## The First And Second Law of Thermodynamics debunk Global Warming

By Flanders & Swann (my comments to follow after video & lyrics):

(the actual song starts at about 2:05…but the lead up is great to listen to as well)

Lyrics:

(Michael = M, Donald = D)

M: The First law of Thermodynamics.
M: Heat is work and work is heat
D: Heat is work and work is heat
M: Very Good.
D: The Second law of thermodynamics.
M: Heat cannot of itself pass from one body to a hotter body
D: Heat cannot of itself pass from one body to a hotter body
M: Heat won’t pass from a cooler to a hotter
D: Heat won’t pass from a cooler to a hotter
M: You can try it if you like but you’d far better not-a
D: You can try it if you like but you’d far better not-a
M: ‘Cos the cold in the cooler will get hotter as a rule-a
D: ‘Cos the cold in the cooler will get hotter as a rule-a
M: ‘Cos the hotter body’s heat will pass to the cooler
D: ‘Cos the hotter body’s heat will pass to the cooler
Heat is work and work is heat and work is heat and heat is work
M: Heat will pass by conduction and
D: Heat will pass by conduction and
M: Heat will pass by convection and
D: Heat will pass by convection and
M: Heat will pass by radiation
D: Heat will pass by radiation
And that’s a physical law

M: Heat is work and work’s a curse
M: And all the heat in the universe
M: Is gonna cool down,
M: ‘Cos it can’t increase
M: Then there’ll be no more work
M: And there’ll be perfect peace
D: Really?
M: Yeah, that’s entropy, Man.
M: And all because of the second law of thermodynamics which lays down:
M: That you can’t pass heat from a cooler to a hotter
M: Try it if you like but you’d far better not-a
‘Cos the cold in the cooler will get hotter as a rule-a
‘Cos the hotter body’s heat will pass to the cooler

Oh, you can’t pass heat from a cooler to a hotter
Try it if you like but you’ll only look a fool-a
‘Cos the cold in the cooler will get hotter as a rule-a
And that’s a physical law
M: Oh, I’m hot
D: That’s because you’ve been working!
M: Oh, Beatles, nothing!
That’s the first and second laws of thermodynamics.

Allow me to summarize in my own words:

Heat flows from hot to cold; cold does not cause hot to become hotter; hot in warming cold does not become hotter still because it warmed the cold; only the colder temperature rises when it is heated by hot; a temperature can not heat itself.

# Debunk the Greenhouse Effect

Now just to make the distinction for new or unfamiliar readers, this short preamble, then I’ll continue:

Real greenhouses function because there is no atmospheric radiative greenhouse effect.  The greenhouse effect that is discussed by climate science for the atmosphere is an entirely different thing than the greenhouse effect of a real physical greenhouse.  This is a very convenient hijack of definitions and concepts for creating confusion.  A real greenhouse gets warm because it traps hot air.  It prevents air which has been heated by the surfaces inside the greenhouse which have themselves been heated by sunshine, from convecting away (hot air rises, the glass roof stops this) and being replaced by cool air from above.  That is the physical mechanism of a real greenhouse (because of its solid glass roof) and it has nothing to do with the supposed radiative greenhouse effect in our atmosphere.  The underlying physical mechanisms are completely different, and so the term “greenhouse effect” which should correspond to a factual physical greenhouse and the physical trapping of warm air, gets hijacked and contorted and ambiguated with this other atmospheric radiative conception for the atmosphere.  It’s a total disaster for clarity, definitions, conceptualization, logic, language, etc.

However the most ironic thing about this, is that the supposed radiative greenhouse effect (which is postulated for the atmosphere) should actually be found and exist in a real physical greenhouse too, because the physics should translate over – but it isn’t!

The only place the supposed radiative greenhouse mechanics exists is within climate alarm – it exists nowhere else in all of industry and all of science and all of physics, etc.  It should exist everywhere else because as a basic principle of physics, it has to be universal, and it has to be applicable anywhere else that similar situations exist.  Alas, it is nowhere else to be found.  It should be seen in a real greenhouse of all places for goodness’ sake!  But the radiative greenhouse effect isn’t even found there.  Only the real greenhouse effect is found in a real greenhouse.

There literally exists no empirical evidence for the atmospheric radiative greenhouse effect version anywhere.  Tests that have been performed to empirically demonstrate it have always and consistently failed to find it, among both critics of the atmospheric radiative greenhouse effect and its supporters.  Real physical greenhouses exist; the idea of a radiative atmospheric greenhouse effect is a fiction which hijacks the name of the real thing in a real greenhouse.

The radiative atmospheric greenhouse effect was invented to stand-in for what the lapse rate already naturally explains about the atmosphere – that the bottom of the atmosphere has to be warmer than the blackbody average of the whole system (planet Earth) as seen from outer-space.  This radiative greenhouse idea was invented because the lapse rate of the atmosphere, which is a fundamental physical characteristic of all atmospheres around all planets, is left out of the energy accounting and mathematical models that climate science and climate alarm uses for modelling the Earth.

The atmospheric greenhouse effect (AGHE) depends solely upon one of two alternative ideas.  And yes please note this, that the supposedly scientific theory of the atmospheric greenhouse effect doesn’t even have a consistent explanation.  In any case, we either have that 1) the colder atmosphere heats up the surface, or 2) the atmosphere acts like a mirror and sends surface radiation back to the surface to heat itself up above its own temperature.

Option 1) is a plain falsity because of the Laws of Thermodynamics.  Cold doesn’t heat up hot, heat doesn’t flow from cold to hot, hot in heating cold doesn’t become hotter still because it heated the cold.  QED.  This option doesn’t need to be considered any further.  To be sure, this used to be the most common argument and used the phraseology of “backradiation” to “justify” the heating.  However, thermal backradiation heating is simply thermal heating from cold going to hot.  This is the argument that some organizations still use, but people who are involved in this debate with me have abandoned it because it is so plainly absurd and anti-scientific, and they’ve gotten badly trashed for using it.

Option 2) can be used to develop much more complex sounding mechanics, that usually revolves around a phraseology of “trapping” radiation or heat.  All you need to do to figure this one out is take the postulate to the perfect limit, where the atmosphere was a perfect mirror and reflected 100% of the thermal electromagnetic radiation from the surface back to the surface.  Again, the Laws of Thermodynamics: a temperature can not increase its own temperature; a temperature can not heat itself; a temperature can not transfer heat to the same temperature or itself.  What happens to your temperature when you stand in front of a mirror and get your radiant heat reflected back to you?  Nothing.  Does shining a flashlight into a mirror make the flashlight shine brighter?  No.  (Children know this).

So, that’s it.  All of the arguments for this atmospheric radiative greenhouse effect (which hijacks the name of the real thing of a completely different process in a real physical greenhouse) fall under one of those two options.  Many of the posts on this blog are an analysis of the variations on the arguments, but the summary here is basically all you need to debunk the atmospheric greenhouse effect of climate science and climate alarm.

Without this fake atmospheric radiative version of the greenhouse effect, climate alarm has no basis and no validity whatsoever.  Carbon dioxide is plant food and nature wants us to bump it back up to healthier levels of concentration in the atmosphere that are better matched to the evolutionary development and geological history of life.  What is a healthier level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere?  Four to five times the concentration it is now – from a scant 400 parts per million of the atmosphere, to a healthier and more robust 2000 parts per million of the atmosphere.  If you want to help save the planet, then help figure out a way to get carbon out of the ground and back into the atmosphere and into the biosphere where it originally was and belongs.  If the carbon in the ground can be used for producing energy for improving the standard of life of man along the way, then it is a mutual, circle-of-life, Gaiaesque benefit for all.

Gallery | This entry was posted in Fraud of the Greenhouse Effect and tagged , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

### 99 Responses to The First And Second Law of Thermodynamics debunk Global Warming

1. AS says:

“Option 1) is a plain falsity because of the Laws of Thermodynamics. Cold doesn’t heat up hot, heat doesn’t flow from hot to cold, hot in heating cold doesn’t become hotter still because it heated the cold”.

I think you meant “… heat does flow from hot to cold …, or, heat doesn’t flow from cold to hot”. Another long day, I guess.

With that corrected, you have totally nailed it. Only a fool, or a liar, would argue against it. You can see why Smugcentral (Watts & Co) wouldn’t publish it. Do you have email addresses for the usual suspects? If you send it to them and ask for a response, they can’t say they weren’t told. I’d also send it to your government’s Chief Scientific Adviser.

2. Mindert Eiting says:

While surfing a number of years on the internet, I have not seen any valid proof that back radiation is effective, neither the proof that it is not. The discussion goes on and on, and I simply do not believe that the participants can be distinguished as to good guys or bad guys. Certain things strike me, to be summarized in three points.

1)The distinction between back radiation and its effect is never made. Take as example a vacuum chamber with a hot and cool rod. By radiation the hot rod warms the cool rod and the latter also radiates if its temperature is above zero K. It trivially does and its radiation is called back radiation in as far as it goes in the direction of the hot rod. The question is of whether this back radiation has any effect on the hot rod.
2)Time and again I have read the straw man argument that the cool rod would warm the hot rod, i.e. that the effect consist of increasing the temperature of the hot rod, thus violating the Second Law. Back radiation theorists like Spencer say that it slows down the cooling rate of the hot rod. I know enough of mathematics to see that Newtons Cooling Law implies a family of graphs, all descending initially faster than at the end, but different because of a parameter to allow for heat capacity at least. It takes more time for one kilogram of water to cool down till equilibrium than one kilogram of iron. So the effect of back radiation can be compared with the effect of heat capacity. Back radiation seems to be superfluous construct (sophistry) if it has no place in the mentioned parameter, whether you call it an additional capacity or a blanket effect..
3)By simple mathematics it can be proven that slowing down a cooling rate does not violate the Second Law of Thermodynamics. This law however, sets a limit to the back radiation effect. It can never be so much that the hot rod becomes warmer. It must cool at whatever rate.

Here is my question. Let’s consider the cold rod, becoming warmer in the course of time. The intensity of its radiation increases and therefore also of its back radiation. Let’s call that the dose. Initially, back radiation may have a considerable effect on the hot rod but this effect must dwindle to zero at the end. In equilibrium there is nothing left to slow down. Consequently, there is a negative relationship between dose and effect, if we want not to violate the Second Law.

If a biologist would tell me that eating one gram of salt is lethal but eating one kilogram of it is fine, I would not believe him. So far I have not devoted a word to the mechanism, which physicists may do. Perhaps the biologist has a nice story about the working of salt in the human body, but that would not suffice to convince me. In medicine the positive relationship between dose and effect is paradigmatic. However, that does not suffice in the present context. What law of nature is violated by the negative relationship between dose and effect of back radiation? One proof could make an end to the whole discussion, but I have not seen it, not even by you, Joe. If that proof cannot be given, I would say that Thermodynamics is incomplete and back radiation theorists would have found the hole to fill with a concept on which their GHE rests.

3. Richard111 says:

In struggling to understand ‘backradiation’ from CO2 (carbon dioxide gas molecules) in the atmosphere I obtained a copy of Perry’s from my local library and found an excellent graph of both CO2 and H2O (water vapour) emissions (Fig. 5-21) which showed the emission bands of CO2; at 2.7, 4.3 and 15 microns. The 15 micron band easily covered the range 13 to 17 plus a bit microns. It also showed that the 2.7 and 15 micron bands were almost completely covered by H2O emissions!
To show all these emission bands the sample had been heated to 1,500K !!! Sort of temperature only found in active volcanos !!!
On reading up on blackbody radiation I learn that any particular band of radiation has a peak emission temperature. This shows that as the peak temperature for any band drops below peak level, emissions for that band will also drop off quickly.
The next step was to find the peak emission temperature for all bands emitted by CO2. I find the 2.7 micron band peaks at 1,073.333K (~800C), and the 4.3 micron band peaks at 673.95K (~400C). With the vast bulk of our atmosphere below 288K there is no ways we will detect much emission from the 2.7 and 4.3 micron bands of CO2. It is no wonder the CO2/H2O sample had to be heated to 1,500K to show all those bands of emission.

The big surprise is the 15 micron band. Here peak emission is at 193.2K !!! That is almost smack on -80C !!! Therefore just about every CO2 molecule in the atmosphere will be emitting 15 micron photons, proportional to their local temperature and pressure levels, and it is argued that half that radiation will reach the surface. No mention is ever made of the other half that is escaping to space and providing a cooling function to the atmosphere. Also at normal atmospheric temperature there is NO WAY that the 15 micron band from the CO2 will be emitting anything like it was at 1,500K !!!

None of this addresses the ‘backradiation’ problem. Most of our planet’s surface temperature is way above -80C, more like +14C, so there will be plenty of radiation in the 15 micron band leaving the surface and radiating up into the atmosphere.

It is this upwelling radiation, it is claimed, that is being absorbed by the CO2 in the atmosphere and half being radiated back to the surface and heating the surface that is already radiating that energy up….. (this is claimed to be science?)

Let’s look at blackbody radiation. Arrange two identical blackbodies to radiate at each other. Just make sure one is warmer than the other. It will soon be apparent that the cooler body is not cooling as rapidly as the warmer body. In fact, if it was way cooler, it could warm up a bit first and then cool slowly. The cooler body is absorbing the HIGH FREQUENCY radiation from the warmer body and converting it to lower frequency radiation appropriate to its current temperature and radiating this back to the warmer body. The warmer body does NOT respond to radiation from a lower temperature range. Eventually both bodies will be at equilibrium with each other, having reached the same temperature, and continue cooling at the same rate.

I want to expand on that statement about temperature range. A photon does not have a temperature rating. It has an energy rating appropriate to its frequency. This energy is defined as Planck’s Constant times the frequency. Thus high frequency photons are more energetic than low frequency photons.

Now we must look at molecules. What defines the energy in a molecule? For this we need to look up the basic principles of molecular emission/absorption. That slant is important, a molecule CANNOT emitt AND absorb at the same time. Just one or the other.

The total energy of a molecule is the sum of rotational energy plus the vibrational energy plus the electronic energy plus the translation energy. The translation energy is aquired by kinetic collisions with other molecules. For a temperature of around 300K this will mean a kinetic speed in the order of 400 plus metres per second. This tells us collisions occur in the order of billions plus per second.

To quote from the paper I have read:
“”Kinetic collisions, by changing the translation energy, influence rotational levels strongly, vibrational levels slightly and electronic levels scarcely at all.””

Thus the CO2 molecule’s rotational and vibrational levels will respond to the energy from all those collisions appropriate to local temperature that is above 193.2K and emitt 15 micron photons every which way. It IS possible for a CO2 molecule to absorb another 15 micron photon immediately after emission but I have read that this is unlikely. The radiation signature for CO2 defines quite clearly which bands of radiation a CO2 molecule can absorb/emitt and the radiation rules clearly show that a body heated above the peak temperature of a specific band of radiation WILL NOT ABSORB THAT BAND OF RADIATION.

In summation of all the above it seems to me that CO2 molecules in the atmosphere are free to emitt 15 micron radiation but are generally too warm to absorb 15 micron radiation from any source.

Final words; CO2 gas is an effective cooling agent in the atmosphere. It provides no warming to the surface whatsoever.

4. CO2 does ‘absorb’ in 15 micron range, and does vibrate, and does ‘emit’. However, due to Conservation of Energy, the ‘emitted’ photon MUST have longer wavelength and lower energy, meaning this emitted photon cannot be absorbed by any other CO2 molecule on its light speed transmission into space. Per the Laws of Thermodynamics above, this lower energy photon cannot ‘warm’ the emitting OLR Earth surface either.

Climatology is an INTENTIONALLY DEFECTIVE branch of science, grafted to the science tree by evil elitists and nurtured with excessive waste of taxpayer monies. This mutant branch has NEVER been subject to review by multidisciplinary science groups. In fact, overwhelming waste of research monies have installed puppets as ‘leaders’ of the great scientific societies to support this charlatan science fig leaf. Carbon Dioxide is mandatory for all Carbon life forms. It is time to end the degenerate funding and deceptive media systems that can support this massive level of fraud.

5. @AS 2013/11/12 at 1:24 AM

Thanks AS…yes it is difficult to have to always write that phrase…easy to invert. Thanks for noticing it…now fixed.

No Watts & co. won’t touch a basic discussion on the Laws of Thermodynamics with a ten-foot pole. I used to send it to them but all I get is verbal abuse in return. I used to be very polite, just nicely stating “cold doesn’t heat hot”, but the usual bunch just “lose their shit” and go “non-linear” and get very abusive. I guess they’ve beat me in that way, because now I don’t confront them directly as much. However that was a purposeful strategy. Why make these morons my gatekeeper? Why seek their approval? They’re obviously complete moral and intellectual degenerates and why would I want to be close to them or go through them? That’s why I got the blog, to just get the info out there. Anyway, if someone wants to send them the links, with a little bit of verbal abuse:

Anthony Watts (awatts@itworks.com);
Roy Spencer (roy@drroyspencer.com);
Robert G. Brown (rgb@phy.duke.edu);
Judith Curry (judith.curry@eas.gatech.edu) {doesn’t deserve as much verbal abuse}

6. Good comment Mindert. Indeed, a demonstration of backradiation heating has never actually been shown. Slowed cooling because of increased mass is obviously not what the GHE is about…although they’ll try to say it is when their standard “cold heats hot” argument is debunked. They’re slippery little squirmy eels these guys.

What law of nature is violated? Well, I’ve always just said “The law of heat flow”! The Laws of Thermodynamics. Etc. We’ve checked for it with observation too…found backradiation couldn’t raise temperature on something warmer. Because cold doesn’t heat hot, nor does same heat same.

7. Richard111 said:

“Let’s look at blackbody radiation. Arrange two identical blackbodies to radiate at each other. Just make sure one is warmer than the other. It will soon be apparent that the cooler body is not cooling as rapidly as the warmer body. In fact, if it was way cooler, it could warm up a bit first and then cool slowly. The cooler body is absorbing the HIGH FREQUENCY radiation from the warmer body and converting it to lower frequency radiation appropriate to its current temperature and radiating this back to the warmer body. The warmer body does NOT respond to radiation from a lower temperature range. Eventually both bodies will be at equilibrium with each other, having reached the same temperature, and continue cooling at the same rate.”

VERY good physics there :) That is thermodynamics.

Great entire comment.

8. Richard111 says:

Faux Science Slayer says:

“CO2 does ‘absorb’ in 15 micron range, and does vibrate, and does ‘emit’. However, due to Conservation of Energy, the ‘emitted’ photon MUST have longer wavelength and lower energy, meaning this emitted photon cannot be absorbed by any other CO2 molecule on its light speed transmission into space. Per the Laws of Thermodynamics above, this lower energy photon cannot ‘warm’ the emitting OLR Earth surface either.”

I would like to learn more about that. I understand CO2 has some 3,800 lines of absorption/emission centred on 15 microns so the emission of a ‘longer wavelength and lower energy’ photon seems reasonable, but why it cannot be absorbed by any other CO2 molecule ascapes me. My understanding is that if it can be emitted it can be absorbed. This is one of the tenets of the ‘fingerprint’ detection rules for gases.

This also makes me wonder at the remaining energy in the CO2 molecule after emitting a lower energy photon given the restricted bandwidth. My layman intuition tells me this would only be possible if the kinetic energy transfer into the CO2 molecule is not that efficient such that the internal vibrational energy in the molecule rarely exceeds a level that prevents it absorbing a passing 15 micron band photon. This would also explain the failure of other CO2 molecules absorbing the photons at the lower frequency end of the band. The surface will be emitting the full bandwidth of photons in the 13 to 17 micron band.

If the above is valid then I must admit ‘Yes, CO2 does absorb some OLR’, But gee whiz!! That will warm the atmosphere?

9. “I must admit ‘Yes, CO2 does absorb some OLR’, But gee whiz!! That will warm the atmosphere?”

It is fine if CO2 absorbs some OLR. That just means the warmer surface warms the cooler atmosphere. Of course, it does NOT mean that the cooler atmosphere heats the warmer surface, not that these frauds would ever admit that.

10. Peter Weggeman (Petrus) says:

Very good physics/thermodynamics indeed Joe! You and colleagues have put away the phantom of CO2 back radiation causing ‘climate change’ that was clearly created for fraudulent purposes. Yet thousands are now in Warsaw for the next UN Climate Summit and Obama has just issued a lengthy directive ‘Preparing the U.S. for the Impact of Climate Change’. The clear objective of both being new regulations for reducing global CO2 via ‘carbon taxes’. What makes it so frustrating is that we are dealing with a single scientific issue; the effect of back radiation from trace amounts of CO2 on the temperature of the entire atmosphere. Postma and friends can easily show that CO2 is not doing any harm and can do a lot of good if increased. It is not discussed in public…yet. The public simply says look at all the extra heat man is creating with non solar energy that was safely trapped in the earth before we burned or fissioned it. They read about the billions of tons of CO2 we put in the air every year and say it must be getting hotter. They have no idea of ‘Heat is work and work is heat’ that sustains modern economies. And the Greens and ambitious socialists have their save the world cause. Don’ let up!

11. Arfur Bryant says:

Guys,

I am being moderated over at ‘The Blackboard’ for arguing just this point. They say that an electric heated filament will get hotter if surrounded by a black box, or the walls of a room. I am trying to point out that the heat source cannot be further heated by back-radiation from the box or room wall.

Apparently I am “insane”, “deranged”, “whacko”, and/or “nutso”. But me using the word ‘groupthink’ in return is an insult. Whatever.

Now, I don’t care about the name-calling. But, like Mindert, I would love to find some written proof (other than the 2LoT) that clearly states whether the back-radiation is
a. absorbed for net energy gain
b. reflected
c. absorbed without net energy gain (?)
d. dealt with in any other way.

Does anyone here have such a proof? If I am wrong in any way, I am sure you will tell me.

I have asked this question to two internet forums. One clearly stated that the cooler radiation would be 100% reflected. The other said that the cooler radiation would definitely warm the warmer surface! This is getting ridiculous.

There must be some proof out there, surely!

12. What’s the link for the post you’re commenting at? I just had a brief look at the site by searching for it…looks and sounds like it is another site hell-bent on prolonging and creating the debate. The last thing such places can do is talk about thermodynamics.

For your question, I really don’t know. The behaviour of heat flow has always been such an obvious concept with obvious limitations, no one had ever expected what has subsequently happened with the abuse of thermodynamics by climate science.

Of course, you might point out that Anthony Watts performed just the experiment you’re discussing, an electric heated filament trapped inside a blackbox and other various traps, and the filament doesn’t get brighter/hotter. Only the frosted glass got hotter but that’s not the issue and that much is easily explained with standard physics. This was all discussed here of course. Also it is discussed here with GE light bulbs.

Also, back-radiation heating on the Earth’s surface itself was also tested for, and the results showed that only the Sun heated the surface, and that backradiation did not add with solar heating. That was in my paper, Section 3.

You also have this quote, from me – but, it’s entirely independent of me:

“Heat flows from hot to cold; cold does not cause hot to become hotter; hot in warming cold does not become hotter still because it warmed the cold; only the colder temperature rises when it is heated by hot; a temperature can not heat itself.”

Of course, all they will do is hound around and throw insults. Real-world doesn’t matter to them. They need to defend the field of climate alarm – that’s what they’re protecting, is the field of climate science. Climate science IS alarmism…it is fully predicated upon AGW/ACC.

What does the radiant energy do? It does nothing. The input power to the circuit, the outside source of energy and power to the electrical circuit, is what establishes the POWER USAGE of the filament. The current and the voltage and the resistance. That is what determines the filament’s heat/light output/temperature. If backradiation made the filament hotter/brighter still, this would be a temperature heating itself, this would be heat flowing into itself. Heat does not flow into itself. The filament would put out MORE power than you put it…it would be over-unity, perpetual motion, etc. It can be tested immediately by shining a flashlight into a mirror.

Photons and light are just waves…they just oscillate through each other. They don’t add up and up and up…they pass through each other. They’re not like matter. The reflected light just passes through the outgoing light and this does nothing. It’s late now…maybe in the morning I’ll have more.

13. Richard111 says:

Arfur Bryant, you may like to post this quotation.

If someone points out to you that your pet theory of the

universe is in disagreement with Maxwell’s equations – then so

much the worse for Maxwell’s equations. If it is found to be

contradicted by observation – well, these experimentalists do

bungle things sometimes. But if your theory is found to be

against the second law of thermodynamics I can give you no

hope; there is nothing for it but to collapse in deepest

humiliation.

ARTHUR STANLEY EDDINGTON British astronomer.

14. Aurfur, it is even good to refer to the Wiki on the Laws of Thermodynamics:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laws_of_thermodynamics

Really it is just the restrictions of the First Law that can be used:

Combining these principles leads to one traditional statement of the first law of thermodynamics: it is not possible to construct a perpetual motion machine which will continuously do work without consuming energy.

The end of that phrase is important. If the filament gets brighter, that means it is doing more work/producing more heat (synonymous), WITHOUT consuming the energy supplied to the circuit which would otherwise be required. Work is done by an outside agent producing the electrical potential (voltage) to the circuit. Backradiation doesn’t increase the work supplied by the outside agent. If backradiation increased the filament temperature, then the filament would be producing more heat/work than the work that the voltage supplied.

15. Alan Siddons says:

I would say reflected, Arfur. I wrestled with this question in a Hockey Schtick essay,
Why conventional Greenhouse Theory Violates the 1st Law of Thermodynamics
http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2010/06/why-conventional-greenhouse-theory.html

To my mind the key concept is that re-radiated energy is not new or extra energy. It cannot be absorbed by the emitter or else the emitter would become hotter, which’d lead to a reciprocal chain reaction, a veritable radiation bomb. Nor can re-radiated energy simply disappear, or else the 1st Law would be cheated. That leaves reflection, which takes the form of a standing wave if the emitter is completely enclosed. Alternately, if this re-radiated light is suddenly allowed to escape, it simply escapes. Again, since it isn’t extra energy, a photon detector would be unable to detect an emission anomaly; it would only register that an unblocking had just occurred. The “proof”, then, consists of nothing really to report. As Joe points out, light doesn’t build up behind a barrier. Cloak a steady light source and then unveil it a second later or a year later — it makes no difference: the light that escapes will have the same intensity in either case.

16. Arfur Bryant says:

Joe, the link you ask for is further on in this post.

Guys, thank you for your comments. I have used all those arguments (although obviously not well enough). I have pointed out that Watts experiment did not measure the filament. I have pointed out that a heat source cannot heat itself hotter (that comment was referred to as insane). I have pointed out that if back-radiation really heats up the filament, there will always be a net flow from the filament to the wall which means they will have designed a whole new energy source! I even linked the GE lightbulb specs (basically ignored) and the 2LoT video for fun. However, I am now moderated due to being unable to conform to Lucia’s ideas about radiation. The strange thing is, Lucia I believe does not believe that ‘cooler’ radiation can cause a warmer body to heat up but then goes on to say that the body heats up because it is losing heat more slowly.

I am going to link the thread starting with my first comment. I would ask that if you see something wrong with my physics (possible) or my logic (hopefully less likely), please tell me on here so I can learn. I am not a scientist but in my job I have to work with several different scientific fields. I like to think I can figure most things out by reasoning and logic. Anyway, I offer myself up to the scrutiny of those (i.e. you) who I deem to be more knowledgeable about this than I…

http://rankexploits.com/musings/2013/more-on-scienceblogs-traffic/#comment-120679

Things start getting hotter around comment #120819

The Lucia says this: “This point is incorrect. The surface will absorb any radiation that hits it.” Yet I thought that the absorption of energy was dependant on vibrational and rotational states.

The light bulb comments start around #120910

Any criticism will be gratefully received. Seriously. As an aside, I deliberately post on blogs that have a fundamentally different outlook to my own, as I believe it will make me learn. I may have got this all wrong.

Regards,

Arfur

17. The statement “The surface will absorb any radiation that hits it” is always used by warmers to back-introduce the idea that radiation can send heat from cold to hot. And they’ll do that right after saying cold can’t heat hot.

You did excellent there. It was your audience :)

18. Alan Siddons says:

“The surface will absorb any radiation that hits it.”

A common belief that owes to the definition of a blackbody, that it absorbs any incident radiation. Taking that as a cue, this misconception proceeds to conclude that a blackbody will necessarily absorb its OWN radiation, even though the absurd meltdown implications are obvious.

As an exasperated writer once complained, “I gotta use words when I talk to you!” There’s just no substitute for thinking and observing. Words are always inadequate.

19. Will Janoschka says:

Alan Siddons says:
2013/11/14 at 1:51 PM
“The surface will absorb any radiation that hits it.”

So is there “any” thermal electromagnetic radiation that is proportional to absolute temperature raised to the fourth power? The Climate Clowns claim yes, while Maxwell’s equations and John Poynting’ work say no. as there is no absolute zero, (it is an asymptote). It seems to depend on the definition of “radiation”! The Clowns claim “radiation” is “radiance”! I claim that radiation is only the “radiative flux”, not some “radiative intensity”, and flux by definition must be a vector in one direction only. Wad jew tink? Neither seems to be provable or falsifiable, so as to be non-physical. Belief is not desired. Only by tinking and discussing (arguing), is there any possibility of learning and perhaps agreement on “what is likely”! Thermal electromagnetic radiation seems to be unique, as with the continuium, no one can figure “what is the carrier”, and “what are the sidebands”. This may involve why thermal electromagnetic radiation appears to be “quantized” at high frequncies. The detailed emission/absorption spectra of cold gasses may give wonderful insight! Kitten again demands petting upon!

20. Richard111 says:

Some years ago, I tried to patent a clear varnish injected with CO2 gas. This bubbly varnish would be applied to your ceiling. Your own body heat would keep the room nice and warm. There were no takers. :-(

21. Arfur Bryant says:

So I put the following question out on a couple of internet Q & A forums:

["Is it possible for radiation emitted from a cooler energy source to heat a warmer energy source?"]

I have so far received two very different answers. One from a private scientist and one from the Physics Dept of a University. No names. Here are the two answers:

A. ["What we are talking about in terms of "radiation" are generally infra-red photons in the 1-100 micron wavelength range.  Some call this "long-wave" radiation.

But a photon can be treated either as a particle or a wave, but either one travels at the speed of light and the photon only has "mass" when it is in transit.  The "rest mass" of a photon is zero....in other words, when a photon is "absorbed" by something, it's energy is totally consumed by the absorber and it ceases to exist as a particle.

That struck object (molecule, actually) now has more energy, and thus can be thought of as "heated" by the interaction, but since all objects warmer than absolute zero emit "radiation" as they cool, inevitably part of the absorbed photon energy will be shortly re-emitted as another photon, but a "new" one of a different wavelength and lower energy than the first.

But the 2nd, re-emitted photon must, in order to satisfy the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, be of a wavelength that will be completely reflected by any other material object, including the earth or even another CO2 molecule.  Thus 100% of the "back radiation" from the cooler atmosphere above the earth will be reflected upon striking the earth... and not one thin dime can be used to actually heat the earth.  All the "greenhouse gases" do is delay the cooling of the atmosphere after the sun sets, and the principal agent is water vapor, not CO2."]

That’s just the way it works, according to our current knowledge of classical thermodynamics.”]

B.

["People often ask this question when they're thinking about global warming caused by greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. These gases radiate energy back to the earth, which is somewhat warmer than the atmosphere.
The answer is that the the radiation certainly warms the warmer source compared to what it would have been without that extra incoming radiation. The net flow of heat on a cold day is always from your body to your coat, but you are certainly warmer with the coat than without it. The same applies to our earth's coat of greenhouse gases."]

And, later on, when I queried the coat analogy…

“[What is obvious is that the back radiation means less energy loss. In a situation where there's another energy input (metabolism, sunlight,...) that means getting warmer. Sorry if I sound frustrated, but it gets tiring to have these simple freshman physics points get obscured by a blanket of ideologically driven obfuscation."]

Not sure either answer is totally correct but A gets my vote (although there may be a few small areas of the globe where the back-radiaiton is absorbed – but rarely).

Which answer was from the physics dept?

22. Richard111 says:

Hmm…. answer B ‘talks down’ like a prof to his dumbo students. :-)

My problem again another way: it is accepted that CO2 radiates to space at TOA. To radiate IR energy at any frequency the object emitting must be warm enough. Having emitted, it is now cooler, and only kinetic collisions are available to warm it up again.

When you consider the kinetic collision rate (translational energy), at the bottom of the atmosphere, the CO2 molecule must be radiating full time! Yet it seems to be generally accepted that the CO2 molecule can still absorb 15 micron radiation. This, to me, is against the second law. Help needed.

23. Will Janoschka says:

Arfur Bryant says:
2013/11/15 at 12:35 AM
“So I put the following question out on a couple of internet Q & A forums:”
["Is it possible for radiation emitted from a cooler energy source to heat a warmer energy source?"]
Arfur, Has anyone ever measured some thermal electromagnetic flux (watts/unit area.) in a direction toward a higher temperature? A Geopryometer does not do this unless it is cooled.
That meter measures flux toward the colder object., From this measurement the effective temperature of the air is calculated. If the air were at the same temperature, there would be no (zero) flux. The meter would then indicate that the air had the same temperature as the meter.

24. @Arfur, yes, A is the correct answer. I am sure that B was from the physics department…if I am a pessimist.

25. Arfur Bryant says:

Joe and Richard,

Yes, B was from the Physics Dept. And I think you (Joe) are being a realist, not a pessimist! :)

Will,

I do not know the answer to that question. But I was aware that radiance is not the same as radiation.

26. Will Janoschka says:

Arfur Bryant says:
“I do not know the answer to that question. But I was aware that radiance is not the same as radiation.”
Arfur, I also do not know that answer. But I can find no demonstration of radiant flux, thermal or coherent, going in opposite directions, mostly as that would violate the very definition of “flux”.
Your Climate Clowns claim much, but can demonstrate nothing. It is all a fantasy, (Scam).
Consider this planet with a surface reflectivity from 2 to 200 microns of 95%, but with the same conductive, convective,and latent heat transfer to the atmosphere with the same 3000 to 40,000 ppmv water vapor that can radiate like hell to cold space. With such low surface emissivity the surface cannot radsiate anything, yet the surface temperature and atmospheric temperature profile would increase by less than 0.3 degree Celcius. The whole concept of radiative “Green house effect” is nonsence any way you look at it. I have more from a electrodynamic POV
rather than a thermodynamic POV. But kitten demands petting upon. For three months she
has nothing to do except obsvere. my button pushing. If I do not have the proper food or petting upon she will step on just the buttons that will reboot everything.. I hope you do not have a kitten from hell. OTOH she does lick my face when I pet upon correctly.`

27. “I can find no demonstration of radiant flux, thermal or coherent, going in opposite directions, mostly as that would violate the very definition of “flux”.”

YES! That is a superb point.

Kitties love keyboards…math homework…textbooks…etc…hehe :)

28. Arfur Bryant says:

Will,

That is essentially the question I have been asking them for a while now. Where is the evidence of such flux?

Has anyone noticed that the pro-(c)AGW commenters seem to be changing the argument? They now appear to be trying to compare ‘greenhouse gases’ to insulation. As these gasses form approx 2% (or maybe less) of the atmosphere, any ‘coat’ they analogise to would be a coat made of very thin string with many large gaps between the string, or at least the most gossamer thin tissue paper anyone could find!

If there is no flux to the warmer body, then their argument of ‘warming by reducing heat loss’ can’t work – can it? If there is no absorption by the warmer body, then the warmer body cannot increase in temperature. If it can’t increase, then no amount of ‘reducing the heat loss’ will ‘warm’ the surface.

29. Arfur Bryant says:

Actually, that 2% included water vapour which, thinking further, is actually an addition to the atmosphere, making it more like 2% on top of the 100%… The non-condensing GHGs make up less than 0.04%.

30. Will Janoschka says:

Joseph E Postma says: 2013/11/15 at 11:32 PM
“I can find no demonstration of radiant flux, thermal or coherent, going in opposite directions, mostly as that would violate the very definition of “flux”.”
YES! That is a superb point.
Kitties love keyboards…math homework…textbooks…etc…hehe :)

My kitten has now been petted upon well, she did lick my face. She is now outside in the cold, wondering where the guy kitties are! Time for a trip to the Vet, then she will become lazy but still demanding proper petting upon Oy vey!
The difference between electrodynamics and thermodynamics. is so great that any Climate Clown reference to radiative anything, is magnificant bull shit! Are there any of these folk that have demonstrated “any” ability to think? I admit that I do not know. That does not stop me from trying to think! As old as I am, I should give up. Kitten licking my face, dispells such thought.
Wonderful and such a good kitten! -will- I still wonder how she learned what buttens to push to reboot everything. Then, “BTW get some new kitty food”.!

31. Will Janoschka says:

They claim, that earthlings screw everting up.. This is true from observation. What is not said,. but also obvious, is that this planet was “not’ designed nor constructed by earthlings.. The designers anticipated all of the stupidity of earthlings and constructed this planet with all that in mind! What a wonderful planet. Perhaps it is only a zoo.
It is high time that earthlings recognize “what they are”, rather than “what they think they are!
Can we please define, then apply, “Slovenly”?

32. Richard111 says:

Here is an idea for an experiment. Calculate the precise quantity of CO2 in a one square metre column of the atmosphere. Construct a plastic box 1 x 1 x 4 metres, Line the inside of the box with aluminium cooking foil leaving one end clear. Plastic must be IR transparent from about 10 microns up. Fill the box with pure CO2 until quantity agrees with atmospheric amount. Suspend box from ceiling in a closed hanger or equivalent such that the clear end is a few millimetres above the concrete floor. Ensure air temperature in hanger remains stable at say 15C. Record temperature on concrete surface under the suspended box and compare with temperature of concrete away from box. If temperature of concrete under suspended box increases, theory of CO2 effect in AGW is proved.

33. @Arfur 2013/11/16 at 12:14 AM

Yes exactly – with no flux back to the source/warmer body, the warmer body can not be warmed. I think I’ve posted this thermodynamics explanation already but I’ll do it again:

Radiant emission from a surface has, by definition, the heat density of it source. There can exist no energy or heat gradient between the radiant emission field from the surface, and the surface, by definition. Hence, radiant heat can not flow back into its own source. Since heat flow is what is required to influence the temperature of the source, then a source can not raise its own temperature with its own temperature.

Rewording again – heat flow requires an energy density/temperature/heat differential. Without an energy/temperature differential, heat does not flow. This is the fundamental mathematical and physical and thermodynamic definition of heat and heat flow. When heat flows due to the existence of a temperature/energy differential, it influences temperature – the cool object warms up (and the warm object can cool down if it isn’t a source). The radiant emission from a surface can not, by obvious definition, have a heat differential to the surface, since that emission IS the heat from the surface. So heat/energy can not flow back into itself. Heat doesn’t flow into itself. A temperature can not raise its own temperature. Etc.

Conversely, how the criminals try to argue is that photons are like water, and like water they should overflow if they’re trapped and build up and up and up inside the cavity that traps them, and this causes their source to get hotter and hotter and hotter as it tries to “push out” the water/photons. This is compared to a dam and reservoir etc. Of course, this is a ridiculous and fraudulent analogy. Water is matter, i.e. fermions, and photons are bosons, light. Photons don’t behave like water (matter) does. While water molecules push against each other and cause each other to flow out of things and push each other around, etc., photons just pass through each other without minding or noticing at all. You can’t use matter analogies with photons. Of course, the convenience of being criminals is that you can just say whatever you want, make yourself appear to use the words of science but not the methodology or the knowledge or wisdom.

34. “Are there any of these folk that have demonstrated “any” ability to think? I admit that I do not know.”

I have yet to witness it!

35. Richard111 we have a new paper coming out in the next while that does multiple variations and recordings of such experiments. No matter what is done, the radiative trapping postulate simply can not be observed. It has never been observed before, the GHE advocates can’t demonstrate it, and if you try to find it, it doesn’t work.

36. Arfur Bryant says:

Joe,

Thanks for that further explanation. I had read something like that here before, which is why I used the following reasoning in my argument…

["The filament is the only heat source – agreed? It sends higher energy radiation to the wall which absorbs that radiation and warms. Ok so far? Now if, as you then state, the back-radiated energy from the now slightly warmer wall increases the temperature of the filament (by being absorbed for net energy gain), the now even warmer filament must radiate even higher energy to the wall, which will absorb this energy (being from a warmer heat source) and warm further. This cycle must, logically, continue – according to your (and Lucia’s) understanding. There will be no ‘steady state’. As there will always be a temperature differential between the warmer filament and the cooler wall, there will always be heat flowing to the wall. Therefore, logically, the cycle can have no end unless the filament or the wall ceases to exist.
****, the flaw in your argument is that you (and Lucia) believe that the back-radiated radiation from the wall is absorbed for net energy gain by the filament. This cannot be right. It is the ‘broken rule’ – that heat cannot flow from cold to hot. The filament molecules are at a higher energy level than the incoming back-radiation. Any incoming lower-energy radiation will not add to the energy level of the filament. Conceptually, think about adding a glass of water at 4C to a glass of water at 6C. (Please note this is NOT analogy, I just want to show you can’t always numerically sum things!) You do not end up with a glass of water at 10C. Unlike the water, the filament neither cools nor warms. The incoming lower (cooler) back-radiated energy has no effect on the filament. The net heat flow will reduce as the wall warms. The filament temperature will NOT increase in response.
Ask yourself this – when the wall heats up significantly, and then the filament heat further (according to you and Lucia) – from where has the filament received this extra energy? Answer – from itself, because it is the only heat source in the system."]

Does that make sense?

37. Perfect explanation Arfur. Small caveat though that the filament and backradiation can, at best, have the same energy states, and so still no heat can flow. Of course in general backradiation is not 100% efficient, not that it matters. Great final answer there!

38. Alan Siddons says:

“The incoming lower (cooler) back-radiated energy has no effect on the filament.”

Nice if climatologists, then, had the same intelligence as a building contractor.

“Heat moves in three ways: conduction, convection or radiation.

R-value addresses conduction: the transfer of heat through a material (your walls).

Convection occurs when heat and moisture move, and this happens when a home’s envelope — siding, sheathing, walls — are not tight. Convection issues are solved by air-sealing a home.

…Radiation is when heat flows from a hotter material to a cooler one.”
http://www.hgtvremodels.com/home-systems/why-r-values-matter-in-energy-efficiency/index.html

From a hotter material to a cooler one. Why is that so hard for climatologists to grasp?

39. From a hotter one to a cooler one. From a hotter one to a cooler one. From a hotter one to a cooler one!!! Heat can’t flow into itself because that’sa not a hotta to a coola!

40. Will Janoschka says:

- Joseph E Postma says:
2013/11/16 at 11:48 PM
“From a hotter one to a cooler one. From a hotter one to a cooler one. From a hotter one to a cooler one!!! Heat can’t flow into itself because that’sa not a hotta to a coola!”

Joe, You seem to be in a Climate Clown trap. Terms such as warming, hotter, and cooler are climate clown words that are ment to confuse, but are never defined. Use terms such as heat flux to, heat energy to, a higher temperature, a luwer temperature. These have no abiguity between heat, and temperature. I wiuld also suggest that all avoid thinking of “heat” as kinetic energy. Heat energy is much more similar to electrical energy than Newton’s kinetic energy.
1. Newton’s kinetic energy and momentum both, like force are vectors, always have a direction.
2. Heat energy, electrical energy, preasure energy, and explosions need no direction but can have direction under certain conditions.
3. Heat energy, electrical energy, and preasure energy can have both static (DC) and dymamic (AC) components. The spontanious (AC) component can alway always be considered “noise” upon the (DC) component.
4. Thermal electromagnet radiance is proportional to the variance (noise) scaled by DC temperature^3, or DC temperature^2, depending on whether the variance is considered a power (3db) or a component of power (6db), for twice as much (AC only) power.
5. When there is zero potential difference i.e. delta (temperature^1,^2,^3, or ^4) no spontanious thermal flux is ever even generated, let alone modulated.

Please alow me to continue later! Much more critical. While trying to find all of the Nuevo Science, interpretations of the Second Law of Thermodynamics, I did the JoNova blog, and in an article “What is the Second Damed Law” She quoted a discourse with you, and from what I read both of you are correct, but way off base, depending on viewpoint. I see both of you as Climate Clowns on either side of “what is, like it or not”! My question is “Who let these Varments out of the dumster?” If you do not want this abuse, please say Will shaddup! I have no desire to insult.

41. Alan Siddons says:

Well, Will, my own position is pretty meat and potatos, like a building contractor’s. But professor M. Quinn Brewster, author of Thermal Radiative Transfer and Properties, says much the same.

“Thermal radiation is electromagnetic radiation emitted by particles of matter (molecules, atoms, ions, and electrons) as they undergo internal energy state transitions. The radiative energy produced by these transitions is usually in the ultraviolet, visible, and infrared portions of the electromagnetic spectrum. Like all forms of electromagnetic radiation, thermal radiation travels at the speed of light.

“Thermal radiation is also a form of heat. Heat, defined as thermal energy transfer from one body of matter to another due to a temperature difference, appears in two fundamental forms: conduction and radiation. The fundamental mechanism of energy transport in conduction is direct exchange of kinetic energy between particles of matter. In radiation, the fundamental mechanism of energy transport is by electromagnetic waves (or photons) that are emitted and absorbed by the particles of matter as they undergo energy state transitions.

“Like conduction, thermal energy is in harmony with the second law of thermodynamics such that, in the absence of work, thermal energy is radiated spontaneously from higher temperature to lower temperature matter. Unlike conduction, however, which requires a material path, radiative transfer can occur between two spatially remote bodies of matter at different temperatures even when the intervening space is a vacuum. The most prominent example of thermal radiation on the earth is solar radiation, which is transported across the vacuum of space to the earth.”

***
Hotta to coola. Dat’s about it.

42. Will Janoschka says:

Alan Siddons says:
2013/11/17 at 6:30 PM “thermal energy is radiated spontaneously from higher temperature to lower temperature matter”.
Alan, Only in this issues I must disagree , verbs may, can, or likely are fine. The “is” in thal “is radiated spontaneously” that must be bogus. The radiation (flux) vector is determined by the the difference in opposing Poynting vectors. in every direction, nomater, thermal, electrical, or nuclear, at that frequency/wavelength. Radiation (flux) is dependent on many more things, such as emissivity of the “antennas”, and the transmisivity of the intervening tranmissive media, especially if that media has any temperatuire. This is why the Climate Clowns can do nothing with the possible radiative heat transfer in any direction. Radiative heat transfer between the surface and atmosephere must remain intractable.

43. Yes I would have to agree with Alan. If you’re an honest person, with or without education in the physical sciences, heat, temperature, warming, cooling, warmer, colder, etc., all mean what they should. The Climate Clowns indeed try to make these words mean other things and obfuscate around them, but that will be their downfall. Stay tuned.

44. Will Janoschka says:

Joseph E Postma says: 2013/11/17 at 8:22 PM
“Yes I would have to agree with Alan. If you’re an honest person, with or without education in the physical sciences, heat, temperature, warming, cooling, warmer, colder, etc., all mean what they should. The Climate Clowns indeed try to make these words mean other things and obfuscate around them, but that will be their downfall. Stay tuned.”
Joe, Many posters here can decipher what you mean, rather than what you say!! No one can figure what you want, nor what is your goal. If you want to be technicaly correct. your words are OK but not precise. If you want to defeat the goal of Climate Clowns, your words are miserable!. Consider “obfusicate”, less than 0.5% of the voters within a one mile radius of you will have any idea of the meaning, 26% will think that “Obfusicate” is some brand of tennis shoe,. 82% will vote for an increase in carbon tax to save the planet. Your Climate Clowns will win big time, with lotsa profit for the top climate clowns. -will-

45. Good points Will…

46. “JoNova blog, and in an article May 2011 “What is the Second Damed Law” She quoted a discourse with you, and from what I read both of you are correct, but way off base, depending on viewpoint.”
JoNova, “Belives” thermal EMR “is” photons acting likes bullets with energy being launched in every direction at a rate proportional to T^4. This nonsense is promoted by science professors that have not learned anything about electromagnetic radiation except that Dr.Einstein’s photoelectric effect “means” magic bullets. Dr. Einstein admitted that he did not say such a thing, but only that high frequency EMR can be demonstrated that the absorbed wave packet has a minimum energy proportional to frequency and the number of packets absorbed is countable.
The energy absorbed is quantized not continuous. The word “Photon” was first proposed by Gilbert N. Lewis, in 1926. a Princeton academic who tacked it on to the 1905 good paper.

“The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics applies to net flows of heat, not to each individual photon, and it does not prevent some heat flowing from a cooler body to a warm one.” –JoNova

This is incorrect. Clausius statement: By Clausius, Heat cannot spontaneously flow from cold regions to hot regions without external work being performed on the system. Many incorrect translations. Rudy “defined” thermodynamic “spontaneous”. –JoNova insists that such a spontaneous heat transfer does happen from cold atmosphere to a higher temperature surface.

JP: The laws of heat transfer DO forbid a cold body from raising the temperature of a warmer body. This is a much more physically unambiguous clarification. “Flows of heat” is ambiguous and confusing. It is obviously correct to say that a cold body does not raise the temperature of a warmer body. “Flows of heat” is ambiguous and not important, in terms of what has the ability to raise who’s temperature.

This is also incorrect. You are denying the existance of any sort of refrigerator. You left out the word “spontaneously”. Also cold things rasing the temperature of a powered thing, easy. The very essence of the dynamics of thermodynamics. Any power supplied to an object must be dissipated by that object, generally by the performance of work and/or the transfer of heat energy to a lower temperature object. “anything” hot or cold that interferes with such dissipation must result in the “power supplied” increasing the work performed or increasong the temperature of that powered object until such power equilibrium is agan established. That “anything” can be an increase in thermal impedence (insulation, or a reduction in radiant flux to a lower temperature object), of even the rasing of the temperature of the lower temperature object. None of these things require any power from anything but the named supplied power.
Your clowns can demonstrate no such increase in interferance. No measurable decrease in atmospheric transmisivity, no measurable atmospheric temperatureincrease , no measureable decrease in the amount of work this planet does on itself, nothing! The clowns can produce nothing of evidence! Any heat energy supplied to the atmosphere by any means is radiated to the only thing with less radiance, Cold space. Plenty H2O and CO2 to do just that.

47. The ambiguity that I was not yet fully appreciative of at that time, was the sophistical 3-fold definition of “heat flow” that the clowns use: 1) heat flow is the portion going from cold to hot (as Jo Nova says), 2) heat flow is the portion going from hot to cold (which is what at the least should be said), 3) heat flow is the net going from hot to cold (which is the strict definition).

The climate clowns use all three with one of those definitions being completely wrong, one incomplete, and one correct. Heat flow can NOT mean all three of those things. There is NO heat flow from cold to hot, at all. But by using all 3 interchangeably, then cold can heat hot just as long as more hot heats cold, as Nova and others say. Of course, if cold heated hot, then as hot heated cold cold would heat hot back in proportion…and then hot would heat cold, and then cold would heat it back in proportion etc etc etc…but this about e^infinity beyond logical comprehension by the clowns.

48. Bryan says:

Generalized statements about the second law sometimes require further clarification for particular circumstances.
Take today’s local weather
Sun not ‘up’ yet.
The local ground temperature will continue to drop despite the higher air temperature.
The ground being much more dense will radiate a much higher continuous flux than the downward thin radiative flux of the warmer air.
The spectral flux of the air has many gaps particularly around the atmospheric window of 10um.
The heat gain of the surface from conductive interaction with the air is insufficient to make much difference.
Net result is heat loss by land surface is greater than heat gain from atmosphere.

49. Will Janoschka says:

Joe, you are certainly correct abour the triple radiative nonsense promoted br the clowns. It is the back radiatiive “flux” in the Trenbeth cartoon that is the real scam.
Do you have coments on my notes of how a powered object can raise to any temperature at all that is required to dissapate that power? Coats work by reducing the metabolic power gen eration in your body. You “feel” warmer but your body temperature changes not at all. Heat (energy) and temperature “need” not be related at all! The clowns exploite this difficult concept any chance they get. The so called Climatologist has no place in science as it is all misunderstanding, rather any learning of what is.

50. Thanks for the explanation Bryan…very interesting and important.

51. Right, so, Will, a powered object raises to some temperature. Then what. Then it heats other cooler things. The only things that determine the object’s temperature, according to physics, is the emissivity of the surface, and its surface area. That’s all you need to account for. If the object is surrounded by a radiative 0K environment, or a radiative 300K environment, and the object itself gets to 400K in the radiative 0K environment, it will still be 400K in the radiative 300K environment. The only thing that changes is the heat flow to the environment.

Resistors for example in circuits might emit a power that should make them, say, 10C. A resistor might be supposed to emit, say 10 Watts as heat, and over their tiny surface area, this would correspond to 283K, say. Such calculations are done in physics classrooms for fun: a circuit consumes power P = (V^2)/R; this power is dissipated by the resistor as radiative thermal heat (it’s in vacuum). The resistor has a surface area of A (m^2). Calculate the surface flux of radiation from the resistor, and then use the Stefan-Boltzmann Law to calculate its temperature assuming unit emissivity. Then flux F = P/A = (V^2)/R/A = sigma*T^4. You solve for T obviously.

So if a resistor would be 283K on its own via this calculation, then if the circuit is operated in a radiative 300K environment of sigma*300^4 = 459 W/m^2, does the resistor have to get to P/A = sigma*283^4 = 363 W/m^2 PLUS 459 W/m^2, so that it can emit the 363 W/m^2 as a net balance relative to 459 W/m^2, or is the 300K environment simply going to warm the resistor up to 300K and be done with it since the resistor itself would only get to 283K on its own?

See what’s happening there? There is a distinction between energy and heat. HEAT flow does not need to be maintained or conserved at the net balance value if an object was in a 0K environment. The point is that it doesn’t matter if an object is powered or not. (With a live human body, that is an extremely complex system with various positive and negative feedbacks all working to maintain homoeostasis, one of the parameters of which is the difference between the core temperature and skin temperature. There are active cooling mechanisms in the body and if these are reduced, then the core can rise but that’s because the “refrigeration cycle” has been taken away and so you’re going to see what the metabolic processes can actually get to in temperature without being actively cooled (as much).)

Another point is that this is a lab that any science class could and should do from elementary school and up: heat one metal plate with an electric coil heater affixed to it, measure its temperature. Repeat this with an identical plate that gets to an identical temperature. Then face the plates at each other very close and measure the new much higher temperature they get to. Then (eventually), use the higher temperature to transfer a greater quantity (rate) of heat to the same “ambient environment”, and get more energy out of a thermal power system.

52. Will Janoschka says:

Joe, The Clowns have you hung on thermal radiation, the part of thermdynamics that requires 3D thinking. Lets go back to linear trermodynamics please!
First some humor (I hope) about the scientific naming of things, concepts, or a swag
They started with electron, neutron, and proton! That’s OK, all we have learned is that they to change others to their likeness, just like earthlings do. Then invented are the anti-particles.
1. Positron, an electron with reversed charge. Rename electron to negitron, for understanding.
2. Neutrino, A neutron with no rest mass. Change to Bamtron, Bambino, much understanding.
This would require #1 to become, positrino, and negatrino, also with much understanding.
3. Anti-proton, How about Proton, Antiton, Conserviton. Progresiton, Laborton, Socioton, Comunitrn, Olgyton, and Faciaton. Have I left out any massive charged particles?

Back to linear thermodynamics. Take your 20 watt resistor (at constant Voltage and current.
Epoxy on a 25 cm length of coat hanger wire. place the distal end of the wire in water with ice cubes floating (0 degree Celsius). Turn on your 20 Watt supply. measure the temperature of the resistor. It will be at some temperature (depending on the trermal conductivity of the steel wire)
plus the temperature of the water bath. Let the 20 watts melt all ice. Then the temperature of the bath will increase, as will the temperature of your resistor. Eventually the curve of the resistor
temperature will go non linear as the flux of air conductivity and convectivity become the dominate method of heat transfer.
Joe, this is not theoretical physics, this is mechanical enginering measurement, documented many times. I agree with the MEs. You cannot change the scalar value of my measurement.
I was here, I measured, I did it the best I could., I may be very wrong in what I was measuring, but my numbers are Golden, Do not change my numbers on whatever I was measuring.

Joe, I can do some heat transfer via thermal electrodynamic radiation, My stuff is signaling at wavelengths where the atmosphere can do nasty things to your sigaling. The power transport
is always present but mostly orthogonal to the signaling and noise. I hope you can get many others to participate in a discussion of is what is (known) vs. what is not (known). I wonder of the two catalogs. Compared to the volume of “beats the shit out of me”, both are insignificant.
Can earthlings ever learn anything?

53. Alan Siddons says:

Jumping in again.

“The radiation (flux) vector is determined by the the difference in opposing Poynting vectors.”

Well, Will, I admit that things get complicated after one accepts the contractor’s testimony and goes into detail. At the moment, for example, I believe that light from the star Betelgeuse does “heat” me by an infinitesimal amount. It couldn’t excite my retina otherwise. My retina is glowing with low-level IR. But Betelgeuse is sending higher energy wavelengths at it. Were my retina to be glowing with the SAME wavelengths, however, and a bit more intensely, I’d be unable to see Betelgeuse at all. By the same token, a rattlesnake’s pit organs can “see” the glow of warm-blooded prey only because the rattlesnake’s organs are cool enough to discern a higher temperature.

Still, I’m willing to be talked out of that position!

54. Well you can have chemical reactions where energy is used for non-thermal work etc. Everything isn’t purely thermal.

55. Will I don’t follow you any more…difficult to make sense of what you’re writing.

56. Arfur Bryant says:

Joe,

Here is an example of what Joe Public (i.e, me…) is up against.

This is from the same Physics Dept reference the question about radiation from a cooler source…

Me: “I just wanted to know if it was possible for radiation from a cooler body ever to warm a hotter body. ”

Physics Dept: “Yes. Radiation from B to A always warms A, regardless of their initial temperatures. Do you really need a reference for the fact that adding energy to a system raises its temperature? Try any thermal physics book in the world.

“if (as you say) back-radiation cannot add energy to the warmer body, how can it reduce the energy loss?” We said the exact opposite, Back-radiation is certainly adding radiation to the warmer body. Thus it reduces the net energy loss compared to what it would have been without that added energy. Do you want another reference for the mathematical relation that adding a small positive number to a bigger negative number reduces the absolute value of the negative number?

**

So there you have it. A cool object really does warm a hot object. It’s official.

57. What a bunch of asshats! So friendly too! Obviously you’ve found a nest of criminals there.

Coincidentally I have a new article soon to come out to cover precisely what these morons are trying to argue.

“Yes. Radiation from B to A always warms A, regardless of their initial temperatures.”

So cold heats hot as hot heats cool. Brilliant. Which dept. is it? Might as well tell us.

58. Arfur Bryant says:

University of Illinois at Urbana-Champain

You can read the entire exchange here…

http://van.physics.illinois.edu/qa/listing.php?id=25129

The thing that annoys me is that the original question was completely genuine. I just don’t get this ‘warms by reduction of loss’ thing IF it is impossible for heat transfer from cold to hot. So I AM going to ask him for a reference which supports his “Yes. Radiation from B to A always warms A, regardless of their initial temperatures.” statement. IF that statement is incorrect, then his sarcasm is misplaced.

As an aside, this is from another physics teaching text:
[In the interaction of radiation with matter, if there is no pair of energy states such that the photon energy can elevate the system from the lower to the upper state, then the matter will be transparent to that radiation.]

That seems fair enough. So why are two physics departments apparently 180 degrees out?

59. Yah well you’ve obviously found a raging criminal answering those questions for you…very carefully placed I might add. I have a new post for you soon that will be extremely useful. Your responses were fine; his were extremely rude and you sure wouldn’t want to go to a university with teachers that responded like that to students.

“Do you want another reference for the mathematical relation that adding a small positive number to a bigger negative number reduces the absolute value of the negative number?”

Stay tuned.

60. Alan Siddons says:

If you’re interested, Arfur, this notion that radiant heat travels from cold to hot and vice versa goes back to a speculation advanced by Pierre Prévost late in the 18th century.

His view came to be known as the “theory of exchanges.” Two-way heating has never been demonstrated, it defies the 2nd Law, and no one can explain why it doesn’t lead to two bodies of EQUAL temperature making each other hotter and hotter. But his theory has stuck.

61. Well, his theory has stuck ONLY for the climate pseudoscientists…or rather they’ve resurrected it. His theory doesn’t follow the modern or thermodynamic definition of heat flow, which is only the net portion, not all 3 portions (cold to hot, and hot to cold, and the balance of hot to cold…this is what climate science uses but it is wrong…heat flow is ONLY the net portion).

62. Arfur Bryant says: 2013/11/20 at 11:46 AM
This is from the same Physics Dept reference the question about radiation from a cooler source…
Me: “I just wanted to know if it was possible for radiation from a cooler body ever to warm a hotter body. ”
Physics Dept: “Yes. Radiation from B to A always warms A, regardless of their initial temperatures. Do you really need a reference for the fact that adding energy to a system raises its temperature? Try any thermal physics book in the world
Arfur,
Why do you think there “is” any thermal radiation from the colder surface,or if such radiation it is absorbed by the higher temperature surface? Is that just because the Climate Clowns claim it happens? Try a different explanation.
The S-B equation consists of two opposing radiance s and some scaling terms. Each radiance can be considered a potential or a potential vector. Each T^4 radiance is but a potential of max radiative flux to a very very low temperature. Neither one “is” a flux. The only actual flux is the result of the difference of the two potentials. or the sum (with direction) of the potential vectors. This difference in potential is then scaled properly and becomes the only radiative flux. This flux is the only flux that can be and has been measured anywhere between the two surfaces.
the Physics Dept: Even radiation from a high temperature need increase the temperature of a cooler body, consider the Solar generation of the latent of evaporation.

63. Will my next post will be on just what you discussed! Stay tuned.

64. Joe and Arfur, The only Mike W.
Research Assistant Department of Physics College of Engineering University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign

65. Alan Siddons says: 2013/11/20 at 1:23 AM
“The radiation (flux) vector is determined by the the difference in opposing Poynting vectors.”
I consider Poynting vectors similar to radiance (also a vector) but without the distance normalizing. The Poyinting flux at any point is the vector sum of all the poynting vectors at that point, at that frequency. If a radiative source is monitoring its own flux in a particular direction, signaling can occur in the reverse direction by the absorber modulating it own radiance or absorptivity. Noise is always a problem with thermal radiation. Signaling delay is the same The modulating signal in this case is in the opposite direction to the carrier flux. Even for incoherent
radiation there can be coherent modulation in either or both directions. This is why the S-B equations work the way they do, and with no violation of 2LTD. Each radiator can and does know the conditions at the absorbing end. I have heard that pit vipers sense only variations in thermal flux but have good spatial acuity (when they are hungry).

66. Will Janoschka says:

Joseph E Postma says: 2013/11/19 at 11:38 AM
“Right, so, Will, a powered object raises to some temperature. Then what. Then it heats other cooler things. The only things that determine the object’s temperature, according to physics, is the emissivity of the surface, and its surface area. That’s all you need to account for. If the object is surrounded by a radiative 0K environment, or a radiative 300K environment, and the object itself gets to 400K in the radiative 0K environment, it will still be 400K in the radiative 300K environment. The only thing that changes is the heat flow to the environment.”

Joe,
If “The only thing that changes is the heat flow to the environment.” were were allowed you would be correct. What if the heat flow were not allowed to change i.e. isopower not isotherm.
An example A 10 cm x 10 cm black surface radiating to 7 Kelvin (isotherm) space would take 14.5 Watts of electrical power to maintain a 400 Kelvin temperature. The same surface radiating to 300 Kelvin would take 9.9 Watts of electrical power to maintain a 400 Kelvin temperature. Thus you are correct for an isotherm of 400 Keivin. For an isopower of 14.5 Watts to 300 Kelvin, the extra 4.6 Watts of electrical power MUST raise the temperature of the plate to 428 Kelvin in order to radiate exactly 14.5 Watts to that 300 Kelvin (isotherm) environment.
This is not the SCAM! it is only the change in scam so they do not have to demonstrate “back radiation” that does not exist.
The real SCAM is the Clown “claim” that radiation from the surface to the atmosphere then to space is of any significance, it is not!!! Because of the water vapor (3000 ppmv minimum) the flux from surface to atmosphere then to space is less than 3 Watts/sq meter. In the water tranmission band 8-13 microns some, 25 Watts/sq meter is radiated to space and another 35 Watts/sq meter is radiated to clouds then to space. Atmospheric CO2 has not changed water vapor values, cloud cover values, or radiation from the surface in any measurable way.
If you like, I can explain the low radiative flux from the surface. Please first understand the dificulty of mixed mode heat transfer (conductive, convective, and radiative) and how delta T is very different between the three, especially with a partly radiant absorptive atmosphere.

67. Will see my next post.

68. Arfur Bryant says:

Alan Siddons says:
2013/11/20 at 1:28 PM

Alan,

Arfur

69. Arfur Bryant says:

Will Janoschka says:
2013/11/20 at 2:24 PM

["Arfur,
Why do you think there “is” any thermal radiation from the colder surface,or if such radiation it is absorbed by the higher temperature surface? Is that just because the Climate Clowns claim it happens?"]

Will,

Yes, I admit I have been pondering that idea based on comments by pro-cAGW posters on various blogs over the years – both warmers and luke-warmers. I have therefore decided to try to find out the truth if possible.

It seems to me that this particular subject is probably (to my non-scientist brain) to be the single most important issue in the climate debate. All arguments of *back-radiation and hence climate sensitivity and hence trends and hence thermal lag and hence ocean heat uptake* are born from this one idea that radiation from a cooler body/source can warm a hotter body (which is actually the source for the cooler body!). If I can find out the answer – with suitable references – I will be far more comfortable during a debate. I do alright with logic alone but there is always the ” you don’t understand radiation and how it works…” retort, usually accompanied by sanctimonious ridicule.

If back-radiation cannot add energy to the surface, then the warming by reducing heat loss argument seems specious. I want to know for sure. I consider myself objective and I don’t get deflected by hand-waving side issues.

To me, there are two problems with the ‘theory’ (hypothesis… postulation… assertion?) of CO2 = AGW. One is the theory and the other is the lack of validating or supporting data. Those seem to me to be two pretty hefty problems for the Team!

Regards,

Arfur

70. Well, a REAL greenhouse doesn’t demonstrate the radiative self-forcing/heating postulate, even though it has all the conditions available to be governed by it. It is simple fact vs. faith defended with “sanctimonious ridicule”. It’s their faith…it’s what they believe. Empirical demonstrations and high school physics don’t matter…they simply believe it to be true.

71. Alan Siddons says:

“a REAL greenhouse doesn’t demonstrate radiative self-forcing/heating, even though it has all the conditions available”

On that note, Arfur, take a look at
http://www.principia-scientific.org/ilovemycarbondioxide/pdf/Greenhouse_Effect_Poppycock.pdf

It’s a list of science authorities perpetuating the selective absorption glass-gas myth. (Please ignore the inaccurate postscript. It needs a rewrite.) In addition, this video

shows professor David Archer misleading his students to believe that glass’s special properties induce a radiative forcing effect.

72. Arfur Bryant says:

Alan and Joe,

Thanks both. I agree with you! :)

Regards,

73. Alan Siddons says:

“If I can find out the answer – with suitable references – I will be far more comfortable during a debate.”

Arfur, almost forgot — see my recent discussion here
http://www.principia-scientific.org/latest-news/400-greenhouse-gases-three-impossible-outcomes.html

If you’ve watched Archer’s lecture and have read similar nonsense from Eschenbach , et al, you know that a key proposition is that the absorbing layer (or shell) radiates at the same magnitude as the surface from both sides. The European Space Agency chart, however, shows that this is not the case. And of course it CANNOT be the case or else 1 watt of radiance on such a shell would produce an emission of 1 watt from one side and 1 watt from the other, 2 watts in all.

”You don’t understand radiation and how it works,” they say. But they are bullshit artists of the highest order. Never doubt that.

74. Allen Eltor says:

The Archer hillbilly looks like the Ted Kazinsky Unabomber guy.

75. William Browning Wright says:

WUWT “The 97% consensus myth”
====
November 21, 2013 at 2:27 pm
The bizarre thing about Climate Science is how far it is from it’s roots.

In the early days when I was a boy the atmosphere was a cold dry bath of nitrogen and oxygen.

It was cold because only a little of it absorbed any energy from the sun or the earth,

and what there was of it, dimmed the sun relative to earth by 20%.

The atmosphere made the world cooler overall, by quite a bit by blocking that 20%.

After it reflected that much from ever getting to earth, the atmosphere itself was still cold,

and it was still heat conductive, therefore the atmosphere contributed at night, to cooling through conduction, and through convection, as well as radiatively.

In the day time the same conduction convection and radiation worked,

and the water cycle’s phase change refrigeration cycle,

added to the conduction created by, it’s own convection.

The atmosphere was referred to as a greenhouse, STRICTLY to CHILDREN.

In the day when I was learning physics,

nobody had the nerve to stand up and say they reflected 20% energy from a sphere and made temperatures on target sensors attached to it, rise, using magic insulation.

It’s preposterous outright.

Similarly after that initial amount is reflected away, the atmosphere is still very cold.

And no matter who they were when there were still honest men in the scientific world,
nobody claimed immersion into refrigerated fluid,

removed less heat than illumination in vacuum.
Conduction nor convection are there to aid removal.

Even trying to persuade people that they should think of the atmosphere as ever heating the earth is evidence of some need to invert the science.

And of the 20% light blocked by the atmosphere?

The 20% blocking that light, cooling the globe through reflection of 20% away

is CO2.
And Water.

The ones cooling us by blocking half the infrared, which is about a fifth of the sun’s total
are the ones claimed in the scam to do the ‘warming.’

As you can see: removal of 20% energy in, forbids warming by the atmosphere, by definition.

As you can see subsequent spinning of the globe in a freezing cold heat conductive bath,

that’s not ‘warming. Heat sensors don’t go UP when you heat in vacuum then immerse in refrigerated, low temperature fluid baths, even gas ones.

And as you can see further the very gases blocking that 20% are the ones fingered for ‘heating’.

These three foundational errors spell: scam. Fraud. Falsehood, willfully contrived and maintained,

through systematically lying, and assassinating the character of anyone objecting.

It’s a scam.
It always was,
from the time when they had to invert that the atmosphere is actually a cooling, fluid bath.

You can’t raise a heat sensor output by denying it 20%, energy.
You can’t raise a heat sensor output by spinning immersed in frigid fluid gas baths, at one atmosphere pressure.

You can’t raise a heat sensor output using the energy screen, you blocked 20% E in, with.

You young people have been had.

It took a lot of money and nerve to turn a cooling conductive bath

into a giant heater.

It’s going to take a lot of nerve for you to take science back over with honest men.

76. Greg House says:

Arfur Bryant says: “It seems to me that this particular subject is probably (to my non-scientist brain) to be the single most important issue in the climate debate. All arguments of *back-radiation and hence climate sensitivity and hence trends and hence thermal lag and hence ocean heat uptake* are born from this one idea that radiation from a cooler body/source can warm a hotter body (which is actually the source for the cooler body!). If I can find out the answer – with suitable references – I will be far more comfortable during a debate. I do alright with logic alone but there is always the ” you don’t understand radiation and how it works…” retort, usually accompanied by sanctimonious ridicule.”
===================================================

Arfur, first of all you need to understand that we will never be able to make climate liars admit the truth. Therefore talking to active climate liars on blogs we should keep in mind the silent target audience, who are mostly lay persons who do not know what exactly the IPCC presented as “greenhouse effect”. The first thing you should tell them is that the IPCC “greenhouse effect” is “heating of the source by back radiation” which is in fact self-heating of the source. Many will recall that they have already learned at the high school that self-heating of a body by it’s own heat is absolutely impossible.

Another easy fact you can tell them is that 2 bodies at the same temperature do not heat each other. Even the stupidest person understands that. Then, logically, they would understand that a colder body can heat a warmer body even less, which means not at all, it can only cool a warmer body.

Then there is an issue with reflected radiation. This is very simple, too. You can take as an example a perfect 100% reflector and say that the radiation coming from this reflector back to the source would be at best equal to the sources’ own radiation, so the situation would be equivalent to the one with 2 bodies at the same temperature (that can not warm each other).

This should be enough for any sane person. No formulas, no calculations, no references to experiments, this is important.

77. Arfur Bryant says:

Greg,

["This should be enough for any sane person."]

I agree, of course. And yet these are supposedly intelligent people who – for whatever reason – appear not to want to acknowledge the bleedin’ obvious!

As I said earlier, I get the impression that they are now changing their argument to one of CO2 = insulation. They use a thick coat as an analogy (and how many analogies actually work?) and yet comparing 0.04% of the atmosphere to ‘a thick coat’ is just ridiculous – even if it worked like that!

Thanks for the comment, though.

78. Greg House says:

Arfur Bryant says: “And yet these are supposedly intelligent people who – for whatever reason – appear not to want to acknowledge the bleedin’ obvious!”
===============================================

You can not make liars acknowledge the truth. You can only demonstrate the truth.

79. Greg House says:

Arfur Bryant says: “I get the impression that they are now changing their argument to one of CO2 = insulation. They use a thick coat as an analogy”
===============================================

They have been using this tactic all the time. The solution is to refer to the IPCC’s self-heating fiction again and again. The answer to coat can be like “but this is not the “greenhouse effect” as presented by the IPCC (http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/faq-1-1-figure-1.html)” in the first place. Sometimes it is reasonable to debunk the coat/blanket/cold space comparison though, just to demonstrate how they fool people.

80. Arfur Bryant says:

Greg,

Aah, yes. The K&T 324 W/m2 ‘absorbed by the surface’ trick! So that’s settled then… :)

81. Greg House said: “You can take as an example a perfect 100% reflector and say that the radiation coming from this reflector back to the source would be at best equal to the sources’ own radiation, so the situation would be equivalent to the one with 2 bodies at the same temperature (that can not warm each other).”

Yes, exactly. Logic people. :)

We would build oven stove-top elements with two coils sandwiched together to allow the coils to get hotter with less energy input, if it were otherwise, if it were as the radiative self-forcing postulate claims.

82. Arfur said: “I get the impression that they are now changing their argument”

THAT is precisely how they’ve survived this long. Just watch them argue – they change definitions and underlying assumptions CONSTANTLY, so that you can’t pin them down on any reality or logic. As Greg says go to the official definitions, and as I say go to a REAL greenhouse which should demonstrate the radiative self-forcing postulate, but doesn’t – how can it not be there if it is supposed to be there!!??

83. will wendt says:

I have been researching 2 possible ideas for a paper to explain why global warming can not exist. I got the idea based on a conversation with a long time family friend who is not himself a scientist but interacts with scientific researchers in all different fields regularly. The first idea is the same as the one talked about in this forum being that global warming can not be real based on the 2nd law of thermodynamics. However even after reading this forum I do not understand why not. Why can’t the green house gases act as insulation and keep heat trapped longer. The heat would still eventually be released but would stay in the earth’s atmosphere longer and therefore increase the average temperature of earth. The more green house gases that exist in the atmosphere the more insulation and therefore the higher the average temperature of the earth. It would act similar as a coat worn by a human. The colder jacket is not used to heat us up and obviously the human body is not used to heat it self up. The jacket is just used to keep the heat trapped and increase the average temperature of the system (everything within the jacket).

The 2nd idea is that global warming would fail because of the equilibrium in the production of CO2. As more CO2 was released in the atmosphere this would stress the system and force the decomposition of CO2 into Carbon and Oxygen. This would mean the increase in C02 released into the atmosphere would have to be much more significant than what is stated by most climatologists to raise the temperature of the earth. I guess my only question here is has anyone researched this or think that this is true.

I am not trying disprove anything on this forum just a question to clarify a point I am confused about. Thanks for the help

84. Greg House says:

will wendt says: “The colder jacket is not used to heat us up and obviously the human body is not used to heat it self up. The jacket is just used to keep the heat trapped and increase the average temperature of the system (everything within the jacket).”
==================================================

Will, the “greenhouse effect” as presented by the IPCC in their reports is supposed to do exactly that impossible thing. Using your analogy with human body and a blanket, the body would heat itself up by 33°C or so. Imagine getting burned under the blanket.

The IPCC “greenhouse effect” is self-heating of the Earth surface (by 33°C), the so called “greenhouse gases” serving only as passive reflectors.

85. will wendt says:

I understand that it is not possible for the earth to heat it self up and that according to the definition of the GHE it is not possible, but why is it not possible to act as insulation and simply do a better job at holding in the heat?

86. Greg House says:

will wendt says: “I understand that it is not possible for the earth to heat it self up and that according to the definition of the GHE it is not possible, but why is it not possible to act as insulation…”
=========================================

All possible “holding heat” by CO2 is already included in it’s well known thermal properties. CO2 slightly changes the heat capacity of the air, but the concentration of CO2 is minuscule and the effect would be accordingly like 0.0001-0.001°C.

This is apparently not what the IPCC wanted, so they came up with the absurd impossible “back radiation warming”.

87. Alan Siddons says:

As a matter of historical interest, Greg, back-radiation theory has been around for 140 years or so. Check out “An elementary treatise on heat” by Balfour Stewart.
http://archive.org/stream/elementarytreati00stewrich/elementarytreati00stewrich_djvu.txt
and/or

In section 249 he imagines that a shell suspended around our planet would absorb its radiation and radiate the same to space but also the same back to the Earth. Stewart explicitly recognizes that such a setup transforms one unit of radiance into two, but it doesn’t bother him. Nor has it seemed to bother anyone else since 1871, because now it is a vital part of greenhouse theory.

88. Greg House says:

Alan, I can only repeat that “climate science” should be closed, for at least 70 years.

89. Greg House says:

I mean “climate science” should be shut down.

90. freetheco2 says:

@Greg H

We like-minded chaps (and chapesses) should refer to these delusional leeches as “Climastrologists”.

That is one ‘what I wrote’ over Christmas whilst chuckling merrily at the antics of Turney et al becoming marooned in record Antarctic sea ice, whilst on an expedition to highlight the lack of Antarctic sea ice. I’m glad I don’t have any financial interest in his http://carbonscape.com/ company.

While I’m on, this article on WUWT, but particularly the comments, are worth a read. Some Willis-type produced a Noddy guide to IPCC-style greenhouse warming. Surprisingly, the WUWT Mods have let Slayer-type dissenters comment, apparently without restriction. I can only assume Mr Watts is out of town, and he will have a hissy fit when he sees what is plastering his site.

91. Alan Siddons says:

I thought that Myrrh’s comments were especially intriguing, though I disagree with his moon estimate: Given its lower albedo, the accepted divide-absorption-by-four method projects an average temperature of about minus 2° for the moon, warmer than the Earth estimate. But the heating impact of the sun’s visible light has been questioned by others, too, for instance Timothy Casey, so maybe Myrrh is onto something there. Maybe the significance of Herschel’s discovery has yet to sink in. On the other hand, polished metals absorb almost no solar IR. Being unable to radiate IR in turn, then, up in space they get much hotter than a blackbody would. Yet this heat is seemingly due to the visible solar that they DO absorb. As I say, then, it’s an issue that deserves further investigation.

92. Greg House says:

Alan Siddons says: “On the other hand, polished metals absorb almost no solar IR. Being unable to radiate IR in turn, then, up in space they get much hotter than a blackbody would. Yet this heat is seemingly due to the visible solar that they DO absorb. As I say, then, it’s an issue that deserves further investigation.”
===========================================

Investigation is the right word when dealing with “climate science”. The solar constant was established by the World Meteorological Organization in 1982, as far as I know, which means when the climate hoax was already underway. One version would be that this 1367 W/m² value is already averaged through the whole sphere or hemisphere, that’s way things get in fact hotter than they allegedly should be. I read somewhere that on the Moon surface 160°C was measured, and it was not a metal, this is another indication.

93. Alan Siddons says:

Hmm. 160° C is high indeed. It’d be good if you could trace that figure’s origin, then. At perihelion we get around 1415 W/m² from the sun, which corresponds to 124° on a blackbody. Using the formula W/m² = e sigma T^4, however, where e is emissivity and sigma is 5.67E-8, setting e to 0.71 yields 160° from a 1415 absorption. But if the moon’s average emissivity were 0.71, its average temperature (according to the divide-absorption-by-four method) would be nearly 22°! That’s 7 degrees warmer than the earth is.

94. Greg House says:

Alan, the “divide-absorption-by-four method” is nonsense. I thought you knew the argumentation. The easiest way to demonstrate that is to imagine a flat perpendicular to the Sun rays Earth just switching sides every 12 hours (instead of rotating slowly), calculate the temperature for both sides, then take the average ignoring cooling and compare the result to the on from the “divide-absorption-by-four method”.

95. Greg House says:

Alan Siddons says: “Using the formula W/m² = e sigma T^4, however, where e is emissivity and sigma is 5.67E-8, setting e to 0.71 yields 160° from a 1415 absorption.”
=======================================

In my humble understanding, it is just that the surface in this case emits 1415.

96. Alan Siddons says:

“the ‘divide-absorption-by-four method’ is nonsense.”

Yeah, I believe that too. It’s generally accepted as valid, though, on the basis that a sphere has 4 times the surface area as a disc with the same diameter, ergo, irradiation over a sphere will have 4 times less power than on an equivalent disc. So when in Rome…

My own opinion is that a beam of light arriving from a single direction onto a sphere has an average irradiance that’s determined by pi. Top of atmosphere solar radiation should not be regarded as 342 W/m² (1368 / 4), then, but 435 W/m² (1368 / pi). Even so, an average temperature can’t be derived from an average irradiance, anyway. As you say, if the earth weren’t rotating under the sun, its average temperature would be quite different. That’s why Joe’s approach is a lot more scientifically sound.

“In my humble understanding, it is just that the surface in this case emits 1415.”

But a blackbody that’s absorbing and emitting 1415 W/m² has a temperature of only 124°. Emissivity has to be examined if an object is hotter than that.

97. Greg House says:

Alan Siddons says: “But a blackbody that’s absorbing and emitting 1415 W/m² has a temperature of only 124°. Emissivity has to be examined if an object is hotter than that.”
================================================

My point is that what you calculated was the emission of the surface (assuming 160°C and 0.71 emissivity). If you assume emissivity of a black body, you’ll get 1993. This is why the solar constant as used in the known calculations can be questioned.

98. Greg House says:

Alan Siddons says: “It’s generally accepted as valid, though, on the basis that a sphere has 4 times the surface area as a disc with the same diameter, ergo, irradiation over a sphere will have 4 times less power than on an equivalent disc. So when in Rome…”
==============================================

The equivalent disc sort of goes around and warms equally the other side (rotation!). Which means, that first one side is warmed to the certain temperature (30°C assuming the warmists data is otherwise correct), and then the other side is warmed equally. The average would be the same 30°C, not -18°C.