Guest Post by Ira Glickstein
This series began with a mechanical analogy for the Atmospheric “Greenhouse Effect” and progressed a bit more deeply into Atmospheric Windows and Emission Spectra. In this posting, we consider the interaction between air molecules, including Nitrogen (N2), Oxygen (O2), Water Vapor (H2O) and Carbon Dioxide (CO2), with Photons of various wavelengths. This may help us visualize how energy, in the form of Photons radiated by the Sun and the Surface of the Earth, is absorbed and re-emited by Atmospheric molecules. 
DESCRIPTION OF THE GRAPHIC
The animated graphic has eight frames, as indicated by the counter in the lower right corner. Molecules are symbolized by letter pairs or triplets and Photons by ovals and arrows. The view is of a small portion of the cloud-free Atmosphere. (Thanks to WUWT commenter davidmhoffer for some of the ideas incorporated in this graphic.)
- During the daytime, Solar energy enters the Atmosphere in the form of Photons at wavelengths from about 0.1μ (micron – millionth of a meter) to 4μ, which is called “shortwave” radiation and is represented as ~1/2μ and symbolized as orange ovals. Most of this energy gets a free pass through the cloud-free Atmosphere. It continues down to the Surface of the Earth where some is reflected back by light areas (not shown in the animation) and where most is absorbed and warms the Surface.
- Since Earth’s temperature is well above absolute zero, both day and night, the Surface radiates Photons in all directions with the energy distributed approximately according to a “blackbody” at a given temperature. This energy is in the form of Photons at wavelengths from about 4μ to 50μ, which is called “longwave” radiation and is represented as ~7μ, ~10μ, and ~15μ and symbolized as violet, light blue, and purple ovals, respectively. The primary “greenhouse” gases (GHG) are Water Vapor (H2O) and Carbon Dioxide (CO2). The ~7μ Photon is absorbed by an H2O molecule because Water Vapor has an absorption peak in that region, the ~10μ Photon gets a free pass because neither H2O nor CO2 absorb strongly in that region, and one of the 15μ Photons gets absorbed by an H2O molecule while the other gets absorbed by a CO2 molecule because these gases have absorption peaks in that region.
- The absorbed Photons raise the energy level of their respective molecules (symbolized by red outlines).
- The energized molecules re-emit the Photons in random directions, some upwards, some downwards, and some sideways. Some of the re-emitted Photons make their way out to Space and their energy is lost there, others back down to the Surface where their energy is absorbed, further heating the Earth, and others travel through the Atmosphere for a random distance until they encounter another GHG molecule.
- This frame and the next two illustrate another way Photons are emitted, namely due to collisions between energized GHG molecules and other air molecules. As in frame (2) the Surface radiates Photons in all directions and various wavelengths.
- The Photons cause the GHG molecules to become energized and they speed up and collide with other gas molecules, energizing them. NOTE: In a gas, the molecules are in constant motion, moving in random directions at different speeds, colliding and bouncing off one another, etc. Indeed the “temperature” of a gas is something like the average speed of the molecules. In this animation, the gas molecules are fixed in position because it would be too confusing if they were all shown moving and because the speed of the Photons is so much greater than the speed of the molecules that they hardly move in the time indicated.
- The energized air molecules emit radiation at various wavelengths and in random directions, some upwards, some downwards, and some sideways. Some of the re-emitted Photons make their way out to Space and their energy is lost there, others back down to the Surface where their energy is absorbed, further heating the Earth, and others travel through the Atmosphere for a random distance until they encounter another GHG molecule.
- Having emitted the energy, the molecules cool down.
DISCUSSION
As in the other postings in this series, only radiation effects are considered because they are the key to understanding the Atmospheric “Greenhouse Effect”. I recognize that other effects are as important, and perhaps more so, in the overall heat balance of the Earth. These include clouds which reflect much of the Sun’s radiation back out to Space, and which, due to negative feedback, counteract Global Warming. Other effects include convection (wind, thunderstorms, …), precipitation (rain, snow) and conduction that are responsible for transferring energy from the Surface to the Atmosphere. It is also important to note that the Atmospheric “Greenhouse Effect” and a physical greenhouse are similar in that they both limit the rate of thermal energy flowing out of the system, but the mechanisms by which heat is retained are different. A greenhouse works primarily by preventing absorbed heat from leaving the structure through convection, i.e. sensible heat transport. The greenhouse effect heats the earth because greenhouse gases absorb outgoing radiative energy and re-emit some of it back towards earth.
That said, how does this visualization help us understand the issue of “CO2 sensitivity” which is the additional warming of the Earth Surface due to an increase in atmospheric CO2? Well, given a greater density of CO2 (and H2O) molecules in the air, there is a greater chance that a given photon will get absorbed. Stated differently, a given photon will travel a shorter distance, on average, before being absorbed by a GHG molecule and be re-emitted in a random direction, including downwards towards the Surface. That will result in more energy being recycled back to the Surface, increasing average temperatures a bit.
Myrrh says
“It’s not my hypothesis; it’s not for me to tell you what I think heat is, it’s for you to explain it to me because I’m questioning what you mean by it”
However, every time I (or others) try to tell you what I think heat means, you shoot back a simple “Heat is thermal IR”. So you are explaining it to us. Since that is the case, I ask you to provide a more precise definition from your perspective.
* “heat” is equivalent to “thermal IR”
* “heat” is a subset of “thermal IR”
* “thermal IR” is a subset of “heat”
* “thermal IR” have some overlap “heat”
You go on to ask “So, still my question. How much heat do these Solar KT97 photons actually create?”
But again, you do not seem to be looking for information, because you already have your own answer: “not creating any heat in giving up its energy.” If you have already made up your mind, then why ask for others’ input?
“I say it’s insignificant. ”
That is certainly a testable hypothesis. Obviously K&T have specific numbers that they provided. If you don’t like their numbers, you are welcome to show where they are wrong. You are welcome to do your own calculations (along the lines of what Wayne is doing). But just saying “I say it’s insignificant” is hardly how science is done.
I gotta say, Joel,
When people in an informal discussion like this use “heat” incorrectly (like thinking that “heat up” is the same as “warm up” or that “heat” is the same as “thermal energy”), it can be forgiven pretty easily (even if that is half the reason this discussion is still going).
But then your paper — that is trying to highlight flaws in thermodynamics — ITSELF uses the thermodynamics terms poorly. That does leave you open for attacks.
Of course, the true test is whether the PHYSICS itself is right — whether the equations are right– not whether the word “heat” was used colloquially when it should have been used in a strict thermodynamic sense. I have only glanced at the original G&T paper and at your rebuttal, so I am not really in a position to offer an opinion on either.
What do you think, Bryan? Is there specific physics in Joel’s rebuttal — specific equations — that you disagree with? (you might have given some already, but I don’t want to scroll back thru the entire thread to find them). What is a glaring mistake in his equations? What is a glaring logical fallacy?
The text by Young & Freedman does make one rather glaring mistake, and it makes a few plausible but not certain predictions.
I’ll leave it up to others to decide if the mistake of stating “CO2” in place of “all green house gases” was intentional, ignorant, or sloppy.
The other statement that is perhaps a bit over the top deals with projections. [I would probably rewrite it a bit, as indicated by the section is brackets …]
However, I heartily approve of the idea of adding a section on global warming. Adding topics of current interest is common in textbooks — it is a way to engage the students and show relevance.
Joel Shore says:
….”So, Smokey, can you come up with an example where I have approvingly cited a respected textbook and then when it was pointed out to me that a later edition of the textbook said something that conflicted with my ideologically-driven worldview, I came up with a dramatic conspiracy theory to explain why the textbook was lying to the students because I refused to believe that perhaps it was my worldview that was wrong?”…..
Joel pretends that there is no climate controversy.
Where everything is treated on its merits.
Where Real Climate and WUWT are in broad agreement about access to peer reviewed material.
What is the reality!
Joel in fact joined a group of hysterical ideologues including Halpern to try to denigrate a different point of view by the theoretical physicists Professor Gerhard Gerlich and Ralf D. Tscheuschner.
The comic consequences of which I have posted above.
Joel is just the kind of person who will scrutinise educational material and complain to publishers that they have not included the IPCC perspective.
Pressure groups like this consider it their duty to make sure that the ‘correct line’ is being followed.
Why else would a standard physics textbook be pressured into including a couple of token hyper CGW paragraphs?
Why would a GCSE chemistry textbook contain almost no chemistry but plenty about global warming.
Other examples of intolerant pressure;
In the Soviet Union physicists were pressurised into including in textbooks the benefits of Marxism Leninism.
In Nazi Germany textbooks were scrutinised to eliminate Jewish Physics
In Mao’s China physics textbooks were encouraged to say how it all benefited from Mao’s thought.
Now in these three cases the pressure was overt.
But ask yourself!
When last did the BBC include the reality of the wide disagreement about the so called “settled science”.
Listen to respected Climate Scientists like Spencer and Lindzen who find it very difficult to get their work published.
Then finally ask yourself if Joel had the power – would he ban WUWT?
Bryan says:
In science, all points of view are not equally valid. Their point of view was wrong; even your friends Spencer and Lindzen say their point of view is wrong.
And, your evidence that it was pressured to do so is what exactly? And, you think that the physicist authors would yield to such pressure and put something in their book that they believe is nonsense?
Perhaps it was included because it is a very relevant and topical example of applying the equations for radiative heat transfer. Oh no…I forgot, we can’t believe that…No, we have to believe it was a vast conspiracy!
To the first approximation, everybody thinks that all their work is brilliant and worthy of publication. That doesn’t make it so. What brilliant work of Spencer and Lindzen hasn’t gotten published? In fact, some rather poor work of theirs has gotten published, so I really fail to see the evidence for their case.
Or maybe you believe in a sort of quota system, where any paper…no matter how poor…gets published if it supports the minority view? It seems like climate “skeptics” have become the ultimate believers in “affirmative action” in the most hyperbolic use of the term.
And, where have we heard these sort of complaints before? Oh, yes, I know where. Here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expelled:_No_Intelligence_Allowed
Tim Folkerts says:
Well, Tim, nobody’s perfect. To the extent that we did use the term “heat” too colloquially in a few places, it is easily-remediable without changing anything fundamental. To tell you the truth, we wrote that paper before I was in academia…and specifically, teaching an intro course that includes some thermodynamics. So, I was a bit rusty on the technical precision of using the word “heat” in the context of radiative heat transfer. If I had written it now, I hopefully would have been more aware and made the minor edits required to use the term in a more consistently-technically-correct fashion.
I do agree that this marginally-incorrect use of terms has given an avenue for those peddling pseudoscience to deceive folks and that is unfortunate. Of course, what we should condemn is the morality of the sort of people who would do this sort of thing.
Exactly…As I noted, this is a very good way to see if someone is peddling pseudoscience rather than science. People peddling pseudoscience love to try to adopt an interpretation of what you said that they can attack, rather than trying to see if it is easy enough to interpret what you said in a way that makes perfect sense. This was basically the whole approach in G&T: They quoted various passages from authors explaining the greenhouse effect and said, “See…They used ‘heat’ here when they meant ‘energy’ and so on and so forth. And, if they had just used this critique to say that people should be clearer and more technically precise in their discussions of the greenhouse effect, nobody would have argued with them…They would have been saying the same thing as Alistair Fraser does on his “Bad Greenhouse” webpage. However, where they jumped into pseudoscience was in using these critiques to deceive people into believing that the greenhouse effect itself was a “fiction”.
What G&T did when they critiqued the wording in these descriptions was that they never tried to engage in the question of whether it made a material difference…and, of course, they avoided discussing any actual mathematical models where they couldn’t play their silly word games. That part of what tells me that G&T know what they were up to…They are lawyers trying to get their client off on a technicality.
Tim says:
I have also put it to Bryan another way. If he thinks we have mischaracterized G&T’s position, as he and G&T claim, why is it that neither of them will explain in clear language what their position is? Is it because they realize that there is no logically-defensible position when you look at it?
Since we haven’t gotten any answer up until now, I am not holding my breath in expectation of ever getting one. See, the goal for them is misdirection: If you can get everyone talking about whether we used every word correctly in our paper or if we correctly guessed exactly what G&T were thinking when they wrote the nonsense that they did, then you never have to try to explain what it is they actually meant…and maybe people won’t notice that they have absolutely no credible thesis! I have to admit it is kind of brilliant in a diabolical sort of way.
What it is not is scientific.
Tim says: SUMMARY: Ultimately the blue photon DOES give up its EM energy to thermal energy EVEN IF it gets absorbed by a plant.
Yeah, yeah. You getting to be so predictable.. [For anyone who hasn’t followed this exchange, this is Tim’s method as I outlined above in post to Phil. This time he’s taken something Wayne and I talked about.] You don’t belong in Real World Science, so back to my question which I know you can’t answer, because AGWScience has simply created a fiction:
The AGWScience premise on which all its reasoning about “Global warming is the increase in the average temperature of Earth’s near-surface air and oceans..” (used to be since the Industrial Revolution but the Revisionist Squad has now changed that to ..”since the mid-20th century and its projected continuation.” (Wiki), Because AGWScience Stooges kept being battered by the MWP and LIA and the Hockey Schtick and the rest.), is based, and as depicted in the KT97, which says that the energy input is only the Solar Energies of Visible, UV and Near IR which convert to Heat on reaching the Earth’s LAND AND OCEAN SURFACE WHICH THEY THEN WARM to an average of 14°C, and from this Thermal IR is radiated out from the Earth. See Wiki page Global Warming.
So, prove that these Solar Energies can heat the Earth’s land and ocean surfaces by this much.
Tim said: re my “It’s not my hypothesis; it’s not for me to tell you what I think heat is, it’s for you to explain it to me because I’m questioning what you mean by it”.
However, every time I (or others) try to tell you what I think heat means
I don’t care what you personally think heat is, or what any AGWApologist thinks it is, I want to know what it actually means in the KT97, which I have stated now several times, and which you are defending. Prove that these Solar Energies heat the Earth’s surface, land and ocean, to raise the Earth’s temperature to give out that amount of Thermal IR. Explain exactly how these Solar energies do this.
What could be simpler? Surely AGWScience has already proved it?
####################
Joel Shore says:
April 21, 2011 at 10:33 am
I suggest you get a physics textbook and read about it… It is, I think, one of the deepest pieces of physics …
Understanding this is an important part of transitioning from the “Magical 2nd Law of Thermodynamics” that you seem to believe in to the actual 2nd Law of Thermodynamics as understood by physicists.
So you’re not going to have a try at answering it either? Tim has chickened out.
Myrrh says:
I gave you a short answer but your ignorance is so profound and deep and impervious to reason that I don’t see why I should waste any more of my time. You are very fortunate that any of us pay any attention to your nonsense anymore. It is way, way, way more respect than you deserve.
The title sums up the paper;
“Falsification Of the atmospheric CO2 greenhouse effects within the frame Of Physics” by Gerhard Gerlich and Ralf D. Tscheuschner; International Journal of Modern Physics B, Vol. 23, No. 3 (2009) pages 275-364.
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0707/0707.1161v4.pdf
In the paper the authors do not come up with a climate model of their own.
In fact, later, they have said that they never will.
What they set out to do was to analyse the popular versions of the greenhouse theory and test them against mainstream physics.
Its a falsification ( in the Popper sense) paper.
The paper was addressed to a physics audience and so might appear a bit dense in places.
In the later sections of the paper they list the equations that have to be satisfied for ANY model of the climate to have some value.
There are a number of differential equations without known initial conditions to be satisfied and so the task according to G&T is impossible in the foreseeable future.
They stress that the empirical knowledge amassed by the meteorologists is being ignored.
Instead theoretical models based on simplistic radiative calculations which can give projections are presented as almost infallible guides to the future.
Now I personally have nothing against climate modellers and programmers.
I think money spent in research and promoting open science investigations is in the public interest.
But when overblown to the extent that the economies of the world are being dislocated without firm evidence I think concerned people will speak out.
Interference with the open process of debate and access to information for all must be strenuously resisted.
Brian: Your summary reads like a book blurb from Reader’s Digest, not a serious discussion of the scientific issues.
I want you to specifically explain the line of reasoning that led them to conclude that the greenhouse effect violates the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics…You know, the one that you think we screwed up when we said that they seemed to be ignoring (when discussing the greenhouse effect) the radiative transfers that occur from the hotter surface to the colder atmosphere that make the heat transfer process as a whole from hot to cold and thus consistent with the 2nd Law. In doing so, I suggest that you keep in mind the simple models using accepted radiative physics that we present in Sections 2.2 and 2.3 that seem to show things that they claim violate the 2nd Law.
There are a few howlers in your description though that I can’t help but comment on:
“Popular versions”? Why don’t they consider some simple mathematical models of the effect. Oh, I know why…Because any simple mathematical model of the greenhouse effect shows immediately why their objections are utter nonsense!
No, it wasn’t. It was meant for an audience who would get snowed by a little bit of physics and mathematics. In fact, it is purposely dense in the same way that Claes Johnson writes these purposely-dense expositions and then, like them, throws in nonsensical explanations that don’t follow from the math! That way the gullible think, “Oh look, he used all this complicated mathematics and physics to show what I always suspected.”
Myrrh says: “I don’t care what you personally think heat is, or what any AGW Apologist thinks it is” … but ” Explain exactly how these Solar energies do this.”
I must say you confuse me here. How do you expect to understand it you don’t care to understand? How can I explain anything to you if you have already decided you do want to know my perspective?
“Yeah, yeah. You getting to be so predictable.”
Yep. You present some idea (blue light doesn’t get turned into thermal energy because of photosynthesis). I explain more accurately and deeply (blue IR radiation gets changed to chemical energy, which gets turned into thermal energy upon digestion). You ignore whatever has been presented.
Let’s try one more time ….
“…which says that the energy input is only the Solar Energies of Visible, UV and Near IR…”
These frequencies account for >95% of the EM energy from the sun to the earth as a whole. They are they are by far the most significant input of energy to the earth as a whole.
There is a little bit of solar “thermal IR” energy input (perhaps a couple % depending on just where you choose to arbitrarily draw the line between what is called “thermal” and “non-thermal”). There is a little bit of energy input from radioactive decay inside the earth (well under 1% of the solar input).
AFAIK, these are the only significant energy inputs to the earth as a whole.
If you want to talk about the surface of the earth specifically, then there is also IR energy coming from the atmosphere. But that is included in the diagrams and calculations.
“which convert to Heat on reaching the Earth’s LAND AND OCEAN SURFACE…”
Well, some of it (the sun’s photons) reflects when reaching the surface, but that is accounted for in the diagrams and the calculations.
Much of it indeed gets absorbed by dead stuff like rocks and water where the only significant thing that energy can do is convert to thermal energy (I’m avoiding the word “heat” which has a specific thermodynamic meaning; “thermal energy” is closer to the idea you are expressing).
Some can get changed to chemical energy during photosynthesis, but later changing to thermal energy when the chemicals break down (eg via digestion). Unless there is a large year-over-year increase in the storage of chemical energy, photosynthesis will have no net effect on the energy balance.
For the atmospheric photons, most of them do indeed get absorbed because the emissivity for atmospheric thermal IR is close to 1.
“WHICH THEY THEN WARM to an average of 14°C …”
You seem to he mixing two different idea. The solar photons you were referring to heat the earth as a whole. The surface (land and water) receives additional thermal IR photons from the atmosphere.
The combination of solar photons and atmospheric photons warm the surface to 14 C. Neither the atmosphere nor the sun could warm to surface to 14 C by themselves. But again, all of this is in the diagram and in the calculations.
“and from this Thermal IR is radiated out from the Earth. ”
Well, energy that arrives at the surface will set the temperature at such a point that it looses (on average) the same amount of energy it receives. The majority of that energy is radiated as thermal IR. Some is evaporation. Less is convection.
Note that “from this” would refer to the total solar and atmospheric photons heading to the surface.
SUMMARY: Solar EM radiation is a significant part of the thermal energy of the surface (land and water). It fits logically and theoretically and experimentally into K&T’s diagram. The numbers might be off slightly, but they are all self-consistent and, together, they predict quite well the observed average temperature.
There is an old saying in the legal profession:
People are welcome to call me ignorant. Or an apologist. Or arrogant. But if all they can do is “attack the plaintiff”, then in my book they are already admitting they have no case.
I just gave (again) a basic answer that I think is an accurate outline that “proves” that “these Solar Energies can heat the Earth’s land and ocean surfaces by this much.” (Of course, you also have to combined the solar EM energy with all the other energies that are intimately involved in maintaining the surface temperature. Then you would have to fill in a LOT of details). I clarified what I thought were inaccuracies in how you presented the greenhouse effect.
* What specific statement(s) of mine do you think is wrong?
* What specific statement(s) of mine do you not understand?
* What specific statement(s0 of mine would you like expanded?
What specific statement in everything I have said in this whole thread is scientifically inaccurate (and what is a more accurate statement about this topic)?
Argue theory.
Argue experiment.
Or admit that all you can do is “attack the plaintiff.”
“Neither the atmosphere nor the sun could warm to surface to 14 C by themselves”
I still have a huge problem with this statement. The sun can not heat the planet to this temperature but somehow energy leaving the earth’s surface (after heating from the sun) and returning somehow can. (or restricting energy out).
Forget about science. Doesn’t this fail the common sense test.
And I know this has been addressed above more than once but I can not believe that supporters of this theory do not at least have some doubts.
It has been addressed in this paper. (addressed on March 30th 8.15 am above). I have read both sides. I don’t know and have not got the science background. But I would still back the sun to do the job by itself.
http://tech-know.eu/uploads/Understanding_the_Atmosphere_Effect.pdf
RJ says:
Intuition comes primarily as a result of going through actual calculations. Since you haven’t done that, your intuition is very, very poor. Even so, if you used a little bit of thought, you’d realize that you do have enough common sense from everyday experience to understand this. After all, if I told you that you would freeze to death if it is -40 C and you go out naked as opposed to bundling up in a jacket and other clothes, would you reply, “My body cannot heat itself up but somehow energy leaving my body and returning somehow can? Forget about science. Doesn’t this fail the common sense test.”
No, because unlike you, we have actually worked through the equations and understood what is going on. We are not relying on reading other people’s interpretations (and misinterpretations) of the physics.
RJ, that paper contains the same nonsense that we have just spent weeks here debunking. Look, if you would prefer to believe pseudo-scientific nonsense that doesn’t challenge what you want to believe over actual science that does, just tell us and we will stop wasting our time explaining this stuff to you.
Tim Folkerts says:
April 21, 2011 at 5:57 pm
“Neither the atmosphere nor the sun could warm to surface to 14 C by themselves.”
Please describe the limitation you are placing on this statement as it is falsified by the daytime temperature of the moon at over 100 C.
>>Neither the atmosphere nor the sun could warm to surface to 14 C by themselves
>The sun can not heat the planet to this temperature but somehow energy leaving
>the earth’s surface (after heating from the sun) and returning somehow can.
>Forget about science. Doesn’t this fail the common sense test.”
Relativity fails the common sense test. Quantum mechanics fails the common sense test. Heck, for a long time a round earth or airplanes or microscopic germs failed the common sense test.
“Not only is the universe stranger than we imagine, it is stranger than we can imagine.
— Sir Arthur Eddington”
Science does not always agree with common sense. That is one reason that students studying physics often struggle to understand. Have you ever tried to explain that there is no force pushing you outward as you drive around a corner? Have you ever tried to explain that even though the train cars pull back just as hard on the engine as the engine pulls forward on the train cars, the train cal still accelerate forward?
Which particular energy flow in the K&T diagram seems especially to go against common sense to you? What rule of physics does it seem to break?
mkelly: We are not talking about temperature extremes…We are talking about the average daily temperature.
Also, more precisely, radiative balance places a limitation on the average of the temperature to the 4th power, since it is something proportional to that which must balance the incoming radiation from the sun. For the earth, which has enough thermal inertia that temperatures don’t vary too dramatically on an absolute temperature scale, it turns out that to a good approximation this translates directly into a criterion on the average surface temperature. For something like the moon where the temperature ranges are more extreme, you have to be more careful.
TF >> “Neither the atmosphere nor the sun could warm to surface to 14 C by themselves.”
MK > Please describe the limitation you are placing on this statement
MK > as it is falsified by the daytime temperature of the moon at over 100 C.
I meant “Neither the atmosphere nor the sun could warm to surface to AN AVERAGE TEMPERATURE OF 14 C by themselves.”
Some parts of the earth (or moon) will certainly be warmer. Some parts will be cooler. There are many ways to actually define the average temperature. You can also argue that average temperature is not even a worthwhile number to compute. But I don’t think there is any way to argue that the earth would be as warm over all if the GHGs were removed. Or even if a single GHG was removed (like just removing CO2 but keeping H2O).
Myrrh says:
April 21, 2011 at 3:20 am
Phil says:
April 20, 2011 at 9:11 pm
“From about a century ago it has been well known that the energy carried by a photon is given by Planck’s constant times the frequency. Therefore a UV photon carries more energy than a visible and that more than an IR photon. When any of these photons is absorbed it gives up all the energy it carries to the absorbing medium.”
BUT, what kind of energy? What are these energies capable of doing?
Heating of course!
What effect do they have because of their particular characteristics in reacting with other matter? What are each actually doing when they give up their energies?
Mostly heating, I notice that you chose to ignore the point that the Earth’s surface is 70% water which absorbs over 90% of the light (of all solar wavelengths) incident upon it.
The assumption here pushed by AGWScience that this means ‘more energy means greater power to heat’ is ludicrous.
No it’s absolutely right unlike the drivel you keep producing!
A photon of blue light does not give up its energy in heat to a plant in photosynthesis.
Really, it takes over 10 photons of light to fix one molecule of CO2 in the form of glucose, how efficient a process do you think that is?
Then consider that only about 10% of the energy consumed by herbivores goes into producing mass, most of the rest ends up as heat, and if a herbivore is eaten by a carnivore only about 10% of that energy is converted to mass, and so on…..
The remaining nonsense deleted, it’s the same stuff endlessly repeated.
Take a bolometer (as I’ve suggested before but you failed to comprehend) and measure the heat carried by different wavelengths and you’ll find that photon to photon blue is much hotter than thermal IR.
Joel Shore says:
I gave you a short answer but your ignorance is so profound and deep and impervious to reason that I don’t see why I should waste any more of my time.
You are very fortunate that any of us pay any attention to your nonsense anymore. It is way, way, way more respect than you deserve.
Wow! Firstly, you did not even attempt to give me an answer.
In this you and Tim are of the same ilk. You both completely and utterly consistently avoid the actual question I’m asking and do anything you’re able to distract from it and when that fails to stop me asking it, this is a science discussion after all and you’re defending this AGW hypothesis, you resort to telling me how brilliant you are and how it’s my ignorance that’s at fault here.
Well, I decided Ira couldn’t be as stupid as he presented himself in replying to me, Bryan sussed Tim out and I agree, the only difference between the two is Ira just didn’t have Tim’s staying power.
You however, I’m still undecided. From the way Tim talks to you and I get flashes that you’re sincere, I think you’re more likely to be one of the duped and not one of the dupers.
So, what did you give me? Some bull that at a microscopic level everything’s reversible. Nope, not according to what I’ve read of physics on this and nowhere have I read anything in real physics that says heat can flow from a cold to a hot object. And you can therefore play with your balls as much as you like, I don’t want to play with them, I asked a serious question. If you don’t reply with equal seriousness then I’ll see this last post of yours an admission you haven’t a clue what you’re talking about, or you’re deliberately prevaricating.
Heat exchange on a microscopic level is very well understood, it doesn’t destroy entropy on that level.
Now, knowing how AGWScienceStooges operate, I’ve been trying to find the mix and con sleight of hand with this NET which keeps being brought into the argument via the ‘statistical’ and now the ‘reversible on a microscopic level’. Which duped ‘scientists’ take for real in believing cold actually adds heat to the warmer – the funniest I’ve mentioned before on WUWT, that one such determined to prove that gases do not separate but remain thoroughly mixed (brownian motion/ideal gas) went to a mine, because that’s where real science reminds them it is well known that gases separate out relative to the others by their weight, and released some Methane. Yes, it rose to the top and formed a layer below the ceiling and then he waited and he waited and he waited and he waited.., and it did not become thoroughly mixed again. 🙂 He, still believing the Tim/Ira/Stooges (stooges because they’re dispensible), couldn’t bring himself to look again at what real science said, but, in desperation concluded that there must have been another source of Methane coming into the mine which was messing with his experiment, EVEN THOUGH, he admitted a thorough and very detailed inspection could find no such extraneous source. How brainwashed is that? And they call themselves #scientists#.
The AGWScienceStooges must be very proud of their handiwork.
So, what is happening on a microscopic level re heat transfer? The higher energy are bashing the lower until equilibrium is met. Now, the higher might then having lost energy in the exchange now be lower than some higher coming up behind him, and so is himself bashed into higher again. But the energy is always coming from the higher to the lower, the heat transfer does not violate the 2nd Law, the lower is never imparting it’s energy to the higher. The NET here in heat transfer fully complies with the 2nd Law, the net of the reactions in the exchange, and does not destroy entropy. It’s not reversible.
Entropy is the spontaneous natural flow from hotter to colder and is no more reversible on a microscopic level than water can spontaneously flow up hill.
So my question. [In claiming that cold can heat the warmer], entropy is being destroyed at each microscopic event, zillions of times, [since it takes work to accomplish this, i.e. an outside force acting at each event to destroy entropy], what then orders it back into entropy at each of these zillions of events?
If the answer is that it returns to natural spontaneous flow, then at each event of entropy being destroyed something has to be there to work on it [so what is it?]. If not admitting that work needs to be done to destroy entropy in the first place, in the claim that the colder can transfer heat to the warmer is natural spontaneous as hotter to colder, then prove it. I’d like to keep my cup of coffee I have on my desk at the temperature I made it and which is spontaneously obeying the 2nd Law on a microscopic level even as I type. Unlike the cup of coffee I’m actually drinking, I’m still waiting for Ira to make one by heating up cold water with Blue Light; my kettle doesn’t live in AGW ga-ga land, at least I can get my coffee hot to begin with..
So then, I think the sleight of hand is a bit two fold, as it is with CO2 thoroughly mixing in the AGW nonsense that Brownian motion spreads CO2 through the atmosphere/has the properties of the ideal gas, i.e, none. Here, it’s simply taking the NET from Statistical science cubby hole and adding it into the definitions of the 2nd Law in current text books, and from that simply blowing distractions and rudeness and arrogance at every attempt to show this has been added as an alien thing to the 2nd Law, (the net is already there in the 2nd Law, but it’s the real net transfers on the microscopic level which doesn’t have to be spelled out in the original wording, it’s implied from the logic, and still isn’t in real science, so each exchange is still from hot to cold), and, taking the idea of ‘time is reversible on a microscopic scale’ with the appeal to such profundity that a mere oik with a mind couldn’t possibly understand (having to wait an infinitely long time for it to happen, for example), claims that this is what is happening in thermal transfer in the specific claim that a cold and shivery CO2 molecule is sending heat to a hotter Earth or capturing the heat the Earth is radiating and keeping it all snug in a hot thermal blanket which is rounded up 100% holes and where’s the blanket?, in the cold atmosphere.., again without proof, and again and again as here, without explaining HOW? Avoidance avoidance avoidance.
Deliberate? Or are you of the ilk of the #scientist# in the mine chasing illusions and completely ignorant of what matter actually is who was so brainwashed by AGWScience that all scientific method had left him? If he had any to begin with.
And I notice, scanned it briefly, that Tim’s next post to me goes round the houses again and comes back to stating the same claim again about it being Solar energy that heats the earth, without, again, actually giving me the facts and figures I’ve asked for.
Pathetic.
But in case anyone is unsure that this is what he is doing, you try heating a cup of water with Blue Light, with Green, with UV, with Violet, with Orange, with Yellow, with Nr IR Red, add some salt, that’s ‘oceans’ of the AGWEnergyBudget, KT97 depicted, and then take some soil and mix of stones from your garden or someone else’s, and repeat ‘heating’, that’s the ‘land’ of the AGWEnergyBudget. Do these raise the temperature 14&Deg;C? Does it make it hot enough, the two combined now as ‘the Earth’, to radiate out the amount of Thermal IR claimed?
Or, you can simply think it through if you know the difference in properties and characteristics between the different electromagnetic waves, and so what they can and can’t do in meeting other matter.
It, like ALL AGWScience, is PHYSICALLY IMPOSSIBLE. That’s how we know it is junk science. CO2 is not an ideal gas, it has weight, it has volume, etc., Light energies are not Thermal. They went through the looking glass with Alice and created a make-believe world that is fooling even those who think themselves #scientists#. The deliberate creation of an ignorant generation. You don’t have to burn all books and kill all the intelligentia, you just have to educate their children to be stupid. But, really, they’re the ones living in Ga-Ga Land, and until they step back into the real world with feeling for others, they’re lost in it.
Phil. says:
April 22, 2011 at 10:08 am
Re my: “BUT, what kind of energy? What are these energies capable of doing?
Heating of course!
Yeah right, that’s why all the green plant life in the world says no thanks to Green Visible Light and bounces it away…
So, take that amount out of the AGWScience Energy Budget KT97, for a start.
See my post to Wayne April 17, 2011 at 6:49 am http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/03/29/visualizing-the-greenhouse-effect-molecules-and-photons/#comment-643521
and in that is the link to possible outcomes: http://www.pol-us.net/lllt/phototherapy.html
“When a photon is absorbed by a etc.”, which extract I posted from it and I’d assumed you’d read as you posted immediately after mine and corrected my slip of sodium for incandescant…
..so why are you ignoring it now as if it was never there? Because it doesn’t matter as long as you can keep repeating the meme, all propaganda is good propaganda..? That’s Tim’s way, are you a stooge in training?
Phil says re my “What effect do they have because of their particular characteristics in reacting with other matter? What are each actually doing when they give up their energies?
Mostly heating,
See immediately above, so weak Green Light that it bounces of plants, and link to explanation of possible reactions, which you would do well to contemplate.
I notice that you chose to ignore the point that the Earth’s surface is 70% water which absorbs over 90% of the light (of all solar wavelengths) incident upon it..
Didn’t we go through this before..? So? Look up reflection, refraction, scattering etc. and remember, from now on, that Blue light gets to deeper depths because it isn’t absorbed, it gets scattered all the way down just as it does in the still cold sky high above, bouncing off the water through the cold depths of the ocean, pinball knocking itself out finally senseless in the black depths of the deep. Where’s the heat from it in that?
So take that out the AGWScience Energy Budget KT97.
Re my: “The assumption here pushed by AGWScience that this means ‘more energy means greater power to heat’, is ludicrous.”
No it’s absolutely right unlike the drivel you keep producing!
So prove it. Tell me how long it takes to heat a cup of water to boiling point with Blue light.
Re my: ” A photon of blue light does not give up its energy in heat to a plant in photosynthesis”
Really, it takes over 10 photons of light to fix one molecule of CO2 in the form of glucose, how efficient a process do you think that is?
Non sequitur, that’s not producing heat.
I didn’t know that, what colour light? Is that a combination of blue and red or just one or the other? Reference please. From where you got it.
How efficient is that? I don’t know. You tell me since you mention it and I have no idea of the research which produced the information and you, I assume, have..
But, let’s assume, that if it takes 10 photons of light to effect such a change on one molecule of CO2 and that change is near as dammit equivalent to heating am molecule of same, then divide the AGWScience Energy Budget KT97 of Solar heating the Earth by 10. And reduce it by this amount.
Where has that left the Solar imput…?
Then consider that only about 10% of the energy consumed by herbivores goes into producing mass, most of the rest ends up as heat, and if a herbivore is eaten by a carnivore only about 10% of that energy is converted to mass, and so on….
🙂 Again, non sequitur. Not even in training, you’ll never make it Stooge. They’ll just keep feeding you stupidities and you’ll keep repeating them without any understanding of how silly they’re making you look.
The remaining nonsense deleted, it’s the same stuff endlessly repeated. Take a bolometer (as I’ve suggested before but you failed to comprehend) and measure the heat carried by different wavelengths and you’ll find that photon to photon blue is much hotter than thermal IR.
I comprehended very well indeed. You confused two instruments, bolometer and light meter. Bolometers measure thermal IR, and that with great difficulty, anything else, the lighter less hot such as blue, is nonsense to try and measure with them. Light meters may express the ‘colour by the temperature of light’, but like positive electrons are called negative, it’s a historic anomaly that doesn’t confuse those that actually use this information in real life; the light meter’s ‘temperature of light’ refers back to the heat of the object emitting it, the temperature of the Sun in outdoor photography. It is not the actual physical temperature of Blue Light. Get me the actual temperature of Blue light. Actual, real, factual, testable. Like Nr IR, it is not hot. What would something that is not hot register on a thermometer?
What don’t you understand in the words “it is not hot”?
Assuming you know the meaning of each of those words, Blue Light is not hot, and, it is insignificantly weak in matter, it’s bounced all over the sky by molecules of oxygen and nitrogen. It taken 10, (if what you said refers to blue light’s part only, or 10 including it in the mix) to impact one molecule of CO2 which is 1.5 times heavier than Air, the average weight of one oxygen and one nitrogen molecule. It’s bounced away even further by a carbon dioxide molecule in the sky than a molecule of nitrogen or oxygen bounces it away, however, the atmosphere is rounded up 100% nitrogen and oxygen, the odds against it being bounced away by a molecule carbon dioxide are much tinier than even they are..
..especially if carbon dioxide is “well-mixed and cannot be unmixed in the atmosphere”..
..of course, if carbon dioxide is clumpyish and local as it is often in real life, and the water forming in clouds hasn’t eaten it up first, but if it’s not windy and clumpy carbon dioxide is dropping really quickly back to the ground, like say in smoke from a chimney or released into the Air by a volcano, then, hmm, it seems to get bounced into depths of black again, as it does in the ocean. The hot thermal smoke cooking it into oblivion.
How sad, there really are ‘AGWpeople’ who think giving an answer like, ‘then there’d be a layer of carbon dioxide at the level of the Dead Sea’, could ever appear intelligent. Sad from those who don’t know any better and have taken all such junk deliberately twisted to pass itself off as real science on trust, and even sadder that those doing the twisting think themselves intelligent …
..even sadder than those, those who think they’re doing the twisting.
At this point, all I will say is that everyone who has made it this far has certainly made up their minds as to who is “feeding stupidities”. I could continue to provide my understanding of the most glaring things I think Myrrh has wrong, and he could do the same back, but nothing more that could be said here will have a significant chance of changing any minds.
For everyone’s entertainment — apply where you think appropriate. 🙂
“The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits.”
Albert Einstein
“It’s too bad that stupidity isn’t painful.”
Anton LaVey
“Stupidity has a knack of getting its way.”
Albert Camus
“The wise understand by themselves; fools follow the reports of others.”
Tibetan Proverb
Bryan says:
Just thought it was worth having a good laugh on a Friday night!
Myrrh, RJ, Brian, mkelly —
You seem to be the ones hanging on to this thread that might find this interesting. It’s my first complete pull so I’m sure it might need some further critique. This is an hour-by-hour, cosine weighted, breakdown of the KT97 energy budget into 24 lunes as close as I can get it without some real data input. Think of it as you see when looking at a global map with the perfect time zone lines, each from pole to pole. This is a snapshot of the Earth at any given moment. If you have any suggestions, I’m open.
To me, anyone should see something like this before ever looking at Kiehl and Trenberth’s hugely averaged diagram with unrealistic energy flows.
http://i56.tinypic.com/avc5g.jpg