I read something amazing:
”If we then increase atmospheric CO2, while leaving everything else unchanged, that will act to block some of the outgoing flux. What essentially happens is that some of the flux will end up coming from higher in the atmosphere that it did when atmospheric CO2 was lower. Since the temperature drops with altitude (in the troposphere) this means that it will now be coming from regions that are cooler and that, hence, emit less. Therefore, the outgoing flux goes down and the system will have to warm to return to energy balance. As already pointed out, doubling atmospheric CO2 is estimated to reduce the outgoing flux by about 3.7Wm-2.”
You see there?
He actually claims that emission at a lower temperature causes higher temperature in another solid body which has higher temperature. He says that: carbon dioxide causes emission at lower temperature, and that emission at lower temperature it causes heating.
Heating is always correlates with emission at higher intensity, at higher temperature, not lower. All laws of thermodynamics are broken with this reasoning.
Since I’m a bit of a glutton for punishment, I’ll make one more comment. You seem to want to move on. However, we can’t move on until you recognise that your post, which supposedly shows something that I’ve said is stupid, does not correctly represent what I said. If you can’t, or are unwilling, to acknowledge this, then there isn’t much point in continuing. It’s far more interesting to have a discussion in which those involved properly understand/represent what the others are saying, than one in which you assume they’re saying something stupid and then spend your time criticising that. The latter is, of course, easier than the former, but I’m not interested in engaging in such discussions.
GillaGilla
I quoted the parts I’m critizising, and explained where I think you have a problem in your reasoning. My point is specifically: you explain the effect of increasing co2 as affecting emission so that it happens at a lower temperature in some region.
If the effect of co2 is emission at lower temperature, it cannot cause higher temperature in the heat source. That would be equal to increasing the temperature of a light bulb by lowering the air temperature in the room where it’s sitting.
You seem to think heat absorption acts as resistance for heat. The truth is that increasing heat absorption means increased heat transfer from the heat source. If anything, that is less resistance. When the initial change is dropping temperature, which causes increased absorption and heat transfer FROM the heat source, it can never cause increasing power of the heat source. Because no energy is added, just subtracted.
The surface of an emitting sphere has a heat source with the power according to the inverse square law, for earth that is 1535-ish watts per square meter. The logic then agrees with Prevost, surface emission depends on the internal state.
You have two choices for the cause surface temperature/emission, the red hot inside of earth, or the average -18C atmosphere. It should be easy.
GillaGilla
By the way, I appreciate tour comments, you are the only one commenting, even though there is a constant trickle of visitors here.
I really don’t get what you are whining about. My tone? Thats what you get from the Years of namecalling, suppression of skeptical arguments and an overall dishonest debate based on an unscientific ”consensus” created by Nazi-minded people like the reich-asshole John Cook.
I was censored at your blog, heavily. I guarantee you that you will never experience that here. I understand if my debate-technique is uncomfortable, but it has to be. You blanket people don’t listen if I’m nice. AND you deserve it, everyone on your side has been really mean when confronted with scepticism. With the boss, M.Mann, leading the way acting like an expert asshole.
GillaGilla
Whining now? I’m simply pointing out that I didn’t say what you claim I said. If you can’t see this, or if you are unwilling to acknowledge this, further discussion is not worth it. That’s all. Continuing such discussions has never gone well, and I have no reason to think that this will be any exception. It doesn’t bother me, but if you are interested in discussing this further, then you need to work this out.
GillaGilla
I am trying to get you to explain instead of avoiding talking about the apparent violation of thermodynamic principles.
Your exact writing was that co2 cause emission in a region with lower temperature. The correct description should be that co2 emits energy according to it´s temperature.
The energy distribution is easily modelled if ignoring matter, this means that molecules and bulk does not affect the temperature distribution. This may be the result of a fully established steady state, developed over long time. But it doesn´t matter, because the calculation adds upp exactly when treated as instananeous. As a probability distribution of heat flow in a cavity it shows the limits of the system. With the precise measurement of solar irradiation resulting in the average TSI, and simple necessary geometric constraints, we get exact average values of heat flow and distribution, the forces acting and the work done. The difference in emission and heating turns out to be exactly the amount of work done by gravity,
sqrt(1/4*1360.8-1/4*(1360.8-383))
While I have your attention, what do you make of this:
1360.8/0.0000000567=24 000 000 000
The emissive power T^4 of solar heating is a surprising number, isn´t it? Using T^4 in my calculation gives answers looking like that throughout. Is it just superstitious to believe that it means that T^4 is a measure of something fundamental, real and very important?
I think of T^4 as the point representing all the energy emitted on a spherical surface of 1m^2 in Watts. As points of energy density ,T^4 represent potentials for heat flow. Apparently totally independent of any mass, since the distribution is that of an empty cavity.
GillaGilla
Your exact writing was that co2 cause emission in a region with lower temperature.
No, this isn’t my exact writing. What I said was that if you add CO2 to the atmosphere it will cause some of the emission to space to come from regions that are now colder than they were before (by which I meant, colder than the regions that emitted to space before adding the extra CO2 to the atmosphere). Since colder regions emit less than warmer regions, this means that the amount of energy being emitted to space will go down. Do you at least understand what I’m saying, even if you don’t agree with it?
GillaGilla
Yes, exactly. (Adding) co2 (to the atmosphere) will *cause* (some of the) emission (to space to come) from regions that are colder.
This is equal to what I wrote, co2 cause emission at lower temperature. Just some filling between the words that differ and doesn´t matter.
” Since colder regions emit less than warmer regions, this means that the amount of energy being emitted to space will go down. Do you at least understand what I’m saying, even if you don’t agree with it?”
Absolutely, I understand exactly. I used to think that way, and I have considered the details of that explanation.
But according to the known principles at work in heat transfer between potentials measured as temperature, the rate of transfer calculated from temperature differences is energy added on top of the emission from the bodies. Heat flow from the system and the transfer, apparently as work in gravity, 383+4*244.5=TSI. All energy accounted for at the surface.
The most fantastic thing is that this comes from the most rational and conservative approach possible. Only proven and applied principles and laws. It only uses 100% consensus physics, the heat engine. Using the first law for earth, without any assumptions, gravity has to be the work done and effective emission must be the heat. Delta U is the added change in internal energy, TSI. With the inverse square law the first law is fulfilled. By squaring gravity into thermal resistance the dimensions of force and heat are equal, so 4g^2+4*0.0000000567*256^4=deltaU=TSI.
As you can see, and as we know from thermodynamics, only work and heat can increase temperature/power. Co2 is neither work or heat.
GillaGilla
This is equal to what I wrote, co2 cause emission at lower temperature. Just some filling between the words that differ and doesn´t matter.
It’s what I wrote.
yep,sorry
I accidently erased some of this post, please write again if it´s not too much trouble/LIT
GillaGilla
I accidently erased some of this post, please write again if it´s not too much trouble/LIT
Okay, so it seems we agree that if we add CO2 to the atmosphere, some of the emission to space will come from regions that are colder than the regions where that emission was coming from before we added more CO2. We also seem to agree that this would reduce the outgoing flux (i.e., we would be losing less energy to space). Now, if we were in energy balance before adding the CO2 to the atmosphere, we’d now be out of energy balance – we’d be losing less energy to space than we’d be receiving from the Sun. Do you agree with this?
GillaGilla
That is what you claim, and it is the opposite of what proven and applied physics of heat transfer say.
No, this isn’t what I’m claiming. Seriously, try reading what I’ve written again. If you’re going to go around calling other people stupid, maybe you could at least have the decency to call them stupid for what they actually said, not what you think they’ve said.
GillaGilla
I´m not calling you stupid, it´s the theory that represents the stupidity. I think you`re lazy, because you seem to have spent too little time studying thermodynamic principles, and that is a common problem among many people.
Your claim was that emission is changed by co2 into a state where emission happen at a lower temperature in some (other?) region. I´m guessing at higher altitude, because that is the usual claim.
The temperature of the heat source of any region in the atmosphere, does NOT depend on lower temperature emission inany part of the atmosphere. It is not a questioned conclusion that prevost made: the emission of a body depends on the internal state only. But you persist, ignoring that I have repeatedly pointed it out, in your claim that the emission of the solid body of earth, depends on the external state of the atmosphere.
The problem is rooted in the idea that accumulation of heat comes from increased absorption of heat FROM the heat source. It is basic thermodynamics that to increase the temperature of a body, without more heat power, is done by DECREASING heat absorbtion in the surroundings. That is what thermal insulation does.
A decreasing emission(observed as the ”forcing”) is never a sign of anything else that a dropping temperature. You can´t heat a system from the coldest part, only from hotter parts. Co2 is definately in the coldest part, with its charasteristic effect pronounced at 218K.
GillaGilla
Stupid and lazy. This is going well. Anyway, I tried. Carry on.
GillaGilla
”Okay, so it seems we agree that if we add CO2 to the atmosphere, some of the emission to space will come from regions that are colder than the regions where that emission was coming from before we added more CO2. We also seem to agree that this would reduce the outgoing flux (i.e., we would be losing less energy to space). Now, if we were in energy balance before adding the CO2 to the atmosphere, we’d now be out of energy balance – we’d be losing less energy to space than we’d be receiving from the Sun. Do you agree with this?”
There would be less heat emitted initially, yes, maybe. Trying to be rational, I consider what happens when adding dry ice to a roomtemperature environment. It absorbs heat, temperature should drop some, but there is no evidence at all that the absorption results in rising temperature. But any thermodynamic system obeys the first law, Work and heat adds up to the differences in T^4 and gravity is the missing piece in the steady state where a perfect blackbody would emit TSI/4 and the difference is TSI/4-Q=g^2, with Q being 244.5W/m^2, 256K.
So, yes less heat emitted to space, the first law says that´s fine. The coldest part of the system does not control the hotter parts by getting colder.
GillaGilla
So, yes less heat emitted to space, the first law says that´s fine.
Okay, so if there is now less energy emitted to space than is being received from the Sun, what should happen?
GillaGilla
We know what happens, if energy is not emitted as heat, when the system is heated by a constant heat source, it is turned into work. Which is logical, adding an amount of heat absorber to a constant, limited heat flow through a convecting fluid, should naturally mean that more energy is required to displace mass in convection. Because there is more mass. This is a necessary consequence of the first law, the difference between the power of the heat source, and the heat emitted by the system, is the work done by the system, or the work done on the system from the perspective of the heat source.
I know where you are steering towards, but unfortunally you are a drunk driver;)
You are implying that the heat that is not emitted is staying in the system, accumulating. But heat doesn´t work that way, if heat accumulates, it gets hotter, not colder. Heat doesn´t hide, and it most certainly doesn´t accumulate as an effect of a heat absorbing molecule which acts to drop temperature by absorbing heat.
If the system has a feed of constant and limited heat flow(TSI), it has a limited amount of energy available to every molecule, atom or volume of mass inside the heat engine. For example, 1360W/m^2 of heat source power into a sphere consisting of 1000 molecules means each molecule have the average energy of 1.36W available every second. The sphere emits all heat for simplicity. Now add 200 molecules, what is now the average available energy for each molecule? Is there any accumulation of heat?
Another example: you boil a half full pot of water on the stove, the heating power of the plate is constant. You fill up the pot of water with a large amount of really potent heat absorbers: more water molecules. What happens to the temperature of the heat source and the temperature of the water in the pot initially? What happens over time?
The water will never get hotter because an added amount of heat absorbers, and the heat source will never become hotter because there is a larger amount of heat absorbers which absorbs the emitted power. On the contrary, what we see is the initial cooling of both the heat source(the surface) and the water(the atmosphere). With time passed, the temperature in the pot reaches the same temperature as before addition of water, if the heat source has power enough to heat the larger volume throughout.
One more, add a bucket of ice (heat absorbing molecules) to your lap, sitting down. The ice absorbs the heat from your body, and emission of that energy will happen at lower temperature in another region= the top layer of the pile of ice. Does this make anything hotter? Does heat accumulate?
Those are simple everyday observations that are in perfect agreement with the laws of T. All of them describe a process of heat absorption and the relation between heat source and matter, which is pretty much the opposite of what is claimed for heat absorption in atmospheric co2. The observation by satellites show the same effects as my examples, less emission of heat from increased co2(the broadening bite in the spectrum). Just like the pile of ice in your lap. So how is it possible, with constant limited heat flow, that increased absorption should accumulate heat? You need thermal insulation for that, and that causes less heat absorption in the surroundings, not increasing it. The only way to increase temperature is by increasing the power density of the heat source, which for co2 is the surface. To increase surface temperature, you need more heat from the sun. But then comes the s-b law for transfer of heat, and it clearly says that the rate of transfer decrease if the temperature of the heat absorber increase. It should be valid for a planet in a vacuum, so a rising temperature on earth would mean less heat transferred from the sun. Which probably means an oscillation in temperature within limitations given by the solar heat power.
If temperature would be truly rising, then it has to be shown why proven laws of heat transfer doesn´t apply for earth, even though they have been proven to be true ON earth.
GillaGilla
The stupidity
Very nice.
He actually claims that emission at a lower temperature causes higher temperature in a solid body at higher temperature. He says that: carbon dioxide causes emission at lower temperature, and it causes heating.
Actually, no. All I said was that if you add CO2 to the atmosphere (and leave all else unchanged) the emission to space – from within the atmosphere – will come from regions that are cooler than they were before. Hence, the amount of energy radiated to space will go down.
GillaGilla
”Actually, no.”
Actually yes. I can´t understand how you have the stomach to deny it.
You claim that a miniscule change in density of a single, but potent, -heat absorber-, cause lower emission power. Which is confirmed by the ”bite” in the spectrum of effective emission.The more co2 the broader the bite. The area under the curve is the amount of energy emitted per unit time, which means density of heat power. Increasing co2 decrease that area. That means that the temperature of the emitter(the whole system) decreases from increasing co2.
The physical meaning of your claims is that increasing the fraction of dry ice in the atmosphere, with no other change(which means constant solar heating power), cause emission at lower power(temperature dependent), and here comes the funny stuff: the conclusion that more heat absorbers per unit volume will raise the temperature, by emitting at a lower temperature. You even claim that it will not raise the temperature of the heat absorbers, but the temperature of the heat source. Which, according the inverse square law needs to have an average power density that is 4 times more powerful than the heat absorbers(which means that the heat source of the atmosphere is located at a smaller radius; the surface). And the heat source of the surface is without doubt internal, since it has to be at least about 1530W/m^2 at a mean surface temperature of 287K. Which happens to be equal to16g^2, a thermal resistance of 1530Nm^2.
In a spherical cavity with non-interacting mass on the heat flow(the steady time-independent state), the emissive power of the surface would decline to 1/4 on a surrounding surface. This is 95.7W/m^2, equal to gravity^2 as thermal resistance. According to gauss law for gravity, the volume holds the sum of the sources for surface emission, as 4/3*95.7. Which equals mean tropopause emission temperature. Which is a third of 4*95.7W/m^2.
The volume element corresponding to the surface and atmosphere is
4/3*383W/m^2 = 4/3*(4g^2) = 1/2*(TSI/4/3)
So gravity, surface temperature and heat source power is linked through only geometry in a toy-model. And the equation of an electric field inside a hollow sphere(atmosphere) with a ball at the center is the relation of the volume to the heat flow and the force/resistance of gravity as TSI/4/3=4/3*8g^2. The total energy of the heat flow above the surface, and the necessary internal sources, is equal to 32g^2. This goes for Mars and Venus as well.
Optimizing the heat flow by temperature as independent measure of emissive power and only spherical geometry, represents minimum limitation on heat flow, and they are the only parts of a toy-model that accurately models the average energy distribution and connect it to gravity, no doubt it is the best suggestion available. Saying co2 heats the earth by lowering the temperature of emission is like claiming that a running engine gets hotter by cooling the exhaustpipe. I´d say it is the worst suggestion available, in the history of science.
What region the lower emission temperature is at, doesn´t matter. Increasing the number of heat absorbers in a volume, with constant limited heat flow, leads to less energy per molecule. Which is seen in the spectrum, how co2 decrease the density of photons as the density of co2 rise.
You need to show a refernce to the thermodynamical principle in heat transfer that confirms your claim that increasing the heat absorption in a system with constant limited heat flow, can increase the power density of the heat flow. Only emission at a higher temperature can increase the temperature of a body.
Adding a cold fluid to a hot body, which is the heat source of the fluid, and increasing the fluids heat absorption with dry ice, is an exact description of adding a cooler to the hot body. The atmosphere is a cold fluid, the more it absorbs from it´s heat source, the lower the temperature of the heat source(earth surface). If emission is reduced in any region of the atmosphere, by for example co2, the heat transfer rate from the surface increases. If the heat source power is limited and constant, what happens to the emissive power of the surface?
A clue: 0.0000000567*(T^4_surf. – T^4_atm.)
Can T^4 of the surface increase if the temperature of the atmosphere drops?
That is what you claim, and it is the opposite of what proven and applied physics of heat transfer say.
GillaGilla
”Stupid and lazy. This is going well.”
You think so, huh?’
Could you please stick to the scientific facts that I present. I am very clear about what problems there are with conflicts of proven and applied physics in the greenhouse theory. I give you several examples of the greenhouse problems and how it conflicts with simple thermodynamic principles like insulation, and gives you an alternative model according to only known physics, geometry and heat emission/absorption, including gravity.
And you focus on two words that is the least important in the text?
If a solution shows the heat flow on earth simplified into an idealized heat engine with classic heat, work and internal energy as a formulation of the first law of thermodynamics, isn´t that worth investigating closely?
The idea alone that it would be possible, should make any climate scientist immediately drop the GH-theory.
I´m not only showing exactly the problems of the greenhouse, I also present a very convincing alternative.
Are you going to limit your response to a simple ”I didn´t write that” and taking offense by a couple of words which you well deserve if you ignore the critical arguments?
GillaGilla
0 Pingback
Textwidget
Sök
Följ oss!