The Earth's energy budget is surveyed by
- pyrgeometers on ground measuring downwelling longwave radiation DLR (GEWEX)
- bolometers on satellites measuring outgoing longwave radiation OLR (ERBE and CERES)
where
- DLR = heat flux from atmosphere to the Earth surface (in W/m2)
- OLR = heat flux from atmosphere into outer space at 0 K (or 3 K)
operating according to the following algebraic formulas:
- DLR = V/K + sigma T_i^4 = DLR-Pyrgeometer Formula
- OLR = E + sigma T_i^4 = OLR-Bolometer Formula
where
- T_i is measured instrument temperature
- V is voltage measured by pyrgeometer sensor and K is a sensitivity coefficient
- E is heat flux measured by a bolometer thermal link.
The Bolometer Formula is obtained from Stefan-Boltzmann's Law
- E = sigma (T_a^4 - T_i^4)
where sigma = 5.67 x 10^-8 is Stefan-Boltzmann's constant, T_a is the bolometric temperature obtained by calibrating the bolometer against a blackbody. Defining OLR = sigma T_a^4 gives the Bolometer Formula with OLR representing the heat flux from the atmosphere into outer space as stated.
OLR as reported by ERBE and CERES based on the OLR-Bolometer Formula is thus the heat flux from the Earth with atmosphere into outer space based on Stefan-Boltzmann's Law, and as such represents real physics: The Earth + atmosphere transforms shortwave heat energy received from the Sun into longwave heat energy which is returned to outer space as OLR. This makes sense as true real physics.
We now turn to DLR, which we know by previous posts represents the BIG BLUFF of CO2 alarmism: The DLR-Pyrgeometer Formula seems to be an analog of the OLR-Bolometer Formula and the BIG BLUFF is now to argue that since the OLR-Bolometer Formula makes sense as an expression of Stefan-Boltzmann's Law, also the DLR-Pyrgeometer Formula makes sense. But this is not true!
The DLR-Pyrgeometer Formula is supposed to be an algebraic reformulation of
- sigma (T_a^4 - T_i^4) = V/K with DLR = sigma T_a^4,
where sigma (T_a^4 - T_i^4) is the heat flux between the atmosphere at temperature T_a and the pyrgeometer at T_i > T_a according to Stefan-Boltzmann's Law, as measured by the (negative) voltage V. The BIG BLUFF is to give the algebraic reformulation a physical meaning with DLR = sigma T_a^4 interpreted as the heat flux from the atmosphere to the Earth surface. But this is not the physics:
- sigma T_a^4 is heat flux from a blackbody into outer space at 0 K.
- sigma T_a^4 is not heat flux from the atmosphere to the Earth surface because there is no such heat flux because T_a < T_i.
We can see through the BIG BLUFF of CO2-alarmism with DLR as heat flux from the atmosphere to the Earth surface with a warming effect:
DLR is computed from a non-physical DLR-Pyrgeometer Formula which is deceptively similar to a physical OLR-Bolometer Formula, and the BIG BLUFF is to say that because OLR is real so is DLR and global warming.
The BIG BLUFF of DLR is
- cleverly constructed with a clever mixing of OLR and DLR
- cleverly covered up in technical documents presenting the non-physical DLR-Pyrgeometer Formula as a version of the True Stefan-Boltzmann's Law, which expresses one-way heat flux from warm to cold,
- hiding that the DLR-Pyrgeometer Formula represents a False Stefan-Boltzmann Law expressing two-way heat flux with in particular heat flux from a cold atmosphere to a warm Earth surface in violation with the 2nd Law of thermodynamics.
Global warming alarmism is based on DLR demonstrated by instrumental evidence as a scientific evidence of warming from "greenhouse gasses" including the trace gas CO2. But this is fabricated evidence without physics reality and so it is a BIG BLUFF.
It is not hard to see the bluff once you understand where to look and not get diverted away from what is really happening when the trick is performed.
Inlägg
Claes, do you admit that water vapour + some other gases is the cause of the extra warming of the earth surface of 33´K.
SvaraRaderaIf so, which is the mechanism of this phenomenon?
Do you exclude CO2 from contributing?
If so, why?
Extra warming compared to what? The 33 K is meaningless advocacy. The only reasonable thing is to consider the Earth + atmosphere as a thermodynamic system under radiative heating from the Sun and radiative cooling to outer space. The impact of CO2 as a trace gas in this system is probably to small to ever be detected, while variations in clouds and water vapor may have a noticeable effect which in principle may be determined up to a tolerance of interest (between 1 and 10 %), but that requires large scale computation and lots of measurement.
SvaraRaderaYou have yourself discribed the 33´K in many posts earlier, e.g.
SvaraRadera"If A (atmosphere) is made fully transparent to radiation, or if A is simply removed, then the Earth could directly emit whatever is absorbed at T_E = -18 C. The presence of an atmosphere absorbing outgoing radiation from the Earth combined with thermodynamics, thus increases T_E from -18 C to + 15 C."
This was found at:
http://claesjohnson.blogspot.se/2010_08_01_archive.html
The blog post was named:
"Global Climate=Thermodynamics+Radiation"
Evidently also you think that the the atmosphere acts as some kind of blanket partly thanks to e.g. the water vapour and CO2. But we can´t be sure of the impact of increasing CO2.
Yes, I have because I have been influenced by this form of advocacy, but I have come to understand that this thought experiment is more misleading than illuminating. One could as well compare with a hypothetical situation without any Sun, but what would the meaning of such a speculation be? It is more meaningful to consider the actual situation and seek to understand its dynamics, rather than some far-fetched hypothetical situations.
SvaraRaderaI like your blog even if I don´t agree on every invention you do. E.g. I of course agree on the one way net energy transfer from warm to cold but that doesn´t prevent a colder body from sending out an electro-magnetic field carrying energy in all directions because all materia with T>0´K does so. Any other view is not science but more like religious mysticism.
SvaraRaderaIf you have three blackbodies with T1>T2>T3 but with rather small differencies, say 50`C, then their spectra will overlap so that there are frequencies that are common to each spectrum. I.e., each of these bodies has the ability to both emit and absorb these common frequencies (which of course can be of different amplitudes). It is selfevident that they can emit them but it is as evident that they can absorb them, regardless of the origin, so the energy absorbed by body 2 may come from both body 1 (warmer) and body 2 (colder) because the waves has the same frequency. This argumentation I is fully logic and thus true. Obviously it does not violate the 2nd law of th. dyn. so this law must handle energies (heat) on a higher level = net energies (heat).
I think you cant find any way to argue against what I have written here.
Your argumentation is elementary and to the extent it cannot be questioned, it is tautological and thus void of physics content. If you read my analysis of blackbody radiation, you will see my detailed arguments, which are not tautological and can be questioned but nevertheless may be valid. Until you have considered my arguments I don't think our discussion can advance. I see and understand your arguments but my view is that they are not correct.
SvaraRaderaMy argumentation is supported by Kirchoff´s law of radiation and thats enough for me. According to the argumentation above, DLR exists and can be measured but if and how it effects the temp of the earth surface is another question.
SvaraRaderaLasse H, it appears that you do not understanding Kirchhoff’s law. I n Perry’s Chemical Engineering Handbook (in which I suggest you read Chapter 4 –Thermodynamics and Chapter 5 =Heat and Mass Transfer) it states “ According to Kirchoff’s law, the emissivity and absorptivity of a surface in its surroundings at its own temperature are the same for both monochromatic and total radiation. “ Please note the words “surface” and “surroundings at its own temperature” . If a source and receiver are different then absorptivity and emissivity will be different.
SvaraRaderaLubos Motl is a knowledgeable physicist although he has little knowledge and no experience with engineering science (such as heat and mass transfer) but this post about Boltzman http://motls.blogspot.com.au/2013/02/ludwig-boltzmann-birthday.html may help you understand.
Claes, reading a poster's comment on Tallblokes blog http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2013/02/11/discussions-on-pyrgeometers-ir-measurement/
SvaraRaderaAccording to AlecM, it is not a "big bluff", but a dumb mistake!
"AlecM says:
February 11, 2013 at 3:30 pm
The pyrgeometer is a pyrometer for which the temperature signal is converted by the S-B equation to give the potential energy flux that the emitter(s) in the field of view would emit to a sink at absolute zero.
This not a real energy flux. You prove this very simply. Have two pyrgeometers back to back in zero temperature gradient and the net signal is zero. Take one away and the signal jumps to the temperature value.
Then manufacturers are very specific on this – to measure real energy flux you need the back to back signal.So the signal is an artefact of the shield behind the detector.
This has been a 50 year mistake by people who don’t know the most basic physics. The Trenberth Energy Budget has in it 100s of man years of wasted effort. Correct the many other mistakes in the physics and there are three separate reasons why there can never be any CO2-AGW.
This has been a disaster for science."