http://www.real-science.com/ncar-calls-decade-long-global-warming-timeout

Contrary to your claim that you “have a degree is in mathematical physics”, anybody with a shread of Physics training would know that “arithmetic” is not used to describe Vector Quantities.

Wrong. Vector addition is precisely arithmetic, and nothing more.

Likewise, zero Mass Photons do NOT move in the direction of the weaker Electromagnetic Field (Electromagnetic Force), cold to Hot…EVER.

Wrong (also, backwards). Photons have no charge. They mediate the electromagnetic force, but are not themselves subject to it. This is why QED is not QCD. A photon source is not going to magically determine that there’s a stronger source elsewhere and refuse to emit in that direction. The Earth’s surface and atmosphere both radiate (approximately) isotropically; photons travelling in all directions. The total energy carried by the photons travelling from hotter to colder areas is greater than the total energy carried by photons travelling from colder to hotter areas, which is all that’s required to satisfy the second law.

P = e*BC*A(T^4 – Tc^4)

Well done, you can quote formulae. Do you understand it? Did you notice that P is the net radiated power, not the total? If you look at the top of that page, you’ll find that the total radiated power is given by P = e*sigma*AT^4. The total radiated power from the surroundings to the object is given by P = e*sigma*ATc^4. The difference of these two terms is the net radiated power, and will always have the same sign as the temperature difference. The derivation of this formula explicitly assumes energy flow in both directions.

This is an obvious subtraction of two Electromagnetic Field Vectors

Oh, look! Arithmetic!

The resultant Electromagnetic Field will have a magnitude of P/A

Wrong. Power per unit area is not magnitude, but intensity, the rate of energy flux through a surface.

and have a direction of propagation in the direction of the larger field…ALWAYS.

This is the second time you’ve got your own argument backwards. Hotter objects radiate more energy, and so have the ‘larger’ field, as you put it. You should be arguing that the direction of propogation is away from the ‘larger’ field.

“Second Law of Thermodynamics: It is NOT POSSIBLE for heat to flow from a colder body to a warmer body without any work having been done to accomplish this flow. Energy will not flow spontaneously from a low temperature object to a higher temperature object.”
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/thermo/seclaw.html#c3

Do you see the words “NOT POSSIBLE”???…it is there for a REASON!

Still not understanding the difference between net and gross, I see. Look, if your version was correct, we’d have a serious problem. Because the temperature of the atmosphere does not decrease monotonically. Rather, it decreases through the troposphere (mostly), then increases through the stratosphere. So up around the tropopause, you have a layer of air which is cooler than that both below and above. If your version of thermodynamics were correct, this would be unstable. Energy would flow into this region from above and below, while none could flow out in either direction. The additional energy would heat the region until it reached the same temperature as its surroundings.

Worse still, since photons apparently can’t travel from colder to hotter materials, that means no radiative cooling of anything below the tropopause either, since those photons would have to cross through the stratosphere to escape the atmosphere. The temperature inversion at the tropopause would essentially create an impenetrable barrier through which no heat could flow, and all the energy the Earth’s surface receives from the Sun would be trapped, causing the oceans to boil in pretty short order.

Oddly enough, this hasn’t actually happened.

You asked:
“How stupid do you think climate scientists are exactly?
All the thousands of scientific papers on Global Warming that have passed rigourous peer review, that have been cited in other papers; do you honestly think they would fail a test of basic high school physics and that this would go unnoticed?”

How stupid do Quack climate “scientists” have to be to think that Back-Radiation from a -20 deg C Atmosphere can HEAT-UP a +15 deg C Earth?

How stupid do Quack climate “scientists” have to be to IGNORE ALL ACTUAL MEASUREMENTS that PROVE that the Fantasy “Greenhouse Effect” DOES NOT EXIST?
—–
These so called “scientists” are more stupid than any 4 year-old child, that certainly knows that Cold Objects DO NOT HEAT-UP Warm Objects.
—–
Why don’t you put a Can of warm beer at +15 deg C into a Freezer that is -20 deg C and tell us how much the beer HEATS-UP?

PS: You can put as much CO2 as you want in the Freezer (even 96.5% CO2 like Venus or 95.3% CO2 like Mars) and WRAP THE CAN OF BEER IN A BLANKET.

I look forward to your next post to get the RESULTS.

Maybe some day you will wake-up and face Reality.

You AGW’ers are a real HOOT!

What a HOOT!

You said “All actual surface measurements by “AGWers” (do you mean climatologists btw?) show the average temperature is + 15 C? Really? I don’t think so. Citations please.”

Here are two links:

Instrumental temperature record
“The values in the table above are anomalies from the 1901–2000 global mean of 13.9°C.[43] For instance, the +0.55°C anomaly in 2007 added to the 1901–2000 mean of 13.9°C gives a global average temperature of 14.45 °C (58.00 °F) for 2007.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instrumental_temperature_record

Temperature on Earth
All the Five References have Standardized Results for the Average Surface temperature of the Earth is +15 deg C
(Except for 1600 AD which is +16 to + 17 deg C)
http://hypertextbook.com/facts/2005/JudyTang.shtml

There are many,many more….don’t you know how to use GOOGLE?
——-
You said “Where is the source claiming the +15 figure is doing anything other than including the atmosphere please? Is there any statement somewhere where the temperature of the Earth is taken wthout including our atmosphere?”

Here are two links:

Temperature in the Troposphere
“The temperature gets colder as you go upward in the troposphere. Light from the Sun heats the ground. The warm ground gives off the heat as infrared “light”. The IR energy heats the troposphere. The lowest part of the troposphere is the warmest because it is closest to the ground, where the heat is coming from.”
http://www.windows2universe.org/earth/Atmosphere/troposphere_temperature.html
From the graph you can see that the average temperature of the Troposphere is (+15 at the Earth’s surface + (-55) at the tropopause )/2 = -20 deg C.

International Standard Atmosphere
The base temperature of the Troposphere at ground level is +15 deg C
The Tropopause at 11 km has a temperature of -56.5 deg C.
The average temperature of the Troposphere is -20.75 deg C
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Standard_Atmosphere
——-
You said “The atmosphere is NOT directly heating the Earth – our Sun heats the earth – incl. the atmosphere a si tried toexplain before.”

The Kiel and Trenberth’s Earth’s annual and global mean energy balance diagram shows that there is:

- 168 w/m^2 of Solar Energy being absorbed by the Earth’s surface.

- 324 w/m^2 of Infrared Back Radiation from the colder atmosphere being ABSORBED by the warmer surface of the Earth.

The Solar Energy is ONLY 168 w/m^2 and is THE ONLY ENERGY SOURCE!!

The Back-Radiation from the Cold Atmosphere is 324 w/m^2 (exceeding the Solar Energy!) and IS DIRECTLY Heating the Earth.
——
You can use the Stefan-Boltzmann Law to find out what the Earth’s surface temperature is for 168 w/m^2 of Solar Energy being absorbed by the Earth’s surface.
The Earth’s surface temperature (TE) would only be:

TE = (168 w/m^2/5.67 X 10^-8)^0.25 = 233.31 K or -39.69 deg C!!!

HAHAHA…HAHAHA….yeah, the Earth COOLED DOWN down from -39.69 deg C to +15 deg C….due to Cold Back-Radiation DIRECTLY Heating a Warmer Earth!
———
You said “So, what you’re suggesting a blanket cools – can only cool – rather than warms? LOL what?”

Radiation emitted by a human body

“The total surface area of an adult is about 2 m^2, and the mid- and far-infrared emissivity of skin and most clothing is near unity, as it is for most nonmetallic surfaces.Skin temperature is about 33 deg C, but CLOTHING REDUCES THE SURFACE TEMPERATURE to about 28 deg C when the ambient temperature is 20 deg C. Hence, the net radiative heat loss is about Pnet = 100 W.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_body

Blankets can’t increase a human body’s surface temperature of +33 deg C because the body HAS to supply heat energy to the Blanket to increase it’s temperature.

The ONLY way to Increase the Body temperature of +33 deg C is to INCREASE the watts/m^2 ABSORBED by the Body (see the Stefan-Boltzmann Law above)!

Do you think that a DROP in temperature from +33 deg C to +28 deg C is HEATING?

You said “COOLING DOES NOT PRODUCE HEATING no matter how many times you try to say otherwise!..Where have I – or for that matter anyone else – said otherwise.”

How about right from your post:

- “So, what you’re suggesting a blanket cools – can only cool – rather than warms? LOL what?”
- “The only perosn who seems tothink our atmosphere is cooling the planet rather than warming it is you.”

Blankets and the Atmosphere can ONLY COOL….and COOLING IS NOT HEATING….DUH!
——————————–
——————————–
Re:
“The IPCC CO2, so called forcing equation, clearly shows that Mars and Venus should have about the same temperatures because they both have same percentage of CO2 in their atmosphere….and that includes the effect of the SUN as well.”

You said “I doubt that’s correct. But even if so, what about the very different orbits, masses and geological histories of the two planets?”

Venus
“The atmospheric mass is 93 times that of Earth’s atmosphere while the pressure at the planet’s surface is about 92 times that at Earth’s surface…”
Surface temp (mean) 735K or 461.85 deg C
It has an atmosphere that is composed of 96.5% CO2.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venus

Mars, atmosphere
“The surface pressure on Mars is only about 0.7% of the average surface pressure at sea level on Earth.”
It has an atmosphere that is composed of 95.3% CO2.
The surface temp is about 250K or -23 deg C.
http://www.daviddarling.info/encyclopedia/M/Marsatmos.html

Solar Constants
Venus (2647 w/m^2 – 2576 w/m^2)= average of 2611.5 w/m^2
Mars (715 w/m^2 – 492 w/m^2)= average of 603.5 w/m^2
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_constant#Solar_constant

Heating due to the Solar Constants/4 using Stephan-Boltzman Law and (albedo = 0) gives:

Venus = 327.58 K or +54.43 deg C Black body temp.
Mars = 227.12 K or -46.03 deg C Black body temp.

With the addition of an atmosphere the temp increases are:

Venus = 735K – 327.58K = 407.42K (461.85 C – 54.43 C = 407.42 deg C)
Mars = 250K – 227.12K = 22.88K (-23 deg C -(-46.03 C)= 23 deg C)

——-
The IPCC uses this formula for a calculation of CO2′s relationship to changes in W/m^2 forcing (I will call it delta F).

delta F = 5.35 LN( C/Co) where LN is the natural logarithm, Co is the CO2 in PARTS PER MILLION for a starting point, C is the CO2 in PARTS PER MILLION for analysis and F is the forcing in W/m^2.

The IPCC also uses a figure of 0.297 deg C change per each W/m^2. If we multiply both sides of the formula by 0.297 we will obtain the relationship:

delta T = 1.59 LN ( C/Co) where delta T is the change in temperature (in deg C), C and Co are in PARTS PER MILLION.

Venus has an atmosphere that is composed of 96.5% CO2 or 965,000 PARTS PER MILLION.

Mars has an atmosphere composed of 95.3% CO2 or 953,000 PARTS PER MILLION.

Using the IPCC CO2 “heating formula”, how much warmer should Venus be compared to Mars?

delta T = 1.59 LN (965,000/953,000) = 0.02 deg C!!!

That’s it, Venus should be just 0.02 deg C warmer than Mars using your IPCC Greenhouse Effect “science”!

Venus and Mars have about the same amount of CO2 in their atmosphere (96.5% and 95.3%) yet their temperature increases due to the addition of an atmosphere vary by 407.42 deg C – 23 deg C = 384.42 deg C!

CO2 obviously does NOT have any effect on the temperature increases of these planets.

The Atmospheric Pressure is what causes the difference in temperature:

VENUS ATMOSPHERE PROFILE FROM A MAXIMUM ENTROPY PRINCIPLE

“There one can check,at each height, that using pressure and temperature as
input, the value of density obtained from the equation of
the ideal gases is, in all cases, equal to the experimental
value with a discrepancy lower than 2 per cent.”

“For ideal gases, the equation of state, for 1mol, is
PV = R* T
(where R* = 8.3143 J mol-1 K-1 is the universal gas
constant)”

“FIG. 2: Pressure-temperature profile of the atmosphere of
Venus. The data (black dots) have been taken from Table 1,
and the fitting line is an adiabatic as given by Eq.(19).”

“FIG. 3: Pressure-temperature profile of the atmosphere of
Venus. The data (black dots) come from Table 1 and the
theoretical results (continuous line) have been obtained using
the extended VG method.”

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/astro-ph/pdf/0609/0609649v1.pdf

This whole paper deals with the heating of the Venus atmosphere due to atmospheric pressure!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w9SGw75pVas&list=PL029130BFDC78FA33&index=35

&

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/80beats/2009/01/22/antarctica-is-definitely-feeling-the-heat-from-global-warming/

&

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2010/08/03/new-study-clinches-it-the-earth-is-warming-up/

and there’s waa-aaay more where that came from.

Gord #130 : “.. stop ignoring the Facts ..”

Yes. Please do. Please take your own advice there.

I’ve provided lots of the facts in these last two comments here. Think about that. Please.

There isn’t just one piece of data indicating AGW is real – there are multiple sources, multiple lines of evidence, studies in various fields and, yes, multiple facts demonstrating its reality.

We can argue over the best solutions for mitigating it. That’s legitimate. But we can’t keep denying AGW is real. It is.

I challenge you to provide EVEN ONE Measurement, EVER DONE, that shows that a COLDER Atmosphere can HEAT UP a WARMER Earth.

If we set aside your fundamental misunderstanding and take this as asking “What is the scientific eveidence for the reality of Anthropogenic Global Warming” then take a look at this :

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2010/10/26/climate-change-the-evidence/

& this :

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/80beats/2008/10/28/from-yellowstones-hills-to-walden-ponds-woods-evidence-of-global-warming/

& this :

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/80beats/2008/12/30/insurance-co-blames-global-warming-for-an-especially-disastrous-2008/

Just for starters. There’s plenty more online and in print if folks are genuinely interested in understanding this issue.

Ever hear about the Ideal Gas Law (PV = mRT) where P = Pressure and T = Temperature?

Yes I have.

Do you think that the climatologists who are explaining the Anthropogenic Global Warming Phenomena to us all have not? Really?

How stupid do you think climate scientists are exactly?

All the thousands of scientific papers on Global Warming that have passed rigourous peer review, that have been cited in other papers; do you honestly think they would fail a test of basic high school physics and that this would go unnoticed?

I challenge you to provide EVEN ONE Measurement, EVER DONE, that shows that a COLDER Atmosphere can HEAT UP a WARMER Earth.

I challenge you to show that anyone is actually claiming that a “colder atmosphere is warming a hotter earth.”

No one is doing so. Which makes your position what’s termed a “Strawman fallacy” – or at best a gross misunderstanding of the theory on your part.

You seem to have read the IPCC AR4 report which you’ve cited but you don’t appear to have understood it very well at all.

You’re rather tediously repeated “challenge” here reveals your misunderstanding of what the Anthropogenic Global Warming theory actually says and how things actually work.

Earth’s atmosphere acts as an insulator and retains heat that would be lost into space otherwise. It is NOT, itself, a heat source.

Just as a blanket traps heat created by your body rather than creating heat intrinisically itself. I am surprised that you seem to find this basic analogy and reality so difficult to grasp.

If you can’t do this, then stop ignoring the Facts and admit that they simply DO NOT EXIST.

What don’t exist? The facts?

Sorry I think you are the one here is ignoring the facts – or at least badly misunderstanding them.

****

PS. Here’s some clarification for some of the sadly numeous typos (sorry) in my earlier post # 135 :

You [#130 Gord] seem to be under the mistaken impression that an atmosphere cools a planet – specifically that Earth’s atmosphere cools our planet – and I was simply using the analogy to reveal your misunderstanding of the situation there.

Our atmosphere, as I’ve already explained, acts to insulate Earth and moderate its temperature variability.

So, what you’re suggesting is that a blanket (our atmosphere in this analogy) cools – can only cool – rather than warms? LOL what?!

Re: Messier Tidy Upper @ 127 :
First let’s deal with the EARTH and what the IPCC AR4 Report says:
Did you not read my post#57 where I quoted DIRECTLY from the IPCC AR4 Report what their definition of the Fantasy “Greehouse Effect” is?

Yes, I read it – and whilst there’s a lot of material there I presume you refer to page 115 of the IPCC AR4 report.

I can’t see them calling it a “fantasy” anywhere though.

Because it’s not.

I’m not really sure or clear about what your problem with it is.

FAQ 1.1, Figure 1 (is Kiel and Trenberth’s Earth’s annual and global mean energy balance diagram) It’s on Pg.96 of the IPCC AR4 Report. From the Kiel and Trenberth diagram you can see that there is 168 w/m^2 of Solar Energy being absorbed by the Earth’s surface. You can also see from the diagram that there is 324 w/m^2 of Infrared Back Radiation from the colder atmosphere being absorbed by the warmer surface of the Earth. This Back Radiation is said to be constantly flowing, day and night, to keep the Earth’s surface temperature at +15 deg C. The Fantasy “Greenhouse Effect” relies on Back-Radiation from an average -20 deg C Atmosphere HEATING UP an average +15 deg C Earth!

You seem to have a big misunderstanding or two here, Gord.

The atmosphere is NOT directly heating the Earth – our Sun heats the earth – incl. the atmosphere a si tried toexplain before. The atmosphere prevents the Earth cooling down as much as it otherwise would hence the temperature range on Earth isn’t as extreme as it is for our Moon.

You also seem to be misunderstanding the “average” which applie sboth to global temperatures and temperatures within our atmosphere which vary wildly.

You have, I’ll note, failed to clarify which layer(s) of our atmospher youare discussing here.

The AVERAGE temperature of the Earth is +15 deg C as per ALL actual surface measurements by AGW’ers!

Er ..what?

All actual surface measurements by “AGWers” (do you mean climatologists btw?) show the average temperature is + 15 C? Really? I don’t think so. Citations please.

I’m pretty sure Climatologists have observed many regional & specific locational temperature variations and that they have noted a rsising trend in temperature graphs.

You said “I think you’re confused here because the +15 deg Earth is, I think, including the atmosphere.”
Obviously, You are the one that is confused!

I am? Where is the source claiming the +15 figure is doing anything other than including the atmosphere please? Is there any statement somewhere where the temperature of the Earth is taken wthout including our atmosphere?

I find it very AMUSING that you keep on harping about a “banket greenhouse effect” that CAN ONLY COOL THE EARTH.

So, what you’re suggesting a blanket cools – can only cool – rather than warms? LOL what?!

COOLING DOES NOT PRODUCE HEATING no matter how many times you try to say otherwise!

Where have I – or for that matter anyone else – said otherwise.

You seem to be totally missing the point.

No one is arguing what you seem to think they are. The only perosn who seems tothink our atmosphere is cooling the planet rather than warming it is you.

Our atmsophere as I’ev already explained, acts toinsulate earth and moderate its temperature variability. Our atmosphere -troposphere anyhow – is getting warmer and this is making the rest of the climate warmer.

Further, your fantasy “banket greenhouse effect” COMPLETELY CONTRADICTS the IPCC AR4 Report definition of the Fantasy “Greehouse Effect”

How?

You AGW’ers always talk about their being a “consensus” of “science” and here you are promoting “your own theory”.

My own theory? Huh? I’m just trying to explain to you what the accepted theory is. I’m not claiming it as mine although I do trust the judgement of those professional climatologists who have made their careers and spent decades studying it.

The Moon does not have Oceans covering 70% of it’s surface which stores Solar heat energy and moves it from the equator to Polar regions.

Indeed. Nor, more relevantly, does it have anything but thefiantestwisps of
an atmosphere either.

Yousem tounder tehmistaken mimpression thatan atmosphere cools a planet – specfically thatErath’s atmosphere coolds our planet – and I was simply using the analogy to reveal your misunderstadning here.

-Venus has the same amount of CO2 in it’s atmosphere as Mars.

I don’t believe that’s actually correct. I think Venus has far more carbon dioxide than Mars based on the Cytherean planets vastly denser atmosphere and greater planetary mass. What is your source for that?

The IPCC CO2, so called forcing equation, clearly shows that Mars and Venus should have about the same temperatures because they both have same percentage of CO2 in their atmosphere….and that includes the effect of the SUN as well.

I doubt that’s correct. But even if so, what about the very different orbits, masses and geological histories of the two planets?

Using the one factor and ignoring all others in a complex question like that is not logical.

The reason that Venus is hotter than Mars and the Earth because of the HUGE ATMOSPERIC PRESSURE on Venus.

So (settingaside the factors such as mass, orbit, history) how did that huge atmospheric pressure arise then?

I think you’ll find the answer lies in the runaway greenhouse effect Venus experienced.

What a JOKE!

First you HAVE NOT produced ANY:

- Laws of Science that supports the Fantasy “Greenhouse Effect”
- Measurements, EVER DONE, that shows that a COLDER Atmosphere can HEAT UP a WARMER Earth.

Why?….Beause THEY SIMPLY DO NOT EXIST!

Why don’t you just admit it instead of RUNNING FOR THE HILLS everytime I post the TRUTH?
———
Contrary to your claim that you “have a degree is in mathematical physics”, anybody with a shread of Physics training would know that “arithmetic” is not used to describe Vector Quantities.

Vector Quantities have a Magnitude and a Direction and use of Vector Mathematics is required to describe them.

That’s why I suggested you look up the Electromagnetic Force (one of the Four Fundamental Forces that also includes the Force of Gravity).

All Electomagnetic Fields are Forces and are VECTOR QUANTITES like ALL FORCES are, including Gravity.
———–
Photons do not propagate by themselves, they are CARRIED by an Electromagnetic Field that is a FORCE.

Electromagnetic force
“The electromagnetic force is one of the four fundamental forces. The other fundamental forces are: the strong nuclear force (which holds quarks together, along with its residual strong force effect that holds atomic nuclei together to form the nucleus), the weak nuclear force (which causes
certain forms of radioactive decay), and the gravitational force. All other forces are ultimately derived from these fundamental forces.”

“In physics, the electromagnetic force is the force that the electromagnetic field exerts on electrically charged particles. It is the electromagnetic force that holds electrons and protons together in atoms, and which hold atoms together to make molecules.

“The electromagnetic force operates via the exchange of messenger particles called photons and virtual photons.”

“The electromagnetic force is the one responsible for practically all the phenomena one encounters in daily life, with the exception of gravity.”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_force
—————–
Photon
“In physics, a photon is an elementary particle, the quantum of the electromagnetic field and the basic “unit” of light and all other forms of electromagnetic radiation. It is also the force CARRIER for the ELECTROMAGNETIC FORCE. The effects of this force are easily observable at both the
microscopic and macroscopic level, because the photon has no rest mass; this allows for interactions at long distances”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photon
———————-
———————-

If you wish to lift the block of wood UP, the force applied to the block must be greater than the Force of Gravity.
The block of wood will NOT move in the direction of a weaker force….EVER.

Likewise, zero Mass Photons do NOT move in the direction of the weaker Electromagnetic Field (Electromagnetic Force), cold to Hot…EVER.

——————
——————
Electromagnetic radiation is a VECTOR QUANTITY that has the units watts/m^2 and is called Heat Flux when referring to IR radiation:

“Heat flux or thermal flux is the rate of heat energy transfer through a given surface. The SI derived unit of heat rate is joule per second, or watt.

Heat flux is the heat rate per unit area. In SI units, heat flux is measured in [W/m2][1]. Heat rate is a scalar quantity, while heat flux is a vectorial quantity.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat_flux
——————–
Heat Radiation
“Radiation is heat transfer by the emission of electromagnetic waves which CARRY energy away from the emitting object. For ordinary temperatures (less than red hot”), the radiation is in the infrared region of the electromagnetic spectrum. The relationship governing radiation from hot objects is called the Stefan-Boltzmann law:

P = e*BC*A(T^4 – Tc^4)

Where P = net radiated power (Watts), e = emissivity, BC = Stefan’s constant (5.67 X 10^-8), A = area, T = temperature of radiator and Tc = temperature of the surroundings or another body.

..when rearranged gives

P/A = e*BC*T^4 – e*BC*Tc^4 (Watts/m^2)
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/thermo/stefan.html#c2

This is an obvious subtraction of two Electromagnetic Field Vectors

The resultant Electromagnetic Field will have a magnitude of P/A and have a direction of propagation in the direction of the larger field…ALWAYS.

There is absolutely no energy flow from cold to hot, complying with the First Law, the 2nd Law and the Electomagnetic Field Vector Forces.

“Second Law of Thermodynamics: It is NOT POSSIBLE for heat to flow from a colder body to a warmer body without any work having been done to accomplish this flow. Energy will not flow spontaneously from a low temperature object to a higher temperature object.”
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/thermo/seclaw.html#c3

Do you see the words “NOT POSSIBLE”???…it is there for a REASON!
—–
Example:

The Earth at (+15 deg C) 288 K will Radiate a Vector EM Field with Magnitude 390 w/m^2 and a Direction of propagation that is toward the Cold Atmosphere.

The Atmosphere that has a (-20 deg C) 253 K temperature will Radiate an EM Field of 232 w/m^2 towards the Earth and towards Cold Space.

Between the Earth and Cold Atmosphere the Resultant Vector EM Field will have a Magnitude of 390-232 = 158 w/m^2 TOWARD the Cold Atmosphere.

There is Zero w/m^2 flowing from the Cold Atmosphere to the Warmer Earth and the Earth, as the 2nd Law states and ALL ACTUAL MEASUREMENTS PROVE.

Past the Atmosphere the Vector EM Fields will ADD and will have a Magnitude of 158 + 232 = 390 w/m^2 and a Direction of propagation that is TOWARD Cold Space.

All the Earth’s Radiated 390 w/m^2 reaches Cold Space, complying with The Law of Conservation of Energy.

If one uses Vector Mathematics to describe Vector Fields, you will ALWAYS get the CORRECT RESULT.

If you use “Arithmetic” to describe Vectors, like you AGW’ers use, you will ALWAYS get a WRONG RESULT.
—————-
Where could you possibly get a degree in “mathematical physics” that managed to ignore:

- The Electromagnetic Field Force (one of Four Fundamental Forces).
- Vector Mathematics
- Radiative Heat Transfer Physics
- The Law of Conservation of Energy
- The 2nd Law of Themodynamics
- ALL ACTUAL MEASUREMENTS

What a HOOT!

Thanks for your “opinion”.

There are in fact two things, science and opinion; the former begets knowledge, the later ignorance. – Hippocrates

The greater the ignorance the greater the dogmatism. – William Osler
—–
I’ll stick to the Laws of Science, Physics and Actual Measurements.

The FACTS are that there is no “Greenhouse Effect” as is evident from the First and 2nd Law and is completely supported by actual measurements.

PROOF:

1) There are Zero Laws of Science to support the fantasy “Greenhouse Effect”.
2) All Direct Measurements of “Back-Radiation” can ONLY be done with COOLED IR DETECTORS, COOLED FAR BELOW THE COLDER ATMOSPHERIC TEMPERATURES.
3) If cooled IR detectors are not used, it is impossible to directly measure “Back-Radiation” on the Warmer Earth Surface.
4) If “Back-Radiation” could reach the Earth’s Surface then Parabolic Mirror Solar Ovens would produce heating, day and night, when pointed at the Cold Atmosphere.
5) There are Zero Measurements, EVER DONE, that shows that a COLDER Atmosphere can HEAT UP a Warmer Earth.

I challenge you to provide EVEN ONE Measurement, EVER DONE, that shows that a COLDER Atmosphere can HEAT UP a WARMER Earth.

If you can’t do this, then stop ignoring the Facts and admit that they simply DO NOT EXIST.
———-
PS:
Do you know what a Vector Quantity is?

Look up Electromagnetic Force (one of the Four Fundamental Forces that also includes the Force of Gravity).

Try and use arithmetic for vector quantities in Physics and you are guaranteed to get the wrong answer every time.

Absolutely Hillarious….are you an Accountant?

This isn’t even physics you’re getting wrong. It’s arithmetic.

First let’s deal with the EARTH and what the IPCC AR4 Report says:

Did you not read my post#57 where I quoted DIRECTLY from the IPCC AR4 Report what their definition of the Fantasy “Greehouse Effect” is?
http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-chapter1.pdf

FAQ 1.1, Figure 1 (is Kiel and Trenberth’s Earth’s annual and global mean energy balance diagram)
It’s on Pg.96 of the IPCC AR4 Report.

From the Kiel and Trenberth diagram you can see that there is 168 w/m^2 of Solar Energy being absorbed by the Earth’s surface.

You can also see from the diagram that there is 324 w/m^2 of Infrared Back Radiation from the colder atmosphere being absorbed by the warmer surface of the Earth.

This Back Radiation is said to be constantly flowing, day and night, to keep the Earth’s surface temperature at +15 deg C.

The Fantasy “Greenhouse Effect” relies on Back-Radiation from an average -20 deg C Atmosphere HEATING UP an average +15 deg C Earth!
———
The Earth’s Surface Radiation in the Kiel and Trenberth diagram is shown to be 390 w/m^2, which if you use the Stefan-Boltzman Law corresponds to 288 Kelvin or +15 deg C!

The AVERAGE temperature of the Earth is +15 deg C as per ALL actual surface measurements by AGW’ers!

You said “I think you’re confused here because the +15 deg Earth is, I think, including the atmosphere.”

Obviously, You are the one that is confused!
——
The Kiel and Trenberth diagram shows Atmospheric Radiation for the upper and lower Troposphere.

If you average the temperatures of these two regions, you will get about -20 deg C AVERAGE temperature for the Colder Atmosphere.
——-

I find it very AMUSING that you keep on harping about a “banket greenhouse effect” that CAN ONLY COOL THE EARTH.

COOLING DOES NOT PRODUCE HEATING no matter how many times you try to say otherwise!

Further, your fantasy “banket greenhouse effect” COMPLETELY CONTRADICTS the IPCC AR4 Report definition of the Fantasy “Greehouse Effect”

You AGW’ers always talk about their being a “consensus” of “science” and here you are promoting “your own theory”.

What a HOOT!

———–
Finally a few brief comments on the Moon and Venus.

- The Moon does not have Oceans covering 70% of it’s surface which stores Solar heat energy and moves it from the equator to Polar regions.
- Venus has the same amount of CO2 in it’s atmosphere as Mars.

The IPCC CO2, so called forcing equation, clearly shows that Mars and Venus should have about the same temperatures because they both have same percentage of CO2 in their atmosphere….and that includes the effect of the SUN as well.

The reason that Venus is hotter than Mars and the Earth because of the HUGE ATMOSPERIC PRESSURE on Venus.

Ever hear about the Ideal Gas Law (PV = mRT) where P = Pressure and T = Temperature?
————
I challenge you to provide EVEN ONE Measurement, EVER DONE, that shows that a COLDER Atmosphere can HEAT UP a WARMER Earth.

If you can’t do this, then stop ignoring the Facts and admit that they simply DO NOT EXIST.

Are you serious?

Don’t you know how IR Thermometers work?

The IR detector in IR Thermometers is usually either a themocouple or themistor.

When an IR Thermometer is pointed at the Cold Sky the themocouple or themistor transfer heat radiation from the Warmer themocouple or themistor to the Cold Sky, changing the bias voltage across across the themocouple or themistor.

The change in voltage is propotional to the change in temperature and that is used to calculate the temperature.
—–
This is also what happens when a Solar Oven is pointed at the Cold Sky.

A Solar Oven is parabolic mirror that concentrates all Electromagnetic Field Energy at a focal point.

If water is placed at the focal point and the Solar Oven is pointed at the Sun, the water will boil.

If the Solar Oven is pointed at the Cold Atmosphere, the water will COOL and even FREEZE.

The following paper by The Physics Dept. of Brigham Young University measurements PROVES that that there was ONLY HEAT TRANSFER FROM THE WARM WATER TO THE COLDER ATMOSPHERE causing the water to COOL or FREEZE.
——–
Solar Cookers and Other Cooking Alternatives

“The second area of solar cookers I looked at was their potential use for cooling. I tested to see how effective they are at cooling both at night and during the day. During both times, the solar cooker needs to be aimed away from buildings, and trees.

These objects have thermal radiation and will reduce the cooling effects. At night the solar cooker needs to also be aimed straight up towards the cold sky. During the day the solar cooker needs to be turned so that it does not face the Sun and also points towards the sky.

For both time periods cooling should be possible because all bodies emit thermal radiation by virtue of their temperature. So the heat should be radiated outward.

Cooling should occur because of the second law of thermodynamics which states that heat will flow naturally from a hot object to a cold object.

The sky and upper atmosphere will be at a lower temperature then the cooking vessel. The average high-atmosphere temperature is approximately -20 °C.
So the heat should be radiated from the cooking vessel to the atmosphere.”

http://solarcooking.org/research/McGuire-Jones.mht
———-
This link PROVES that heating of the Earth’s surface cannot occur from the colder atmosphere.

In fact, the article shows how to COOL items placed in the Solar Oven at NIGHT AND DAY!

All you have to do is point the Oven away from the Sun during the Day and the Oven will transfer heat from the WARM object in the Oven to the COOLER atmosphere!

It can even be used to produce ICE when the ambient air temp is +6 deg C!

“If at night the temperature was within 6 °C or 10°F of freezing, nighttime cooling could be used to create ice. Previous tests at BYU (in the autumn and with less water) achieved
ice formation by 8 a.m. when the minimum ambient night-time temperature was about 48 °F.”

And, this also confirms the validity of 2nd Law of Thermodynamics….heat energy CANNOT flow from Cold to Warm objects.
——-
Like I said before:

2) All Direct Measurements of “Back-Radiation” can ONLY be done with COOLED IR DETECTORS, COOLED FAR BELOW THE COLDER ATMOSPHERIC TEMPERATURES.
3) If cooled IR detectors are not used, it is impossible to directly measure “Back-Radiation” on the Warmer Earth Surface.
4) If “Back-Radiation” could reach the Earth’s Surface then Parabolic Mirror Solar Ovens would produce heating, day and night, when pointed at the Cold Atmosphere.
5) There are Zero Measurements, EVER DONE, that shows that a COLDER Atmosphere can HEAT UP a Warmer Earth.

Any Luck finding EVEN ONE Measurement, EVER DONE, that shows that a COLDER Atmosphere can HEAT UP a WARMER Earth?

Back radiation. Contrary to your assertions, you don’t need a cooled detector to observe it. A simple IR thermometer will do the trick.

Likewise, the Earth’s temperature can only DROP when covered with a atmospheric “blanket”.

Eh? So by that logic the nightside of our (almost) atmosphere-less Moon should be warmer than the atmosphere blanketed Earth is at night! Right?

What is the Lunar minimum temperature?

Quickly checks wikipedia :

[the] Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter measured the lowest summer temperatures in craters at the southern pole at 35 K (−238 °C),[77] and just 26 K close to the winter solstice in north polar Hermite Crater. This is the coldest temperature in the Solar System ever measured by a spacecraft, colder even than the surface of Pluto.[76]

Now okay, that’s for permanently shadowed craters. Unfair perhaps.

So what about the overall lunar minimum temp? Let’s see : Minus 180 degrees celcius.* How does that compare with Earth? ? Well the coldest natural spot on our whole planet – Antartica – gets down to “only” a relatively warm −89 °C (−129 °F) so, clearly that’s your idea busted tight there.

Further example for you here : Which planet is nearer to the Sun – Mercury or Venus? Which planet is hotter? Why?

There is no HEATING of the +15 deg C Earth from a -20 deg C Atmosphere.

I think you’re confused here because the +15 deg Earth is, I think, including the atmosphere.

I also think you need to clarify here which level of atmosphere you are discussing given our atmosphere varies greatly in characetristics with altitude and is layered into tropossphere, stratosphere, mesosphere xenosphere, etc ..

Plus note that the atmosphere isn’t the primary cause of heating – ie. the Sun is hetaing it but still has asecondary effect.

Its the same as with the blankets analogy – a blanket doesn’t directly warm you – it’s not a heat source – but it acts to insulate and retain the heat that *you* produce.

So, no, it’s not the atmosphere that is directly heating us but it is the atmosphere insulating us and keeping us warmer than we’d be without it. Now the added co2 is making, to use the blanket analogy, this atmosphere blanket thicker and hotter.

Being nice and warm is good. Being too hot isn’t. Human co2 emissions are turning our atmsophere from doing the first – keeping us cosy – into one the second – making us uncomfortably hot. Which isn’t a good thing. Like with a blanket, this process takes time. Unlike a blanket we can’t take our atmosphere off.

Does this help your understanding at all? I hope so.

—-

* Source : page 288, ‘Collins Internet linked Dictionary of Astronomy’, John Daintith & William Gould, Collins 2006.

Please, those of you who buy into AGW and CAGW, please just promise me that you’ll keep a record of your statements and hypotheses.

I’m sure these threads will still be around and known about. I really very much doubt the BA will delete any of them but there’s always the printer for hard-copy if you want to make sure.

You’ve been beaten on the science- relying only on a notion of consensus as proof!

As Obi-wan kenobi would say “Oh I don’t think so!”

Have you actually looked at any of the science out there? Why do you think there’s a scientific consensus of thousands of really bright independent scientists over not just decades but over centuries if NOT the overwhelming evidence and basic physics principles?

You know that 2010 tied with 2005 as the hottest year, that glaciers are melting globally and that we know human carbon dioxide has a specific isotopic signature and that there are a lot of other facts supporting the Anthropogenic Global Warming theory right?

– and now descend into name calling and wailing.

Examples please?

I have tried very hard to avoid name-calling. The BA has, I admit, used the term “Denier” but while I disagree with his use of that term; he has made a reasonable case for using it and would I think, consider it a descriptive rather than merely abusive term.

A few here and elsewhere on the side of the Climatological expert consensus may be resorting to abuse and name-calling but I do not think the majority who accept the climatological mainstream view are doing so. Plenty of people are making good calm science based arguments on this topic explaining why we think as we do. I hope I am – & try to be – one of them.

Maybe you don’t understand the difference betwwen Heating and Cooling.

The temperature of the Human Body DROPPED from +33 deg C to +28 deg C when covered with Clothes…that is called COOLING!

Likewise, the Earth’s temperature can only DROP when covered with a atmospheric “blanket”.

There is no HEATING of the +15 deg C Earth from a -20 deg C Atmosphere.
————
Anorther Example:

Ever notice that the microprocessor in your Computer has a Heat-Sink on it to keep it cool?

The microprocessor has to dissipate the it’s internal Watts which causes the the microprocessor to heat up.

The microprocessor may have to dissipate say 10 watts of power over say a 0.01 m^2 surface area.

The surface temp of the Microprocessor can be calculated by the Stefan – Boltzmann Law.

Power/Area = Boltzmann’s Constant X Temp^4
Temp^4 = 1000 w/m^2 / 5.67 X 10^-8 = 1.76 X 10^10
Temp = 364 K or 91 deg C

We want the Microprocessor to drop in temperature by placing a Heat Sink on it that will only be heated to 25 deg C or 298 K

A Heat Sink is initially at room temperature (20 deg C) and is placed on the Microprocessor so heat transfer by radiation is dominant.

The Heat Sink has to have a larger surface area and that can be calculated:
Power/Area = 5.67 X 10^-8 X 298^4 = 447 w/m^2
Area = 10 Watts/447 = 0.022 m^2

The Microprocessor and the Heat Sink will now operate at a temperature of 25 deg C.

A DROP in temperature from 91 deg C to 25 deg C.

Did the Heat Sink “retard” the Microprocessors heat radiation?….Of course NOT!
——-
Heat Sink materials are chosen for their high emissivity.

A material that has a high emissivity will be efficient absorbers and emitters heat energy and produce the maximum amount of cooling.

The largest possible value for an emissivity is 1.

The atmosphere also increases the Radiating surface area of the Earth and can only COOL the Earth.

If CO2 is increased in the atmosphere, the emissivity of the atmosphere will also increase, making it a more efficient Heat-Sink.
——–
PS:

Any Luck finding EVEN ONE Measurement, EVER DONE, that shows that a COLDER Atmosphere can HEAT UP a WARMER Earth?

If you can’t do this, then you should stop ignoring the Facts and admit that they simply DO NOT EXIST.”

The clothing becomes the new surface for purposes of measurement. The fact that it has a lower temperature (28 versus 33°C) is because it retards heat loss from the body somewhat.

(Yes, the article is deficient in not mentioning heat loss for both conditions.)

You can see the same thing in the lower photograph opposite the portion you quoted. The man’s skin is brighter than his shirt.

None so blind…

If you actually read my Post#57 you would realize that I have only used the data in the IPCC AR4 report!
http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-chapter1.pdf

- The IPCC AR4 report clearly defines the fantasy “Greenhouse Effect” as relying on Back-Radiation from an average -20 deg C Atmosphere HEATING UP an average +15 deg C Earth!

(see Pg.115 of the IPCC AR4 Report…Frequently Asked Question 1.3 What is the Greenhouse Effect?, Figure 1 is also on Pg. 115)

- The 168 watts/m^2 of Solar Energy (the ONLY Energy Source) being absorbed by the Earth Surface and the 324 w/m^2 of Infrared Back Radiation from the colder atmosphere being absorbed by the warmer surface of the Earth comes DIRECTLY from Figure 1 ( Kiel and Trenberth’s Earth’s annual and global mean energy balance diagram). It’s on Pg.96 of the IPCC AR4 Report.

Cleary, this VIOLATES The Law of Conservation of Energy since the Back-Radiation of 324 w/m^2 EXCEEDS the Solar Energy of 168 w/m^2 (the ONLY Energy Source). It also Violates the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics.

There are a number of other quantites that Exceed the Solar Energy as well!
——
You also IGNORED the Facts, Measurement PROOF and my challenge:

“The FACTS are that there is no “Greenhouse Effect” as is evident from the First and 2nd Law and is completely supported by actual measurements.

PROOF:

1) There are Zero Laws of Science to support the fantasy “Greenhouse Effect”.
2) All Direct Measurements of “Back-Radiation” can ONLY be done with COOLED IR DETECTORS, COOLED FAR BELOW THE COLDER ATMOSPHERIC TEMPERATURES.
3) If cooled IR detectors are not used, it is impossible to directly measure “Back-Radiation” on the Warmer Earth Surface.
4) If “Back-Radiation” could reach the Earth’s Surface then Parabolic Mirror Solar Ovens would produce heating, day and night, when pointed at the Cold Atmosphere.
5) There are Zero Measurements, EVER DONE, that shows that a COLDER Atmosphere can HEAT UP a Warmer Earth.

I challenge you to provide EVEN ONE Measurement, EVER DONE, that shows that a COLDER Atmosphere can HEAT UP a WARMER Earth.

If you can’t do this, then stop ignoring the Facts and admit that they simply DO NOT EXIST.”
———-
CB, your post#97 “blanket Greenhouse Effect” is not supported by the IPCC AR4 report.

It is TOTALLY DIFFERENT as you can see from the above.

There is only ONE way to increase a Body’s temperature, and that is to Increase the amount of absorbed Energy:

Stefan-Boltzman Law

P/A = BC*T^4 (watts/m^2)

T =((P/A)/BC)^0.25

BC = 5.67 X 10^-8, T = temperature K, P = Watts and A = Area

The IPCC AR4 (Trenberth’s Energy Budget)report uses the Stefan-Boltzman Law to determine the Earth’s surface temperature by adding the Cold Atmosphere Back-Radition w/m^2 to the Solar Energy w/m^2!
——–

I thought you AGW’ers were big on the “concensus” of the IPCC “scientists” and here you are developing your own “Greenhouse Effect”

I find that to be absolutely Contradictory and Hillarious.

—–
Your “blanket Greenhouse Effect” also Violates the Law of Conservation of Energy, there are ZERO measurements to support it and ACTUAL Measurements totally DIS-PROVE your “theory”.

Example:

Radiation emitted by a human body

“The total surface area of an adult is about 2 m^2, and the mid- and far-infrared emissivity of skin and most clothing is near unity, as it is for most nonmetallic surfaces.Skin temperature is about 33 deg C, but CLOTHING REDUCES THE SURFACE TEMPERATURE to about 28 deg C when the ambient temperature is 20 deg C. Hence, the net radiative heat loss is about Pnet = 100 W.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_body

Blankets can’t increase a human body’s surface temperature of +33 deg C because the body HAS to supply heat energy to the Blanket to increase it’s temperature.

The ONLY way to Increase the Body temperature of +33 deg C is to INCREASE the watts/m^2 ABSORBED by the Body (see the Stefan-Boltzmann Law above)!

I hope, twenty years from now, when this has all been laughed off to the dustbin of history, that you feel some measure of shame for your intellectual laziness.

Pot, meet kettle. Project, much?