Cementafriend's comment

[Sunsettommy]

From HERE

Quote:Comment from: cementafriend April 2nd, 2011 at 2:55 pm


Sorry Luke, there is no instrument that measures back radiation. In fact there is no instrument that directly measures radiation. The instruments measure a voltage difference or a differential current. This is related by calibration to a temperature. From the temperature, radiation is calculated using the Stephan-Boltzman equation. It is impossible to know the source of the radiation. Dr Roy Spencer in his experimant tried to eliminate sources other than in the direction of his instrument but was unsuccessful. Then there is the question of the base temperature. Kopp and Lean made some improvements http://www.leif.org/EOS/2010GL045777.pdf to find lower radiations from the sun but sophisticated instruments like that can not be used in the field. The temperature outside has be be separately measured and the zero of instruments adjusted. Then there is the question mark of the emissivity in calculating with the S-B equation. Finally, as with Dr Roy Spencer measurements there is a time lag due to the heat capacity of thermopile, thermisters or what ever is the measuring device. Anyone who measures a positive heat flux from a cold sky at night has a problem with understanding of instruments and the way to adjust them to get a sensible result.
Scientists appear not to understand errors. Further, there is good evidence that some scientists are manipulating data to fit preconcieved ideas. Engineers have to deal with errors all the time and should not believe any result unless they have satisfied themselves the result is verifiable. A registered professional engineer is accountable for his actions in law.

[Sunsettommy]

From HERE

Quote:Comment from: cementafriend March 31st, 2011 at 12:03 am


Gary, in the book “Process Heat Transfer” by Prof Donald Kern Hottel’s graph’s for CO2 and water vapor are reproduced and these go down to 100F and upto 3500F. Bob Ashworth, at 100F the radiation due to water vapor in Hottel’s graph is more than three times that of CO2 at the same product of partial pressure and beam length ie the emissivity is more than three times as high. As I have indicated that using an atmospheric height of 8 or 11km and the present average volumetric percentage using average temperatures and pressure results in an absortivity/emissivity for CO2 which is insignificant. My calculation for water vapor is about 0.4. Clouds of course have higher emissivity.
I disagree with Gary’s comment about debating AGW. If one complies to the code ethics one is obliged to point out if concepts are fatally flawed. Money is now being wasted and the efforts to reduce carbon dioxide emissions could very well cause harm in such areas as food production.
There is a very good case that CO2 has no effect. Please again look at Dr(Ir) Van Andel’s aticle http://climategate.nl/wp-content/uploads...ate_v7.pdf

[Sunsettommy]

From HERE

Quote:Comment from: cementafriend March 31st, 2011 at 10:52 am


@Nullius in Verba March 31st, 2011 at 6:31 am You are wrong about refrigeration. I suggest you read an engineering text book. Work is put in to compress a gas. This heats it. Then the gas is cooled (by convection and radiation in lower temperature air or in commercial units with water) so that it condenses (this can also be work input). The liquid it then pumped to the inside of the refrigerator where it is expanded under vacuum and the gas evaporates. The expansion cools the gas below the temperature inside the refrigerator. The driving force of heat transfer is always from higher to lower temperature and never the reverse. Most of the heat is removed due to the evaporation. The temperature of the evaporation depends on the pressure (or vacuum).
In simple terms work is input to reduce the temperature of the working fluid below that inside where heat is to be removed and work is input to cool the working fluid by removing heat outside.

The lapse rate is an indication of cooling of the atmosphere by expansion. The cold upper atmosphere can never transfer heat to a warmer earths surface or to warmer parts of the atmosphere. There is no instrument that directly measures radiation. Any instruments that measures a positive heat flux from a colder atmosphere is either measuring emissions from surrounding warmer surfaces or has been wrongly programmed and wrongly calibrated. Programming with the blackbody Stefan-Boltzman equation is an example of inherent error.