Utopia Talk / Politics / Seb has a phd in physics...

Sam Adams Member	Sun Nov 05 18:51:39 Yet.. 1) Forgot second thermo 2) Forgot the ideal gas law 3) After the existence of the ideal gas law was pointed out, claimed nonlinearity 4) thinks planetary albedo(vis spectrum) is changing(its not) 5) confused a value with the rate of change of that value 6) Thought adiabatic lapse rates were strongly pressure dependent 7) Ignored the thickness equation 8) used a very wrong value for bottom of atmosphere flux. 9) lied about climate stats 10) thinks a planet can randomly choose to "do more work" with its sunlight. 11) does not understand absorption and energy.
Sam Adams Member	Sun Nov 05 18:54:13 12) forgot that energy is expended when it used. Forgot to add that one. But i did get rid of the natural log one, i'll give you a pass on that phd seb.
Ork Member	Sun Nov 05 18:57:33 What are the odds on this debate lasting until the next hurricane season?
Sam Adams Member	Sun Nov 05 19:01:32 Trumps gonna destroy the world by tgen, so no worries.
Hot Rod Revved Up	Sun Nov 05 19:02:07 noun 1. a medicine that purges; cathartic; laxative.
jergul large member	Sun Nov 05 19:07:21 Sammy Are you even fooling yourself at this point? I have questioned Seb a couple times in this ongoing discussion. He responded with clarification to my satisfaction (he and I are not bffs). You simply do not grasp the underlying physics. You could grasp them if you wanted. These threads have been a good tutorial. Its simple really. Once you understand the dynamics of boiling a kettle of water.
jergul large member	Sun Nov 05 19:14:40 We should talk about electric tanks instead. Rail gun armed. Lets get the heat emissions down to what can be dumped in a trail of liquid.
jergul large member	Sun Nov 05 19:16:26 The logic of course is that high efficiency engines are required to avoid excess heat generation, as are propellants that do not rely on exothermic chemical reactions
Sam Adams Member	Sun Nov 05 19:26:42 Jergul, you thought a gas was not a fluid.
jergul large member	Mon Nov 06 00:18:51 lol, no sammy. And pupils do not grade their teachers in any event. So lets use this thread to talk about tanks.
hood Member	Mon Nov 06 00:24:20 "And pupils do not grade their teachers in any event." That is just plain wrong.
jergul large member	Mon Nov 06 00:55:28 hood Read it in a normative sense. 7 billion people. Anything can happen. And does.
Hot Rod Revved Up	Mon Nov 06 03:37:11 physic noun 1. a medicine that purges; cathartic; laxative.
Seb Member	Mon Nov 06 11:46:17 None of the OP is true but the title. Sam, you think black paint is magic. You are a lost cause.
Seb Member	Mon Nov 06 11:50:20 You argued that the greenhouses gasses violated the laws of thermodynamics ffs. Do you really think you have Abu credibility?
Sam Adams Member	Mon Nov 06 13:02:09 Every item in the post is true, and has a link in our very recent archive. For example you stated this just yesterday, which demonstrates your obvious confusion regarding absorption and/or albedo: Seb Member Sun Nov 05 14:50:46 "The power flux from the sun isn't changing, but the ammount of work it does on the planet as a whole is." You either forgot albedo is not significantly changed, or you forgot how absorption works. Probably both. Lol "phd".
Dukhat Member	Mon Nov 06 13:11:14 Sam thinks he won because he is both prosecutor and judge all-in-one and thinks that anybody with an educated mind would buy into his bullshit. How very sad if you think about it.
Sam Adams Member	Mon Nov 06 13:23:20 Cukhat in a science thread lol!!!
Sam Adams Member	Mon Nov 06 13:38:50 The best part about all this is that the retards are getting the science wrong to defend an imagined trend that isnt even there! http://upl...c_ace_timeseries_1850-2014.jpg No obserbable change in hurricanes at all since ships got radios. The whiners whine and howl about how global warming will kill us all, and then nature comes along, slaps them in the face, and continues along pretty much as before.
Seb Member	Mon Nov 06 15:31:13 Sam: That weasel word "significantly". I.e. "there's a change but I'm going to ignore it". Do you not believe emissivity changes due to increased absorbtion of the atmosphere in the IR band? Given Jergul was originally talking about future trends, I don't know what you expect to prove by looking at the past.
jergul large member	Mon Nov 06 15:34:12 Sammy The trend is marked from 1980/83 until today. The most likely explanations are interdecennial cycles and global warming. You should also find a better and more up to date ACE chart. Perhaps not just one representing the Atlantic basin. But of course. You also suck at sources. Why not be consistent.
jergul large member	Mon Nov 06 15:37:11 Seb I don't think we can be categorical yet. Not for another decade or so. Which is why I am not being categorical yet :-).
jergul large member	Mon Nov 06 15:46:19 Sammy This all started with you saying something that was nonsensical from a physics pov. So I started asking "hmmm, but is that necessarily true?" Hurricanes cannot be understood without understanding the partial pressure equation for saturated air. You do not understand the partial pressure equation. Go back to school.
Sam Adams Member	Mon Nov 06 15:50:02 "there's a change but I'm going to ignore it". " Yup. Completely valid in this field, if the ignored factor is much smaller than others. Now according to my own radiative convective equilbrium simulations, i think we should be increasing weather energy by some 1%... maybe even 2% at lower altitudes. Trivially small. "Do you not believe emissivity changes due to increased absorbtion of the atmosphere in the IR band? " Outbound IR emissivity is nothing like inbound vis and near IR emissivity. In those prime solar energy bands, the topic under discussion, our atmosphere has much less influence than the already small global warming causing longwave IR emissivity changes. As for current vs future trends, this discussion clearly started with this season's hurricanes, not future trends. As for future trends, if it was going to be scary in the future, it would be observable now.
Sam Adams Member	Mon Nov 06 15:52:12 Jergul you think lows are caused by condensation and that a gas is not a fluid. Go away.
Seb Member	Mon Nov 06 15:56:39 Sam: Oh my god, do you really think the work done on the planetary system is not related to the difference in inbound and outbound power spectra? You have calculations? do show.
Sam Adams Member	Mon Nov 06 16:00:32 Your atlantic only question is valid. I posted that link because it was longer time. Heres a shorter time global version. https://curryja.files.wordpress.com/2015/08/slide22.png Still no trend.
Sam Adams Member	Mon Nov 06 16:03:04 Phd seb, all absorbed solar energy does equal work, regardless of outbound IR. How the fuck do you make that mistake?
jergul large member	Mon Nov 06 16:17:02 Sammy You seriously do not see the 80/83 trend? Wow. Gas is of course a fluid. Lows are caused by volume loss taking place faster than equilibrium mechanics can compensate. We calculated it in the last thread. 100ds of thousands km3 of volume loss to condensation in a hurricane's lifespan (from conception as a tropical depression to death as a low pressure system). Learn the partial pressure equation to understand hurricanes sammy.
Sam Adams Member	Mon Nov 06 16:21:25 I think you are either mistaking net work done to raise surface temperature with work done to create weather. Or perhaps confusing the fact the atmosphere will quickly adjust to its new regime such that outbound IR can never really change so long as solar inbound reminds the same. Regardless, absorbed solar does the same work, and you are stupid. "Phd" lulz.
Sam Adams Member	Mon Nov 06 16:26:55 "Gas is of course a fluid. " Congrats you learned something. Now repeat after me, "all planeteray atmospheres are in hydrostatic balance..." "Lows are caused" Lows(at the sfc) are caused by upper level divergence evacuating mass faster than lower level convergence can replace it. That, and only that. Read, learn, and remember.
Seb Member	Mon Nov 06 18:04:19 Sam: If that is the case, explain the greenhouse effect Sam. To raise the earth surface temperature requires work to be done on it. If all solar energy absorbed by the surface does equal work, and solar radiation hasn't changed, and CO2 in the atmosphere isn't changing albedo, and the cO2 in the sky is colder than the ground, how does increasing co2 concentration raise temperature of surface? Once you've answered that question - assuming you can do that correctly - you'll have answered your own point you me. Let me know how you get on. Consider it an exercise for the student. Ta ta.
Sam Adams Member	Mon Nov 06 18:47:12 " If all solar energy absorbed by the surface does equal work, and solar radiation hasn't changed, and CO2 in the atmosphere isn't changing albedo, and the cO2 in the sky is colder than the ground, how does increasing co2 concentration raise temperature of surface? " Outbound longwave IR emissivity(not the same as inbound shortwave mind you) has changed, which delays the outbound radiation slightly. This does work by decreasing outbound heat, not by increasing inbound heat. Study your basic carnot. Btw, this effect is both minor and temporary... the planet will rapidly adjust to its new equilibrium, and long term energy flows are not changed. Its like building a dam and a reservoir. Inflows are always the same... outflows temporarily decrease and then return to the same as inflow once the reservoir is full. The final result to the flows (weather) no change. The final result to the stocks(temp)? Changed.
Sam Adams Member	Mon Nov 06 18:50:35 Or carnot in terms of work while our planet warms... the work being done on the earth by the sun is unchanged. The work being done on the rest of the universe by the earth is decreased.
jergul large member	Tue Nov 07 01:05:30 Sammy I have learned things about hurricanes since the discussion began, but have learned nothing from you. And nothing about gas being a fluid. For hurricane conditions: Lower level mass is evacuated fast by condensation. Learn the partial pressure equation to get a clue. Upper level "divergence" is caused by lower level loss of mass and indeed is required as heat transfer from saturated warm air is the trigger for condensation. It will not rain unless warm saturated air is losing heat to cool upper layer air. This involves high volume contact between the layers. Meaning that that air layers are a misnomer under hurricane conditions. Because windy. "Like building a dam..." Notch that down to another thing you do not understand. Google it. Go back to school.
jergul large member	Tue Nov 07 01:14:54 And why in God's name are you using the term "work" when speaking about energy balances. Google W equations.
Seb Member	Tue Nov 07 02:01:22 Sam: "Outbound longwave IR emissivity(not the same as inbound shortwave mind you) has changed, which delays the outbound radiation slightly." Delays? Are you saying that the speed of light has been reduced? What nonsense. " not by increasing inbound heat." Nobody has suggested that. How does "delaying" - whatever that means - result in additional work being done Sam? You've just told us all absorbed heat does the same amount of work. Has the earth absorbed more sunlight? Has the same amount of sunlight done more work? What nonsense is this etc. etc. ", this effect is both minor and temporary" Minor compared to what? The temperature increase is temporary? If outflows are reduced, that doesn't explain the temp increase. Work must have been done to increase the temperature. Where did that work come from? X W came in, that didn't change. Outflow being reduced just means the mfp increased for outbound long wave radiation. That long wave radiation is colder than the surface. How did it warm the surface? Explain explicitly.
Seb Member	Tue Nov 07 02:03:45 Btw, your delay argument is really lies to children. The "delay" of utbound ir is photons bouncing around between molecules in the sky and occasionally back to the surface. How would that lead to warming of the surface?
Sam Adams Member	Tue Nov 07 08:22:57 "If outflows are reduced, that doesn't explain the temp increase. Work must have been done to increase the temperature. " Check your basic carnot equation. Work can be done on a system by decreasing outbound heat.
Seb Member	Tue Nov 07 09:52:55 You've just spent five threads arguing that's impossible.
Seb Member	Tue Nov 07 09:54:33 I'm glad you finally accept what I've been telling you for ages.
Sam Adams Member	Tue Nov 07 10:49:15 Ummm, you quite clearly stated that the sun was doing more work. Do you agree that is not the case?
Sam Adams Member	Tue Nov 07 11:00:03 Also i think you are confusing the minor and temporary work that goes into global warming with the much much larger and clearly not temporary work that sustains global weather. The global warming signal is some 1 w per meter squared, and lasts only so long as we keep pumping carbon (e folding time of the slowest element, the oceans, is a decade or 2). The global convective value (weather)is some 75 w per m2, and is sustained forever.
Seb Member	Tue Nov 07 11:51:57 Sam: You are arguing that too. Unless you are arguing that once emitted, the emitted radiation somehow does work. You've rejected that argument previously. You've used the "lies to children" handwaving argument that outbound radiation has somehow "been delayed" and so in being delayed, has done the work. Previously you described this as "the earth magically choosing to do more work". "Minor and temporary work" - what's that supposed to mean Sam? The earth doesn't cool down. It takes continued work to hold the earth further from thermal equilibrium with space. At a higher temperature body radiates more power than a lower temperature body all other things being equal. So what's up with that eh? The earth is still radiating the same power as before the co2 increase, when Stephan Boltzman says it should be radiating more. Care to enlighten us Sam? This is the flaw in the "lies to children" version of global warming. It's a handwaving heuristic that obscured what's actually happening. It's like "electrons orbit atoms nuclei". It only gets you so far before, if you take it literally, you need to explain why the accelerating charge doesn't lead to radiation of energy.
jergul large member	Tue Nov 07 12:19:50 Seb and Sammy. Can you please define the "Work" you are speaking of? In equation form (axiomatic)
Sam Adams Member	Tue Nov 07 12:22:58 "the earth magically choosing to do more work" I believe the context is "with its sunlight". Sunlight is unchanged. The earth itself is doing less work on its surroundings, and thus warms. "It takes continued work to hold the earth further from thermal equilibrium with space. " Absolutely not. Once the new equilbrium is reached, outgoing heat has returned to the same as incoming heat, and no more work is required to hold that temperature. "The earth is still radiating the same power as before the co2 increase, when Stephan Boltzman says it should be radiating more. Care to enlighten us Sam?" Ah yes, that does frequently cause some confusion amongst the mid level undergrad atmospheric physics student. Its because the average radiating layer is the same temperature as before... but higher up. The planet is radiating the same as before, but the atmosphere is a little taller... and thus the altitudes beneath the radiating level are a little warmer than before.
Sam Adams Member	Tue Nov 07 12:35:27 Which gets us back to dT/dz being mostly unchanged as dT aproximately equals dz. IR emissivity = higher. Atmosphere = thicker. Surface temperature = higher. But Radiating level temps are unchanged, as are heat flows. Now thats a generalized system, accurate to about 2 orders of magnitude. There is minor nonlinearity. As resistance to IR increases, heat will flow aloft preferentialy through its other option: weather. But thats worth some 1% or so. Trivial.
Sam Adams Member	Tue Nov 07 12:43:22 Neat, balanced, pretty linear, for fluids. Radiative convective equilibrium is quite stable over time.
jergul large member	Tue Nov 07 13:17:13 What equation are you using for "work"? We all know the changes are trivial on a 0-5000K scale sammy. Just as a 5 m sea level increase from a depth of the deepest trench is "pretty linear" and "quite stable". There is a reason why weasel words are unscientific.
Seb Member	Tue Nov 07 14:06:26 Jergul: Delta U = Q - W Work is not the best way to look at this granted. I'd go straight for looking at the change in entropy to the inbound and outbound radiation field. That's if you insist on using a classical thermodynamics approach. Generally this is all pretty easy to understand from thinking in terms of photons. The only reason we are talking about thermo is Sam thinks the greenhouse effect violates thermodynamics.
Seb Member	Tue Nov 07 14:20:28 Sam: "The earth itself is doing less work on its surroundings, and thus warms." Explain how this word salad manifests. What "work" was the earth doing before that it isn't doing now and what is the physical mechanism here. E.g. a hot expanding gas does work on a piston by pushing it against a resistive force. What's the mechanism here by which the earths surface is doing work, what's it doing work on, and why is it changing? " Once the new equilbrium is reached, outgoing heat has returned to the same as incoming heat" Is the outgoing power spectrum the same as before? Why isn't the earth radiating more than before? Its temperature has increased. "Its because the average radiating layer is the same temperature as before..." That's back to front thinking. The effective radiating surface is a convenient way to black-box radiative transport. It's defined as the surface where the temperature first drops to that corresponding to what the Stefan Boltzmann says matches the required heat flow. I.e. it's a mathematical construct. Hence "effective". Photons above that level don't escape direct into space by the way. They are still absorbed etc. But you are starting to zero in on the key point here. So let's consider the follow up question - before the new equilibrium is reached, is there an effective radiating surface? I.e. a level where the atmosphere has a temperature such that it would be radiating the same power as put in by direct sunlight? If so...
Sam Adams Member	Tue Nov 07 14:20:44 Jergul, we are talking about changes in the range of 1% storm strength(theorized - no observable trend) and 5% storm surge height due to sea level rise. Now these should continue to trend upwards of course, but they are quite small, and will remain small for a long time.
Seb Member	Tue Nov 07 14:21:31 Sam: Every time I've pointed out emmisivity has changed, you've denied it, or appeared to confuse it with albedo. Now you are arguing it.
Seb Member	Tue Nov 07 14:22:48 So basically over umpteen threads, Sam has come to agree with both jergul and me.
Sam Adams Member	Tue Nov 07 14:45:30 "Sam thinks the greenhouse effect violates thermodynamics. " False. You trying to create energy with backgradient flow is what violates thermo. "What "work" was the earth doing before that it isn't doing now " Radiating. "Why isn't the earth radiating more than before? Its temperature has increased. " The effective radiating level temperature has not increased at all. The earth radiates the same once adjusted. "Photons above that level don't escape direct into space by the way. They are still absorbed etc. " Many escape. Some do not. The radiating level is an average of all spectrum path length distributions. "So let's consider the follow up question - before the new equilibrium is reached, is there an effective radiating surface? " Yup. Upon increasing emissivity, radiating level climbs to its new higher altitude. The atmosphere has not yet warmed to its new temp yet, so a colder temperature is radiating. The earth radiates less, and warms to its new equilibrium.
Sam Adams Member	Tue Nov 07 14:48:02 "Every time I've pointed out emmisivity has changed, you've denied it, or appeared to confuse it with albedo. " Every time you talk about emissivity, you seem to forget that there are different emissivities for different wavelengths.
jergul large member	Tue Nov 07 15:56:58 Seb I would definately have preferred the entropy approach. Work as a deductor is pretty misleading at a wavelength energy flow perspective. I would tend to approximating W = 0 giving Q = Delta U. Sammy Have we reached a point where we can actually discuss what impact increased energy has hurricane formation frequencies and duration lengths?
Sam Adams Member	Tue Nov 07 16:51:25 Very minimal if any. Next.
jergul large member	Tue Nov 07 17:01:48 Sammy Oh, so you are back to failing themodynamics again. Quelle surprise.
jergul large member	Tue Nov 07 17:06:03 The easiest way to understanding hurricane creation is by accepting the following precondition as true: Hurricanes can only form and be sustained over time if above a body of water that is at least 26C down to a depth of 60m Even an increase of 1C water temperatures will see this precondition met far more often in time, and over a much larger geographical area.
jergul large member	Tue Nov 07 17:18:24 Another way of looking at it would be that in the 20-30 degree range, each 1C increase in termperature increases the saturation level of air by 8% (a given unit of air can contain 8% more water vapour per degree the temperature increases). Hurricane energy (work) comes from water condensating at close to exactly the same amount of energy per unit released as it takes to boil a boiling kettle of water dry. We are speaking of trillions of kettles boiling dry of course. For the order of magnitude.
Sam Adams Member	Tue Nov 07 18:49:04 "The easiest way to understanding hurricane creation" Is that before the "condensation reaction", or does the purple dragon flap its wings first? "Hurricanes can only form and be sustained over time if above a body of water that is at least 26C down to a depth of 60m " False "Hurricane energy (work) comes from water" and how does the water's energy get replenished?
jergul large member	Wed Nov 08 01:14:40 Sammy Go back to school.
Dukhat Member	Wed Nov 08 01:16:36 Why does Sam think that he can analyze data and science? Why not trust the scientists actively dealing with the problem with degrees from top universities? Is he afraid they are part of the liberal consensus on climate change? If so why trust the consensus only mid-sized energy companies, religous nutters, and Koch-Mercer media complex tells him is true? How are they qualified? Yeah ... he won't answer but he deep down he knows the truth.
jergul large member	Wed Nov 08 01:46:31 Dukhat I am not sure that he does. His perspectives can best be phrased as religious. And you know how people are about their dogma. No amount of scientific argument will ever change those ways.
Sam Adams Member	Wed Nov 08 08:35:37 Rofl cuckhat and jergul are geting their cerebrums together. Watch out!! With our powers combined, we graduated high school!! Bwahahahahahaha
Seb Member	Wed Nov 08 09:55:29 Jergul: Re work, the only really sensible way to look at it from a global warming perspective is to treat the radiation in and out as your heatflows and think of the work in terms of "how much work is done raising the planets temperature". It's not the best way, but it removes some of the pseudo-paradoxes that people sometimes find. Sam gets confused because he keeps redefining the boundaries of the system mid way through analysis.
Seb Member	Wed Nov 08 09:59:42 Sam: "There are different emmisivities for different wavelengths". Wow. I know. I've said it was a function of frequency. Do you not understand that those are exactly the same thing. And so what? It makes no difference to anything I've said. Or rather, explain why you think it makes a difference, and given you denied it mattered before, were you wrong then, or were you wrong just now?
Sam Adams Member	Wed Nov 08 10:10:58 Seb, you kept thinking inbound shortwave would have different absorption rates because of longwave emissivity changes. But so long as you learn that longwave and shortwave radiation parameters are mostly unconnected, we can move on.
jergul large member	Wed Nov 08 11:40:37 Seb "Sam gets confused" Correct. He is quite pathetic.
Sam Adams Member	Wed Nov 08 11:55:25 "Upper level "divergence" is caused by lower level loss of mass and indeed is required as heat transfer from saturated warm air is the trigger for condensation. It will not rain unless warm saturated air is losing heat to cool upper layer air. This involves high volume contact between the layers. " Jergul. Hurricane expert. Lol.
jergul large member	Wed Nov 08 17:03:10 Sammy. Hurricane expert. Lol
Seb Member	Wed Nov 08 17:05:35 Sam: Nowhere did i state that. I've explained in detail what's going on. The fact you can't digest that, and then when asked to explain what you think is happening then paraphrase my own explanation that you'd previously said was physically impossible just leads me to conclude you don't really understand anything. You are a short of process monkey. Your job just requires you to plug numbers into frameworks, so you've only ever been given a Mikey mouse version of why those frameworks are the way they are. Like the school child that mistakenly thinks electrons travel in little circles around nuclei.
osamaisdaworstpresid Member	Wed Nov 08 17:22:03 thay travel in da wires 4 da computar not in da nucleisi of da cell wear u got ure dna
Sam Adams Member	Wed Nov 08 18:34:14 "I've explained in detail what's going on. " No seb. You have explained in detail what you think is going on. Which is pretty retarded. Even worse, you make a host of retarded mistakes trying to explain away your previous mistakes. A wiser man would have admitted he was wrong and learned. But through either stupidity, or your feeble attempts to outdo me, you cannot choose to do that. Even while trying to explain a trend that isnt even there. Lol.
Seb Member	Thu Nov 09 04:32:21 Sam, did you ever answer whether you thought the power spectrum of the outgoing radiation from the top of the atmosphere was the same as before the increase in CO2. Until you can answer this question, it's kinda hard to take you seriously.
Seb Member	Thu Nov 09 04:37:52 Btw, before you get confused, a power spectrum is a curve that relates power of a radiation field to frequency. E.g. it shows how much of the power flow is in each wavelength component of the radiation.
Sam Adams Member	Thu Nov 09 08:17:01 Sure there are changes to that as flows trend towards atmosheric windows in co2 and h2o. Unfortunatly for you that is nearly completely seperate from the solar power spectrum. Unfortunatly for you again, it does nothing to the average radiating temp, which is another straw you are grasping for to try and explain away yout previous mistakes. Lol "phd"
Sam Adams Member	Thu Nov 09 08:23:31 I should say it does nothing to the average radiating temp once the new equilibrium is reached.
jergul large member	Thu Nov 09 08:32:22 Sammy At your undergrad level the "average ratiating temp" is completely seperate as you are measuring the energy balance at the earth's surface and assuming no atmosphere. http://atmos.washington.edu/2002Q4/211/notes_greenhouse.html (I cannot believe those are second semester notes. Everything is fuzzy studies it seems).
Sam Adams Member	Thu Nov 09 10:12:05 "as you are measuring the energy balance at the earth's surface and assuming no atmosphere. " Everything you say is wrong.
Seb Member	Thu Nov 09 10:31:27 Sam: Do you agree that the outbound power spectrum differs from before the increase in CO2? It's a simple yes no question.
jergul large member	Thu Nov 09 10:39:25 Sammy Link provided showing equations that specifically states that atmosphere is excluded. If you are using advanced equations (lol, or any equations), then post them. You should realize you have 0 credibility at this point.
jergul large member	Thu Nov 09 10:42:41 "Do you agree that the outbound power spectrum differs from before the increase in CO2?" Something has changed, therefore it is different. Amazing the level this discussion has to have in order to cater to Sammy's special needs.
Sam Adams Member	Thu Nov 09 12:09:07 My credibility to a norwegian peasant fisherman who gets everything wrong? Rofl. Thats funny. Seb, of course it has changed. And?
Seb Member	Thu Nov 09 13:52:20 Great, so the total power remains as before, but the power spectrum had changed. *How* has it changed with respect to the previous outgoing power spectrum?
Seb Member	Thu Nov 09 13:52:52 As in, if you overlayed them, what would it look like?
Sam Adams Member	Thu Nov 09 13:59:36 I already told you that a few posts ago. A little more outbound energy in the atmospheric window wavelengths, a little less in the wavelengths of absorption of co2 and h2o.
Seb Member	Thu Nov 09 15:50:56 Great. So - proposition - you can treat the earth as a black box for the next step - you don't need to care about the atmosphere or the surface (that's kind of the point of the whole effective radiating level anyway). In principle, you can treat the earth as an object that is a heat exchanger. There is a radiation field incident on it, it absorbs and re-emits another radiation field. And you can calculate the entropy change between the incident radiation field and the outbound radiation field. Do you agree?
Sam Adams Member	Thu Nov 09 16:03:28 Yup
Seb Member	Thu Nov 09 16:14:52 Important point here - you recognize that for this analysis, you can't use stefan boltzman law. That assumes a plank distribution (i.e. black body) which is a good approximation, but would not work here as we are looking for the subtle differences due to the change in the outbound power spectrum.
Seb Member	Thu Nov 09 16:16:09 Sorry, skipped a step. Do you also agree then that you could compare the difference between the entropy between the two outbound spectra. Important point here - you recognize that for this analysis, you can't use stefan boltzman law. That assumes a plank distribution (i.e. black body) which is a good approximation, but would not work here as we are looking for the subtle differences due to the change in the outbound power spectrum.
Sam Adams Member	Thu Nov 09 16:20:22 I generally generalize subtle differences. Im sure you can find many very small changes which are not particularly important but do exist, and which i have glossed over in the previous posts for the sake of brevity.
Seb Member	Fri Nov 10 11:05:07 Answer the question.
Sam Adams Member	Fri Nov 10 12:01:30 Uh i did. You can compare outbound entopy at different spectra. And?
jergul large member	Fri Nov 10 12:38:18 Sammy That is not what Seb asked. Can you compare "before and after" spectra to uncover suble differences so that changes in entropy can be measured? He is going for quantifying what changes actually do. Its actually not a black body you see.
Sam Adams Member	Fri Nov 10 13:00:28 Of course its not what we generalize it as. But it is quite close.
Seb Member	Fri Nov 10 15:22:06 So, to be explicit you *do* agree there is a different change in entropy of the radiation fields before and after increasing CO2? I.e. If Delta S is the difference in entropy between inbound and outbound radiation, then Delta S before and after the increase in CO2 is different?
Sam Adams Member	Fri Nov 10 20:06:39 Planetary averaged entropy would not change. Individual components could a little.
Sam Adams Member	Fri Nov 10 20:07:18 In terms of outbound verse inbound radiation.
	show deleted posts