2014 was definitely the hottest year on record

[god1]

...
At least my approximation allows for the FACT of conduction, in line with the 2nd LoT.
...

What are you talking about? I thought we were talking about black bodies in no atmosphere?

No atmosphere implies a vacuum or something very close to it; are you implying something else?

In a vacuum the only method for heat transfer is via electro-magnetic radiation. There is no significant conduction or convection in terms of energy transfer from the sink in that scenario.

RE: your heat sink analogy; yeah, boundary conditions are important in a heat sink application, but the mechanism for heat transfer away from the sink is via convection. Take your computer, close all the vents and it won't be long before thermal run away occurs or the system shuts down. You still have the same boundary interface at the sink, but the heat transfer mechanism from the sink is dependent upon lower energy air molecules moving across it, that is an example of convection. Once the air inside has become saturated with energy it removes less from the sink and finally reaches equilibrium, which shuts your computer off.

Set aside your black body calculation for a second, is your claim that the earth atmosphere has no contribution to the surface temperature what so ever? Or are you claiming that like the movement of air in your computer, there is a transfer of energy from the planet through to the atmosphere? So then what? Where does the energy go?

With no atmosphere, what makes the thermal behavior of the earth any different than that of the moon? Why would you not expect the wild shifts in instantaneous temperatures as you go from incident energy to none?

To be clear, you may have answered some of my questions in your other posts, I must admit, I haven't had a chance to read them in detail. I'll have a look tomorrow.

edit: I'm not talking vacuum chambers. I realize you could have a conduction path inside a small space to either a source or sink. But that's not what we're talking about.
.

 

[ttystikk]

A forest fire won't reduce global temperature, but volcanoes do. Maybe we should have a big one every few years. Using nukes won't do; sending nasty radioactivity planetwide kinda defeats the purpose. How about water injection? Halliburton and its fracking technology could save the world!

 

[OddBall1st]

So years later and you still haven't learned the difference between climate and weather, huh?

It`s real simple dude so you should easily get this first try.

Weather describes the climate you are present in, climate describes the weather you are not present in.

It never goes below 60 degrees F in the Cayman Islands in the daytime,.... it never goes above - 0 in the south pole during the daytime, both are their own climates, yet you cannot talk about any climate without describing it`s weather and you cannot talk about weather without describing the climate.

Weather is to climate as fire is to heat,.... without one, you cannot have the other..... ellipses.

If I talk about your arm, then talk about your foot, I am still talking about you.

 

[OddBall1st]

What are you talking about? I thought we were talking about black bodies in no atmosphere?

No atmosphere implies a vacuum or something very close to it; are you implying something else?

In a vacuum the only method for heat transfer is via electro-magnetic radiation. There is no significant conduction or convection in terms of energy transfer from the sink in that scenario.

RE: your heat sink analogy; yeah, boundary conditions are important in a heat sink application, but the mechanism for heat transfer away from the sink is via convection. Take your computer, close all the vents and it won't be long before thermal run away occurs or the system shuts down. You still have the same boundary interface at the sink, but the heat transfer mechanism from the sink is dependent upon lower energy air molecules moving across it, that is an example of convection. Once the air inside has become saturated with energy it removes less from the sink and finally reaches equilibrium, which shuts your computer off.

Set aside your black body calculation for a second, is your claim that the earth atmosphere has no contribution to the surface temperature what so ever? Or are you claiming that like the movement of air in your computer, there is a transfer of energy from the planet through to the atmosphere? So then what? Where does the energy go?

With no atmosphere, what makes the thermal behavior of the earth any different than that of the moon? Why would you not expect the wild shifts in instantaneous temperatures as you go from incident energy to none?

To be clear, you may have answered some of my questions in your other posts, I must admit, I haven't had a chance to read them in detail. I'll have a look tomorrow.

edit: I'm not talking vacuum chambers. I realize you could have a conduction path inside a small space to either a source or sink. But that's not what we're talking about.
.

No Atmosphere is a solid. The moon has an atmosphere as soon as you exit the solid ground.

 

[OddBall1st]

The Big Ol' Tearing Down of the Greenhouse Wall, Part Deux :
Proof that Climastrology worships the Great Pumpkin, and it's fucking rotten!

What follows is a derivation of what the temperature of the globe would be sans atmosphere which will unsettle the foundation of the climastrologists' pseudo-science. It is the hole in the head which makes essentially all of their work moot, and demonstrates why feeding them more money is utterly stupid.

Climastrology claims that without an atmosphere, the Earth's "average temperature" (whatever the fuck that is) would be 255K (-18degC), and that because the Greenhouse Effect exists (which it doesn't) our glorious Garden of Eden temp is 288K (+15degC). This implies that the atmosphere is somehow adding thermal energy into the system. Now earlier, in the so-called "bullshit post", it was demonstrated that the air cannot conduct thermal energy into the surface, except under unnatural or artifcial conditions; therefore, the atmospheric gases only served to COOL the surface of the Earth.

That is, they provide a conduit by which thermal energy could be dumped back into space, using the other modes of transfer (convection and--ultimately--radiation beyond the Tropopause), along with conduction. It was not a strawman despite the protest of a disrespectful MistyCanine, but rather a foundation. The root of it being the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics which stipulates thermal energy will flow from higher density energy states (as in solids, liquids) to lower density states (in gases) towards seeking the most probable macrostate (i.e. equilibrium). i.e. dS/dt >=0

To begin, certain elements must be defined. They are all accepted by climastrology AFAIK, and I have no reason to deny their use since they are reasonable under the dicta of Physics.

, being Temperature of the Sun, Radius of the Sun, distance to Earth, and albedo of the Earth, respectively.

Now the great Stefan-Boltzmann equation must be applied to find power per unit area (SB) of the Sun.

, where I have used the value of sigma (i.e. the Stefan-Boltzmann "constant") that my calculator states, although it is not exactly a constant for reasons beyond the scope of this analysis (see Reif's, or Schroeder's texts for more info). However, it is "close enough" and the range is not an impediment for the sake of analysis.

Then, we can find what the power (or Luminosity) will be by simply multiplying over the surface area of Sol,

However, we want to know what is hitting the Earth, right? Well thanks to the genius of Maxwell IIRC, we can calculate the flux at the surface which arises from a sphere whose radius is equal to the distance to Earth,

...well, what do you know? It's the "solar constant" !

Anyway, so far, so good...so what ! This is where Climastrology departs from logic. What those wizards of dumb do next is improperly apply further iterations of the StefBo equation to arrive at the bizarre value of 255 K for their version of an atmosphereless Earth. I will now apply it more correctly to demonstrate the more correct value. If you don't have your helmets fastened, I would suggest strapping them on now, oh AGW dweebs of RIU! No smoking during take-off, either, unless you have an Oz ready for the pilot!

First, we need to ask, "what is happening?" At this distance, the wave-front of energy (i.e. photons or Huygens wavelets) can be approximated by a plane-wave, because it's HYUUUJE! Furthermore, this energy is coming into contact with a hemisphere, not the whole sphere (in case you didn't notice, the sun doesn't shine at night...DUH!) This is the great mistake climastrologists make when fumbling through the equations. Admittedly, they aren't alone. I am staring at Schroeder's text, and he even makes the same mistake. There is a factor of 4 being applied incorrectly (and unphysically, for that matter) which outputs the incorrect value. So in order to correct this, the proper geometry must be considered when applying the Conservation of Energy with respect to the balancing of the absorbed and emitted equations.

Geee...that's a far fucking cry from -15degC
In fact, it's a lot fucking hotter than what we have to put up with on Earth! Great googly moogly, the desert doesn't even get that hot! What's funnier still, is that value is likely TOO LOW!
How can one question that? Look at the moon, the place where all this shit started 120 years ago with Langley's Bolometer data (which Arrhenius fucked up in using when crafting his BS).
Peak temperature manages to hit ~396K (123degC) !!! I wouldn't recommend wearing your aluminum flip-flops during noon-time on the equator, eh.
Another reason it may be too low is the albedo applied. If one uses the value determined earlier for an "average" parcel of earth, it would spit out a value of ~381K (108degC).

Another thing to keep in mind is the nature of the equations used. They describe INSTANTANEOUS energy conditions. If one wants to muddle around with retained energy, it becomes a question of the Heat Transfer physics like in the prior post. Totally different rules there, even though related to temperature. If one were to look down at the North pole with incident radiation coming in at 12 o'clock, the thermal profile would peak around 10 on the clock face, and dwindle off into the radiative night (keep in mind this "clock" runs backwards from this perspective).

So the question remains, what does this do to the GH theory? Well...it essentially kills it. There is no Greenhouse...there is no super back-radiation "heating" the planet...it is all nonsense built on BULLSHIT! Maybe even some Horseshit scraped from a floor in a Wendy's bathroom.

You fools are glibly throwing money at the Easter Bunny and expecting me to pay for it with Carbon taxes and other crap. At the same time, your solutions generally consist of bullying other economies into submission telling them they can't make progress with energy generation because "CARBON".

Idiots. In some ways, I hope PRUMT! gets in because of it all. Who knows what Col Sanders will do, despite the fact I am sympathetic to his other political stances. He seems pretty militant over this crap.

Now I could go on to dismantle the back-radiation story of Trenberth et al., which breaks the 1st Law of Thermodynamics, but what for? If you can't see how screwed up it is from what has been presented, you are probably not going to be convinced otherwise, even with experimental data to prove it! (and it is out there...I finally found it)

Anyway, enjoy the fact the atmosphere helps to cool the planet so you don't have to deal with a truly blistering summer. And keep feeding your plants that delicious CO2 ! It actually helps cool things faster due to its low emissivity! Don't worry about the oceans either, they can handle the 0.02 shift in pH

Good night, y'all. And don't let them EVER tell you the "science is settled".
It's only settled in their unreal, statistically modelled delusions.

Dude, all you had to say was sunburn. You get sunburn when the air cannot block out the suns heat/radiation.(ever get sunburn on a cloudy day) You go to the north pole and there is not enough sunshine present to heat it, so you freeze.

Do you really know what all that math means ??

 

[god1]

....

So the question remains, what does this do to the GH theory? Well...it essentially kills it. There is no Greenhouse...there is no super back-radiation "heating" the planet...it is all nonsense built on BULLSHIT! Maybe even some Horseshit scraped from a floor in a Wendy's bathroom.

Here's a thought experiment for you:

You place two bodies into space separated by distance x. One is an ideal black body radiator. The second, call it a load, but you know nothing about it's thermal qualities other than the initial temp of 0 deg K.

You turn on the source and monitor the load. After some time you detect radiated energy from the load. You take note of the emitted frequency spectrum and calculate it's thermal equilibrium.

You then turn off your source, drop your load into a sphere of goo, the goo's starting temp was also at 0 deg. You allow the temp of the two objects to reach equilibrium and yank the load from the sphere of goo and pull it from the environment. The goo remains in space with no incident energy.

What happens to the temperature of the goo? Does it's energy go down or up and how? If there were another body in this space how would you expect the two bodies to interact thermally? Did the sphere ever transfer energy to the load to begin with?

Your quote above makes me wonder if you really understand what's being claimed by the AGW guys to start. The initial radiated energy temp of your load has nothing to do with the problem. The issue is energy/heat transfer between the load and sphere of goo. You're barking up the wrong tree.

Good luck dude.

 

[Fogdog]

Ok, enough chucking rocks at you, at least for now. Let's go back to your strange mistakes in an attempt at physics.
Error 1:
A globe and a disk of the same radius when held up to a light cast the same size shadow. Put another way, the globe and disk intercept the same total amount of energy.. For a visualization, refer to the picture below, which shows the shadow behind a globe and a disk illuminated by a sun.. The hemisphere of a globe has a larger surface area but due to curvature, light is spread out more at the edges of the hemisphere than at the equator:

The spherical Earth actually "intercepts" the same amount of incoming solar EM radiation as would a flat disk of the same radius, as shown above. (this from: http://www.windows2universe.org/earth/climate/sun_radiation_at_earth.html )

The mistake you make is to assume the surface area of the hemisphere in your calculation for energy absorbed without correcting for curvature. Your error doubled the amount of energy input into your calculation for surface temperature.




This science is settled. Its a lot older than climate science.

E = total energy intercepted (technically, energy flux = energy per unit time, in watts)
KS = solar insolation ("solar constant") = 1,361 watts per square meter
RE = radius of Earth = 6,371 km = 6,371,000 meters

Next is your second error where you assume black body radiation but only use half the body in question. Again, this is settled and was settled a very long time ago but you can argue with it if you like..



:

 

[Rob Roy]

Ok, enough chucking rocks at you, at least for now. Let's go back to your strange mistakes in an attempt at physics.
Error 1:
A globe and a disk of the same radius when held up to a light cast the same size shadow. Put another way, the globe and disk intercept the same total amount of energy.. For a visualization, refer to the picture below, which shows the shadow behind a globe and a disk illuminated by a sun.. The hemisphere of a globe has a larger surface area but due to curvature, light is spread out more at the edges of the hemisphere than at the equator:

The spherical Earth actually "intercepts" the same amount of incoming solar EM radiation as would a flat disk of the same radius, as shown above. (this from: http://www.windows2universe.org/earth/climate/sun_radiation_at_earth.html )

The mistake you make is to assume the surface area of the hemisphere in your calculation for energy absorbed without correcting for curvature. Your error doubled the amount of energy input into your calculation for surface temperature.

View attachment 3608382


This science is settled. Its a lot older than climate science.

E = total energy intercepted (technically, energy flux = energy per unit time, in watts)
KS = solar insolation ("solar constant") = 1,361 watts per square meter
RE = radius of Earth = 6,371 km = 6,371,000 meters

Next is your second error where you assume black body radiation but only use half the body in question. Again, this is settled and was settled a very long time ago but you can argue with it if you like..



:

Interesting. I am impressed with your knowledge in this area.

I am interested in learning what the impact of the rotation of the sphere (earth) has on this calculation, and in the greater picture on absorbing heat etc. I haven't read the whole thread so forgive me if it's already been discussed.

I'll admit I am much more of a Philosopher than Physicist so I'm asking a serious question.

 

[OddBall1st]

Ok, enough chucking rocks at you, at least for now. Let's go back to your strange mistakes in an attempt at physics.
Error 1:
A globe and a disk of the same radius when held up to a light cast the same size shadow. Put another way, the globe and disk intercept the same total amount of energy.. For a visualization, refer to the picture below, which shows the shadow behind a globe and a disk illuminated by a sun.. The hemisphere of a globe has a larger surface area but due to curvature, light is spread out more at the edges of the hemisphere than at the equator:

The spherical Earth actually "intercepts" the same amount of incoming solar EM radiation as would a flat disk of the same radius, as shown above. (this from: http://www.windows2universe.org/earth/climate/sun_radiation_at_earth.html )

The mistake you make is to assume the surface area of the hemisphere in your calculation for energy absorbed without correcting for curvature. Your error doubled the amount of energy input into your calculation for surface temperature.

View attachment 3608382


This science is settled. Its a lot older than climate science.

E = total energy intercepted (technically, energy flux = energy per unit time, in watts)
KS = solar insolation ("solar constant") = 1,361 watts per square meter
RE = radius of Earth = 6,371 km = 6,371,000 meters

Next is your second error where you assume black body radiation but only use half the body in question. Again, this is settled and was settled a very long time ago but you can argue with it if you like..



:

Your mistake is thinking that the Earth is a round ball. It is not. It is oval and it`s axis is not 90 degrees of the sun,...therefore it is entirely possible to have a hemisphere absorb more energy when that axis in in the Summer season as opposed to the Winter Season.

Use your pic. with an egg. Then revolve around the light source at the proper axis.

A sphere would not have 24 hour darkness at one pole and 24 hour daylight at the other pole no matter what axis it is in.

Just go up North to see that is does stay dark 24 hours and does stay daylight because the sun goes around the edges of the horizon and not over to the other side, like in Boston.

Your example only works with a ball.

 

[OddBall1st]

Not trying to impress Rob.....ellipses A ball has four right angles, an oval of any kind,....does not.....ellipses. The radius of a ball is equal no matter how you hold it, not so with an oval.

 

[Fogdog]

Your mistake is thinking that the Earth is a round ball. It is not. It is oval and it`s axis is not 90 degrees of the sun,...therefore it is entirely possible to have a hemisphere absorb more energy when that axis in in the Summer season as opposed to the Winter Season.

Use your pic. with an egg. Then revolve around the light source at the proper axis.

A sphere would not have 24 hour darkness at one pole and 24 hour daylight at the other pole no matter what axis it is in.

Just go up North to see that is does stay dark 24 hours and does stay daylight because the sun goes around the edges of the horizon and not over to the other side, like in Boston.

Your example only works with a ball.

Completely agree that the model Heckler proposed is too simple to fully describe the earth. Heckler was using the back of the envelope type calculation to show that -- "climastrologists" as he put it -- have gotten the 2nd law of thermodynamics wrong for 150 years. What I did was show him where he input incorrect terms in his application of a very simple 2nd year High School physics equation. I mean really, a smart 15 year old kid can do better. It was easy to refute his conclusion that Arrhenius got the second law of thermodynamics wrong when he estimated the effect of increased concentration of global warming gasses in the atmosphere.

We can make a laundry list of departures from the real system starting with black body radiation assumption and moving on to the lack of atmosphere, clouds, oceans, land masses, rotation, tilt, wobble and so forth. In order to simulate a system closer to the actual one, NASA and other groups use computers and alogorithms way more complicated than my PC and an Excel equation. This equation is useful however to discuss general principles. In this case it was useful because its clear that Heckler is wrong from the very beginning of his argument, sparing us from more patronizing mumbo jumbo.

Its a 1st order model that demonstrates how the earth is heated by the sun and how to roughly calculate the temperature of an object using a fairly simple calculation. I appreciated @heckler73 's effort to describe why he thought thousands of people with years of advanced training in climate science are wrong along with every paper written on the subject for about 150 years. His position was grandiose and wrong.

 

[Fogdog]

We are about due...

Could you go over this theory about the imminent ice age with us? I don't understand how you get there...

 

[OddBall1st]

Completely agree that the model Heckler proposed is too simple to fully describe the earth. Heckler was using the back of the envelope type calculation to show that -- "climastrologists" as he put it -- have gotten the 2nd law of thermodynamics wrong for 150 years. What I did was show him where he input incorrect terms in his application of a very simple 2nd year High School physics equation. I mean really, a smart 15 year old kid can do better. It was easy to refute his conclusion that Arrhenius got the second law of thermodynamics wrong when he estimated the effect of increased concentration of global warming gasses in the atmosphere.

We can make a laundry list of departures from the real system starting with black body radiation assumption and moving on to the lack of atmosphere, clouds, oceans, land masses, rotation, tilt, wobble and so forth. In order to simulate a system closer to the actual one, NASA and other groups use computers and alogorithms way more complicated than my PC and an Excel equation. This equation is useful however to discuss general principles. In this case it was useful because its clear that Heckler is wrong from the very beginning of his argument, sparing us from more patronizing mumbo jumbo.

Its a 1st order model that demonstrates how the earth is heated by the sun and how to roughly calculate the temperature of an object using a fairly simple calculation. I appreciated @heckler73 's effort to describe why he thought thousands of people with years of advanced training in climate science are wrong along with every paper written on the subject for about 150 years. His position was grandiose and wrong.

I must find an envelope.....

 

[NLXSK1]

Could you go over this theory about the imminent ice age with us? I don't understand how you get there...

You look at the graph of temperatures over the last 250,000 years and see that there are peaks and valleys and we have been at a peak for a while now... What happens next do you think?

 

[ttystikk]

Could you go over this theory about the imminent ice age with us? I don't understand how you get there...

Wasn't it on TV a few years ago? Must be true, then!

 

[Fogdog]

Error 2
estimating cooling or energy loss due to emitted planetary radiation

Energy is intercepted and absorbed on the side that faces the sun. The earth rotates through this radiation field and it gets complicated if we try to account for everywhere the energy goes in the real system. What is discussed here is radiation from a black body, a simplifying assumption to help work through the effect of major variables as they affect a planet's average surface temperature. Regardless of which assumption we use, the law of conservation of energy still applies. Energy in must equal energy out or we've moved into science denial, again.

As a side note, we calculate average earth temperature, so the rotation of the earth isn't important in an ideal case. The side that is not facing the sun is colder and the side facing the sun at the equator is hottest but we average all this variation into one number. The earth rotates and all the planet is exposed to the sun, which spreads energy input over a larger surface area but the total input is the same. Again, we calculate average surface temperature, so differences at the poles or equator or due to rotation are cancelled out.

Very hot objects like the sun emit radiation at very high frequencies or low wavelength. The earth, being much cooler, emits long wavelength radiation however the total energy absorbed is equal to the total energy radiated minus whatever is used in chemical reactions, wear due to friction from expansion and contraction and so forth. In this application, we assume an ideal condition where the energy input is equal to the energy output.

Just to make this relevant to RIU, can you identify the region of photo-synthetically available radiation in the graph below?

The input energy is equal to:

• E = total energy intercepted (technically, energy flux = energy per unit time, in watts)
• KS = solar insolation ("solar constant") = 1,361 watts per square meter
• RE = radius of Earth = 6,371 km = 6,371,000 meters
• Albedo = Radiation that is not absorbed due to reflection = 0.31 or 0.30 by Heckler's estimate.

This and other stuff was lifted from: http://scied.ucar.edu/planetary-energy-balance-temperature-calculate

The amount of radiation emitted by an object depends on the temperature of the object. The equation for this relationship is called the Stefan-Boltzmann law. Notice that the amount of energy emitted is proportional to the 4th power of the temperature. Energy emissions go up A LOT as temperature rises! Please note that this is settled science and has been settled for about 200 years. Even Heckler didn't rewrite this.

Stefan-Boltzmann law

j* = energy flux = energy per unit time per unit area (joules per second per square meter or watts per square meter)
σ = Stefan-Boltzmann constant = 5.670373 x 10-8 watts / m2 K4 (m = meters, K = kelvins)
T = temperature (in the Kelvin scale)

The SB law tells us how much radiation is emitted per unit area with units in Watts/square meter. In order to balance the energy equation, we need to input the surface area of the planet. This is where Heckler makes his rather surprisingly ignorant mistake. He assumes only half the black body radiates heat. A black body is an ideal construct that is infinitesimally thin, reflects no light and emits radiation at frequencies that are relative to its temperature.

A spherical black body would radiate over its entire surface, the total radiated energy is proportional to the surface area, 4piR^2

Heckler quite rightly assumes only half the earth or a Hemisphere is illuminated by the sun at any time. The area of the surface of a hemisphere is half that of a globe or 2piR^2. This halves the surface area for radiation and forces surface temperature up compared to a sphere. What he misses is that an idealized hemispherical black body has two sides. Using @heckler73 's strange concept of a hemisphere-shaped black body to represent a planet, the correct term to use for surface area is 2*(2piR^2) or 4piR^2. What a relief! Planetary physicists for generations have not been proven wrong.

So, we have:

Putting it all together in energy balance equation, we get:

Rearranging algebraically and substituting terms into the equation we get:

Again, 200 years of work by planetary physicists are saved from Heckler the magnificent. Using an idealized system, the surface of planet earth sans air, and represented as a black body emitter is -19.5 C, not 88.5 C as Heckler would have us believe. This is not a trivial matter with respect to global warming theory.

 

[Fogdog]

I must find an envelope.....

View attachment 3608731


View attachment 3608734

That brought a small laugh from me. I like to debate people with strong opinions counter to mine. I don't enjoy talking to ignorant people but I'm going to let you tell me whether you are informed and wrong, like Heckler or just ignorant. So, here are my questions:

I get that you can't get past the representation of the earth as a globe instead of the real case where it is egg or oblong-shaped. I'm wondering if you can tell me how much difference it makes that the earth is not a perfect sphere?

The other figure that you scratched out is unrelated to your question of the shape of the earth as an egg. Whenever sun strikes a round, oval, oblong or whatever shaped object, the radiation is spread out when it strikes a surface at an angle greater than 90 degrees. You say the drawing is wrong. What would you do to calculate the energy absorbed by a curved surface?

EDIT: Also, you do realize that the seasons and the polar ice caps are created by exactly this effect, don't you?

 

[Fogdog]

You look at the graph of temperatures over the last 250,000 years and see that there are peaks and valleys and we have been at a peak for a while now... What happens next do you think?

Can you tell us your interpretation of what happens next and when? Also, can you show us this graph that I haven't seen?

 

[NLXSK1]

Can you tell us your interpretation of what happens next and when? Also, can you show us this graph that I haven't seen?

You have not ever seen a graph of the ice ages?? Seems strange...

 

[Fogdog]

You have not ever seen a graph of the ice ages?? Seems strange...

Thanks for providing the reference material. There is a lot of material out there and its best if we can at least begin this with one data set. Ok, so from your viewpoint, what does this all mean regarding global climate change?