tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1141932539860553199.post8753322901396102075..comments2024-03-05T10:52:24.691+00:00Comments on Mark Wadsworth: What missing radiation?Mark Wadsworthhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07733511175178098449noreply@blogger.comBlogger18125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1141932539860553199.post-76760928704559791382020-11-25T16:19:27.391+00:002020-11-25T16:19:27.391+00:00RS, clearly, hot things must warm the atmosphere e...RS, clearly, hot things must warm the atmosphere ever so slightly. And I assume that things that absorb solar radiation and convert it to non-thermal energy (plants or solar panels) cool it down slightly. Very difficult to calculate and probably small number either way in the grander scheme of things.Mark Wadsworthhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07733511175178098449noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1141932539860553199.post-41850887182096856992020-11-25T16:03:02.866+00:002020-11-25T16:03:02.866+00:00MW ok and what about the 60TW of heat from power s...MW ok and what about the 60TW of heat from power stations cars industry etc(getting close to 1%)Robin Smithhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04648517992918303543noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1141932539860553199.post-24587405530087398412020-11-25T12:16:35.953+00:002020-11-25T12:16:35.953+00:00RS, the answer to your first question is "no,...RS, the answer to your first question is "no, not really"Mark Wadsworthhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07733511175178098449noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1141932539860553199.post-30761633606801499962020-11-24T19:42:17.792+00:002020-11-24T19:42:17.792+00:00Does the heat from inside the earth need to be inc...Does the heat from inside the earth need to be included in any calcs for atmospheric heating. From the radioactive decay of uranium thorium and potassium(what you get in bananas) in the crust and mantle etc?<br /><br />"Geologists have used temperature measurements from more than 20,000 boreholes around the world to estimate that some 44 terawatts (44 trillion watts) of heat continually flow from Earth’s interior into space. Where does it come from?"<br /><br />Solar insolation reaching the ground is 15000 TW so that would add a teeny bit to it. About 0.2% extraRobin Smithhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04648517992918303543noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1141932539860553199.post-14425733137776593952020-11-24T13:46:32.126+00:002020-11-24T13:46:32.126+00:00"Imagine a sealed mirror box with an LED in i... "Imagine a sealed mirror box with an LED in it, how hot would the air get in the box? No warmer than the bulb (I expect)."<br /><br />Well, since LEDs run very cool, compared to other light sources, the corollary to that would be that when the air round the LED reached the same temperature as the LED, the LED would no longer emit heat and only emit light and thus be 100% efficient. Do we know if this is the case?<br /><br />Bayardhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15211150959757982948noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1141932539860553199.post-45703841715276979342020-11-24T13:24:14.934+00:002020-11-24T13:24:14.934+00:00Din, to give an example. Mr Smith's income is ...Din, to give an example. Mr Smith's income is £30,000 a year. The average income of everybody in the village is £25,000. <br /><br />The Alarmists say the £5,000 difference is absorbed by CO2. I say it's because everybody else in the village earns less than Mr Smith.Mark Wadsworthhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07733511175178098449noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1141932539860553199.post-26408053137336656662020-11-24T13:18:48.214+00:002020-11-24T13:18:48.214+00:00Din, 240 is the average outgoing radiation from Ea...Din, 240 is the average outgoing radiation from Earth to space. 390 is radiation from surface level not covered by clouds. It's two quite separate things. I'm not disputing either of those figures. I'm explaining the apparent discrepancy, which as ever is based on a diagonal comparison.Mark Wadsworthhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07733511175178098449noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1141932539860553199.post-22394347302740853322020-11-24T11:58:15.214+00:002020-11-24T11:58:15.214+00:00M, I don't know how you calculated it. I think...M, I don't know how you calculated it. I think that one day's incoming solar/m2 is about <a href="https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-qZTGp_tazFY/XzfvrfjLIfI/AAAAAAAAKRA/7YA-2C-OA_QfStusNM-vzavgGKTXhP-xQCLcBGAsYHQ/s1600/Energy%2Bbudget.png" rel="nofollow">20 million Joules</a>, which is enough to warm atmosphere and top few inches of land or water by about 1 degree.<br /><br />So - assuming GHG theory is correct - over the past hundred years (36,500 days), one day's worth of solar has been absorbed and not re-emitted = 0.00003. So yes, fifth significant figure and impossible to measure or verify.Mark Wadsworthhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07733511175178098449noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1141932539860553199.post-37289927910209202502020-11-24T11:56:59.445+00:002020-11-24T11:56:59.445+00:00In your calculation you have the result of 240 W/m...In your calculation you have the result of 240 W/m2 radiated from the ground and the figure you are disputing is 390 W/m2. If, *underlined IF*, that second figure is obtained by measurement, incorporating clouds land and sea then , why do climatologist not find your figure when they do the measurement.Dinerohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14632385731642361211noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1141932539860553199.post-89370892100256817752020-11-24T10:23:08.350+00:002020-11-24T10:23:08.350+00:00M "The "warming" of CO2 of a degree...M <i>"The "warming" of CO2 of a degree a century means that the incoming and outgoing balance to down below the 5th significant figure. Since we have no hope of measuring to that level we are just guessing which is bigger."</i><br /><br />That is an excellent point.Mark Wadsworthhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07733511175178098449noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1141932539860553199.post-91357289146126896152020-11-24T10:21:20.093+00:002020-11-24T10:21:20.093+00:00M, I don't think we would boil, radiation can&...M, I don't think we would boil, radiation can't make something hotter than the body which emitted it (I think). Imagine a sealed mirror box with an LED in it, how hot would the air get in the box? No warmer than the bulb (I expect).<br /><br />B, the calc's are easier if you just look at 1 m2 of surface area. Say ocean is 10 km deep, that's 10 million kg, times 4 kJ/K/kg = 4 billion Joules required to warm it by 1K. <br /><br />Incoming solar every day is 12 x 3,600 x 480 = 20 million Joules. So six months of sunshine is in theory enough to warm a 1 m2 vertical column of ocean by 1K, ignoring the fact it always cools down again overnight. And ignoring the fact that trying to explain this sort of thing using radiation is nonsense.Mark Wadsworthhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07733511175178098449noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1141932539860553199.post-36535446315721267202020-11-24T08:31:14.739+00:002020-11-24T08:31:14.739+00:00To look at it the other way, to heat the oceans by...To look at it the other way, to heat the oceans by a degree in a century means a warming rate of 1 degree in 36500 days or 1.58 x 10e9 seconds. 1 C warming takes is 5.64 x 10e21 J from above, or 3.57 x 10e12 W. divide that by the visible area of the Earth, 1.27 x 10e14 m2 and you have a net inflow of 0.0281 W/m2, over five thousand times smaller. E&OE again, of course.Bayardhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15211150959757982948noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1141932539860553199.post-39709281257326136942020-11-24T08:15:47.283+00:002020-11-24T08:15:47.283+00:00Mark, there are 1.35 x 10e18 m3 of water in the oc...Mark, there are 1.35 x 10e18 m3 of water in the oceans, which is where all the heat is going these days, apparently. (No explanation is given, of course, for why all the heat that has been merrily warming the atmosphere since the end of the last cold period, sorry, the start of the industrial revolution, should now be warming the oceans, but hey ho.) To raise that by 1 degree would take 1.35 x 10e21 x 4.18 J. The Earth has a diameter of 12.7 x 10e6 m, so the area visible to the sun is that squared times pi/4 = 1.27 x 10e14 m2. At 150 W/m2, that equals 1.9 x 10e16 W. Over 12 hrs that equals 8.2 x 10e20 J, or 0.146 C, or 53 C a year. Unless I'm out by an order of magnitude somewhere, yup, boil it is.Bayardhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15211150959757982948noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1141932539860553199.post-6652164590227903912020-11-24T04:14:37.283+00:002020-11-24T04:14:37.283+00:00Their argument is that the red area that is not ov...<i>Their argument is that the red area that is not overlapped by green shows the missing radiation that is 'trapped' by CO2. </i><br /><br />We'd boil in a couple of years, if that were true. That's a LOT of radiation.<br /><br />The "warming" of CO2 of a degree a century means that the incoming and outgoing balance to down below the 5th significant figure. Since we have no hope of measuring to that level we are just guessing which is bigger. Markhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14049701479076034749noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1141932539860553199.post-65172410502939046122020-11-24T00:18:03.077+00:002020-11-24T00:18:03.077+00:00B, thanks, I wil correct it tomorrow.B, thanks, I wil correct it tomorrow.Mark Wadsworthhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07733511175178098449noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1141932539860553199.post-36283528149659281462020-11-23T22:00:55.488+00:002020-11-23T22:00:55.488+00:00Diagram 3 out of 4 contains the following sum, 240...Diagram 3 out of 4 contains the following sum, 240/2 = 240, which can't be right.Bayardhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15211150959757982948noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1141932539860553199.post-27116021122701465002020-11-23T12:05:29.259+00:002020-11-23T12:05:29.259+00:00L, the challenge is to either expose obvious flaws...L, the challenge is to either expose obvious flaws in their 'evidence' and/or to explain that evidence using basic physics without invoking CO2 and radiation at every turn. It's tricky but not impossible, you have to dig around and think a lot.Mark Wadsworthhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07733511175178098449noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1141932539860553199.post-16974121976590807662020-11-23T11:26:08.975+00:002020-11-23T11:26:08.975+00:00So what you are saying is that the alarmists (a) h...So what you are saying is that the alarmists (a) have over-simplified and (b) haven't done their sums. Or is it that they have done their sums but have over-simplified on purpose - i.e. lied?Lolahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04586735342675041312noreply@blogger.com