Abstract
OSRAM is one of the leading manufacturers of light bulbs in the world. They claim their OSRAM Tungsten light bulb is an “ecological” lamp3 because of a reduction in losses due to thermal radiation.
In particular, they claim that due to a sophisticated coating on the bulb the thermal (infrared) radiation is reflected and the heat emitted from the filament is reflected back to the filament. As a result, the filament is heated further. This means that less electrical energy has to be supplied to the filament.
This is the equivalent argument used by proponents of the man-made global warming hypothesis, that is that a cooler system (the atmosphere) can reflect radiation back and heat up a warmer system (the Earth’s surface).
These claims violate the Second Law of Thermodynamics.
Scientific analysis, not of the misleading marketing blurb from OSRAM, but of the physical Tungsten light bulb, however, show that there is no violation of the Second Law of Thermodynamics. Nature behaves as she always does, even in the case of these artificial devices.
Introduction
The second law can be expressed in several ways, but all of them coincide with a common meaning, i.e. an ineludible universal directionality of every process taking place in the Universe.
The way in which the Second Law is expressed depends on what we are considering at a given moment; for example, we could be considering the work done by one system on another system, or the universal entropic directionality, or the process of energy transfer from one system towards another system.
Any of these cases could be the most suitable explanation; however, with respect to the unalterable directionality which leads every process and phenomenon, this definition is the one granted by quantum mechanics1, 2. The context provided by quantum mechanics for the Second Law of Thermodynamics deepens further the gap between pseudoscience and real science.
The Second Law of Thermodynamics is enunciated as follows:
“The energy is always dispersed or diffused towards the system or systems with more available microstates.”1
This law applies to every thermodynamic system and to any place in the known universe. Additionally, it considers every association and every contextual function derived from the main statement. For example, we apply this concept to gas diffusion, chemical reactions, biotic processes, work, pressure, etcetera, etcetera.
Bearing this statement in mind, let us examine the Tungsten light bulb that, allegedly, beats this universal law.
Antecedents
OSRAM says that its innovative Tungsten light bulb will provide the benefit of
- A reduction in losses due to thermal radiation (IRC):
Special bulb geometry and a sophisticated coating on the bulb ensure that the thermal (infrared) radiation is reflected and the heat emitted from the filament is reflected back to the filament. As a result the filament is heated further. This means that less electrical energy has to be supplied to the filament. This technology is used for all low-voltage ECO lamps (12 V) because of the optimum geometric conditions 3
And that the consumer will also take advantage from
- A reduction in the thermal losses via the filler gas (xenon):
As the size (mass and diameter) of the gas atoms increases, the thermal conductivity of the filler gas decreases. By using the appropriate lamp filler gas, the heat loss of the tungsten filament via the gas can be reduced. This means that less electrical energy is needed to heat the filament. In addition, the use of a filler gas with atoms as heavy as possible slows down the vaporization of the tungsten atoms from the filament. This prolongs the life of the lamps. Xenon is an extremely rare gas (making up only 0.0000087% of the atmosphere, or 0.087 ppm). Of all the inert gases, xenon best meets these requirements. Despite the high cost we therefore use xenon as the filler gas in al (sic) the OSRAM ECO lamps.3
Scientific Analysis
The first assertion gives us the main characteristics of the lamp:
It has a Tungsten (W, from Latin Wolframium pertaining to “wolf foam”) filament, which is energized by fast unidirectional electrons and is the source of energy for the lamp, and a “special” geometry of the bulb. Additionally, the inner surface of the bulb is layered with a “sophisticated coating”3.
The second description says that the fluorescent gas inside the bulb is Xenon (Xe). 3
What is the “special” geometry of the bulb? From the picture of the product, the bulb’s “special” geometry is that of a paraboloidal integrating mirror; nothing “special” about this particular characteristic which has been exploited for many years in integrating mirror reflectometers, which are highly advantageous over spherical mirrors when the energy source is low.4, 5
Paraboloidal integrating mirrors concentrate the radiation onto a given focal point that is accurately determined by the angle of curvature of the bulb5, which, for this case, works in a similar way to a TV parabolic antenna as it concentrates the reflected quantum/waves (visible, IR, UV, radio) onto a receptor (focal point) that is built in front of the paraboloidal antenna’s surface. Magnifying glasses also work in this way, but work by refracting radiation.
In OSRAM Tungsten light bulbs, the focal point upon which the radiation is concentrated is the Tungsten filament. We, therefore, have the first explanation on the overheating of the Tungsten filament:
It is not warmed up by a colder system inside the bulb, but by IR quantum/waves reflected towards the Tungsten filament by the “special coating” covering the inner surface of the paraboloidal integrating mirror bulb.
Now, does the Tungsten filament have the ability to absorb the reflected IR quantum/waves and reach a higher temperature? The answer is: Yes, Tungsten (W), in pure form, is the metal that has the highest melting point, and it is 3422 °C6. In addition, of all pure metals, Tungsten has the lowest coefficient of thermal expansion7, which is 4.3 x 10-6 m/m K. Consequently, the Tungsten filament can reach very high temperatures, if and only if its internal energy is lower than the reflected emission.
We have seen that the reflected radiation is concentrated on the Tungsten filament by the “sophisticated geometry” of the bulb; the energy reflected by the “special coating” and sent towards the Tungsten filament (the focal point) is, therefore, higher than the energy of the filament. Consequently, the energy in the OSRAM Tungsten light bulb is dispersed from a Tungsten surface in a higher energy state (the point where the radiation is concentrated) to the remaining structure of the filament where the molecules are in an energetically lower state.
The filament will not absorb reflected radiation beyond its limited and limiting available microstates, while the walls will not reflect radiation outgoing from the filament above their reflectance coefficient. Furthermore, the Tungsten filament will not emit radiation beyond its total emissivity power at maximum temperature. Remember that the Tungsten filament is not a blackbody and it does not behave like a blackbody.
So, there is not any violation to the Second Law of Thermodynamics.
Additionally, the second characteristic of the Tungsten light bulb refers to its content, which OSRAM says is Xenon (Xe). What OSRAM does not specify is that the noble gas Xenon inside the light bulb can be excited by the energy released by the Tungsten filament and transformed into ephemeral Xe dimers, i.e. Xe2.
The noble gas Xenon was first used in strobe lights for high speed photography, but was soon playing an important role in the manufacture of other devices, such as halogen lamps, nuclear reactors, lasers, etcetera.
After receiving a load of energy from the Tungsten filament, the over-energized Xenon fills its outer shell of electrons by taking an electron from a neighboring atom and forms a dimer, which is called an excimer.
After ~3 ns, the excimer returns to its energetic ground state and the absorbed energy is released towards other atoms and the Tungsten filament8. Nevertheless, each ~3 ns, the environment surrounding the Tungsten filament gets warmer than the Tungsten filament8. Consequently, we have again the same case of the reflected and concentrated radiation, i.e. the energy is transferred from a system with a higher energy density towards other systems with a lower energy density.
What we are seeing here is the same process that occurs in auroras, that is, a current of plasma. The plasma created by Xe excimers reaches an energy density that could be 1000 times higher than that of the source of photons9, that is, than the energy density of the Tungsten filament.
To avoid the light bulb overheating and exploding, OSRAM has integrated a resistor, to control the energy transferred to the Tungsten filament, and small magnetic ballasts, integrated in one or both extremes of the light bulb, to absorb the bulk of the excess of heat produced during the functioning of the lamp.
That is how the OSRAM “ECO-lamp” works. We do not see here any violation to the Second Law of Thermodynamics.
Conclusions
First of all, we notice an incorrect statement in the opening argument from the OSRAM technical description of its Tungsten light bulb.
The first effect of warming of the Tungsten filament is produced by concentrating IR quantum/waves onto the surface of the Tungsten filament, which is caused by a paraboloidal integrating mirror bulb within which the Tungsten filament is placed.
After the focal spot on the Tungsten filament’s surface is heated up, the energy transfer occurs to the remaining molecules of the Tungsten filament, which are energetically “colder” than the focal spot.
Once the Tungsten filament warms up, it starts emitting more radiation toward the volume of “normal” Xe inside the bulb, the “normal” Xe becomes excited and is transformed into an excimer, formed by two atoms of Xe (Xe2), which reaches an energy density state that is higher than that of the Tungsten filament and establishes a plasma current that transfers energy towards the Tungsten filament, i.e. from a warmer system (Xe2) towards the colder system (the Tungsten filament).
There is NOT any violation to the Second Law of Thermodynamics going on inside OSRAM Tungsten ECO-lamps.
In trying to convince potential clients of the ecological benefits of its product, OSRAM presents a misleading explanation that could be wrongly interpreted as a “violation to the Second Law of Thermodynamics”. In fact, as I have demonstrated, this is not what happens in either OSRAM lamps, or in the climate system, nor anywhere in the observable universe.
References
- Lambert, Frank L. Entropy Is Simple, Qualitatively. J. Chem. Educ., 2002, 79 (10), p 1241.
- http://entropysite.oxy.edu
- http://www.osram.com/osram_com/Professionals/General_Lighting/Halogen_lamps/Technologies/HALOGEN_ECO_technology/index.html
- Fried, Michael N. and Unguru, Sabetai. Apollonius of Perga’s Conica. 2001. Koninklijke. Netherlands.
- Modest, Michael F. Radiative Heat Transfer-Second Edition. 2003. Elsevier Science, USA and Academic Press, UK.
- http://www.chemicool.com/elements/tungsten.html
- http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/tables/thexp.html
- Salvermoser, M. and Murnick, D. E. High-efficiency, High-Power, Stable 172 nm Xenon Excimer Light Source. Appl. Phys. Lett. 83, Page 1932 (2003).
- Suplee, Curt. The Plasma Universe. 2009. Division of Plasma Physics of the American Physical Society. Cambridge University Press. NY.
By Nasif S. Nahle
University Professor, Scientist and Director of Scientific Research Division at Biology Cabinet, Mexico
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
What a lot of hand waving. Let’s strip away the rhetorical filler. Your explanation is totally unconvincing.
The cooler wall of the bulb does indeed return radiation to the hotter filament.
But you still have to explain Eli’s simpler tin foil bulb (which started this Osram story from a comment), Spencer’s solar box, and radiation shields on furnaces
But analogies while they might be fun …
you’ve invented a whole new energy balance physics for the Earth’s surface. Have you rung up the World Radiation Center and told them yet ! LOL
@Luke…
Hi… Thanks for your comment.
Not so new; perhaps it is because you didn’t know how it actually works. Go to the references . Too many people inventing the same thing from observation and experimentation. It is the explanation of science; if science doesn’t convince you, well… Do you think OSRAM light bulb is based on an invention?
Can you explain which part of the process (as currently described by standard atmospheric physics textbooks) in the earth’s climate you believe violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics?
Note that some of these points (below) are dependent on accepting preceding points, but it would be very helpful if you explain specifically which point or points are allegedly forbidden.
Is it:
a) the absorption of thermal radiation by the atmosphere
b) the emission of thermal radiation upwards by the atmosphere
c) the emission of thermal radiation downwards by the atmosphere
d) the thermal radiation from c) reaching the ground
e) the thermal radiation from d) being absorbed by the ground
f) the thermal radiation from e) affecting the temperature of the ground
And it would be just wonderful if you could include a calculation of the entropy change to prove why the process is forbidden.
And note – just to clarify the point – everyone believes net heat flows from the hotter to the colder, but the presence of the absorbing and radiating atmosphere reduces this flow of heat (which originates from the sun).
You can see a simple example of this and the entropy calculations in: The Three Body Problem.
You can also see seven heat transfer textbooks demonstrating that thermal radiation from a colder body is absorbed by a hotter body. Amazing Things we Find in Textbooks – The Real Second Law of Thermodynamics.
General Electric R&D was developing this technology in the late 1980’s. My neighbor authored several ten’s of patents on the coating technology for the reflective coating.
The hard part is-
a) making a dielectric stack to create the reflective surface that allows visible light through, but strongly reflects as much of the IR spectrum back towards the filament as possible (this can wind up being 20-30 alternating layers);
b) creating a process that can manufacture these coated glass parts for pennies per unit;
c) creating a coating that survives for 1000’s of hours at high temperature without peeling, crazing, hazing or tinting;
d) applying the coating onto a special-shaped bulb that surrounds the tungsten filament to maximize the solid angle of IR emissions that are intercepted and reflected back towards the filament.
GE was able to demonstrate this technology, and received some sort of eco award from the Gov. of NY back in the late 1990s’s. If I remember correctly, it improved the efficiency of the tungsten lamp by about 20%. I wouldn’t be surprised if Osram purchased/licensed this technology from GE.
ScienceofDoom,
Thank you for the link, very interesting.
Reading some of that stuff again, confirms that most people
arguing about the “Law” are talking about two different things and never the twain shell meet!
Radiative heating of a hot body by photons-IR radiation etc., sometimes from a distance I may add, emitted by a cold body, not under ideal conditions ie. vacuum, black body etc. is just speculation.
Take it further by talking about some molecules of a substance which comprises a tiny % of the atmosphere
and expect people go with you?
if you want math. I can give you math.
Math. enough to prove 2+2 = 5
Spacious? sure!
Johnathan Wilkes:
It’s a complex subject. The article appears to claim that atmospheric radiation absorbed by the ground would violate the 2nd law of thermodynamics. But the author hasn’t exactly explained his views.
Your point is a totally different one.
You should ask, “What is the evidence that this radiation is from molecules comprising a tiny % of the atmosphere?”
If you were interested in finding what evidence there was for this, then I would direct you to an article like:
The Amazing Case of “Back Radiation” – Part Two which demonstrates that back radiation is generated from the inappropriately-named “greenhouse” gases.
Also I might point you towards Theory and Experiment – Atmospheric Radiation which compares real values of total flux and spectra compared with the theory – at top of atmosphere and at the surface.
But I realize you weren’t asking for that evidence.
Instead you were pointing out the valuable insights you gain into the complex properties of atmospheric radiation from “instinct”.
“Instead you were pointing out the valuable insights you gain into the complex properties of atmospheric radiation from “instinct”.”
Oh, so you know me? Or are you psychic by any chance?
Great! That’s what I like about warmists, the utter unshakable confidence that they are always right
and everyone else is wrong.
Good for you.
Johnathan Wilkes February 19th, 2011 at 6:28 pm:
I apologize for claiming insight into your core beliefs.
You said:
“Take it further by talking about some molecules of a substance which comprises a tiny % of the atmosphere and expect people go with you?”
This statement of yours implies a belief which isn’t physics or science. But of course I don’t know what you believe or why you believe it.
What is the theory of atmospheric radiation?
Is it that any given gas radiates in proportion to its concentration in the atmosphere? No, it’s not. (At least, current theory in all atmospheric physics textbooks says “no it’s not”).
However, this is what I thought you were claiming.
However, if you have a theory of atmospheric radiation, please share it. I would be delighted to evaluate it and if I am wrong that you have used instinct instead of physics I apologize.
“I would be delighted to evaluate it ”
As I said, that unshakable confidence and cockiness.
Takes you a long way.
Johnathan Wilkes:
I’ve read a lot of atmospheric physics textbooks. The same theory is expressed in each.
Usually textbook theory is very solid. But that doesn’t mean it’s right.
However, when people who have never read a textbook on the subject claim that “current theory” is wrong without further explanation, it’s usually because they don’t actually know what the current theory is.
Can you explain the current theory of atmospheric radiation? Do you know the equations of radiative transfer?
If your belief is that anyone with “confidence and cockiness” (your words) has proved themselves wrong, what do you have to offer in their place?
Is Atmospheric Radiation: Theoretical Basis, by Goody & Yung (1989,2nd edition) all rubbish?
Is Radiative Transfer, by Chandresekhar (1950) totally missing the point?
What would you like to criticize about the theory of radiative transfer?
Clearly you are unhappy that I assumed you had based your critique of atmospheric radiation on “instinct” – so obviously you have something more substantial.
I look forward to you explaining your critique.
Look,
I could quote you as many articles (gosh, peer-reviewed even) and text books as well, as you can stating the opposite.
I’m no stranger to mathematics, the structures we designed are still standing.
What I’m on about is this, if you made a false assumption, without empirical evidence, there are ways to to prove it to be true mathematically, starting from those very assumptions, but it won’t be “Correct”.
Johnathan Wilkes February 19th, 2011 at 7:51 pm:
Explain your theory of atmospheric radiation.
Provide your references or your evidence.
@SoD… Thanks for your message.
You say:
“Can you explain which part of the process (as currently described by standard atmospheric physics textbooks) in the earth’s climate you believe violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics?”
No one in real nature because real nature behaves in the way I described, i.e. a warmer system do work on a cooler system. If the author of a book on atmospheric physics describes something in opposition to the observations from nature, then that part IS wrong.
You say:
“Note that some of these points (below) are dependent on accepting preceding points, but it would be very helpful if you explain specifically which point or points are allegedly forbidden.
a) the absorption of thermal radiation by the atmosphere
b) the emission of thermal radiation upwards by the atmosphere
c) the emission of thermal radiation downwards by the atmosphere
d) the thermal radiation from c) reaching the ground
e) the thermal radiation from d) being absorbed by the ground
f) the thermal radiation from e) affecting the temperature of the ground”
Those are your problems, not mine. To science, it is very clear that the cooler atmosphere cannot warm up the warmer surface. My answers are after your questions:
a) The absorption of thermal radiation by the atmosphere.
True.
b) The emission of thermal radiation upwards by the atmosphere.
The atmosphere would radiate to all possible angles and trajectories; not only upwards and downwards.
c) The emission of thermal radiation downwards by the atmosphere.
The atmosphere would radiate to all possible angles and directions; not only upwards and downwards.
d) The thermal radiation from c) reaching the ground.
False. You forgot to consider radiation pressure and induced emission. We must consider all the contextual natural phenomena which drive a given process. We would reach a false conclusion if we don’t consider other factors that affect deeply the analyzed process. This is the precise problem with your questions, i.e. they were not structured scientifically.
e) The thermal radiation from d) being absorbed by the ground.
If and only if the atmosphere were warmer than the surface. What you say is a post-normal innovation taken from AGW ideas which has nothing to do with reality.
f) The thermal radiation from e) affecting the temperature of the ground
The atmosphere cools the surface. It doesn’t warm it.
A concept that has been deduced from observation of nature prevents us to enunciate a hypothesis which is in opposition to the observation.
A concept will not forbid a natural process, but any erroneous or invented conceptualization which is in opposition to reality.
If the second law of thermodynamics hinders your ideas; it is your very personal problem, is not the problem of science.
The only way the atmosphere affects the surface is that the first one cools the second one.
You say:
“And it would be just wonderful if you could include a calculation of the entropy change to prove why the process is forbidden.”
Again, there is not any forbidden process; it is the AGW conjecture which is forbidden by reality. Second time you make the same mistake.
You say:
“And note – just to clarify the point – everyone believes net heat flows from the hotter to the colder, but the presence of the absorbing and radiating atmosphere reduces this flow of heat (which originates from the sun).
I repeat: the flow of energy from a “hotter” to the “colder” is not just a belief; it is what actually occurs in nature.
Regarding your second claim, “the presence of absorbing and radiating atmosphere reduces this flow of heat originated from the Sun”, have you read about the mean free path length and crossing time for LW IR quantum/waves in the Earth’s atmosphere? It is the answer to the argument you’re referring to.
If you have the time, calculate them based on real data and come with your results.
I could calculate how much power is transferred from a hotter system to a cooler one, if real data from a specific situation is provided.
You say:
“You can also see seven heat transfer textbooks demonstrating that thermal radiation from a colder body is absorbed by a hotter body. Amazing Things we Find in Textbooks – The Real Second Law of Thermodynamics.”
I’ve read them. They don’t say that a cooler system warms up a warmer system, or that the atmosphere warms up the surface. They talk about oscillations of quantum/waves under idealized conditions. I think you are misunderstanding the information that you have read from those books.
Now, you answer a question… Do OSRAM Tungsten light bulbs “violate” the Second Law of Thermodynamics?
S.of D.,
In question are d, e, and f.
And I am not that interested in what the textbooks say, more interested in what happens in reality and your ability to refute what Nasif has presented at this blog.
What would be predicted and what do we observe? Is there evidence for radiative heating of the earth’s surface from an accumulation of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere?
Science of Doom,
“What would you like to criticize about the theory of radiative transfer?” (of the atmosphere)
You said it……It’s a THEORY, nothing more ,nothing less.
Im just a layman , but looking at all the heat transfers you listed a b c d e f ….Heat radiated from the earth to the little amount of CO2 in the atmosphere would be bugger all. This bugger all heat is then transfered in all directions by the CO2 molecule. We aren’t interested in b of your list because that is going OUT of your “greenhouse” eh. You are only interested in c d e and f. and considering all those heat transfers the amount of heat would change from bugger all to infinitesimal.
The argument over radiative transfer, an entirely intellectual construct, is questioned? No wonder CAGW proponents feel besieged, especially when the imagined disasters haven’t.
Dennis Webb on February 19th, 2011 at 8:35 pm :
“In question are d, e, and f.
And I am not that interested in what the textbooks say, more interested in what happens in reality and your ability to refute what Nasif has presented at this blog.
What would be predicted and what do we observe? Is there evidence for radiative heating of the earth’s surface from an accumulation of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere?”
Nasif just claimed that the standard theory of atmospheric radiation is in violation of the 2nd law of thermodynamics.
He hasn’t presented any evidence. What is the evidence for this claim?
You say: “I am not that interested in what the textbooks say..”
Why don’t you care what the textbooks written by professors in the field of heat transfer say?
All the heat transfer textbooks state that thermal radiation from a colder body is absorbed by a warmer body.
Therefore, someone claiming that this point is in violation of the 2nd law of thermodynamics doesn’t know what the textbooks say. Or – they are overturning standard theory.
Which is it? Are the textbooks all wrong? Why don’t professors of heat transfer know this stuff, I thought it was all very basic and simple?
Later I will comment on the “questionable” points: d,e & f.
The debate reduces to “intensive” variables versus” extensive” ones.
One can’t average intensive variables in a physically meaningful sense. One can, however, otherwise.
Except it’s a physical nonesense, but compelling in an intellectual one.
Mack on February 19th, 2011 at 8:50 pm
““What would you like to criticize about the theory of radiative transfer?” (of the atmosphere)
You said it……It’s a THEORY, nothing more ,nothing less.”
A theory. Good point..
Gravity is also a theory. So is conduction. So is convection. So is radiation. So is evolution.
These are all theories. Science is all “theories”.
You can’t prove theories. You can only present overwhelming evidence which “establishes” theories.
“Im just a layman , but looking at all the heat transfers you listed a b c d e f ….Heat radiated from the earth to the little amount of CO2 in the atmosphere would be bugger all. This bugger all heat is then transfered in all directions by the CO2 molecule. We aren’t interested in b of your list because that is going OUT of your “greenhouse” eh. You are only interested in c d e and f. and considering all those heat transfers the amount of heat would change from bugger all to infinitesimal.”
Do you know they are “bugger all”?
Or are you guessing?
Have you reviewed any spectral measurements?
The outgoing radiation is the most important because changes in this value is what affects cooling and heating of the whole climate system in the long term.
Take a look at the spectrum from Goody in Theory and Experiment – Atmospheric Radiation. You see a large “chunk” taken out of the outgoing spectrum around 15um (667cm^-1).
What is causing that reduction in outgoing radiation? The gas that absorbs and radiates the most at 15um – CO2.
Is it “bugger all”? Well, depends on your definition of “bugger all”. Science can put a number on it and, even better, can provide a theory that matches the measurement. As you can see in the article.
If you want to see the downward radiation you can see it in The Amazing Case of “Back Radiation” – Part Two. Notice the wavelengths of maximum radiation.
Is it “bugger all”?
Why not quantify it for us in W/m^2. And in % of downward radiation from the atmosphere. And then the change in outgoing longwave radiation due to CO2.
Numbers are better than beliefs.
Dennis Webb on February 19th, 2011 at 8:35 pm :
“In question are d, e, and f..”
d) The thermal radiation from c) reaching the ground.
So you don’t question the emission of thermal radiation downwards from the atmosphere (item c), but you question it “reaching the ground”.
Please explain what happens to it on the way down to stop downward radiation from the atmosphere reaching the ground.
Nasif proclaims:
“d) The thermal radiation from c) reaching the ground.
False. ” hmmmmm….. so how do you explain the downward IR reading from instruments calibrated thus: http://www.opticsinfobase.org/abstract.cfm?URI=ao-40-15-2376
Could be a Nobel prize here for you Nasif.
Anyway back on bulbs don’t forget Eli’s much simpler tin foil bulb or the humble radiation furnace shield – same principle? …? http://rabett.blogspot.com/2008/09/light-dawns-there-are-styles-in-science.html or is somehow reflection exempt?
“Why not quantify it for us in W/m^2. And in % of downward radiation from the atmosphere. And then the change in outgoing longwave radiation due to CO2.”
what evidence have you that the DLR is from CO2 ?
Nasif Nahle on February 19th, 2011 at 8:27 pm:
On my question:
“d) The thermal radiation from c) reaching the ground.”
Said:
“False. You forgot to consider radiation pressure and induced emission. We must consider all the contextual natural phenomena which drive a given process. We would reach a false conclusion if we don’t consider other factors that affect deeply the analyzed process. This is the precise problem with your questions, i.e. they were not structured scientifically.”
So you agree that the atmosphere radiates down (item c) and then claim it doesn’t reach the ground?
Even the atmosphere 10m above the ground? It doesn’t reach the ground?
Present your proof
By way of my proof that atmospheric radiation does reach the ground, please review The Amazing Case of “Back Radiation” – Part Two for the evidence.
The major peaks in W/m^2.um are located at wavelengths which are proven to be those where atmospheric gases absorb and emit – water vapor, CO2, methane, ozone, NO2.
Nasif Nahle on February 19th, 2011 at 8:27 pm:
On my point:
“e) the thermal radiation from d) being absorbed by the ground”
Said:
“e) The thermal radiation from d) being absorbed by the ground.
If and only if the atmosphere were warmer than the surface. What you say is a post-normal innovation taken from AGW ideas which has nothing to do with reality.”
Once again, another claim without any evidence – so far. No doubt you can provide evidence that the ground can selectively absorb or reflect radiation depending on the temperature of the source.
I can provide very simple evidence.
First of all, Amazing Things we Find in Textbooks – The Real Second Law of Thermodynamics. These are nothing to do with climate science, they are heat transfer textbooks.
Secondly, how does the ground know whether to absorb or reflect 10um radiation?
– If it comes from a hotter atmosphere will the ground absorb it?
– And if it comes from a colder atmosphere will the ground reflect it?
And yet, basic theory tells us that absorptivity is a function of wavelength of the radiation. As explained in Absorption of Radiation from Different Temperature Sources.
Nasif Nahle on February 19th, 2011 at 8:27 pm
In answer to my point:
“And it would be just wonderful if you could include a calculation of the entropy change to prove why the process is forbidden.”
Responded by claiming and not proving:
“Again, there is not any forbidden process; it is the AGW conjecture which is forbidden by reality. Second time you make the same mistake.”
The 2nd law of thermodynamics tells us that entropy of a system will not decrease.
In The Three Body Problem I do an entropy calculation for you.
It shows the difference between a simplified earth radiating into a zero temperature space and into a 250K temperature space. And the entropy in both cases is increasing, yet in the 2nd case the surface temperature of the earth is higher.
If entropy increases there is no violation of the 2nd law of thermodynamics.
So instead of just claiming.. actually calculate the reduction in entropy which results from standard atmospheric physics. This would be an easy way to prove your point. Easy if it was true, that is..
So we will wait a long time to see an entropy calculation from Nasif. This is my prediction.
Louis Hissink on February 19th, 2011 at 10:00 pm
“what evidence have you that the DLR is from CO2 ?”
Have you not read any of the comments so far ??
Read The Amazing Case of “Back Radiation” – Part Two – the spectral characteristics of DLR tell us which molecules are responsible.
SoD I don’t know what your point is in continuing to outline your view based on false assumptions as indicated by Nasif Nahle. Is it to justify Trenberth’s cartoon where he invents 300W/m2 energy flux out of nothing?
You assume that there are photons. I gave you this link http://www.worldsci.org/pdf/abstracts/abstracts_5711.pdf which indicates clearly that the properties of light and other electro-magnetic radiation can be explained by waves.
CO2 only absorbs energy in a very narrow wavelength band or frequency range and it is a wave not some strange particle having some strange energy level.
A surface will emit radiation at its energy level (or temperature) which has a range of wavelengths described by the Planck equation (if one accepts that) and its composition which results in an emissivity at each wavelength as determined by experimentation. There maybe some surfaces which emit waves having no component around 15 micron wavelength which means CO2 could absorb nothing from such a surface.
A simple explanation for the reduction of radiation emitted from a surface in the presence of another “surface” is that some of the outgoing waves are cancelled by incoming waves. This results in net radiant heat transfer. However, it is very clear from the second law of thermodynamics that the temperature of a surface can never by raised by radiation from a source unless the temperature of the source is higher than the surface.
Beside radiation there are many other aspects of climate you apparently do not understand. You may not understand everything in the following article http://climategate.nl/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/CO2_and_climate_v7.pdf but at least you should be able to appreciate some of the complexity in climate assessment
Sure is nice to see the bizarre claims about the light bulb demolished.
Next up: the bizarre claim that CO2 behaves like a mirror and reflects IR preferentially toward the Earth’s center of mass.
SOD,
can you explain where in the earth system energy is kept from leaving so that the net flow is NOT to space? Can you and Luke show in this lightbulb or other lightbulbs where the NET energy flow is not AWAY from the filament?? Point locations seemingly in disagreement with the second law are funny.
I think the simple analogy is the magnifying glass. The sun shining on a surface does not heat it to combustion. The sun or even lesser sources, concentrated on the same surface through even passive means can. There is no conflict with the second law and no application of this to other than points in the atmosphere. Any energy concentrated on the point is energy that is not spread across a normal area lowering the average temp in those other areas leaving the same average insolation.
Just in case it hasn’t sunk in yet, IF CO2 could somehow concentrate all the energy it emits on one area of the earth, that area would increase above its otherwise ambient, at the same time the other areas of the surface would be cooler due to lack of the energy concentrated on that area. By the way, that warmer area would then emit at a higher rate also.
Are y’all claiming that CO2 somehow concentrates energy in one area when, if anything, it would be biased to emitting away from the surface??
I thought the current idea is that CO2 absorbs, conducts to the surrounding area depending on the thermal balance at the moment, and emits mostly from collision. The fun part is that if it is heating the local area, as in near surface, then it won’t be emitting very much and the heat gets moved up through convection. If it is absorbing energy from collision and emitting, THEN it is cooling the local area. Doesn’t sound like there is much increase in temp from CO2 on the surface.
Thanks for wasting your time on those who can’t accept your version of quantum mechanics though. Now, how about addressing exactly how many of those probability fronts collapse through other functions before getting to the surface? I mean, if the wave doesn’t interact with the surface it won’t become a “photon” to transfer energy to the surface will it? Or are y’all denying that electromagnetic radiation interferes and cancels other electromagnetic radiation especially at the same wavelengths?
By the way “but the presence of the absorbing and radiating atmosphere reduces this flow of heat (which originates from the sun).” is just right. The only issue appears to be that you have your magnitudes off a bit if you are still worried about CO2 in the atmosphere. You also forgot to mention the ocean and the ground itself as all contributing to this reduction of radiative flow away from the earth. I am assuming you are including other GHG’s and clouds when you mention the atmosphere. But hey, I realize you are BELIEVERS and have to BIAS your Measurements!!
@SoD…
you say:
Nasif just claimed that the standard theory of atmospheric radiation is in violation of the 2nd law of thermodynamics.
Where I said that? Tell me, because I don’t find it in any paragraph of my article.
You say:
So you agree that the atmosphere radiates down (item c) and then claim it doesn’t reach the ground?
Two different things and you’re deeply confused. I never say the atmosphere radiates down. I said that the atmosphere radiates to every possible direction.
Nevertheless, when you meassure the radiated energy downwards, in an angle = 0°, you find it is zero. Consequently, we, as scientists must find the reason. We find other factors that are preventing the energy emitted by the atmosphere to be emitted downwards, and the explanation is radiation pressure and negative absorcion.
By the way, you keep yourself repeating that I said that the second law “forbids” natural processes. Again, show the paragraph of my article where I said such barbarity.
If you cannot find it, I am obliged to ask you, where you did take the idea?
I have answered your remaining claims, so please, do not be circular in your arguments.
I’m still waiting for you answer my question:
Do OSRAM Tungsten light bulbs “violate” the Second Law of Thermodynamics?
🙂
@Luke… Thanks for your comment
You say:
Could be a Nobel prize here for you Nasif.
Thank you… But I’m not hunting a Nobel prize, just to make others know real science.
Regarding your question about what you’re measuring when pointing your pyranometer or radiometers towards the sky, you must be patient until an article on this matter is published. Don’t get desperate. It will come soon, along another article exposing Rabbet’s experimental faults and how he misinterpreted the results is.
Just wait a bit… It will come soon.
🙂
@cementafriend… Thank you very much for the links you’ve provided. Both articles are quite interesting and illustrative.
“can you explain where in the earth system energy is kept from leaving so that the net flow is NOT to space? Can you and Luke show in this lightbulb or other lightbulbs where the NET energy flow is not AWAY from the filament??”
– HUH ? Well we’d hope NET is away ? Might get a tad warm otherwise.
Looks like Nasif has to do some research before he can overturn the absolute sky scanning radiometer reference instrument which calibrates pyrgeometers. (not pyranometers Nasif!)
But even more interesting let’s assume we’re deluded and haven’t seen the light – what will be most interesting is the replacement energy balance model. Golly gee – this will be a whole new physics never seen before (even Louis might be impressed).
Climate models will need to be rewritten. Radiative transfer codes chucked. Surface energy balance models given the heave ho. Water balance models gone too.
And who have thought this science revolution would not have happened under the apple tree but right here on Jen’s. Sort of make you feel all warm inside like NET does to you.
We’ll have to start calling KuhnKat Sir not mate.
Oh almost forgot “Do OSRAM Tungsten light bulbs “violate” the Second Law of Thermodynamics?” ummmm mmmmm – “No!”.
@Luke…
Looks like Nasif has to do some research before he can overturn the absolute sky scanning radiometer reference instrument which calibrates pyrgeometers. (not pyranometers Nasif!)
Sorry for my grammar gremlin. Ok, it’s pyrgeometers.
Anyway, I don’t find any sense on your conjecture about my work. I suggest you to bide your time.
Thanks for answering the question addressed to SoD. Nevertheless, I’m still waiting for his answer.
By the way, you know that physics, and science in general, is evolving constantly. If you find some day the atmosphere’s radiation overwhelms the surface’s radiation, you’ll get the “noble” Nobel Prize. Perhaps an Oscar, who knows?
🙂
Luke
The big story is that the average temperature of the planet has increased by about 0.7C in the last 150years.
For the last 12 years the temperature has plateaued.
Both these figures are not unusual in the Earths temperature record.
Even within the Climate Science community the wiser heads admit that the so called “greenhouse effect” has been greatly exaggerated.
The paper by Gerhard Gerlich Ralf D. Tscheuschner reminded people of the experiment by R W Wood that shows the radiative effects of CO2 and H2O are so small in the troposphere that they can be ignored for most practical purposes.
Indeed some IPCC advocates have gone as far as to state that the real greenhouse effect is above the tropopause (the TOA effect).
The radiative interaction between two surfaces can be described by photon exchange or by vector solution.
Both methods show that heat travels from the higher temperature to the lower temperature never the reverse.
Do not mix up the categories of EM infra red radiation and Heat.
Heat has the thermodynamic capacity to do work.
Heat is the vector difference of the two IR fluxes.
It is always from higher temperature to lower temperature
Nasif – the reason for the Nobel prize comment – and I’ll leave this for you to ponder – why are the energy balance people or spectroscopic investigations getting right answers for wrong reasons then? Why are observations matching theory?
Bryan sez – “Heat is the vector difference of the two IR fluxes”. If you mean NET effect we can stop arguing !
Don’t worry what Ralph tells you – think what a precision instruments such as below measures in the real world – not his theory paper – please read it.
They’re beyond pyrgeometers for calibration !!!
“Atmospheric long-wave radiation is one of the most promising parameters for observations of climate change that are greenhouse effect related. Long-wave irradiance is usually measured with pyrgeometers that consist of a flat thermopile and a hemispherical dome acting as a filter and protecting the absorbing receiver surface. Pyrgeometers are blackbody calibrated, but uncertainties, mainly related to the silicon hemisphere, arise from thermal effects, inadequate spectral transmission, and cosine-response errors. The new absolute sky-scanning radiometer (ASR) allows absolute measurements of atmospheric long-wave radiation and is suggested as a future reference standard for pyrgeometer field calibration.
The calibration of the ASR is based on a reference blackbody source traced to absolute temperature standards. The pyroelectric detector has no window to prevent thermal and spectral transmission effects. Scanning the sky with a narrow viewing angle and integrating with the Gaussian quadrature, rather than taking hemispherical measurements, prevent errors related to the cosine effect.”
http://www.opticsinfobase.org/abstract.cfm?URI=ao-40-15-2376
Byran – have a look at the temperature record – there have been dips and wiggles before – ocean, solar, aerosols …? But the centennial trend is up. I look at this graph and I see UP !!!
The trend is not monotonic and nobody ever said it should be.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/
Unambiguously up. You see straight do you? Or down? (and yes I know you can cut a smaller section out to show you anything you like).
Science of Doom,
Firstly your radiation theory has no “overwhelming evidence” . In fact I can’t find a shred of evidence except the blathering on of you poeple with models.
Secondly you are trying to tell me that the “radiative forcings” of a trace gas on this planet somehow even steps up to the plate of the convection forces generated by a revolving earth.
Pull the other leg mate.
Luke,
The temperature graph is simply the earth system returning to its pre LIA state. When Greenland gets to the climate state it was before the LIA, and the temperature record keeps rising, then you might have a point.
You are arguing that if someone suffers from hypothermia, and is two thirds of the way back to normal bodily temperature, that this warming is abnormal and being caused by that person’s exhalation of CO2. When that person reaches normal body temperature and then starts to experience a fever, then you might have a point, but as long as Greenland remains in its present climate state, then clearly the earth has not returned to its pre LIA state, and any warming simply a return to climate normalcy, what ever that means.
“I can’t find a shred of evidence except the blathering on of you poeple with models.”
hahahahahahaha
yep that’s the level of discussion. Just ignore every measurement Mack – stick your fingers in your ears and cover your eyes. Sceptic science at full tilt ! Mack – don’t drive your car – it works by black magic. Science knows nothing.
Sinkers – you’re not some sort on anthropomorphic “the Earth is recovering from a cold” theorist are you. I hope not. It just had a cold. But now “ba-doing !” its’ baaaacckk. That’s science at full tilt too. Breathtaking.
CO2 is less than one-twenty-fifth of 1% of the air we inhale. It’s colorless, odorless and doesn’t turn lakes into acid baths. Oh….and it’s good for plant growth.
This harmless trace gas will not cause CAGW.
Perhaps we should thank our lucky stars, for the many benefits of CO2 enrichment.
‘It is clear that we are a fortunate generation. Given that it is demonstrated that carbon dioxide concentration is a follower of temperature, the warming after the little ice age has awarded us all the prosperity that has previously accompanied warm periods (in Roman and Mediaeval times).
That this has occurred at a time when there is also a perverse establishment in much of the world and a media for whom “good news is no news” provides just another demonstration of human perversity.’
Dr. John Brignell
He forgot them MWP mega-droughts – typical pommy Euro-centric twaddle.
If you love CO2 El Gordo – try holding your breath
Luke,
Really the strawman, aren’t you.
@Luke…
Be careful at what you say. Noble prize could scape from your hands. You say:
Nasif – the reason for the Nobel prize comment – and I’ll leave this for you to ponder – why are the energy balance people or spectroscopic investigations getting right answers for wrong reasons then? Why are observations matching theory?
Hypothesis, not theory, says the “downwelling radiation” is of the order of ~324 W/m^2. Is it the amount measured by the pyrgeometers? Do you have a number?
🙂
Luke has his fingers in his ears, but let’s not talk about him.
I’m more interested in locating the global cooling signal, which will first be detected in the Baltic Sea. The Euro-centric nature of regional cooling is unavoidable.
Luke, have you read the presentation by Dr Noor Van Andel in the link I gave, here it is again http://climategate.nl/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/CO2_and_climate_v7.pdf . It is a presentation given to the Dutch Meteorological Institute (KNMI). It is a translation but the English is pretty good. Like SoD you may not understand it all but there are a number of summary points that should be within your grasp.
You can also find a link to the paper on this page http://climategate.nl/2011/02/17/versie-7-van-noors-groengaspaper/. Maybe you do not read Dutch but the word in red “link” works.
Van Andel’s paper to the KNMI in Sept 2010 http://climategate.nl/wp-content/uploads/2010/09/KNMI_voordracht_VanAndel.pdf is also instructive. You can find more about that presentation including a link and some comments here http://climategate.nl/2010/09/14/noor-van-andel-imponeert-knmi-met-broeikasfysica/
Nasif Nahle on February 20th, 2011 at 4:23 am :
“Two different things and you’re deeply confused. I never say the atmosphere radiates down. I said that the atmosphere radiates to every possible direction.
Nevertheless, when you meassure the radiated energy downwards, in an angle = 0°, you find it is zero. Consequently, we, as scientists must find the reason. We find other factors that are preventing the energy emitted by the atmosphere to be emitted downwards, and the explanation is radiation pressure and negative absorcion.”
Quite an amazing claim.
Yes the atmosphere radiates in all directions.
And yet you say that somehow none of it reaches the surface of the earth.
For those interested in this idea, if you pick your spot on the earth (A) then the atmosphere directly above (location B) radiates an infinitesimally small solid angle of radiation to your location, A. But the atmosphere just a tiny bit to the left of B also radiates an infinitesimally small solid angle of radiation to A. And so on.
This is why a pyrgeometer accepting radiation of wavelengths 4-100um and pointed up at the sky typically measures around 300W/m^2 from the atmosphere. And yes, even at night.
I hope some readers can realize that the only thing shared in common between the many “no greenhouse here” followers is the conclusion.
– Gerlich and Tscheuschner – “the radiation reaches the ground but we don’t have to explain what happens to it afterwards..”
– Nasif Nahle – “the radiation never reaches the ground because it goes in all directions.. or because something called radiation pressure stops it..”
– Claes Johnson – “there are no photons, Max Planck and the last 100 years of physics are wrong, and neither the ground nor the atmosphere radiate..”
All embraced, and yet all contradictory. If the conclusion fits..
Check the evidence. You can see real FT-IR measurements at The Amazing Case of “Back Radiation” – Part Two.
And after reviewing the evidence, explain the spectral characteristics of the radiation. Or, be like Mack (February 20th, 2011 at 10:10 am) and just say there is no evidence.
science of doom, do you have a name; I do notice you have a website but it doesn’t contain your name or expertise
would you like to impress us with those items
@SoD…
You say:
Nasif Nahle – “the radiation never reaches the ground because it goes in all directions.. or because something called radiation pressure stops it..”
You continue distorting and misinterpreting what I say. Is it your “scientific ” methodology?
You say:
pyrgeometer accepting radiation of wavelengths 4-100um and pointed up at the sky typically measures around 300W/m^2 from the atmosphere day and night
Fortunately, I had the data sheet of my pyrgeometer with me. Otherwise, readers would have been deceived by your claim:
http://www.wittich.nl/NL/PDF/HANDLEIDINGEN/straling-licht/pyrgeometers/Manual_CGR4.pdf
From Page 11:
“The AMPBOX can be factory adjusted to suit the sensitivity of an individual pyrgeometer to produce a defined range, typically 4 mA represents -300 W/m², 16 mA represents 0 W/m2 and 20 mA represents +100 W/m².”
Please, if you wish to answer the questions addressed to Luke, provide real numbers. Thanks!
You have not answered my straight question.
🙂
@Val Majkus and All…
Please, read the complete data sheet of the pyrgeometer. Page 12 contains very intersting information and graphs.
🙂
@ all…
Here again the information manual:
http://www.wittich.nl/NL/PDF/HANDLEIDINGEN/straling-licht/pyrgeometers/Manual_CGR4.pdf
Page 25 is revealing because it informs us about the field of view of the pyrgeometer, which is 180 °. I told Luke, some messages above, that the device gives lectures of 0 W/m^2 when it is pointed to the sky at an angle of 0° and it’s true. That’s why the manufacturers must what extend the angle of reception to the 180 °. What pyrgeometer it is catching is the hemispherical lateral and diagonal radiation, not the “backradiation” or any downwelling radiation. This is prevented by the radiation pressure and the induced emission.
🙂
Nasif – don’t bunk on what your data sheet off the shelf tells you. Tell us about what the serious scientists are using.
You’re not on home hacker hour here mate – this is serious science.
“Fifteen pyregeometers including eight standard Eppley PIRs, six PMOD WRC modified PIRs, and one Kipp and Zonen CG4 pyrgeometer were compared with an Absolute Sky-scanning Radiometer (ASR), with Atmospheric Emitted Radiance Interferometer (AERI) measurements and with radiative-transfer model calculations. Night time inter-comparisons have shown average pyrgeometers long-wave radiance measurements, AERI, and model calculations to agree within 1-2 W/m2 with ASR absolute measurements.” WOW !!!
“The calibration of the ASR is based on a reference blackbody source traced to absolute temperature standards”
@Luke…
Heh! I like your style.
It is just that your friend SoD was giving false numbers for the “downwelling radiation” and I show the data sheet of my pyrgeometer to show that he was not saying truth.
By the way, tell Kipp & Zonen that their pyrgeometer is not serious science.
Your copied information is good, it is a very good pyrgeometer. The problem is that you have not provided any real number to demonstrate what you’re arguing.
The copied information of your “preferred” device says that the accuracy is 1-2 W/m^2 according to their models; however, neither you neither the authors have provided real numbers; for example, an accuracy of 1-2 W/m^2… against what real values? It could be, 12 W/m^2 plus/minus 1-2 W/m^2.
Now, tell me, what the angle of view of the device is?
🙂
Well Nasif you see – devices plural – but seems they’re into multiple angle scans. Azimuth and zenith. The olde Gaussian Quadrature Integration.
http://www.opticsinfobase.org/abstract.cfm?URI=ao-40-15-2376
Knock yourself out. You should look up Rolf and his mates life’s work. Plenty in GRL. You can even email him and tell him where he’s been going wrong.
@Luke…
And your numbers?
🙂
@Luke…
You told me it is “serious science” and I liked your phrase; however, you have not provided real numbers, real measurements. None, void, null…
I have real numbers from real measurements. Now tell me your numbers so I could compare your numbers with my numbers. That’s an important part of the scientific methodology, repeatability.
🙂
Luke
I think we are making some progress.
….”Bryan sez – “Heat is the vector difference of the two IR fluxes”. If you mean NET effect we can stop arguing !”……..
I would not argue with that, how about this formulation?
The net effect of the two radiative fluxes is what we call HEAT and it always moves from higher to lower temperature.
……”The new absolute sky-scanning radiometer (ASR) allows absolute measurements of atmospheric long-wave radiation and is suggested as a future reference standard for pyrgeometer field calibration.”……
The important point to note here is that as yet there is no internationally recognised standard for such measurements.
All that has happened here is that several pyrgeometers supplied by different users have been brought to one place and pointed skyward at night then adjusted against the reference to make sure that they all give the same reading.
Now this is a major step forward undoubtedly.
As I said to you in a previous post prior pyrgeometer results are useless because different pyrgeometers would give alternative readings for the same conditions.
However this method will require even stricter standards to comply with international reference conditions.
Other physical properties independent of the Stephan Boltzmann Equation will have to used so that the fundamental units of final measurement ( Joules,seconds,metres) are not compromised.
I’ve just deleted the last 10 or so comments. Most were completely off topic.
And just to remind everyone: I’ve no problems with people using a single pen name. I don’t approve of ‘sock puppets’. And I don’t like it when people ‘hog’ the thread.
luke, I’ve looked at your paper on pyrgeometer calibration by Philipona; he says:
“The calibration of the ASR is based on a reference blackbody source traced to absolute temperature standards. The pyroelectric detector has no window to prevent thermal and spectral transmission effects. Scanning the sky with a narrow viewing angle and integrating with the Gaussian quadrature, rather than taking hemispherical measurements, prevent errors related to the cosine effect.”
There are a number of uncertainties here; for instance, Gaussian quadrature is a means of approximating values within a domain or area in the instance of LWd which is defined by the cosine values; however this method of approximation is not suitable for functions which have singularities, or in thecaseof LWd, values which have quantum uncertainty; this is described in kuhnkat’s comment to SoD above:
“Now, how about addressing exactly how many of those probability fronts collapse through other functions before getting to the surface? I mean, if the wave doesn’t interact with the surface it won’t become a “photon” to transfer energy to the surface will it? Or are y’all denying that electromagnetic radiation interferes and cancels other electromagnetic radiation especially at the same wavelengths?”
Given this, the problem remains: is the pyrgeometer taking into account this “cancellation” process and, by not doing so, not giving a true estimation of the NET effect of the radiation exchange between the surface and the atmosphere.
“All that has happened here is that several pyrgeometers supplied by different users have been brought to one place and pointed skyward at night then adjusted against the reference to make sure that they all give the same reading.”
Bryan that is NOT what has happened. That is utter rubbish. And it’s 10 years old work. Hardly new. You have no idea about the reference instruments.
Nasif – the error in the ASR worst case is plus/minus 2.15w/m2
At this point the discussion here has become plain silly.
Cohenite – 4 methods – same answer – give it away.
Luke
I said;
All that has happened here is that several pyrgeometers supplied by different users have been brought to one place and pointed skyward at night then adjusted against the reference to make sure that they all give the same reading.
You said;
Hardly new. You have no idea about the reference instruments.
I did not say that the reference was in any way inaccurate.
However let us look at this question now.
We know that black body radiation is a property of cavities.
Why not put the pyrgeometer inside a cavity say an evacuated oven shape with lamp black walls.
Vary the temperature of the cavity walls carefully over say +50C to -50C and note the response of the thermoelectric device.
This calibration would be independent of the Stephan Boltzmann Equation.
Why not follow this simpleproceedure?
Now we are told by IPCC advocates if we point the same pyrgeometer at the ground we will get a graybody CONTINUOUS spectra with emissivity of perhaps 0.95.
We will accept this figure for the moment.
The problem arises when we point the instrument skyward at night .
The night sky only has 0.003% of atmosphere CO2 radiating
http://webbook.nist.gov/cgi/cbook.cgi?ID=C124389&Units=SI&Type=IR-SPEC&Index=1#IR-SPEC
For H2O on a clear night perhaps 1%
http://webbook.nist.gov/cgi/cbook.cgi?ID=C7732185&Units=SI&Type=IR-SPEC&Index=1#IR-SPEC
For these graphs you can flick between absorption and emission spectra.
If we are to accept the IPCC narative then a very limited line spectra emission for CO2 and H2O from a colder sky has almost the same energy magnitude as continuous warmer Earth surface spectra.
Hopefully you will understand why a number of people think this is nonsense.
@Luke…
From Bryan post… And we would be measuring not a “greenhouse” effect or a solitary “downwelling radiation, but the radiative transport, which, for gases, is calculated taking into account emissivity, absorptivity, emittance, spectral directionality, hemispherical directionality (Earth is not a flat disk), absorptance, transmittance, radiative intensity, absorption coefficient and scattering coefficient.
Directionality is very important to take into account on this kind of assessments. For those reasons, I assured in one of my articles -and still sustain- that the air works like a conveyor (distributor) of heat before it scapes to the cold space, rather than a warmer of the surface.
The deep analysis of devices and their technical specifications, like this one on OSRAM Tungsten light bulbs, avoid that we raise conclusions that deviate from reality.
🙂
“Vary the temperature of the cavity walls carefully over say +50C to -50C and note the response of the thermoelectric device.” – mmmmm indeed what a good idea
That’s what the ASR was calibrated against. Then the pyrgeometers calibrated against that calibrated reference. Agreement is excellent. Also compared was an interferometer and radiative-transfer models.
Readings have been taken multi-directionally.
It’s not an “IPCC narrative” – it’s the results of hundreds of energy balance experiments.
I do suggest you read “Sky-Scanning Radiometer for Absolute Measurements of Atmospheric Long-Wave Radiation” ; Rolf Philipona ; Applied Optics, Vol. 40, Issue 15, pp. 2376-2383 (2001)
Luke
Your lead is behind a pay-wall.
Nasif Nahles in the other hand is not.
If you read page 11 it is quite clear that the Stephan Boltzmann equation is being used to calculate the output values.
Well luke, I was waiting for you to respond to Bryan, but since you haven’t and since you assert that pyrgeometer calibration occurs in blackbody cavity conditions you had better read these papers on the difficulties with assumptions about those blackbody conditions:
http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0805/0805.1625.pdf
http://www.ptep-online.com/index_files/2009/PP-19-01.PDF
By way of assistance I direct you to this: “Ample evidence
exists that radiation in arbitrary cavities is sensitive to the relative position of the detectors.”
@Luke…
You say:
Readings have been taken multi-directionally.
Thanks for supporting my argument. I’m saying: 0° >> 0 W/m^2.
That’s the reason for taking multidirectional readings, specially at 90° = 12.5 kg/s^3 at noon. During nightime, it is 0.6 kg/s^3.
Notice that, at noon, it’s ~0.035 times the figure claimed like the “downwelling” radiation that supposedly warms the surface (~349 kg/s^3).
I think you should try radiation transport instead “greenhouse effect by downwelling radiation”. At least, radiation transport is sustained by empirical and observational -both-engineering and radiative heat transfer.
…And the spectral emittance of CO2 is so small that it not even appears in diagrams.
Note: 1 W = 1 ((kg m^2)/(s^3)). Therefore, 1 W/m^2 = 1 ((kg m^2)/(s^3))/(m^2) = kg/s^3.
Start thinking in radiation pressure. I’m almost sure you’ll find it is highly interesting.
By the way, as Bryan has let you know, the article you suggest is protected by a paywall. I won’t pay 35 bucks for reading something that I can observe, daily, in the backyard.
🙂
@Cohenite…
Thank you so much for those brilliant papers. I valued the phrase on page two, from Pierre-Marie Robitaille’s article,”…ideal blackbodies do not exist in nature”…
Luke, or SOD,
this is a more serious question about pyrgeometers. Here is the spec sheet for an apparently good quality unit, the CGR4, from Kipp and Zonen. It is designed to be used for atmosphere and has a view angle of 180deg and recommended to be 10 X the distance from an object of any height. Direct exposure to objects black body will seriously bias the reading. Clouds double the reading.
I have two questions, you and others typically claim about 300w/m2 at night and that this is attributable to CO2. On page 26 of:
http://www.azosensors.com/images/Equipments/EquipmentImage_626.jpg
1) this unit lists -250 to +250 w/m2 as its intended range.
2) its spectral sensitivity lists 8-14um as its intended range.
This would put CO2 at 15um outside of the intended use ranges for this unit. In other words it is primarily reading WATER VAPOR!!!
Could you please post the specs for the units you are using? I don’t plan on spending any money to view spec sheets.
By the way, this spec sheet also explains (Page 10)
“However, if the upward and downward components are to be measured separately it is necessary to record the individual housing temperatures to calculate the radiation values.
Using the combination of a net pyrgeometer (two CGR 3 or CGR 4 instruments) and a CMA 6 or CMA 11 albedometer the net total radiation (energy balance) can be calculated with high accuracy from the four component values.”
Amazing how many assumptions about what is being measured are actually built into the instrument.
Luke,
“Anyway back on bulbs don’t forget Eli’s much simpler tin foil bulb or the humble radiation furnace shield – same principle? ”
I think we all understood that Brer Rabbett used tin foil hats to try and keep the brain temp at operational levels unsuccessfully.
I thought this thread was an analysis of the osram light bulb. If I understand the article correctly the author is saying it is not possible for a coating on the inside of the bulb to reflect light back to the filament because the coating is cooler than the filament.
If that understanding is correct, the argument is totally and utterly false. Here is a simple proof. Take a mirror and hold it in front of a switched on light bulb. Does the mirror reflect the light? Assuming your universe is the same as mine the answer is yes. But the mirror is certainly much colder than the filament of the light bulb so by the argument used in the article it could not be reflecting the light (light and heat are both the same electromagnetic energy – simply of different wavelengths).
Of course the mirror reflects all wavelengths both short (light) and long (heat). However that is not necessary, if we use a dichroic mirror (a form of interference filter) we can selectively reflect heat while passing light, I suspect that is what Osram has done.
However this is not new. Tungsten Halogen down lights have been doing this for years. The back of the lamp is coated with a dichroic filter doing the opposite of the filter n the Osram bulbs. It passes heat (long wavelength) while reflecting short wavelengths (light) Thus the light all emerges out the front of the bulb where it is useful while at least part of the heat goes out the back instead of making the people under the ligths hot. And the dichroic coating is far colder than the filament.
By the way, this is NOT the same as the arguemnt about down welling radiation from the atmosphere because in this case the mechanism is reflection whereas in down welling radiation it is due to emission from the atmosphere not by reflection of energy from the surface
@mike hammer…
It seems you didn’t read the article. See what I said:
We have seen that the reflected radiation is concentrated on the Tungsten filament by the “sophisticated geometry” of the bulb; the energy reflected by the “special coating” and sent towards the Tungsten filament (the focal point) is, therefore, higher than the energy of the filament.