Here’s another guest post from Ed Hoskins. This one deals with the IPCC’s own figures fro the effect of CO2 on global tamperature, demonstrating that due to the logarithmic limitation as this trace gas increases, future warming will be limited to within beneficial limits.
The diminishing influence of increasing Carbon Dioxide CO2 on temperature
Ed Hoskins MAarch (Cantab) BDS (Lond).
The temperature increasing capacity of atmospheric CO2 is theoretically plausible, but its influence is known and widely accepted to diminish as its concentration increases. It diminishes logarithmically with increasing concentration.
Global Warming advocates and Climate Change sceptics both agree on this. IPCC Published reports, (TAR), acknowledge that the effective temperature increase caused by growing concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere radically diminishes with increasing concentrations. This information has been presented in the IPCC reports. It is well disguised for any lay reader, (Chapter 6. Radiative Forcing of Climate Change: section 6.3.4 Total Well-Mixed Greenhouse Gas Forcing Estimate) [i].
It is a crucial fact, but not acknowledged in the IPCC summary for Policy Makers[ii]. The rapid logarithmic diminution effect is an inconvenient fact for Global Warming advocates and alarmists, nonetheless it is well understood within the climate science community. It is certainly not much discussed.
This diminution effect is probably the reason there was no runaway greenhouse warming caused by CO2 in earlier eons when CO2 levels were known to be at levels of several thousands ppmv. The following simplifying diagram shows the logarithmic diminution effect using tranches of 100ppmv up to 1000ppmv and the significance of differing CO2 concentrations on the biosphere:
- Up to ~200 ppmv, the equivalent to about ~77% of the temperature increasing effectiveness of CO2. This is essential to sustain photosynthesis in plants at all and thus the viability of all life on earth.
- A further ~100 ppmv was the level prior to any industrialisation, this atmospheric CO2 made the survival of the biosphere possible, giving a further 5.9% of the CO2 Greenhouse effect.
- Following that a further 100ppmv, (certainly man-made in part), adding ~4.1% of the CO2 effectiveness brings the current level ~400 ppmv.
- CO2 at 400pmmv is already committed and immutable. So CO2 has already reached about ~87+% of its potential warming effect in the atmosphere.
- 400-500 ppmv 3.23%
- 500-600 ppmv 2.64%
- 600-700 ppmv 2.23%
- 700-800 ppmv 1.93%
- 800-900 ppmv 1.71%
- 900-1000 ppmv 1.53%
So now at 400ppmv only ~13% of the effectiveness of CO2 as a Greenhouse Gas now remains even up to the level of ~1000ppmv.
Both sceptics and the IPCC publish alternate views of the reducing effect on temperature of the importance of CO2 concentration. These alternates are proportionally equivalent but vary in the degree of warming attributable to CO2. The IPCC have published the following views of the total effect of CO2 as a greenhouse gas up to ~1200ppmv, they range in temperature from +6.3°C to +14.5°C, shown below:
Other views are presented both by sceptical scientists and CDIAC, the Carbon Dioxide Information and Analysis Centre. What these different analysis show the is the amount of future warming that might be attributed to additional atmospheric CO2 in excess of the current level of ~400ppmv is truly marginal.
Looking to the future in excess of 400ppmv, wide variation exists between the different warming estimates up to 1000ppmv. A comparison between these estimates are set out below in the context of the ~33°C total Greenhouse Effect.
This graphic shows in orange the remaining temperature effect of CO2 that could be affected by worldwide global decarbonisation policies, from 400ppmv up to 1000ppmv, according to each of these alternative analyses.
Some of the IPCC data shows very large proportions of the temperature effect attributable solely to the currently existing levels and any extra CO2. The concomitant effect of those higher levels of warming from atmospheric CO2 is that the proportion of the total ~33°C then attributable the water vapour and clouds in the atmosphere is displaced so as to be unrealistically low at 72% or 54%. It has to be questioned whether it is plausible that CO2, a minor trace gas in the atmosphere, currently at the level of ~400ppmv, 0.04% achieves such radical control of Global temperature, when compared to the substantial and powerful Greenhouse Effect of water vapour and clouds in the atmosphere?
There are the clearly divergent views of the amount of warming that can result from additional CO2 in future, but even in a worst case scenario, whatever change that may happen can only ever have a marginal future effect on global temperature.
Whatever political efforts are made to de-carbonize economies or to reduce man-made CO2 emissions, (and to be effective at temperature control those efforts would have to be universal and worldwide), those efforts can only now affect at most ~13% of the future warming potential of CO2 even up to the currently unthinkably high level of 1000ppmv.
So increasing CO2 in the atmosphere can not now inevitably lead directly to much more warming and certainly not to a catastrophic and dangerous temperature increase.
Importantly as the future temperature effect of increasing CO2 emissions can only be so minor, there is no possibility of ever attaining the much vaunted political target of less than +2.0°C by the control of CO2 emissions.
Global Warming advocates always assert that all increases in the concentration of CO2 are solely man-made. This is not necessarily so, as the biosphere and slightly warming oceans will also outgas CO2 over the long term. In any event at ~3% of the total[iii] Man-made CO2 at its maximum is only a minor part of the natural CO2 transport within the atmosphere. The recent IPCC report now admits that currently recently increasing CO2 levels temperatures are probably only ~50% [or more] man-made.
“It is extremely likely [95 percent confidence] more than half of the observed increase in global average surface temperature from 1951 to 2010 was caused by the anthropogenic increase in greenhouse gas concentrations and other anthropogenic forcings together.”
This leads us to the bizarre conclusion that the IPCC is 95% certain that 50.001% of the warming is due to humans, and equally it is 95% certain that 100% of the warming is due to humans.
On the other hand, the data tells sceptics it is likely that any current global warming and increased CO2, if it is continuing, is:
- largely a natural process
- within normal limits
- probably beneficial.
It could be not be influenced by any remedial decarbonisation action, however drastic, taken by a minority of nations. In a rational, non-political world, that prospect should be greeted with unmitigated joy. If it is so:
- all concern over CO2 as a man-made pollutant can be entirely discounted.
- it is not essential to disrupt the economy of the Western world to no purpose.
- the cost to the European economy alone is considered to be ~ £165 billion per annum till the end of the century, not including the diversion of employment and industries to elsewhere: this is deliberate economic self-harm that can be avoided: these vast resources could be spent for much more worthwhile endeavours.
- were warming happening, unless extremely excessive, it provides a more benign climate for the biosphere and mankind.
- any extra CO2 is already increasing the fertility of all plant life on the planet.
- if warming is occurring at all, a warmer climate within natural variation would provide a future of greater opportunity and prosperity for human development, especially so for the third world.
[i] http://www.grida.no/publications/other/ipcc%5Ftar/?src=/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/222.htm
[ii] http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2014/05/why-global-warming-alarmism-isnt-science-2.php
[iii] http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html
Tallbloke's Talkshop 
In historical terms current carbon dioxide levels are very low.
‘In very general terms, long-term reconstructions of atmospheric CO2 levels going back in time show that 500 million years ago atmospheric CO2 was some 20 times higher than present values. It dropped, then rose again some 200 million years ago to 4-5 times present levels–a period that saw the rise of giant fern forests–and then continued a slow decline until recent pre-industrial time.’
http://earthguide.ucsd.edu/virtualmuseum/climatechange2/07_1.shtml
Sorry, FACTS like these won’t even dent their ideology. Their faith is strong, to the rest of us it is called insanity, but not to them.
Then of course you have the ones making lots of money out of the scam, facts won’t affect them either.
Merry Christmas Tallbloke blog…
Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year Tallbloke and readers.
And Roger, could luck in the election.
Reblogged this on Wolsten.
Interesting. This is what the late Stephen Schneider had to say on the subject:
Schneider S. & Rasool S., “Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide and Aerosols – Effects of Large Increases on Global Climate”, Science, vol.173, 9 July 1971, p.138-141
“We report here on the first results of a calculation in which separate estimates were made of the effects on global temperature of large increases in the amount of CO2 and dust in the atmosphere. It is found that even an increase by a factor of 8 in the amount of CO2, which is highly unlikely in the next several thousand years, will produce an increase in the surface temperature of less than 2 deg. K.“
As I recollect, this used a model by no less than James Hansen.
Just another attempt to promulgate modelling–in this case, radiative transfer modelling–as the acceptable standard for physical science. It is not, yet it is what continues to drive talk of a “CO2 climate sensitivity” on both sides of the debate, all in vain. Physical science requires physical insight, and the radiative transfer theory is simply incorrect physics, driven by theoretical dogma, not real insight. And in the current insane political atmosphere, all scientific arguments are moot (i.e., irrelevant, unless and until the political insanity is removed)–it is out of control, and the system is broken, people. Period.
Arrhenius’ idea that there is a logarithmic relationship between Earth’s surface temperature and
CO2 is breathtking in its elegance and simplicity.
The trouble with the Arrhenius theory is that it is nonsense. One can understand the CAGW cultists pretending they believe it as they don’t have anything else. A fig leaf is better than nothing when you are naked. It bothers me that more rational people such as Judith Curry and Richard Lindzen still act as if it had some validity.
Temperature drives [CO2] thanks to Henry’s law and that explains the tight correlation over the last 800,000 years:
Currently I am using engineering software to solve problems relating to climate science. Finite Element Analysis worked well for airless bodies, reproducing the diurnal temperatre variations with an error of better than 1 K RMS.
Now I am trying to apply FEA to bodies with atmospheres, starting with Venus owing to its 100% cloud cover. If that goes well it may be possible to extend the analysis to bodies with multiple partial cloud layers (e.g. Earth). The trouble is that I am already too late….the loony James Hansen beat me to it!
http://rsta.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/371/2001/20120294
Figure 7 in the paper explains the last seven glaciations thanks to a sensitivity of 16 K/halving of CO2 concentration. Going in the other direction, the sensitivity constant is 4.5 K/doubling exactly as Arrhenius calculated. After that absurdity, the only way to improve this paper would be to add a laugh track. Classic Hansen fairy tales!
Ed,
We are looking at it the wrong way round.
The carbon cycle is governed by photosynthetic life on earth thanks to the presence of oceans. As a result CO2 has stabilised the climate over billions of years. CO2 acts as a 99.9% of the time as a feedback to astronomical forcing ( sun, orbit, supernovas etc.) to cool/warm the planet as regulated by life. For example CO2 helps get us out of an ice age.
Now humans have increased CO2. There will be a small transient effect to cause warming – rather like a child pushing a pendulem.
Yes there are second order feedbacks but they are only infinitessimally linear.
It is likely that between 300m and 100m years ago CO2 levels were around 20-25% [4 billion years ago CO2 was near 100% of the atmosphere and atmospheric pressures around 100 BAR – like Venus now], O2 at around 30% with atmospheric pressures changing from 5 to 3 BAR. The high O2 which would have likely caused the forests to spontaneously burst into flames was offset by the high CO2 level. The higher pressures allowed the pterosaurs to fly. After the K/T boundary O2 levels fell to 20% over the following few hundred thousand years probably causing the extinction of the larger dinosaurs whose bodies could not survive with so little oxygen.
From the review of the Second Order Draft of the WGI contribution to IPCC 5AR.
“[8-549 8 19 8 19 11] Who are you trying to fool? The warming influence of CO2 is
logarithmic with concentration, which means a decreasing incremental warming it causes for
each unit increase in concentration. Your graph, with an incomprehensible Y-axis scale for
most readers, seems to be trying to claim the opposite. [John McLean, Australia]
Response – Rejected: The CO2 concentration is increasing more than linearly therefore even
with a logarithmic dependence the rate of change of RF is still increasing.”
Note that the IPCC response is that the “rate of change of RF is still increasing”. That’s not supported by CO2 data that shows a straightline fit since 1960 is the best fit and that the variation in annual increase is negligible.
@jdmcl
“……………..The warming influence of CO2 is logarithmic with concentration……”
That is what Arrhenius said in 1896. It is pure nonsense. The real world is more complex owing to collision broadening that renders the lower atmosphere opaque to thermal IR. Fortunately there are models that can accurately predict temperature at any altitude on planets with significant atmospheres:
http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v7/n1/abs/ngeo2020.html
After all these years I still have no idea how CO2 warms the planet. I know a hell of a lot about electromagnetic radiation and thermal heat transfer through solids, gases and liquids. I know a lot about CO2 and its radiation signature. Also H2O, that other ‘greenhouse’ gas. I understand the theory of blackbodies and the rules governing net energy transfer.
I understand how sunlight can warm these gases and warm the atmosphere and that energy never reached the surface resulting in reduced warming of the surface.
I cannot understand how night time radiation from the surface warms CO2 in the air above. The CO2 in the air will be at the local air temperature at whatever altitude. At night CO2 will not see 2.7micron radiation (~800C) or 4.3micron radiation (~400C) but it will indeed see radiation over the 13micron to 17micron band, some 18% of the total radiation leaving a surface at 15C (288K and 400w/m^2) problem is this band of radiation CANNOT heat anything much above -30C (243K).
That same CO2 will be radiating over that 13 to 17micron band cooling the night air and half that energy does reach the surface but the surface is much warmer than -30C so no warming there.
If we want back radiation from the atmosphere we must talk about clouds. Here we see the blanket effect where radiation from the bottom of the clouds, very close to black body range, reduces the rate of cooling of the surface such that stored heat now returns. Thermal heat transfer in a solid is quite slow.
All of this is easily confirmed by watching a climate recording site such as http://www.milfordweather.org.uk/
Note how night time temperature can increase even though wind direction is steady. Prevailing wind is from the sea which tends to retain a more constant temperature. Clouds do the rest. Its been VERY cloudy these last few weeks. Just look at solar levels.
Ed,
I finally read this article properly. It is absolutley brilliant !
I agree with everything you have written.
I would just add that one unexpected bonus of a warmer world is the likelihood of offsetting the next ice age by ~10,000 years !
@Richard111
CO2 doesn’t warm anything.
Very little radiation from the surface warms the atmosphere. The atmosphere is warmed mostly by latent heat through H2O evaporation from the oceans and by convection from the surface.
Forget also all the nonsense about back radiation warming the surface.
The role of greenhouse gases is to set the effective height of the tropopause. The lapse rate then defines what the surface temperature is. The flow of heat through the atmosphere up to a height where it can radiate to space drives the atmospheric heat engine sometimes known as ‘weather’.
Increasing CO2 very slightly increases this height scale.
–Up to ~200 ppmv, the equivalent to about ~77% of the temperature increasing effectiveness of CO2. This is essential to sustain photosynthesis in plants at all and thus the viability of all life on earth.–
So if CO2 got below 200, that’s threshold to global extinction life on land.
Now the only reason earth could get atmosphere with less than 1% is because of plant life.
Hydrogen and helium are very abundant in this universe, so a planet could have so much hydrogen and helium that one has less than 1 % CO2. And one could other reasons for having less
than 1% CO2 in an atmosphere. But otherwise having less than 1% CO2 in atmosphere is indication that planet has plant life. And even lowering levels like 5% CO2 would also be indication
a planet could have plant life. Or other than recently [a few tens million years] Earth has had plant life and CO2 bouncing around between 1 to 5%, And a billion years or so with much levels.
But generally low CO2 levels should cause one to consider that a planet has plant life.
So one might assume that since plant life is main reason an atmosphere has lower levels of CO2 and plants need more than 200 ppm to survive [without widespread starvation and greatly diminished plant growth] and plants could seen as check or prevent CO2 from reaching much lower levels than 200 ppm.
But there are other ways to remove CO2 from the environment. Or one could say that over the long term plant life is effective at lowering CO2 level but in terms centuries, rather than hundreds of millions of year, one can have larger factor which add or remove CO2. and these factors could
lower CO2 below 200 ppm.
So recently [last few tens of million of years global temperature has colder and it’s been a period
of low CO2 level. [This is points to the absurdity of modern fears of Earth becoming boiling hot and the hysteric of high CO2 levels]. Anyhow the reason Earth has low CO2 levels isn’t anything to do plant activity, but is thought to be due increase weathering:
“Progressive cooling afterward transited the earth from a greenhouse state into an icehouse world with ice caps at high latitudes, first in Antarctic and later in the North Hemisphere (Zachos et al., 2001). It is believed that decreasing partial pressure of CO2 in atmosphere (pCO2) is the primary determinant for the long-term cooling trend and for the growth of continental-scale ice sheet in polar regions (Deconto and Pollard, 2003). Although growing evidences confirmed a long-term decrease of pCO2 (Pearson and Palmer, 2000; Pagani et al., 2005; Tripati et al.,2009), the reason behind the decline of pCO2 is still under debates. ”
Click to access Li_and_Elderfield2013GCA.pdf
So due to all mountain building it erodes more and takes CO2 out the atmosphere. And continual weathering has to part of reason CO2 levels are not rising as fast as some dingbats thought it could. There is also uptake in ocean due to biological activity which another massive process that dwarf human activity. And then there is the addition of CO2 to to atmosphere due to warming ocean. The ocean is course both mechanically removing CO2 in colder polar region and adding
in warmer regions, but in total the ocean is warming slightly and so in total it’s adding CO2 to atmosphere.
But to my point in last couple tens of millions of years and during most of the time [glacial periods are longest periods of time as compared interglacial periods] global CO2 has been bottoming out
at near and below 200 ppm. Or as said above we have dancing on the threshold of mass extinction of land plants [and therefore land animals]. Which think of as safe due to plants would reach limit and stop growing as much. But plants particularly, land plants don’t control global CO2 levels and these other processes could lower CO2 levels beyond the level the land plants can survive.
Ok, so you say humans and the CO2 emitting ways, have come to the rescue to prevent this event from happening. You could say that. But also possible the humans doing less in this heroic activity
then they might be imagining. Or it’s possible such extinction is still possible. Or maybe 400 ppm
is not safe, and trying to make it [and somehow succeeding] making global CO2 at 300 ppm would be dancing with death, if oceans started to cool.
Ed writes: “The recent IPCC report now admits that currently increasing CO2 levels are probably only ~50% man-made.”
Is there a IPCC reference anywhere to this quite challanging statement?
“Is there a IPCC reference anywhere to this quite challanging statement?”
Yeah, I would not expect such such honesty from IPCC.
But CO2 levels measured from satellites would support such statements:
I would say it’s false altogether. What they state is something like there is some chance that about half of the WARMING is not man-made. But I believe that IPCC claims ALL of the increased co2 is man-made.
It doesn’t help the skeptics to spread false infomation like this unfortunately. Keep the eyes on the ball…
tolou: I have emailed Ed for clarification.
clivebest says, December 22, 2014 at 8:56 am:
“Forget also all the nonsense about back radiation warming the surface.
The role of greenhouse gases is to set the effective height of the tropopause. The lapse rate then defines what the surface temperature is. The flow of heat through the atmosphere up to a height where it can radiate to space drives the atmospheric heat engine sometimes known as ‘weather’.
Increasing CO2 very slightly increases this height scale.”
Problem is, Clive, that the mean global tropopause temperature is 210K, not 255K. So there is absolutely no connection between the tropopause temperature and Earth’s final radiative flux to space at 239 W/m^2.
Your ERL/EEH explanation of surface temps is just as nonsensical and un-physical as the ‘heating by back radiation’ explanation is.
The only way it would work is if there were actually a solid shell, perfectly absorbing and emitting outgoing LW and perfectly transparent to incoming SW, outside of which were only the vacuum of space, hovering in place a few kilometres above the surface all the way around the globe. If the outer surface of this shell in the final steady state equilibrated at a temperature of 255K, then its mean isotropic radiative flux to space would’ve been 239 W/m^2, which would balance the average incoming flux from the Sun. From the inner surface of this shell (presumably also at 255K) and down to the surface of the Earth, you would then be able to see the temperature gradually increase moving down along the lapse rate, making the actual surface warmer than at pure solar radiative equilibrium.
However, there is no such shell or layer in the actual Earth system. Earth’s final radiative flux to space is the accumulated end result of ALL contributions from ALL layers, from surface to the ToA. It is not even remotely tied to the specific TEMPERATURE of any one layer within the system. Without this direct connection, the whole premise behind the raised ERL/EEH falls apart. This temperature/flux idea simply derives from a nonsensical application of the Stefan-Boltzmann law, when what you need to apply is rather a simple energy budgeting scheme. You need to follow the energy in from the Sun all the way through the Earth system, to the surface and from the surface UP. The surface temperature is set FIRST, and from this the tropospheric temperature profile climbs UP along the lapse rate. The mean global tropopause temp on Earth is 210K BECAUSE the mean global surface temp happens to be 288K and the mean global tropopause height happens to be about 12 km: 288K – (6.5K/km * 12km) = 210K.
Not the other way around …
Kristian, I’m not being argumentative, I’m trying to learn. I understand a lapse rate of 6.5K/km is the wet adiabatic lapse rate and the dry adiabatic lapse rate is 10K/km. Thus to calculate a global temperature you would have to average those figures? Also is it possible to define how much of the world is wet as opposed to dry over any given period?
Ach! I should have said the world ‘atmosphere’. I know ~70% of the world is covered in water.
Post updated with clarification on what IPCC claim.
Kristian,
Each wavelength has a different ‘effective height’ at which it radiates to space. 80 W/m2 goes straight out from the surface through the IR window. Cloud tops radiate most IR directly to space. So the surface at which T=255K in the lapse rate is just a coincidence and has no real physical meaning. It just happens to coincides with a BB surface with the same outgoing IR needed for energy balance.
The tropopoause however does have a physical meaning. It is where convection stops and the atmosphere is in radiative equilibrium. Radiative cooling occurs at different rates for different wavelengths varying throughout the troposphere. This ‘pure’ radiative equilibrium profile is unstable and convection ensues forcing the temperature profile to the stable adiabatic lapse rate. That way a thermal balance is maintained between radiative cooling and convective heating at each level until the tropoause is reached. Here the adiabatic lapse rate equals the pure radiative equilibrium temperature profile. Radiative cooling to space dominates and convection stops.
Of course the details are very complicated, and I don’t claim to understand everything. However, if radiation was not directly escaping to space from molecules high up in the atmosphere then convective heat would have nowhere to go. The higher up in the troposphere net radiation escapes then the further up convection must rise.
Richard111 says, December 23, 2014 at 3:14 pm:
“I understand a lapse rate of 6.5K/km is the wet adiabatic lapse rate and the dry adiabatic lapse rate is 10K/km. Thus to calculate a global temperature you would have to average those figures?”
Well, no. The 6.5K/km lapse rate used and referred to is the global/annual mean ‘environmental lapse rate’ (ELR), the average of the actual tropospheric temperature profile observed. This is, however, by necessity directly tied to the global mean between the dry adibatic lapse rate (DALR) at the one end (~10K/km) and the saturated adiabatic lapse rate (SALR) at the other (~5K/km).
clivebest says, December 23, 2014 at 4:50 pm:
Clive,
I read and understand what you say. However, you cannot escape the fact that there is no connection between temperature and emission flux from any specific layer in the Earth system. Hence, the whole ERL/EEH argument crumbles. The idea is, after all, that there is supposed to be a direct connection between temperature and emission flux (through the (flawed) application of the purely radiative Stefan-Boltzmann law on a far from purely radiative system), and so the reasoning goes that since Earth’s emission flux to space is 239 W/m^2 this HAS TO correspond to a temperature of 255K. The point is, there is no such layer in the Earth system, one that holds a temperature of 255K and which thus emits a BB flux to space of 239 W/m^2. After this fact is trivially realised, you can twist and turn as much as you like, and still you cannot get your hypothesis to work. For it specifically needs a BB surface at 255K to emit a flux of 239 W/m^2 to space from which to follow the lapse rate down to the surface to get a ‘greenhouse effect’ of some strength. In reality there is no such layer to climb down from. The actual 255K level in the troposphere does not emit 239 W/m^2 to space. Not even remotely so. There is no real connection. The whole hypothesis is nothing but a simplistic mathematical construct. Totally rigid, nonsensical and out of touch with reality.
Yes, there is likely something to the Robinson & Catling hypothesis that the optical depth of the atmosphere has a bearing on maximum tropopause HEIGHT, specifically the tropical one, in the sense that at the point where the IR opacity of the air becomes so low that the remaining part of the energy brought up from the surface by convection is able to escape directly to space by radiation, then convection loses the last part of what gave it its upward momentum in the first place. After all, convection transports the energy between the heating end (the energy input from the surface) to the cooling end (the energy output to space). When there is no more cooling to be had at altitude, then convection has done its job. It stops its upward movement. The air falls back down to the surface to pick up more of the energy IN to be brought up and OUT. That’s how a convection cell works.
Their hypothesis is surely not the whole truth, but plausibly explains some part of it.
However, none of this has any bearing whatsoever on tropopause TEMPERATURE, hence neither on the surface temperature. The temperatures simply are what they are (210K for the global mean tropopause, 289K for the global mean surface), set by other mechanisms entirely. The energy brought in simply needs to get out of the system, from wherever. To maintain balance. Temperatures at steady state (dynamic equilibrium) are not set by radiative fluxes IN/OUT. This is a purely radiative BB concept. For real objects, the temperature at steady state is set by the ‘internal energy’ [U] stored up in total inside it towards dynamic equilibrium. This amount would NOT be the same for an object surrounded by a massive atmosphere as for a pure emitter expelling its entire energy loss directly into a vacuum.
Well, the atmosphere (like the surface) is in a steady state (dynamic equilibrium). All the energy that continuously enters the atmosphere (from the surface and from the Sun) also continuously exits the atmosphere (to space), 220 W/m^2 IN [33 W/m^2 by radiation from the surface, 24 W/m^2 by conduction from the surface, 88 W/m^2 by latent heat transfer (evaporation) from the surface, and 75 W/m^2 by radiation directly from the Sun], 220 W/m^2 OUT (all by radiation to space).
So I simply don’t get what your hypothesised radiative mechanism is supposed to do.
A merry Christmas to you!
Kristian,
Well that is a basic assumption of atmospheric physics. So if it is wrong then everything is wrong. The assumption is that CO2/H2O molecules are in thermal equilibrium with N2, O2 molecules at a given height Z and temperarure T. It is also assumed that Kirchoff’s law applies which says that absorption and emission of IR photons are equal and opposite for a gas in thermal equilibrium.
There doesn’t have to be a real surface at 255K to balance energy IN – OUT -d/dt(internal energy) = 0. The integral of all emission from all heights in the atmosphere has to equal OUT which in a steady state is 240 W/m2.
One interesying example is the central line in the CO2 15 micron spectrum. The absorption cross-section is so large that even at 280ppm it emits way up in the stratosphere.
The stratophere is much warmer than the tropopause due to ozone absorption of solar radiation. As a result this line has an inverse greenhouse effect. Adding more CO2 to the atmosphere increases outgoing IR or in IPCC talk it WARMS the earth.
If you look at any NImbus spectrum of CO2 you will see this central spike upwards implying higher temperature. This is evidence that IR emission is connected to local temperature.
Why is the tropopause only 210K ? I don’t know. Can anyone else explain it ?
Happy Christmas !
clivebest says, December 24, 2014 at 12:06 pm:
“”However, you cannot escape the fact that there is no connection between temperature and emission flux from any specific layer in the Earth system.”
Well that is a basic assumption of atmospheric physics.”
Yes, one that is evidently wrong.
The mean global tropopause temperature is 210K. Still, from that level a mean global flux of 240 W/m^2 radiates out to space (well, clearly not quite 240, part of the incoming solar flux is definitely being exchanged already above this level without ever becoming part of the surface/troposphere energy budget, for instance by stratospheric O3, but the variation in the evened-out total OLR flux absorbed and measured by the satellite-borne instruments in space still very closely corresponds with the surface/troposphere temperature variations (modified by humidity/cloud variations), so it should be safe to assume that by far the largest portion of the total/final outgoing flux is emitted by layers from the tropopause down).
Anyway, if the tropopause air layer itself were to emit a flux to space directly according to its temperature, its intensity would’ve been a mere 110 W/m^2, not anywhere near 240. So why this fairly massive discrepancy? Well, it should be pretty obvious. The flux going out through/from the tropopause to space is the final flux from the entire Earth system below it, not just from the tropopause itself, accumulated from all layers from and including the surface all the way up to and including the tropopause. The surface plus the entire volume of the troposphere is what makes up Earth’s real ‘radiating surface’ to space, not one specific 2D surface. A full 3D ‘surface’. But only out from the top of this volume (the tropopause level) flows the total flux to space, not from any other layer below it.
The thing is, the final, total flux to space emitted from this 3D ‘surface’ – or, rather, volume – as a whole, would be 240 W/m^2 from the top at dynamic equilibrium regardless of its thickness. Why is this? Because the only actual limit to this flux is set by … the incoming flux through the top. The energy dynamically fed INTO the system is also what needs to be dynamically SHED by the system. Across a certain amount of time. Nothing more, nothing less. If 240 W/m^2 come IN, then 240 W/m^2 will go OUT. To balance. The troposphere will simply by necessity organise itself to attain this balance, tropopause height most likely being a corollary of this.
clivebest says: December 24, 2014 at 12:06 pm
“Kristian, (” However, you cannot escape the fact that there is no connection between temperature and emission flux from any specific layer in the Earth system.”)”
“Well that is a basic assumption of atmospheric physics. So if it is wrong then everything is wrong. The assumption is that CO2/H2O molecules are in thermal equilibrium with N2, O2 molecules at a given height Z and temperarure T. It is also assumed that Kirchoff’s law applies which says that absorption and emission of IR photons are equal and opposite for a gas in thermal equilibrium.”
The average contribution or addition to exit flux for each specific atmospheric layer can indeed be calculated from the free database updated and maintained by Harvard University. Your atmospheric physicists at NASA, NOAA, and universities around the world have that data and computational facilities to do just that! No conspiracy, only the evidence that your atmospheric physicists have not the competence to use that data in any meaningful way!
Your claim, “It is also assumed that Kirchoff’s law applies which says that absorption and emission of IR photons are equal and opposite for a gas in thermal equilibrium.” Is the exact evidence of, and the why of widespread incompetence. The two main laws from Dr. Kirchhoff are:
1. “The surface properties for electromagnetic radiation, emissivity (out), and absorptivity (in). are exactly equal at every frequency, and in each direction.” There is no indication of any actual radiation, or radiative flux in this law.
2. “In the case of “only” radiative power transfer”, a body at radiative equilibrium, has no energy exchanged with that body.” This is but 1LTD, for radiation only. There is no indication that incoming and outgoing power (flux) need be at the same frequency, or in the same or opposite directions in this law. For most any mass, independent of transmittance, the radiant flux in/out is in the same vector direction. This is driven by the “difference in radiative potential” between the mass and the source and the sink, indicating the exact same power transfer in one direction only.
Please indicate any reference that quotes where Dr. Kirchhoff ever , writes or speaks, of what you claim.
Will Janoschka says: December 27, 2014 at 5:00 am
Meaningful dialogue begins here! You’ve introduced a ‘z’ parameter to a law that only had a ‘surface’. 🙂
IMHO the only way this can be explained is to discuss/disclose the ‘energy transfer per wavelength’ before averaging to a ‘Planck weighting’ (another reason why Ferenc developed ‘HEART code’ from the ‘HITRAN’ resolution of the ‘MODTRAN’ data base).
It’s one thing to say that a ‘dynamic energy system’ is in ‘equilibrium’, but it’s something else to say how that ‘equilibrium’ is achieved. All ‘wavelengths’ sum to the ‘total’ with Kirchoff, but ‘all wavelengths’ are ‘not’ equal for ‘energy transmission’ at their designated wavelength!
Best regards, Ray.
suricat says: December 29, 2014 at 2:53 am
My apologies Will. This subject was first raised by ‘clivebest’ and not yourself. 😦
Best regards, Ray.
.
suricat says: December 29, 2014 at 2:53 am
Will Janoschka says: December 27, 2014 at 5:00 am
“Meaningful dialogue begins here! You’ve introduced a ‘z’ parameter to a law that only had a ‘surface’. 🙂 ”
Indeed Ray,
Planck’s equation/integral uses a “surface property” (maximum) to formulate the “maximum surface spectral radiance”. That equation has nothing to do with what “is radiated” at any frequency, only with the maximum, with a finite impedance of space. Any change to this impedance, including antenna gain, and opposing radiance, at that frequency, must affect that number. A director, or lens can exchange solid angle, for a different surface area. “Radiance” remains the same.
“IMHO the only way this can be explained is to discuss/disclose the ‘energy transfer per wavelength’ before averaging to a ‘Planck weighting’ (another reason why Ferenc developed ‘HEART code’ from the ‘HITRAN’ resolution of the ‘MODTRAN’ data base).”
Correct! However any mass with “temperature”,may spontaneously transfer between absorptance and emittance, both between frequencies and between directions. This is a property of mass with temperature. BTW, ModTran resolves to HiTran resolution, if you have enough time and money to prevent ModTran from getting sloppy, even with the same result. HiTran itself is used only to identify the individual gas species in an unknown mixture.
“It’s one thing to say that a ‘dynamic energy system’ is in ‘equilibrium’, but it’s something else to say how that ‘equilibrium’ is achieved. All ‘wavelengths’ sum to the ‘total’ with Kirchoff, but ‘all wavelengths’ are ‘not’ equal for ‘energy transmission’ at their designated wavelength!”
Yes, CO2 can easily absorb at 2.5 microns and emit at 14.6 microns in the same or other directions, all while gaining or loosing no energy nor changing temperature. Radiative equilibrium!
What temperature is quite tricky! Not for those that can barely manage the S-B equation.. In this atmosphere the temperature is not dominated by radiative effects..
“Best regards, Ray.”
Thank you for your interest and dialog.! -will-
Hey, the log relationship is well-known and included in the literature and hence factored into the IPCC reports.
We should also keep in mind that human civilization (thanks to our powerful, efficient brains) arose with CO2 levels below 300 ppm. Studies show that our IQs are significantly reduced for critical thinking tasks at CO2 levels even as low as 1000ppm.
[Reply] Submariners regularly operate in as much as 8000ppm. “studies show” Links?
Will Janoschka says: December 29, 2014 at 4:36 am
Firstly, a happy and prosperous New Year to all! In whatever form your endeavours may be. 🙂
“Planck’s equation/integral uses a “surface property” (maximum) to formulate the “maximum surface spectral radiance”. That equation has nothing to do with what “is radiated” at any frequency, only with the maximum, with a finite impedance of space.”
I find this confusing for the analysis of ‘atmospheric radiation’ because one can only ‘assume’ the total radiant energy passing through a ‘fixed hypothetical laminar area of atmosphere’, thus, ‘virtual watts’ passing through this ‘lamina’, with energy/radiance loss ‘assumed’ by the intervening atmosphere from a ‘previously’ ‘fixed hypothetical laminar area of atmosphere’ in the general direction of/from ‘the source’.
Due to scattering and refraction by atmospheric mass entities (lensing by suspended liquid mass entities and latent products are for another post) much of the energy from the source doesn’t achieve an emission through the second lamina, but is ‘assumed’ to be ‘replaced’ by losses to/from the neighbouring ‘laminae areas’ of the second lamina from the first ‘laminae areas’.
Thus, “Plank’s equation/integral”, when used WRT ‘atmospheric physics’ is nought but ‘statistical assumption’ IMHO! However, I think you’ll agree.
We already know the “finite impedance of space”. It’s ‘the “speed of light” in vacua’!
“Any change to this impedance, including antenna gain, and opposing radiance, at that frequency, must affect that number. A director, or lens can exchange solid angle, for a different surface area. “Radiance” remains the same.”
I find that there are ‘exceptions’ to this. “Impedance” and “gain” live in different ‘scenarios’ (though, I like your ‘antenna’ analogy)! “Opposing” radiances at the same wavelength generate ‘podes’ (nodes) and ‘antipodes’ (anti-nodes) where ‘peak to peak’ amplitudes are either ‘amplified’, or ‘suppressed’ respectively! These are important details for understanding the behaviour of EMR.
However, it’s late for me here and I need my ‘zeds’. I’ll get back later.
Best regards, Ray.
suricat says: January 2, 2015 at 2:41 am
Will Janoschka says: December 29, 2014 at 4:36 am
“Firstly, a happy and prosperous New Year to all! In whatever your endeavours may be. 🙂 ”
Thank you, best wishes back to you! Your expressions are clear and well worth pondering.
For your pondering, My expressions from a different POV , EE, electro-optics engineer. I hope I can be as clear.
(“Planck’s equation/integral uses a “surface property” (maximum) to formulate the “maximum surface spectral radiance”. That equation has nothing to do with what “is radiated” at any frequency, only with the maximum, with a finite impedance of space.”)
“I find this confusing for the analysis of ‘atmospheric radiation’ because one can only ‘assume’ the total radiant energy passing through a ‘fixed hypothetical laminar area of atmosphere’, thus, ‘virtual watts’ passing through this ‘lamina’, with energy/radiance loss ‘assumed’ by the intervening atmosphere from a ‘previously’ ‘fixed hypothetical laminar area of atmosphere’ in the general direction of/from ‘the source’.”
Indeed Planck’s equation cannot be used for any “radiation” (radiative flux). The equation can be used to calculate two opposing radiances, the difference of these radiances in each direction, and at each frequency band, determine both direction and magnitude of any detached radiative flux. That detached radiative flux has zero proper time and independent of the motion of the generator of each “radiance” The detached radiative flux “is” affected by both gravitational force and the actual velocity of the transferring media, (not significant in this atmosphere).
“Due to scattering and refraction by atmospheric mass entities (lensing by suspended liquid mass entities and latent products are for another post) much of the energy from the source doesn’t achieve an emission through the second lamina, but is by to/ ‘assumed’ to be ‘replaced’ by losses to/from the neighbouring ‘laminae areas’ of the second lamina from the first ‘laminae areas’.”
This is true except at radiative equilibrium at a particular frequency. Here the particular gas mass is already emitting in the opposite direction the exact amount absorbed, or that gas is changing sensible heat and temperature. The whole mess of changing direction and in and out wavelength is also consistent with Maxwell’s equations, and Kirchhoff’s laws.
“Thus, “Plank’s equation/integral”, when used WRT ‘atmospheric physics’ is nought but ‘statistical assumption’ IMHO! However, I think you’ll agree. ‘We already know the “finite impedance of space”. It’s ‘the “speed of light” in vacua’!'”
To the extent that c = (permittivity 0 x permeability 0)^1/2, in this near space. Way over yonder, not so much. How fast is space moving?
(“Any change to this impedance, including antenna gain, and opposing radiance, at that frequency, must affect that number. A director, or lens can exchange solid angle, for a different surface area. “Radiance” remains the same.”)
“I find that there are ‘exceptions’ to this. “Impedance” and “gain” live in different ‘scenarios’ (though, I like your ‘antenna’ analogy)!”
“Opposing radiances at the same wavelength generate ‘podes’ (nodes) and ‘antipodes’ (anti-nodes) where ‘peak to peak’ amplitudes are either ‘amplified’, or ‘suppressed’ respectively! These are important details for understanding the behaviour of EMR.”
No! The opposing radiances (field strength) need not be phase coherent as are standing waves (static reflection of one radiance from an impedance discontinuity)! The opposing field strength always limits the amount and direction of any resulting flux.
For careful analysis Physicists use optical depth, the path length where transmission of modulation equals (1-1/e) 37% in each frequency band.This is fine for logarithm heads. I use the shorter 50% transmission and piecewise summation. At each 50% interval, there is a delta T which determines the flux “added” by the immediate lower level, (your lower “lamina”). However this lower lamina, being at radiative equilibrium passes “all” accumulated radiant flux without attenuation.
The temperatures and delta temperatures are not set via thermal radiative flux, but by existing lapse rate whether dry or saturated, thus at each lamina, the temperature is above that for radiative equilibrium. This is how the convective and latent heat is added to the exit radiant flux. On this planet no exit radiative flux need originate from the solid or liquid surface.
Beyond the sparky stuff, the hardest for me, is the observation that the whole tropospheric column can rethermalize with a time constant of six minutes at solar eclipse! What mechanism/phenomenon can move sensible/latent heat at the rate of 2 km/minute? I am convinced that all of the Clim-Astrologists together have not the competence to understand the atmosphere of this planet! All they have are fake statistics, with no meaning whatsoever.
“Best regards, Ray.”
The same, and what a “wonder”-full planet! Let’s all try to wonder already! -will-
Will Janoschka says: January 2, 2015 at 4:20 pm
“Your expressions are clear and well worth pondering.
For your pondering, My expressions from a different POV , EE, electro-optics engineer. I hope I can be as clear.”
Hmm. My thoughts are usually ‘as clear as mud’!
“Indeed Planck’s equation cannot be used for any “radiation” (radiative flux). The equation can be used to calculate two opposing radiances, the difference of these radiances in each direction, and at each frequency band, determine both direction and magnitude of any detached radiative flux. That detached radiative flux has zero proper time and independent of the motion of the generator of each “radiance” The detached radiative flux “is” affected by both gravitational force and the actual velocity of the transferring media, (not significant in this atmosphere).”
Your statement brings to question many criteria, and I concur. Surely, ‘two opposing radiances’ would be better represented by an ‘energy density’ calculation for each ‘wavelength’ of the ‘span’. Also, an X-Y ordinate exists in conjunction with the Z component.
“This is true except at radiative equilibrium at a particular frequency. Here the particular gas mass is already emitting in the opposite direction the exact amount absorbed, or that gas is changing sensible heat and temperature. The whole mess of changing direction and in and out wavelength is also consistent with Maxwell’s equations, and Kirchhoff’s laws.”
Your ‘quote’ is inaccurate. I find that ‘cut’n’paste’ (‘copy’ from the dialogue and ‘paste’ into your post) works best for ‘quoting’.
Let me put it to you that “radiative equilibrium” doesn’t exist in Earth’s atmosphere below the lower strat. I said the same thing to Tom Vonk a few years ago and I would be happy if you could convince me otherwise of this now. ‘Convection’ buggers ‘radiation’ and ‘latency’ confounds convection. Why would you propose a “radiative equilibrium” scenario? Perhaps this is an ‘academic’ proposal? If so, I concur, but this is an ‘unreal’ scenario.
“To the extent that c = (permittivity 0 x permeability 0)^1/2, in this near space. Way over yonder, not so much. How fast is space moving?”
This is subject to ‘Relativity’, and, as an engineer, I’m proscribed any response (though I’m frustrated by this caveat).
“No! The opposing radiances (field strength) need not be phase coherent as are standing waves (static reflection of one radiance from an impedance discontinuity)! The opposing field strength always limits the amount and direction of any resulting flux.”
You obviously understood my ‘standing wave’ argument Will. However, ‘coherence’ follows on from this. Macro and Micro physics conjoin with ‘phantom photons’ and the ‘residual energetic’ of ‘Quantum Physics’.
It’s nearly 4am. I’m knackered. I’ll get back later.
Best regards, Ray.
suricat says: January 4, 2015 at 3:52 am
To continue:
“For careful analysis Physicists use optical depth, the path length where transmission of modulation equals (1-1/e) 37% in each frequency band.This is fine for logarithm heads. I use the shorter 50% transmission and piecewise summation. At each 50% interval, there is a delta T which determines the flux “added” by the immediate lower level, (your lower “lamina”). However this lower lamina, being at radiative equilibrium passes “all” accumulated radiant flux without attenuation.”
This seems odd. Losses occur at all regions between laminal data points and the ‘radiative equilibrium’ at lower altitudes needs clarification. Also, what of energy added by ‘reactive’ insolation components between laminal ‘Z’ altitudes?
I’m sceptical because energy bound into attractors ‘other than’ “temperature” (per se) don’t give rise to any OLR EMR. Latent energy is a ‘benign’ EMR waiting to happen.
“The temperatures and delta temperatures are not set via thermal radiative flux, but by existing lapse rate whether dry or saturated, thus at each lamina, the temperature is above that for radiative equilibrium. This is how the convective and latent heat is added to the exit radiant flux. On this planet no exit radiative flux need originate from the solid or liquid surface.”
Aye, there’s the rub. Not only do ‘radiative calculations’ hide convection and latency, they also claim this energy from ‘other’ attractors as a ‘radiative potential’. This is just ‘wrong’. Convective and latent energies should be clearly shown as ‘other attractors’.
I fully understand why this has lead to an approximation for the ‘EEH’ (Effective Emission ‘Height’ [altitude]).
“Beyond the sparky stuff, the hardest for me, is the observation that the whole tropospheric column can rethermalize with a time constant of six minutes at solar eclipse! What mechanism/phenomenon can move sensible/latent heat at the rate of 2 km/minute?”
H2O.
“The same, and what a “wonder”-full planet! Let’s all try to wonder already!”
Many of us do Will. 😉
Best regards, Ray Dart. 🙂
suricat says: January 4, 2015 at 3:52 am
Will Janoschka says: January 2, 2015 at 4:20 pm
(“Your expressions are clear and well worth pondering. For your pondering, My expressions
from a different POV , EE, electro-optics engineer. I hope I can be as clear.”)
“Hmm. My thoughts are usually ‘as clear as mud’!”
Ray, You should try SCUBA in one of the so called Texas Lakes! Flip over the side,
clear the mask,look out. Cannot even see own bubbles! I meant by “clear” as
“If I can figure his POV I can perhaps get a useful hint”!
I hope you can understand my use of vector geometry, especially the term “solid angle”.
This comes from the optics background; religion, astrology, optics, astronomy,
meteorology, physics, then engineering came in that order, with many personal beliefs
(or baggage) rampant, but claimed as truth, or scientific, especially the prior.
Engineers prefer “if I cannot measure ‘it’, ‘it’ is not”! With the corollary: “what
was I trying to measure again?”! The beginning of partial differential equations!!
A solid angle is but a “small” two dimensional angle useful for integrating over
something like a sphere or hemisphere. An angle i.e. “milliradian” is but the
angle subtended by the length of a meter at a distance of a kilometre. Therefore
a micro-steradian is the solid angle subtended by one meter^2 (area) at a distance
of one kilometre. No particular shape of that m^2 is required, square or circular,
is generally assumed, if not specified.
There are always 4PI million micro-steradians in a sphere surface of any radius.
The Sun’s photosphere at one AU is about 80 micro-steradians, With a one micro-steradian
1 mm x 1 mm detector at a focal length of one meter.That detector would observe
only part of the Sun’s photosphere all the way to 80 AU.
(“Indeed Planck’s equation cannot be used for any “radiation” (radiative flux).
The equation can be used to calculate two opposing radiances, the difference of these
radiances in each direction, and at each frequency band, determine both direction and
magnitude of any detached radiative flux. That detached radiative flux has zero proper
time and independent of the motion of the generator of each “radiance” The detached
radiative flux “is” affected by both gravitational force and the actual velocity of
the transferring media, (not significant in this atmosphere).”)
“Your statement brings to question many criteria, and I concur. Surely, ‘two opposing
radiances’ would be better represented by an ‘energy density’ calculation for each ‘
wavelength’ of the ‘span’. Also, an X-Y ordinate exists in conjunction with the Z component.”
I cannot agree! Energy density is a weird concept with no energy, only opposing forces (field strength),
The conjugate of gravitational force, that may allow a power or flux transfer in one direction, if allowed, from the higher force and proportional to the difference in force.
Please go back to the concept of solid angle. There are always at least two,
from two locations toward each other. Angular area with opposing vectors.
Irradiance can be considered as Power (force,horsepower) per unit area or pressure.
At a location where the opposing solid angles are equal. Very near L1 for Earth,Sun.
Both objects radiating diameters are 10 milliradians, 80 micro-steradians, we can
evaluate opposing field strength for any waveband of EMR. And thus determine the
direction, if any, and amount of power transferred orthogonal to that cross-sectional area.
Power normalizes out time from energy. Per unit area normalizes out two orthogonal directions.
The “radiance” per steradian normalizes out your “Z” by dividing irradiance by Z squared.
Radiance is independent of all dimension in four-space. This allows calculation of flux independent of “Z”.
Radiance is the EMR local pressure per unit area “projected” upon the source of that pressure.
Radiance is quite handy for pondering, without the worry of length “Z”
I must stop here and reconsider my own understanding of radiative equilibrium” as proposed by Dr. Gustav Kirchhoff
———————————————————————————————————-
suricat says: January 4, 2015 at 3:52 am
Will Janoschka says: January 2, 2015 at 4:20 pm (continued)
(“This is true except at radiative equilibrium at a particular frequency. Here the particular gas mass is already emitting in the opposite direction the exact amount absorbed, or that gas is changing sensible heat and temperature. The whole mess of changing direction and in and out wavelength is also consistent with Maxwell’s equations, and Kirchhoff’s laws.”)
“Your ‘quote’ is inaccurate. I find that ‘cut’n’paste’ (‘copy’ from the dialogue and ‘paste’ into your post) works best for ‘quoting’.”
That is not my quote of anyone, that is my statement of observation and measurement!
“Let me put it to you that “radiative equilibrium” doesn’t exist in Earth’s atmosphere below the lower strat. I said the same thing to Tom Vonk a few years ago and I would be happy if you could convince me otherwise of this now.”
I concure fully with you and Miskolczi! Radiative, and/or thermodynamic equilibrium cannot exist in a cyclic process with thermal inertia. Temperature and flux is continually changing.
” ‘Convection’ buggers ‘radiation’ and ‘latency’ confounds convection. Why would you propose a “radiative equilibrium” scenario? Perhaps this is an ‘academic’ proposal? If so, I concur, but this is an ‘unreal’ scenario.”
The radiative equilibrium is but a radiative only the temperature of an object laminar altitude of air or Willis Echenbach’s steel greenhouse temperature reaches so that all absorbed indecent flux is exactly equal to that radiated to yet a lower temperature sink.
In this atmosphere it is more complex as the conversion of convective sensible heat and the conversion of latent heat must add to the exit radiant flux or remain in the atmosphere. Consider three cases, for the laminar temperature.
1. Below radiative Etemp, but spontaneously increasing temperature to reach equilibrium
2. At radiative Etemp, but spontaneously staying at that temperature.
3. Above radiative Etemp, but spontaneously radiating more decreasing temperature to equilibrium
In this atmosphere without convection and latent heat a radiative lapse rate would spontaneously be created as the above laminar would still radiate to space but not downward toward a higher radiance.
This radiative lapse rate is calculated to be a 13-17 degree decrease in temperature per kilometer gain in temperature. Calculated only as such an atmosphere is not available. With this planet’s. atmosphere
the measured lapse rate is between a 5 and 10 degree decrease in temperature per kilometer.
Every laminar temperature is higher than that for radiation increasing exit flux to space, trying to lower its temperature but then convective and latent heat prevent any temperature decrease by fully powering that increase in flux.
(“To the extent that c = (permittivity 0 x permeability 0)^1/2, in this near space.
Way over yonder, not so much. How fast is space moving?”)
Should be c = (permittivity 0 x permeability 0)^-1/2
“This is subject to ‘Relativity’, and, as an engineer, I’m proscribed any response
(though I’m frustrated by this caveat).”
Huh? As an engineer, what is more relativistic than power transfer via EMR? Mistakenly called radiant heat. It is a power transfer, that can be energised by any method including sensible heat, Transferred as EMR with no need for mass. Converted by an absorber of EMR, to chemical, electrical, mechanical, energy, sometimes even back to sensible heat,.
(“No! The opposing radiances (field strength) need not be phase coherent as are standing waves (static reflection of one radiance from an impedance discontinuity)! The opposing field strength always limits the amount and direction of any resulting flux.”)
“You obviously understood my ‘standing wave’ argument Will. However, ‘coherence’ follows on from this. Macro and Micro physics conjoin with ‘phantom photons’ and the ‘residual energetic’ of ‘Quantum Physics’.”
No! A standing wave always indicates a lack of flux, never its presence. any standing wave is produced
by the field not by energy As far as “photons” there is no power or energy until spontaneous flux is allowed. That flux is the only energy transferred, and only energy, never mass, is transferred.
-will-
suricat says: January 5, 2015 at 2:32 am
suricat says: January 4, 2015 at 3:52 am
To continue:
Will Janoschka says: January 2, 2015 at 4:20 pm
(“For careful analysis Physicists use optical depth, the path length where transmission of modulation equals (1-1/e) 37% in each frequency band.This is fine for logarithm heads. I use the shorter 50% transmission and piecewise summation. At each 50% interval, there is a delta T which determines the flux “added” by the immediate lower level, (your lower “lamina”). However this lower lamina, being at radiative equilibrium passes “all” accumulated radiant flux without attenuation.”)
“This seems odd. Losses occur at all regions between laminal data points and the ‘radiative equilibrium’ at lower altitudes needs clarification. Also, what of energy added by ‘reactive’ insolation components between laminal ‘Z’ altitudes?”
Losses do not occur at any altitude as the temperature at each altitude is above that required for radiative equilibrium. This increased temperature increases exit flux from convection and conversion of latent heat with no change in that elevated temperature. I observe no ‘reactive insolation components’, only convective sensible heat and the sensible heat converted from latent heat if that location and temperature caused a saturated WV content.
“I’m sceptical because energy bound into attractors ‘other than’ “temperature” (per se) don’t give rise to any OLR EMR. Latent energy is a ‘benign’ EMR waiting to happen.”
Latent heat is chemical energy that must convert to sensible heat before precipitating. Without radiative exitance, one gram of WV in 100 grams of atmosphere must increase the temperature of that air mass by 24 degrees Celsius, before precipitation. This is the sensible heat that powers the increase in exitance at that level (lamina).
(“The temperatures and delta temperatures are not set via thermal radiative flux, but by existing lapse rate whether dry or saturated, thus at each lamina, the temperature is above that for radiative equilibrium. This is how the convective and latent heat is added to the exit radiant flux. On this planet no exit radiative flux need originate from the solid or liquid surface.”)
“Aye, there’s the rub. Not only do ‘radiative calculations’ hide convection and latency, they also claim this energy from ‘other’ attractors as a ‘radiative potential’. This is just ‘wrong’. Convective and latent energies should be clearly shown as ‘other attractors’.”
The calculations used by ClimAstrologists do hide latent heat because those calculations based on surface temperature^4 are entirely non physical. a fantasy fraud! A measured radiative flux from the surface averages to 33 W/m^2, no more. Most all in the 8-13.5 micron band. The opposing radiance from the airborne WV within 10 meters prevents surface radiative flux in all other bands.
“I fully understand why this has lead to an approximation for the ‘EEH’ (Effective Emission ‘Height’ [altitude]).”
That EEH is but more fraud to re-enforce the 255K nonsense.
(“Beyond the sparky stuff, the hardest for me, is the observation that the whole tropospheric column can rethermalize with a time constant of six minutes at solar eclipse! What mechanism/phenomenon can move sensible/latent heat at the rate of 2 km/minute?”)
“H2O.”
Only if WV molecules or latent heat can rapidly advect “through” the atmosphere! The meteorologists claim, without measuring, that such does not happen. 33 m/s vertical convection is rare.
(“The same, and what a “wonder”-full planet! Let’s all try to wonder already!”)
“Many of us do Will. 😉 Best regards, Ray Dart. 🙂 ”
Thanks Ray. -will-
Will Janoschka says: January 5, 2015 at 3:19 pm
“The Sun’s photosphere at one AU is about 80 micro-steradians, With a one micro-steradian
1 mm x 1 mm detector at a focal length of one meter.That detector would observe
only part of the Sun’s photosphere all the way to 80 AU.”
Sorry, should be: The Sun’s photosphere at one AU is about 80 micro-steradians, With a one micro-steradian, 1.16 mm diameter detector at a focal length of one meter. That detector would observe only part of the Sun’s photosphere all the way to 9 AU. My kitten and I are enjoying my only mistake of 2015! Kitten asks, “where’s my food”?
The whole combined group of ClimAstrologists have clearly and repeatedly demonstrated that they are incompetent with regard to any understanding of the workings of this Earth’s atmosphere. They have but the Playstation-64 version of their own fantasy.
Unless “science” can skilfully flush this mess, there is no “science”!
Will, enjoying your and suricat’s dialog, keep it up… I’ve been following along now and then but keeping out of the way. I must say you and I agree on nearly every point you’ve explained though if I tried to say the same thing right back to you my lack of proper terming would probably get in the way so I’m learning some new ways to term these subjects. Right now sitting night after night listening to a course on relativistic field theory by Prof. Susskind, just some thirty more hour to go. His derivation to extract the radiative field, speed of light and the magnetic permeability and electric permittivity using simple springs was quite an eye opener. That is… I could use some better ways to do the math and he is helping tremendously.
Will Janoschka says: January 5, 2015 at 3:19 pm
“I hope you can understand my use of vector geometry, especially the term “solid angle”.”
I’m trying to Will, but I was never good at this. Vector scalar forces are more familiar.
“Engineers prefer “if I cannot measure ‘it’, ‘it’ is not”! With the corollary: “what
was I trying to measure again?”! The beginning of partial differential equations!!”
Disagree! You’re describing a ‘mechanic’! An engineer says “If I can’t measure it, I’m using the wrong ‘yard stick’! Let’s look at this from another perspective.”.
“A solid angle is but a “small” two dimensional angle useful for integrating over
something like a sphere or hemisphere. An angle i.e. “milliradian” is but the
angle subtended by the length of a meter at a distance of a kilometre. Therefore
a micro-steradian is the solid angle subtended by one meter^2 (area) at a distance
of one kilometre. No particular shape of that m^2 is required, square or circular,
is generally assumed, if not specified.”
So this is a ‘method for observation’? My thinking runs along the lines of trying to understand the ‘workings/mechanics’ using engineering science, but ‘observation’ is paramount to insight into this.
As an aside, integrated hexagonal and pentagonal areas are a ‘better fit’ for a sphere.
“I cannot agree! Energy density is a weird concept with no energy, only opposing forces (field strength),
The conjugate of gravitational force, that may allow a power or flux transfer in one direction, if allowed, from the higher force and proportional to the difference in force.”
Well, ‘MM’ (Miles Mathis) assumes that his ‘gauge field’ is integrated with gravity, but I remain sceptical. Gravity would seem to be more likely associated with the ‘vacuum pressure’ of ‘aether’. Though this remains unexplained.
Why would “Energy density” be a “weird concept with no energy” when ‘energy’ is actually being transported ‘there/somewhere’ in the form of ‘EMR’ (Electro-Magnetic Radiation [not to be confused with ‘particle radiation’])?
IMHO an EM flux density flows into regions of ‘less density’ with the caveat that the ‘speed of transfer’ is limited by the speed of propagation within the medium encountered.
“I must stop here and reconsider my own understanding of radiative equilibrium” as proposed by Dr. Gustav Kirchhoff”
‘Time out’ accepted. 🙂
Best regards, Ray.
Will Janoschka says: January 5, 2015 at 4:25 pm
“That is not my quote of anyone, that is my statement of observation and measurement!”
I concur, but my implied reference is lost in the complexity of our correspondence.
“I concure fully with you and Miskolczi! Radiative, and/or thermodynamic equilibrium cannot exist in a cyclic process with thermal inertia. Temperature and flux is continually changing.”
Thank you, but please convince Ferenc on this point. I’m not so sure that he accepts it. He’s more an ‘observer’. 😉
“The radiative equilibrium is but a radiative only the temperature of an object laminar altitude of air or Willis Echenbach’s steel greenhouse temperature reaches so that all absorbed indecent flux is exactly equal to that radiated to yet a lower temperature sink.”
There isn’t any “indecent flux” with Willis’s ‘steel greenhouse’. All energy is generated at the planet’s core! The scenario depletes the core energy to absolute zero and is a ‘non sequetur’ for a planetary analogue.
“Huh? As an engineer, what is more relativistic than power transfer via EMR? Mistakenly called radiant heat. It is a power transfer, that can be energised by any method including sensible heat, Transferred as EMR with no need for mass. Converted by an absorber of EMR, to chemical, electrical, mechanical, energy, sometimes even back to sensible heat,.”
These are ‘mechanics’ Will. ‘Relativity’ is something that engineers can’t agree upon with the mathematicians. The least said the better. 😉
“No! A standing wave always indicates a lack of flux, never its presence. any standing wave is produced
by the field not by energy As far as “photons” there is no power or energy until spontaneous flux is allowed. That flux is the only energy transferred, and only energy, never mass, is transferred.”
Spoken like a true follower of quantum physics.
Just because the ‘flux’ doesn’t amount to a ‘quantifiable’ level of energy isn’t to say that a ‘flux’ doesn’t exist! Google ‘double slit experiment’ and take a link that emits energy at less than the lowest ‘photon’ energy. ‘Photons’ are still ‘detected’ due to ‘wave’ activity!
This is where ‘macro’ (wave theory) and ‘micro’ (quantum theory) merge. 🙂
Best regards, Ray.
Guys, it’s ~4 am here again and my ‘next day’ is at risk. I need zeds.
Thanks for the link wayne, I’ll look at this when I wake up, perhaps, but ‘springs’ seems a good analogy for non-ionising atomic interaction. Good night all.
Best regards, Ray.
wayne says: January 7, 2015 at 12:54 am
“Will, enjoying your and suricat’s dialog, keep it up… I’ve been following along now and then but keeping out of the way. I must say you and I agree on nearly every point you’ve explained though if I tried to say the same thing right back to you my lack of proper terming would probably get in the way so I’m learning some new ways to term these subjects.”
Thanks Wayne,
Often when I try to communicate with others using their POV, I thoroughly confuse myself!
Prof. Susskind, seems well habilitated on his subject. He does not confuse himself, or others.
suricat says: January 7, 2015 at 4:01 am
“Guys, it’s ~4 am here again and my ‘next day’ is at risk. I need zeds.
Thanks for the link wayne, I’ll look at this when I wake up, perhaps, but ‘springs’ seems a good analogy for non-ionising atomic interaction. Good night all.
Best regards, Ray.”
Thanks Ray,
I need more pondering time! “Spoken like a true follower of quantum physics.” Come on, Ray QED is but another POV. I trust only my measurements, They may be lousy, but they still are the only existing measurements of whatever I was measuring, then, there.
suricat says: January 7, 2015 at 2:40 am
Will Janoschka says: January 5, 2015 at 3:19 pm
(“I hope you can understand my use of vector geometry, especially the term “solid angle”.”)
“I’m trying to Will, but I was never good at this. Vector scalar forces are more familiar.”
OK We live on a spherical world with many cyclical processes Solid angle normalizes many forces or pressures that are proportional to 1/distance^2 like irradiance and gravitational force.
(“Engineers prefer “if I cannot measure ‘it’, ‘it’ is not”! With the corollary: “what
was I trying to measure again?”! The beginning of partial differential equations!!”)
“Disagree! You’re describing a ‘mechanic’! An engineer says “If I can’t measure it, I’m using the wrong ‘yard stick’! Let’s look at this from another perspective.”.
I are an engineer that has tried every yardstick/POV/perspective for back thermal radiative flux, that in a direction of lower temperature!! I cannot measure such, ever, in any fashion or method. It is not! OTOH-“Radiance, with the per steradian”, as a potential for flux, or the scalar opposition to such potential, is easy. The two when properly applied (subtracted) results in a measurable flux as predicted via Dr. Stefan and Dr. Boltzmann and that useful limiting equation. If you ever calculate or measure more, you have made a serious mistake. But one easily corrected by co workers/bloggers, with no need to be competitive except for ‘it is time for you to buy a round’.
(“A solid angle is but a “small” two dimensional angle useful for integrating over
something like a sphere or hemisphere. An angle i.e. “milliradian” is but the
angle subtended by the length of a meter at a distance of a kilometre. Therefore
a micro-steradian is the solid angle subtended by one meter^2 (area) at a distance
of one kilometre. No particular shape of that m^2 is required, square or circular,
is generally assumed, if not specified.”)
“Well, ‘MM’ (Miles Mathis) assumes that his ‘gauge field’ is integrated with gravity, but I remain sceptical. Gravity would seem to be more likely associated with the ‘vacuum pressure’ of ‘aether’. Though this remains unexplained.”
I remain at odds with most of the ways MM presents his charge fields in a mechanical rather than electrical manner. Electromotive and Magnetomotive forces decay at 1/distance not at 1/distance^2.
EMR flux and gravitational acceleration may be related as conjugates in four-space, but only if mass and energy are equatable in some unknown way. e = mc^2 as unlikely as e= force x distance, even though that may be true in the special case of lossless acceleration of mass.. work and energy are not equatable.,
(“Energy density” be a “weird concept with no energy”) ” Why”
In the case of the concentric Sphere at temperature T1 transferring P to Shell at T2 transferring the same power P to larger spherical Sink at T3, with T3 less than T2 less than T1 There is a decreasing power density and flux from the Sphere to the Sink because of the increasing surface with radius. If that same power were moved and applied to the Sphere T2, T3 remain the same with the power density and flux between them also remaining the same. However Sphere T1 lowers to exactly T2, with the same radiance as the shell and zero power density and flux between them. There never is two way thermal radiant flux.
“Why would when ‘energy’ is actually being transported ‘there/somewhere’ in the form of ‘EMR’ (Electro-Magnetic Radiation [not to be confused with ‘particle radiation’])? IMHO an EM flux density flows into regions of ‘less density’ with the caveat that the ‘speed of transfer’ is limited by the speed of propagation within the medium encountered.”
Many things are conflated here force, pressure, work, energy, and action. We need a formal mathematics that symbolically differentiates equality with reversibility (=) and assignment with no or limited reversibility (:=), as in the language Pascal.
:= Force (horsepower) x distance, but all energy expended, is now entropy and unavailable to do work. Alternately Action, a ploughed plot (A) := Force (horsepower) x distance x time,, or the integral of work over time. still all energy lost to entropy. The other symmetric perhaps a conjugate, aspect of action is the quantum. Specific energy transferred “within” a limited time interval (a cycle) of some sort. -will-
For example ploughing a plot of ground Work
suricat says: January 7, 2015 at 3:46 am
Will Janoschka says: January 5, 2015 at 4:25 pm
(“The radiative equilibrium is but a radiative only the temperature of an object laminar altitude of air or Willis Echenbach’s steel greenhouse temperature reaches so that all absorbed incident flux is exactly equal to that radiated to yet a lower temperature sink.”)
“There isn’t any “incident flux” with Willis’s ‘steel greenhouse’. All energy is generated at the planet’s core! The scenario depletes the core energy to absolute zero and is a ‘non sequetur’ for a planetary analogue.”
What? The claimed incident flux on that greenhouse was exactly twice the total solar incident power divided by the area of the greenhouse. The claim was that the greenhouse radiated the same power inward as outward adding the same power again to the earth! What FRAUD.
As per Dr. Gustav Kirchhoff that greenhouse reached the temperature of radiative equilibrium where all the flux from the Earth transferred through the greenhouse without attenuation. No back radiation is established.
The inward radiance potential from the temperature of the greenhouse resulted in the solar incident power to increase inner temperature to compensate for that opposing radiance. That effect is the same as doubling the impedance of space, or the same as halving the emissivity of the earth.
Water vapor in the atmosphere has been doing a similar effect to the flux from the surface, at the same time providing the exitance of latent converted to sensible heat, in a more effective EMR radiator to space than the surface can be. Increasing atmospheric CO2 only increases the effectiveness of that WV.
(“Huh? As an engineer, what is more relativistic than power transfer via EMR? Mistakenly called radiant heat. It is a power transfer, that can be energised by any method including sensible heat, Transferred as EMR with no need for mass. Converted by an absorber of EMR, to chemical, electrical, mechanical, energy, sometimes even back to sensible heat,.””
“These are ‘mechanics’ Will. ‘Relativity’ is something that engineers can’t agree upon with the mathematicians. The least said the better. ;)”
I as an engineer have never had a problem agreeing with mathematicians upon the relativistic nature of EMR. Many times they have on hand better mathematics than I. When it comes to real mass going that fast, I nor they are interested in experiencing that! More fun poking eye with pencil!
(“No! A standing wave always indicates a lack of flux, never its presence. any standing wave is produced
by the field not by energy As far as “photons” there is no power or energy until spontaneous flux is allowed. That flux is the only energy transferred, and only energy, never mass, is transferred.”)
“Spoken like a true follower of quantum physics.”
WHATEVER!
“Just because the ‘flux’ doesn’t amount to a ‘quantifiable’ level of energy isn’t to say that a ‘flux’ doesn’t exist! Google ‘double slit experiment’ and take a link that emits energy at less than the lowest ‘photon’ energy. ‘Photons’ are still ‘detected’ due to ‘wave’ activity! This is where ‘macro’ (wave theory) and ‘micro’ (quantum theory) merge. 🙂 ”
Huh! No such thing as a photon, a quantum “event” is up to the structure of the absorber always. A properly designed crystal defect structure at a cold temperature can easily do 0.05 ev A single 20 micron wavelength quantum. All of my discussion has been on the conditions under which thermal radiant flux is “ever” generated! Please calculate the photon energy or power, in a 1 Hz radio wave! Hint, Planck’s constant! Energy/cycle, Less for 0.1 Hz. Much much less for one orbit of Neptune! mass comes in there somewhere! -will-
suricat says: January 7, 2015 at 4:01 am
Okay wayne. I followed your vid to 47:58/1:49:23 and there is no mention of ‘springs’. Instead I witnessed the corruption of ‘spatial’ analysis into the realm of ‘light speed’.
Whilst I respect the guy taking the lecture in your vid, he isn’t confident with the math and makes many corrections/alterations on the white-board. Would I be better informed if I suffered another hour of his instruction? I doubt it.
When ‘c’ (the speed of light in vacuuo) is taken as ‘1’, or the ‘prime datum zero’, all other data takes reference to this ‘zero’ (1) as the ‘origin’ of all data correlation. This assumption is well founded if all ‘reference frames’ ‘co-relate’ to the ‘speed of light in vacuuo’, but they don’t! The propensity of ‘mass’, and v-low temperatures, determine the speed at which light propagates. Thus, the ‘speed of light’ isn’t the constant that should be used, it’s only an ‘indicator’ to be used with caution.
You may show an interest in this site:
http://newtonphysics.on.ca/michelson/index.html
If not, I can find another that should be of interest.
Best regards, Ray.
Darn suricat, you didn’t even get through the relative portion which is just lecture one, I believe there are ten one-and-a-half lectures on that topic and starting at lecture two onward he gets into the field derivation portion. Susskind is not only teaching on the e.m. field but all fields and how to handle any of them mathematically even if relativistic.
Keep on if you wish, skip to lecture two or maybe three… the ‘spring’ portion is in there.
wayne says: January 8, 2015 at 5:35 am
“Keep on if you wish, skip to lecture two or maybe three… the ‘spring’ portion is in there.”
Now you tell me where the ‘springs’ analogy is!
I ‘may’ go there, but I see no point in following a thread of logic that uses a variant ‘light speed’ as the primary datum for ‘event concurrence’. ‘Time’ is the ‘only’ datum that can predict/confirm ‘event concurrence’ and Special Relativity tends to confound this whilst achieving an accuracy for the ‘observation’ of events (WRT time : ‘c’). Observations are not as they seem and this has been confused with the reality of the ‘time line’.
Best regards, Ray.
Will Janoschka says: January 7, 2015 at 9:22 pm
“OK We live on a spherical world with many cyclical processes Solid angle normalizes many forces or pressures that are proportional to 1/distance^2 like irradiance and gravitational force.”
In theory, yes. In practice, not quite so.
“I are an engineer that has tried every yardstick/POV/perspective for back thermal radiative flux, that in a direction of lower temperature!! I cannot measure such, ever, in any fashion or method. It is not! OTOH-“Radiance, with the per steradian”, as a potential for flux, or the scalar opposition to such potential, is easy. The two when properly applied (subtracted) results in a measurable flux as predicted via Dr. Stefan and Dr. Boltzmann and that useful limiting equation. If you ever calculate or measure more, you have made a serious mistake. But one easily corrected by co workers/bloggers, with no need to be competitive except for ‘it is time for you to buy a round’.”
You can ‘buy a round’ any time Will, but I’ll buy you a ‘drink’ (metaphorically) when you can ‘show’ that/how ‘SB’s’ (Dr. Stefan Boltzmann’s) equations are relevant to atmospheric activity at altitudes below the lower strat and ‘above’ the ‘boundary layer’.
If you take the link made by ‘wayne’, you’ll realise that your ‘observations’ are subject to the scrutiny of ‘SR’ (Special Relativity).
“I remain at odds with most of the ways MM presents his charge fields in a mechanical rather than electrical manner. Electromotive and Magnetomotive forces decay at 1/distance not at 1/distance^2.”
I concur.
“EMR flux and gravitational acceleration may be related as conjugates in four-space, but only if mass and energy are equatable in some unknown way. e = mc^2 as unlikely as e= force x distance, even though that may be true in the special case of lossless acceleration of mass.. work and energy are not equatable.,”
I concur. There are always unexpected attractors that drain the source of energy.
“(“Energy density” be a “weird concept with no energy”) ” Why”
In the case of the concentric Sphere at temperature T1 transferring P to Shell at T2 transferring the same power P to larger spherical Sink at T3, with T3 less than T2 less than T1 There is a decreasing power density and flux from the Sphere to the Sink because of the increasing surface with radius. If that same power were moved and applied to the Sphere T2, T3 remain the same with the power density and flux between them also remaining the same. However Sphere T1 lowers to exactly T2, with the same radiance as the shell and zero power density and flux between them. There never is two way thermal radiant flux.”
I get the feeling that this relates to ‘the steel greenhouse’ that Willis introduced.
The ‘scenario’ is a ‘non sequetur’! It’s an ‘impossible scenario’ where ‘energy radiation to space’ outstrips the energy supplied by the ‘source’ at the planet’s core.
“Many things are conflated here force, pressure, work, energy, and action. We need a formal mathematics that symbolically differentiates equality with reversibility (=) and assignment with no or limited reversibility (:=), as in the language Pascal.
:= Force (horsepower) x distance, but all energy expended, is now entropy and unavailable to do work. Alternately Action, a ploughed plot (A) := Force (horsepower) x distance x time,, or the integral of work over time. still all energy lost to entropy. The other symmetric perhaps a conjugate, aspect of action is the quantum. Specific energy transferred “within” a limited time interval (a cycle) of some sort. -will-”
For example ploughing a plot of ground Work
Huh? I thought we were discussing the effective forcing of CO2, and had digressed a little from this to better understand the current POV. However, your inquiry is pertinent IMHO.
The energy ‘losses’ from a system are as important as the ‘expected’ behaviour of that system for ‘systems’ that ‘conjoin/neighbour’ the ‘primary system’ under observation. Consider these as ‘satellites’ because they are able to ‘re-integrate’ when conditions allow.
Best regards, Ray.
Will Janoschka says: January 7, 2015 at 11:38 pm
“What? The claimed incident flux on that greenhouse was exactly twice the total solar incident power divided by the area of the greenhouse. The claim was that the greenhouse radiated the same power inward as outward adding the same power again to the earth! What FRAUD.”
Please revisit a site page for this scenario Will;
and realise that the scenario plays havoc with energy equivalents. It’s late for me, but;
(“Spoken like a true follower of quantum physics.”)
“WHATEVER!”
suggests that you’re unhappy with ‘quantum theory’. As am I.
Wow! It’s only 03:15. I’m early.
Best regards, Ray.
suricat says: January 9, 2015 at 12:38 am
“Now you tell me where the ‘springs’ analogy is!”
“:I ‘may’ go there, but I see no point in following a thread of logic that uses a variant ‘light speed’ as the primary datum for ‘event concurrence’. ‘Time’ is the ‘only’ datum that can predict/confirm ‘event concurrence’ and Special Relativity tends to confound this whilst achieving an accuracy for the ‘observation’ of events (WRT time : ‘c’). Observations are not as they seem and this has been confused with the reality of the ‘time line’.”
What reality of a time line? Such is a fantasy, just like the fantasy of CAGW! If you persist in such fantasy you will never even start to understand the “power” transfer between locations within one inertial reference called EMR flux. EMR flux is devoid of any concept of time whatsoever. EMR flux has only its own version of velocity defining the relationship, that may or not exist, between the concept (fantasy) of distance and some other concept (fantasy) called time or time interval. EMR flux gets really weird between two inertial reference frames moving with respect to the other by any finite dL/dT (vector velocity). There is no possible way of even comparing fantasies between such frames. Your reality “only exists” within your very own inertial reference frame. You may have a time line that relates to your own light speed, and observations, like radiance, mass and energy! EMR flux does not give a shit about your fantasies. -will-
Has anyone seen comment/refutation of the Connollys’ “Atmospheric Pervection” papers? They seemed to at least address aspects of how real atmospheres behave. Possibly including the reaction to eclipses mentioned above. Brett
Will Janoschka says: January 9, 2015 at 8:28 am
“What reality of a time line? Such is a fantasy, just like the fantasy of CAGW! If you persist in such fantasy you will never even start to understand the “power” transfer between locations within one inertial reference called EMR flux. EMR flux is devoid of any concept of time whatsoever. EMR flux has only its own version of velocity defining the relationship, that may or not exist, between the concept (fantasy) of distance and some other concept (fantasy) called time or time interval. EMR flux gets really weird between two inertial reference frames moving with respect to the other by any finite dL/dT (vector velocity). There is no possible way of even comparing fantasies between such frames. Your reality “only exists” within your very own inertial reference frame. You may have a time line that relates to your own light speed, and observations, like radiance, mass and energy! EMR flux does not give a shit about your fantasies. -will-”
When I said “Special Relativity tends to confound this whilst achieving an accuracy for the ‘observation’ of events (WRT time : ‘c’).” I really meant it! ‘c’ is a local speed and ‘C’ is the speed in a ‘perfect’ (tongue in cheek) vacuum.
Luckily for us, ‘c’ is encountered throughout Earth’s atmosphere so SR is mostly unimportant. However, ‘Sat Nav’ in your car is more inaccurate for this. If you want greater accuracy for, for e.g. a neutrino bombardment through the Earth’s crust, you’ll need to pay a premium for more accurate timings (this includes a local weather report for the regions used by satellite ‘coms’ at the time of an experiment).
The ‘time-line’ is ALWAYS an unbroken continuum! However, the observation of events along a ‘time-line’ is confounded by the changes in ‘c’ as the EMR proceeds towards the ‘observer’. These ‘anomalies’ can be corrected with the educated use of SR, but ‘light speed’ is the variable here and SR is implemented to correct the ‘observation’. There’s no such thing as ‘time dilation’ or ‘time travel’!
You’re so near to being a candidate on my ‘hit list’ Will. Don’t push it, I value your input.
Best regards, Ray.
Brett Keane says: January 9, 2015 at 9:34 pm
“Has anyone seen comment/refutation of the Connollys’ “Atmospheric Pervection” papers? They seemed to at least address aspects of how real atmospheres behave. Possibly including the reaction to eclipses mentioned above. Brett”
Thanks for your interest Brett.
I have read the Connolly papers. They are based on radiosonde data and show how radiative losses to space accumulate throughout the atmosphere quite independent of some black body distribution of flux as per Planck’s formula. They also notice a shift in sensible heat (temperature) that exceeds the rate of change permissible by a combination of conductive, convective, and radiative power transfer. Both the Connollys, and F Miskolczi reach the same conclusion, something else is evident. The incompetent ClimAstrologists insist all is done by surface radiation, while the incompetent meteorologists insist that all is done by convection. Neither group of incompetents even have a falsifiable conjecture of how their claims may possibly be correct! All is trust me, I hab Phd and computer model!.
suricat says: January 10, 2015 at 2:23 am
Will Janoschka says: January 9, 2015 at 8:28 am
When I said “Special Relativity tends to confound this whilst achieving an accuracy for the ‘observation’ of events (WRT time : ‘c’).” I really meant it! ‘c’ is a local speed and ‘C’ is the speed in a ‘perfect’ (tongue in cheek) vacuum.
“Luckily for us, ‘c’ is encountered throughout Earth’s atmosphere so SR is mostly unimportant. However, ‘Sat Nav’ in your car is more inaccurate for this. If you want greater accuracy for, for e.g. a neutrino bombardment through the Earth’s crust, you’ll need to pay a premium for more. If you want greater accuracy for, for e.g. a neutrino bombardment through the Earth’s crust, you’ll need to pay a premium for more accurate timings (this includes a local weather report for the regions used by satellite ‘coms’ at the time of an experiment).”
The speed of light is exactly c = 1 light in every media, as in one light second/second or one light year/year. c is bet the ratio of distance/time = velocity. Neither time interval nor distance interval is specified only the ratio. This is why differential GPS is so accurate. the local space reference, re-establishes your illusionary location with respect to all twelve c, all the same!!
“The ‘time-line’ is ALWAYS an unbroken continuum! However, the observation of events along a ‘time-line’ is confounded by the changes in ‘c’ as the EMR proceeds towards the ‘observer’. These ‘anomalies’ can be corrected with the educated use of SR, but ‘light speed’ is the variable here and SR is implemented to correct the ‘observation’. There’s no such thing as ‘time dilation’ or ‘time travel’!”
Another claim without even a falsifiable conjecture of how your claim may possibly be correct!
EMR to EMR does not proceed, no time only ratio. It is already their, where ever their may be!
“You’re so near to being a candidate on my ‘hit list’ Will. Don’t push it, I value your input.
Best regards, Ray.”
Please, please put me on your hit list! I am on everyone else’s list for pointing out fantasy.
-will-
suricat says: January 9, 2015 at 1:56 am
Will Janoschka says: January 7, 2015 at 9:22 pm
(“OK We live on a spherical world with many cyclical processes Solid angle normalizes many forces or pressures that are proportional to 1/distance^2 like irradiance and gravitational force.”)
“In theory, yes. In practice, not quite so.”
It is but precise Euclidean geometry, Point out any “not quite so”?
(“I are an engineer that has tried every yardstick/POV/perspective for back thermal radiative flux, that in a direction of lower temperature!! I cannot measure such, ever, in any fashion or method. It is not! OTOH-“Radiance, with the per steradian”, as a potential for flux, or the scalar opposition to such potential, is easy. The two when properly applied (subtracted) results in a measurable flux as predicted via Dr. Stefan and Dr. Boltzmann and that useful limiting equation. If you ever calculate or measure more, you have made a serious mistake. But one easily corrected by co workers/bloggers, with no need to be competitive except for ‘it is time for you to buy a round’.”)
“You can ‘buy a round’ any time Will, but I’ll buy you a ‘drink’ (metaphorically) when you can ‘show’ that/how ‘SB’s’ (Dr. Stefan Boltzmann’s) equations are relevant to atmospheric activity at altitudes below the lower strat and ‘above’ the ‘boundary layer’.”
Just where have I ever stated that the S-B equation is ever applicable when any intervening interval is dispersive (resistive)?
“If you take the link made by ‘wayne’, you’ll realise that your ‘observations’ are subject to the scrutiny of ‘SR’ (Special Relativity).”
I find nothing wrong with the lectures of Dr. Susskind. So far #4 He only discusses quaternion algebra as used by Maxwell for his equations.
“(“Energy density” be a “weird concept with no energy”) ” Why”
(“In the case of the concentric Sphere at temperature T1 transferring P to Shell at T2 transferring the same power P to larger spherical Sink at T3, with T3 less than T2 less than T1 There is a decreasing power density and flux from the Sphere to the Sink because of the increasing surface with radius. If that same power were moved and applied to the Sphere T2, T3 remain the same with the power density and flux between them also remaining the same. However Sphere T1 lowers to exactly T2, with the same radiance as the shell and zero power density and flux between them. There never is two way thermal radiant flux.”)
“I get the feeling that this relates to ‘the steel greenhouse’ that Willis introduced.”
It is and exactly why it is so wrong!
“The ‘scenario’ is a ‘non sequetur’! It’s an ‘impossible scenario’ where ‘energy radiation to space’ outstrips the energy supplied by the ‘source’ at the planet’s core.”
Read thee original http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/17/the-steel-greenhouse/
Willis does not identify the power source, only that such power is constant.
(“Many things are conflated here force, pressure, work, energy, and action. We need a formal mathematics that symbolically differentiates equality with reversibility (=) and assignment with no or limited reversibility (:=), as in the language Pascal.
:= Force (horsepower) x distance, but all energy expended, is now entropy and unavailable to do work. Alternately Action, a ploughed plot (A) := Force (horsepower) x distance x time,, or the integral of work over time. still all energy lost to entropy. The other symmetric perhaps a conjugate, aspect of action is the quantum. Specific energy transferred “within” a limited time interval (a cycle) of some sort”)
For example ploughing a plot of ground Work
“Huh? I thought we were discussing the effective forcing of CO2, and had digressed a little from this to better understand the current POV. However, your inquiry is pertinent IMHO.
The energy ‘losses’ from a system are as important as the ‘expected’ behaviour of that system for ‘systems’ that ‘conjoin/neighbour’ the ‘primary system’ under observation. Consider these as ‘satellites’ because they are able to ‘re-integrate’ when conditions allow.”
We are discussing the nonsense promoted by ClimAstrologists and why it is such nonsense.
suricat says: January 9, 2015 at 3:18 am
Will Janoschka says: January 7, 2015 at 11:38 pm
(“What? The claimed incident flux on that greenhouse was exactly twice the total solar incident power divided by the area of the greenhouse. The claim was that the greenhouse radiated the same power inward as outward adding the same power again to the earth! What FRAUD.””
“Please revisit a site page for this scenario Will;
http://climateofsophistry.com/2014/11/18/the-pseudoscientific-steel-greenhouse-debunks-the-climate-greenhouse-effect/ and realise that the scenario plays havoc with energy equivalents.”
Yes it does have creation of power somehow. I have read the threads from Joe Postma. I disagree with his assesment. The steel sphere has EMR flux radiating from the inside where it cannot!!
-will-
@Will 6:57: Your “something else is evident” is what also struck this elderly chap. Whatever they say, energy input measurements lack the accuracy they have been saddled with. I was lucky to do 50yrs of hard ‘practicum’ before formally studying. Then, the re-finding of the gas laws answered a lot of questions. That is, once my watermelons, and others’ plants too, told me that GW was not happening. Thanks to blogs like this, and a better understanding of EMF etc.. Quantum mechanics, I’ll deal with you too, soon….(grin)
To me at the moment, that leaves the uncertainty of what happens to that last few percent of solar IR (and maybe some other flux), and atmospheric behaviours you mentioned. I have come to think that Sol in the atmosphere provides our normal working temperatures, and these are modified up and down a little by oceanic/SW/albedo effects. I hope to do some basic experiments soon – what are the best probe-types for measuring gases? Brett
Brett Keane says: January 10, 2015 at 11:55 pm
“@Will 6:57: Your “something else is evident” is what also struck this elderly chap. Whatever they say, energy input measurements lack the accuracy they have been saddled with. I was lucky to do 50yrs of hard ‘practicum’ before formally studying. Then, the re-finding of the gas laws answered a lot of questions. That is, once my watermelons, and others’ plants too, told me that GW was not happening. Thanks to blogs like this, and a better understanding of EMF etc.. Quantum mechanics, I’ll deal with you too, soon….(grin)”
Welcome to the mess,
Think of a journeyman mechanic, who skillfully repairs to the intent , a statistical mechanic, where though repaired, precisely half the parts fall off , and the quantum mechanic, given a lawn mower to repair, returns with a Rhinoceros that munches grass just like your stupid mower used to do!. Rhinoceros shit is your problem.
To me at the moment, that leaves the uncertainty of what happens to that last few percent of solar IR (and maybe some other flux), and atmospheric behaviours you mentioned. I have come to think that Sol in the atmosphere provides our normal working temperatures, and these are modified up and down a little by oceanic/SW/albedo effects. I hope to do some basic experiments soon – what are the best probe-types for measuring gases? Brett
Measuring what in gases? Cow fart rate detector is the best for atmospheric CH4 ppbv.
-will- . 🙂
@Will Janoschka says:
January 11, 2015 at 1:55 am: Oops! Gas temperatures I meant. Brett
suricat says: January 10, 2015 at 2:23 am
Will Janoschka says: January 9, 2015 at 8:28 am
(You’re so near to being a candidate on my ‘hit list’ Will. Don’t push it, I value your input.)
My profound apologies Will. 😦 I could’ve sworn I put a ‘smiley wink’ 😉 after that phrase, but reading it back “the computer says no!”. Sorry!
Okay, so you’re now on my ‘hit list’ for education Will (I didn’t expect this). 😉
“The speed of light is exactly c = 1 light in every media, as in one light second/second or one light year/year. c is bet the ratio of distance/time = velocity. Neither time interval nor distance interval is specified only the ratio.”
Er, “one light second/second” and “one light year/year”, are acceleration forcings Will. They don’t add to the discussion. They detract from it. Please get your ‘act’ together Will.
I’ll reiterate that ‘c’ is a ‘local speed’, but ‘C’ is an ‘absolute maximum speed’.
When the ‘speed of light’ is taken to be the ‘yardstick’ in an equation, the ‘equation’ is built around the ‘speed of light’ at that location. This imbues ‘regionality’ at the heart of ‘SR’ and Einstein realised this. ‘GR’ (General Relativity) was an attempt to overcome this problem (with the incorporation of gravity), but it doesn’t.
“c is bet the ratio of distance/time = velocity. Neither time interval nor distance interval is specified only the ratio. This is why differential GPS is so accurate. the local space reference, re-establishes your illusionary location with respect to all twelve c, all the same!!”
Is this why my ‘sat-nav’ often shows me, when parked a the sea front ~2 metres above the high tide mark, at ~11 metres below sea level? What’s more, I’ll be lucky to get more than a 5 satellite signal!
“Another claim without even a falsifiable conjecture of how your claim may possibly be correct!
EMR to EMR does not proceed, no time only ratio. It is already their, where ever their may be!”
My ‘claim’ is ‘falsifiable’ Will, but it isn’t ‘false’! The speed of light is altered by the presence of mass.
EMR ‘does’ proceed at a given rate/speed, the answer is in ‘speed’! The ‘time’ is written in stone, the ‘distance’ is variable (but hard to measure).
Best regards, Ray.
suricat, why would you think “one light second/second” or “one light year/year” are accelerations, they are not, without a direction to make them vectors they are both mere speeds. Do you not realize that a ‘light second’ and a ‘light year’ are distances?
wayne says: January 12, 2015 at 7:10 am
One light year ‘is a distance’, but “one light year/year” is something else!
Best regards, Ray.
Brett Keane says: January 11, 2015 at 7:17 pm
@Will Janoschka says: January 11, 2015 at 1:55 am:
“Oops! Gas temperatures I meant.
Brett”
I do not mean to put you off Brett, I cannot say how to measure gas temperature.
If you defined gas temperature completely, I might be able to identify how to measure, the combination of of all the other variables in your description. If your description were complete to you, you could do temperature better than I. Temperature is a catchall noun, similar to shingadaro, or thingy! Not quite, as temperature at its most simple is a ratio of better defined thingies, but always circular..
Thermometric delta temperature is the ratio of thermal coefficient of expansion in different material. Reference of that delta, requires a reference like equilibrium solid/liquid H2O at one atmosphere. Problem here is that that temperature is of the device only, never the temperature of the immersion mass. The two approach the same via thermal dispersion only at steady state.
Steady state is never anywhere in this atmosphere, It is always much more cyclic. All mass has thermal inertia, capacitance, but no discernible inductance. Temperature lag, but no overshoot!
The concept of temperature is a FRAUD, The concept of a mean temperature over space and time is FRAUD^4! Come on ClimAstrologists, my pitchfork is sharpened for offense, and defense!.
suricat says: January 12, 2015 at 4:01 am
suricat says: January 10, 2015 at 2:23 am
Will Janoschka says: January 9, 2015 at 8:28 am
(“(You’re so near to being a candidate on my ‘hit list’ Will. Don’t push it, I value your input.)”)
“My profound apologies Will. 😦 I could’ve sworn I put a ‘smiley wink’ 😉 after that phrase, but reading it back “the computer says no!”. Sorry!”
“Okay, so you’re now on my ‘hit list’ for education Will (I didn’t expect this). 😉 ”
Ray, I am not an educator, I are an exEE, that learned the beauty of discovery. In expressing a discovery, I still often step on tongue. I appreciate folk like you that understand enough to identify tongue step-upons and think OH,OH!
All that “is” must have an inverse, negative, and conjugate. Falsify any one and all is falsified.
I must admit my own fantasy assumes the three others are true. I am not sure that being earthling is better/worse than being GOD. I wish not the problems of GOD upon me!
(“The speed of light is exactly c = 1 light in every media, as in one light second/second or one light year/year. c is bet the ratio of distance/time = velocity. Neither time interval nor distance interval is specified only the ratio.”)
“Er, “one light second/second” and “one light year/year”, are acceleration forcings Will. They don’t add to the discussion. They detract from it. Please get your ‘act’ together Will.”
Not at all. A power, or force can accelerate. EMR flux “is” power with no transfer of power traversing a media with no dispersion, all is reactive..
“I’ll reiterate that ‘c’ is a ‘local speed’, but ‘C’ is an ‘absolute maximum speed’”.
To be a maximum, rather than a ratio, You chose to destroy negative time, mass, velocity, and power (force). Why, you do dat? “I don know”, is much more accurate. .
(“Another claim without even a falsifiable conjecture of how your claim may possibly be correct!
EMR to EMR does not proceed, no time only ratio. It is already their, where ever their may be!”)
“My ‘claim’ is ‘falsifiable’ Will, but it isn’t ‘false’! The speed of light is altered by the presence of mass. EMR ‘does’ proceed at a given rate/speed, the answer is in ‘speed’! The ‘time’ is written in stone, the ‘distance’ is variable (but hard to measure).”
Yes, all dispersive media reduce c as externally observed as index of refraction. Within that media both distance and time are adjusted so the ratio is c. Nether time nor distance are invariate, all is relitivistic
If stupid earthlings wish to insist that then propagation velocity of all EMR flux is constant, earthlings must invent a much more detailed “is”, than the current politics allow!
Please demonstrate that intervals of time, or intervals of length/distance are contiguous, rather than disjoint? Nothing is written in stone, not even the stone! The closest we have to contiguous is the EMR “threads per millimeter”. Angles seem not to care of rational or irrational. -will-
suricat says: January 12, 2015 at 9:38 am
wayne says: January 12, 2015 at 7:10 am
“One light year ‘is a distance’, but “one light year/year” is something else!”
Indeed one light year/year is speed! If given a “direction” speed is called velocity.
This is the whole difference between the Newtonian momentum and energy, and something mistakenly called “heat energy -will-
@ Will Janoschka says:
January 12, 2015 at 4:23 pm: Aha, Will. I have long wondered what we measure when it ‘seems obvious’ that a thin ‘hotter’ gas could affect a thermometer the same as a denser gas with lower molecular KE. This, if true, would bear on tropopausal radiative emission rates, for instance. This, and much else, is what a determined individual may learn from experiment. But only if using the right tools eg thermopiles and gauges….. Brett
Brett Keane says: January 12, 2015 at 11:50 pm
@ Will Janoschka says:January 12, 2015 at 4:23 pm:
“Aha, Will. I have long wondered what we measure when it ‘seems obvious’ that a thin ‘hotter’ gas could affect a thermometer the same as a denser gas with lower molecular KE. This, if true, would bear on tropopausal radiative emission rates, for instance. This, and much else, is what a determined individual may learn from experiment. But only if using the right tools eg thermopiles and gauges….. Brett”
I have designed and constructed instruments that measure something close to the illusionary temperature. I truly dislike adjustments to my measured numbers/values that are only the bestust guess of what ever I was trying to measure!
Will Janoschka says: January 13, 2015 at 2:21 am
“I have designed and constructed instruments that measure something close to the illusionary temperature. I truly dislike adjustments to my measured numbers/values that are only the bestust guess of what ever I was trying to measure!”
Hmm, that sounds like AMSU satellite gear Will!?!?
I think you’ll agree that the ‘best’ instrument can be ‘fooled’ by errant deployment. Here’s a link to an incomplete Wiki page on the subject for Brett:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advanced_Microwave_Sounding_Unit
A link to the blog of a guy, whom I understand, has a hand in processing the data:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/
Also, a piece he wrote on some of the reasons why various data sets suggest divergent global trends for temperature:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2015/01/why-do-different-satellite-datasets-produce-different-global-temperature-trends/
Oddly enough, the ‘instrument’ per se, seems to be the most ‘robust’ component in the ‘overall system’.
If Brett wants to discuss radiosonde instruments, the subject can be a ‘mine field’.
Best regards, Ray.
suricat says: January 13, 2015 at 10:46 pm
Will Janoschka says: January 13, 2015 at 2:21 am
(“I have designed and constructed instruments that measure something close to the illusionary temperature. I truly dislike adjustments to my measured numbers/values that are only the bestust guess of what ever I was trying to measure!”)
“Hmm, that sounds like AMSU satellite gear Will!?!?”
Naw! before that mostly for aircraft. Two were launched, one actually returned data. I know little of how the microwave radiometers actually work, but the measurements seem quite repeatable.
The instruments measure the total radiance within the solid angle of the detector at each frequency. Although the radiance peaks at different frequencies for different pressures, the temperature altitude is no more than a SWAG. At each band the radiance is a production of at least seven partial differential equations. The raw data is extremely difficult to obtain. The PhDs
control any analysis of that data. They return temperature T at altitude H and location L. This may be useful,but also hard to get to. After the temperatures a H are averaged over all Ls you now have pablum for temperature at altitude H. I wonder what such nonsense may mean to your government official at altitude H.
“I think you’ll agree that the ‘best’ instrument can be ‘fooled’ by errant deployment. Oddly enough, the ‘instrument’ per se, seems to be the most ‘robust’ component in the ‘overall system’.”
“If Brett wants to discuss radiosonde instruments, the subject can be a ‘mine field’.
Best regards, Ray.”
I agree! I find those with a PhD not particularly “robust”.
-will-
Will Janoschka says: January 14, 2015 at 1:37 am
Just for the record Will, if the acronym “SWAG” relates to “Scientific Wild-Ass Guess”, I’m with you. 🙂
However, going back to an earlier discourse here:
suricat says: January 12, 2015 at 4:01 am
Our host and myself share the same time. I often get bored with looking at the inside of my eyelids when trying to sleep, so I get up, make a brew and find a distraction.
Look at the posting time to gauge my level of awareness!
Nevertheless, I’ve said some ‘profound’ things in this thread that I stand by. I’d like you to reconsider this;
“I’ll reiterate that ‘c’ is a ‘local speed’, but ‘C’ is an ‘absolute maximum speed’.
When the ‘speed of light’ is taken to be the ‘yardstick’ in an equation, the ‘equation’ is built around the ‘speed of light’ at that location. This imbues ‘regionality’ at the heart of ‘SR’ and Einstein realised this. ‘GR’ (General Relativity) was an attempt to overcome this problem (with the incorporation of gravity), but it doesn’t.”.
Are you able to respond to my statement accurately that:
“EMR ‘does’ proceed at a given rate/speed, the answer is in ‘speed’! The ‘time’ is written in stone, the ‘distance’ is variable (but hard to measure).”
Whatever the observer’s position, events occur at a rate along a ‘time line’ (events occur in sequence with ‘time’). If events occur ‘outside’ of the ‘time line’ they don’t affect it! This is Sci-fi! However, I love Sci-fi!! 🙂
Best regards, Ray.
suricat says: January 15, 2015 at 2:13 am
I reiterate, in perhaps a clearer form, that SR ‘relates’ to a ‘regional’ scenario, whereas GR ‘relates’ to a more ‘system-wide’ scenario.
A ‘compromise’ exists between these two theologies. How can this best be resolved when/where ‘time travel’ is an ‘impossible’ scenario?
Best regards, Ray.
suricat says: January 23, 2015 at 4:54 am
suricat says: January 15, 2015 at 2:13 am
“I reiterate, in perhaps a clearer form, that SR ‘relates’ to a ‘regional’ scenario, whereas GR ‘relates’ to a more ‘system-wide’ scenario.”
“A ‘compromise’ exists between these two theologies. How can this best be resolved when/where ‘time travel’ is an ‘impossible’ scenario?”
Sorry for the delay, I must ponder, the difference in impossible, unobservable, and “beats the shit out of me’. I think Einstein was mostly writing of pertains to what is “observed”, between objects at various velocities, and acceleration (vectors),”relative” to each other in relation to some fixed speed (scalar maximum) for one way observation (transport delay over distance. At the same time the information or power “within” that transport remains oblivious to any concept of either distance or time (earthling constructs).
“Just for the record Will, if the acronym “SWAG” relates to “Scientific Wild-Ass Guess”, I’m with you. 🙂 ”
SWAG has nothing to do with science The “S” means for the record:
1. Smart! Gets you a bonus!
2. Stupid! Gets you required attendance to endless “meetings”, to determine your part in the “cause” of “What the fuck over”! 🙂
All the best -will-