Post Reply 
 
Thread Rating:
  • 139 Votes - 2.78 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
What is a Watt???
09-25-2011, 10:58 PM
Post: #21
RE: What is a Watt???
Ok, I had a long drive yesterday, during which I tried to re-explain a couple of issues that I think are still "outstanding"...
W/m2 instantly sprang to my mind, the below is hopefully a clear explanation of my "issue" with the use of W/m2.

What is missing from a W/m2. - The amount of energy transferred.
Yes, a Watt = Joule per second, but no a W/m2 does not NECESSARILY, or even usually, equal a Joule per second, why?
Amount.

W/m2 is power, like voltage is, but volts are no use without the amount of current, or rather amps.
I can say I have a wire carrying 6 volts, but what is the current???? How much work will the 6 volt wire be able to do?
It is the same with W/m2, it is a power figure.
240W/m2 means as much as 6 volts does.

That is THE POINT, that is why you can not do grey body calculations using W/m2.
The amount being transferred at that power is never given.
It is also the reason why W/m2 is so often compared and used incorrectly, you are assuming the same "size" of emitter and receiver.

When, for example, conduction of a receiver is included to it's volume, W/m2 fail for this reason.
For example,
How hot should the earth's surface be for a measured solar input?
S&B law is too simply applied, it is different for grey bodies, ie, the real world..
Amount as well as power needs to be taken into account,
as well as relative receiver "size" and most notably conduction.

The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed
(and hence clamorous to be led to safety)
by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.

H. L. Mencken.

The hobgoblins have to be imaginary so that
"they" can offer their solutions, not THE solutions.
Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user
Quote this message in a reply
09-27-2011, 12:02 AM (This post was last modified: 09-27-2011 12:05 AM by Richard111.)
Post: #22
RE: What is a Watt???
Yes, volts times amps equals power in watts but this is an instantaneous value only valid at the time the measurement is recorded.

This argument applies to the Boltzmann method of calculating IR radiation. The watts per metre squared rate of power loss is indeed that number of joules FOR JUST ONE SECOND. There are a huge number of variables in the heat capacity and mass, and conductivity etc that effect the final figure as time passes. i.e. at night the surface is continually cooling until the sun comes up whence it starts warming until the sun goes down. The intensity of these effects also change with the seasons which respond to the altitude of the sun.

This does not mean the W/m^2 figure is wrong, just that it is usually misapplied.

I think we need to go read up on a chap named Fourier (spelling) as his argument includes radiation AND conduction between surface and atmosphere to calculate heat transfer.

The Boltzmann method is for bodies in VACUUM! That is where I think "they" are going wrong.

Environmentalism is based on lies and the lies reflect an agenda that regards humanity as the enemy of the Earth. - Alan Caruba
Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user
Quote this message in a reply
09-27-2011, 04:18 AM
Post: #23
RE: What is a Watt???
(09-27-2011 12:02 AM)Richard111 Wrote:  The Boltzmann method is for bodies in VACUUM! That is where I think "they" are going wrong.

I maybe wrong, but I think S&B is only for black bodies in a vacuum,
that is my point.
A grey body is an entirely different thing.

(09-27-2011 12:02 AM)Richard111 Wrote:  The watts per metre squared rate of power loss is indeed that number of joules FOR JUST ONE SECOND.

That could read quite differently with just one word omitted, ie,
The watts per metre squared rate of loss is indeed that number of joules FOR JUST ONE SECOND.

Power, is so confusing...A bit like the difference between heat and energy.
My take is below.

The watts lost per square meter, and
the power of the flow (confusingly expressed as W/m2)
could possibly be two quite different figures,
is what I think I'm trying to get at.

Just like waves increase surface area, so, emissivity changes the effective "area" or mass emitting,
and therefore the power of emission changes, per square meter, for the same loss of watts, per square meter, in the time period of a second.

W/m2 assumes "everything" is the same perfect, black body "mass", "area", etc, etc, when it ain't.
"We" are treating the use of W/m2 as if "we" are only comparing apples to apples,
when really "we" are comparing many different types of fruit, none of which are apples.

I would suggest that in reality, the actual watts lost will almost always be considerably less than W/m2 "assumes", or rather,
the loss of watts that the present interpretations and use of W/m2 is seen as "predicting", when too simply applied to actual grey bodies.

The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed
(and hence clamorous to be led to safety)
by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.

H. L. Mencken.

The hobgoblins have to be imaginary so that
"they" can offer their solutions, not THE solutions.
Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user
Quote this message in a reply
09-28-2011, 12:44 AM
Post: #24
RE: What is a Watt???
Something here? My emphasis.

Quote:A regular critic, Lucia Liljegren was, as all too often before, eager to attack my calculations – she erred in publishing a denial that I sent her a reference that I can prove she received; and not factually accurate in blogging that “Monckton’s” Planck parameter was “pulled out of a hat” when I had shown her that in my commentary I had accepted the IPCC’s value as correct. She was misleading her readers in not telling them that the “out-of-a-hat” relationship she complains of is one which Kiehl and Trenberth (1997) had assumed, with a small variation (their implicit λ0 is 0.18 rather than the 0.15 I derived from their paper via Kimoto, 2009); and selective in not passing on that I had told her they were wrong to assume that a blackbody relationship between flux and temperature holds at the surface (if it did, as my commentary said, it would imply a climate sensitivity ~1 K).

Monckton on “pulling Planck out of a hat”

Somewhere I read that radiative flux from the surface is proportional to the THIRD power. Didn't make a note and can't find the reference again. Undecided

Environmentalism is based on lies and the lies reflect an agenda that regards humanity as the enemy of the Earth. - Alan Caruba
Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user
Quote this message in a reply
10-12-2011, 09:00 AM
Post: #25
RE: What is a Watt???
Hi All,

I think it boils down to people tripping over the difference between power and energy.

Please excuse me, simple plots will be added soon to this post.

I have to THANK Richard T Fowler. He, in this thread has patiently explained several times the difference between power and energy.
It is a subtle difference to be honest, but it is an important difference all the same.
Once the difference between power and energy is realised then something more becomes clear.
I hope readers will back track on this thread, if they need to, to clearly understand the difference.
In short, power is a timeless figure.
This means that the Stefan Boltzman Law makes sense when applied to imaginary black bodies.
That's the rub, that is the subtle, rhetorical misunderstanding, that has escaped us so far.

Power figures in the context of K&T type budgets, and the Greenhouse Effect "theory" ONLY make sense when applied (instantaneously) to a black body.
They would not, and do not apply to grey bodies...
The earth is a grey body.
The subtle, rhetorical misunderstanding, is not so subtle or rhetorical after all,
it is actually a (imaginary black body) scientific basis that is utterly divorced from (a grey body) reality.

Ok, let us look at P/4, the starting point of K&T, and GH from an energy units, rather than a power point of view (but I will be comparing to W/m2 as well for clarity).

Rather than power ie, 1368W/m2, let us use energy units.
For example, let us say the earth's lite hemisphere receives 15 units of energy over 12 hours.
During that 12 hours the lite hemisphere looses 10 units, and the unlit hemisphere looses 5 units.
Strictly speaking it does not matter that the figures are 10 and 5,
they could be 12 and 3, or, 9 and 6, as long as they add up to 15,
so that, the unspoken assumption of IN = OUT is maintained, and not questioned.

So, we have, over 12 hours,
[in] 15 - [out] (10 + 5) = 0
OK, for 24 hours, one revolution of earth, we have.
[in] (15 + 15) - [out] ((10 + 10) + (5+5)) = 0
Or,
30 in, and 20 out on the lite side, and a further 10 out on the unlit side which equals 0
That is the way it should be done.

P/4 does it this way, using the power figure of W/m2.
First P/4 uses power rather than units of energy, so W/m2.
A power of 1368W/m2 is correctly divided by two,
(a hemisphere has twice the surface area of the same diameter disc)
giving an average received on the lit side of 684W/m2.
OK.
But then the power is divided again by 2?
The explanation is that this is the power received over 12 hours, on one hemisphere,
so for two it is simply divided by two to cover the whole planet.
Wrong, it is still one hemisphere receiving an average of 684W/m2 for all of the twenty four hours.
It may appear correct using power figures, but energy unit figures show the fault.

In other words, using units of energy P/4 takes 15 units of energy and divides it by two incorrectly, to get an answer of 7.5 units.
THEN, P/4 takes day and night, adds the losses together and divides by 2, for the whole planet.
AGAIN WRONG, day is added to night, and the 12 hour average is used, it is simply incorrect.
That is how the figures are divorced from reality, they are neither day or night, but an average of the two.
There is no day and no night in K&T, there is only an average of the two.
However, it does give P/4 the right answer, by the wrong means for the overall sum,ie,
[in](15/2) - [out] ((10+ 5) /2) = 0
more simply as,
[in] 7.5 - [out] 7.5 = 0

12 hours insolation of one hemisphere spread over the whole planet, minus the day and night losses over 12 hours, added together and then divided by two = 0.

The first question that arises is why does P/4 do the sum this way?
WHY is 7.5 as opposed to 30 so important.
7.5 energy units used in this explanation, in W/m2 terms is 240 W/m2 received at the surface, which equals a surface temperature of -18C for earth...
The answer to the question of WHY does P/4 do the sum this way is actually quite simple and obvious,
to get the earth's surface temperature low enough in the first place to REQUIRE a Greenhouse Effect.
This point, and others in regards of P/4 were explained in the first two posts of this thread,
P/4 - Why it is THE issue that destroys GH and AGW.

The question we must ask here therefore is, which is the right sum?

[in] (15 + 15) - [out] ((10 + 10) + (5 + 5)) = 0
ie, 30 in - minus 20 out day, and 10 out night = 0

or the present, P/4 "route" of,
[in] (15/2) - ((10 + 5)/2) = 0
more simply as,
[in] 7.5 - [out] 7.5 = 0

Both ways get the "right answer", if indeed 0 is the right answer (it isn't - earth has life, that is merely for starters)
but the ways they do the sum are vastly different.
One appears to reflect reality, the other appears UTTERLY divorced from reality.
In the end neither way described above to do the sum is correct, but which is the better?
Which way would, most probably, lead us to a better understanding?

Although the power route of P/4 may appear correct, the energy units way to do the sum instantly shows the faults of the P/4 "route".
The "trick" is to convert power to energy units then apply it to the P/4 "route" of how to do the sum to get the right answer..
Then the fallacy is plain to see, especially when S/B law and blackbody assumptions are taken into account as well.

The difference between the "routes" has been "covered up" by the misuse and application of S/B Law and blackbody implicit assumptions never mentioned.
Hence "they" will not do grey body.
Grey body destroys the power basis of the P/4 "route", and
that also explains why they will never use energy units to explain such budgets, they would simply never work.
As I hope the above "sums" clearly show.

The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed
(and hence clamorous to be led to safety)
by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.

H. L. Mencken.

The hobgoblins have to be imaginary so that
"they" can offer their solutions, not THE solutions.
Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user
Quote this message in a reply
10-15-2011, 01:09 PM
Post: #26
RE: What is a Watt???
Another idea to try to illustrate what I am getting at here.

Let us have two objects of the same amount, of the same material, at the same temperature.
BUT, the two objects are different shapes, one is a perfect globe, the other an elongated and flattened shape.
Which shape, in a vacuum would cool quicker by radiative emission losses alone?

The answer is presumably the elongated and flattened shape would cool quicker.
But, both objects would (initially) emit IR at the same W/m2 (POWER) ????

So, why would one shape cool quicker than the other?????

I would suggest the answer lies in the difference between the objects in surface area, and therefore the amount emitted at that power......
But, W/m2 does not take amount into account, it is ONLY a power figure.
Such an omission may well "work" for black bodies with no volume, etc, but
it patently CAN NOT work for grey bodies, BECAUSE they have volume...Therefore, for grey bodies amount IS required.

Now will someone please tell me that all the "objects" in the below figure are all the same shape, material, etc, ie assumed to be all perfect black bodies.
BECAUSE, otherwise, as the above illustrates the below plot of global energy flows can not work as depicted.
[Image: radiation_budget_kiehl_trenberth_20.jpg]

Richard T Fowler said that the above assumes equilibrium, that is the only way it can work.
But that it seems to me is accepting, without saying, that "everything" in the plot behaves as a black body....ie, all is equal....

I think it assumes "everything" within the plot is a black body, by it's use of W/m2,
which is a far larger and more incorrect assumption that totally destroys the plots basis.
Reality is full of grey bodies, not black bodies. Quite simple really.

The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed
(and hence clamorous to be led to safety)
by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.

H. L. Mencken.

The hobgoblins have to be imaginary so that
"they" can offer their solutions, not THE solutions.
Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user
Quote this message in a reply
10-18-2011, 11:04 PM
Post: #27
RE: What is a Watt???
It's all "Quite simple really."

Let me see if I can put this another way, that ties all the "troubles" I have been having together
in trying to understand what a W/m2 is.

Richard T Fowler has stated, correctly, many times, that a W/m2 is a power figure.
This is correct, and this is IT. - for a black body.

For a grey body the same W/m2 unit is not the same "thing", it is, it seems to me, an energy amount or, energy flow figure.
(Which would be far lower than the black body power figure in W/m2, as I hopefully explained in my previous post 26)

So, in the K&T type plots, it is quite plain to see that what is plotted is a series of power flows between "black bodies",
that is incorrectly titled as an energy flow or budget,
which must be implying a series of grey bodies.

Grey bodies would not emit at the powers described, for the inputs received,
so, QED, they are power figures for black bodies that are plotted.

Literally "we" have been thinking about grey body reality in an abstract black body version of reality,
if "we" realised it, or not.

Either way, the figures ARE wrong,
or, if they are the measured figures, then, they need "converting" to the "reailty" of black bodies "we" presently use,
because they must be grey body measurements,
and so, all the figures would then necessarily change.

The unit used in K&T type plots, ie, the W/m2,
when it is realised means two different things when you are talking about black bodies or grey bodies is
what exposes the fallacy of the basis of all the K&T type plots,
AND,
all the present depictions of the supposed, failed hypothesis, that is the Greenhouse Effect "theory".

I'll put two plots for you to consider in respect of the concerns I raise.
1) K&T type plots - this one from NASA, ie, Gavin Schmidt.
[Image: global_energy_budget_components.png]

2) The failed Greenhouse Effect hypothesis. Originally compiled from various US academic sources by Alan Siddons,
re-presented as below by myself, with Alan Siddon's approval.
[Image: Slide23.jpg]

Once one sees the black body / grey body issue of W/m2,
that I have been trying to describe here on this thread,
I think it is obvious both above plots fail by their own logic.
They simply can not be true, whichever way round you look at it.

The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed
(and hence clamorous to be led to safety)
by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.

H. L. Mencken.

The hobgoblins have to be imaginary so that
"they" can offer their solutions, not THE solutions.
Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user
Quote this message in a reply
10-19-2011, 12:40 AM
Post: #28
RE: What is a Watt???
Way to go Derek. Some of my thoughts on this. Take one square metre of water and one square metre of concrete both at the same temperature. The EMISSIVITY of the water is about 0.95 and the concrete is about 0.85 and depends on texture. (LINK) Water has "texture" too. Wink

70% of the global surface is water yet they use a common data set for all the surface.

Also the "energy" within the MASS of the object and the rate at which the energy can escape via radiation varies hugely. Land cools and warms much quicker than sea. The sea can keep air warmer at night than the land. Why else do we get "on shore" and "off shore" breezes?

I also agree ALL global energy budgets calculated with reference to global surface temperatures are complete bull-shit. Satellites show the global radiation ballance of -18C FROM THE ATMOSPHERE is correct to ballance incoming radiation from the sun.

Environmentalism is based on lies and the lies reflect an agenda that regards humanity as the enemy of the Earth. - Alan Caruba
Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user
Quote this message in a reply
10-19-2011, 11:23 PM
Post: #29
RE: What is a Watt???
Thank you Richard111.

Richard111 wrote,
" I also agree ALL global energy budgets calculated with reference to global surface temperatures are complete bull-shit. Satellites show the global radiation ballance of -18C FROM THE ATMOSPHERE is correct to ballance incoming radiation from the sun. "

I also find it surprising how few people have grasped the notion that the atmosphere has an effective surface of emission,
as described by Joe Postma, in his recent papers.
AND,
That so few have realised such a measurement does not actually mean, nor prove that,
IN EQUALS OUT or else, BOOOOM.
For such to be even possibly true, there would have to be no life on this planet at all.

Snow, sleet, rain, heck even mist, and morning dew is cold. Then there is also grass frost.
"Where" are those at present in "consensus" "climate science" global energy budgets????
etc, etc, etc..

We live in a strange era of "natural sciences".
I think "we" are in a "Copernicus stage" in regards of "consensus climate science" and the failed Greenhouse Effect hypothesis at present.
But, in the end, the truth will out, in spite of the political will.
That, the political will, is, in my opinion, THE source of the problems in the natural sciences.


Attached File(s)
.pdf  Copernicus_Meets_the_Greenhouse_Effect Joseph E. Postma.pdf (Size: 323.15 KB / Downloads: 99)

The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed
(and hence clamorous to be led to safety)
by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.

H. L. Mencken.

The hobgoblins have to be imaginary so that
"they" can offer their solutions, not THE solutions.
Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user
Quote this message in a reply
10-20-2011, 12:46 AM
Post: #30
RE: What is a Watt???
To my mind the atmosphere is an incredibly effective radiator as it can radiate from a VOLUME. When molecular density falls below 300mb almost all radiation from ALL GASES in the atmosphere can escape to space.

As pointed out by Joe Postma and others the land, sea and atmosphere are all discrete bodies IN PHYSICAL CONTACT WITH EACH OTHER and attempting to calculate individual energy flows are basically meaningless.

The earth, as a whole, is in thermal equlibrium with the sun and has been for billions of years.

Bear in mind that since life first appeared on this planet the output of the sun has INCREASED BY 30% and us humans now benefit from this present period of luminosity.

In a billion years or so it will be another story as to how this planet will cope with a 10% hotter than now sun. Hopefully science will advance and allow us to adapt or migrate.

Environmentalism is based on lies and the lies reflect an agenda that regards humanity as the enemy of the Earth. - Alan Caruba
Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user
Quote this message in a reply
10-20-2011, 03:50 AM
Post: #31
RE: What is a Watt???
(10-20-2011 12:46 AM)Richard111 Wrote:  The earth, as a whole, is in thermal equilibrium with the sun and has been for billions of years.

Not just with the sun, the earth has a hot core too, that is also variable (probably with solar activity).

Given 30% increase in solar input has already occurred, what's to say another 10% could not be handled by earth's climate system?
I think it could be well within the systems overall capacity to cope with it (especially latent heat of water vapourisation / condensation).
I'd suggest the oceans may warm (I ain't sure of that though), however, the water cycle would almost certainly increase.

To be honest I do not accept the notion that earth is in thermal equilibrium, it is simply the temperature it should be.
Does that necessarily dictate a thermal equilibrium? At any time scale? No.
For example where does the extra energy for Life, some rocks, oil, gas, etc, etc, etc come from then?
How is that thermal equilibrium??? At any time scale.
Plus, we are presently supposed to view the system overall in too simplistic and imaginary a way at present.
A way that requires a thermal equilibrium incidentally...

I think nature and the system is far, far more complicated than that, and what we understand at present of the system.
Most obviously, earth's other heat source contributes far more than "just" heat,
there is earth's magnetic field, all the volcanic contributions of gases and water, and mass of rocks, and oil and gas...
Thermal equilibrium with the sun, what a silly notion, there is far more input than just that, and so,
just because earth is the temperature it should be does that dictate it is in thermal equilibrium with only one of it's heat sources. No.

I think the thing most miss completely is that cold can be (and is) transported down within the climate system,
so nature gets the right answer for earth's IR emissions to space,
but, by a totally different and more complex "method" than we realise at present.
Most obviously, earth has two heat sources, and precipitation is cold.
Patently the reason the above two "things" are missed or dismissed at present is because,
then the thermal equilibrium notion is shown to be wrong.

The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed
(and hence clamorous to be led to safety)
by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.

H. L. Mencken.

The hobgoblins have to be imaginary so that
"they" can offer their solutions, not THE solutions.
Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user
Quote this message in a reply
10-24-2011, 01:00 PM
Post: #32
RE: What is a Watt???
At
http://joannenova.com.au/2011/10/there-i.../#comments

I posted,
" In short,
W/m2 = a power figure for black bodies.
W/m2 = an energy flow figure for grey bodies.
"

On second thoughts I am not sure you can have a timeless energy flow.
In fact I am pretty sure you can not.

So, for a gray body the W/m2 emitted does not reflect temperature unless corrected to a black body.
For a gray body then a W/m2 is still a power figure, BUT, amount is now more obviously missing.
Which has been my "issue" all along with the present use of W/m2, especially in K&T type plots / budgets.
Incidentally commonly titled as energy flows, which they can not be, using a power figure...

This old thread may also be of interest,
Do Global Energy budgets make sense. ???

The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed
(and hence clamorous to be led to safety)
by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.

H. L. Mencken.

The hobgoblins have to be imaginary so that
"they" can offer their solutions, not THE solutions.
Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user
Quote this message in a reply
10-27-2011, 04:13 PM
Post: #33
RE: What is a Watt???
At,
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/10/26/do...a-paradox/

I posted,

Derek says:
October 27, 2011 at 11:22 am

A black body emits W/m2 AT A POWER according to it’s temperature.
A gray body emits AT A LOWER POWER than a black body (at the same temperature) for many well known reasons.
THAT, is NOT an energy flow, for a gray body IT IS the power the energy flow is emitted at…….
The volume of the energy flow IS NOT DESCRIBED.
So, as the gray bodies depicted in the K&T budgets are all different sizes and temperatures,
the diagram CAN NOT be correct (for power or volume),
UNLESS THEY ARE ALL (EQUAL) BLACK BODIES….
This also applies to all present explanations of GH “theory”.
Did you realise K&T and GH is ALL explained in “black body”???

It has taken me ages to realise the above, and it’s importance. It’s all imaginary.
http://www.globalwarmingskeptics.info/fo...l#pid10470
(Particularly post 21 onwards.)
I doubt I am alone in that.

K&T depicts a black body world, in all it’s parts, AND, with no life, as does GH “theory”.
Makes me wonder how they “measure” the figures supposedly from (gray body) “reality”….
It’s a scam, plain and simple. A politically convenient, imaginary hobgoblin.

The world ain’t flat, and CO2 does not drive, nor even measurably influence, climate.
Wake up people.
There can not possibly be a “greenhouse effect” as presently hypothesized,
IN ANY OF IT’S PRESENTLY TOUTED “FORMS”.

The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed
(and hence clamorous to be led to safety)
by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.

H. L. Mencken.

The hobgoblins have to be imaginary so that
"they" can offer their solutions, not THE solutions.
Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user
Quote this message in a reply
10-28-2011, 02:05 AM (This post was last modified: 10-28-2011 02:09 AM by Climate Realist.)
Post: #34
RE: What is a Watt???
Sorry Derek, along with the P/4 question, this is another red herring.

Watts/m2 or however you want to measure the energy is still flowing whether from a grey body or a black body.

The flaw in the KT diagrams is the idea that "back radiation" (which originated from the hotter ground) can somehow heat that ground further. Back radiation is a consequence of the temperature of the earths surface, it has no power to re-heat the earths surface (or atmosphere) further. TO DO SO would break the laws of thermodynamics. The back radiation is of the same "temperature" (wave number) as the radiation emitted from the earths surface therefore it cannot heat the surface further.

A grey body is an imperfect black body. However, if the "warming from back radiation" theory is correct then even a grey body could be warmed by it's own radiation fed back to it. However, it cannot as the grey body being sufficiently excited on a quantum level to be emitting that radiation cannot absorb that radiation and be heated by it. The radiation is merely back scattered via momentary absorption and re-emission and finds its way to outer space. All IRIGs (Infra Red Interacting Gasses) can do it scatter IR radiation, they have no power to heat anything that is already hot!

I agree with you on this though:-

"The world ain’t flat, and CO2 does not drive, nor even measurably influence, climate.
Wake up people.
There can not possibly be a “greenhouse effect” as presently hypothesized,
IN ANY OF IT’S PRESENTLY TOUTED “FORMS”."

CO2 does not influence climate at all!
Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user
Quote this message in a reply
10-28-2011, 10:24 AM
Post: #35
RE: What is a Watt???
Climate Realist, with respect, I think a better "explanation" than you saying indirectly "your wrong Derek" as frequently as you do is required from you.
"Red herring" is also simply not good enough, please justify your comments,
IF you are here to discuss...

I have made my point and I hope clearly.
W/m2 is a power figure, that, of itself can not describe the amount of an energy flow.
To describe a flow one must have volume and time.
Pressure or power of the flow alone is not enough.
IF, and it isn't, W/m2 were a volume figure, then without time it is merely a volume, that, simply, does not describe a flow.
But, as we now can see, W/m2 is a power figure, for both black and gray bodies, so,
for GH or K&T to be correct then
the earth would have to be an imaginary black body, in all it's parts.....

Are you sure you understand what I have presented here, because honestly,
I am not sure, nor do I see any evidence in your posts that you do.
The same was also true of your comments in the P/4 thread in all honesty.

The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed
(and hence clamorous to be led to safety)
by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.

H. L. Mencken.

The hobgoblins have to be imaginary so that
"they" can offer their solutions, not THE solutions.
Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user
Quote this message in a reply
10-28-2011, 10:44 AM (This post was last modified: 10-28-2011 10:53 AM by Richard111.)
Post: #36
RE: What is a Watt???
Well, to put in my ha'perth; I agree there seems to be a big problem with the KT diagrams with regard to blackbody/greybody radiation.

Have a look at, for example, concrete, in this Emissivity Coefficients page. Please do read the preamble at the top of the page before looking at the table.

I personally have to admit the existence of back radiation in a specific case. This is what I have noticed: as the sun sets in a clear sky temperature starts to drop and would normally continue to drop until just before dawn. But if an extensive layer of cloud arrives overhead the rate of temperature drop decreases almost instantly and temperature will start to RISE by two or more degrees within an hour or so. Usually the cloud base is fairly low so temperature of the cloud base is not more than a few degrees cooler than the surface temperature (standard adiabatic lapse rate).

My take on this is that the radiation from the cloud base, though at a cooler temperature, is much closer to blackbody intensity than the radiation from the graybody surface. Thus the NET radiation has effectively stopped the radiative cooling of the surface and the below surface heat is now working its way up. This will continue until the surface/cloudbase reaches thermal equilibrium and any further cooling of the surface is mainly by conduction and even a light breeze can stop that change.

As for backradiation from CO2, well, we can calculate that in a one square metre column of the atmosphere there might be a maximum of 6kg of which about 80% will be below 0C and CO2, at night, will only be radiating at 15 microns. Now one square metre of water just 6 millimetres deep equals the mass of the CO2 above and 70% of the earth's surface is water. With the water at a temperature of 10C and an emissivity of 0.95 against the CO2 with an average temperature of below 0C and emissivity of 0.00092 (link) there is simply no contest. Do the numbers! Any radiation from CO2, to warm things as claimed, is simply impossible.

The standard rate of cooling of the surface far exceeds any possible warming from CO2.

The fact that this farce is being forcibly driven bodes extreme ill for the future.

Environmentalism is based on lies and the lies reflect an agenda that regards humanity as the enemy of the Earth. - Alan Caruba
Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user
Quote this message in a reply
10-29-2011, 05:01 AM
Post: #37
RE: What is a Watt???
(10-28-2011 10:44 AM)Richard111 Wrote:  I agree there seems to be a big problem with the KT diagrams with regard to blackbody/greybody radiation.

Smile Behind the scenes I know you are not alone...

Ok, another, and my apologies, as it maybe a bit of a repeat to try to explain what I am getting at with the incorrect use of W/m2 to describe energy flows.

If you have a water pipe with a certain pressure, what is the flow within the pipe?
I do not think it is possible to answer that question.

Pressure in the water pipe example question above is comparable to the power figure that a W/m2 is for describing global energy flow budgets, and GH "theory".
Pressure or power alone is not enough, because time and volume (size of pipe in the above example) is missing, or rather not given, or is unknown.
Yes, the pressure maybe whatever per square inch, or square centimeter, but how big is the pipe?

Even if we can change the time figure to whatever we want, the size of the pipe is still unknown.
So, because only the power of the flow (for a black body in K&T and GH "theory") is given, then amount is plainly missing,
therefore,
the approach to describing energy flows using W/m2 is obviously erroneous.
Such an approach, using W/m2 to describe energy flows, could only ever work in an imaginary black body scenario,
gray body reality is utterly different.
Whenever anyone has tried to convert K&T or GH to gray body reality, it simply does not work, for this very reason.
Amount, or volume, and time is missing, when only a power figure (W/m2) is used to try to describe such flows.

The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed
(and hence clamorous to be led to safety)
by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.

H. L. Mencken.

The hobgoblins have to be imaginary so that
"they" can offer their solutions, not THE solutions.
Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user
Quote this message in a reply
11-02-2011, 02:27 PM
Post: #38
RE: What is a Watt???
Hi All,
Just a brief note that I hope is easily understandable...

Watt = Joule per second.
I think this is the crux of the matter, in that, this is what causes the confusion.

It could easily be rewritten as
amount (Watt) = amount (Joule) over a certain time (second).

To describe a flow one needs amount AND time, so a Watt does not describe a flow, but a Joule per second does.
In short without time one merely has an amount.

Watt per square meter, W/m2, could be rewritten as
Amount (Watt) over a specified area (square meter).
This does not include time, so therefore can not describe a flow.
This is why a W/m2 is a power or pressure figure.

If one is dealing with black bodies however then a W/m2 is effectively a substitute for flow
because all the parts are "equal" black body surfaces...

So, that means all K&T and GH is explained as ALL black bodies.
They could not possibly work for gray bodies, because for gray bodies (ie the real world)
a W/m2 is merely a power figure ONLY,
the amounts of the flows are unknown...

The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed
(and hence clamorous to be led to safety)
by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.

H. L. Mencken.

The hobgoblins have to be imaginary so that
"they" can offer their solutions, not THE solutions.
Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user
Quote this message in a reply
11-04-2011, 05:19 AM
Post: #39
RE: What is a Watt???
Hi All,
"Elsewhere" I have been told that my understanding as described above is incorrect because,
a watt has a hidden term within it of per second.
So, a Watt includes time, and therefore I am wrong.

I genuinely can not see that a Watt does have a hidden term of per second in it.
That is my point, and IF correct it is a rather massive point....

I think of it like this.
A pint is a pint. It is an amount. ie, a Watt.
A pint per minute is a flow. ie, a Joule per second.

Now the two above do equal each other, but they are not the same, THIS IS THE POINT.
That a watt and a joule per second equal each other does not necessarily give a Watt a hidden time term.
So, it comes down to does the = sign in Watt = Joule per second mean,
equivalent to or the same as.
I say equivalent to.
Most people at present seem to believe it means the same as (ie there is a hidden time term in a Watt),
which is a totally different "thing", and a very subtle difference.

A subtle difference that could, if correct, have massive repercussions....

The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed
(and hence clamorous to be led to safety)
by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.

H. L. Mencken.

The hobgoblins have to be imaginary so that
"they" can offer their solutions, not THE solutions.
Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user
Quote this message in a reply
11-05-2011, 05:51 AM
Post: #40
RE: What is a Watt???
Time to stick this thread I think.

Would anyone like to discuss whether a Watt has a time element to it, or not,
as I say a watt does not contain a time element, obvious or hidden?
Therefore a W/m2 is a power figure only.

Would anyone like to discuss whether K&T and GH "theory" are all black bodies, or not, as I say they are both ALL BLACK BODIES?
Therefore they are an imaginary reality, that is NOT the reality we live in.

Would anyone like to explain how, consensus climate science measures black body figures in a gray body reality?
Then claim this supports their pet "theories" as shown in K&T and the GH "theory" explanations??????

How can (gray body - measured in reality) figures that agree with the black body explanations be anything other than
proof that the imaginary "reality" black body "theories" of K&T and GH are actually wrong.
The figures in gray body reality SHOULD be different.....

I thought not.

[Image: OstrichAGW.jpg]

Merely quibbling the magnitude of the "standard" figures, as most so called "sceptics" only do,
when a true skeptic should be questioning the principles of AGW / GH "theory",
is as much pseudo (climate) science and condoning of pseudo (climate) science,
as the AGW / GH "consensus" is of itself.

The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed
(and hence clamorous to be led to safety)
by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.

H. L. Mencken.

The hobgoblins have to be imaginary so that
"they" can offer their solutions, not THE solutions.
Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user
Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 




User(s) browsing this thread: 2 Guest(s)