding^ almost there.
“This is a fact as obvious as sunshine on a sunny day, Trick. Continuing to deny it only makes you look more and more silly.”
I only argue & deny earth system is a theoretical black body as Kristian writes which is not silly since none exist in nature found to date, all tested objects reflect and some transmit incident radiation. CERES observes grey bodies. And how much grey is well known.
Kristian’s goodwill efforts almost make the finish line. There is one more step – go from BB to grey body for earth system and Kristian would break the tape:
“The 255K figure is solely and simply based on a direct Stefan-Boltzmann calculation from the measured (averaged) radiative flux of 240 W/m^2 from Earth to satellite-borne instruments like CERES, meaning, since Earth is measured grey object emitting into the vacuum of space an ~isotropic, continuous frequency spectrum radiation flux of 240 W/m^2, then its solid, single (two-dimensional) surface would be at 255K. That’s all there is.”
Once Kristian gets that, he could progress to if the atm. has today’s optical depth, then bulk of radiosondes find 255K at significant altitude agl. If the atm. is optically thinned to nearly transparent, radiosondes would find the 255K very near the surface, insignificant altitude. CERES would still register the 255K. Some Earth inhabitants would add more wood to the fire & use an extra blanket or two at camp outs. Outdoor & indoor hockey would be more popular in say Kansas than hockey is now.
Trick says:
October 26, 2014 at 8:33 pm
/////////////////////////////////////////////
Trick it’s pointless, you were obviously incorrect when you asserted that data from CERES could tell the “surface without atmosphere” temperature for the planet. You were wrong plain and simple. For that you would need to accurately model surface properties. Climastrologists have provably gotten this utterly wrong for the oceans.
Now this –
”If the atm. is optically thinned to nearly transparent, radiosondes would find the 255K very near the surface, insignificant altitude. CERES would still register the 255K.”
“Would” was it? That is assumption with which empirical experiment disagrees.
If you mean optically IR transparent then no. The atmosphere would then superheat as shown by my two gas column experiment up thread. The simple computer CFD analysis also shows the same result. If it disagrees with experiment, it is wrong.
To understand whether our atmosphere (for a given 1 bar pressure) is warming or cooling the surface, you need to accurately work out the theoretical “surface without atmosphere” temperature. To do that you need to properly model surface properties. My empirical experiments and those of Texas A&M show the same basic results –
For SW translucent / IR opaque (material A) compared to SW opaque / IR opaque (material B) with both materials having equal IR emissivity and total watts for both constant or intermittent SW illumination being equal, the results of empirical experiment are clear –
1. If materials are solid, constant SW illumination will result in close surface temps for A & B with average temp of A higher than B
2. If materials are solid, intermittent SW illumination will result in surface temps for A higher than B, with average temp of A also higher than B.
3. If materials are liquid and convect, constant SW illumination will result in surface temps for A higher than B, with average temp of A higher than B.
4. If materials are liquid and convect, intermittent SW illumination will result in higher temperature differential (both surface and average) between A & B than condition 3.
5. If materials are liquid and convect, intermittently SW illuminated and deeper than condition 4, temperature differential between A & B will be greater again than condition 4.
Trick, do you disagree with any of my points 1 to 5? Do you disagree with empirical experiment?
Konrad 9:53pm: “My empirical experiments and those of Texas A&M show the same basic results..”
Concur. But realize, Konrad, the solar pond emulation experiments of the Aggies & as you present in this thread are irrelevant to the earth L&O system. The deep ocean earth system as in top post in steady state equilibrium has been found experimentally does not work as a solar pond. At any atmosphere optical depth.
“To understand whether our atmosphere (for a given 1 bar pressure) is warming or cooling the surface, you need to accurately work out the theoretical “surface without atmosphere” temperature. To do that you need to properly model surface properties.”
Concur. This has been done accurately for the earth L&O system properly using full Kirchhoff law with beam direction, beam frequency, surface L&O temperature properly accounted over the diurnal and seasonal cycles. This has not been done in general AFAIK for earth with surface pounded into powder as the moon regolith. Though some thorough emissivity experiments on specific Apollo returned lunar soil samples have been published recently.
“Trick, do you disagree with any of my points 1 to 5? Do you disagree with empirical experiment?”
No & No. Konrad’s and A&M experiments accurately enough emulate solar ponds. However, conclusions 1-5 are only Konrad’s opinions until the exact data from his experiments is published with reasoned analysis confirmation within credible CIs.
The empirical challenge for Konrad remains to accurately measure the earth w/deep ocean system over diurnal and seasonal cycles for a year accounting for incident beam direction, incident beam frequencies and surface temperatures i.e. ” properly model surface properties”. This has been accomplished and published for earth L&O surface – at some universities grad. meteorology students start their post-grad. studies by repeating them – Konrad should start as they do with a literature search. I volunteer to help make progress. Otherwise as I wrote for Kristian 6:29pm:
“The interesting thing is that being dumb can be cured by reading & comprehending the relevant remote sensing text books. Becoming informed. Being stupid is incurable as demonstrated by circling back all the time.”
Trick says:
October 27, 2014 at 12:25 am
///////////////////////////////////////////////////
K – “My empirical experiments and those of Texas A&M show the same basic results..”
T- Concur. But realize, Konrad, the solar pond emulation experiments of the Aggies & as you present in this thread are irrelevant to the earth L&O system. The deep ocean earth system as in top post in steady state equilibrium has been found experimentally does not work as a solar pond. At any atmosphere optical depth.
Irrelevant to the earth / ocean system?!! And it’s no good introducing atmosphere. We are trying to determine the correct initial figure for “surface without atmosphere”. No weaseling!
K –“To understand whether our atmosphere (for a given 1 bar pressure) is warming or cooling the surface, you need to accurately work out the theoretical “surface without atmosphere” temperature. To do that you need to properly model surface properties.”
T – ”Concur. This has been done accurately for the earth L&O system properly using full Kirchhoff law with beam direction, beam frequency, surface L&O temperature properly accounted over the diurnal and seasonal cycles. This has not been done in general AFAIK for earth with surface pounded into powder as the moon regolith.
No, it clearly has not been done correctly. The known physics in the 5 rules you concur with was clearly not used in the calculation of 255K for “surface without atmosphere” and it truly is no good blathering about powder, the issue is deep SW translucent IR opaque oceans.
T –”No & No. Konrad’s and A&M experiments accurately enough emulate solar ponds. However, conclusions 1-5 are only Konrad’s opinions until the exact data from his experiments is published with reasoned analysis confirmation within credible Cis.”
Opinions?! These are basic physical laws! Anyone can replicate my experiments or those of Texas A&M and confirm. Are you actually suggesting that physics is not real unless it is published in pal-reviewed literature?
T- ”The empirical challenge for Konrad remains to accurately measure the earth w/deep ocean system over diurnal and seasonal cycles for a year accounting for incident beam direction, incident beam frequencies and surface temperatures i.e. ” properly model surface properties”. This has been accomplished and published for earth L&O surface”
Accomplished? Garbage. Go on Trick, show me where rules 1 to 5 you now “concur” with were used in the “basic physics” of the “settled science”. You can’t because they weren’t.
Konrad 2:08am: “We are trying to determine the correct initial figure for “surface without atmosphere”. No weaseling!”
The correct initial figure is already determined, university meteorology et. al. post-grad.s experimentally determine the correct terra firma and ocean initial figures routinely. Konrad needs to emulate their work, start by reading up on, becoming informed on, the already published experiments relevant to deep ocean earth system.
“No, it clearly has not been done correctly. The known physics in the 5 rules you concur with was clearly not used in the calculation of 255K for “surface without atmosphere”
Of course Konrad’s 5 rules weren’t used in the 255K CERES radiometer specialist papers, Konrad’s 5 rules are from solar pond tests! Both Konrad’s and A&Ms. Earth system is not a solar pond.
“Opinions?! These are basic physical laws!”
Someday Konrad’s “laws” may override Planck law, S-B, Kirchhoff full law, Fourier conduction law, Newton law of cooling, and 1st law as applied to earth system. Until Konrad’s “laws” become generally accepted replacing the grandmasters laws by Konrad showing experimental data, with reasoned confirming analysis, Konrad has opinions. No text book will change on opinions. It takes relevant data to turn opinions into laws. Konrad shows no test data, irrelevant test OR relevant.
“Go on Trick, show me where rules 1 to 5 you now “concur” with were used in the “basic physics” of the “settled science”. You can’t because they weren’t.”
Sure, I can’t for earth deep ocean system, so concur AGAIN. Since 1-5 are for solar ponds. Hardly cutting edge science blog material confirming a 1965 paper on solar ponds.
Ask again get the same answers Konrad. Now I ask is Konrad bothering to become informed or exhibiting a constant circling back:
“The interesting thing is that being dumb can be cured by reading & comprehending the relevant remote sensing text books. Becoming informed. Being stupid is incurable as demonstrated by circling back all the time.”
Trick says:
October 27, 2014 at 2:44 am
////////////////////////////////////////////////
Someday Konrad’s “laws” may override Planck law, S-B, Kirchhoff full law, Fourier conduction law, Newton law of cooling
My work is in complete agreement with Plank, Stephan, Boltzmann, Kirchoff, Fourier and Maxwell for good measure. Care to show where it isn’t? Oh that’s right you can’t….
Or maybe you can? Maybe I’ve got it all wrong…
It seems that while I have been making steady progress working through radiative/convective modelling and research, empirical experiment and CDF modelling into SW selective surfaces, Trick has been working on a spectacular new physics theory. I thought you were just trying to kick up dust and sow doubt on sceptic blogs and interfere with reasoned discussion and debate. How wrong was I! All this time you were working on a thrilling new area of physics – ”SELECTIVE PHYSICS”
Apparently the physics (5 rules for SW selective surfaces) works for water 50mm deep, 1m deep and 10m deep but suddenly at 10.00001m the effect instantly disappears! Wow!
Tell us some more about this “selective physics” Trick. You after all have learnt at the feet of the “Grandmasters” (does this involve orange robes?). My work on the other hand has only won the Engineers Australia President’s Award and been exhibited in a lowly technology museum. I am clearly not fit to lick your be-sandled feet and must defer to you in this exciting new area of “selective physics”
Teach on Trick, teach on!
Konrad 5:33am: “My work is in complete agreement with Plank, Stephan, Boltzmann, Kirchoff, Fourier and Maxwell for good measure. Care to show where it isn’t?”
Konrad’s experiments emulating solar ponds are in agreement with the grandmasters. Add 1st law for good measure.
The grandmasters analytical work and testing applied to the deep ocean earth system show Konrad’s 312K is impossible surface Tmedian for optically thin atmosphere; the grandmasters & CERES/radiosonde data show surface Tmedian 255K for optically very thin atmosphere is correct. Cite Robinson&Catling 2013 Letter tests referenced therein & Bohren 2006 p.33 and the trace to 1st principles & testing supplied in the text. Among other ref.s Konrad’s extensive literature search would uncover, had he bothered to become informed.
“Apparently the physics (5 rules for SW selective surfaces) works for water 50mm deep, 1m deep and 10m deep but suddenly at 10.00001m the effect instantly disappears!”
Konrad’s words not mine. Konrad hasn’t understood, hasn’t bothered to become informed on the grandmasters’ work as applied deep oceans in the field of oceanography.
“Trick has been working on a spectacular new physics theory.”
Not at all, in any way, just (mostly) patiently explaining the excellent work grandmasters have already accomplished reported in text books and specialist papers & applied to earth’s deep oceans.
“..(does this involve orange robes?).”
Not at all Konrad, cutting edge science involves becoming informed. Moving ahead in blog discussions, not circling back.
Trick says, October 27, 2014 at 12:34 pm:
“(…) the grandmasters & CERES/radiosonde data show surface Tmedian 255K for optically very thin atmosphere is correct.”
Tallbloke (or any moderator),
Could you please hold Trick accountable for his continued brazen lying on this particular topic? Could you ask him to provide specific references to where and how exactly CERES and/or radiosonde data “show surface Tmedian 255K for optically very thin atmosphere”, or to admit he’s deliberately lying about it for some unknown purpose? What data? In what units? What papers? Quotes, figures, diagrams. And what ‘tests’ is he talking about? ‘Testing’ of what? The “surface Tmedian 255K for optically very thin atmosphere” claim apparently ‘shown’ in the CERES/radiosonde data?
Could you please put his constant doublespeak to the test?
Kristian 2:36pm: I’ve already cited the references – one of which you used – perhaps you missed some of them, more details below. Need even more? Just ask.
1) Bohren 2006 p.33 eqn. 1.72 where ε = 0 means theoretical transparent atmosphere. In reality for optically thin atm. ε = slightly positive number for Te=255+ K. The 255K has become jargon.
“…whereas for ε = 0, Te = 255K(−18 ◦C). These temperatures are at least in line with typical air temperatures near Earth’s surface, neither ridiculously higher nor lower.”
2) Robinson&Catling 2013 Letter eqn. S16 shows the effect of optical thinning and is further developed. Pg. 12: “Remote sensing and in situ measurements have shown that tropopauses all occur around 0.1 bar on planets in the Solar System with thick atmospheres and stratospheric inversions (Fig. 1)….For Earth, for example, Teff =255 K…”
Click to access Robinson2014_0.1bar_Tropopause.pdf
3) Also see Stephens 2012 that you clipped the chart above from for CERES data references and calibration to radiosonde. “An update on Earth’s energy balance in light of the latest global observations”:
“This suggests that the intrinsic precision of CERES is able to resolve the small imbalances on interannual timescales 12,16*”
*Ref.s are 12: Harries et. al. 2010, 16: Loeb et. al. 2012.
Trick says: October 26, 2014 at 1:54 am
“The substance of writing is important over style of writing.”
OK. Let’s look at some ‘substance’ then. Let’s look at the ‘base temperatures’ at the ‘O/A’ (Ocean/Atmosphere) interface during equilibrium conditions. Let’s understand the properties of H2O better and get some understanding of what ‘vapour pressure’ does to temperatures (HV&AC engineers can skip this post).
Let’s do an EXPERIMENT TO SHOW THE EFFECT OF VOPOUR PRESSURE ON LIQUID WATER.
APPERATUS.
Digital meat thermometer with a water permeable sleeve covering the temperature probe section.
Water vessel with water at a normalised temperature with ambient surroundings.
Experiment location with ~constant temperature, draught free and ‘RH’ (relative humidity) well below 100% RH.
PROCEDURE.
A. Note the normalised temperature of the thermometer in ambient air before proceeding (data1).
B. Dip the ‘probe’ of the thermometer into the water and note the temperature when the reading scale becomes stable (data2).
C. Remove the ‘probe’ from the water and wait until the reading scale achieves its lowest temperature, then note this ‘lowest’ temperature (data3).
D. Continue with procedure ‘C’ until the temperature stabilises at a higher level when all the water has evaporated (data4).
DATA.
It’s impossible for me to offer data for an experiment that may well be undertaken in varied environments, but I offer a generalised form of the data that is most likely to be observed.
Data (1). 20 degrees centigrade.
Data (2). 19 degrees centigrade.
Data (3). 17.5 degrees centigrade.
Data (4). 20 degrees centigrade.
CONCLUSION.
Due to the persistent property of liquid water to evaporate at Earth’s average atmospheric pressure, the ‘evaporation pressure’ for water is enough to provide a ‘forcing’ that lowers the temperature of water to ‘below’ the temperature of the adjacent/surrounding atmosphere (data 1 & 2). The experiment also shows that a flat water surface is less efficient than a wet probe surrounded by air for the evaporation of water (data 2 & 3). The experiment also shows, beyond doubt, that water ‘absorbs’ heat energy from the ‘normal’ (sensible) temperature model to facilitate evaporation.
DISCUSSION (S).
How can SB equations evaluate the surface temperature for an ocean surface that’s generally cooler than the ‘local ambient atmosphere’ and ’emits’ energy in a form that doesn’t register on a temperature scale until at a ‘higher altitude’?
Could the emission of IR at altitude from ‘OHC’ (Ocean Heat Content) be confused as ‘back radiation’?
Is that enough substance Trick? 😉
Best regards, Ray.
suricat says: October 27, 2014 at 10:15 pm
My ‘spell checker’ isn’t worth a cuss. The ‘title’ of the experiment should read as “VAPOUR PRESSURE” and not “VOPOUR PRESSURE”.
I can’t even find a dictionary definition for ‘vopour’ (perhaps it was ignored because of the use of upper case)! 🙂
Best regards, Ray.
suricat says: October 27, 2014 at 10:35 pm
“My ‘spell checker’ isn’t worth a cuss. The ‘title’ of the experiment should read as “VAPOUR PRESSURE” and not “VOPOUR PRESSURE”.”
Vopour is the correct spellung in Trick’s wurld! 🙂
suricat 10:15pm: “How can SB equations evaluate the surface temperature for an ocean surface that’s generally cooler than the ‘local ambient atmosphere’ and ‘emits’ energy in a form that doesn’t register on a temperature scale until at a ‘higher altitude’?”
Sure, as your experiment shows, energy that evaporates away is at the expense of the energy in the medium. As photon energy is emitted away – again at the expense of the energy in the medium. These are two different ways energy is transferred. Your question is not well posed. One possible answer I can think of is: The 1st law is used to evaluate the ocean and/or atmosphere surface temperature not SB.
SB is used to evaluate the macro object’s Planck single freq. emission over a range of frequencies at the emission temperature accounting for reflections & transmissions. Limited to the assumptions of all positive radii object and its negligible diffraction (earth land, ocean, atmosphere meet these assumptions). Well, except (at least) in the special case of ocean waves which radiate at one another – then, if important, testing is required.
“Could the emission of IR at altitude from ‘OHC’ (Ocean Heat Content) be confused as ‘back radiation’?”
I cannot make sense of this. Dr. Planck informs there is emission up (away) from the ocean. There is all-sky emission down (away) to the surface. Both at all frequencies, at all temperatures, all of the time. Both emissions are at the expense of energy in the respective medium. As the top post states, somewhere near equilibrium. Perhaps you can elaborate.
******
Will 12:43am: As suricat implies, sometimes spell CZECH is set to ignore upper case. So you can get away with KAT without complaint. Both these capitalized words pass my spell check. But curiously VOPOUR gets a complaint. Go figure.
Kristian says:
October 27, 2014 at 2:36 pm
///////////////////////////////////////////////
Kristian,
you are correct, Trick is outright lying.
Bohren and Robinson & Catling are both making a 255K blackbody assumption in their calculations. I have clearly shown Trick where that assumption is in Bohren’s work on this thread and where it in Robinson & Catling on a previous thread.
Any claim that Trick makes about the oceans being treated correctly in the “basic physics” of the “settled science” is a lie. Those five basic rules for SW selective materials were never considered by climastrologist. That ludicrous 255K figure comes from one place only – punching 240 w/m2 into a standard SB equation where e=a. There is no consideration of the oceans as a SW selective surface whatsoever.
Have another look at those five rules for SW selective surfaces I posted above. They apply if the materials are in a vacuum and only radiativly cooled. They apply if the materials are in an atmosphere and radiativly and conductively cooled. They apply if the materials are in an atmosphere and radiativly, conductively and evaporatively cooled.
Climastologists should have used those rules because 71% of our planet’s surface is SW translucent, intermittently illuminated, a convecting material and very, very deep. They clearly have not included parameters for any of these factors in the “basic physics” of the “settled science”, therefore the entire radiative GHE hypothesis is junk.
suricat says:
October 27, 2014 at 10:15 pm
//////////////////////////////////////////////
Ray,
the experiment essentially shows the difference between a “wet bulb thermometer” evaporatively cooled in 3D and a body of water that can only evaporatively cool from a 2D surface.
You ask –
”How can SB equations evaluate the surface temperature for an ocean surface that’s generally cooler than the ‘local ambient atmosphere’ and ‘emits’ energy in a form that doesn’t register on a temperature scale until at a ‘higher altitude’?”
The answer is that SB equations should never be applied to evaporatively cooled substances. You cannot simply do radiative balance between the surface and atmosphere and then “superimpose” evaporation over the top, kinetic/molecular theory shown here –
– shows why this can never work.
Konrad 1:24am: Konrad circles back ignoring what he’s already been informed. The internet never forgets.
“..both making a 255K blackbody assumption…”
Again Konrad, all the relevant ref.s cited (and many more) show the calculation for 255K, the 255K is NOT an assumption. 255K is also measured. Do you not agree with empirical testing? Do you not agree with Dr. Planck, SB, 1st law from whose work the 255K calculation applied to earth system has a foundational base by experiment?
Planck distribution works for solar ponds too, that’s why they call it a law.
“…five rules for SW selective surfaces…”
Now it is 5 rules for selective surfaces. Previously 9:53pm the 5 solar pond rules were for “both materials having equal IR emissivity” with a ref. to a 1965 solar pond Texas A&M paper. Konrad can’t even keep his own story straight. Wait there’s more:
“I have clearly shown Trick where that assumption is in Bohren’s work…”
Clearly? Not so much.
3:44am: “…how many times have you cited Bohren chapter 7..”
When called out this is not exactly clear:
7:16am: “I may have got the chapter wrong…”
In addition Konrad got the substance wrong; he’s been called out for that too, keeps making the same mistake. There is no 255K assumption on Bohren p. 32 or p. 33, there is a 255K calculation e.g. Bohren: “If we take this value for S in Eq. (1.72) we obtain different temperatures Te depending on ε.”
Reading comprehension issues Konrad?
“They clearly have not included parameters for any of these factors in the “basic physics” of the “settled science”, therefore the entire radiative GHE hypothesis is junk.”
Science doesn’t include Konrad’s 5 rules for solar ponds because the deep oceans are not solar ponds. Konrad – this has been pointed out to you many times in this thread. Ocean emissivity has been extensively measured in situ. Even post-grad.s do it routinely. Why the circling? Read the cites. Read the ref.s IN the cites. Hint: they are usually at end of chapter or bottom of the paper. Become informed.
“Trick is outright lying.”
Then it ought to be a cinch for Konrad to find a cite and compare to my exact words supporting his assertion. Heck, I’ve provided the cites, easy targets. Even made some easy to read for Konrad. Plain as a solar pond. Where’s the beef Konrad? Stop circling move forward:
“The interesting thing is that being dumb can be cured by reading & comprehending the relevant remote sensing text books. Becoming informed. Being stupid is incurable as demonstrated by circling back all the time.”
******
Konrad 1:44am: “You cannot simply do radiative balance between the surface and atmosphere and then “superimpose” evaporation over the top, kinetic/molecular theory shown here”
Dr. Planck in the link below differs with Konrad, conduction and radiation are “entirely different”: “Heat may be propagated in a stationary medium in two entirely different ways, namely, by conduction and by radiation….Radiation of heat, however, is in itself entirely independent of the temperature of the medium through which it passes….Every light ray is simultaneously a heat ray….It is possible, for example, to concentrate the solar rays at a focus by passing them through a converging lens of ice, the latter remaining at a constant temperature of 0, and so to ignite an inflammable body.”
Konrad should do that experiment with the ice, he “could observe a lot just by watching” – famous ballplayer.
http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/40030?msg=welcome_stranger
I know Konrad won’t read it & become informed but I still provide the cites. And hope. See formula (274) Konrad. Compare to Bohren eqn. 1.11 p. 6 right up front. Foundational. Stop your uninformed circling.
Trick says:
October 28, 2014 at 2:58 am
///////////////////////////////////////////////
Konrad circles back ignoring what he’s already been informed. The internet never forgets.
The Internet will not forget your lying Trick. You haven’t informed. You have never produced a single relevant empirical experiment. (NO! CERES is provably not relevant).
Again Konrad, all the relevant ref.s cited
Again No, Bohren and R&C are not relevant, because they make the blackbody assumption for a SW selective surface.
the 255K is NOT an assumption. 255K is also measured. Do you not agree with empirical testing?
“That 255K is also measured”? There you go outright lying again Trick. Have another look at this experiment design of mine –
LOOK HARD TRICK That experiment is how you check the response of liquid water to intermittent SW in the absence of atmospheric cooling or DWLWIR. It’s either that or CFD. Now go and read the relevant papers on the instrument design for the Diviner lunar mission. Do you see the experiment design?? They used a vacuum chamber with powdered basalt regolith under a liquid N2 cryo cooled “sky” to test before launch. Now Trick, no more lying. Show me just where this type of empirical experiment was conducted by climastrologists for liquid water. You can’t can you?
Do you not agree with Dr. Planck, SB, 1st law from whose work the 255K calculation applied to earth system has a foundational base by experiment?
No, that 255k assumption only holds for non-convecting, SW opaque materials.
Previously 9:53pm the 5 solar pond rules were for “both materials having equal IR emissivity” with a ref. to a 1965 solar pond Texas A&M paper. Konrad can’t even keep his own story straight.
Ooh, lying by omission now Trick? My exact words –
“For SW translucent / IR opaque (material A) compared to SW opaque / IR opaque (material B) with both materials having equal IR emissivity and total watts for both constant or intermittent SW illumination being equal, the results of empirical experiment are clear –“
In addition Konrad got the substance wrong; he’s been called out for that too, keeps making the same mistake. There is no 255K assumption on Bohren p. 32 or p. 33, there is a 255K calculation e.g. Bohren: “If we take this value for S in Eq. (1.72) we obtain different temperatures Te depending on ε.” Reading comprehension issues Konrad?
Given that the 255K is calculated from a “near blackbody” assumption, it too is an assumption. Trick, you have a physics comprehension problem. The SW selective surface effects in the selective surface experiments 1 & 2 have nothing at all to do with IR emissivity. It’s depth of SW absorption and pattern of illumination. These two factors are provably missing from Bohren’s assumptions.
Science doesn’t include Konrad’s 5 rules for solar ponds because the deep oceans are not solar ponds.
Please explaining in exact detail why these rules (not mine, they were discovered before I was born, so your Alinsky effort fails), would apply to small bodies of liquid but not larger bodies. You can’t can you? You have no “cites”, no empirical experiments, just unfounded claims.
Ocean emissivity has been extensively measured in situ.
So what Trick? I have an IR thermometer. E=0.95 works fine for measurement in the Hohlrumn of the atmosphere for a material that has a 100 micron cavity effect. It doesn’t work when you measure under a cryo cooled “sky” or Hohlrumn. When you measure “in situ” you are measuring apparent not effective emissivity. Try IR emissivity of 0.7 for liquid water.
Please stop trying to circle back to emissivity being 0.95. That figure is for apparent emissivity only. Besides the asymmetry between LWIR emissivity and SW absorptivity for water amounts to only a small part of the difference between the 255K assumption and the more correct figure of 335K for the oceans. Most of the error comes from the fact that the oceans are SW translucent, convecting, intermittently illuminated, and deeper than 200m
Trick you are outright lying. You have lied when you claimed CERES data could tell us surface temp without atmosphere without knowing surface properties. You have lied when you said Bohren and Robinson & Catling correctly calculated surface without atmosphere for our ocean planet. Now you are lying when you claim that the SW selective surface effect applies to small bodies of water but not apply to larger bodies.
Let’s see you lie again Trick…
Look at that experiment above. My direct question – has a lab experiment directly comparable to this for liquid water ever been done by any of of the authors of your “cites”?
Note –
– It must be a repeatable lab experiments
– It must involve water
– It must have evaporative and conductive cooling eliminated
– It must have DWLWIR suppressed.
– It must have intermittent SW illumination.
The real scientists working on the Diviner mission did it for powdered regolith. Show me where your climastrologists buddies did it for liquid water.
Trick says: October 28, 2014 at 2:58 am
“Konrad 1:24am: Konrad circles back ignoring what he’s already been informed.
The internet never forgets.”
“Konrad 1:24am: Konrad circles back ignoring what he’s already been informed.”
Planck distribution works for solar ponds too, that’s why they call it a law.”
The Planck formula or integral is never a scientific law. It is but a calculation of the maximum specular radiance from a mass at temperature T. It has no application to this physical!
(“Trick is outright lying.”)
“Then it ought to be a cinch for Konrad to find a cite and compare to my exact words supporting his assertion.”
I have done so time and time again! Trick is lying! -will-
(“They clearly have not included parameters for any of these factors in the “basic physics” of the “settled science”, therefore the entire radiative GHE hypothesis is junk.”)
“Science doesn’t include Konrad’s 5 rules for solar ponds because the deep oceans are not solar ponds. Konrad – this has been pointed out to you many times in this thread. Ocean emissivity has been extensively measured in situ. Even post-grad.s do it routinely. Why the circling? Read the cites. Read the ref.s IN the cites. Hint: they are usually at end of chapter or bottom of the paper.”
Konrad is correct, You Trick have only pseudo-science Bull Shit
Konrad 6:09am: Konrad lashes out once again, ever more shrill, circles back to irrelevant solar pond experiments. Offers no credible counter cites supporting his assertion: “Trick is lying.” about naturally free deep oceans. Makes it easy to disprove Konrad’s claims for the natural oceans with credible cites traced to tests.
******
Detail talk for the interested reader, it’s a talkshop:
“You have never produced a single relevant empirical experiment. (NO! CERES is provably not relevant).”
Konrad full well knows I have produced a single relevant earth system empirical experiment & more. Even published – with photos! What does that mean about Konrad? See Chapter 8 here:
And Chapter 7 here – photos again!
Clouds and the Earth’s Radiant Energy System (CERES) data is relevant to free earth system observing, CERES data is correctly provably not relevant to constrained solar pond observations as Konrad somehow refrains from pointing out, what does that mean about Konrad?
******
“LOOK HARD TRICK That experiment is how you check the response of liquid water to intermittent SW in the absence of atmospheric cooling or DWLWIR.”
I have looked HARD at this solar pond experiment many times; what I see is LDPE film in contact with water sample surface. This is a solar pond. There is no such film covering surface of earth’s oceans. What I see is no data. Free the water Konrad! Free the data!
******
”No, that 255k assumption only holds for non-convecting, SW opaque materials.”
When it is pointed out the 255K is not from an assumption, 255K is from calculation from Planckian 1st principles, measured input data, and I subsequently see Konrad still comments using “assumption” term for 255K, what does that tell the reader about Konrad?
When it is pointed out conduction/convection are independent processes to more complex radiation per Planck paper cite (link provided) yet Konrad subsequently comments the reverse, what does that tell the reader about Konrad?
******
”Previously 9:53pm the 5 solar pond rules were for “both materials having equal IR emissivity” with a ref. to a 1965 solar pond Texas A&M paper. Konrad can’t even keep his own story straight. Ooh, lying by omission now Trick? My exact words – “For SW translucent / IR opaque (material A) compared to SW opaque / IR opaque (material B) with both materials having equal IR emissivity and total watts for both constant or intermittent SW illumination being equal, the results of empirical experiment are clear –“
Konrad proves his own story is not consistent by later commenting the 5 rules are for selective surfaces.
******
”Please explaining in exact detail why these rules (not mine, they were discovered before I was born, so your Alinsky effort fails), would apply to small bodies of liquid but not larger bodies. You can’t can you? You have no “cites”, no empirical experiments, just unfounded claims….Try IR emissivity of 0.7 for liquid water….Please stop trying to circle back to emissivity being 0.95.”
G.Kirchhoff full law shows a=e=0.96 for oceans measured by experts interannually, for Konrad’s solar pond experiments a=e too (it is a law) but Konrad claims the opposite – that a .NE. e in his experiments for same beam direction, same beam frequency, same suface temperatures. G. Kirchhoff is correct, not Konrad.
Point an IR thermometer set to 0.95 emissivity at a backyard swimming pool of water and it reads the brightness temperature same as kinetic temperature thermometer reads when inserted in the water at equilibrium, countless experiments proving this. Konrad should try it.
*******
“Trick you are outright lying.”
The challenge remains for Konrad to prove this assertion by credible cite or relevant experiment with data (see my links).
“My direct question – has a lab experiment directly comparable to this for liquid water ever been done by any of of the authors of your “cites? “
Not to my knowledge as Konrad’s lab experiment is not relevant to free deep oceans; my cites are studies, observations of the free earth/deep ocean system like CERES observes & not solar ponds as Konrad is observing – as in the Texas A&M 1965 paper.
” The real scientists working on the Diviner mission did it for powdered regolith”
Where? Cite? Past Diviner papers are not inclusive of powdered regolith diffraction AFAIK. Possibly a new one is out.
Keep up the good faith efforts Konrad, but please drop the circling back where I have completely disproved your claims – or shown them irrelevant to free deep oceans – by credible cite & test or show credible counter cites that are not yours alone:
“The interesting thing is that being dumb can be cured by reading & comprehending the relevant remote sensing text books. Becoming informed. Being stupid is incurable as demonstrated by circling back all the time.”
Will 2:44pm: If you have posted the cites, then I must have missed them. I also think Konrad is correct but I’m not positive as he hasn’t posted his solar pond test data. If he also studies the free deep ocean, Konrad can add to his being informed.
Here’s some things for Will to ponder:
1) “The Planck formula or integral is never a scientific law.”
The Planck formula is not an integral it is for a specific frequency and object temperature. Every test done to date on every material has proven to follow this formula at that frequency and temperature (eqn. 274 in the Planck document I linked above) – it has 3 constants of nature in it! In Will’s experience, what does it take to become scientific law? Given we are still practicing science, haven’t perfected it yet.
2) Will writes 3:49am: “No “back radiation”. Both the surface and atmosphere spontaneously transfer excess in the direction of lower potential (space)!”
However Max Planck writes in the cite I posted 2:58am p. 9 paragraph 7 on coefficient of emissivity:
“A body A at 100C emits toward a body B at 0C exactly the same amount of radiation as toward an equally large and similarly situated body B’ at 1000C. The fact that the body A is cooled by B and heated by B’ is due entirely to the fact that B is a weaker, B’ a stronger emitter than A.”
How does Will explain his disagreement with Dr. Max Planck?
Konrad. says, October 28, 2014 at 6:09 am:
“That 255K is also measured”? There you go outright lying again Trick.”
Hehe, Trick knows we know he’s lying about this of course. That’s why he keeps skirting around the truth the way he does, to make it look to a third party as if he’s sincere and that he has a case. He knows he hasn’t got one, but that doesn’t prevent him from playing his constant game of misdirection.
And he’s right, after all. 255K is measured. On a clear, crisp winter’s night somewhere cold, for instance, like here in Norway, a thermometer would easily be able to directly measure a temperature of -18C. Same if you put it rather into your freezer for a while. Or, a radiosonde thermometer might record such a temperature in passing somewhere up in the atmosphere, even during summer. Just go high enough. No problem.
What isn’t ‘measured’, however, is a 255K ‘Earth temperature’ from space. This is ONLY calculated from the averaged global radiative flux estimated from thousands and millions of readings by satellite-borne instruments such as CERES. Put this mean of 240 W/m^2 into the Stefan-Boltzmann equation assuming a perfect blackbody radiating into a perfect vacuum, and what you get is a theoretical emission temp of … 255K. Everybody knows this. Trick too. He’s just doing what he’s best at – being a trickster.
Kristian 4:23pm: Leaves out the physical distinction between measured brightness temperature and measured kinetic temperature as usual. Once again gets it wrong that earth is assumed to be a blackbody radiating into a vacuum; earth L&O surface measured emissivity is calculated to be radiating as a grey body – with grey atmosphere in place. Kristian needs to become informed on remote sensing & UAH methods for lower troposphere. The papers and calculations with measured input are long available in my cites. Dig in Kristian.
“The interesting thing is that being dumb can be cured by reading & comprehending the relevant remote sensing text books. Becoming informed. Being stupid is incurable as demonstrated by circling back all the time.”
Trick says: October 28, 2014 at 3:13 pm
“Will 2:44pm: If you have posted the cites, then I must have missed them.”
Deliberate misdirection.
IWill Janoschka says:October 28, 2014 at 6:39 am
Trick says: October 28, 2014 at 2:58 am
((“Planck distribution works for solar ponds too, that’s why they call it a law.”))
(“The Planck formula or integral is never a scientific law. It is but a calculation of the maximum specular radiance from a mass at temperature T. It has no application to this physical!”)
((“Then it ought to be a cinch for Konrad to find a cite and compare to my exact words supporting his assertion.”))
(“I have done so time and time again! Trick is lying! -will-“)
I, not Konrad, have cited and quoted your lies, many times on the Tallbkoake blog! You ahave even responded, but now he missed them!!
“Here’s some things for Will to ponder:”
(1) (“The Planck formula or integral is never a scientific law.”))
“The Planck formula is not an integral it is for a specific frequency and object temperature.”
The Planck formula must be integrated over some waveband to achieve an actual maximun radiance within that band, that is why it is called an integral, otherwise it is conceptual only and not a part of this physical.
Every test done to date on every material has proven to follow this formula at that frequency and temperature (eqn. 274 in the Planck document I linked above) – it has 3 constants of nature in it! In Will’s experience, what does it take to become scientific law? Given we are still practicing science, haven’t perfected it yet.
A Physical Law comes only from the observation of this physical, never from some theorem.
Max wrote “specific intensity”, do you have any concept of what that term may mean?
No material ever has achieved a radiance at any waveband as high as that of Planck integral.! There are no black-bodies in this physical.
(2) Will writes 3:49am: “No “back radiation”. Both the surface and atmosphere spontaneously transfer excess in the direction of lower potential (space)!”)
“However Max Planck writes in the cite I posted 2:58am p. 9 paragraph 7 on coefficient of emissivity:”
““A body A at 100C emits toward a body B at 0C exactly the same amount of radiation as toward an equally large and similarly situated body B’ at 1000C. The fact that the body A is cooled by B and heated by B’ is due entirely to the fact that B is a weaker, B’ a stronger emitter than A.””
As Max wrote, that is not from Max Planck, it is (Prevost’s principle), completely trashed, as a contradiction to Jimmy Maxwell’s equations concerning electromagnetic radiation.
“How does Will explain his disagreement with Dr. Max Planck?”
I have no disagreements with Planck’s writings. Trick, only you trivialize the work of Max Planck and Gus Kirchhoff, The rest of us actually attempt to understand the writings of such folk!
Trick, How much are you paid to post on blogs to confuse folk? They are wasting their money, you are really that poor at it!
Kristian says:
October 28, 2014 at 4:23 pm
//////////////////////////////////////////////
”Hehe, Trick knows we know he’s lying about this of course. That’s why he keeps skirting around the truth the way he does, to make it look to a third party as if he’s sincere and that he has a case. He knows he hasn’t got one, but that doesn’t prevent him from playing his constant game of misdirection.
Yes, Thick is clearly lying. There may have been some attempt to try and convince sceptics that AGW was real back in 2011, but Thick has clearly given up on that. Now it’s just interrupting, delaying, “kicking up dust” and trying to convince third party and future readers that there were “sciencey” sounding arguments against sceptics, where none existed.
Thick clearly has absolutely no understanding of –
– The scientific method.
– Radiative physics.
– Selective surfaces, both frequency and translucency dependant.
– The difference between apparent and effective emissivity.
– Radiative-convective circulation.
– Hohlrumn and cavity effect.
– Fluid dynamics in a gravity field.
All Thick has done on this thread is convince more people of the scientific illiteracy and the duplicitous character of the warmulionians. It’s quite ok not to understand physics, but lying and saying you do just to defend a failed hoax is truly execrable.
Thick trying to lecture Will on radiative physics? Laughable!
Thick you haven’t been paying attention. If you had, you would know why Will knows so much about LOWTRAN and MODTRAN. Do try to keep up…
Thick, it is clear to all reading (now and in the future) you don’t understand radiative physics. “Out of your depth on a wet pavement” doesn’t cover it. You are so far out of your depth the fish have lights on their noses.
Konrad. says: October 29, 2014 at 2:45 am
“Thick trying to lecture Will on radiative physics? Laughable!
Thick you haven’t been paying attention. If you had, you would know why Will knows so much about LOWTRAN and MODTRAN. Do try to keep up…”
Thank you Konrad! We busted out ass to physically verify the values in the data base to make it truly useful rather than theoretical. We missed that fine sand in Saudi/Kuwait, stuff hangs around longer than talcum powder! For that war, we modelled IR seeing using Mid Mediterranean sea-state 3! It was good enough for the blitz with no tank behind another or downwind.
Basically near the surface, if you cannot see visually in the daylight, you also cannot see in the IR at night.
Will 2:01am: “Deliberate misdirection.”
I didn’t miss Will’s cites to MY posts, what I must have missed is Will’s cites to published fundamental principles of physics and specialist papers.
“No material ever has achieved a radiance at any waveband as high as that of Planck integral.! There are no black-bodies in this physical.”
Sure, because Dr. Max Planck properly accounted for real object’s exhibit observed reflections and transmissions Will. I notice you didn’t cite MY 1:15am post this time for some reason:
“SB is used to evaluate the macro object’s Planck single freq. emission over a range of frequencies at the emission temperature accounting for reflections & transmissions. Limited to the assumptions of all positive radii object and its negligible diffraction (earth land, ocean, atmosphere meet these assumptions).”
“A Physical Law comes only from the observation of this physical, never from some theorem.”
Ok, then Will reverses course and admits Planck distribution is a physical law as Dr. Max Planck writes in his publication cited 2:58am: “…we shall state for our further use a law supported by a large number of experimental facts.”
“As Max wrote, that is not from Max Planck, it is (Prevost’s principle), I have no disagreements with Planck’s writings. “
Will – I didn’t clip Prevost’s words, I quoted Dr. Max Planck words verbatim so I see you also reverse course here and you now agree with me, admit your writing 3:49am is now actually incorrect per Dr. Max Planck with whom you now have no disagreements: “No “back radiation”. Both the surface and atmosphere spontaneously transfer excess in the direction of lower potential (space)!”
Konrad 2:34am: Offers no credible cites to support his conjecture “Trick is lying”. I presume in their absence, Konrad realizes he can’t do so because the measurements and calculations of 255K are so well founded in oceanography and meteorology by relevant experiment supported with reasoned theory of the grandmasters. Konrad realizes his hypothesis 312K is unfounded for the free deep earth oceans; 312K is only Konrad inferred (without data posted) from Konrad’s irrelevant solar pond experiments.
Prove my presumption inaccurate Konrad with relevant credible cites to support your conjecture “Trick is lying”.
Here Konrad I will help lead & enable you to become informed on your great list, reduce the circling back to irrelevancy. I believe I did this once before as déjà vu has set in:
– The scientific method. http://www.presentationzen.com/presentationzen/2014/04/richard-feynman-on-the-scientific-method-in-1-minute.html
– Radiative physics.
http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/40030?msg=welcome_stranger
and in modern terms all of Bohren 2006 ‘Fundamentals of Atmospheric Radiation’.
– Selective surfaces, both frequency and translucency dependent.
See F.F. Sabins, Jr., Remote Sensing: Principles and Interpretation 1987.
Excerpted here. Start with 9-3 in this link. Note same beam direction, frequency, same temperature. Change the aluminum block to Lucite for translucency, repeat the experiment in Konrad’s Kitchen. http://fas.org/irp/imint/docs/rst/Sect9/Sect9_2.html
For water selective emission/absorption see Bohren 2006 Sec. 5.3: “This intrinsic selective absorption by water leads to observable consequences: the blue of the sea, of crevasses in glaciers, ice caves, and frozen waterfalls (see Sec. 5.3.1). What is the molecular mechanism for this blueness? Overtones of fundamental vibration frequencies in the infrared and combinations of these frequencies make their presence felt, weakly, but observably in the visible.”
– The difference between apparent and effective emissivity.
Click to access chandosemissivitypaper.pdf
A little more easy reading:
http://www.electro-optical.com/eoi_page.asp?h=What+Is+Emissivity?
http://www.thermalengineer.com/library/effective_emittance.htm
– Radiative-convective circulation.
See radiation & convection combined of sec. 7.1 Bohren 1998 pp. 357-8. Along the way learn about dew and frost formation and radiation from clouds vs. clear sky.
– Hohlrumn and cavity effect.
For hohlraum (hollow area or cavity), see sec. 1.4 (esp. p. 15 Blackbody radiation without a blackbody) Bohren 2006.
– Fluid dynamics in a gravity field.
The ref. I like is original Kuethe as updated 1997 (insert Kuethe in amazon under books), but that’s because of my interests and I’m familiar with it. Konrad will want to become informed through Bohren 1998 Chapters 2,3&4 et. al. for meteorology.
Also see online meteorology text Caballero sec. 2.3 where gravity is introduced to ideal gas in a box. While there see Sec. 5 on BB and 5.17 review separate calculation for 255K with measured input noted.
Trick says:October 29, 2014 at 4:17 pm
Will 2:01am:
(“As Max wrote, that is not from Max Planck, it is (Prevost’s principle), I have no disagreements with Planck’s writings. “)
“Will – I didn’t clip Prevost’s words, I quoted Dr. Max Planck words verbatim so I see you also reverse course here and you now agree with me, admit your writing 3:49am is now actually incorrect per Dr. Max Planck with whom you now have no disagreements:
Thick I would never agree with anything you may write. Thick, you deliberately, with intent to deceive, omitted the preceding attribution by Max to Prevost! Max knew better than to claim such nonsense for himself. You and only you Thick, attribute those words to Planck.
(“No “back radiation”. Both the surface and atmosphere spontaneously transfer excess in the direction of lower potential (space)!”)
Show any evidence whatsoever of electromagnetic radiative flux in a direction toward a higher field strength at any frequency, let alone in opposing directions? There is no “back radiation”! There is opposing “radiance” that limits the magnitude of flux to that level determined by the difference in radiative potential. Jimmy Maxwell was careful “not” to contradict the Rudy Clausius second law of thermodynamics. No one doing useful work pays any attention to the post modern revision of 2LTD.
Trick says:
October 29, 2014 at 5:47 pm
///////////////////////////////////////////////
Still “kicking up dust” Trick? No amount of links will help because you provably don’t actually understand the physics. In fact most of your links destroy your argument.
– The scientific method.
You use the same link I have previously given for Feynman. He says exactly the same as I do “if it disagrees with experiment it is wrong.
– Radiative physics.
You Planck link is not relevant as I have pointed out nothing in my experiments can possibly be in violation.
Bohren 2006 again? What is this, your bible? Read more closely Trick –
P -32 “The absorptivity of the top slab averaged over the spectrum
of the radiation emitted by the bottom slab (assumed to be a blackbody) is α. We assume that
the emissivity ε of the top slab (averaged over its emission spectrum) is equal to α, which is
not strictly true unless the two temperatures are equal or the emissivity and absorptivity are
independent of frequency.”
– Bohren is right there is admitting the assumption which empirical experiment proves doesn’t hold for water.
– Selective surfaces, both frequency and translucency dependent.
Your Sabins link actually doesn’t deal with selective surfaces as it is only dealing with IR emission not SW absorption and IR emission. It certainly does not deal with depth of absorption in translucent materials. The fact that you chose this link again proves you don’t understand the physics. Your further Bohren link on scattering confirms this.
– The difference between apparent and effective emissivity.
Your Chandos link is actually the correct link here, but as you argue for e=0.96 for the effective emissivity of water you clearly don’t understand a word of it.
– Radiative-convective circulation.
Your Bohren cite is no good. If you actually understood the physics of radiative subsidence you would not have offered it, it is just about flux, not about diabatic processes effecting convective circulation. Worse the cite highlights again where Bohren makes the blackbody assumption. Sigh.
– Hohlrumn and cavity effect.
Again you don’t understand this section because you argue for e=0.96 for water.
– Fluid dynamics in a gravity field.
You claim to understand fluid dynamics? Then why did you argue black and blue in 2011 that it was impossible to drive convection in a fluid column by removing energy from the top of the column?
Also see online meteorology text Caballero sec. 2.3 where gravity is introduced to ideal gas in a box. While there see Sec. 5 on BB and 5.17 review separate calculation for 255K with measured input noted.
Link?
Again, all you have proved here Trick, is that you don’t understand the physics let alone the SW selective surface problem.
Sorry for my intermittent posts, but if I let it, these discussions would take over my life. 🙂
Trick says: October 28, 2014 at 1:15 am
“One possible answer I can think of is: The 1st law is used to evaluate the ocean and/or atmosphere surface temperature not SB.”
Well, no surprise there then. 😉
“SB is used to evaluate the macro object’s Planck single freq. emission over a range of frequencies at the emission temperature accounting for reflections & transmissions. Limited to the assumptions of all positive radii object and its negligible diffraction (earth land, ocean, atmosphere meet these assumptions).”
No. It’s an assumption of a ‘black’ body.
“Well, except (at least) in the special case of ocean waves which radiate at one another – then, if important, testing is required.”
???
Surely you mean “‘absorb against’ one another”. I’ve shown that in a natural ambient state ‘vapour pressure’ dictates that, within thermal spectra, energy is ‘radiated’ from the near atmosphere into the ocean surface.
Dr. Planck informs us that the ‘Planck weighting’ is equal to the ‘thermometer temperature’ and the ‘temperature’ of the ocean surface is LESS THAN the ‘temperature’ of the near atmosphere. Thus, the direction of ‘radiant energy transfer’ is from the atmosphere into the ocean surface in the IR (thermal) spectra.
“I cannot make sense of this. Dr. Planck informs there is emission up (away) from the ocean.”
No he doesn’t. He only informs us that ’emission’ only results in a scenario where there is a ‘temperature difference’, when the ’emitter’ is the body with the greatest ‘thermal’ (sensible heat) energy density.
“There is all-sky emission down (away) to the surface. Both at all frequencies, at all temperatures, all of the time. Both emissions are at the expense of energy in the respective medium. As the top post states, somewhere near equilibrium. Perhaps you can elaborate.”
I think we’re well past the statements in the top post Trick. ‘Equilibrium’ is a ‘steady state assumption’ statement for a dynamic system, but these dynamics can confuse/confound the fundamentals of the basic configuration that governs the physical attributes of a system.
Scenario: If I placed a 240w IR heater, at altitude, that didn’t ‘physically’ interfere with Earth’s surface radiation. Would it supply ‘back radiation’ to Earth’s surface and cause additional warming?
Best regards, Ray.
Konrad. says: October 28, 2014 at 1:44 am
“The answer is that SB equations should never be applied to evaporatively cooled substances. You cannot simply do radiative balance between the surface and atmosphere and then “superimpose” evaporation over the top, kinetic/molecular theory shown here –”
Thanks Konrad. My questions were rhetorical. Let’s wait and see what transpires with the dialogue. 🙂
Best regards, Ray.
Konrad says: October 30, 2014 at 12:56 am
/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
???
There’s obviously something I’ve missed here.
Best regards, Ray.
Will 12:45am: “..you deliberately, with intent to deceive, omitted the preceding attribution by Max to Prevost!”
Because Planck does not attribute his quote I verbatim clipped to Prevost. Planck attributes the PREVIOUS sentence to Prevost. Once again Will is not paying attention. The Prevost attribution Planck makes is here: “..the empirical law that the emission of any volume-element depends entirely on what takes place inside of this element holds true in all cases (Prevost’s principle).”
Please carefully read the document Will, pay attention. It is your incorrect comment at 3:49am that is relevant here not the Prevost attribution anyway. Planck does not attribute this next clip to Prevost and since you have no disagreement with Planck, you then agree your relevant 3:49am statement is incorrect:
“A body A at 100C emits toward a body B at 0C exactly the same amount of radiation as toward an equally large and similarly situated body B’ at 1000C. The fact that the body A is cooled by B and heated by B’ is due entirely to the fact that B is a weaker, B’ a stronger emitter than A.”
“Show any evidence whatsoever of electromagnetic radiative flux in a direction toward a higher field strength at any frequency, let alone in opposing directions?”
There are many. Toward a higher field strength IS opposing direction Will. NOAA ESRL routinely measures electromagnetic radiative flux in a direction toward a higher field strength. The earth system radiates toward the sun. Deep space routinely radiates toward both earth & sun. Penzias & Wilson picked up the 2.7K CMB radiating toward the much higher temperature Bell Labs horn antenna on the ground radiating opposed to CMB in 1964 (though they used a cooled receiver to eliminate noise). See Planck’s governing quote from his own experiments showing such that I clipped, and I mean the one NOT attributed to Prevost.
“There is opposing “radiance” that limits the magnitude of flux to that level determined by the difference in radiative potential.“
See even Will now agrees with Dr. Max Planck there is opposing radiance & NOAA & Penzias & Wilson! Try to at least get your own comments consistent Will. The net of the opposing radiances is the key to net energy transfer as Planck states (which he does not attribute to Prevost).
“No one doing useful work pays any attention to the post modern revision of 2LTD.”
There is no post modern revision of 2LTD, or cite it Will from a credible source.
New article coming up soon where you folks can have a field day.
Oh and konrad so you know, this links to a self publish which cites Irvine.
http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.co.uk/2014/10/new-paper-finds-very-low-climate.html
1:47am: “There is opposing “radiance” that limits the magnitude of flux to that level determined by the difference in radiative potential.“
See even Will now agrees with Dr. Max Planck there is opposing radiance & NOAA & Penzias & Wilson! Try to at least get your own comments consistent Will. The net of the opposing radiances is the key to net energy transfer as Planck states (which he does not attribute to Prevost).
suricat says:
October 30, 2014 at 12:57 am
Sorry for my intermittent posts, but if I let it, these discussions would take over my life. 🙂
Thank you Ray!
Trick says: October 28, 2014 at 1:15 am
(“I cannot make sense of this. Dr. Planck informs there is emission up (away) from the ocean.”)
“No he doesn’t. He only informs us that ‘emission’ only results in a scenario where there is a ‘temperature difference’, when the ‘emitter’ is the body with the greatest ‘thermal’ (sensible heat) energy density.”
That is correct. That “intensity” is called field strength, for a sparky, luminance or radiance, for an opticer. Always a a potential, the potential for flux or exitance, never the flux itself, which always is limited by any opposing “intensity”
(“There is all-sky emission down (away) to the surface. Both at all frequencies, at all temperatures, all of the time. Both emissions are at the expense of energy in the respective medium. As the top post states, somewhere near equilibrium. Perhaps you can elaborate.”)
“I think we’re well past the statements in the top post Trick. ‘Equilibrium’ is a ‘steady state assumption’ statement for a dynamic system, but these dynamics can confuse/confound the fundamentals of the basic configuration that governs the physical attributes of a system.”
Indeed, and for the radiative it is all geometry, and various intensities!
“Scenario: If I placed a 240w IR heater, at altitude, that didn’t ‘physically’ interfere with Earth’s surface radiation. Would it supply ‘back radiation’ to Earth’s surface and cause additional warming?”
Perhaps if your “heater” had a very small surface area, allowing high temperatures for that 240 watts. A water heater element, in air, would do that for a short period of time. In most cases your “heater” would transfer energy to the local atmosphere, which would spontaneously and rapidly dispatch such energy in a direction of a lower temperature by all transfer methods available.
-will-
Konrad 12:56am: Again presents no evidence to support his conjecture “Trick is lying.” But at least Konrad does not circle back, attempts moving forward by actually reading, becoming informed to a certain extent. Good for Konrad. Now be thorough Konrad.
– The scientific method.
Konrad’s solar pond experiments 312K fail at this Feynman step: “Then we compute the consequences of the guess.” As Konrad never offers the compute part in order to pass this step: “then we compare the computation results to nature”.
– Radiative physics.
“You Planck link is not relevant…”
Planck link is NOT relevant to radiative physics?? Come on Konrad. Get real. And yes, your solar pond experiment completely agrees with Planckian radiative physics, see the Feynman lecture (above) to find out where your interpretations of your experiment fail the scientific method & to be relevant for earth system. Hint: You don’t compute the 312K for your experiment or even earth system. Free the water! Free the data!
“Bohren is right there is admitting the assumption which empirical experiment proves doesn’t hold for water.”
Dr. Bohren knows the earth has oceans. That there is liquid water at the surface. Yet this knowledge doesn’t affect his analogue calculations for 255K or 289K or even the 303K. You will have to do better Konrad, read the whole section in context – ALL of it. Report back.
– Selective surfaces, both frequency and translucency dependent.
The Sabins remote sensing link DOES deal with both SW and LW. The test shown is incident SW and LW emission from the aluminum block. Remote sensing deals with water and land. Try the translucent block in Konrad’s Kitchen. Report results using scientific method.
– The difference between apparent and effective emissivity.
“..as you argue for e=0.96 for the effective emissivity of water you clearly don’t understand a word of it.”
Emissivity of ocean water is ~0.96 as measured & reported in the field of oceanography; measured from large regions of oceans with natural winds (reflectivity interannually is ~4%). Konrad needs to provide a credible cite contrary to 0.96 for large regions of ocean to move forward not just assertion.
– Radiative-convective circulation.
“Your Bohren cite is no good.”
Where? How? Why? Did Konrad even read 1998 section? I doubt it. If Konrad did, please provide a credible counter cite to an offending passage.
– Hohlrumn and cavity effect.
“Again you don’t understand this section because you argue for e=0.96 for water.”
Konrad misunderstands unless can provide a credible cite for large regions of ocean tested interannually having different emissivity than ~0.96 (~4% reflectivity over the spectrum in a hemisphere of directions with windiness included).
“Then why did you argue black and blue in 2011 that it was impossible to drive convection in a fluid column by removing energy from the top of the column?”
Cite? These are Konrad words not mine.
“Link?”
Konrad’s google fu is strong enough to find Caballero online text. Ask me to do the work for Konrad if not.
All you have proved here Konrad, is that you don’t understand the earth system physics for Bohren’s analogue or your solar pond experiment physics (no analysis, no computation, no scientific method) let alone understand the SW selective surface problem.
******
suricat 12:57am: ”No. It’s an assumption of a ‘black’ body.”
None exist. Planck & SB are for real bodies correctly account for reflectivity and transmissivity. Planck is not applicable to waves as they have negative radii.
“Thus, the direction of ‘radiant energy transfer’ is from the atmosphere into the ocean surface in the IR (thermal) spectra.”
Radiant energy transfer is bidirectional, so there is a net energy transfer between them. Per the same Planck quote I gave Will:
“A body A at 100C emits toward a body B at 0C exactly the same amount of radiation as toward an equally large and similarly situated body B’ at 1000C. The fact that the body A is cooled by B and heated by B’ is due entirely to the fact that B is a weaker, B’ a stronger emitter than A.”
“Scenario: If I placed a 240w IR heater, at altitude, that didn’t ‘physically’ interfere with Earth’s surface radiation. Would it supply ‘back radiation’ to Earth’s surface and cause additional warming?”
There would be 240w heater plugged into the grid radiating toward earth surface. Earth surface radiating at the heater. Bidirectional. The net energy transfer would be important for warming any control volume selected.
Trick says: October 30, 2014 at 1:50 am
1:47am: “There is opposing “radiance” that limits the magnitude of flux to that level determined by the difference in radiative potential.“
See even Will now agrees with Dr. Max Planck there is opposing radiance & NOAA & Penzias & Wilson! Try to at least get your own comments consistent Will. The net of the opposing radiances is the key to net energy transfer as Planck states (which he does not attribute to Prevost).
More Thick lies!
Fron Plancks paper: “But the empirical law that the emission of any volume-element depends entirely on what takes place inside of this element holds true in all cases (Prevost’s principle).
A body at 100◦ C. emits toward a body B at 0◦ C. exactly the same amount of radiation as toward an equally large and similarly situated body B’ at 1000◦ C. The fact that the body A is cooled by B and heated by B’ is due entirely to the fact that B is a weaker, B’ a stronger emitter than A.
Thick fails to mention that Prevost’s principle, was trashed by Maxwell and his equations.
Thick you insist on trying to defend the post modern “two stream approximation” with absolutely no ability to do so!
Trick says:
October 30, 2014 at 2:54 am
///////////////////////////////////////////
Again presents no evidence to support his conjecture “Trick is lying.”
The evidence is on this very thread. You lied when you said CERES could confirm the 255K “surface without atmosphere” assumption. You lied when you said Bohren had not made the blackbody assumption. And you are lying when you say the five rules for SW translucent selective surfaces do not apply to the oceans.
But at least Konrad does not circle back, attempts moving forward by actually reading, becoming informed to a certain extent. Good for Konrad. Now be thorough Konrad.
Trick, I have warned you many times that Alisnsky techniques don’t work on engineers. Your use of condescension (when you are provably in no position to do so) just screams “activist” instead of scientist.
– The scientific method.
Konrad’s solar pond experiments 312K fail at this Feynman step: “Then we compute the consequences of the guess.” As Konrad never offers the compute part in order to pass this step: “then we compare the computation results to nature”
Trick, there is no need to compute anything. The experiments prove the error in that base 255K assumption are so huge that the AGW hypothesis is invalidated. It didn’t even pass the back of envelope “sanity check”. Feynman is a god, climastrologists are scum, he would have never supported your drivel.
– Radiative physics.
Planck link is NOT relevant to radiative physics?
I never said that, just that your raising Planck was irrelevant to the issues at hand.
Dr. Bohren knows the earth has oceans. That there is liquid water at the surface. Yet this knowledge doesn’t affect his analogue calculations for 255K
Therefore Bohren is a fool who applied equations for opaque surfaces to materials that CFD or empirical experiment would be required for.
– Selective surfaces, both frequency and translucency dependent.
The Sabins remote sensing link DOES deal with both SW and LW.
Another lie Trick? The extract link you gave just talks of emission for a given temperature. Not how the materials got to that temperature. Look again at the drawing of the aluminium block, if it were SW illuminated, a black cavity sensor over the black or polished surface would read the same. You truly have no understanding…
– The difference between apparent and effective emissivity.
Emissivity of ocean water is ~0.96 as measured & reported in the field of oceanography
That is apparent emissivity not effective. You truly have no understanding. You need to eliminate background radiation to measure true effective emissivity. Just like the Diviner mission scientists did. Just like I did. Just like climastrologists failed to do.
– Radiative-convective circulation.
Where? How? Why? Did Konrad even read 1998 section? I doubt it. If Konrad did, please provide a credible counter cite to an offending passage.
No radiative, conductive or evaporative acceleration of airmass breakaway after dawn from the SBL in your link. No radiative subsidence in your link. Do you believe in “immaculate convection”?
– Hohlrumn and cavity effect.
Running back to 0.96? Then you don’t understand physics. 0.96 is measured inside the atmospheric Hohlrumn! It is measured with form cavity effect (self radiating waves) and it is measured with 100 micron surface IR translucency cavity effect.
K- “Then why did you argue black and blue in 2011 that it was impossible to drive convection in a fluid column by removing energy from the top of the column?”
T –Cite? These are Konrad words not mine.
Only on this very site. One sock-puppet, too many hands. Of course you are going to make mistakes 😉
Konrad’s google fu is strong enough to find Caballero online text.
He’s removed it from three sites. I could use the way back machine, but I won’t bother. Working link Trick or your cite is worthless. Could there be a reason he removed it? Let me guess….it contained the 255K “surface without atmosphere” assumption?
All you have proved here Trick, is that you don’t understand the scientific method, let alone physics.
Trick says: October 30, 2014 at 1:47 am
(Will 12:45am: “..you deliberately, with intent to deceive, omitted the preceding attribution by Max to Prevost!”)
“Because Planck does not attribute his quote I verbatim clipped to Prevost. Planck attributes the PREVIOUS sentence to Prevost. Once again Will is not paying attention. The Prevost attribution Planck makes is here: “..the empirical law that the emission of any volume-element depends entirely on what takes place inside of this element holds true in all cases (Prevost’s principle).”
That is but your deliberate lying again Thick!
“Please carefully read the document Will, pay attention. It is your incorrect comment at 3:49am that is relevant here not the Prevost attribution anyway. Planck does not attribute this next clip to Prevost and since you have no disagreement with Planck, you then agree your relevant 3:49am statement is incorrect:”
More lies! I would never agree with any of your deliberate lies. Read the Provost’s Principle, and understand the gross nonsense that Planck and Maxwell destroyed.
(“Show any evidence whatsoever of electromagnetic radiative flux in a direction toward a higher field strength at any frequency, let alone in opposing directions?”)
“There are many. Toward a higher field strength IS opposing direction Will. NOAA ESRL routinely measures electromagnetic radiative flux in a direction toward a higher field strength. The earth system radiates toward the sun.: ”
No such flux has ever been detected or measured.
Deep space routinely radiates toward both earth & sun. Penzias & Wilson picked up the 2.7K CMB radiating toward the much higher temperature Bell Labs horn antenna on the ground radiating opposed to CMB in 1964 (though they used a cooled receiver to eliminate noise). See Planck’s governing quote from his own experiments showing such that I clipped, and I mean the one NOT attributed to Prevost.
Deep space routinely radiates toward both earth & sun. Penzias & Wilson picked up the 2.7K CMB radiating toward the much higher temperature Bell Labs horn antenna on the ground radiating opposed to CMB in 1964 (though they used a cooled receiver to eliminate noise). See Planck’s governing quote from his own experiments showing such that I clipped, and I mean the one NOT attributed to Prevost.
These folk were measuring the flux radiated from the 4 Kelvin helium source toward the CMB in order to determine the radiance, not flux, from the CMB.
(“There is opposing “radiance” that limits the magnitude of flux to that level determined by the difference in radiative potential.“)
“See even Will now agrees with Dr. Max Planck there is opposing radiance & NOAA & Penzias & Wilson! Try to at least get your own comments consistent Will. The net of the opposing radiances is the key to net energy transfer as Planck states (which he does not attribute to Prevost).”
There is no “net”, Tim Folkerts, there “is” the easily measured “only” flux from higher potential to lower potential in every direction. With no difference in potential, there is no flux!
(“No one doing useful work pays any attention to the post modern revision of 2LTD.”)
“There is no post modern revision of 2LTD, or cite it Will from a credible source.”
You cite your own post modern bull shit about entropy, rather than spontaneity!
Thick, you are so bad at this, do you have a lamp on your nose?
konrad. says: October 30, 2014 at 6:49 am
“– The difference between apparent and effective emissivity.
Emissivity of ocean water is ~0.96 as measured & reported in the field of oceanography
That is apparent emissivity not effective. You truly have no understanding. You need to eliminate background radiation to measure true effective emissivity. Just like the Diviner mission scientists did. Just like I did. Just like climastrologists failed to do”
Please be a bit careful there. The sea normal (perpendicular) emissivity from 2.5 microns to 200 microns is above 90%. At 70 degrees from normal, still water has less than 5% emissivity. It is highly reflective. The ocean emissivity cannot be measured, as it refuses to stay at a constant angle!
We tried to measure ocean BRDF between ships, and finally agreed on Aw Shit!
Will 3:04am, 7:20am: “Prevost’s principle, was trashed by Maxwell and his equations….Read the Provost’s Principle”
Not relevant but fill me in on that with a credible relevant cite where the trashing happened. Maxwell’s field eqn.s (I even wrote them out for Will once) completely in agreement with Planck (not Prevost) statement:
“A body at 100◦ C. emits toward a body B at 0◦ C. exactly the same amount of radiation as toward an equally large and similarly situated body B’ at 1000◦ C. The fact that the body A is cooled by B and heated by B’ is due entirely to the fact that B is a weaker, B’ a stronger emitter than A.”
Both Maxwell and Planck (with whom Will agrees) show Will is incorrect on this when:
Will writes 3:49am: “No “back radiation”. Both the surface and atmosphere spontaneously transfer excess in the direction of lower potential (space)!”
“No such flux has ever been detected or measured.”
The Bell Lab horn antenna at about 60F detected the signal at about 2.7K and collected it incident on the cooled receiver. Wilson and Penzias were correct, confirming Planck (not Prevost) statement above. Will is simply incorrect. If Will were correct, the signal could not have been detected by the horn antenna.
Trick says: October 30, 2014 at 2:14 pm
Will 3:04am, 7:20am: “Prevost’s principle, was trashed by Maxwell and his equations….Read the Provost’s Principle”
Not relevant but fill me in on that with a credible relevant cite where the trashing happened. Maxwell’s field eqn.s (I even wrote them out for Will once) completely in agreement with Planck (not Prevost) statement:
“A body at 100◦ C. emits toward a body B at 0◦ C. exactly the same amount of radiation as toward an equally large and similarly situated body B’ at 1000◦ C. The fact that the body A is cooled by B and heated by B’ is due entirely to the fact that B is a weaker, B’ a stronger emitter than A.”
Both Maxwell and Planck (with whom Will agrees) show Will is incorrect on this when:
Will writes 3:49am: “No “back radiation”. Both the surface and atmosphere spontaneously transfer excess in the direction of lower potential (space)!”
“No such flux has ever been detected or measured.”
The Bell Lab horn antenna at about 60F detected the signal at about 2.7K and collected it incident on the cooled receiver. Wilson and Penzias were correct, confirming Planck (not Prevost) statement above. Will is simply incorrect. If Will were correct, the signal could not have been detected by the horn antenna.
You are completely wrong on every count. Try to learn the difference between radiative flux and radiance (with 1/sr) Just like Planck and Maxwell stated at all time. no more of your post modern bull shit.
Konrad 6:49am – No sense wasting time in re-re-discussing Konrad’s baseless claims unfounded in the Dr. Feynman scientific method with which even Konrad agrees as cited. Konrad – Free the water! Free the data! Free the computations! Comply with scientific method as laid out by Dr. Feynman.
Konrad still doesn’t use my exact words (uses his own) against the exact words in all the cites I provided to support his conjecture ”Trick is lying”. But Konrad does offer a few new foolhardy & baseless claims. Let’s see about those:
“Therefore Bohren is a fool..”.
Dr. Bohren is nobody’s fool; he always invokes the complete Dr. Feynman (who was nobody’s fool either) scientific method: analysis, computation, experimental confirmation unlike Konrad. Konrad simply hasn’t become informed by reading and thoroughly absorbing the bulk of Dr. Bohren’s 30+ years of publications. Konrad, unpublished, refuses to invoke the complete Dr. Feynman scientific method teachings.
“I could use the way back machine, but I won’t bother.”
I know that Konrad, the Dr. Feynman scientific method is not worth investing Konrad time; Konrad prefers circle back unfounded. I prefer becoming informed. Use the machine if necessary or go over to the college library – some effort is required Konrad.
“..your raising Planck was irrelevant to the issues at hand.”
The issues are radiative; Konrad resists becoming informed again. Dr. Bohren started there with eqn. 1.11.
Konrad: “You lied when you said Bohren had not made the blackbody assumption.”
Dr. Bohren 2006 sec. 1.6 p. 33: “The emissivity of the present atmosphere is, say, 0.8,…yields Te = 289K”
Not a blackbody as Konrad states, a grey body as I stated. I urged Konrad to read the entire passage but Konrad refuses to become informed. Dr. Bohren uses analysis, computation and measured input calculate 255K which is then confirmed by CERES experimental measurement of nature’s 255K. Konrad conjectures CERES really should measure 312K based on irrelevant experiment with no data posted, no analysis, no computations. Dr. Feynman: “..then we compare the computation results to nature.” Konrad being foolhardy fails to do so.
Waste of time to comment further until Konrad: Frees the data! Frees the water! Frees the computations! Uses the Dr. Feynman scientific method as shown in the relevant cite. I do thank Konrad for the discussion opportunity for me to become more informed.
“The interesting thing is that being dumb can be cured by reading & comprehending the relevant remote sensing text books. Becoming informed. Being stupid is incurable as demonstrated by circling back all the time.”
Will 6:36pm: “Just like Planck and Maxwell stated at all time.”
Dr. Max Planck (not Prevost) writes:
“A body at 100◦ C. emits toward a body B at 0◦ C. exactly the same amount of radiation as toward an equally large and similarly situated body B’ at 1000◦ C. The fact that the body A is cooled by B and heated by B’ is due entirely to the fact that B is a weaker, B’ a stronger emitter than A.”
Will writes:
1) 3:49am: “No “back radiation”. Both the surface and atmosphere spontaneously transfer excess in the direction of lower potential (space)!”
2) 2:01am: “I have no disagreements with Planck’s writings.”
Will: Q: Which is true 1) or 2)? They can’t both be true according to Dr. Max Planck. 2) is true, demonstrate it. Please try to understand the difference between radiative flux, radiance and irradiance as Dr. Max Planck & Dr. Craig Bohren teach.
Will Janoschka says: October 30, 2014 at 2:26 am
“Perhaps if your “heater” had a very small surface area, allowing high temperatures for that 240 watts. A water heater element, in air, would do that for a short period of time. In most cases your “heater” would transfer energy to the local atmosphere, which would spontaneously and rapidly dispatch such energy in a direction of a lower temperature by all transfer methods available.”
Not quite what I had in mind Will. If Earth’s insolation budget averages to 240w/m^2 over a 24hr period, then ‘latency’s’ share of the ‘closed window’ becomes, literally, an ‘IR lamp’ in the sky. 🙂
Yes, some of these, other, ‘transfer methods’ are visible to the naked eye (e.g. convective clouds).
All driven by ‘OHC’ (Ocean Heat Content), and I don’t see any change in bulk OHC without an alteration in average surface atmospheric pressure either. Yes, CO2 is one of the heavier gasses in the atmosphere, but, unless it substantially alters surface atmospheric pressure, there can only be minor weather changes to Earth’s overall ‘climate’ because the ‘Clausius Clapyron relationship’ has a very small hysteresis interval at the start point of the hydrological ‘heat pump’ to the stars.
I think it was yesterday (perhaps the day before at my posting time) that Scotland had clear skies, was cold and in single figures. However, it clouded over, got warm and was in double figures, “overnight”!
IMHO all ‘surface/near surface’ temperatures are ‘buffered’ by the release of OHC at altitude and don’t/won’t alter at the rate you’d expect them to. Please also remember that ‘land surface’ is more efficient for ‘evaporation rate’ due to elevated surface temperature.
Best regards, Ray.
Trick says: October 30, 2014 at 7:29 pm
(Will 6:36pm: “Just like Planck and Maxwell stated at all time.”)
‘Dr. Max Planck (not Prevost) writes:
“A body at 100◦ C. emits toward a body B at 0◦ C. exactly the same amount of radiation as toward an equally large and similarly situated body B’ at 1000◦ C. The fact that the body A is cooled by B and heated by B’ is due entirely to the fact that B is a weaker, B’ a stronger emitter than A.”
Thick again incessantly lies.
Max in his introduction paraphrases Prevost as an example of the radiative mess considered by others. He could have written about the same nonsense in the Raleigh-Jeans equation. The whole reason for the paper was to put such nonsense to rest. Prevost wrote that nonsense in 1791 along with the caloric he had a radiative caloric!
“Will writes:
(1) 3:49am: “No “back radiation”. Both the surface and atmosphere spontaneously transfer excess in the direction of lower potential (space)!”)
(2) 2:01am: “I have no disagreements with Planck’s writings.”)
“Will: Q: Which is true 1) or 2)? They can’t both be true according to Dr. Max Planck.”
They are both precisely true! Only your defacement of the writings of Max Planck are deliberate lies.
“2) is true, demonstrate it. Please try to understand the difference between radiative flux, radiance and irradiance as Dr. Max Planck & Dr. Craig Bohren teach.”
I could care less about the post modern nonsense spouted by Craig Bohren, Who claims knowledge of atmospheric optics, but has none, or his buddy Michael Mann! I can precisely state and understand the meaning of the three. “Only” radiative flux has any energy transport! It is always unidirectional, as is the word flux itself. The other two are potentials only.
Trick says: October 30, 2014 at 2:54 am
“None exist. Planck & SB are for real bodies correctly account for reflectivity and transmissivity.”
That’s the point Trick. ‘Accountability’!
“Planck is not applicable to waves as they have negative radii.”
I’m ‘gob smacked’! Please expound! Are these ‘ocean waves’, or EM energy ‘waves’???
“Radiant energy transfer is bidirectional, so there is a net energy transfer between them. Per the same Planck quote I gave Will:”
I’ll not repeat your quote to Will, but, as an engineer, I’d assumed you’d already understand the implication behind my post. This is going to be ‘hard work’ as you’re obviously not ‘up to speed’ yet. Okay!
H2O is ‘volatile’ in both its ‘liquid’ and ‘solid’ state. This means that it will ‘evaporate’ to a ‘gas’ from both, other, ‘phases’ of its presentation on Earth at Earth’s ~surface pressure/temperature when not present in it’s gaseous phase. As a ‘gas’, H2O is one of the ‘lighter’ components in Earth’s ‘atmospheric gas mix’ and as it’s ~3/5 the density of the other ‘gas mix’ components, it ‘percolates’ upwards under the ‘gravity suspension’ laws of ‘density’. Don’t expect any ‘cites’ because I’m an engineer, not a scientist.
If you don’t understand the energy ‘value’ of a ‘phase change’, or ‘change of state’, please ask.
“There would be 240w heater plugged into the grid radiating toward earth surface. Earth surface radiating at the heater. Bidirectional. The net energy transfer would be important for warming any control volume selected.”
Glad you mentioned that Trick. No “grid”. just the ‘latent heat component’!
Best regards, Ray.
Will Janoschka says:
October 30, 2014 at 8:12 am
///////////////////////////////////////////////
”The sea normal (perpendicular) emissivity from 2.5 microns to 200 microns is above 90%. At 70 degrees from normal, still water has less than 5% emissivity. It is highly reflective. The ocean emissivity cannot be measured, as it refuses to stay at a constant angle!”
Will,
Yes, yes, yes! This is exactly what I found when testing water. It is far more reflective of IR than climastrologists claim. The apparent emissivity changes with surface roughness, level of background IR and viewing angle. A material with such properties cannot possibly be a “near blackbody”.
The only way to get a good figure for effective emissivity would be to test multiple surface conditions and viewing angles with background IR eliminated.
That’s just what the real scientists did prior to the Diviner lunar mission launch. They calibrated their instruments in a vacuum chamber with liquid nitrogen cooling of surfaces above the regolith samples –
In the first pic and interferometer style instrument is tested for multiple viewing angles over samples. In the diagram and second pic, a sample is tested for emissivity in vacuum with cryo cooling of all surfaces above the sample.
Climastrologists never did tests on water with background IR removed. All the measurements Thick offers are in situ, measuring reflection of atmospheric radiation and calling it emission. The 0.96 figure they are using for ocean emissivity is provably wrong.
Trick says: October 30, 2014 at 2:54 am
“None exist. Planck & SB are for real bodies correctly account for reflectivity and transmissivity.”
In what way do they account for anything, they are only for black-bodies, of which there are none!
“Radiant energy transfer is bidirectional, so there is a net energy transfer between them. Per the same Planck quote I gave Will:”
You gave but an intentional corruption of Planck’s writings. Show any any radiant energy transfer (flux) that is bidirectional. Where and how was this bi-directional flux ever measured? By who?
You have only post modern fantasy, no knowledge whatsoever!
Will 2:39am: “They are both precisely true!”
That is impossible Will. Thanks for reminding readers you are so clueless about reality of Planckian radiative flux, radiance and irradiance. I was aware of that already.
******
suricat 2:45am – I meant ocean waves as they radiate at each other. Thus Planck law not applicable as ruled out for surfaces radiate to themselves (objects with negative radii).
I do understand water evaporates at expense of L&O surface energy content and then condenses back to liquid returns energy to L&O surface at expense of atmosphere energy content in rough balance short periods, good balance longer periods (4-10 years in earth energy budgets).
******
Konrad 3:04am: “…measuring reflection of atmospheric radiation calling it emission. The 0.96 figure they are using for ocean emissivity is provably wrong.”
Konrad misunderstands. The oceanographers know about reflectivity, they use it to their advantage. Measured ocean LW reflection is easier interannually and 1-reflectivity – transmissivity = emissivity as the deep oceans transmit 0. So 1-.04-0.0=0.96 over hemisphere of directions, winds included. Proof of 0 transmissivity: Your picture, some deep ocean inhabitants live in the dark no light transmitted that deep & so need their own light.
Satellite tests done same way; they measure all sides reflectivity precision instrumentation and 1-reflectivity = emissivity of each side as transmissivity = 0 like the deep oceans.
For your solar pond experiments you show neither reflections from the various surfaces nor transmissions. Provably wrong emissivity from them. So far. Now you know how to make improvements.
If I get some time, will dig out an oceanographer paper you can trash for sport.
Will 3:29am: “Show any any radiant energy transfer (flux) that is bidirectional. Where and how was this bi-directional flux ever measured? By who?”
Penzias & Wilson 1964. Can Will not read and comprehend? 2.7K emitter down and 60F emitter up. Bidirectional. The Bell Lab horn antenna captured the CMB signal; before the receiver they built was cooled and after it was cooled & all the other energy transfer sources were eliminated (even the bird guano) the 2.7K CMB hiss remained. To their consternation.
It is actually HARD to eliminate all the omnidirectional energy transfers in the bath; they had to work at it, thought they could get nearer to zero but the 2.7K hiss remained no matter what they did. Then a colleague searching for the hiss, turned on the light bulb over their heads. History was made. Turn on your own light bulb over your head – quote from my HS algebra teacher Mrs. Smith.
Trick says: October 31, 2014 at 3:32 am
(Will 2:39am: “They are both precisely true!”)
“That is impossible Will. Thanks for reminding readers you are so clueless about reality of Planckian radiative flux, radiance and irradiance. I was aware of that already.”
They are both precisely true! “Planckian radiative flux” a Thick made up phrase, indicating nothing, demonstrate any such flux ever? What are the units used for the “y” (vertical) axis on every graph of the Planck integral curve at any temperature? Why do you call this radiative flux?
“
Trick says:
October 31, 2014 at 3:32 am
///////////////////////////////////////////////////
”Konrad misunderstands.
No Trick, I don’t. I know the only way to get a correct effective LWIR emissivity figure for water is to measure at multiple angles with background IR removed. “in situ” measurements are clearly useless for this as they are being made within the Hohlrumn of the atmosphere.
If you want to claim that 0.96 figure as correct, then you need to show the empirical experiment where that figure was tested with no background IR over the water sample. Can you produce any evidence whatsoever that the 0.96 figure has been correctly established by exactly that type of empirical experiment? No, of course you can’t.
And this? –
”For your solar pond experiments you show neither reflections from the various surfaces nor transmissions. Provably wrong emissivity from them. So far. Now you know how to make improvements
Laughable.
The selective surface experiments have nothing to do with IR emissivity. This is intentionally kept identical for both samples, as is reflectivity. That is the whole point, to test only depth of SW absorption. Your blather about emissivity clearly shows you have absolutely no understanding of the experiments.
Trick says: October 31, 2014 at 4:02 am
(Will 3:29am: “Show any any radiant energy transfer (flux) that is bidirectional. Where and how was this bi-directional flux ever measured? By who?”)
“Penzias & Wilson 1964. Can Will not read and comprehend? 2.7K emitter down and 60F emitter up. Bidirectional. The Bell Lab horn antenna captured the CMB signal; before the receiver they built was cooled and after it was cooled & all the other energy transfer sources were eliminated (even the bird guano) the 2.7K CMB hiss remained. To their consternation.”
You could at least read the whole history before spouting your nonsense! Penzias & Wilson got part of a prize for claiming the had detected the claimed background radiance of the big bang. What they actually measured was the 4.08 GHz RF noise from the center of the milky way galaxy, not any CMB.
The Planck satellite at L2 does measure the broad band CMB “radiance”, by carefully measuring the exitance from a thermopile cooled to 4 Kelvin The side pointing to the background is at less than the 4K reference, indicating only exitance, as both Planck and Maxwell have shown must happen. There is no bidirectional flux, at any frequency, at any location in known space.
-snip more Thick fantasy nonsense-
Will Janoschka says, October 31, 2014 at 2:39 am:
“Prevost wrote that nonsense in 1791 along with the caloric he had a radiative caloric!”
Hahaha, Trick, now the defender of the Caloric Therory! How ironic. So Prevost at the end of the 18th Century was wrong about the ‘caloric heat’ idea of course, but oh so right about the ‘bidirectional radiative flux’ idea. In Trick’s mind. Why? Because it suits Trick’s radiative outlook on reality.
““Only” radiative flux has any energy transport! It is always unidirectional, as is the word flux itself. The other two are potentials only.”
The disturbing thing, though, WIll, is that even today, it seems that only an extremely narrow circle of people has fully adopted this obvious fact. I strongly believe this is only due to the effective corruption of atmospheric physics by the whole “back radiation” movement through the last decades. Even Tallbloke and Konrad appear to support the idea of the cool atmosphere sending a radiative flux down to the warm surface of the Earth. The DWLWIR ‘flux’. In their mind it’s the FLUX that ‘reduces the cooling’ of the surface. And quite frankly, I find it bizarre.
So far I’ve seen you, AlecM, cementafriend and Claes Johnson only, besides myself, arguing for the unidirectional radiative flux (energy transfer) in a thermal process. All the others still use the NET (bidirectional) flux/transfer.
Kristian says:
October 31, 2014 at 7:02 am
/////////////////////////////////////////////
Kristian,
I believe the best way to look at energy flow to and from the surface, atmosphere and space is to look only at flux (energy flow across a given area). The trenberthian two stream energy flow cartoon is an abomination.
There are three main fluxes into the atmosphere from the surface, conduction, evaporation and radiation. There is only one significant flux out of the atmosphere to space and that is radiation from radiative gases. This flux is more than double the radiative flux into the atmosphere from the surface. Given the vertical circulation below the tropopause, this 1:2 imbalance between radiative flux into the atmosphere and radiation from the atmosphere to space should be enough to demonstrate the net effect of radiative gases is atmospheric cooling.
But I still hold that correctly calculating “surface temp without atmosphere” is the simplest disproof of AGW.
Konrad says: October 31, 2014 at 8:46 am
“There are three main fluxes into the atmosphere from the surface, conduction, evaporation and radiation. There is only one significant flux out of the atmosphere to space and that is radiation from radiative gases. This flux is more than double the radiative flux into the atmosphere from the surface. Given the vertical circulation below the tropopause, this 1:2 imbalance between radiative flux into the atmosphere and radiation from the atmosphere to space should be enough to demonstrate the net effect of radiative gases is atmospheric cooling.”
Konrad,
There is also non water-bearing thermals second in importance to WV! the surface need not radiate at all, as the variable WV can compensate. The best approximation I have for surface radiant flux is 32W/m^2, 13 to space and 19 more to the 2/3 cloud cover. This is a difficult, and error prone measurement involving the difference in flux between a coarse black anodized surface and a polished surface with high reflectivity. they both conduct and convect but only the black surface radiates.
Kristian says: October 31, 2014 at 7:02 am
Will Janoschka says, October 31, 2014 at 2:39 am:
(“Prevost wrote that nonsense in 1791 along with the caloric he had a radiative caloric!”)
“Hahaha, Trick, now the defender of the Caloric Therory! How ironic. So Prevost at the end of the 18th Century was wrong about the ‘caloric heat’ idea of course, but oh so right about the ‘bidirectional radiative flux’ idea. In Trick’s mind. Why? Because it suits Trick’s radiative outlook on reality.”
Thick does not concern himself with this physical or reality, “whatever that may be”
(“Only” radiative flux has any energy transport! It is always unidirectional, as is the word flux itself. The other two are potentials only.”)
“The disturbing thing, though, WIll, is that even today, it seems that only an extremely narrow circle of people has fully adopted this obvious fact. I strongly believe this is only due to the effective corruption of atmospheric physics by the whole “back radiation” movement through the last decades. Even Tallbloke and Konrad appear to support the idea of the cool atmosphere sending a radiative flux down to the warm surface of the Earth. The DWLWIR ‘flux’. In their mind it’s the FLUX that ‘reduces the cooling’ of the surface.”
Sad yes but, more fun than a poke in the eye, watching them squirm trying to show any measurement of bidirectional flux. The “radiance” of the atmosphere does indeed limit the flux from the surface. This makes no difference, as the atmosphere is a better radiator to space than the surface. (greater solid angle) The adiabat makes a cozy surface, while WV provides “interesting” weather, i.e. climate!
Will 5:22am: “What they actually measured was the 4.08 GHz RF noise from the center of the milky way galaxy, not any CMB.”
That localized RF was already well known Will, it was part of their elimination routine, Penzias and Wilson actually were the 1st to measure the hiss of the omnidirectional CMB.
“The interesting thing is that being dumb can be cured by reading & comprehending the relevant remote sensing text books. Becoming informed. Being stupid is incurable as demonstrated by circling back all the time.”
Kristian 7:02am & Will both circle back to writing what Planck’s experimentation & law shows is clearly impossible:
“There is no bidirectional flux…”
Both Kristian and Will disagree with generally accepted Planck law principles when Dr. Max Planck (not Prevost) writes verbatim:
“A body at 100◦ C. emits toward a body B at 0◦ C. exactly the same amount of radiation as toward an equally large and similarly situated body B’ at 1000◦ C. The fact that the body A is cooled by B and heated by B’ is due entirely to the fact that B is a weaker, B’ a stronger emitter than A.”
******
Konrad 5:07am: Offers nothing new. Free the water! Free the data! Free the computations! Conform to all Dr. Feynman scientific method steps Konrad.
Trick says: October 31, 2014 at 3:32 am
“I do understand water evaporates at expense of L&O surface energy content and then condenses back to liquid returns energy to L&O surface at expense of atmosphere energy content in rough balance short periods, good balance longer periods (4-10 years in earth energy budgets).”
Surely you’ve made a ‘typo’ Trick. This isn’t what happens!
You’ve got the ‘evaporation’ process right, but when WV ‘condenses’ back to water, the ‘latent heat energy’ is distributed up, down and sideways at every angle you can think of as an ‘IR emission’. Thus, due to the high altitude of the ‘condensation’ process, much energy is lost to space.
The evaporation/condensation process is continuous, be it day or night, throughout ‘all’ (including Polar) latitudes and is ‘driven’ by local temperatures and ‘slowed’ by local atmospheric ‘RH’ (Relative Humidity). However, a 100% RH local atmosphere ‘halts’ evaporation and can become the ‘start’ of a local condensation event if temperature changes are favourably in the correct direction of transition.
One point to ponder here is that much of the ‘atmospheric window’ for the ‘radiative loss’ (/absorption) ‘from’ (/to) surface energy is ‘obscured’ by water and WV in the first instance.
I don’t know how much to write here, but “then condenses back to liquid returns energy to L&O surface at expense of atmosphere energy content in rough balance short periods,” is just ‘wrong’ in so many ways. Let’s go back to your first paragraph.
“I meant ocean waves as they radiate at each other. Thus Planck law not applicable as ruled out for surfaces radiate to themselves (objects with negative radii).”
Now I understand you meaning! However, the presumption that ocean surface can ‘radiate energy’ into the local atmosphere is, IMHO, without foundation.
If we take the ‘near surface water temperature’ and the ‘near surface air temperature’ in comparison to each other, we would be hard pressed to find a comparison that shows the water temperature to be ‘higher’ than the air temperature. Thus, under Planck weighting, energy would be ‘radiated into the water’, not ‘into the atmosphere’!
In truth, the ‘concavity’ of a ‘wave on the ocean’ vies for ‘absorption’ and not ‘radiance’. The ocean only/mostly emits chemical physics, not radiative physics. I hope I don’t need to expand on the ‘mostly’ subject. It’s complex and ‘wordy’.
I hope this makes some sense of our dialogue.
Best regards, Ray.
suricat says: November 1, 2014 at 12:49 am
One point to ponder here is that much of the ‘atmospheric window’ for the ‘radiative loss’ (/absorption) ‘from’ (/to) surface energy is ‘obscured’ by water and WV in the first instance.
WV as a gas has an atmospheric “window” for 8-13.5 radiant energy transfer. As soon as condensation starts 2 micron dia water to 500 micron dia drizzle drops form that window closes rapidly, no longer WV, but water (fog),. there is no window in water!
-will-
Will Janoschka says:
October 31, 2014 at 10:03 am
//////////////////////////////////////////////
”..as the atmosphere is a better radiator to space than the surface.”
Yes, The atmosphere is cooling the surface via conduction, convection and evaporation. In turn it cools itself via IR radiation to space. Adding the 3D radiator of our atmosphere over the oceans reduces their temperature and just moderates temperatures over land.
Konrad says: November 1, 2014 at 2:25 am
Will Janoschka says: October 31, 2014 at 10:03 am
//////////////////////////////////////////////
(”..as the atmosphere is a better radiator to space than the surface.”)
“Yes, The atmosphere is cooling the surface via conduction, convection and evaporation. In turn it cools itself via IR radiation to space. Adding the 3D radiator of our atmosphere over the oceans reduces their temperature and just moderates temperatures over land.”
I am not quite sure what the atmosphere does, I am glad that it continues to do, whatever it does, in spite of earthling government. What a nice planet!
Trick says:
October 31, 2014 at 1:19 pm
//////////////////////////////////////////////
Konrad 5:07am: Offers nothing new.
Yep, AGW is still physically impossible 😉
Free the water!
Why? The idea is to figure out weather “surface without atmosphere” is higher or lower than 288K.
Free the data!
You have been given the data for the selective surface experiment 1 many times before, you still couldn’t work out why there was a 20C differential between the target blocks, whereas Kristian could understand the physics without the numbers.
Free the computations!
I freed the empirical experiments for others to replicate. No computations needed here. The errors in the near blackbody assumption are so great that AGW does not even pass the “sanity check” that may warrant further work.
Conform to all Dr. Feynman scientific method steps Konrad.
“if it doesn’t agree with empirical experiment, it is wrong.” Empirical experiment shows treating the surface of the oceans as a near blackbody was wrong. They are SW translucent IR opaque, they convect, they are intermittently illuminated and their SW absorptivity is higher that their IR emissivity.
PS. I take it Trick, that you have been totally unable to fine a single lab experiment where the emissivity of water was measured without background IR?
Konrad says: November 1, 2014 at 2:47 am
PS. I take it Trick, that you have been totally unable to fine a single lab experiment where the emissivity of water was measured without background IR?
I have measured (classified) BRDF of water from 5 microns to 100 microns. Reflectivity of still, fresh water goes to 95% at angles greater than 65 degrees from normal. I have no idea of what government paid for that measurement.
Konrad 2:47am – Unimpressed. No data, no computations, no free water.
Not just for me but any credible researcher in the subfield looking into your results will want to skim thru your detail data, read your reasoned thorough analysis, check through your computations to see if they have merit to dig deeper, if interesting collaborate with you & progress science. This is what they do, read stuff, look for collaborators. You provide none of this – at all, in any way, expecting them to do the detail work is provably fruitless. You even want ME to look up the literature for you!
Heck, you write the whole subfield of oceanographers has incorrectly measured the emissivity of oceans. If you had solid data, solid reasoned analysis, solid computations at the Dr. Feynman level of the scientific method out in the open (even if not formal published) then researchers in the field would undoubtedly be interested (Feynman putting the compressed Shuttle O-ring in glass of ice water attracted attention!). Yet this doesn’t happen for Konrad.
Because the researchers, as I am, are unimpressed with your lack of data, lack of reasoned analysis from first principles, and lack the computations from 1st principles. Let alone the childish name calling. Don’t expect them (or me!) to do the work of extensive literature search, then setting up precision instruments taking the data, reasoning it out then doing the computations that successfully compare to nature. This is hard work, I know, I’ve done it. Dr. Feynman* did all that in his long work record time & again (his book describes the lab explosion nearly got him) so did Dr. Planck, Maxwell, Faraday, Kirchhoff and on and on. Faraday nearly worked himself to death, had to take a full two YEARS off and rest up in late career.
Hey – you might fail once or twice, pick up dust off, go see them, e-mail call, look for answers where they might have failed, they have an interest will discuss. You relate none of this. Constructive criticism attempts are…well, the thread shows.
******
“PS. I take it Trick, that you have been totally unable to fine a single lab experiment where the emissivity of water was measured without background IR?”
Is this collaboration Konrad? Or something else altogether? Here’s why it seems best to measure ocean emissivity in the “Hohlrumn” of the atmosphere in situ. I’ll try and collaborate, will likely just get something else.
To measure emissivity it is easier to measure reflectivity. And subtract from 1. Many do it that way – did you? Can’t tell – you show NO reflections. Seems to me if one wants to know the emissivity of a certain object in nature, it needs to be illuminated with a beam all the frequencies of interest. From all the beam directions. At the surface temperature of interest.
What better way than to place the object in a “Hohlrumn” illuminating it with a bath of all the frequencies of interest, all the beam directions, at the natural surface temperature; you know like the atmosphere LW. Seems to me illuminating the object w/o background LW will be pointless. I’ll offer collaborate with you on this as I’d like to learn more. Can’t be full time might progress slow, but I’ll start with a literature search in time, maybe this weekend.
In the satellite link you provided – they go on about the spacecraft emissivity ratio. This is the ratio of the side looking at deep space and the side looking at the sun. Why is there a difference up to say 10/1 in e? Because the deep space beam has different freq.s than the solar beam, the side looking at deep space has different surface T than solar side – Kirchhoff full law. Incident beam direction perpendicular both sides so that is not a difference. See where I am going? Want to collaborate not attack? I tried collaborate at 1st contact, got brushed of & laughed at. Tried pick up dust off didn’t work. WYSIWYG. Not sure why I expect different attitude. Hopium maybe.
******
Free the water!Why? The idea is to figure out weather “surface without atmosphere” is higher or lower than 288K”.”
Good question Konrad. Because the natural ocean surface has water unconstrained by an LDPE sheet. As global 288K varies, no sheet of LDPE effect suddenly materializes at any temperature, at any freq., at any RH the ocean water is still free to do as it needs to seek equilibrium (lowest energy state). Seems to me if you want to know the natural physics of ocean water free to conduct, free to evaporate with representative RH then you make it so in experiments.
******
*I can’t resist re-telling a hard working Feynman story from his days at Los Alamos. The work was so interesting, he’d work weekends, and nights. Occasionally he’d need info. locked in someone else safe that wasn’t in the office. To get around that problem, in those days top secret safes had simple twist dial combo locks (purchased from gov. low bidder), so he’d observe the current setting on the open safes when he was in someone else office during the day. That was the likely 3rd number. He made a notebook of all such 3rd safe numbers, didn’t know which he’d need. Then he took apart the one in his own safe and found he could develop a technique feel the backside for the setting of the 2nd number. So he’d casually do that unobserved on open safes. Then he had like only 1in30 chance of trying for the third of three numbers – he could thru hard work eventually get into nearly all the top secret safes in less than a few minutes – his night time work was no longer held up.
** Some safes he could not do this, never open, he guessed birthdates, wedding dates etc. and many worked, an original top secret hacker. IIRC he eventually got busted and had to endure some payback.
Trick says: November 1, 2014 at 4:47 am
Konrad 2:47am – Unimpressed. No data, no computations, no free water.
“Not just for me but any credible researcher in the subfield looking into your results will want to skim thru your detail data, read your reasoned thorough analysis, check through your computations to see if they have merit to dig deeper, if interesting collaborate with you & progress science.”
Who would ever give a shit of what your disgraced researchers may wish? Your entire scienterific community is but trash along with any peer reviewed nonsense! You have no science, only nonsense!
Go somewhere and buy a clue! Thick.
Trick says:
November 1, 2014 at 4:47 am
/////////////////////////////////////////////////
”Konrad 2:47am – Unimpressed. No data, no computations, no free water.”
Of course no free water. “surface without atmosphere” remember? Climastrologists like Bohren claimed 255K. Oh, the shame!
”Not just for me but any credible researcher…”
Any credible researcher would be aware of the Texas A&M work from way back in 1965. Climastrologists are provably not credible.
”Heck, you write the whole subfield of oceanographers has incorrectly measured the emissivity of oceans.”
You twit. Oceanographers didn’t get it wrong. 0.96 is a good average for near vertical IR measurement of ocean surface temps within the Hohlrumn of the atmosphere. It was climastrologists who were so inane they thought they could use apparent instead of effective emissivity.
”Hey – you might fail once or twice, pick up dust off, go see them, e-mail call, look for answers where they might have failed, they have an interest will discuss. You relate none of this.”
Still not getting it Trick? I am upset with Irvine publishing my work. It was supposed to exist on blog only, permanently recorded. It’s not enough to end AGW and the careers of every activist, journalist or politician who supported it, the climategate email indicate that the pal-review system is corrupt. Only by the correct answers being published (and permanently recorded) outside this system can science advance.
”Here’s why it seems best to measure ocean emissivity in the “Hohlrumn” of the atmosphere in situ.”
Well this will be rich…
”What better way than to place the object in a “Hohlrumn” illuminating it with a bath of all the frequencies of interest, all the beam directions.”
No, wait! Trick supplies utter drivel. We are trying to determine the true radiative cooling ability of water. Given that water is IR reflective, background IR must be eliminated in testing. Just like the Diviner tests I posted up thread.
”Seems to me illuminating the object w/o background LW will be pointless.”
That’s only because you are scientifically illiterate. If you are trying to determine “surface temp without atmosphere” or true radiative cooling ability of water this would be the only scientifically correct method.
Trick, you have effectively just confirmed that climastrologists never checked the true radiative cooling ability of water with the correct empirical experiments. You have failed. (again)
suricat says: November 1, 2014 at 12:49 am
“I don’t know how much to write here,”
Some info on ‘pan evaporation’, which doesn’t really help much but offers some insight.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pan_evaporation
The problem with ‘salinity’.
http://www-das.uwyo.edu/~geerts/cwx/notes/chap04/eoep.html
However, the surface water is less reactive to evaporation. As implied by my ‘experiment’ @ suricat says: October 27, 2014 at 10:15 pm.
Thus, the atmospheric activity of ‘evaporation’ is greater than that at land/ocean surface!
So the ‘assumption’ by Trenberth et al is inaccurate for the ‘Latent Transport’ index derived from the ‘best estimate’ for ‘precipitation’. It’s ‘greater’!
Best regards, Ray.
Will Janoschka says:
November 1, 2014 at 3:40 am
////////////////////////////////////////////////
”I have measured (classified) BRDF of water from 5 microns to 100 microns. Reflectivity of still, fresh water goes to 95% at angles greater than 65 degrees from normal.”
Will,
I have noted that the IR reflectance of water does increase greatly with lower viewing angles. Higher IR reflectance at these angles must also mean lower absorptivity and emissivity for IR. However effective emissivity dropping from 0.95 at 90 degrees to 0.05 at 70 degrees is far beyond what I expected. A crude plot –
– indicates average effective emissivity could then be as low as 0.4. Is this correct? The lowest figure I have seen published is 0.67. A figure as low as 0.4 would mean “surface without atmosphere” temperature for the oceans could be as high as 314K for 240 w/m2 even without adding the surface translucency effects.
How were these measurements taken? Was background IR removed?
Konrad. says: November 2, 2014 at 3:27 am
“– indicates average effective emissivity could then be as low as 0.4. Is this correct? The lowest figure I have seen published is 0.67. A figure as low as 0.4 would mean “surface without atmosphere” temperature for the oceans could be as high as 314K for 240 w/m2 even without adding the surface translucency effects.
How were these measurements taken? Was background IR removed?”
Looks like your curve is about (cosine(theta))^2! Reflectivity for surfaces, especially liquids, is more complex because of snell’s angle! For water the curve is flatter near normal and drops more quickly near 55 degrees.
BRDF is always measured using a modulated source and a synchronous detector. the source overfills the test sample and the receiver limits the measured solid angle to measure reflectivity free from area/(angle from normal) dependencies. So yes all backgrounds are removed by the synchronous demodulator. Synchronized wall reflection modulations still mess up measurement. Remember all physical surfaces have some specular reflectivity so generally only the maximum reflectivity (with the source at the co-angle from normal with the receiver) is done. Lotsa time and money for a full hemispherical BRDF , even for a single wavelength interval.
The Bidirectional Reflectivity Distribution Function. does not measure any modulation transmitted into and absorbed by the liquid even for a millimeter, so emissivity = (1-reflectivity), is still subject to interpretation. Some substances emit from within the material Gases are a good example. Best to always describe what you think you were measuring, and why you think it is correct The numbers always stand by themselves as the best measurement of “something” right now and right here.
40%, very close guess Konrad! I just measured the fractional area under that curve and found it is a about a 0.409 fraction, that being what is not being reflected.
But of the possible radiance power of 396*0.41 not reflected only some 63 is literally net emitted upward over time because of the transpiration simultaneously leaving upward and so the 98 transpiration + 63 remnant actually emitted + the 78 Wm-2 being the SW absorbed directly into the atmosphere does sum to the ≈238 Wm-2 OLR. That is how I have envisioned it.
That is what I gather that Will has been saying, and I agree, you cannot have energy leaving from a surface by evaporation and conduction into thermals and still have radiation leaving the surface as merely calculated by the Stefan-Boltzmann relationship. So Will says he has seen radiation go down when it is more windy… correct, that is when evaporation and conduction is carrying large amounts of energy away, not then by radiation of that portion of possible power, you have to subtract and reduce it even further. And then you have the angles on top of that as you have shown above.
Will Janoschka says:
November 2, 2014 at 6:29 am
/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
”Looks like your curve is about (cosine(theta))^2! Reflectivity for surfaces, especially liquids, is more complex because of snell’s angle! For water the curve is flatter near normal and drops more quickly near 55 degrees.
Will,
then stop being a big tease. Give me an extra couple of data points between 20 degrees and 90 degrees!
I dropped background to below -40C at 15 degrees and got emissivity below 0.8 –
– you have multiple angles, with far better gear. Quit with the “classified” and just cough it up sunshine!
” Some substances emit from within the material”
I know, I know. Full LWIR emissivity is from within the first 100 microns of liquid water. All is not as it seems. Could I get your best estimate of average LWIR emissivity (without background reflectance) over 180 degrees for liquid water?
Konrad. says: November 2, 2014 at 10:55 am
Will Janoschka says:November 2, 2014 at 6:29 am
(”Looks like your curve is about (cosine(theta))^2! Reflectivity for surfaces, especially liquids, is more complex because of snell’s angle! For water the curve is flatter near normal and drops more quickly near 55 degrees.”)
“Will, then stop being a big tease. Give me an extra couple of data points between 20 degrees and 90 degrees!”
I cannot Konrad. All that equipment is long gone, I was lucky when I got to use it. I did the measurements in the 70’s. Peak reflectivity stayed below 10% to 50-55 degrees from normal then went to 90% within 5 degrees increasing to 97% at 70 degrees, could not go much past that because the projected solid angle got too big for the sample.
” Some substances emit from within the material”
I know, I know. Full LWIR emissivity is from within the first 100 microns of liquid water. All is not as it seems. Could I get your best estimate of average LWIR emissivity (without background reflectance) over 180 degrees for liquid water?
I would use 95% but only into 2 steradians not PI steradians or, (1-1/e) into Pi steradians. That (1-1/e) is also good for the atmosphere because that is the absorptivity/emissivity of 1 optical depth at any wavelength. High in the atmosphere you can radiate outward that cross sectional area into 4-5 steradians. Do not forget opposing radiance! It is very high over the oceans at most wavelengths. Unless you have a delta T there is no delta radiative flux in either direction.
If you wish to decrease both reflectivity and evaporation of the water put 2-3 molecules of 10W motor oil on it. In Texas the cows think it tastes just like cow piss, but the stock tanks keep the water for the cows.
.
Trick.
If you’re still here, SOD has a thread that explains some of the problems related with ‘parametrisations’ for ‘GCMs’ (General Circulation Models).
I know that ‘parametrisations’ are not the issue here, but a lot of the detail relates to ‘observation’ and is informative.
Best regards, Ray.
Will Janoschka says: November 2, 2014 at 12:38 pm
“If you wish to decrease both reflectivity and evaporation of the water put 2-3 molecules of 10W motor oil on it. In Texas the cows think it tastes just like cow piss, but the stock tanks keep the water for the cows.”
I don’t believe you. If it “tastes just like cow piss” the ‘cows’ will give it a wide berth, but the ‘steers’ will just ‘love it’.
You’ll need to ‘name’ the “10W motor oil” used because the ‘brands’ for this stuff incorporate various additives to their product that ‘may/may not’ cause harm to the poor cows/steers. 😉
Best regards, Ray.
suricat says:
November 3, 2014 at 3:49 am
///////////////////////////////////////////////
Ray,
you may feel that “parametrisations” of GCMs are not the issue, but in many ways they are. GCMs do not have the power to do full CFD (computational fluid dynamics) in the most critical dimension, the vertical. Here parametrisations from simple 2D mathematical models are used. The GCMs don’t predict warming because they calculate it from first principles, they show it because they are “told” to show it.
The trick is “immaculate convection”. What was accepted as a major force in tropospheric convective circulation, radiative subsidence, is essentially written out of history after 1995. This vertical circulation should increase in speed for increased radiative gas concentration. Through the fraudulent parameterisations, GCMs hold it constant.
The only solution is vicious and sustained public floggings for all involved. There is no reasonable argument against this.
Konrad. says: November 3, 2014 at 7:46 am
“GCMs do not have the power to do full CFD (computational fluid dynamics) in the most critical dimension, the vertical. Here parametrisations from simple 2D mathematical models are used. The GCMs don’t predict warming because they calculate it from first principles, they show it because they are “told” to show it.”
Ahhhhh!
“The trick is “immaculate convection”. What was accepted as a major force in tropospheric convective circulation, radiative subsidence, is essentially written out of history after 1995. This vertical circulation should increase in speed for increased radiative gas concentration. Through the fraudulent parameterisations, GCMs hold it constant.”
Could you give more explanation of how radiative gasses can increase the speed of vertical circulation?
I understand that much was abandoned with the fraudulent introduction of supposed surface radiation to
space. I keep looking for an intermediate pressure/mechanical mechanism something like sound that has an speed for heat energy faster than mass convection but way slower than the velocity of EMR.
“The only solution is vicious and sustained public floggings for all involved. There is no reasonable argument against this.”
I hold the Meteorological Guild primarily responsible for the fraud. They had the discipline to reject the “good business plan’ from some at NASA Goddard. Instead they bought the EMR bullshit hook line and sinker fed by academic Hansen et all, for profit. Than they gleefully assisted in its dissemination across the globe. NASA Goddard had the radiative HiTran data base from the Air Force but deliberately used it backward for political, financial, and academic gain.
BTW Ray, use the cheapest stuff, or discarded stuff, 4 oz per tank acre, avoid synthetics
suricat 3:49am: “Trick. If you’re still here, SOD has a thread that explains some of the problems related with ‘parametrisations’”
The parameterizations in GCMs are essentially fitting a curve that nature exhibited in the past. Chaotic nature multivariates need not follow the same curve in the future; thx for the link. GCMs are wrong; the basic principles of science are not. On my reading list.
Right now I have plowed & am plowing thru some of the many ocean water emissivity papers since ~1970, interesting to learn how ocean e is measured in oceanography and meteorology. The proper experimentalists do include LW reflectivity which Konrad does not show in his complex setup. Basically they go out into the ocean with simpler setups and measure necessary LW reflection, air & some ocean depth thermometer T fields, and radiometer brightness T with e as the only unknown, solve for e over all 4 seasons of varying ocean surface temperature. Miss a few days due typhoons & storms passing by. Brightness temperatures as close as a few tenths C off thermometer readings are routinely observed inter-annually.
suricat 12:49am: “..the ‘latent heat energy’ is distributed up, down and sideways at every angle you can think of as an ‘IR emission’..”
Sure. The latent energy released upon condensation goes into the atmosphere bath. From there it becomes a component of the bath radiating toward surface & space. Accounted for as a component of the all-sky emission toward surface. Condensation in balance with evaporation, up and down over 4 & 10 years observations. LH isn’t accumulating in atm. anywhere over the observation period.
“Thus, under Planck weighting, energy would be ‘radiated into the water’, not ‘into the atmosphere’!”
Not sure what you mean by Planck weighting; the ocean water object radiates at expense of ocean water energy content and the atmosphere radiates at the expense of atm. energy content, both over all frequencies and all natural temperatures all the time.
Trick says: November 3, 2014 at 1:36 pm
“Right now I have plowed & am plowing thru some of the many ocean water emissivity papers since ~1970, interesting to learn how ocean e is measured in oceanography and meteorology. The proper experimentalists do include LW reflectivity which Konrad does not show in his complex setup. Basically they go out into the ocean with simpler setups and measure necessary LW reflection, air & some ocean depth thermometer T fields, and radiometer brightness T with e as the only unknown, solve for e over all 4 seasons of varying ocean surface temperature. Miss a few days due typhoons & storms passing by. Brightness temperatures as close as a few tenths C off thermometer readings are routinely observed inter-annually.”
More Thick lies! Never has what you claim been successfully done! Thick, you would have no idea of how to do ocean reflectivity. A direct radiance measurement cannot ever measure reflectance. What is the radiance of whatever is reflected? Go somewhere and buy a clue.
“Sure. The latent energy released upon condensation goes into the atmosphere bath. From there it becomes a component of the bath radiating toward surface & space. Accounted for as a component of the all-sky emission toward surface. Condensation in balance with evaporation, up and down over 4 & 10 years observations. LH isn’t accumulating in atm. anywhere over the observation period.”
Please demonstrate that latent heat during condensation ever gets to some fantasy atmospheric bath? Condensation is limited by the rate that heat can be radiated to space or transferred above which has both lower radiative potential and lower thermal potential. It is so radiated only upward by the same molecules that are trying to condense on some nucleating mass. Please demonstrate any transfer of latent or sensible heat in a direction of higher potential by any means whatsoever. You can claim your lies Thick, but you cannot demonstrate your fantasy lies.
Will Janoschka says:
November 3, 2014 at 11:14 am
///////////////////////////////////////////////
”Could you give more explanation of how radiative gasses can increase the speed of vertical circulation?”
Will,
the issue is radiative subsidence. Air masses lose buoyancy via radiative cooling to space at altitude. A good explanation of the pre-AGW meteorology is here –
http://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~dib2/climate/tropics.html
”Air convected to the top of the troposphere in the ITCZ has a very high potential temperature, due to latent heat release during ascent in hot towers. Air spreading out at higher levels also tends to have low relative humidity, because of moisture losses by precipitation. As this dry upper air drifts polewards, its potential temperature gradually falls due to longwave radiative losses to space (this is a diabatic process, involving exchanges of energy between the air mass and its environment). Decreasing potential temperature leads to an increase in density, upsetting the hydrostatic balance and initiating subsidence.”
Radiation is the only effective means of energy and buoyancy loss for air at altitude. I demonstrate what happens to the temperature profile and circulation in a gas column when the hight of energy entry and exit is altered here –
PS. I added an extra data point around the 50 degree mark to that emissivity curve. It now averages around 0.7 over 180 degrees. I suspect an experiment like yours may be where the figure of 0.67 comes from in some of the old thermography tables.
PPS. Climastrology discovers that the oceans are not a near blackbody after all 😉 –
Trick says:
November 3, 2014 at 1:36 pm
/////////////////////////////////////////////
”Right now I have plowed & am plowing thru some of the many ocean water emissivity papers since ~1970, interesting to learn how ocean e is measured in oceanography and meteorology. The proper experimentalists do include LW reflectivity which Konrad does not show in his complex setup”
Trick, as I have repeatedly stated, the oceanographers are doing right for APPARENT EMISSIVITY. They are trying to calibrate IR surface temperature readings in multiple conditions. These readings give no answer as to EFFECTIVE EMISSIVITY.
“Proper experimentalists” would do it the way the Diviner scientists did it with background IR cancelled. Will is correct when he says this has not been done yet for liquid water. The reason is it is very difficult. First water absorbs, emits and reflects IR from within the first 100 microns, not just at the very surface. This means for an accurate measure background IR must be cancelled. Secondly conductive coupling between the 3K liquid nitrogen cooled background and the water surface must be prevented. Thirdly a multi band IR sensor that can see near, long and far IR would be needed. Fourthly, multiple angles through 90 degrees must be checked. And finally water at multiple temperatures must be tested, as emissivity will change with temperature.
It’s hard, but not impossible. It can be done and given 71% of the planet’s surface is water, it should have been done. But it wasn’t. The lazy assumption of “near blackbody” was made and now just look at the mess.
Will 9:18pm: “Never has what you claim been successfully done!”
A simple literature search (no paywalls) shows what I claim has been done successfully by many well funded authors. Using the Dr. Feynman scientific method: they reason what they may find, build the precision instrumentation, take data, show the computations, and compare them to nature with an accuracy of a few tenths of a degree C. Not too shabby for gov. work.
“What is the radiance of whatever is reflected?”
If Will could understand Planck’s paper correctly, then the answer based on Planck principles is very simple:
the LW reflection at the surface = (1-e)*atmospheric downward LW radiation
Therefore the upward irradiance into the bottom of the atm. from the sea surface is the sum of the ocean water irradiance and this LW reflection at the ocean water surface based on Planck paper. e=ocean surface emissivity interannually over the seasons.
“Please demonstrate that latent heat during condensation ever gets to some fantasy atmospheric bath?”
The wv condenses to liquid drops in earth’s atmosphere. Demonstrated by rain. Ever experienced any rainy weather Will?
Konrad 11:03pm: Again: “The oceans are heated at a rate of up to around 1kw at zenith by the Sun, and have to lose that energy at the same rate as it is input in order to be somewhere near equilibrium.”
This equilibrium is important consideration in the e testing over diurnal cycle & the 4 seasons. As I just pointed out to Will, the myriad oceanographer papers I’m looking through & still finding are able to show results calculating equilibrium ocean surface e interannually from radiometers over deep ocean sites that then compare to thermometer kinetic T readings to within a few tenths of a degree C using the Dr. Feynman scientific method. This is basically within precision instrument error. The process is actually not that complicated.
“Proper experimentalists” would do it the way the Diviner scientists did it with background IR cancelled.”
What is “it”?
Trick says:
November 3, 2014 at 11:47 pm
////////////////////////////////////////////////
Trick if you don’t understand the difference between apparent and effective emissivity, you cannot possibly understand what the pre-launch Diviner experiments were all about.
All those oceanography tests relate to apparent emissivity.
To obtain effective emissivity for water all background IR must be cancelled, multiple viewing angles must be tested, multiple emission bands must be checked and this must be done for a 0 – 100C range of water temperature. This work has not been done.
To get a good figure for “surface without atmosphere”, you need to know effective not apparent emissivity of water as the very first step. Only then can you add the other critical factors, SW absorption at depth, convection and intermittent illumination. None of this was done in deriving the 255K “surface without atmosphere” figure that is the foundation of the entire net radiative GHE hypothesis.
Konrad 12:44am: “None of this was done in deriving the 255K “surface without atmosphere” figure that is the foundation of the entire net radiative GHE hypothesis.”
Oh ok I understand your “it”.
Not exactly to the above clip since earth L&O e has been thoroughly tested out in the wild in accord scientific method & is sufficiently known for earth with near transparent atmosphere in place – (meaning the optical depth is thinned due to species mass extinction coefficient changes – R&C eqn. S12). The L&O surface emissivity is measured over a range of surface temperatures during the 4 seasons so the seasonal e changes are reasonably known, say for winter season being extended (simply use the emissivity found in that season). Remember top post equilibrium is important: “The oceans are heated at a rate of up to around 1kw at zenith by the Sun, and have to lose that energy at the same rate as it is input in order to be somewhere near equilibrium.”
For earth “surface without” atmosphere as you write – with surface pounded to as much powder as the moon – diffraction becomes non-negligible. Realize the moon’s integrated brightness Tmean ~197 K is just that, a brightness temperature from Diviner radiometers observing unknown diffraction effects in both albedo and LW emission and reflection & no one yet knows the moon global surface kinetic Tmean. To my knowledge, no one has used the measured regolith emissivity in 1st principle computations for moon Tmean either.
Trick says:
November 4, 2014 at 1:31 am
/////////////////////////////////////////////
Around in circles and back to your usual drivel Trick?
That is of course because you can find a single experiment where the emissivity of water was properly checked with background IR removed. You’ve got nothing do you?
Now scientists from Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory are admitting –
”Despite its importance in the planet’s energy budget, it’s difficult to measure a surface’s effectiveness in emitting far-infrared energy. In addition, its influence on the planet’s climate is not well represented in climate models. The models assume that all surfaces are 100 percent efficient in emitting far-infrared energy. That’s not the case.”
They were only looking at measurements beyond 15 micron for water, but even they don’t have good lab measurements. Every one of the references in their new paper were for environmental measurement. None with background IR removed. You can never know the effective emissivity of water unless you do this.
Konrad. says: November 3, 2014 at 7:46 am
////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
That’s why I made the link (did you read it?), but “vicious and sustained public floggings for all involved” is a bit OTT IMHO. Education, education, education!
Best regards, Ray.
Will Janoschka says: November 3, 2014 at 11:14 am
“BTW Ray, use the cheapest stuff, or discarded stuff, 4 oz per tank acre, avoid synthetics”
No probs Will. I don’t herd cows, bulls, or steers, but are mindful for those whom do. 🙂
Best regards, Ray.
Konrad 1:48am: That paper calls out: “..angularly averaged surface emissivity…liquid water’s far-IR emissivity is 0.95.” As e is measured on earth – this value returns the correct kinetic T to within a few tenths of a degree C within radiometer & thermometer instrument precision. So CAN & do know the effective emissivity of ocean water in earth system.
The 0.96-0.984 ocean e figure found from in situ simple test is measured over the atm. window where the atm. is ~80% transparent so the background IR is removed to the proper extent as needed by full Kirchhoff law. If you want to remove the remaining ~20% non-transparency for even thinner optical depth, have at it for earth & exoplanets with thin atm.s; the e results won’t change very much (and brightness T much smaller) and can be compared to ocean e already found in winter at dry subarctic locations with small precipitable water vapor in the column (RRTM & radiosonde measurements).
Konrad. says: November 3, 2014 at 10:35 pm
Will Janoschka says:November 3, 2014 at 11:14 am
///////////////////////////////////////////////
(”Could you give more explanation of how radiative gasses can increase the speed of vertical circulation?”)
“Will, the issue is radiative subsidence. Air masses lose buoyancy via radiative cooling to space at altitude. A good explanation of the pre-AGW meteorology is here ”
http://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~dib2/climate/tropics.html
”Air convected to the top of the troposphere in the ITCZ has a very high potential temperature, due to latent heat release during ascent in hot towers. Air spreading out at higher levels also tends to have low relative humidity, because of moisture losses by precipitation. As this dry upper air drifts polewards, its potential temperature gradually falls due to longwave radiative losses to space (this is a diabatic process, involving exchanges of energy between the air mass and its environment). Decreasing potential temperature leads to an increase in density, upsetting the hydrostatic balance and initiating subsidence.”
OK that is the conversion to sensible heat via phase change. I thought everyone had considered that!
“Radiation is the only effective means of energy and buoyancy loss for air at altitude. I demonstrate what happens to the temperature profile and circulation in a gas column when the hight of energy entry and exit is altered here –”
OK that is the way that the atmosphere rids itself of excess entropy, at the lowest temperature, where entropy always collects! What I could not understand is how a doubling, tripling, octupling of CO2 would affect that in any measurable way. At these temperatures and pressures CO2 cannot change phase.
“PS. I added an extra data point around the 50 degree mark to that emissivity curve. It now averages around 0.7 over 180 degrees. I suspect an experiment like yours may be where the figure of 0.67 comes from in some of the old thermography tables.”
Please do not do that! Do the radiative integral from a fixed area into a hemisphere considering both the decrease in radiative surface (Lambert’s Law), and the reduction in emissivity at increasing angles from normal. Much different answer!. With constant emissivity the integral is a PI steradian solid angle into a Two PI hemisphere. With EMR, 95% is geometry, the rest is easy!
suricat says:
November 4, 2014 at 1:58 am
//////////////////////////////////////////////
Ray,
I did follow the link and some of the comments in it and the following thread were fair on the problems with parametrisation. But they didn’t touch on the issue of holding tropospheric convective circulation constant for increasing radiative gas concentration. The issue is similarly ignored in the preceding thread. I do find Science of Doom to be a very disingenuous site.
With regard latent heat transport there is far more going on in the atmosphere than a simple surface to atmosphere parametrisation can show. Some rain re-evaporates before reaching the surface (vigra) and many clouds re-evaporate without precipitating.
Trick says:
November 4, 2014 at 2:27 am
/////////////////////////////////////////////
”That paper calls out: “..angularly averaged surface emissivity…liquid water’s far-IR emissivity is 0.95.” As e is measured on earth – this value returns the correct kinetic T to within a few tenths of a degree C within radiometer & thermometer instrument precision. So CAN & do know the effective emissivity of ocean water in earth system.”
No Trick, all that gives you is a good apparent emissivity setting for measuring water within the Hohlrumn of the atmosphere. It tells you nothing about it’s true radiative cooling ability.
”The 0.96-0.984 ocean e figure found from in situ simple test is measured over the atm. window where the atm. is ~80% transparent so the background IR is removed to the proper extent as needed by full Kirchhoff law
No, that won’t work either. First the atmosphere is emitting in the 8 – 14 micron bands. That’s where my IR detector works and I can read clear sky, humid sky and cloud temperatures. Second the simplest empirical experiments show IR reflectivity for water increasing as viewing angle departs from perpendicular. Thirdly apparent emissivity for water provably drops as background IR is removed even though water temperature remains unchanged. And finally you can’t use Kichhoff law to extrapolate from one frequency band to others.
You simply cannot get a true effective emissivity figure for water without removing background IR and you can’t point to a single experiment where this has been done.
Konrad 3:13am: “No Trick…”
No Konrad you provide no solid, credible counter reasoning. The ocean water e=0.96 to 0.984 IS working within the “Hohlrumn” of the atm. just fine (as Kirchhoff law demands) as it allows brightness T to convert to kinetic T within a few tenths of a degree C as shown on thermometers as discussed in myriad papers, pick one & read it. Improving on ocean e measurment wouldn’t do better as is already at the limit of precision instruments.
“You simply cannot get a true effective emissivity figure for water without removing background IR and you can’t point to a single experiment where this has been done.”
Not needed Konrad, the myriad current ocean e experiments proving 0.96-0.984 do the job required just fine to within precision instrument capability.
“Second the simplest empirical experiments show IR reflectivity for water increasing as viewing angle departs from perpendicular.”
Yup, e even goes to near zero when looking parallel to water surface, nearly all LW is reflective at that point. Few care about that view. The trouble for Konrad is the 0.96-0.984 ocean e currently is in use because is experimentally proven to accurately work in the views of interest on earth.
“And finally you can’t use Kichhoff law to extrapolate from one frequency band to others.”
Of course not Konrad, Kirchhoff full law requires same beam direction, same beam wavelengths, same surface temperature as you have been informed multiple times. Need to find e in the natural setting it is being used for accurately converting brightness temperature to kinetic temperature in that setting.
Konrad. says: November 4, 2014 at 3:13 am
“No, that won’t work either. First the atmosphere is emitting in the 8 – 14 micron bands.”
What Bull Shit This atmosphere is never radiating flux, or emitting, in the direction of a higher field strength.
“That’s where my IR detector works and I can read clear sky, humid sky and cloud temperatures.”
Your device will calculate some trivial atmospheric temperature based only on the measured limitation of its flux toward a lower but not zero field strength.
“Second the simplest empirical experiments show IR reflectivity for water increasing as viewing angle departs from perpendicular. Thirdly apparent emissivity for water provably drops as background IR is removed even though water temperature remains unchanged. And finally you can’t use Kichhoff law to extrapolate from one frequency band to others.”
Yes, all third grade mistakes by those that think they know “what” is being measured! Only by getting kicked in the nuts by the masters, will one ever learn.
Will Janoschka says:
November 4, 2014 at 3:56 am
//////////////////////////////////////////////////
“What Bull Shit This atmosphere is never radiating flux, or emitting, in the direction of a higher field strength.”
Well, technically correct. When my IR thermometer is measuring -40C sky background it is measuring the differential between two sides of a thermocouple with one able to emit through a 8-14 micron window. The IR flux is out of, not into the lens, as the instrument is warmer than the sky.
As to what you said here –
”Please do not do that! Do the radiative integral from a fixed area into a hemisphere considering both the decrease in radiative surface (Lambert’s Law), and the reduction in emissivity at increasing angles from normal. Much different answer!. With constant emissivity the integral is a PI steradian solid angle into a Two PI hemisphere. With EMR, 95% is geometry, the rest is easy!”
We don’t have a function/curve for “reduction of emissivity at increasing angles from normal” The best I can do is take the data points you have given and try a crude geometry solution –
But this is yielding below 0.5 again for full hemisphere.
perhaps clearer in colour,…
Trick says:
November 4, 2014 at 3:37 am
////////////////////////////////////////////////
”No Konrad you provide no solid, credible counter reasoning.”
I provided a simple empirical experiment showing what happens to apparent emissivity as background IR is reduced. You have no answer to that.
”The ocean water e=0.96 to 0.984 IS working within the “Hohlrumn” of the atm. just fine (as Kirchhoff law demands) as it allows brightness T to convert to kinetic T within a few tenths of a degree C as shown on thermometers as discussed in myriad papers, pick one & read it. Improving on ocean e measurment wouldn’t do better as is already at the limit of precision instruments.””
Fine for environmental measurement. Not fine for “surface without atmosphere” calculation.
K- “You simply cannot get a true effective emissivity figure for water without removing background IR and you can’t point to a single experiment where this has been done.”
T – ”Not needed Konrad, the myriad current ocean e experiments proving 0.96-0.984 do the job required just fine to within precision instrument capability.”
Yes, still needed. 0.96 only gives you a good emissivity setting for an IR instrument measuring water surface temp in the Hohlurmn of atmosphere and with water emitting from first 100 microns. This tells you nothing about water’s true radiative cooling ability.
K- “Second the simplest empirical experiments show IR reflectivity for water increasing as viewing angle departs from perpendicular.”
T- ”Yup, e even goes to near zero when looking parallel to water surface, nearly all LW is reflective at that point. Few care about that view.”
I care. Will’s experiments show a drop from 0.9 to 0.05 from 50 to 70 degrees (emissivity extrapolated from reflectivity). Look at the red dome plotted above. That’s game over for 0.95 over 180 degrees.
T- ”The trouble for Konrad is the 0.96-0.984 ocean e currently is in use because is experimentally proven to accurately work in the views of interest on earth.”
No problem for me. Only a problem for squealing fools using apparent instead of effective emissivity in SB equations that should never have been applying to SW translucent surfaces in the first place.
T- ”Of course not Konrad, Kirchhoff full law requires same beam direction, same beam wavelengths, same surface temperature as you have been informed multiple times.”
Don’t try that, liar. I am well aware of Kirchhoff. You were trying to extrapolate from an imaginary 8-14 micron window measurement to full bandwidth. Everyone saw you. Your evasions are pathetic.
Climatrologists never eliminated battleground IR to determine true full hemisphere IR emissivity of liquid water. If you claim that they did, you are lying. If you claim it doesn’t matter, you are lying.
There is no way out.
Konrad. says: November 4, 2014 at 5:34 am
Will Janoschka says: November 4, 2014 at 3:56 am
(“What Bull Shit This atmosphere is never radiating flux, or emitting, in the direction of a higher field strength.”)
“Well, technically correct. When my IR thermometer is measuring -40C sky background it is measuring the differential between two sides of a thermocouple with one able to emit through a 8-14 micron window. The IR flux is out of, not into the lens, as the instrument is warmer than the sky.”
Yes “technically”! Are we trying to understand how things work, or trying to BS someone else like the ClimAstrologists must do?
“As to what you said here –”
(”Please do not do that! Do the radiative integral from a fixed area into a hemisphere considering both the decrease in radiative surface (Lambert’s Law), and the reduction in emissivity at increasing angles from normal. Much different answer!. With constant emissivity the integral is a PI steradian solid angle into a Two PI hemisphere. With EMR, 95% is geometry, the rest is easy!”)
“We don’t have a function/curve for “reduction of emissivity at increasing angles from normal” The best I can do is take the data points you have given and try a crude geometry solution –”
Nice graphs! They get across just what I was trying to say, but did not say it clearly enough!
Your integral over the hemisphere gives less than 0.5! 0.5 What? you are trying to integrate over a 2 PI steradian solid angle. The result must be a solid angle. If the surface were flat with emissivity 1 in all directions that solid angle would be exactly 0.5 of 2 PI steradians. (Lamberts Law). When dealing with solid angles, there are always at least two. In your case from the surface area you are integrating a small solid angle over that hemispheric solid angle. from the surface of the sphere toward nadir the area subtends that area divided by the spherical radius squared. Off from normal that solid angle decreases as the factor cos(theta) as that surface is at an angle to that observing point. At 90 degrees there is no surface observable, and no solid angle. I hope you do not consider this pedantic! In the 60’s it took me two years with the help of many, before I was comfortable with the concepts. If you wish, I can try to remember how I gained from them, that understanding. Remember, the S-B equation has that PI steradian, for a flat surface, built into Stefan’s constant.
Konrad 10:32am: “I provided a simple empirical experiment showing what happens to apparent emissivity as background IR is reduced. You have no answer to that.”
A: As repeatedly answered above: I don’t doubt the Konrad Kitchen tm experiment. It is irrelevant to natural ocean water in earth system. I don’t see reasonable analysis, data, computations from Konrad’s Kitchen tm to even doubt as Konrad does not use the Dr. Feynman scientific method where myriad others have done so for earth natural oceans to instrumental precision.
“This tells you nothing about water’s true radiative cooling ability.”
If e=0.96 didn’t obtain the true radiative cooling ability for ocean water correct in natural environment with reasonable winds the thermometers inserted in the ocean to depth would not read the same satellite measured brightness temperature to within a few tenths of a degree C in normal winds. Satellite radiometers on experiments like Diviner/CERES/ERBE would be useless. They are not. Konrad is wrong.
“I care.”
If you care to be looking parallel to water, then sure reflection is important, but Diviner/CERES/ERBE et. al. look DOWN not parallel. Their observed scene angle geometry can be controlled to the known in situ ocean water emissivity e at that scene angle.
“Don’t try that, liar. I am well aware of Kirchhoff. You were trying to extrapolate from an imaginary 8-14 micron window measurement to full bandwidth. Everyone saw you. Your evasions are pathetic.”
The more transparent atm. window 8-14 microns is the band where substantial (up to about 80%) terrestrial radiation gets through to the satellite radiometers to be measured – so this IR band is IMPORTANT, the rest of the terrestrial far-IR band longer than 15 microns for normal global precipitable water (220mm) in the column is so very nearly opaque (less than a few tenths % transparent), the satellites would be nearly blind in the far-IR if ERBE/CERES et. al. had radiometers in that band. Need to get to dry cold subarctic conditions with less than ~1mm precipitable water vapor for satellites to register appreciable terrestrial radiation (transparent enough atmosphere column above 15 microns far-IR).
“Climatrologists never eliminated battleground IR to determine true full hemisphere IR emissivity of liquid water. If you claim that they did, you are lying. If you claim it doesn’t matter, you are lying.”
I never claimed this, again these are Konrad words, not mine.
TRICK: The more transparent atm. window 8-14 microns is the band where substantial (up to about 80%) terrestrial radiation gets through to the satellite radiometers to be measured – so this IR band is IMPORTANT, …
Yes, 80% of what satellites can possibly ‘see’ are in the window but the ‘window’ is but a small portion of the entire LW spectrum so it is NOT IMPORTANT except to prop up your assertions. Read one of the next threads. The https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2014/11/04/paper-agrees-with-talkshop/ where the US Department of Energy’s Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory finds all that you are spouting is deeply flawed. Fifty percent of the LW in the far infrared is not even being measured by today’s various radiometers! Especially the emissivity. It is being extrapolated on assumptions and they have found the assumptions are not correct!
wayne 4:47pm: “…the US Department of Energy’s Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory finds all that you are spouting is deeply flawed.”
The Feldman et. al. 2014 paper being discussed agrees with what I have written wayne. If you don’t think so quote my comment passage exactly as I wrote it and a clip from the paper that shows my passage is “deeply flawed”. I want to learn if you can find one. Hint: read the paper’s 1st sentence all the way to the end.
http://www.pnas.org/content/early/recent
Trick says:
November 4, 2014 at 1:47 pm
////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
K- “I provided a simple empirical experiment showing what happens to apparent emissivity as background IR is reduced. You have no answer to that.”
T- ”As repeatedly answered above: I don’t doubt the Konrad Kitchen tm experiment. It is irrelevant to natural ocean water in earth system. I don’t see reasonable analysis, data, computations from Konrad’s Kitchen tm to even doubt as Konrad does not use the Dr. Feynman scientific method where myriad others have done so for earth natural oceans to instrumental precision.”
The “ocean water in earth system” evasion again? Not interested. Climastrologists claimed 255K for “surface without atmosphere”. That is the claim I am disproving. And your Alinskyite smears about the experiment are pointless. It doesn’t have to be precise, the errors in the climastrologists assumptions are so impossibly large.
T- ”If e=0.96 didn’t obtain the true radiative cooling ability for ocean water correct in natural environment with reasonable winds the thermometers inserted in the ocean to depth would not read the same satellite measured brightness temperature to within a few tenths of a degree C in normal winds. Satellite radiometers on experiments like Diviner/CERES/ERBE would be useless. They are not. Konrad is wrong.”
You still don’t understand the difference between apparent and effective emissivity. 0.96 is a great apparent emissivity setting for IR readings of water temperature close to vertical within the Hohlrumn of the atmosphere. That figure has nothing whatsoever to do with effective emissivity. You can’t therefore use that figure in any radiative calculation for “surface without atmosphere”.
T- “The more transparent atm. window 8-14 microns is the band where substantial (up to about 80%) terrestrial radiation gets through to the satellite radiometers to be measured – so this IR band is IMPORTANT…[]”
No Trick, you were trying to extrapolate from this 8-14 micron window to claim knowledge of emissivity in all bands. Everyone saw you.
K- “Climatrologists never eliminated battleground IR to determine true full hemisphere IR emissivity of liquid water. If you claim that they did, you are lying. If you claim it doesn’t matter, you are lying.”
T – ”I never claimed this, again these are Konrad words, not mine.”
Trick you are lying as you are claiming on this very thread that it doesn’t matter. Climastrologists used apparent instead of effective emissivity in their failed “surface without atmosphere” calculations and you are saying it doesn’t matter.
Konrad 11:45: “That (earth without atmosphere) is the claim I am disproving.”
Ok then implies you approve of the earth WITH optically extremely thin atmosphere global surface Tmedian around 255K as in the text book basic analogue.
“You can’t therefore use that figure in any radiative calculation for “surface without atmosphere”.
Actually phrased like that, concur. Emissivity e for moon powdered regolith hasn’t been used in calculations AFAIK. Surface L&O e=0.96 in earth atm. works just fine from being avg.d over relevant angles, meaning the IR thermometer readings of water temperature reasonably measured off vertical too, not anywhere near perfectly glancing. Text books show earth L&O e=0.96, rounded, can be used with Planck/1st law to calculate both global surface Tmedian=288K current atm. and 255K for optically extremely thin atm.
“Surface without atmosphere” for earth pounded into much surface powder so diffraction becomes non-negligible as the moon shows, that’s all you need to write Konrad. This situation is unresolved AFAIK.
“No Trick, you were trying to extrapolate from this 8-14 micron window to claim knowledge of emissivity in all bands. Everyone saw you.”
No Konrad. What I wrote works in the terrestrial bands of interest as the emissivity e=0.96 correctly shows the satellite brightness temperature equal within instrument error to thermometer kinetic temperature of the surface ocean water. Nothing to hide.
“Climastrologists used apparent instead of effective emissivity in their failed “surface without atmosphere” calculations and you are saying it doesn’t matter.”
Again, Konrad’s words not mine. What I wrote works as the L&O emissivity e=0.96 correctly shows the satellite brightness temperature reasonably equal to thermometer kinetic temperature in the natural ocean water. And works for the surface energy balance. Nothing to hide. Thanks for quoting my exact words Konrad so readers can see when you insert your own.
K- ”Climastrologists claimed 255K for “surface without atmosphere”. That is the claim I am disproving”
T- ”Ok then implies you approve of the earth WITH optically extremely thin atmosphere global surface Tmedian around 255K as in the text book basic analogue”
No it does not imply this at all. An atmosphere with no radiative cooling ability would superheat with its temperature driven by surface Tmax not surface Tav. Further such an atmosphere would have no ability to cool the oceans as it would have no ability to cool itself. (No, don’t even try it. Empirical experiment shows that for a gas atmosphere in a gravity field, the surface is ineffective at conductively cooling the atmosphere.)
You keep try to run back to hide in the complexity of the atmospheric system, but it won’t work Trick. Climastrologists said 255K for “surface without atmosphere”. That’s it, locked in. This claim can never be erased, it is the very foundation of AGW and it’s utterly wrong.
Just because the combined land ocean and atmosphere system has a current radiative temperature around 255K does not mean that the surface would have the same 255K temperature without a radiative atmosphere. To know that temperature you would need to acuratly model surface properties. You say –
”Text books show earth L&O e=0.96, rounded, can be used with Planck/1st law to calculate both global surface Tmedian=288K current atm. and 255K for optically extremely thin atm.”
– and that is only because the surface is assumed to be a near blackbody, and it provably is not.
And remember Trick, it is not just the fact that the SW absorptivity of water is higher than its IR emissivity that proves the blackbody assumption incorrect. There is also the SW translucency, intermittent illumination and convective circulation problem –
Perhaps you could entertain us with why you believe the 5 rules apply to small bodies of water but not the oceans. Remember, these rules apply for SW translucent materials no matter if surface cooling is by radiation, conduction or evaporation.
Look at rule 5. The oceans conform to material A, but climastrologists went and treated them as material B.
Konrad 2:18am: An atmosphere with no radiative cooling ability..”
…couldn’t receive radiation from the sun as under Konrad physics that atm. wouldn’t have radiative cooling either. Konrad doesn’t think things through. Both go big bang.
“Climastrologists said 255K for “surface without atmosphere”. That’s it, locked in. This claim can never be erased, it is the very foundation of AGW and it’s utterly wrong.”
Is utterly unknown what global surface kinetic Tmedian would be since AFAIK there has been no calculation for earth or moon inclusive of surface powder diffraction effects for the “surface without atmosphere” case.
“..and that is only because the surface is assumed to be a near blackbody, and it provably is not.”
Not assumed near blackbody Konrad, tested, with reasoned analysis, data shown, computations made, confirmed by nature. Full Dr. Feynman scientific method.
wayne says: November 4, 2014 at 4:47 pm
(TRICK: “The more transparent atm. window 8-14 microns is the band where substantial (up to about 80%) terrestrial radiation gets through to the satellite radiometers to be measured – so this IR band is IMPORTANT, …”)
“Yes, 80% of what satellites can possibly ‘see’ are in the window but the ‘window’ is but a small portion of the entire LW spectrum so it is NOT IMPORTANT except to prop up your assertions. ”
Wayne,
Let us try to be a bit scienterrific here! You are correct the 8-14 micron has but 26% of the “potential” for surface exitance. With no cloud cover the only actual flux emitted to space or LEO is in that band, but at no other wavelengths, because of the near equal “radiance” of the WV within the first 10 meters of the surface. Radiative exitance from the surface is trivial, and may be discarded, as a method of dispatching energy/entropy to space via EMR. The atmospheric WV does all, from the atmosphere not the surface. The atmosphere gets its energy not from surface EMR, but via 1) WV latent heat converted to sensible heat to power atmospheric EMR to space. 2) thermals and other mass transport of sensible heat. 3) some yet undiscovered gravitational energy transport, faster than mass transport, slower, but more effective, than EMR.
The rapid re-thermalization of the entire 8 Km air column by over 30 degrees Celsius, during a Solar eclipse, while maintaining the same lapse rate, is the best evidence of such unexplained process, perhaps sonic. How dey do dat? Also good evidence that ClimAstrologists like Thick, have no clue!
OTOH the satellite measurements at nadir in the 8-14 micron window where normal surface emissivity is quite high, is quite important, in continuing the scam of any ClimAstrologist with some knowledge at all, just as Thick claims! The Aqua satellite with a 60 degree from normal scanning radiometer gave such embarrassing measurement of off normal surface exitance in that band, that NASA had to claim the instrument had failed. They still will let no one see the instrument data before it was claimed failed! Ask Dr. Roy Spencer.
“Read one of the next threads. The https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2014/11/04/paper-agrees-with-talkshop/ where the US Department of Energy’s Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory finds all that you are spouting is deeply flawed. Fifty percent of the LW in the far infrared is not even being measured by today’s various radiometers! Especially the emissivity. It is being extrapolated on assumptions and they have found the assumptions are not correct!”
The assumptions are not correct, but unimportant as to how this planet’s atmosphere works! Even in the 8-14 micron band the surface exitance is all into a cone with a vertex angle of 103 degrees.
Trick says: November 5, 2014 at 2:34 am
Not assumed near blackbody Konrad, tested, with reasoned analysis, data shown, computations made, confirmed by nature. Full Dr. Feynman scientific method.
Never measured or tested without assumptions of a black-body, then bended by various means to fit the assumptions! Show any example of the tested whatsoever?
Konrad 2:30am: “…that proves the blackbody assumption incorrect.”
The black body assumption IS provably incorrect, reflections happen; the near black body tested ocean e=0.96 comes from interannually measured data, analysis, computations and comparison to nature.
“Perhaps you could entertain us with why you believe the 5 rules apply to small bodies of water but not the oceans.”
Because ocean e=0.96 is that demonstrated by scientific method as ocean water is free – not constrained in any way as in the small bodies of water in Konrad Kitchen tm. Perhaps Konrad could entertain us with supporting constrained evaporation, conduction and convection rule 5 data, reasoned analysis, computations and comparison to nature similar to that found in published oceanographer research on the ocean.
“Look at rule 5.”
Konrad misses the reflectivity arrows again. Misses all the arrows in/out around the sides, bottom. Misses that the yellow arrow on left incident on bottom.
Ok. Show me all the data for the illumination; the irradiances of the yellow arrow, the frequency content, the ideal and real Planck curve integrated over the spectrum – incident and outgoing (emission & reflection), reflection data from the surface, temperatures of the air and water. As the oceanographers routinely do showing ocean emissivity ~0.96 in situ. Include 1st law energy balance that meteorologists routinely show.
******
Will 4:11am: ”Show any example of the tested whatsoever?”
Google for ocean emissivity Will. Find a dozen or more non-paywalled papers showing the in situ ocean tests (fixed base in ocean, from airplanes, from radiosondes, from satellites. With radiometers AND thermometers in agreement. This is not rocket science Will. I can recommend a paper or two that have some basics explained if you want.
Trick says: November 5, 2014 at 4:31 am
Will 4:11am: ”Show any example of the tested whatsoever?”
“Google for ocean emissivity Will. Find a dozen or more non-paywalled papers showing the in situ ocean tests (fixed base in ocean, from airplanes, from radiosondes, from satellites.”
Nadir and Zenith measurements within 8-13.5 microns cloudless atmosphere from space show that maximum emissivity and “radiance” at wavelengths within that band are precisely correct. It is you and only you, that claim the extension of radiative exitance into PI steradians, at wavelengths far from anything ever measured. This has been proven false!
”Show any example of the tested whatsoever?”
“With radiometers AND thermometers in agreement. This is not rocket science Will. I can recommend a paper or two that have some basics explained if you want.”
What fantasy nonsense, with nothing ever tested! Please go somewhere and buy a clue”!
Trick says:
November 5, 2014 at 4:31 am
//////////////////////////////////////////////////
Trick, you have nothing, you are just scrabbling. That means Tim Folkerts, Joel Shore and Bunny Boi have nothing.
”The black body assumption IS provably incorrect, reflections happen; the near black body tested ocean e=0.96 comes from interannually measured data, analysis, computations and comparison to nature.”
No Trick, 0.96 is an apparent emissivity setting for readings within 50 degrees of vertical for liquid water. You can’t use that for effective emissivity.
K- “Perhaps you could entertain us with why you believe the 5 rules apply to small bodies of water but not the oceans.”
T – ”Because ocean e=0.96 is that demonstrated by scientific method as ocean water is free – not constrained in any way as in the small bodies of water in Konrad Kitchen tm. Perhaps Konrad could entertain us with supporting constrained evaporation, conduction and convection rule 5 data, reasoned analysis, computations and comparison to nature similar to that found in published oceanographer research on the ocean.”
Drivel. 0.96 is not demonstrated by empirical experiment. You have been utterly incapable of producing such an experiment. Will’s empirical results, mine and now Berkley indicate that 0.96 cannot be correct over the full hemisphere of IR emission for water.
T – ”Konrad misses the reflectivity arrows again. Misses all the arrows in/out around the sides, bottom. Misses that the yellow arrow on left incident on bottom.”\
No, nothing missed. So long as SW reflectance is identical for both materials, the five rules still apply. You just don’t understand the “basic physics” you are being shown. But then, scientific illiteracy is to be expected of AGW theologians.
T – ”Ok. Show me all the data for the illumination; the irradiances of the yellow arrow, the frequency content, the ideal and real Planck curve integrated over the spectrum – incident and outgoing (emission & reflection), reflection data from the surface, temperatures of the air and water. As the oceanographers routinely do showing ocean emissivity ~0.96 in situ. Include 1st law energy balance that meteorologists routinely show.”
Pointless nitpicking. I’m in engineering not science. You and yours didn’t pass first “sanity check”. Peer review in engineering is serious. Pal review in science is a joke. And it’s no good trying to rope in “meteorologists”, because the majority believe AGW is a load of shite.
You want to claim 0.96 emissivity over the full hemisphere of emission for water? Well, don’t complain when everyone laughs at your squealing idiocy.
(oh, and you haven’t yet demonstrated why the five SW translucency rules don’t apply to our SW translucent oceans.)
Konrad. says: November 5, 2014 at 5:51 am
(”The black body assumption IS provably incorrect, reflections happen; the near black body tested ocean e=0.96 comes from interannually measured data, analysis, computations and comparison to nature.”)
“No Trick, 0.96 is an apparent emissivity setting for readings within 50 degrees of vertical for liquid water. You can’t use that for effective emissivity.”
That is pretty good but details matter!
“K- “Perhaps you could entertain us with why you believe the 5 rules apply to small bodies of water but not the oceans.”
(“T – ”Because ocean e=0.96 is that demonstrated by scientific method as ocean water is free – not constrained in any way as in the small bodies of water in Konrad Kitchen tm. Perhaps Konrad could entertain us with supporting constrained evaporation, conduction and convection rule 5 data, reasoned analysis, computations and comparison to nature similar to that found in published oceanographer research on the ocean.”)(
“Drivel. 0.96 is not demonstrated by empirical experiment. You have been utterly incapable of producing such an experiment. Will’s empirical results, mine and now Berkley indicate that 0.96 cannot be correct over the full hemisphere of IR emission for water.”]
Indeed, you get understanding from the janitors, maintenance folk, and cleaning ladies, all have much to offer, for understanding. “I clean because you folk like clean bathrooms” How UN-Scienterrific. Much to consider of what is! One can never learn from the arrogant Academics
“You want to claim 0.96 emissivity over the full hemisphere of emission for water?” Well, don’t complain when everyone laughs at your squealing idiocy. (“oh, and you haven’t yet demonstrated why the five SW translucency rules don’t apply to our SW translucent oceans.)”
Gerrr!
Konrad 5:51am: “…you haven’t yet demonstrated why the five SW translucency rules don’t apply to our SW translucent oceans.”
Konrad demonstrates 5 rules don’t apply oceans. The water is not free, the data is not free, no reasoned analysis, no computations, no 1st law applied. Free the water! Free the data! Free the analysis & computations compare to nature! Get going Konrad, you have nothing until you do that. When that has been accomplished Konrad will be forced to admit the ocean emissivity = 0.96 since numerous authors show the measured data with free water in situ and reasoned analysis with computations.
What have you got to hide Konrad? Free the political prisoners! Set the water free.
******
Will 5:35am: Nonsense. Plenty of tests, look them up.
Trick says: November 5, 2014 at 12:56 pm
“Will 5:35am: Nonsense. Plenty of tests, look them up.”
Many claims Just like Thick false claims! Show even one measurement of ocean emissivity 60 degrees from normal. With your false claims, they have no idea of what is measured! Please describe how to measure emissivity rather than reflected radiance. With a mirror you will measure the radiance of the room not the radiance of the mirror.
Will 9:29pm: “Please describe how to measure emissivity rather than reflected radiance.”
Don’t measure emissivity e directly only radiance and thermometer temperature. The papers measure ocean surface radiance to get one Planck eqn. including reflected radiance and one unknown surface e, solve for e over the angles of interest and all the seasons. Plenty of tests. Look them up.
Will 9:29pm: “Please describe how to measure emissivity rather than reflected radiance.”
One more time, don’t measure emissivity e. The papers measure ocean surface radiance to get one eqn. including reflected radiance and one unknown surface e, solve for e over the angles of interest and all the seasons. Plenty of tests. Look them up.
Trick says:
November 5, 2014 at 10:40 pm
Will 9:29pm: “Please describe how to measure emissivity rather than reflected radiance.”
Don’t measure emissivity e directly only radiance and thermometer temperature. The papers measure ocean surface radiance to get one Planck eqn. including reflected radiance and one unknown surface e, solve for e over the angles of interest and all the seasons. Plenty of tests. Look them up.`
One more time, don’t measure emissivity e. The papers measure ocean surface radiance to get one eqn. including reflected radiance and one unknown surface e, solve for e over the angles of interest and all the seasons. Plenty of tests. Look them up.
NOW Thick becomes redundant in his foolish fantasy! Thick does hereby acknowledge his complete lack of knowledge of any electromagnetic radiative properties, how they are determined, and what they may mean. Emissivity is a surface property, a value fraction denoting the fraction of the maximum possible radiance at each frequency and in each direction. For any physical surface emissivity varies greatly with each frequency and with each angle from normal, plus many other variables such as polarization.
Emissivity is not related to radiance except for a opaque surface, not opaque material.Thick ignores that with any slightly transmissive fluid the radiance is established not from the surface but from within the matter. Thick claims emissivity is “the in-situ recalibration” of a limited waveband radiometer, to temperature with an “assumed emissivity” in one direction verifies that assumed emissivity for every frequency and direction. Typical Thick deliberate misdirection to try to establish himself as knowable in some unknown field. No attempt at determining ocean surface emissivity at angles far from normal has ever been successful.
Thick not only has no clue to emissivity he has no clue to radiative solid angle Thick’s attempt to use Planck’s integral for relationship between temperature and radiance of any physical matter causes immense embarrassment, not only to himself, but all that read his spouting, and are convinced that no earthling can be that set, on “never learning anything”.
Will 3:25am: “Emissivity is a surface property..the radiance is established not from the surface but from within the matter.”
Will – Huh? Emission of radiation happens internally even in solids. Will can learn from Planck paper about radiance and from the 40-odd years of ocean emissivity ~ 0.96 and ~.04 reflectivity over relevant angles & wavelengths & temperatures in the ocean’s radiative transfer test papers that explain basic radiative physics with formulae. Plenty of tests. Look them up.
“…any slightly transmissive fluid the radiance is established not from the surface but from within the matter.”
True even for solids. Will is clearly making grudging progress here in understanding radiative transfer. But still clearly majorly stumbles into 1st rate gibberish. Will needs to look up, comprehend the many oceanographer in situ test papers, learn even more.
Trick says:
November 6, 2014 at 4:06 am
//////////////////////////////////////////////////
T – ”Will can learn from Planck paper about radiance and from the 40-odd years of ocean emissivity ~ 0.96 and ~.04 reflectivity over relevant angles & wavelengths & temperatures in the ocean’s radiative transfer test papers that explain basic radiative physics with formulae. Plenty of tests. Look them up.”
Trick, this is ridiculous. You are garbaging on to Will about something you clearly have no understanding of, whereas Will has actually worked on these types of experiments. You can’t derive the true hemispherical effective emissivity of water from in situ measurements of the ocean. Will has indicated the sudden rise in IR reflectivity beyond 50 degrees from vertical. That alone makes your claims that water is a near blackbody false.
Even your claim that the in situ measurements cover “relevant angles & wavelengths” is false. As the Berkley paper indicates, far IR has not been measured.
And you haven’t even made any reasonable argument about why the five rules for SW translucent surfaces wouldn’t apply to the oceans. Just some blather about “set the water free” despite my clearly indicating –
“Remember, these rules apply for SW translucent materials no matter if surface cooling is by radiation, conduction or evaporation.”
Trick says:
November 6, 2014 at 4:06 am
(Will 3:25am: “Emissivity is a surface property..the radiance is established not from the surface but from within the matter.”)
“Will – Huh? Emission of radiation happens internally even in solids. Will can learn from Planck paper about radiance and from the 40-odd years of ocean emissivity ~ 0.96 and ~.04 reflectivity over relevant angles & wavelengths & temperatures in the ocean’s radiative transfer test papers that explain basic radiative physics with formulae. Plenty of tests. Look them up.”
You write of emission while never measuring emission or radiative flux. The measurements actually made are the sum of surface plus internal radiance plus reflected radiance proportional to external and interval reflectance. You falsly claim this is some sort of emissivity. Emissivity is only an surface property depending on frequency and direction It cannot be aggragated or averaged.
(“…any slightly transmissive fluid the radiance is established not from the surface but from within the matter.”)
“True even for solids.”
Only for surfaces that have “some transmissivity”, also dependent on wavelength and direction.
cannot ever be aggregated or averaged because of Lamberts law and Planck’s integral. Any highly polished dense matter has no transmisivity. It only has reflectance and absorptance.
Gus Kirchhoff was speaking not of absorptance. and emittance,but instead of absorptivity and emissivity, surface qualities, or antenna gain, each always the same value with the other at each frequency and each direction, but always different from all other frequencies and all other directions. No surface can have “an”: emissivity. Claiming such is the height of stupidity. The effective thermal radiative surface emissivity for 280 Kelvin water is 0.63 integrated over all wavelengths and over a full hemisphere! Effective emissivity is g.t. 0.9 into a cone with a 103 degree apex angle. Show anyone that has measured otherwise!
Thick again demonstrates no understanding radiative transfer. Thick cannot even recite the meaning of radiometric terms. Go somewhere and buy a clue.
Will Janoschka says:
November 5, 2014 at 6:57 am
//////////////////////////////////////////////
Will,
while measuring effective emissivity at all angles for water may be difficult, there may be a way to measure multi band IR reflectivity with high accuracy and at very extreme angles even without eliminating background IR.
A recent development, Quantum Cascade Lasers, may be useful here. These can emit a collimated beam of IR, tunable through the mid, long and far IR spectrum. Because the reflected beam would appear to be so bright to an IR detector, the effect of stray background IR would be greatly minimised. Off axis scattering should also be able to be quantified with IR lasers.
Konrad 4:57pm: ” And you haven’t even made any reasonable argument about why the five rules for SW translucent surfaces wouldn’t apply to the oceans.”
The sheet of LDPE Konrad places on the water surface renders the tests in Konrad Kitchen tm irrelevant to the oceans which have no such LDPE constraining evaporation, convection, conduction in place. The 5 rules may be applicable to the Konrad Kitchen tm tests; we don’t even know that for sure as Konrad supplies no data, no reasoned analysis, no computations compared to their nature just jawbones. Not even a 1st law balance.
“You can’t derive the true hemispherical effective emissivity of water from in situ measurements of the ocean. Will has indicated the sudden rise in IR reflectivity beyond 50 degrees from vertical.”
There are plenty of specialist papers explain the tests for the emissivity of ocean water. Look them up Konrad. It is well known water emissivity goes down from nadir to near glancing angle; this is demonstrated not an issue as the satellites observing oceans look down close to the nadir angle. Reasonable off nadir angles of interest have been measured. Look up a curve for water emissivity vs. beam angle.
“As the Berkley paper indicates, far IR has not been measured.”
As the Berkeley paper shows, the far IR becomes important for dry atm. columns with ~1mm of precipitable water vapor vs. the global mean of ~2.2cm PWV. No ocean column shown as low as 1mm in Fig. 2A. This figure calculates the 1mm PWV circumstance occurs over Antarctica and Greenland and a few other LAND areas. Confirmed by the specialist papers measuring ocean emissivity using a wavelength band enables satellites to obtain the ocean surface kinetic temperature shown on thermometers to within instrument error employing surface emissivity of ~0.96, reflectivity ~0.04 near nadir.
Will 5:37am: “Only for surfaces that have “some transmissivity”..
The rays from even opaque objects (no transmissivity in an opaque block of steel) are emitted from below their surface Will.
“Go somewhere and buy a clue.”
This is good advice Will, you should follow your own advice. Let’s go buy a clue from Dr. Max Planck’s paper again in the grandmaster’s own words:
“…it follows that only material particles, not geometrical volumes or surfaces, can emit heat rays….Strictly speaking, the surface of a body never emits rays, but rather it allows part of the rays coming from the interior to pass through.”
http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/40030?msg=welcome_stranger
“Show anyone that has measured otherwise!”
Please show where the 280K water was measured for emissivity Will. I obtained my clues on ocean emissivity from all-season inter-annual tests explained to Dr. Feynman’s discipline using scientific method in specialist papers. Plenty of papers. Look them up Will.
Trick says: November 6, 2014 at 2:37 pm
(Will 5:37am: “Only for surfaces that have “some transmissivity”..)
“The rays from even opaque objects (no transmissivity in an opaque block of steel) are emitted from below their surface Will.”
Would you like to demonstrate That bull shit of post modern non-science! if any of that were true a mirrored surface with -110 db gain could not exist. To the extent the matter has a finite index of refraction thereto does it have transmisivity. A mirrored surface provides an infinite mismatch between internal impedance and the impedance of air or space. A partially reflective surface provides a mismatch at some frequencies even if the material is transmissive. even your reading glasses have some reflectivity at each surface.
(“Go somewhere and buy a clue.”)
This is good advice Will, you should follow your own advice. Let’s go buy a clue from Dr. Max Planck’s paper again in the grandmaster’s own words:
“…it follows that only material particles, not geometrical volumes or surfaces, can emit heat rays….Strictly speaking, the surface of a body never emits rays, but rather it allows part of the rays coming from the interior to pass through.”
http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/40030?msg=welcome_stranger
MP: “Here αν is known as the “coefficient of absorption” of the medium for
a ray of frequency ν. We assume this coefficient to be independent of
the intensity; it will, however, depend in general in non-homogeneous
and anisotropic media on the position of s and on the direction of
propagation and polarization of the ray (example: tourmaline). We
shall, however, consider only homogeneous isotropic substances, and
shall therefore suppose that αν has the same value at all points and in all
directions in the medium, and depends on nothing but the frequency ν,
the temperature T , and the nature of the medium.”
Do you understand what strict limitations Max was writing of? Only a black-body of uniform geometry can be homogeneous and isotropic. Max was limiting his writing to such matter.
Thick with absolutely no reading comprehension, of course, pretends to miss read, how devious! A fictitious black-body must have emissivity of 1.00 and transmissivity and reflectivity of zero. There is no such mass anywhere near this earth. Any attempt to apply Maxwell’s integral to anything physical can only lead to significant error.
(“Show anyone that has measured otherwise!”)
“Please show where the 280K water was measured for emissivity Will. ”
I did not measure emissivity directly, which is impossible, without a modulated source of flux within that water. I measured the Bidirectional Reflectance Distribution Function (BDRF)_of fresh water in 1968. There was high reflectance at angles more than 50 degrees from normal at all wavelengths from 3 to 120 microns. Others own the data. Any reflectance at any angle must subtract from emissivity by definition of the terms.
“I obtained my clues on ocean emissivity from all-season inter-annual tests explained to Dr. Feynman’s discipline using scientific method in specialist papers. Plenty of papers. Look them up Will.”
So Thick thinks (maybe), he got a clue from the claims of other post modern non-scientists. While demonstrating a complete lack of reading comprehension! How were the claims verified? by who?
Your idiots using an assumed emissivity, and were calibrating a atmospheric pyranometer by hukseflux to sea surface thermometric temperature then claiming that same emissivity over all wavelengths and directions then treating the ocean as a black body at that temperature. Any attempt to apply Maxwell’s integral to anything physical can only lead to significant error, indeed!
Show where anyone ever measured off normal, ocean emissivity or reflectance. I tried and failed mightily. Not one measurement was repeatable! As far as I can find no one has succeeded.
Go buy a clue, and give up the post modern non-science, in there, is no understanding in any part of it! No thinking allowed, only rote textbook bull shit.
Trick says: November 6, 2014 at 1:52 pm
(Konrad 4:57pm: ” And you haven’t even made any reasonable argument about why the five rules for SW translucent surfaces wouldn’t apply to the oceans.”)
“The sheet of LDPE Konrad places on the water surface renders the tests in Konrad Kitchen tm irrelevant to the oceans which have no such LDPE constraining evaporation, convection, conduction in place. The 5 rules may be applicable to the Konrad Kitchen tm tests; we don’t even know that for sure as Konrad supplies no data, no reasoned analysis, no computations compared to their nature just jawbones. Not even a 1st law balance.”
Why ever should there ever be a 1st law balance in an open system like the Earth and its WV atmosphere which can radiate away to space all entropy collected in the cold tropopause. Energy is never conserved in this planet’s atmosphere. There is no attempt to do such. All entropy goes up and out.
Thick refuses to acknowledge the meaning and effort of Konrad’s demonstration. Very nice for Thick who has never “tried” to do anything, except disparage the effort of any other.
The Low Density PolyEthylene is not the best to demonstrate the vast advantage that evaporative latent heat has over any surface radiation from the ocean. 3 molecules thick 10 W motor oil on the surface, which the oceans do have, would have cancelled water evaporation, while enhancing radiative, conductive and convective (without WV) effects.
Thick why not show “any” effort on your part? Even 2 years flipping burgers, would be something!
Trick says:
November 6, 2014 at 1:52 pm
////////////////////////////////////////////////
K – ” And you haven’t even made any reasonable argument about why the five rules for SW translucent surfaces wouldn’t apply to the oceans.”
T – ”The sheet of LDPE Konrad places on the water surface renders the tests in Konrad Kitchen tm irrelevant to the oceans which have no such LDPE constraining evaporation, convection, conduction in place.”
What are you drivelling about Trick? Rules 1 & 2 come are demonstrated by selective surface experiment 1. Rules 2 & 4 from experiment 2 –
Evaporation and conduction from the surface is not constrained in experiment 2! Nor is convection!
T- ” Konrad supplies no data, no reasoned analysis, no computations”
Trick your idiocy is showing. Kristian could understand the experiments without a single number! All you need is “greater than” & “less than” signs and an understanding of physics. The experiments prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that the oceans cannot possibly considered a “near blackbody”. You don’t need any “computations”, the five rules are physical reality!
K – “You can’t derive the true hemispherical effective emissivity of water from in situ measurements of the ocean. Will has indicated the sudden rise in IR reflectivity beyond 50 degrees from vertical.”
T – ”There are plenty of specialist papers explain the tests for the emissivity of ocean water. Look them up Konrad. It is well known water emissivity goes down from nadir to near glancing angle; this is demonstrated not an issue as the satellites observing oceans look down close to the nadir angle. Reasonable off nadir angles of interest have been measured. Look up a curve for water emissivity vs. beam angle.”
You’re confusing ”APPARENT and EFFECTIVE emissivity again. Further if you now agree “It is well known water emissivity goes down from nadir” then you are agreeing that water is not a “near blackbody”. Emissivity would be constant for full hemisphere for near blackbody. Effective hemispherical emissivity IR for water is down below 0.7 and SW absorptivity is up near 0.92. That’s a SW selective material not a near blackbody. Add the five rules for SW translucent materials and that 255K “surface without atmosphere” assumption becomes the most inane mistake in the history of science.
At this point Trick, I don’t think you are even convincing yourself. Kristian knows you’re wrong, Will knows you’re wrong, I know you’re wrong and you know you’re wrong.
Konrad. says: November 6, 2014 at 11:19 pm
“You’re confusing ”APPARENT and EFFECTIVE emissivity again. Further if you now agree “It is well known water emissivity goes down from nadir” then you are agreeing that water is not a “near blackbody”. Emissivity would be constant for full hemisphere for near blackbody. Effective hemispherical emissivity IR for water is down below 0.7 and SW absorptivity is up near 0.92. That’s a SW selective material not a near blackbody. Add the five rules for SW translucent materials and that 255K “surface without atmosphere” assumption becomes the most inane mistake in the history of science.”
Wait a minute, wait a minute, wait a minute… Here I am trying to be an equal opportunity asshole!
In the SW especially from 0.3 to 0.7 microns, absorption of water is also much limited by surface reflectance at angles from normal. At mid spring and mid autumn almost no direct solar energy is absorbed by water at latitudes greater than 46 degrees. Tropics absorb, Polars do not, they are more reflective to SW than at wavelengths greater than 3.5 microns. Both of you are quoting deliberate lies from ClimAstrologists. Please go measure something, even the size of your big toe! Report back in wavelengths of 2 ev photons.
Konrad. says: November 4, 2014 at 2:52 am
“Ray,
I did follow the link and some of the comments in it and the following thread were fair on the problems with parametrisation.”
Well, it’s nice to know that someone reads the stuff I write here.
“But they didn’t touch on the issue of holding tropospheric convective circulation constant for increasing radiative gas concentration. The issue is similarly ignored in the preceding thread. I do find Science of Doom to be a very disingenuous site.”
I concur, but SOD started the site with the aim of just ‘explaining’ models. Now they’re ‘under the microscope’ there. Surely, this has to be better than when SOD first started?
However, I agree. Any ‘radiatively accounted system’ is bound within a ‘convective and latent system’ that promotes ‘MEP’ (Maximum Entropy Production) for Earth!
“With regard latent heat transport there is far more going on in the atmosphere than a simple surface to atmosphere parametrisation can show. Some rain re-evaporates before reaching the surface (vigra) and many clouds re-evaporate without precipitating.”
Now you’re reiterating my assertions Konrad. Besides the ‘cell size’, there’s the ‘altitude’ problem. 🙂
Best regards, Ray.
Will Janoschka says:
November 7, 2014 at 1:09 am
////////////////////////////////////////////
Will,
yes, the SW reflectivity for water does rise rapidly after about 70 degrees. I don’t have multi frequency measurements, but I have checked flat water with a laser. The oceans however have surface roughness, so for sunlight at lower angles, the amount of sunlight striking the actual surface at low angles is reduced. A crude 2D diagram –
Yellow lines = mostly absorbed, orange = half reflected, red = mostly reflected.
If the water were flat, all lines would be red.
Yes, ocean SW reflectivity increases with angle of incidence, but SW absorptivity is still higher than IR emissivity.
Will 7:14pm: “Do you understand what strict limitations Max was writing of?”
Yes. Find close to isotropic radiative conditions in a cloud & weakly polarized light – ever looked out a plane window in a cloud? See. Point a simple radiometer out the window prove that by test. Break into the bright sunshine again, go back to anisotropic conditions and polarized light – no big earthquake happens.
“Any attempt to apply Maxwell’s integral to anything physical can only lead to significant error.”
It is Planck’s distribution being integrated. Why just look at the difference in the Planck distribution for 5700K blackbody and actual solar spectrum! Danger Will Robinson! Error, error, error…
Solar radiation is not BB radiation because the sun is not enclosed in an opaque container, however instruments (not your eyes) observe the solar spectrum does approximate that of a BB. Look at a solar spectrum chart after say Kurucz and Clough. UV, VIS, IR, far IR can be marked on the chart of W/m^2/micron vs. wavelength in microns; the boundaries are somewhat fuzzy but can be approximately divided up.
Despite your & Konrad’s objections a good rule of thumb is most natural terrestrial objects (snow, water, soil, cabbage) are approximately black in nature. Yes, really. Tested! They have spectral emissivities near 1 over the range of frequencies that encompass much of the Planck function at natural earth temperatures. Because of this their brightness temperature is a good approximation to their kinetic thermodynamic temperature. (One has to process aluminum to get the emissivity so low.) The natural emissivity does provide a means for the field of remote sensing to be very useful.
“Any reflectance at any angle must subtract from emissivity by definition of the terms.”
Concur. 1-emissivity-transmissivity -reflectivity = 0.
“How were the claims verified? by who? Show where anyone ever measured off normal, ocean emissivity or reflectance.”
In the field of remote sensing, brightness temperatures are compared to kinetic thermodynamic temperatures and they match to within precision instrument accuracy. Plenty of papers. Look them up Will. Find who.
“As far as I can find no one has succeeded. Go buy a clue.”
Plenty of papers do succeed. Look them up Will.
Konrad 11:19pm: “Rules 1 & 2 come are demonstrated by selective surface experiment 1. Rules 2 & 4 from experiment 2 –”
All Konrad Kitchen tm tests are shown irrelevant to natural earth system for one reason or another. The natural earth ocean water system is observed 0.96 emissivity, 0.04 reflectivity interannually. Plenty of papers. Look them up Konrad. Neutrinos get transmitted.
“It is well known water emissivity goes down from nadir” then you are agreeing that water is not a “near blackbody”
Not at all. Full Kirchhoff law shows a=e for certain beam direction, beam wavelengths, surface temperatures. Depending on beam direction Konrad will be able to measure water emissivity from ~0.995 to ~0.01 depending on instrument precision. For oceans at natural earth temperatures over the seasons, satellites looking down, ocean emissivity measured at ~0.96 and ~.04 reflectivity. Ocean brightness temperature = kinetic thermodynamic temperature to instrument accuracy.
“Kristian knows you’re wrong, Will knows you’re wrong, I know you’re wrong and you know you’re wrong.”
Now Konrad wants me to believe science is a voting machine, a democracy. “Wow, just wow” comment from other commenter. Abandoned by Konrad thereby: Dr. Feynman scientific method of reasoned analysis, taking & observing data, computations with the data, comparing principled computations to nature.
For me, I am going with the details of Dr. Feynman scientific method. Plenty of papers & texts agree with me as all correctly use Dr. Feynman method as did Dr. Planck, J.C.Maxwell, M. Faraday. All. No exceptions. If there are exceptions, they are political like Konrad. Look the science papers up Konrad, stop being political. None use polling places.
Free the water Konrad! Free your data! Free your computations! Use scientific method as defined by Dr. Feynman, abandon politics.
******
Konrad 2:32am shows simplistic sea surface. Better diagram from Henderson 2003 Fig. 1, look it up Konrad & Will, read the paper, comprehend the paper. Report back.
Click to access polemiss.pdf
See also their Fig. 5 showing water emissivity at 4 microns as a function of emission angle 0-90 degrees. All of Konrad’s tests demonstrate same curve, unbeknownst to Konrad.
Trick says: November 7, 2014 at 3:12 pm
Not at all. Full Kirchhoff law shows a=e for certain beam direction, beam wavelengths, surface temperatures. Depending on beam direction Konrad will be able to measure water emissivity from ~0.995 to ~0.01 depending on instrument precision. For oceans at natural earth temperatures over the seasons, satellites looking down, ocean emissivity measured at ~0.96 and ~.04 reflectivity. Ocean brightness temperature = kinetic thermodynamic temperature to instrument accuracy.
What total post modern non-science. “Kirchhoff law shows a=e for certain beam direction, beam wavelengths, surface temperatures”. What total fantasy! Kirchhoff’s law “demands” that antenna gain is exactly the same between transmitting and receiving a “each frequency and eachj direction” There is no mention of objects with different temperatures, frequencys, or directions. Thick you only seem to spout post modern bull shit with no evidence of your fantasy. You lie!
(“Kristian knows you’re wrong, Will knows you’re wrong, I know you’re wrong and you know you’re wrong.”)
“Now Konrad wants me to believe science is a voting machine, a democracy. “Wow, just wow” comment from other commenter.”
Science is precisely the challenge by others, of stupid, post modern fantasy, called theory by Thick. Such does not rise to the level of conjecture, as your fantasy, as stated, has never “once” been observed!
Will 6:26pm: My evidence is all fully documented by the Dr. Feynman described scientific method. Will has not provided any such evidence. There are plenty of papers Will. Look them up. I even gave one 3:12pm.
“..antenna gain is exactly the same between transmitting and receiving..”
Will picks an example from a field where the seemingly heretical assertion about emissivities greater than 1, when cast in the language of antenna engineers (gain), would be almost trivial. Any antenna engineer knows that the effective area of a receiver can be much larger than its geometrical area. Look it up Will.
“..has never “once” been observed!”
Ocean water emissivity ~ 0.96, reflectivity ~ .04 looking down from satellites? I gave Konrad a paper 3:12pm on that; there are lots more where that came from. Buy a clue Will, look them up. Try not to live up to all my expectations. Read and learn. Be a better challenger, progress understanding the basic science following scientific method as Dr. Feynman shows.
Trick says: November 7, 2014 at 7:13 pm
/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
This thread is getting so long that I’ve ‘bookmarked’ it (sadly for me).
Why not take a leaf out of Dr. Feynman’s book Trick and say that if the data observed doesn’t agree with the understood ‘first principles’, then there’s something ‘missing’ from either the observed data, or the understood first principles.
Why is there such a great divide between ‘radiation’ and ‘convection’ (bearing in mind that convection’s major ‘thermal transport’ is in a ‘latent’ condition)?
Why is the ‘average altitude of Earth’s emittance’ above Earth’s surface?
How can ‘radiative’ theory/analysis account for the energy transmission that’s expedited by ‘latent’ means/systems.
Ferenc couldn’t answer me when I mailed the ~equivalent of these questions, can you say how a ‘radiative analysis’ can account for ALL ‘energy transport’ below ~mid strat? I don’t think so! Please advise. 🙂
BTW.
“Any antenna engineer knows that the effective area of a receiver can be much larger than its geometrical area.”
??? Garbage! It’s ‘length’ in the direction of the signal propagation is paramount. An ‘antenna’ (aerial) needs to be 1/4, 1/2, or full wave length ‘long’ to receive the best reception from a ‘broadcast’ signal in ‘direct frequency’ (P to P energy transmission), ‘AM’ (amplitude modulation), or ‘FM’ (frequency modulation).
Quite apart from the ‘communication protocol’. ‘Wave bands’ have a similar concurrence with EMR energy transport Trick.
“Ocean water emissivity ~ 0.96, reflectivity ~ .04 looking down from satellites? I gave Konrad a paper 3:12pm on that; there are lots more where that came from. Buy a clue Will, look them up. Try not to live up to all my expectations. Read and learn. Be a better challenger, progress understanding the basic science following scientific method as Dr. Feynman shows.”
Then please demonstrate how a ‘colder’ ocean surface ‘radiates’ energy ‘into’ a ‘warmer’ atmosphere!!!
Best regards, Ray.
suricat 1:57am: “Why is there such a great divide between ‘radiation’ and ‘convection’…”
Radiation and conduction occur without mass motion.
“Why is the ‘average altitude of Earth’s emittance’ above Earth’s surface?”
Earth’s atm. optical depth is nontrivial.
“How can ‘radiative’ theory/analysis account for the energy transmission that’s expedited by ‘latent’ means/systems.”
Need consider all three: radiative, conductive and convective energy transfer.
“??? Garbage!”
Cite?
“please demonstrate how a ‘colder’ ocean surface ‘radiates’ energy ‘into’ a ‘warmer’ atmosphere!!!”
The tested and derived Planck distribution shows any mass radiates at all frequencies at all temperatures all the time. The actual energy transfer is the net of all three: radiative, conductive, convective so that entropy always increases in the process.
Trick says: November 8, 2014 at 3:35 am
(suricat 1:57am: “Why is there such a great divide between ‘radiation’ and ‘convection’…”)
“Radiation and conduction occur without mass motion.”
No they don’t! Without “mass motion”, “radiation and conduction” CAN’T OCCUR because we have achieved ABSOLUTE ZERO on the temperature scale!
I think that what you really mean to say is that “radiation and conduction ‘energy transfer’ occurs WITHOUT ‘mass transfer'”, and that would be true.
By way of the ‘law’ of ‘MEP’ (Maximum Entropy Production), the ‘energy attractor’ with the smallest ‘hysteresis’ gets the most energy, but if that attractor is ‘overwhelmed’, other attractors are able to ‘absorb’ some of the energy from the ‘source’ of that energy.
Radiation has the smallest ‘hysteresis’, but is a ‘weak’ transport for ‘energy’. Conduction is ‘stronger’ in fluids than solids, but that’s because ‘energetic mass’ can be moved under the ‘gravity laws’ (yet another level of energy transfer) and is ‘outside of’ the laws of conduction.
Convection is the ‘highest level of attractor’ (lowest level of absorbency and greatest hysteresis) for energy, but because it ‘moves’ the energetic mass, this ‘last resort’ to MEP carries the ‘most energy’ to ‘entropy’.
(“Why is the ‘average altitude of Earth’s emittance’ above Earth’s surface?”)
“Earth’s atm. optical depth is nontrivial.”
I concur, but why?
(“How can ‘radiative’ theory/analysis account for the energy transmission that’s expedited by ‘latent’ means/systems.”)
“Need consider all three: radiative, conductive and convective energy transfer.”
No, there are four! You left out the ‘chemical’ element of ‘latent transport’!
(“??? Garbage!”)
“Cite?”
That’s a ridiculous request. It’s all around you Trick. Radiation is ‘slowed’ through a mass medium dependant on it’s ‘interact-ability/resonance’ with the mass medium. Look at a ‘rainbow’ and ask why ‘white light’ can produce those colours.
The ‘constant’ “c” only applies to an absolute vacuum, NOT ‘through’ a ‘mass medium’!
(“please demonstrate how a ‘colder’ ocean surface ‘radiates’ energy ‘into’ a ‘warmer’ atmosphere!!!”)
“The tested and derived Planck distribution shows any mass radiates at all frequencies at all temperatures all the time. The actual energy transfer is the net of all three: radiative, conductive, convective so that entropy always increases in the process.”
Whilst I would like to concur, something’s missing. What happened to the chemical energy transport of ‘latency’?
Best regards, Ray.
suricat 1:11am: You are confusing meanings.
“radiation and conduction ‘energy transfer’ occurs WITHOUT ‘mass transfer’”, and that would be true.”
Sure mass transfers back and forth, stays in same net positon, since it vibrates! No, what I wrote is mass in motion for convection. Conduction and radiation occur in solids where molecules vibrate in place, transfer back & forth in place, are not in mass motion. Motion is a change in net position. Convection exisits in fluids by mass in motion.
“I concur, but why?”
There is nontrivial, significant density&pressure, specie mass extinction coefficient.
“No, there are four! You left out the ‘chemical’ element of ‘latent transport’!”
Latent transport double counts convection. There are only 3.
“That’s a ridiculous request.”
Somehow suricat learned that “Any antenna engineer knows that the effective area of a receiver can be much larger than its geometrical area.” is garbage. Where was that? You might have a point, I want to read it & find out.
“What happened to the chemical energy transport of ‘latency’?”
That is convective energy transfer not radiative energy transfer.
Trick says: November 9, 2014 at 5:36 am
“No, what I wrote is mass in motion for convection.”
No it wasn’t. Read back to confirm.
“Conduction and radiation occur in solids where molecules vibrate in place, transfer back & forth in place, are not in mass motion.”
Yes they are. As an electron in a shell about an atomic nucleus ‘orbits’ the nucleus, the mass of the electron is in motion (as are the ‘moments’ [kinetic inertia trajectories] of atomic and molecular structures).
It would help if you are more clear on ‘micro’ and ‘macro’ observation if I’m to understand you more easily Trick.
“There is nontrivial, significant density&pressure, specie mass extinction coefficient.”
Again! I concur, but why? Radiative analysis ‘can’t/doesn’t’ include ‘endothermic/exothermic’ ‘changes of phase/chemical activities’ for ANY chemical ‘action/reaction’ that’s activated by pressure and density change (thus, mass EMR extinction coefficient) with atmospheric altitude. TBH, this seems just about the pressure change with altitude.
“Latent transport double counts convection. There are only 3.”
No! It’s an entirely different attractor!
However, in the case for WV. Because WV is so ‘light’ in the gas mix for Earth’s atmosphere, it always ‘ascends’ through the ‘mix’. Thus, you’re forgiven for the assumption that ‘latency’ is directly related to ‘convection’, but it isn’t.
‘Latency’ and ‘latent heat’ are names for an ‘attractor’ that converts thermal energy into another medium that doesn’t register on the thermometer scale. This ‘other medium’ is the jump from solid, liquid, or gass, and needs a level of ‘energy input/output’ to achieve the proscribed transition.
“Somehow suricat learned that “Any antenna engineer knows that the effective area of a receiver can be much larger than its geometrical area.” is garbage. Where was that? You might have a point, I want to read it & find out.”
I’d rather ‘understand what you said’ Trick!
‘Reception’ of a signal is dependant on the ‘signal’ and the state of the ‘atmosphere’ for it’s reception.
“That is convective energy transfer not radiative energy transfer.”
No! It’s ‘transferred radiative energy’ from ‘convective energy transfer’!
Do you understand? RSVP.
Best regards, Ray.
suricat 1:17am: “Yes they are.”
Nonsense. Dictionary.com: “Motion n. the action or process of moving or of changing place or position; moving adj.: involved in changing the location of possessions…”
In solids, the molecules (and their constituents) are vibrating in a fixed position in the lattice, no change of place or position. Radiation & conduction can occur. In fluids, the molecules change place, change position, are moving thus convection can occur. Convection is mass in motion, mass changing place, changing position, moving. Latent transport is part of convection.
“I concur, but why?”
The natural vertical coordinate of the eqn.s governing the transfer of thermal radiation is optical depth, the natural physical vertical coordinate of planetary atmospheres is pressure. Combine.
“I’d rather ‘understand what you said’ Trick!”
Then your turn to look stuff up & understand; in doing so you will find what I wrote about an antenna is correct, look it up suricat. You wrote “garbage” without giving me any kind of hint why. Maybe you can prove it is garbage actually doing the research. RSVP.
“No! It’s ‘transferred radiative energy’ from ‘convective energy transfer’! Do you understand? “
No. Fill me in.
Trick says: November 10, 2014 at 3:52 am
“No. Fill me in.”
Well it’s ‘Trick’ by name, and ‘Trick’ by nature.
I’m an Engineer that’s been ‘educated’ by the ‘science of the day’. By the time that I received my ‘education’ the ‘science’ was already ‘settled’ and the ‘way forward’ for ‘better understanding’ had already been decided.
However, you have the ‘audacity’ to demand a ‘cite’ from a science paper that supports my ‘assertion’ of what science ‘has already settled’ is beyond belief!
It’s the burden of the ‘proposer’ of the ‘divergence’ from ‘common knowledge’ to provide ‘evidence’. NOT the ‘already settled’ proponent! How can you show this?
I’m out of here.
Ray.