Recent Heat Spike Unlike Anything in 11,000 Years

Clearly you don't understand either the theory or the practice. The troposphere has warmed since 1959. Warm things radiate more.

 

I don't understand either the theory or the practice? Look at what you just said. You are back to arguing that the troposphere is an opposed perpetual motion machine. No the troposphere isn't radiating more energy.

Again in equals out. The in hasn't changed. The out cannot change. The only things that can change are emestivity and temperature.

P.S. You still haven't addressed your fraudulent claims about McIntyre. The guilty know when they are caught.

 

So you're saying the warmer troposphere isn't radiating more than the cooler troposphere? And you claim to be a radiation transfer expert? How does one become a radiation transfer expert without knowing the first thing about the Stefan-Boltzmann Law?

Which brings us right back to the key element that you've totally been missing during this entire discussion. You might remember this question, but just to make it easier, I'll phrase it in a way to give you a hint:

If the stratosphere is radiating more (to space), what is radiating less (to space)?

A radiative transfer expert should have no trouble at all answering it.

We can get to that just as soon as you've admitted you're wrong about greenhouse, and apologized for your lies about my position.

 

No the black body Stefan-Boltzmann doesn't apply because the earth+atmosphere is a gray body. It has an emissivity less than 1. &#949; < 1

q = &#949; &#963; T^4 A

Since we are assuming the greenhouse gas effect for the sake of argument. Then the emissivity is, &#949;, dropping. The reason the temperature has to rise is because the radiation, q, cannot change. There has been no change in qin so there can be no change in qout. Temperature has to rise to compensate for the decreased emissivity. Radiation doesn't change because temperature went up. Stefan-Boltzmann for gray bodies does not work that way. Radiation stays constant because of the first law. Temperature rises because emissivity drops.

The answer is nothing. You made a mitake when you did you calculation

When your calculation didn't work out you then decided to violate the first law and argue that the stratosphere was emitting more radiation despite there being no change in incoming radiation. I'm sorry you cannot bend the laws of physics to your mistakes. I know you have a huge ego but arguing that the stratosphere must violate the laws of physics simply because if it didn't then you would be wrong is ego on a grand scale.

That you would then argue that our perpetual motion stratosphere must be offset by an equal but opposite perpetual motion machine is even more absurd.

This isn't very complicated. Your calc was wrong. It doesn't take a radiative transfer expert to see that you are violating the first law and arguing for perpetual motion.

Since your ego is so huge that you insist the laws of physics must bend to your will I doubt we will ever see you retract your fraudulent statement about McIntyre.

 

Wrong-headed mistake #7 from the self-described radiation transfer expert. Stefan-Boltzmann applies to gray bodies too; that's why there is an emissivity term. As the equation you published yourself shows. (I find it utterly amazing how you say one thing and completely contradict yourself in such short order. Do you actually understand anything that you write? Apparently not.)

Wrong-headed mistake #8 from the self-described radiation transfer expert. The emissivity is increasing, because CO2 is emissive at these wavelengths, and CO2 concentration is increasing. That is, in fact, the whole point of why greenhouse gases make the planet warmer. So we have increasing emissivity AND increasing temperatures. Let's see if the self-described radiation transfer expert can figure out what that does to radiation transfer. (I'm not taking any bets.)

Wrong-headed mistake #9 from the self-described radiation transfer expert. In fact, qin (for any object) must be greater than qout (for that object) any time the heat content of the object is increasing. Like the heat content of the Earth right now, for example. The only time qin equals qout is when the object is in thermal equilibrium.

Wrong-headed mistake #8 again. Emissivity of the troposphere is increasing, because of increasing greenhouse gases.

Wrong-headed mistake #10 from the self-described radiation transfer expert. That's exactly how S-B works. When something gets hotter, it radiates more. Any real expert in radiation transfer would know that. The fact that you don't tells me that you're fibbing about your qualifications. (As if we didn't know that already.)

Wrong-headed mistake #11 from the self-described radiation transfer expert. The first law says nothing about radiation, only energy. I think you're thinking of the second law. Which also says nothing about radiation, only about total energy of a system. Which would be wrong-headed mistake #12 from the self-described radiation transfer expert.

IF emissivity drops, AND all other things remain constant, then temperature would increase. Congrats, you passed ninth-grade algebra. So, maybe Mr. Expert can tell us all what he thinks is causing the troposphere's emissivity to decrease as the load of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere increases? (This should be fun ... just keep digging, Windy.)

Yet oddly enough, you have been completely unable to articulate just exactly what that alleged mistake is. Perhaps your language skills are lacking?

That's an utter lie, and you're a liar for repeating it (over and over) even after I pointed it out to you. I have never made that argument. What I have said is that IR emission from the stratosphere is increasing, and IR radiation into the stratosphere is increasing. There is no violation of the first law, and no perpetual motion anywhere in any argument I have ever made. And you're a liar for saying otherwise.

That is another lie. I have never argued that either, and you cannot produce a quote to show that I have.

Lie #3. Is it possible for you to make a post without lying about my position? Apparently not.

 

And where did I say that there isn't a gray body Stefan-Boltzmann equation. I posted it. You said

The simple answer to the question in your post is that is only true in black body Stefan-Boltzmann. Gray body is totally different because of emissivity.

The net effect of CO2 in the troposphere is not increased emissivity. That contradicts AGW entirely. If emissivity went up the planet would cool. You are reduced to making (*)(*)(*)(*) up to prevent from admitting a mistake.

I knew that was coming and that you would jump to it in desperation. We are talking about long term changes where we assume the change in stored energy to me negligible. If you remember the first argument when you demanded to know where the energy went I said space. The stored energy went to space and the temperature dropped, preserving the first law.

No it is decreasing. You are now reduced to contradicting AGW theory to keep from admitting you are wrong.

No! If something gets hotter its is because the radiation in increased or the emissivity decreased. You are putting the cart before the horse. The temperature went up because the emissivity decreased. Radiation out is unchanged as out must always equal in and in hasn't changed.

The first law is about energy. Since the stratosphere is stratified with insignificant conduction between layers to radiation. We can reduce our systems of the stratosphere and troposphere to radiation in and radiation out.

Uh the greenhouse gases. I think its time to go back to school. In the troposphere greenhouse gases reduce emissivity. It they increased it temperature would drop just as it has in the stratosphere where CO2 increases emissivity.

Where have you made that argument???

And every single time you said

You have argued for opposed perpetual motion machines every single time you have said this.

 

http://c21.phas.ubc.ca/article/simp...-single-layer-imperfect-greenhouse-atmosphere
"Increasing the concentration of carbon dioxide will increase the emissivity and the surface temperature."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idealized_greenhouse_model
The Wikipedia article shows total atmospheric emissivity increasing (from .78 to .82) with CO2 doubling.

http://tallbloke.files.wordpress.com/2011/12/unified_theory_of_climate_poster_nikolov_zeller.pdf
This is a poster from a scientific conference on global warming. Note Figures 2 and 3, where increasing emissivity (the x-axis) is associated with increasing surface temperatures. In fact, they say right in the text, "An increase in atmospheric emissivity does indeed cause a warming at the surface as stated by the current theory." So atmospheric emissivity is increasing, as CO2 is increasing.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/04/learning-from-a-simple-model/
"It&#8217;s easy to see that the G (and hence Ts) increases from S to 2S as the emissivity goes from 0 (no greenhouse effect) to 1 (maximum greenhouse effect) i.e. increasing the greenhouse effect warms the surface." Or, increasing greenhouse (increasing CO2) means increasing emissivity.

https://www.e-education.psu.edu/meteo469/node/198
This pages tells us that zero greenhouse effect implies an atmospheric emissivity of zero, while an atmospheric emissivity of 1 implies "a perfectly IR absorbing atmosphere." Thus emissivity must rise with increasing CO2.

http://my.net-link.net/~malexan/Climate-Model.htm
Equation 14 allows you to compute the emissivity of the atmosphere at various CO2 levels, and from this equation, emissivity increases with increasing CO2.

I await your admission that you were wrong, and your apology for lying about my views.

I think this is where you're having your trouble, Windy. As CO2 goes up, atmospheric emissivity goes up, but surface emissivity goes down (because less IR from the surface escapes). In fact, you're apparent inability to understand the difference between what's happening at the surface vs. what's happening in the atmosphere is one of the things that has led to your numerous (and enormous) blunders.

Now that I've given you such a big big hint, maybe you can answer the very simple question I've been asking for lo these many months, and which you have not even come close to answering:
If the stratosphere is emitting more IR to space, what is emitting less?

 

I think windy, the radiation transfer expert, is confusing emission and emissivity; they're not the same.

 

Actually, he's not. He posted the correct equation for the Stefan-Boltzmann law, and seemed to understand it correctly. What he doesn't have a clue about is how increasing CO2 affects that equation at the surface, in the troposphere, or in the stratosphere. Last year when I pointed out (and correctly computed) that the stratosphere emits more IR with increasing CO2, Windy went utterly bonkers. Rather than actually researching the question, he simply made up lie after nonsense after mistake, claiming my computation was wrong (but never saying where), claiming I was assuming perpetual motion (obviously, I never said any such thing), claiming I was violating various laws of thermodynamics (again obviously, I wasn't), and so on.

Windy utterly failed to comprehend the simplest facts of the greenhouse effect, such as (a) the stratosphere is radiating more IR now that it was in 1959, and not (as he misunderstood) radiating more energy than it receives; and (b) the stratosphere is radiating more energy because it's more emissive, and because it's getting more IR from below, specifically the troposphere, because (c) the troposphere is warming, and becoming more emissive as CO2 increases.

All this is standard greenhouse theory, available in any elementary textbook, and on many, many places on the internet (including Wikipedia), none of which Windy could be troubled enough to consult. Instead, he decides the way to "win" is to invent things I never said, based on his own misunderstandings. Then in order to defend his earlier nonsense, he backs himself into yet another corner and claims that atmospheric emissivity decreases with increasing CO2 -- the exact opposite of the truth.

Net result: Windy ends up looking like complete fool. A reputation which he well deserves.

 

Do you ever bother to read? All you are posting is another convention, such that emestivity of a black body = 0 and a super greenhouse = 1, such that the gray body equation is a(1-e)T Its just a reverse convention based on point of reference but physicaly the same you just need to be consistent. I do think that my convention is the corect one bassed on the deffinition of emissivity and point of reference. The confusing thing in many of your links is that they jump back and forth between both conventions.

 

Gee, projecting much? I read every link. You read every link, then assert on no basis whatsoever that you're right and everyone else in the world is wrong. It must be absolutely fabulous to know that you are the only guy on Earth so arrogant and pretentious that you can't ever make a mistake. (I would have said you and the Pope, but he's actually more humble than you are.)

What a total load of self-contradicting garbage that sentence is. I'm surprised you could even write such tripe without embarrassment. So now you're claiming that 0=1, and it's just a convention that most people say 0 doesn't equal 1? Even the Pope wouldn't go there. Next time get a clue. You can start with Kirchoff's Law.

There is no "convention" except the one inside your head. Emissivity = absorbtivity. A perfect black body is a perfect absorber, and a perfect emitter. Zero does not equal one.

I think a kindergartner could grasp that. But you're a denier, so I guess there is no limit to your ignorance.