Guest Post by Willis Eschenbach
Once again, the crazy idea that downwelling longwave radiation (DLR, also called infra-red or IR, or “greenhouse radiation”) can’t heat the ocean has raised its ugly head on one of my threads.
Figure 1. The question in question.
There are lots of good arguments against the AGW consensus, but this one is just silly. Here are four entirely separate and distinct lines of reasoning showing that DLR does in fact heat the oceans.
Argument 1. People claim that because the DLR is absorbed in the first mm of water, it can’t heat the mass of the ocean. But the same is true of the land. DLR is absorbed in the first mm of rock or soil. Yet the same people who claim that DLR can’t heat the ocean (because it’s absorbed in the first mm) still believe that DLR can heat the land (despite the fact that it’s absorbed in the first mm).
And this is in spite of the fact that the ocean can circulate the heat downwards through turbulence, while there is no such circulation in the land … but still people claim the ocean can’t heat from DLR but the land can. Logical contradiction, no cookies.
Argument 2. If the DLR isn’t heating the water, where is it going? It can’t be heating the air, because the atmosphere has far too little thermal mass. If DLR were heating the air we’d all be on fire.
Nor can it be going to evaporation as many claim, because the numbers are way too large. Evaporation is known to be on the order of 70 w/m2, while average downwelling longwave radiation is more than four times that amount … and some of the evaporation is surely coming from the heating from the visible light.
So if the DLR is not heating the ocean, and we know that a maximum of less than a quarter of the energy of the DLR might be going into evaporation, and the DLR is not heating the air … then where is it going?
Rumor has it that energy can’t be created or destroyed, so where is the energy from the DLR going after it is absorbed by the ocean, and what is it heating?
Argument 3. The claim is often made that warming the top millimetre can’t affect the heat of the bulk ocean. But in addition to the wind-driven turbulence of the topmost layer mixing the DLR energy downwards into lower layers, heating the surface affects the entire upper bulk temperature of the ocean every night when the ocean is overturning. At night the top layer of the ocean naturally overturns, driven by the temperature differences between surface and deeper waters (see the diagrams here). DLR heating of the top mm of the ocean reduces those differences and thus delays the onset of that oceanic overturning by slowing the night-time cooling of the topmost layer, and it also slows the speed of the overturning once it is established. This reduces the heat flow from the body of the upper ocean, and leaves the entire mass warmer than it would have been had the DLR not slowed the overturning.
Argument 4. Without the heating from the DLR, there’s not enough heating to explain the current liquid state of the ocean. The DLR is about two-thirds of the total downwelling radiation (solar plus DLR). Given the known heat losses of the ocean, it would be an ice-cube if it weren’t being warmed by the DLR. We know the radiative losses of the ocean, which depend only on its temperature, and are about 390 w/m2. In addition there are losses of sensible heat (~ 30 w/m2) and evaporative losses (~ 70 w/m2). That’s a total loss of 390 + 30 + 70 = 490 w/m2.
But the average solar input to the surface is only about 170 watts/square metre.
So if the DLR isn’t heating the ocean, with heat gains of only the solar 170 w/m2 and losses of 390 w/m2 … then why isn’t the ocean an ice-cube?
Note that each of these arguments against the idea that DLR can’t warm the ocean stands on its own. None of them depends on any of the others to be valid. So if you still think DLR can’t warm the ocean, you have to refute not one, but all four of those arguments.
Look, folks, there’s lot’s of good, valid scientific objections against the AGW claims, but the idea that DLR can’t heat the ocean is nonsense. Go buy an infrared lamp, put it over a pan of water, and see what happens. It only hurts the general skeptical arguments when people believe and espouse impossible things …
w.
In effect back radiation is a reflection of the oceans in the sky and sea surface temperatures change the amount of backradiation and NOT vice versa.
Stephen Wilde says:
August 24, 2011 at 1:33 pm
In effect back radiation is a reflection of the oceans in the sky and sea surface temperatures change the amount of backradiation and NOT vice versa.
Good insight, considering the vast majority of GHG’s come from the ocean anyway. However, less heat from the Sun would mean lower ocean temp, less evaporation, and less back radiation. Albedo is thus the important arbiter.
Less evaporation means less cloud, which means more insolation… Voila – self regulating system which co2 is along for the ride with, though maybe, just maybe making the difference between high ice albedo and solar absorptive open ocean.
August 24, 2011 at 12:21 pm
willis, can you justify the conversion of thermal IR signature (a temperature proxy reading) to watts?
No, but Stefan and Boltzmann can justify it. Check Wikipedia if the mathematics is too much, they’ll likely have a simpler explanation. Briefly, the radiation (watts per square metre) is proportional to the temperature to the fourth power.
—————————————————-
well, then, that may just be the root of a lot of apparent inconsistencies because degrees can not be converted to watts.
that’s because they are not measuring the same thing at all.
The watt is defined as one joule per second and measures the rate of energy conversion.
temperature is the average kinetic energy of a bulk of particles in motion at equilibrium.
willis- when water changes phase from gas to liquid, it dumps joules by the score with NO CHANGE IN TEMPERATURE. s/b can’t handle that. s/b may show the ideal radiation spectrum for a particular temperature but it can not distinguish between 100 degree iron and 100 degree feathers. in short, it can not measure heat.
Temperature doesn’t measure latent heat, does it? Therefore, temperature does not measure the energy of a system, does it? Therefore temperature is not a valid measure of heat and should not be claimed to represent the heat in a system.
perhaps the tragically missing heat of lore is what temperature measurements miss?
willis: http://www.sciencephoto.com/media/356062/enlarge
the temperature of that thing is 1300C. s/b calcs on the spectrum it emits might show it, too – but guess what s/b calcs do not and can not show – why that man can hold it in his fingers.
reason this out- if that were a chunk of 1300C iron, his fingers would have crisped and stunk up the room with smoke because of heat.
degrees can not be converted into watts, my friend. s/b is not a measure of heat in an object – it only measures temperature. temperature is not heat = they are not the same
but now i understand why the warmists love s/b black body idealization – it lets them think they’ve done the impossible – convert temperature measurement into a measurement of heat energy in a system. but that notion is entirely fallacious.
“However, less heat from the Sun would mean lower ocean temp, less evaporation, and less back radiation. Albedo is thus the important arbiter.”
Yes indeed.
Only two things can affect the equilibrium temperature of the oceans, solar shortwave input and atmospheric pressure. GHGs other than water vapour itself just alter the speed of the water cycle by altering the surface pressure distribution a miniscule fraction.
Additionally the variable rate at which the oceans can release energy to the air will also be a factor but that seems to be limited by the length of trhe thermohaline circulation at 1000 to 1500 years or whatever.
Which brings me neatly to my hypothesis about top down solar effects altering the surface pressure distribution for changes in cloudiness and albedo.
That pretty much squares the circle.
“Less evaporation means less cloud, which means more insolation”
In extreme situations yes but generally insolation is more dependent on the amount of air mass mixing and cloud distribution. By virtue of the solar effect on the polar vortices a weaker sun gives more meridional/equatorward jets, and thus more clouds even though overall the reduced insolation causes less evaporation.
The key is probably the size of the sub tropical high pressure cells. In a warmer world they expand and cloud dissipates where it most matters over the oceans either side of the equator. The opposite when they shrink.
So an active sun leads to a general warm up of the whole system because of less clouds where it most matters and the opposite when the sun is less active.
Thus tiny solar changes are vastly amplified by a chemically induced change to the vertical temperature profile in the atmosphere which affects cloudiness and albedo.
Then the self regulating processes get to work namely a speed up of the water cycle because atmospheric pressure regulates the energy cost of evaporation so more energy in automatically leads to more energy out to maintain energy budget balance.
So changes in the system equilibrium temperature as a whole are pretty minimal but changes in the rate of energy flow through the system move the climate zones around quite naturally to produce what we perceive as climate changes.
However a persistent reduction in solar input would be another game altogether.
Willis Eschenbach,
“Briefly, the radiation (watts per square metre) is proportional to the temperature to the fourth power.”
What about emissivity?
I will ask you the same question I asked Tom. On the SpectralCalc page it gives two outputs, Radiant Emittance, which appears to be the number you and many others use, and Radiance. Radiant Emittance seems to be defined as emission in all directions and Radiance in one direction. As a surface such as the ocean would seem to emit in a hemisphere wouldn’t the actual number be between these two??
Kuhnkat,
The difference between the two is a bit technical. I would suggest the wikipedia pages for the two as a starting point.
“Irradiance, radiant emittance, and radiant exitance are radiometry terms for the power of electromagnetic radiation per unit area at a surface. ”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiant_exitance
“Radiance and spectral radiance are radiometric measures that describe the amount of light that passes through or is emitted from a particular area, and falls within a given solid angle in a specified direction. ”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiance
Here is one simple simple example of the difference. Suppose a 1000 W spotlight shines thru a piece of warped glass. 1000 W/m^2 would be the radiant emittance. The warped glass would send different amounts of light in different directions. Radiance would measure how much energy is going in each direction from the surface. IF you integrate the radiance, you would get the radiant emittance.
(I *think* I got that all right).
Tim Folkerts @ur momisugly August 24, 2011 at 4:24 am
Re glowing silica insulation tiles:
Sorry Tim, and Gnomish, I was a bit hasty there, thinking it did not contain much heat because of very low specific heat.
Gnomish @ur momisugly August 24, 2011 at 1:55 pm
Found your commentary very interesting including the silica tile example.
I’ve often wondered about the S-B thingy, particularly in the fact that EMR radiates hemispherically from a flat surface, and what is intercepted in a simple two-body situation with various dimensions and separation. I’ve not had need to use it, have never researched it, or been brave enough to pose the question.
An analogy: If I stand in front of a small fire, it may be pleasantly warm. However, If the fire is huge, but the same colour temperature, AOTBE, I may feel unbearably hot.
In the Trenberth cartoon, it shows EMR as plain up and down, whereas in reality it is in all directions, which raises some interesting questions as to how S-B was applied. Isn’t the total energy lost from a surface according to S-B hemispherically distributed?
Stephen Wilde says:
August 23, 2011 at 3:49 pm
Strange how oceans get darker with depth if they are transparent to visible light.
Since water is transparent to visible light, why not try working out why?
Bob_FJ says:
August 23, 2011 at 4:52 pm
Myrrh, I see you have not yet explained why car steering wheels get hot after long parking exposure to summer sunlight through the windscreen. Odd really, considering IR cannot penetrate the glass.
Odd that, I didn’t realise you were talking about mobile greenhouses..
The colour of the car has an effect too. White reflects visible light a great deal more than black, (white cars are cooler) but IR absorption is not affected by visible body colours
Visible light isn’t capable of moving molecules to vibrational states. It doesn’t convert to heat. It takes a far more powerful energy, infrared to the size of a pin head, to knock molecules around. So what’s really happening here?
kuhnkat says:
August 23, 2011 at 7:26 pm
Myrrh,
“Water is almost perfectly transparent to ‘visible’ light”
OK, I think I am starting to see where your problem comes from. That ALMOST is all that is needed to absorb most of the visible energy even without the contamination in the water. You apparently have even less of a concept of the magnitudes that we are dealing with than I do. It really helps to have a LITTLE math skill. Even though that absorption is positively miniscule, the number of layers of molecules the light has to pass through adds up. Do you have any idea of how many molecules of water it takes to make a column of water 500 ft. deep??? Neither do I. It is a rather large number comparable to the attenuation provided by those large negative exponents on the absorption charts. In other words, even though each layer takes away an amount so small it is difficult to measure, after that many layers it has all been nibbled away. Notice that the least absorptive bandwidth is actually in the UV close to your BLUE light you don’t think absorbs or carries energy.
But, it’s a fact of basic well known well understood physics that water is transparent to visible light, that’s simply a fact from observation and understanding the processes of its transmission – visible does not get absorbed by water molecules, that’s what “transmission” means. It is standard physics talk. It relates to something specific. It relates to the way light travels through water without being absorbed. So: ““If the object is transparent, then the light waves are passed on to neighboring atoms through the bulk of the material and re-emitted on the opposite side of the object. Such frequencies of light waves are said to be transmitted.”
What is happening there is that the lightwave can’t join in the dance of the molecule and is passed on to the next, and so repeated. What is also happening here, is that the visible light wave ever so slightly gets delayed. Our fluid gaseous atmosphere slows down electromagnetic waves, our oceans much more so, denser. Anyway, light is transmitted through water and other transparent mediums because it can’t do anything else. It’s a property of visible light in the properties of water.
Even if there is some ‘minimal effect’ of absorption, it cannot be because this relationship doesn’t hold good. There must be some other factor involved in changing it, because the basic ‘mechanism’ must hold good through all the depths of water or it is not a basic ‘mechanism’ of the relationship. Deep sea diving proves that it holds good, shining a light at the bottom of the deepest part of the ocean shows clearly that visible light travels unimpeded through the water molecules, for the distance it has enough energy to do so, lighting up the surroundings and by reflecting back from the objects in the water, they become visible. This is what “transmission” and “reflection” means.
Visible light is not transmitted through the atmosphere, because the volume of the fluid gas atmosphere around us is not completely transparent to visible light, it is reflected and scattered off the molecules of nitrogen and oxygen. By the 2nd method on the list I gave from the wiki page above on transparency and translucency: “UV-Vis: Electronic transitions …
“An electron absorbs the energy of the photon and sends it back out the way it came in. This results in reflection or scattering.”
In our atmosphere, visible light is actually absorbed. On an electron level.
Worth repeating here, number 3 on the list of what can and will happens to visible light:
“An electron cannot absorb the energy of the photon and the photon continues on its path. This results in transmission (provided no other absorption mechanisms are active).”
An electron cannot absorb the energy of the photon and the photon continues on its path.
If no other absorption methods are active. So something could be altering the basic mechanism to give an insignificant minimal effect sometimes, but the basic mechanism is unchanged. Visible light is transmitted through water unchanged because water is a transparent medium for it which means it does not absorb it because its electrons cannot.
Now, listen carefully, the atmosphere then, is not a transparent medium for it, because the electrons of oxygen and nitrogen do absorb it. However, in the real world this is but one of the four things that can happen to visible, no heat is created, the light is simply sent out again, reflection/scattering.
Repeating that water is TRANSPARENT is a childish tool to reinforce your own misunderstanding of the issues. Until you stop it you will simply continue to look silly.
Really?
You still haven’t explained to me how the tiny amount of THERMAL or FAR IR from the sun that makes it to the upper atmosphere manages to warm the earth. Want to take a stab at it now?? About 50% of the sun’s output is in the Infrared. Over 90% of that is in the near infrared you don’t think heats anything. So, you are left with less than 5% of the sun’s output attenuated by distance and a small cross section heating the earth. Please explain how this works??
I have already explained it. The heat you feel from the Sun is THERMAL IR, A.K.A, FAR, A.K.A LONGWAVE, A.K.A HEAT. (See the explanation of what heat is I linked above.) Thermal IR is HEAT on the move, it takes 8 minutes to reach you from the Sun. That’s how powerful it is. The Sun is THE great POWERHOUSE of HEAT in our world. It isn’t stuck at TOA.. Or, you’re not on the surface of the Earth.. It is not a tiny amount, it is a GREAT amount of powerful HEAT energy reaching us from the Sun. Ever been in the desert or in the tropics? Ever been in the Sun at all? ALL the HEAT you feel from the Sun is THERMAL INFRARED.
It is HEAT from the Sun which raises the temperature of water, in the oceans and in us, and raises the temperature of the land.
Do yourself a favour, find the post above in which I gave a comparison of NASA teaching on this, traditional and now AGWScience Fiction Inc’s corruption of it. You are parrotting the corrupted science fiction. Until you get that truly grasped you will continue scrabbling around trying to find ‘something’ that ‘appears’ to confirm the fiction, and it can only be nonsense. A ‘minimal’ effect outside of the well understood norm that visible light is transmitted unabsorbed through water to explain the vast temperature rise of oceans and land, really??! And you won’t see how unrealistic that is until you understand that the property of thermal infrared has been given to wavelengths that are incapable of doing what thermal does, and thermal excluded, because this is a creation of science fiction to dumb down the masses.
‘All energy’ is not the same.. There are distinct differences in the properties between them. ‘All energy’ does not create heat..; chemical conversion to sugar in photosynthesis is not the creation of heat, reflection and scattering is not the creation of heat. Thermal infrared’s powerful vibrational moving molecules does create heat.
The two basic differences between LIGHT and HEAT
“Electronic: Transitions in electron energy levels within the atom (e.g. pigments). These transitions are typically in the ultraviolet (UV) and/or visible portions of the spectrum.
Vibrational: Resonance in atomic/molecular vibrational modes. These transitions are typically in the infrared portion of the spectrum.”
ALL the HEAT your feel from the SUN on the SURFACE of the Earth is THERMAL INFRARED.
You’ve been had.
And that’s it, I’m not posting on this explanation again, read the pages I’ve linked to about this. I’m only posting it to show that my view, re this discussion, has real world physics behind it. That thermal infrared is the heating mechanism of the ocean from the Sun and so any arguing that it can’t, can’t. The argument here is about the so-called ‘backradiated’ thermal infrared, and that has to take into account that thermal ir can heat the oceans because water is in resonance with thermal ir, it readily absorbs it.
Tim,
How does that work with the numbers you get on the SpectraCalc page??
I input 300k, .8 emissivity (I tend to think that is closer for the atmosphere, would be .9 for the ocean) and 0 for recessional velocity. The rest it spits out (well, you can pick the units at the top also)
http://www.spectralcalc.com/blackbody_calculator/blackbody.php
Bob_FJ says:
“I’ve often wondered about the S-B thingy, particularly in the fact that EMR radiates hemispherically from a flat surface, and what is intercepted in a simple two-body situation with various dimensions and separation… ”
This is really no easy way around the spheres and planes and angles and areas. The wikipedia page on radiometry has over a dozen different quantities relating to how much EM energy is going where in what directions. To really understand, you will need to be able to calculate surface integrals in spherical coordinates. You will have to be comfortable working with with expressions like L = d²Φ / dA dΩ cos(θ).
Otherwise, you may have to be content that other mathematicians/physicists have measured and/or calculated the net fluxes to/from various objects.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiometry
Kuhnkat,
The radiant emittance and the radiance are related by pi (divide them and you get 3.14159). I’m sure that the fact that there are 4 pi steradians in a sphere comes into play somewhere, but I really don’t know the details well enough to even try to explain it without digging deeper.
Also, the emissivity of the atmosphere would not be a simple fixed number for a few reasons. For one, the clouds are close to 1, while clear air would be much lower. Clear air emissivity would further be a function of temperature and humidity and pressure and altitude (and other things, I’m sure. 0.8 seems like a reasonable guesstimate for an over all average.
Willis:
You finally acknowledged my comments with this snark:
“If you were a cowboy you’d know that calling me chickenshit, just because I don’t do things according to your whims, would get you invited off the ranch pronto.”
If you will read backwards a few posts, you will (or SHOULD) notice that YOU put words in MY mouth. This is contrary to one of your primary standards, emphasized over and over and over, eh? (The stuff about responding to what you SAID, NOT WHAT WE THINK YOU SAID! You STARTED THIS MEME, REMEMBER?) That is where I decided that the chickenshit comment was appropriate. You did not live up to your standard! If you prefer, I shall call it hypocrisy, stead of chickenshit from now on. WHATEVER.
You still need to tell me why I can’t add the backradiation to the solar radiation in a greenhouse to calculate the “expected temperature.” It is a plainly observable fact that the “atmospheric greenhouse effect” cannot explain many empirical observations. The comments in this thread explain that clearly, and you still ignore it. Please answer some of Hockeyschticks comments.
You are doing a RealClimate on me, as I said before.
As to your problem about the 400 watts “going out” and only 170 “going in,” you are screwing things up by not looking at the TOA. 235 in and out. You can play endless games trying to explain why this is true, but HEAT STORAGE can explain it all. You don’t need GHGs to explain anything.
And you are totally silent about why other planetoids show the same heating at 1 atm., regardless of their atmospheres.
I recommend you read some Slaying the Dragons. It appears that you have not.
BTW, Willis: I think you can screw around with MODTRAN in any way you want and never demonstrate 400 (390) Wm-2 “looking down,” even in a tropical atmosphere. So we have a disconnect between the radiation diagrams and the Air Force standard, no?”
As I said earlier, empirical evidence is not your friend.
JAE,
MODTRAN deals with radiation from the atmosphere; it has nothing to do with the ~ 400 W/m^2 from the surface. The surface has an emissivity close to 1 for IR. The Stefan-Boltzmann equation gives 390 W/m^2 at ~ 15 C. The energy could also be (and I am sure has been) measured directly with IR detectors.
Since 15 C is about the average surface temperature, it seems that both theory and evidence support 390 W/m^2. In this case, I think empirical evidence sides with Willis.
Tim Folkerts @ur momisugly August 24, 2011 at 6:28 pm
Concerning the S-B law
Thanks for that Tim, and I’m not surprised that mathematicians can come up with formulaic solutions for more complex geometries than are explained in the normal treatments of S-B.
My beef with the normal treatment is that for years, I have not been clear on what the “normal geometry” is, although I have recollection that I read somewhere that the single body consideration is for a small flat body.
Willis has now stirred my renewed interest in the authoritative Trenberth/IPCC cartoon in this respect. (BTW, Willis has his own version, based on extending Trenberth’s into a two-layer IR model, a few years ago, which he linked to above somewhere)
I was thinking that in response to my pondering, that maybe someone would assert that the net consequence of hemispherical surface emissions and subsequent atmospheric spherical re-emissions means that the S-B calculation gives the straight up and down result. (That the sum of the vectors is up and down?)
There are a good few issues in that. Is anyone interested?
Willis Eschenbach @ur momisugly August 24, 2011 at 9:45 am
I was intrigued by you calling me a gerbil, a description that I was not familiar with, so I looked it up in my word processor dictionary, and found this:.
Erh, I’m mostly domicile in Victoria in the SE corner of Australia. Under what basis do you think that I am a gerbil?
Willis Eschenbach says:
August 24, 2011 at 10:23 am
[Edited to add] PS – I don’t care if you call it “warming” or “slowing the cooling”. To me, since the ocean is warmer than it would be in the absence of DLR, I say it warms the ocean. But you can call it what you like, THE END RESULT IS THE SAME no matter what name you give it.
The end result is the same but how it gets there isn’t. Ray Pierrehumbert says that if the Earth didn’t have any way of cooling, it would eventually get hotter than the Sun. It’s all about rate of cooling. Let’s do a few numbers to illustrate the point.
‘Local’ Energy Equilibrium of the ocean (W/m^2):
Solar in = evaporation out + conduction/convection out + net radiative out = input to atmosphere
170 = 78 + 24 + ~66-70 = ~170
‘Local’ Energy Equilibrium of the atmosphere (W/m^2):
Input from the ocean below + Direct absorption from the Sun above = radiation out to space
170 + 67 = ~235-239
The upward and downward components of the radiative flux in the atmosphere cause convection within the atmosphere which inflates it and supports the adiabatic lapse rate. This is partly why the surface air temperature and ocean surface are at a temperature ~33C warmer than an atmosphere devoid of radiatively active gases would be (There would still be some adiabatic lapse due to the thermal difference between equator and poles which would drive a reduced atmospheric circulation).
Surface conduction, pressure, humidity, convection, and the adiabatic lapse rate supported by the radiative flux over the course of several billion years, has kept ocean and atmosphere in a thermal equilibrium whereby the ocean surface is slightly warmer than the surface air, to enable the rate of energy loss the ocean needs to maintain in order to remain in local energy equilibrium, via the mechanisms Stephen Wilde outlines. Both the ocean surface and surface air are warmer than the upper atmosphere where radiation to space takes place at the rate demanded by solar input and the S-B BB equation because of the equilibrium demanded by adiabatic lapse. The radiative flux plays an important role in that equilibrium, but small changes in the balance of the components of the flux will not measurably change the bulk temperature of the ocean at the decadal scale because the thermal inertia of the ocean and its evaporation rate lies behind the flux component’s differential of ~66-70W/m^2.
The tail does not wag the dog.
Just a quick p.s. to wrap up. This business of thermal infrared not getting through windows, I resorted to sarcasm too obscure to be of any use, I’d taken out the line ‘how do you know that thermal ir doesn’t go through windows?’. Sorry, I’d just got fed up with the fiction memes, I’d already made the point, a very important point in this, that the production of science fiction memes is endemic to AGWScience Inc. and already gone through a couple of examples, like the hot air convection being promoted as ‘proving thermal can’t heat water’. You’ll need to look at all the basic claims in this. Carbon dioxide is heavier than air, that means something in relation to other gases which have weight and volume..
Bob_FJ says:
August 23, 2011 at 4:52 pm
Myrrh, I see you have not yet explained why car steering wheels get hot after long parking exposure to summer sunlight through the windscreen. Odd really, considering IR cannot penetrate the glass.i>
If you take a look at thermal imaging camera, which as I’ve said, is different from the near ir ‘photo’ capture, you can try answering your own question. Thermal imaging, in the mid to far ir, is something that is used widely in real life applications for a variety of reasons, one of which is in analysing heat loss from buildings, but more simply, why do people put double glazing in their homes? Even tripple glazing in Scandanavian countries. To stop, or rather slow down, heat escaping through the glass. http://epogee.co.uk/page.php?16
It isn’t easy to spot the AGWScience sleight of hand which changes the basics, most is done with a little a real fact and mixed in with fiction.
Oh, I’ve only just seen this..
That does it, continue to believe what you want, stay brainwashed, stay believing the world works to contrived science fiction laws, you’ll be the loser.
But meanwhile, y’all, prove that visible light heats water, because it has no physical property capable of doing such a thing. Your science fiction scenario is junk to begin with, again, what are you arguing about?
The ‘energy’ from non thermal sunlight as if it’s converting to heat, and, you’re looking for the ‘missing heat’ when you’ve taken out all of thermal infrared which is the heat energy and which does reach the surface of the Earth!
How has this been sold to you? One way of course is the ‘peak’ energy of Visible, as if this makes it some ‘powerful’ force which is moving molecules to vibrational states..
Your missing heat Willis is Thermal Infrared. This is around where I came in to explore this, iirc the first discussion I entered where you asked this question. I hadn’t realised then that they had excluded thermal infrared and claiming that Light was thermal.. I thought it was simple stupidity not taking life into account, but then found it was all this nonsense, because claiming that Visible light converted to heat land and oceans raising the temp of the Earth. You’re arguing about fictions.
And, there is so much Heat, thermal infrared, reaching the surface of the Earth, it’s been estimated that with our fluid gaseous atmosphere, which are all greenhouse gases in the real world, but with the Water Cycle taken out, the temperature would be 67°C. Think deserts.
Your energy budget begins with an impossible premise. GIGO.
You all can all believe what you want, but stop promoting this as real science unless you can prove that Visible directly converts to heat land and oceans. Prove that traditional physics is wrong. Real physics on this is still being taught, it’s just becoming more difficult to find.. Until then, you’re just posturing.
And lastly, on the meme about white coloured cars.. http://windowoutdoors.com/WindowOutdoors/Color%20and%20Thermal%20Regulation.html
See if you can find it for yourselves.
http://sppiblog.org/tag/stefan-boltzmann-equations
Apologies, missed a bracket at the end here:
Bob_FJ says:
August 23, 2011 at 4:52 pm
Myrrh, I see you have not yet explained why car steering wheels get hot after long parking exposure to summer sunlight through the windscreen. Odd really, considering IR cannot penetrate the glass.i>
myrrh – you’re just wrong.
burning stuff with a RED laser: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nbAltD9Zb-M
burning stuff with a GREEN laser: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aShgp6LRt98
burning stuff with a BLUE laser: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0xsQnJp4NiA
and guess what is used for safety goggles with an IR laser – plain, clear glass (or plastic) because it is opaque to IR.
but a magnifying glass of the same glass or plastic will focus the sun’s rays and burn stuff too.
how can you understand or explain that with the ‘electromagnetic radiation that has no energy’ flaw in your physics?
and if you ever actually did any IR photography, you’d know you can’t get an image thru ordinary glass or water.
Bob_FJ says:
August 23, 2011 at 4:52 pm
Myrrh, I see you have not yet explained why car steering wheels get hot after long parking exposure to summer sunlight through the windscreen. Odd really, considering IR cannot penetrate the glass.
? You, generic, are off the wall, even when the process is explained to you, you still parrot the AGWScience fiction memes.. Didn’t you look at the links I’ve posted?
Sitting in front of a largish picture window this morning the Sun’s late summer heat was streaming in, until a cloud passed over the Sun, we’ve got a few rainclouds scattered around. The Sun’s heat is thermal infrared.
And, enough with the lasers, you don’t understand the basics, whatever you think you’re understanding is going to be gigo, because you’ve taken not the slightest bit of real physics into consideration.
As I said, stay brainwashed in your imaginary science fiction world, I’m not explaining it again. Maybe someone reading this will have the nous to benefit.
I look forward to your producing blue light central heating for the home, let me know when your patent gets accepted.