Equations for black body radiation

posts to blog, damn browser crashed a few times. http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/04/model-data-comparison-lesson-2/#comment-85047

Dear Barton Paul Levenson 304.

I fully understand and do agree with the equations and your explanations of radiation physics. And they are a very simple explanation of, what I would call "a" driver of the long term average temperatures of the Earth. Now in a loose sense you use the term greenhouse effect. Or maybe you imply greenhouse effect is only the effect of radiation physics in the termperature of the Earth. Other effects are not considered part of the greenhouse effect. In this I don't fully comprehend the intention of your post.

From this one could the define CO2 greenhouse radiation effect as the effect of CO2 absent all other gasses. From this one can define CO2 it a 20% effect and H20 is a 80% effect. This is the only explanation I have found at realclimate.org. And maybe I missed it, but all other links I have been given have not expanded on this explanation.

Now all of the above is true, but I comprehend or consider as meaningless and misleading in any search for what real or actual effect CO2 has at 380 or even 720 PPM. This 1 to 5 relationship ignores the reality of 10 to 50 fold more H20 molecules and that H20 is a total and partial absorber of far more wavelengths than CO2, and also H20 is a partial absorber of the far fewer CO2 wavelengths that are in the black body radiation spectrums of the earth's temperatures. I have spent much time looking for and when possible annotating images to emphasize what seems obvious to me. http://e6.ath.cx/gw/Atmospheric_Transmission-sm.jpg http://e6.ath.cx/gw/Global_Warming_Not_From_CO2-fig1-n-2.jpg

Are all the equations of the models that compute CO2 driving temperature using the above weightings? Then I may know why the models predict manifestations that cannot be found.

The atmosphere is a moving, sometimes violently moving fluid, that is also why I also opine the equations that are really about static homogenized static fluids have little reality in suggesting some rules of actual reality.

A good representation of the simple average of all is this. This is how I consider and what I consider the greenhouse effect. What part is radiation physics and what part Newtonian physics. Can one separate them. http://e6.ath.cx/gw/2007.nasa.gov.energyballance.gif

Dear Ray Ladbury RE: 305.

Thank you for that very thought provoking post. I will bold your comment for visual clarity. Do not know the accepted convention.

1)assertion that CO2 does not have sufficient heat capacity to warm Earth (heat capacity is irrelevant to the radiative physics involved) As I have come to understand radiative physics and said definition by realclimate.org convention or experts, your observation is true. And it is also quite obvious that CO2 must have some other property than radiative physics that causes it to drive global temperatures.

2)your assertion that heat loss of Earth an isolated system surrounded by vacuum is dominated by convection My assertion is that heat loss from the Earth comes from radiation. But the delay of the heat captured, the overall rate of cooling involves convection in transporting said heat to an altitude where it escapes by radiation. And if you read my posts, I think I have explained this several times. But as a picture is worth a thousand words. Nasa did a nice job creating an extremely simple view of the mind boggling complex Earth greenhouse effect. So I repeat the link. http://e6.ath.cx/gw/2007.nasa.gov.energyballance.gif

3)You have taken data out of context e.g. using the 1998 El Nino as a peak of warmingand on and on. Worst of all, Tom, theres no evidence your learning curve has a positive slope. Until you make an effort to learn the real science so that you can talk apples with apples, you are wasting our time and yours.

I don't know what context I've taken any data out of. And I may have no idea what an apple is in your world. I can only guess what data you are referring. I am guessing this is the bad apple. http://acute.ath.cx/BULK/global_warming/2008icecap.us-MonthlyCO2vsTemps.jpg If I have guessed correctly, could you explain why it is out of context. Well out of what context.

There is a context of a real world following the laws of physics. In that world this is how I view chart above.

What do I see when I see this chart and read the explanation in the article where I found it. The data graphed represents a total in some manner of the "temperature of the Earth" The temperature reflects the rms value of the heat energy of the Earth. Is my supposition correct? When the rms value of the heat energy of the Earth goes up, the global temperature goes up.

The context for that chart is this. http://icecap.us/index.php/go/joes-blog/correlation_last_decade_and_this_century_between_co2_and_global_temperature/

The key point or context is that clearly for the last decade there is not a build up of stored energy. And nobodies CO2 radiation physics predicts this.

Dear Jim Eager re; 312,

Terms like lower troposphere do have meaning, but I like using altitudes. Anyway I will use this chart as my definition of altitude zones. http://e6.ath.cx/gw/temp_vert-climateaudit.org.gif Mid troposphere is 5 Km Temperature is -20C and pressure is about 1/2 an atmosphere. I believe, I interpret that the laws of physics mean that CO2 will not trap any serious amount of heat. I can only offer these intuative arguments. All black body radiation goes in a random direction. But all that go up and are of a wavelength that can be adsorbed go further than those that go down. Air is less dense going up and thus extinction distance is further. All going down also must pass through lots more absorbing molecules. The cooling of a dry desert at night is in degrees per hour. The dryer less dense air at 5K would likely cool at even quicker rates as has no specific heat.

Now also, If what you say is true then one would see the heating of that area. And by the way, http://e6.ath.cx/gw/IPCC-predicted-v-measured.jpg the IPCC in the last report published this figure showing exactly what you have described. http://e6.ath.cx/gw/IPCC-predicted-v-measured.jpg

Now this is not gospel, but I don't see how one can reconcile CO2 heating the mid to upper troposphere. And there is a mystery -70C spot in the middle of the Gulf of Mexico that is a fountain of cold. Another interpretation of images I collected and studied. 2 weeks of GOES-East, Eastern North America IR(infra-red: 10.7 µm): Satelite a tcsh script build-global-IR-movie.com was run for a two week period and collected the images updated on the half hour. 688 images were collected. http://e6.ath.cx/gw/movie/test3/ This is a link to one image and there large areas of temperature above the clouds at far below the -20 reported as the 5KW temperature. http://e6.ath.cx/gw/movie/test3/640x480/goes_enam-2008_01_28_12_09_IR_Large.jpg

Dear Ray Ladbury RE: 309

I guess I don't know where to find the physics and math you are referring too. Is the absorption hole in a spectrum a clear indication of the idea of an extinction distance. That a wavelength is absorbed, the energy redistributed to surrounding molecules and even when they re-radiate their small amount of that wavelength it gets absorbed immediately over and over, With each re-radiation some goes to space and over time air cools as heat is escaping???

Ray in engineering there is an idea that when two things are in play and one is varying by orders of magnitude on numerous time scales and one is increasing by a fraction of a fraction, All thing being equal, a fraction of a fraction adds zero. Dear Ray Ladbury re: 318

It is nice to hear you know Spencer Weart personally, And your being so familiar, I understand why you do not provide a link to a page of Spencer that show his clear explanations so I can you will have to unlearn the incorrect interpretation you have amassed through lack of systematic study.

I must unlearn, if no heat energy can be found, it is still there waiting to raise the temperature. I gotta have faith. Dear Phil. Felton re: 320

As I read your comment, I smiled and asked, it the man hockey stick figure a cartoon. I have searched long and wide for cartoons that plot the absorption of CO2 and H20. Most are very cartoon like. They have no info really speaking to the metrology of how to quantify what is plotted.

Even NIST does not really do it. I do wonder why it is so hard. And I would be thankfull for any url pointers to accurate cartoons, of graphs or figures. Especially those the also list the complete math behind the figure, the assumptions etc. This is a composite of NIST plots of CO2 and H20. I do not see the non overlap you are claiming. Also if one takes the NIST to have some unit correlation. Yes I know it is not stated. Anyway, in that at and in the first hundred feet of atmosphere there are 10 to 50 molecules of H20 to CO2, A 5% H20 absorption is the same as a 50% to 100% CO2 absorption. http://e6.ath.cx/gw/nist.gov-H20-n-CO2-trans.gif The NIST chemistry WebBook allow plotting with different scaling and units. If you look at my raw directory http://e6.ath.cx/gw the separate frames used to make my cartoon are there. They are files the begin with nist-

Then I use http://www.spectralcalc.com/spectralcalc.php there black body calculator to create graphs of different temps. Then one matches the scaling and one can apply them together making what you call inaccurate cartoons

In engineering, the use of graphical or cartoon methods is quite normal and regulars. So what rule of mathematics says using graphical methods to join cartoons is not the same as doing a detailed line-by-line calculation

Dear Hank, thank you,

I did not know .CX was associated with Christmas Island. But a whois ath.cx is more informative.

...Registrant: 
    DynDNS Hostmaster
    Dynamic Network Services, Inc.
    1230 Elm St.
    5th Floor
    Manchester, NH 03103

And [ 247 ] > host e6.ath.cx
e6.ath.cx has address 76.254.193.1
and [ 248 ] > host 76.254.193.1
1.193.254.76.in-addr.arpa domain name pointer adsl-76-254-193-1.dsl.mrdnct.sbcglobal.net.
 

I have a dyndns account, but it was free for 5 domain as I recall. dyndns and several other services allow for a domain behind a dhcp gated router to have a constant URL.

And I would welcome any suggestions to references you can provide. What you show me, you show the world of your expertise and knowledge. Do you prefer paper or the internet as a library? And I have a photo gallery for all who enjoy a pig out on reading.... http://toms.homeip.net/2003.07.08_pig_out_on_reading/

Dear Ray Ladbury RE 326

I have started looking at http://www.aip.org/pnu/2008/split/862-1.html, I posted a reply just before this to BPL. The nature of how this forum loads in my browser is such I see the last posts before I see the time continuation of where I left off reading some previous time. So when I wrote the last post, I had not read 326. I confess, after spending time at wiki.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beer-Lambert_law to

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Absorbance to

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Absorption_spectrum

I do not really know what IR radiation is? smiling here... yes IR radiation is energy, how it's absorbed, I hope to learn.

I know what I think IR radiation is. But I am searching to find out if what I think is correct or hogwash.

Now I have spent time composing thsi reply, not reading the link you provided and the links it refers too. I now post this and start looking at the link provided. And thank you for that link.

By the way, I was at wiki attempting to make heads out of your earlier posts on molecular vibration. This is not a knock. Different folks speak with different jargon. I could only guess as what you were saying.

I wonder will this post be allowed. Is there any scientific honesty at this site?

Dear Barton Paul Levenson re 335:

What links do you proffer I have been given and not read and not understood. What links have you given that you claim I have not read and not understood.

Do you think it took no time to compose all the posts I have made on this forum.

Do you think it took no time to compile all the info on my open web directory and to link to specific figure located there. Do you think it took no time, not effort no understanding to edit and annotate and try to combine information so it makes more sense.

I have posted here with honest questions. My questions about things that don't add up. is there any point in saying more about you post???

Dear Ray Ladbury RE 326

I have now looked at http://www.aip.org/pnu/2008/split/862-1.html, Overall it reveal little to nothing new to me. It says A new joint study by French and Russian scientists shows in detail how carbon dioxide molecules absorb and sometimes scatter light energy not only singly but also during inter-molecular collisions but reveal no netails. It does reference http://www.aip.org/png/2008/300.htm as this have now derived the first exact mathematical formulas that can be used to calculate how collisions between molecules modify the absorption spectra for those molecules (see figure at But looking at ...300.htm is a statement of what most may believe, but nothing about anything in formulas.

I do believe, but will not claim with certainty that I have read previously various pages at aip.org. It general the pages seem not very definitive. I do have an undisciplined method of saving links I encounter in a file http://e6.ath.cx/gw/aaa-goodlinks I also now more regularly use an open source program, the simple xpaint to annotate figures I download with the original link for future reference.

Now back to the discussion of absorption, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Absorption_spectrum There is a claim, or explanation and it does note a cite is needed. But this explanation uses an example where we have parallel traveling photons from the emission source.

in both the atomic and molecular cases, the excited states do not persist: after some random amount of time, the atoms and molecules revert back to their original, lower energy state. In atoms, the excited electron returns to a lower orbital, emitting a photon. In molecules, the vibrational or rotational mode decays, also emitting a photon.

When this decay occurs, the photon produced is not necessarily emitted in the same direction as the original photon. The most common angle of this has been shown to be about 45 degrees of the original photon[citation needed]. This applies to any situation where gases lie between a light source and an observer: the observer will see gaps in the spectrum of the light corresponding to the wavelengths of the photons which were absorbed. These gaps occur despite the re-emission of photons because the re-emitted photons are equally likely to travel in all directions, and it is statistically unlikely to travel along the original path to the observer. These gaps appear as black lines in an image of the spectrum.

But width of the earth emitting (let's says by hundreds of square miles) and the thinness of the atmosphere. (choose some altitude) has the IR wavelength being emitted at all angles with respect to an observer at some altitude.

If one sees absorption lines of a specific band at some altitude, the wiki 45 degree and re-emission explanation seems incorrect to me. It seems absorption with conversion to heat and then re-emission of full spectrum where same absorbed band but less energy gets re-absorbed and band shifted component of energy now or will recursively contain all energy in the original absorbed band.

That part of the energy that is not absorbed leaves the system. That energy that is absorbed remains and is constantly part of the heat within the earths system.

But I still have found no explanation of how C02 has any unique property the accounts the supposed change of some PPM.

Dear Ray Ladbury RE: 339,

I had not read 339 yet when I posted my reply #341. I don't know that I need mention that for others, but I need to note it to have the dialog make sense to me if I refer back to it in he future.

Your observations about the forum are valid. As to vibrational modes, I have read many different renditions of word descriptions to create a minds eye visualization of the interaction of photons with matter and in particular what absorption is like.

I have reveiewed many text books, The specifics of the vibration modes are interesting, but have not addressed a quantification of probabilities of what happens when those photons that are tuned to be adsorbed by a specific molecule or molecules in general do intercept. The state of wisdom is as the link you referenced in #326 http://www.aip.org/pnu/2008/split/862-1.html The state of knowledge seems to be this.

and its ability to absorb and trap infrared radiation is thought to be instrumental in producing greenhouse effects. CO2 molecules one at a time can absorb light. But molecules can also absorb light when they collide with other molecules. This collision-induced absorption, occurring at wavelengths different from those for single molecules and accounting for about 10% of overall IR absorption, is insufficiently understood.

So if this belief of mine is correct, across realclimate.org there is an attempt to lower the "overall IR absorption, is insufficiently understood." I jumped in and asked what I judged to be questions that go to the center of ambiguity in understanding.

I have no wish to hijack a forum, But one can say my posts have. But I do provide links to web resources I control and from them who I am and where I live and how to contact me can be found, even by non rocket scientists. I am open to any suggestions on how to follow my curiosity on how it works.

So thank you again for taking the time to post responses to my concerns, questions and ramblings.

How many of those who post, can you look in the eye???? http://acute.ath.cx/watson/pooter/ this is dated 04/06/99 so the eyes are older now.

PS as I posted the preview this time I checked an saw 342. So Re 342, I would not assume you would not understand an explanation of anything by someone who actually understood it. I find that rule is useful in general. I find I ofter understand better for having explained to others who did not understand. I have also witnessed arguments between folks saying the same thing.

As to the 10^10 of collision and usec atomic level heat conduction times, I would guess photon time of flight is sub picosecods. Does this suggest the more CO2 more heat faster transfered to air, Does this agree with the idea of a shorter adsorption distance. More molecules, sooner intercept. Does that imply a more concentrated initial heating near surface that means sooner of faster start of convection of warmer less dense air upward.

But H20 is still 10 to 50 times CO2 in molecule population.

# tom watson Says:

26 April 2008 at 1:49 PM

Previewed comment:

I was reviewing the forum. I found, I spent so much time addressing less than flatering replies to my posts and considering how to reply in way both informative and civil. that I missed other posts and posters that I believe I share very common state of thought.

I continue to post as I am still attempting to expand my understanding. It may be a waste my time if no one reads or no one replies, but my efforts of attempting to write down what I believe and explain it helps me better understand what I believe and often furthers my own understanding.

Dear Gene Hawkridge RE 27 and a general comment to all.

Your said \u201cThat is clearly not healthy are the nuts who conclude, based on a few years data, that global warming is fictional \u201d

My skeptism is that any link between a variation of PPM of C02 and an ability to drive climate anywhere near the current IPCC supposed levels has ever been explained beyond a supposition and nothing near proven or even likely. It is all suppositions, and theories.

I posted on this tread hoping those who freely volunteer the time to create such an extensive site and state

RealClimate is a commentary site on climate science by working climate scientists for the interested public and journalists. We aim to provide a quick response to developing stories and provide the context sometimes missing in mainstream commentary. The discussion here is restricted to scientific topics and will not get involved in any political or economic implications of the science. http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/about/

would be a place where I could ask questions or explain why I am confused about C02 suppositions of massive impact.

I hoped that such learned and expert folks would be able to explain in laymans terms the nature of exactly how CO2 is supposed to drive temperature. But Laymans terms using some quantification that explains how mass in part per million has some effect in parts per ten or hundred or even a thousands.

I have extensive experience in using all manner of sensors and instruments to measure physical properties and then using various engineering math to process, create simple visualizations. Visualization that greatly assist any laymen in grasping the complexity in a real world system.

I attempt to express in an EE jargon.

In electronic systems there is signal and noise and a signal to noise ratio. How does the signal of ppm of CO2 drive the signal of Temperature when H20 is so much higher a signal in PPM, Multiplied by higher absorber of power of the spectrum of interest.

In the Earth system

The water signal has always been present, the water signal is orders of magnitude larger and varying in amplitude by orders of magnitude over the current small PPM increase signal of CO2.

Also heat by conduction and convection and radiation get to a place where it escapes via radiation. The massive for all time present signal of H20 also can also tranport via convection about 300 time the heat of CO2, O2, and N2, per unit mass. 02 and N2 make up 96 to 98%. Water makes up 1% to 3%. So does this mean that in a cubic foot of air that H20 by convection can transport 3 to 9 times the heat in its 1 to 3% as much as the entire 97 to 99% of the rest of the air that includes some PPM of CO2.

300 tims per unit mass.(specific heat, heat of fusion, heat of vaporization and only h20 is going through phase changes in atmospheric convection.)

I always attempt to parse what a skeptic is skeptical about. I don\u2019t get how one can add the H20 and CO2 signals and support the CO2 impact suppositions.

For my efforts and question, this is a summary of what has

The collective argument is that one must read more to understand and those who cannot are just of too limited an intellect to comprehend.

Dear Hank Roberts Re: 344.

I would suggest "photon time of flight is sub picoseconds" is good layman terminology for the technical "mean free path" I often use the best layman terminology I can think of, even if I did know the appropriate technical jargon. But such corrections are welcome as then all may learn appropriate technical jargon.

adsorption vs absorption is a db typo. My typing sucks. I also often put you instead of your and the where this and that should be. I omit the letter s often and may include it wrongly. That is a handicap I have.

But on adsorption vs absorption, I wonder if as I think constantly in pictures and mixed concepts, is the electric field of electrons in obit that is selective about which photons may enter functioning like a membrane. Does my many levels mental processing somehow impact what signal gets to what finger to execute a particular character.

I know my minds eye is beyond the speed of my thought to finger communications.

I can only say sorry for pain it causes. It is more work to listen to garbled speech. I have tried many schemes and still my mind in review does not catch all my garbles.

      http://e6.ath.cx/gw/absorbspec.jpg
      http://e6.ath.cx/gw/Atmospheric_Transmission-sm.jpg
      http://e6.ath.cx/gw/AtmosphericAbsorption-n-Transmission.jpg
      http://e6.ath.cx/gw/chriscolose.h20.co2.absorption.gif
      http://e6.ath.cx/gw/earth-emisson-spectrum.jpg
      http://e6.ath.cx/gw/IR-SPEC.GIF
      http://e6.ath.cx/gw/TerrestrialRadiation-energy_wavelength.gif