## Introducing Climate Pseudophysics: A Phun Physics Challenge!

That’s the way my high school physics teacher used to title our weekly physics bonus quizzes – Phun Phriday Physics Challenge!  They were a lot of fun, actually.

## Phun Physics does not support Greenhouse Funny Physics

Let’s set up a classic, high school/undergraduate physics scenario that has power, flux, temperature, heat, all combined in one question:

Q:  An electrical circuit containing a resistor with resistance R, has a voltage V applied to it.  The resistor is cylindrical with radius r and length l with l being much larger than r.  Calculate the temperature of the resistor if it has unit emissivity.

A:  The power utilized by the circuit is P = V2/R.  Assuming this power is dissipated by the resistor and the only means of dissipation is radiant, the surface flux F from the resistor will be F = P/A where A is the surface area of the resistor, A = 2πlr.  (Since l >> r, the ends of the resistor can be ignored for simplicity; otherwise add 2π(r2 – rw2) to A where rw is the radius of the wire going into the resistor).  Therefore F = V2/(2πlrR).  Since the surface of the resistor has unit emissivity, then via the Stefan-Boltzmann equation F = σTR4, we have TR4 = V2/(2σπlrR) for the temperature of the resistor.

Take the fourth root of the right side to get the temperature.

## The Climate Pseudophysics Greenhouse Solution

Note that the above solution doesn’t depend on the greenhouse effect of climate science.  That might be a surprising statement, since, why would it?  However, in climate science greenhouse argumentation the supposition is made that if you have a powered source holding an object’s temperature, and this temperature is higher than the surroundings, then if you raise the temperature of the cooler surroundings the object also has to raise in temperature in order to maintain the heat flow differential so that the object can still emit the same amount of energy supplied to it from the circuit.

Well then how would that work?  If the resistor is in an ambient radiative environment like the Cosmic Microwave Background, say, except at a temperature we can specify and its related flux, then that ambient flux would have to be added in to the previous solution so that the total output from the resistor still has the differential of the original solution relative to its environment.

Therefore, the climate science solution to the above problem would be σTR4 = V2/(2πlrR) + FAmb where FAmb is the ambient radiant flux, FAmb. = σTAmb4.

Simplifying slightly: TR4 = V2/(2σπlrR) + TAmb4 is the climate science solution to the original problem, because you have to factor in its version of greenhouse effect mechanics and heat flow, which is universal.

## Electrical Circuits Function at Room Temperature

Any number of electrical appliances you have on your person all day are designed to operate at room temperature.  I have a Samsung Galaxy S3 running continuously, for example.  How can an electrical appliance be designed to operate at room temperature?  You can go look up on an electrical components supply website for any number of resistors with a specified size, power usage, operating temperature, etc.

So, according to climate science greenhouse physics, how do you get a resistor that operates at room temperature?  If the electrical circuit is “running” and the resistor is at room temperature, and the ambient environment is at room temperature surrounded by walls etc. with unit emissivity, then what is the raw power input to the circuit according to climate science?  Power is P = V2/R so solve for that expression out of the climate science solution: TR4 = P/(2σπlr) + TAmb4, and so P = 2σπlr(TR4 – TAmb4).

So, since the resistor is operating at ambient room temperature, or in other words, if you want to design a resistor to operate at room temperature in room temperature, you design it to utilize zero electrical power, since TR = TAmb and so the power required is P = 0.

Clear as mud?

Let’s try the converse example.  We have a resistor that is pre-designed to operate at room temperature (meaning it will rise to +22C or 295K when the appropriate electrical circuit is engaged) using the original solution.  However, we now have to take into account that it might be used in a room at, you guessed it, room temperature. So, in this case, the actual temperature the resistor will get to is TR4 = V2/(2σπlrR) + TAmb4 = 2TAmb4, so that TR = 351K = 78C.

So climate science says that it is impossible to get a resistor to operate at room temperature, unless you don’t apply any power to the resistor at all, in which case the electrical circuit will still somehow function even though it has zero voltage applied to it, or, unless you’re never in room temperature and always below it.  Why?  Because to make a resistor that operates at room temperature, in an environment at room temperature, you can’t apply any voltage to the circuit at all.  Or, you can only have a resistor operate at room temperature, if the ambient environment is below room temperature.  Climate science says that there is no such thing as a circuit that operates at room temperature, in an ambient environment at room temperature.

Let’s consider this again in a different way.  Say we’ve selected a resistor that will rise to 30C when applied with a given voltage, and so this puts out 478 W/m2.  These are the ratings if the resistor is in a 0K vacuum since climate science says that needs to be specified.  But now we run the circuit inside an igloo so that there’s an ambient radiative environment at, say, -10C.  Well, -10C is 263K and so this makes a radiative environment of 271 W/m2.  So now, using climate science “physics”, the resistor has to reach a temperature equivalent to 478 W/m2 + 271 W/m2 which is 339K or 66C.  So, by placing a warm resistor at 30C inside a cold igloo at -10C, the resistor gets to 66C.

One more scenario would be taking the resistor circuit from the last example, but placing it in an oven with a warmer ambient radiative temperature at, say, 60C, which is 697 W/m2.  Again, using climate science physics, the resistor has to emit 478 W/m2 + 697 W/m2 which is 379K or 106C.  So, by placing a resistor that normally operates at 30C, in an oven at 60C, the resistor will actually get to 106C.

## Actually, Heat only flows from Hot to Cold

So, the correct answer to the problem being discussed is of course only the first answer, that doesn’t use climate science pseudophysics.  Just think about it practically.  If climate pseudophysics were true, such physics would be something we’ve always lived with, that we’ve always had to contend with, to factor in to our equations always, to mathematically account for, to utilize when creating electrical circuits and thermal power systems, etc.  Climate pseudophysics, being physics, would be universal, everywhere, and part and parcel of the basis of physics education.  So, the fact that we never use climate pseudophysics and are never educated on it, and have never heard about it in all these other areas of real physics which climate pseudophysics should also exist and be influencing, by default indicates it is a fraud.

I mean if you’re a physicist you can just look at the math and the solution climate pseudophysics gives for this simple problem and the paradox it creates…you cannot design a resistor or any electrical circuit that dissipates heat to operate at room temperature, in room temperature.  You can only get a circuit to operate at room temperature if it is in a room cooler than room temperature.  Etc.

What really happens when you put a warm resistor in a cooler environment?  Physics gives the answer, not climate pseudophysics: the warmer resistor will transfer heat to the cooler environment and thereby warm it up, and that’s it.  At best, the environment would warm up to the temperature of the resistor.  Thermodynamics is really that simple.

Let us, again, use this example to explore the climate pseudophysics solution to a warmer resistor being in a cooler environment.  First, we saw that climate pseudophysics claims that the resistor has to reach a temperature equal to its own flux output from the power supply of its circuit, plus the flux of the ambient radiative environment.  So just by putting a warmer resistor in a cooler environment, it immediately gets warmer still.

But now what happens?  Now the resistor will heat its environment, since the environment is cooler.  This will warm up, i.e. raise the temperature of, the environment, which means the environment will have a higher ambient flux.  However, now that the environment has a higher ambient flux, then the resistor has to again warm up by the equivalent amount in order to offset the environment so that it can still emit its intrinsic power relative to the new warmer environment.  More briefly, as the resistor heats up something cooler, the resistor heats up by proportion.

That is, something hot becomes hotter still in the process of, and because of, heating something cooler.  This process would never end, by its logic, its physics and its math.  Climate pseudophysics doesn’t just give silly static answers, its answers as such actually indicate that there should be no asymptotic equalizing heat transfer anywhere in the universe, that all heat transfer should cause temperatures to run-away exponentially before “some other process” causes them to stop.

## Really, Heat only flows from Hot to Cold

Going back to a previous example, what happens when you bring a cooler resistor circuit into a warmer ambient environment?  Climate pseudophysics says that the cooler resistor circuit has to jump to a temperature equivalent to the circuit’s own flux output, plus the flux from the warmer ambient environment, in order to maintain the differential to its environment so that it can still emit its power.  So, a cool object brought into a warmer environment becomes much warmer than the warmer environment.

What really happens?  Obviously, the warmer environment will simply warm up the cooler resistor, and that’s it.  At best, the resistor would warm up to the ambient environment temperature.  Thermodynamics really is that simple.

Let us follow the “logic” of climate pseudophysics a little further in this example.  A cool resistor circuit is brought into a warmer environment, and then it jumps up in temperature to be hotter than the warm environment.  So now, the resistor is warm, and the environment is cool.  And this always has to happen.  With the resistor now warmer and the environment cooler, the resistor will then heat up the environment and raise its temperature.  And this leads back once again to the mutual-self-heating of the previous example: as warm heats cool, warm becomes warmer by proportion because it heated cool. This is Climate Pseudophysics 101, but you won’t find it in any physics textbook in the world.

## Heat and Energy not the Same

Climate pseudophysics lays its foundation in not distinguishing between heat and energy.  Climate pseudophysics claims that cold must heat hot just as equally as hot heats cold, because “you can’t prevent the energy going from cool to hot”.  Well actually, thermodynamics does prevent just this, because thermodynamics is about distinguishing heat and energy.  Heat and energy have the same units, Joules, but they’re not quite the same thing.

Heat flow is what causes temperature to change.  Heat flow can only occur if there is a temperature differential.  Heat flow occurs only in the direction from higher temperature to lower temperature.

Let’s just look at the (simplified) equation for radiant heat flow:

Q = σ(Th4 – Tc4) = σTh4 – σTc4

where Q is the heat flow, and Th & Tc are the hot and cool temperatures.  Look at the individual terms for that equation: σTh4 is the full energy emitted by the warmer body; σTc4 is the full energy emitted by the cooler body.  These full energy outputs oppose each other with only the stronger one having some energy “left over after the battle” to continue on as heat flow to the cooler object.  If the energy from the hot body is “2″ and the energy from the cool body is “1″, then there’s only “1″ left over to flow as heat (Q) from hot to cool.  There is no heat that flows from cool to hot, at all.  There is energy flowing from cool to hot, because the cool side balances the equation, but this energy is not heat because heat, which can cause temperature to change, is only the balance of the energy that’s left over, flowing from hot to cool.

Climate pseudophysics and the pseudoscientists who try to promote it refuse to distinguish, let alone learn, the thermodynamic definitions and concepts of heat, energy, and heat flow and how these differentiate from each other.  It is a gold-mine for semantic sophistry, and a grave-yard for common-sense and basic physics.

## Backradiation Pseudophysics

It is very easy to use thermodynamics and physics to demonstrate that the postulate of radiative self-forcing (climate pseudophysics’ alternative version of the greenhouse effect) is incorrect, violating the definition of heat flow.  It is trivial, and always has been for anyone paying attention, right from the beginning.

Let us simply use the heat flow equation!

Q = σTh4 – σTc4

So, the hot body is the body with a powered source, the resistor circuit say, that we’ve been discussing.  There is no ambient cool environment, except, some process that sends the thermal radiant emission from the hot body, back to the hot body, back to itself.  A mirror say.  What happens?  Climate pseudophysics says that the hot body heats itself up because of this radiation.  What does the actual equation for heat flow say?

The second “cool” σTc4 term in the heat flow equation then becomes representative of the backradiation, in units of flux (W/m2).   Well, what is the flux of the backradiation?  The backradiation, by definition, from the source, at best has a flux equal to its source, which is the first-term of the equation, σTh4.  What is the flux of the backradiation?  At best, it is as strong as…itself.  At best, the backradiation is the radiation from the source.

What does that do for heat flow?  It makes Q = 0.  And with no heat flow then the source, powered or not, can not increase in temperature. Thermodynamics always says that heat only flows from hot to cool, but it never actually states that heat doesn’t flow into itself – it hasn’t needed to say that explicitly, because it follows on from the previous statement by default.  The climate pseudoscientists have taken a semantic cheap advantage of this.

Actually, thermodynamics does state it generally, the climate pseudophysicists simply ignore it:  Heat flow can only occur if there is a temperature differential.

By definition, there is no temperature differential between an object and itself, therefore an object can not heat itself.  It doesn’t matter whether the object is “powered” or not.  There is no differential between a surface and its own radiation, hence no heat flow, hence no heating, hence no “backradiation greenhouse”.  Of course, the “backradiation greenhouse” is not how a real greenhouse operates, even though it should.  See the last post for more detail.  This alternative version of the “greenhouse effect” invented by climate pseudophysics isn’t even found where it should be found, and there is no other empirical demonstration that has ever shown it.

## Photons don’t Conserve like Matter

If you had a high-pressure gas line and sealed the output end into a cavity, the cavity will expand and blow up.  If you shine a light into a cavity, it does nothing.

Matter, such as gas molecules, push against each other, push each other around, force each other to “find a way out”, etc.  All that stuff.  Fermions.  Photons don’t do this.  Photons pass through each other without noticing, other than some possible constructive and destructive interference.  Bosons.  Interference doesn’t change the temperature spectrum and energy quantity of the photons.

So what happens to the photons that might constitute “backradiation” (which is a useless pseudoscientific phrase of climate pseudophysics) bouncing around inside a cavity that would set up such a situation, that we easily(!) explained and solved with the heat flow equation?

Well they do what bosons…do.  Pass through each other without caring.  Bounce off the heated surface without transferring themselves back into it as heat…because they can’t, because they don’t have the energy, because their energy is the energy of their source, and so they have a zero flux differential to their source.

In practise there is no such thing as a perfect 100% reflective mirror.  Some of the energy does get absorbed in and by the mirror.  So 100% flux can never come back to the source anyway, and so the heat flow will always be outward (and at best could be zero).  What happens in the purely unrealistic situation where there was 100% backradiation?  What happens to the energy?  Easy, it does exactly what is specified by the heat flow equation and what it does when backradiation is not 100%: the output energy is used to balance the radiation field inside the cavity.  That is what the energy is doing.  Just like the portion of energy from the hotter object which is equal to the cooler object is used to balance the cooler object, which leaves a balance to flow as heat.  And remember, only the balance is heat flow.  Except in this case there would be no balance left over, and there is certainly no balance left over to flow back inside as heat.  The low absorptivity of the mirror also comes with a low emissivity as per Kirchhoff’s Law, and finally the mirror will conduct energy to whatever is on the other side of it, or it will radiate the energy if there is nothing on the other side of it.

I hope to see the word pseudophysics added to the lexicon.  Its origin will be climate “science” and its alternative, fraudulent versions of the greenhouse effect and thermodynamics and heat flow.

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

### 212 Responses to Introducing Climate Pseudophysics: A Phun Physics Challenge!

1. AS says:

Joe,

Great explanation (again). Unassailable. I only mention that the mouth breathers will glaze over at the density of ‘sums’ early on in the article (yes, I know, they are final year school/1st year Uni sums). Your words alone, especially as the article progresses, are more than sufficient to club the baby pseudo physicists. Maybe just put a link to “sums here” and let your words win.

The line of argument, with a resistor always having to take a flying f*%k at a rolling doughnut according to its postcode, begs a question: if we are receiving all this ‘free’ heat from a cold sky, why are the governments and energy companies not lowering our bills, instead of always raising them?

This is a win. Patience required …

2. Thanks @AS :)

3. Just felt like copying this comment of mine from a PSI article over to here:

Dan V said: “This is hilarious! After the microwave oven, now radio communications are believed to be based on black body radiation/absorption of electromagnetic energy. To GHE believers, everything around us that involves electromagnetic waves works based on the SB law.”

Yes I really don’t need to respond to every single post anymore, as a single simple observation such as this demonstrates the silliness of their…what amounts to trolling…in all the comments. They KNOW they’re saying silly things. I tried it out on another blog to see what it is like, and the fact is that you have to be that silly on purpose because knowing better is the only way you can sophize so well. You can’t be that stupid and uninformed about science and be so good at spinning sophist statements that appear to use the language “so well”. Real scientists can easily spot their spin obviously. They pretend everything is operating on purely thermal principles (such as microwaves and radio towers…LOL, NOT) just because it is convenient sophistry, and as demonstrated and then re-demonstrated, they can’t do basic math or at least pretend not to. They have nothing, but silly things to say. And they can’t demonstrate it empirically…and the reason for that is because it is pseudoscience.

Anyway I have another post up that puts them out of their misery. I am sure it will be carried by PSI too but for now it is only here:

http://climateofsophistry.com/2013/11/20/introducing-climate-pseudophysics-a-phun-physics-challenge/

It’s nice to win. I’ve gotta thank all these sophist opponents for their service to me and how they helped the debunk of the greenhouse effect, of the fraud of climate alarm and most of climate science, and for how they helped expose the fraud of the current state of academic science. Surely, much more is to be done on that last front – getting this greenhouse fraud figured out, bullet proof, and crystal clear is only the beginning for the revolution to make academic science rational again.

4. bwdave says:

Joe,

In the Phun Physics example, the flux is a known function of the energy loss of from a surface of a resistor; which should equal the easily measured energy supplied to the resistor. In this case, with the resistor’s flux being held constant, why shouldn’t the resistor temperature depend on the temperature of the surroundings or ambient temperature, TA? This would make F = σ(TR4 – TA4), so TR4 = (V2/(σπlrR) + σTA4), or TR = (V2/(σπlrR) + σTA4)1/4.

5. Well yah bwdave, that’s exactly the equation I discussed. The reason it is wrong it is because it is illogical: it doesn’t follow the laws of thermodynamics and heat flow, it leads to a paradox, and it mechanics is mathematically divergent. And it isn’t found in physics…only climate pseudophysics. Climate pseudophysics contains the error, not the rest of real physics.

The flux from the resistor is σTR4; from the ambient environment is σTA4; the heat flow is just the balance of flux/energy between these. The resistor emits all the energy it is supposed to, σTR4. That’s all of it. Some of that energy “cancels” with the ambient energy. The balance is the heat flow. All the energy gets emitted, only some of it transfers as heat.

6. Will Janoschka says:

Joe, I must disagree with AS.
This is not Thermodynamics, not even Thermostatics, it is only Thermononsense!
Your assumption is that the only heat transfer is via thermal radiation. This would be true “only” if this planet had “no” atmosphere. At that point there would be no resistors and no electricity.
This is the same nonsense as the Climate Clowns claim of surface temperature of 255 Kelvin. There is no way of calculating the surface temperature of any Solar planet!
On this planet thermal radiation “only” becomes dominant at the effective radiating temperature of the atmosphere at whatever altitude is required, and is a completely dependent variable.
Your house is nearly its own isotherm, with tnhe wind and furnace maintaning such. In your house all cooling is done via conductive and convective heat transfer, including wind, furnace, oven, stove top, refigerator,and metabolism of food. Get off of the radiative kick, and nail the Climate Clowns for the provable lies, like “back radiation”. You seem to be attacking only the modifications to the lies, that make them really non chargeable in court, as they are now only political rhetoric. They published fraud, a criminal offense, as governments took action upon such fraud,. This is not “haha” fooled you.
Joe, There is a difference in what I write in the early afternoon, and the late writing after 8 beers,
when my thinking is more clear, but I loose the ability to express such cklear thinking. Oy vey!
Kitten likes me as long as I have food! “nm//89″ short comment from kitten, no reboot as she is hungry!

7. Will since the climate science greenhouse effect is (pretended to be) a radiative phenomenon, then radiative thermal behaviour is what is important. What this post does is expose the underlying climate science pseudophysics of the entire fraud…of its very founding radiative self-forcing postulate.

8. Max™ says:

For some reason I got engaged in a discussion on gamefaqs over this, was trying to explain why averaging power and acting like it is physically sensible is absurd.

They keep mixing power and energy in their responses, I’m not sure if I’ve gotten across that “Joules” and “Joules per second per square meter” are not the same thing.

A bit too early to try and introduce math I think. T.T

9. Will Janoschka says:

Joseph E Postma says: 2013/11/20 at 9:58 PM
“Will since the climate science greenhouse effect is (pretended to be) a radiative phenomenon, then radiative thermal behaviour is what is important. What this post does is expose the underlying climate science pseudophysics of the entire fraud…of its very founding radiative self-forcing postulate.”
OK Joe, your article accepts a Clown radiative phenomenon, when that phenomenon, is not.
Then you argue about what is not! The Clowns will ridicule you!
I will not, you remind me of what I did in 1969 (30 years old). If I can help in what I have learned since then (mostly learning how very little I know of what is.) I am willing butsitll even more opinuated . At 30 I did know (according to me) much much more than I do now. It has been unlearning and wondering ever since.

10. bwdave says:

Sorry, my attempt to create subscripts and superscripts failed.

11. If they can’t distinguish Joules and J/s/m^2, then my goodness have fun with energy (Joules) vs. heat (Joules)! Maybe I’m wrong about people doing it on purpose…maybe some are just that stupid.

12. joeldshore says:

What does that do for heat flow? It makes Q = 0. And with no heat flow then the source, powered or not, can not increase in temperature.

So, Joe, what you have shown (correctly) is that if the temperature of the resistor is the same as the temperature of the surroundings, there will be no heat flow. However, you have also argued (correctly) that the resistor is dissipating P = I^2*R of electrical power (i.e., turning electrical energy into thermal energy at this rate).

So, you’ve got a resistor producing thermal energy and not transferring any of it to it’s surroundings. What do you think is going to happen over time?

A) The resistor is going to remain at the temperature of its surroundings.

B) The temperature of the resistor is going to increase.

13. The resistor provides its own environment with its backradiation, since this is the radiant greenhouse argument (even though it isn’t how a real greenhouse operates even though it should). A “mirror” reflects back 100% of the radiation. What happens is what happens in a real greenhouse or any other experiment designed to test for backradiation: the source doesn’t heat itself.

Joel, why doesn’t a real greenhouse demonstrate the radiant self-forcing greenhouse effect, when it has all the conditions necessary to show it? All it shows is heating from sunshine, and then trapping the warmed air, and no additional heating from trapped radiation. A real greenhouse doesn’t function via the radiant-version of the greenhouse of climate pseudoscience. So, that’s kind of it.

You just agreed there would be no heat flow provided by backradiation. You have your answer. Backradiation doesn’t cause heating. Thank you.

Look at Q = σTh4 – σTc4. The cooler object is emitting all of its energy: σTc4. This is counteracted by the same portion of energy out of σTh4, leaving Q = σTh4 – σTc4 to flow as heat.

Now what about when the cool term is represented by 100% backradiation? Look at the individual terms: σTh4 is all of the energy being emitted, all of the energy gets out. It is cancelled by all of the energy returning at the same value: Q = σTh4 – σTh4 = 0. All of the energy is accounted for. All of it. The two terms account for all of it. There’s just no more heat transfer.

I’ve heard from Curt Wilson, who’s trying his best to make a filament get brighter by trapping all of its radiant emission. He can’t do it. The best he can do is see a slight increase in the resistance of the circuit because the wires and socket get a little warmer…this slightly reduces the current. IF one were to convert this to a filament temperature change, his measurements would equate to a mere 10K on top of 3300K – a mere 0.3% increase. And of course that’s not even happening anyway – it is just the wires and socket inside his enclosure slowly warming up. He should be able to measure a massive change in the filament temperature and brightness, but can’t.

Look at the Wood’s Box style experiments. These would be the fait accompli for demonstrating the radiant self-forcing postulate of the climate science version of the greenhouse effect. NO ONE has been able to produce it. Real greenhouses don’t even produce it and they’re supposed to produce it.

14. Joseph E Postma says: 2013/11/20 at 9:58 PM
“Will since the climate science greenhouse effect is (pretended to be) a radiative phenomenon, then radiative thermal behaviour is what is important.
Joe, I have more thoughts on this. Not only a radiative phenomenon but radiation from the surface only to CO2 absorbers at three narrow bands. Will the Clowns run all “their” models
with all surface claimed flux in those three bands reduced to 1% of their claimed flux. CO2 ppmv and everything else remain the same. I have only reduced the flux that the CO2 “could” receive. Have the outputs from each model changed in any way? Atmospheric profile, surface temperature anywhere? No ? How can they say that CO2 levels do anything with radiation from the surface when now there is none? They must come up with a new claim of how CO2 do dat.
I see that Joel Shore has infected your site! Do nothing, say nothing!

15. joeldshore says:

Look at the individual terms: σTh4 is all of the energy being emitted, all of the energy gets out. It is cancelled by all of the energy returning at the same value: Q = σTh4 – σTh4 = 0. All of the energy is accounted for. All of it.

It’s hard to know what to say this logic, Joe. Good luck finding ANY physicist in the world who will agree with you. You’ve created a magical energy sink!

[JP: Well, you're still going on ignoring the empirical fact that the radiative self-forcing postulate has never been demonstrated, even in the very place where it is supposed to most be demonstrated, and where it comes from, a real physical greenhouse. Q = σTh4 – σTc4 accounts for ALL of the energies. All of them. And it tells you which part if any is left over to flow as heat. It's correct, because the empirical fact that there has never been a demonstration of the alternative radiative self-forcing postulate says it is so. If there were an (valid, not lied about) empirical demonstration for the postulate of radiative self-forcing, then any scientist would have to reconsider. Alas, that has never come up. Q = σTh4 – σTc4 is NOT a "magical energy sink" Joel, it is the fundamental definition of heat flow! Be nicer to it! It accounts for all of the energies involved and tells you what is left over to flow as heat, if any. What you want to believe in on the other hand can be called a "light bomb" - trap photons in a cavity and it will go exponential in heating and finally blow up once the cavity can't contain all those photons any more. Of course, again, not that that has ever been demonstrated, or follows the radiant heat flow equation... This is exactly what is done to create laboratory blackbody spectra - trap photons in a cavity; what it does is create a blackbody spectra for fundamental quantum mechanical reasons. There's no runaway self-heating in the cavity. Neither empiricism nor theory support the radiative self-forcing postulate. If there were some empirical demonstration, and it was valid etc., then a scientist would have reason to reconsider. An empirical demonstration does not exist. A theoretical solution is paradoxical and mathematically divergent. Those are the facts.]

16. Richard111 says:

Hmm… to find the surface area of the resistor I would have used A = L x pi x diameter. The area of the unused ends would be 2 x pi x r_squared.

17. Richard…yes circumference needs diameter of course, will make the change thanks. For the ends I assume the wire is not part of the radiative solution so I subtract out their cross-section.

18. Arfur Bryant says:

Joe,

Thanks very much for this post.

19. Richard111 says:

Thanks Joe. Will update my copy I use for off line study. A layman’s view of the discussion above; a radiating SURFACE will have an increasing temperature below as you penetrate deeper. Thus an incoming photon MUST have enough energy to raise the vibrational energy of the absorbing molecule ABOVE the vibrational energy of the surrounding molecules such that the energy can be shared with those molecules. This is the heating/storing function.
If a surface molecule absorbs a photon of the same energy level it has just emitted — then no change in total energy, nothing is stored so no temperature/energy change.
It is perfectly clear that only shorter wavelength/higher energy photons can be absorbed by any radiating surface appropriate to its current surface temperature. Below that surface the temperature is higher.

20. James says:

Please excuse this question if it’s irrelevant to ‘the cause’, but are the host, Joseph, or like minded contributors familiar with Harry Dale Huffman’s work on the GHE? I’ve been away from this topic for a few years, but Huffman’s grasp of the pressure, density and gravity effects of the planet – atmosphere situation seem to transcend the assumed ‘radiative’ effects from the Victorian era.

Also Joe, since you do not have a visible email contact, I just wanted to ask if you were ever planning to go mainstream with your efforts to help lay people understand the issue, or stay within scientific circles?

21. Arfur Bryant says:

Richard111,

["A layman’s view of the discussion above; a radiating SURFACE will have an increasing temperature below as you penetrate deeper. Thus an incoming photon MUST have enough energy to raise the vibrational energy of the absorbing molecule ABOVE the vibrational energy of the surrounding molecules such that the energy can be shared with those molecules. This is the heating/storing function."]

This is exactly what I was referring to in my ‘discussion’ on the Blackboard. Do you have any reference text which basically states this? Thanks.

22. Richard111 says:

Arfur, I did a search on molecular vibration and found this:

http://www.rusticgirls.com/online-physics-help/molecular_vibration.htm

Good luck.

23. Arfur Bryant says:

Thanks Richard111,

I started to get excited at the web address, but then realised it was about physics! (Er… not that physics is boring, you understand!). :)

24. Arfur Bryant says:

Richard111,

The clearest (to my untrained mind) text I have found so far is this:

["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."]

From

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/mod5.html

(Absorption and Emission)

It is not 100% what I need but it certainly suggests that energy from a cooler source cannot warm the hotter source,

Still looking…

25. Greg House says:

Arfur Bryant says: “The clearest (to my untrained mind) text I have found so far is this: ["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."]”
===================================================

Arfur, my humble guess is that nobody have seen either photon or his energy or elevation rom the lower to the upper state. All this is a theory to explain the obvious. I do not understand why you are looking for complicated, to the most people not understandable theoretical explanations. The other side will come with other more complicated theoretical explanations so that nobody understands anything in the end. What are you going to win this way?

26. Allen Eltor says:

It isn’t ‘transparent’ in a classical sense, the light bounces off. It doesn’t go through. If it did, then the light emitted out of the back of a rock would be the same frequency as that light rejected.

Light goes in one color.

it comes out the back another color: one assigned by the atomic arrangement of electron lattice through the solid- not the frequency assignment it
(the light)
impinged, with.

It isn’t friction that distributes energy. It’s proximity of electrons as they all pass each other quite closely. This proximity of spin distribution peels charge off the inner, highER energy electrons, routing it throughout the lattice, with each electron handing off to another passing nearby, some of what it has, until all the light in the matrix is one average color.

That color’s what comes out Rudolph the Red Nosed Anvil’s nose, although blue, green, yellow, and orange light entered the sides. It will be redder than what entered

The layman’s description Richard III did is correct to the letter.

27. Neutrino says:

Hello Joseph,

In your post you said:
“the warmer resistor will transfer heat to the cooler environment and thereby warm it up, and that’s it. At best, the environment would warm up to the temperature of the resistor.”

From the above it seems you are saying that when there are multiple objects in a system the highest temperature that any part of the system can attain is that of the highest object.
Does this correctly describe your position?

[JP: I would say the statement defines itself. The highest temperature is that of the highest object. Cooler temperature's wont increase the temperature of the hottest object.]

28. Allen Eltor says:

I put this up and it said ‘in moderation’ when I got back an hour later it still said so. I know sometimes things get lost so I copy/pasted it again. If it comes up twice sorry.

“Allen Eltor says:
Your comment is awaiting moderation.
2013/11/23 at 4:21 PM
It isn’t ‘transparent’ in a classical sense, the light bounces off. It doesn’t go through. If it did, then the light emitted out of the back of a rock would be the same frequency as that light rejected.

Light goes in one color.

it comes out the back another color: one assigned by the atomic arrangement of electron lattice through the solid- not the frequency assignment it
(the light)
impinged, with.

It isn’t friction that distributes energy. It’s proximity of electrons as they all pass each other quite closely. This proximity of spin distribution peels charge off the inner, highER energy electrons, routing it throughout the lattice, with each electron handing off to another passing nearby, some of what it has, until all the light in the matrix is one average color.

That color’s what comes out Rudolph the Red Nosed Anvil’s nose, although blue, green, yellow, and orange light entered the sides. It will be redder than what entered

The layman’s description Richard III did is correct to the letter.”

=====
I cleared browser settings and typed in my email with { – ] instead of a line,

{ _ } my bad.

29. Allen Eltor says:

I put this up and it said ‘in moderation’ when I got back an hour later it still said so. I know sometimes things get lost so I copy/pasted it again. If it comes up twice sorry.

“Allen Eltor says:
Your comment is awaiting moderation.
2013/11/23 at 4:21 PM
It isn’t ‘transparent’ in a classical sense, the light bounces off. It doesn’t go through. If it did, then the light emitted out of the back of a rock would be the same frequency as that light rejected.

Light goes in one color.

it comes out the back another color: one assigned by the atomic arrangement of electron lattice through the solid- not the frequency assignment it
(the light)
impinged, with.

It isn’t friction that distributes energy. It’s proximity of electrons as they all pass each other quite closely. This proximity of spin distribution peels charge off the inner, highER energy electrons, routing it throughout the lattice, with each electron handing off to another passing nearby, some of what it has, until all the light in the matrix is one average color.

That color’s what comes out Rudolph the Red Nosed Anvil’s nose, although blue, green, yellow, and orange light entered the sides. It will be redder than what entered

The layman’s description Richard III did is correct to the letter.”

=====
I cleared browser settings and typed my email wrong. That’s what it was.

30. Richard111 says:

:-) Allen Eltor, seems like you had a bad day at the keyboard. :-)
You make another good point. When a molecule absorbs energy, an electron can move to a higher orbit. When that molecule loses energy the electron returns to a lower orbit and emits an appropriate energy level photon. I understand this also occurs deep inside the crystal structure of solids. It seems there is a lot of ‘space’ between the nucleus of an atom and its surrounding electron cloud and adjacent atoms. So plenty of room for low energy photons to be ‘reflected’.
I read a lot of ‘stuff’ on the net but rarely make a record. I’m simply educating myself. I make comments that I hope might help other laymen.

31. Arfur Bryant says:

Richard111, Alan and Greg,

Alan, thanks for your comment. I intuitively agree that Richard111′s is correct. I can also accept that ‘transparent’ in the hyperphysics text didn’t really mean ‘transparent’. But in answer to Greg’s question “What are you going to win this way?”, all I can say is that I am not trying to win anything; I am just trying to get it clear in my own mind.

The CO2 = cAGW debate is supposed to be about science. Although I don’t expect the science to be 100% ‘settled’, I would expect that the basic theory could be falsified (or even verified, if that is possible) with basic laws which should be in agreement.

So how can there be totally different interpretations about something as basic as ‘the absorption of radiative energy being either added to the receiving body for energy gain, or not’?

I’m quite happy to debate with folk who think differently on the grounds of philosophy or logic. But in order to debate from the point of science, I was just looking for some hard (referenced) facts on which to base my argument. Maybe Greg is right – nobody knows!

Thanks for all your comments, though.

32. Will Janoschka says:

Greg House says: t 12:51 PM Arfur Bryant says: Lots of opinion of radiative heat transfer but little of demonstrated thermodynamics. Greg, Arfur, Why do either of you accept the Climate Clown Claim that objects with a temperature radiate Photons in every direction with the same energy like *bullets? This conjecture leads to the conjecture of “back radiation”. Electromagnetic radiation does not do that. EMR strictly obeys vector arithmetic. Thermal EMR also obeys all of the laws of thermodynamics
The Clown conjectures are not provably: false. How do you falsify what is not.
Instead they are discarded, because just like Unicorns, as they have no demonstratible existance. a fantisy but never physical., I would more accept a horse with a spral horn epoxied to its forhead, for further consideration, rather than anything the Climate Clown Claim.]’

][[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[

33. Arfur Bryant says:

Will,

I (and I’m sure Greg) do not accept their claims. That’s the point. Not accepting a claim (theirs) which is based on an unproven assertion is easy. However, finding a proper reference which absolutely countermands the assertion is proving rather more difficult. I’m not just asking to find a reference that ‘fairies don’t exist’. I’m asking to find the reference that leads them to believe, a priori, that fairies DO exist!

34. Richard111 says:

Arfur Bryant @: 2013/11/23 at 12:40 PM

I missed this yesterday. Nice link. Thank you.

35. Neutrino says:

First post appears to be lost in moderation so I’ll try again.
You appear to be claiming that only an object with a higher temperature can cause a temperature increase.
“the warmer resistor will transfer heat to the cooler environment and thereby warm it up, and that’s it. At best, the environment would warm up to the temperature of the resistor.”

To illustrate here is a simplified scenario with some numbers to help visualize.
The object will be a cube 1m on a side dissipating 1800W, it’s just a very large resistor. Assume the cube is isothermal and has unit emissivity for simplicity and only using SB equation to calculate the equilibrium temperature.

Scenario A: one cube.
Total surface area of 6m^2 dissipating1800W gives a flux of 300W/m^2. In isolation this cube will attain a temperature of -3.5C.
But what happens when you bring two such cubes into contact?

Scenario B: two cubes joined forming a box.
Total surface area is now 10m^2 dissipating a total of 3600W gives a flux of 360W/m^2. In isolation this box will rise to a temperature of 9.1C.

Doesn’t this seem to contradict your assertion that the system would only warm up to the temperature of its highest component? Both cubes are at the exact same temperature yet when placed in contact with each other they collectively raise in temperature by 12.6C.

[JP: The surface area of the boxes has been reduced. If you take just one box and "stop" one side from emitting, then it emits from only 5 sides or 5 m^2, and you get the same answer. Changing the surface area of components should indeed have an effect. You're taking away the surface area of the sides of the boxes that will be joined to form one new box.]

36. Greg House says:

Will Janoschka says: “Greg House says: t 12:51 PM Arfur Bryant says: Lots of opinion of radiative heat transfer but little of demonstrated thermodynamics. Greg, Arfur, Why do either of you accept the Climate Clown Claim that objects with a temperature radiate Photons in every direction with the same energy like *bullets? This conjecture leads to the conjecture of “back radiation”. ”
==================================================

Will, I have never referred to photons as acting like bullets or any other sort of matter.

As for back radiation, my approach is simple and I hope logical as well. The key issue is if “back radiation” warms the source. It is obvious to everyone that if back radiation does not exists, then it does not warm the source. The other purely logical option is that back radiation does exists. I find it very easy to demonstrate that back radiation if it exists can not warm the source. This is sufficient. On the other hand, I have not seen yet an easy demonstration of non-existence of back radiation.

The result at the moment looks like that: back radiation either does not exists at all or it exists but still can not warm the source. Since, like I said, the second option is easy to demonstrate, we do not need a complicated for the most people not understandable demonstration of the first one. I’d like to keep it simple for the target audience.

37. “If a surface molecule absorbs a photon of the same energy level it has just emitted — then no change in total energy, nothing is stored so no temperature/energy change.
It is perfectly clear that only shorter wavelength/higher energy photons can be absorbed by any radiating surface appropriate to its current surface temperature.”

Yes that is basically the idea! That’s physics. Two waves interacting don’t make a wave of higher frequency, but higher frequency is required for higher temperature. Fairly simple.

(BTW All I’ve been away for a few days…that’s why comments get stuck in moderation sometimes…it happens when you use an email address that hasn’t been moderated approved before.)

38. @James 2013/11/22 at 6:05 PM

Yes I know of Huffman and his analysis is the same as is found with parts of mine.

This blog was the beginning of the attempt to brink it more to the public, for lay-people, etc. I’ve actually been avoiding the mainstream scientific circle for now, until the right time comes, which I am building towards.

39. DVW says:

I am not a physicist and don’t understand most of the details of this blog; still it intrigues me; am I right to see similarities with these blog pages:

http://klimaatgek.nl/wordpress/noor-van-andel/ (most of it in Dutch, unfortunately)
and in English:
http://climategate.nl/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/CO2_and_climate_v7.pdf

40. Allen Eltor says:

If you’d like to vanish a couple of those posts I tripled on Joseph great with me, I had my email written wrong.

41. I do agree with the conclusion of the paper, DVW:

Climate changes are only marginally caused by greenhouse gases. The main heat transfer process is
convection, strongly increasing with sea surface temperature. Climate changes are caused by
changing sea currents, and in the long run by Galactic Cosmic Radiation variations.

42. squid2112 says:

I’m curious. If a colder thing can make a warming thing warmer still, why are my outside lights the same temperature (and color) as my indoor lights, when it is well below freezing outside? Shouldn’t my indoor lights be burning hotter and brighter than my outdoor lights?

43. Great example Squid.

44. Will Janoschka says:

Joseph E Postma says: 2013/11/24 at 4:14 PM “I do agree with the conclusion of the paper”.

Me to! He died two months after writing that work. Thermo he did know. Copy from evertwhere:
Dr. Afscheid van Noor van Andel is virtually the only person that understood the theory of Miskolczi, and made it accessible to others, but with his own additions which developed into an independent view on climate formation. Yet climate for him just a fascination, to which he graciously brought his knowledge. His enormous energy he spent the last twenty years, especially in energy-saving innovations.

Farewell to a great engineer

Noor van Andel was a brilliant inventor, a passionate naturalist, an amiable and helpful man, but above all a true engineer. All his inventiveness and intelligence were in the service of the realization of working products, empirically proven correct theories.

As research director of AKZO Nobel, he was in charge of five labs on two continents, and shuttled between up and down, but was never behind his desk to find. Preferably he walked through the lab to see all the researchers and their experiments with his own eyes, and to assist in their work. He developed a vast practical knowledge, but also a strong intuition for what works and what does not, and what is true and what is not.

His passion for technology, he never lost: In recent years he worked with his son Eur also a physical engineer, with great enthusiasm and idealism to the development of an ideal energy converter for natural gas: a combination of ceramic fuel cells with a small turbine. This combination puts about 80% of the energy in the natural gas into electricity, and is by far the most efficient fossil energy converter. But the high residual heat can still be utilized. .

What a true loss! Joe, if you ever wondered why the stratosphere is at a higher temperature than the tropopause, try to understand the papers of Miskolczi.
I do not understand, but I do get the hint. The molecules there are in orbit -will-

45. Greg House says:

Neutrino says: “Doesn’t this seem to contradict your assertion that the system would only warm up to the temperature of its highest component? Both cubes are at the exact same temperature yet when placed in contact with each other they collectively raise in temperature by 12.6C.”
=======================================================

Neutrino, your false tricky calculation does indeed contradict the observation everyone has made a lot of times in their everyday life, namely that things at the same temperature do not warm each other, neither way.

You simply can not put powers and fluxes together “creating” a higher temperature. I suggest you simply give us the scientific explanation why you think think this step in your presentation is correct.

46. Will Janoschka says:

Arfur Bryant says: 2013/11/24 at 12:40 AM
“So how can there be totally different interpretations about something as basic as ‘the absorption of radiative energy being either added to the receiving body for energy gain, or not’?”
Arfur, and Greg.:
Your question is based on brainwashing from Climate Clowns. They have convinced you that thermal radiative energy in the direction to a higher temperature absorber “is”. Sorry it “is not”.
There has never, never been any demonstration of such.
Different interpretations:
Scientific— I do not know. I am willing to share what I thinkl.
Political—– Gimmy.
Greg, proving what “is not”, is quite difficult with no example of the claim of “it is”.
Showing that “back radiation” is unlikely, is easy to those that understand both electromagnetic radiation and vector arithmetic.` Your audience are idiots that elect the most idiotic of their members. Teaching those that refuse to learn is more difficult than proving what “is not”,
What a wonderful planet! Earthlings not so much! -will-

47. James says:

Great to hear Joseph, of your general intentions to ‘brink’ as you say towards the general public on the GHE issue.

Just one point I personally find important to clarify of mine – when I referred to the ‘mainstream’ I meant the lay public not the consensus / punch the time clock scientists. I think you and other shall we say independent thinking scientists are rightly dismayed at the general lack of intellectual rigour and curiosity that many ‘kept’ scientists have. They will only ever follow you when first the public leads, then the vote sensitive politicians dictate to their cadre of flunky scientists the new paradigm. I have seen many well meaning scientists burn out on this issue hoping in vain to convince their cohorts to see the light.

AGW was always a political issue geared towards a future manufactured austerity, and a new feudalism in general. The clear thinking people have to lead on this issue, and they are to be found in all walks of life. That’s why I have looked at a common conceptual language to ‘deconstruct’ the GHE / AGW mystique where both scientists and lay people can see the reasoning. I brought up some of it either in this thread or a previous one.

48. James says: 2013/11/24 at 8:36 PM
“AGW was always a political issue geared towards a future manufactured austerity, and a new feudalism in general. The clear thinking people have to lead on this issue, and they are to be found in all walks of life. That’s why I have looked at a common conceptual language to ’ the GHE / AGW mystique where both scientists and lay people can see the reasoning. I brought up some of it either in this thread or a previous one.”

Interesting post, and an important point! Can you explain a method of how to ‘deconstruct a Fantesy or Fairy Tale/tail. AGW is a concept only! How` do you ‘deconstruct’ what has never been construced? Children enjoy a Fairytale., Parents mostly ignore such, but entertain themselve and theb children with this nonsense. Concepts are fine as “Concepts”.
How to ‘deconstruct’ nonsense??? -will-

49. Richard111 says:

Neutrino @: 2013/11/24 at 10:14 AM

I think you are missing a lot of the physics for your ‘cube problem’.
Using the ‘specific heat’ for the substance of your cube you can calculate the total energy of the cube for a finite equilibrium (starting point) temperature. You can calculate the emission flux for THE FIRST SECOND ONLY! The total energy in the cube has now dropped slightly and flux for the next second will also be down slightly. Now you need to know the temperature gradient from the centre of the cube to the surface, the lapse rate through the cube substance, this effects the RATE of energy flow to the surface of the cube. This will effect the total cooling time.

There are a lot of variables in your example. Is the cube in a vacuum? If not, you must also include conduction/convection losses to the atmosphere surrounding the cube. I think this will all need a bit of calculus but since I left school over sixty years ago I can’t help you any further.

The idea of doubling the volume AND increasing the surface area is interesting.

I worked out that there is 6kg of CO2 in a one square metre column of the atmosphere (400ppmv). If this was compressed to a solid it would take up a volume of 1 square metre 6 millimetres thick. That is just 2 square metres and a bit of radiating surface. Now split it into six 1mm slices! That gives us 12 square metres of cooling surface! I made it that 1mm is roughly 50,000 CO2 atoms thick. So we split that into 12 times 50,000 = 600,000 square metres of cooling surface for our 6kg of CO2! Wheee! That will cool FAST! But wait. We now stretch each plate such that the space between each CO2 molecule can be occupied by a few hundred other air molecules and now we have what is effectively an infinite size radiating area for our CO2.

Somebody claimed that CO2 in the atmosphere traps heat!? :-)

50. Arfur Bryant says:

Will,

["Your question is based on brainwashing from Climate Clowns. They have convinced you that thermal radiative energy in the direction to a higher temperature absorber “is”. Sorry it “is not”."]

I can promise you that they have not brainwashed me, as my recent ‘debate’ on the blackboard will show. I was trying to convince them that ‘cooler’ radiative energy is not absorbed by the warmer body.

My question was borne out of genuine puzzlement as, however silly or counter-intuitive it may seem to you and I, there are a great number of people on other blogs and even university physics departments who genuinely seem to believe the opposite to you (and I)! What I am seeking is a conclusive written statement – ideally in a text book – that such a thing cannot happen. That’s all.

I am beginning to think that there is no such text, which means Greg House’s comment here…

Greg House says:
2013/11/23 at 12:51 PM

…is probably true!

51. “AGW was always a political issue geared towards a future manufactured austerity, and a new feudalism in general.”

Precisely.

52. Greg House says:

Arfur Bryant says: “What I am seeking is a conclusive written statement – ideally in a text book – that such a thing cannot happen. That’s all.”
===============================================

Arfur, If a stated e.g. that elephants can fly, do you think you would be able to find a conclusive written statement – ideally in a text book – that such a thing cannot happen?

53. James says:

Will – here’s a start in answering your questions.

It took a long time for people to even ‘de-construct’ AGW as having the GHE as it’s kernel, it’s engine. The specialists were driving the debate to help guilt the skeptics that the public relations firms had not already convinced. The over arching reality (fantasy) was that human pollution in the form of carbon emissions = inevitable or even possible species ending, over-heating of our planet.

Fiction becomes reality with strong emotion and St. Algore had an emotive movie to do just that. Even rational or logical people are often truly emotional, and then convince themselves of a ‘fact’ after they emotionally decided which way to ‘believe’ in.

So today we have the fictional ‘truths’ of Carbon Footprints, and Greenhouse Gases, both concepts brought to us through a decade plus of media controlled marketing. So technically if there is no GHE then there are no GHG’s just the atmosphere, and likewise there is just the carbon cycle of which humans play almost no role at all.

Will – I deconstruct by getting back to basics. If even a tiny element of the basics are incorrect then all the advanced techniques, jargon, and mental hand waving do nothing to correct the situation. The GHE is seriously incorrect from many demonstrable proofs, and this is a key point since the politicos believe the fairy tale that CO2 affects the fictional GHE, of which the AGW is it’s theoretical bastard child.

54. Yes wonderful breakdown, exactly. That is what any rational analysis of any problem does, is follow it back to its fundamentals. I saw there was a problem with hiding the fact of the lag of CO2 to temperature, and the false implication that it was otherwise. That indicated a problem. You have to ask, why do they have that problem, in not distinguishing correlation from causation? Looked around. Found lots of more problems. Went back to basics to figure WHAT was correct in the first place, to at least find some grounding in the science, and then build back up from there to figure out what they’re doing right. Turns out the basics aren’t correct either. That explains why they hid correlation from causation, explains the rest of all the bad science, explains everything about what they’re pretending to do as science.

We have an opportunity here to demonstrate the current shortcomings of academic science, echoing the work of Thomas S. Kuhn, and institute a new paradigm shift – not just a paradigm shift in a theory vs. another theory, but a paradigm shift in the conscious understanding of what constitutes science at all, and how we recognize it, to establish the very boundary conditions of science.

Climate science is the SIMULATION of doing science – it uses the words of science but not the theory or the wisdom. And the fact that so few scientists are shouting about this, that climate alarm is supported by many universities, shows that most practising scientists are not capable of distinguishing between the mere language of science vs. the actual method and wisdom of science. This is the most important thing in science history.

This is a huge lesson to be learned and if academic science don’t learn it, then TRUE science will no longer exist at all – the simulacrum will soon replace the original, entirely. In a future like that, Brawdno has electrolytes and that’s all you need to know, and you’re an idiot if you don’t know what plants need (ha…they need CO2, not “electrolytes”!).

55. All of this can be simplified: Climate science (and alarm) is based on a postulate which has no empirical demonstration. We’ve discussed the theoretical objections to their maximum at this point. The fact remains that there is NO demonstration of their radiant self-forcing postulate. Forget theory, and their arguments by analogy. All of their arguments by analogy don’t change the empirical fact of their fraud.

The simulacrum is the radiative self-forcing postulate that forms the basis of climate science in its *version* of the “greenhouse effect”, a postulate which should be found to exist in a real greenhouse and other experiments designed to test for it, but which cannot be and has never been empirically confirmed and has fundamental thermodynamic theoretical objections in the first place.

Climate science (and alarm) is a simulacrum of science based on a SINGLE postulate. Forget all of the analogies. Forget everything else it pretends to do. The basis is a SINGLE postulate: radiative self-forcing. A postulate which SHOULD be found in a real greenhouse, and any other place with the set up to demonstrate it, but can’t be found those places or anywhere else.

56. It is magical wishful thinking of those who seek to make themselves and others suffer, depending on your “class”:

“AGW was always a political issue geared towards a future manufactured austerity, and a new feudalism in general.”

Some of the plebes like to make themselves and others suffer. Some of the “rich” definitely want to manufacture austerity and a new feudalism, and keep energy away from the poor. Between those book-ends are real humans who care for ACTUAL scientific and technological development to higher states of a more refined and developed future society.

The “powers that be” KNOW climate science is a simulacrum…that’s how stupid they think the people are and to a large extent, they were correct. Today, I am not sure that anyone but paid-internet-trolls and academic scientists actually believe in it any more. But the powers that be are still trying for it…they must really want it. We still have people with big blogs and websites etc. pretending to be skeptics while doing their damnedest to STOP anyone from actually doing the rationally skeptical thing and examine the basics.

57. James says:

Yes Joseph, I see that you took responsibility for your thoughts! It’s so much easier that way when you know where your views come from. I think it might have been Curt, or some one else as a ‘luke warmer’ who referred to the “well established” GHE theory. An old tool in a garden shed that someone forgot about also has ‘well-established’ crud on it but that doesn’t make the crud a pearl.

Figuratively speaking we need more detectives, Columbos and other conceptual figures on this case. Too many people are taking things at face value. Context, history and the big picture need to be taught to those for whom it does not come naturally.

The more weak the underpinnings of a field of thought are, the less likely they are to be examined. Because ‘the mind repels’ at the very idea of it. There are other examples of this in our society today, and we as a species prefer the horse blinders approach. At some point a defender of the faith will say, “If that were true then that means the whole system is corrupt!”. And they can’t handle that possibility. They are followers, but we are trained to be that way, it’s not necessarily dyed in the wool ;-)

~

This concept doesn’t belong on this thread but I unload it anyway – warming oceans, if they indeed are, would most effectively be warmed from the Earth magma, and the thousands of underwater volcanoes, not a theoretically warming atmosphere. Do we boil water with hair dryers? We have the alarmists pointing to CO2 escaping from the oceans and blaming us.

58. Yah I forget the source now but just the other day I was reading about gigantic magma convection cells in the mantle going up to the crust, which modulate the heat transfer from the core to the oceans and surface, and also that these magma cells are affected by magnetic fields from the Sun etc.

59. Arfur Bryant says:

Greg House says:
2013/11/25 at 9:31 AM
["Arfur Bryant says: “What I am seeking is a conclusive written statement – ideally in a text book – that such a thing cannot happen. That’s all.”
===============================================

Arfur, If a stated e.g. that elephants can fly, do you think you would be able to find a conclusive written statement – ideally in a text book – that such a thing cannot happen?"]

***

Greg, please, this is not necessary. I am trying to build a scientific repost – with some sort of referenced proof – that will be effective in a scientific debate. I am well aware that I cannot prove that ‘fairies don’t exist’ and so it is disingenuous for the (luke)warmist/groupthink/dogma brigade on the blackboard and elsewhere to suggest that fairies do exist.

However, this is not a debate about fairies existing, or whether elephants can fly. In answer to your question: No, I would not find such a statement. But then there aren’t literally hundreds of supposedly reputable scientists stating that elephants CAN fly. However, there are literally hundreds of scientists who seem to be comfortable – and some highly vocally so – that backradiation can cause warming of the surface.

So, to me, this should be a simple case of science being able to sort this out. That it seemingly cannot is an indictment against science itself – that it has allowed politics to infiltrate its hallowed walls.

James says:

["If even a tiny element of the basics are incorrect then all the advanced techniques, jargon, and mental hand waving do nothing to correct the situation."]

And I agree 100% with him. So all I want to do is find something that can show even the most diehard warmist that the basic theory is wrong. Is that such a hopeless quest?

And Joe says:

["We still have people with big blogs and websites etc. pretending to be skeptics while doing their damnedest to STOP anyone from actually doing the rationally skeptical thing and examine the basics.']

And that is precisely what I am trying to do. Examine the basics. Intuitively, I agree with you and will and Joe and James and Richard111 and Allan Eltor. But me just stating in a debate (or a shouting match) “No, you’re just wrong.” is just dragging myself down to their level (because that is exactly what they say to me). I am not satisfied with that. So I will continue to try to examine the basics.

And I appreciate all the helpful comments I am receiving here…

60. Arfur Bryant says:

Sorry, my first line, last word should be riposte, not repost! Doh…

61. Neutrino says:

Joseph,

From my example above you seem to accept that a change in geometry of a system can lead change in temperature as well.
You replied: ”Changing the surface area of components should indeed have an effect.”

Yet from your other response you are implying that the temperature can never rise above the highest current temperature.
Again you replied: ”. The highest temperature is that of the highest object.”

The question I am trying to ask is whether you agree that given the scenario above would the temperature increase? You appear to accept the scenario as valid but then go on to reiterate that temperature cannot increase above what is already there.
Those two statements would be incompatible.

If the temperature of the combined object did not increase then where does the power that is not being radiated go?
The above box at a temperature of -3.5C is radiating 3000W, but it is continually being supplied 3600W.

What is happening to the 600W difference?
To me it looks like a description of an object whose temperature is increasing.

62. Neutrino says:

Hello Greg,

The calculation is in no way tricky. The explanation and validity for the calculation it is the same one that is presented in the beginning of this blog post.
”A: … Assuming this power is dissipated by the resistor and the only means of dissipation is radiant, the surface flux F from the resistor will be F = P/A where A is the surface area of the resistor, A = 2πlr. … Since the surface of the resistor has unit emissivity, then via the Stefan-Boltzmann equation F = σTR4, we have TR4 = V2/(2σπlrR) for the temperature of the resistor.
Take the fourth root of the right side to get the temperature.”

The cubes are not materially different form how Joseph presented the resistor. They are simply an object with an internal power source that is only dissipated trough radiation.

The SB law describes the relationship between temperature of a surface and emitted flux. Dissipating a constant power through a reduced surface area will necessarily result in a temperature increase.

63. Arfur Bryant says:

James says:

["At some point a defender of the faith will say, “If that were true then that means the whole system is corrupt!”."]

James, your posts are excellent. On the above quote (and I know the parallel has been drawn many times before), the relevance of ‘little boy in the crowd’ in The Emperor’s New Clothes has never before been so apt.

64. You’re changing the fundamental physical parameters of the system. It is simply increasing the power and reducing the surface area. You needn’t put it in terms of two boxes. In the first case you have two separated boxes at the same temperature which don’t heat each other. In the second case you have a single box with twice the power output but not twice the area. The boxes aren’t heating each other up. The power source is emitting its energy to the outside over a smaller surface area. Reducing surface area is not the greenhouse effect, or radiative self-forcing, or cold heating hot or like heating like. Clever attempt. But it is not the greenhouse effect/radiative self-forcing, etc. It could maybe be called “heat trapping” but it is not the kind of heat trapping as sometimes argued for the radiative self-forcing postulate.

65. Neutrino says:

Richard111,

It is a simplified model to look at the basic concept. Assumptions that were made were that it is in isolation (i.e. no convection), it is isothermal and it has unit emissivity.

As well as those it is only a calculation of equilibrium temperature, the specific heat of the material would only affect the length of time it takes to warm up or cool down.

66. Greg House says:

Neutrino says: “Hello Greg,
The calculation is in no way tricky. The explanation and validity for the calculation it is the same one that is presented in the beginning of this blog post.”
=================================================

Neutrino, for the record: I said that your calculation was false and you could not add powers and fluxes the way you did, and then I asked you to explain for what scientific reason you did that. You failed to answer that. Apparently you were well aware of your presentation being false and tricky. This renders you presentation an attempt to fool people.

As for your false and tricky calculation allegedly being analogous to what Joe presented in his article above, I can not judge that because I skipped that part of his article (:oops: sorry, Joe!), as I usually do when I think that the general public/target audience will not read or understand such parts anyway.

67. Greg House says:

Arfur Bryant says: “Greg, please, this is not necessary. I am trying to build a scientific repost – with some sort of referenced proof – that will be effective in a scientific debate.”
======================================================

Arfur, it is necessary, let me explain to you why.

First of all, there has been no scientific debate on “cold does not warm hot” or “things do not warm themselves by their own heat” (“greenhouse effect”). There has been a debate, right, on many blogs, but it is not a scientific one. The scientific part is so absolutely obvious to everyone that there is no need to debate it. What is going on is that one side has been trying to obfuscate the obvious truth, distract from what that alleged IPCC “greenhouse effect” is as presented in their reports, and re-direct the public to debating secondary and unimportant issues.

Now, you can probably find a high school or junior high school textbook where they state the obvious. But warmists will counter that with their textbooks implicitly stating the opposite.

The problem of your approach is that you are in fact looking for a possibility to argue from authority and implicitly suggest that that were necessary, otherwise a presentation would not be scientific. So, what I mean is that you can not win by appealing to authority, you will definitely loose this way, and secondly, it is not necessary at all when explaining the obvious, like in case of flying elephants. We should appeal to the common sense of common readers, not to authorities, especially in cases so obvious that there has been no need for a scientific authority to deal with that.

68. Kristian says:

Arfur,

I applaud your efforts in trying to ‘reason’ with the pseudoscientists. But I kind of agree with other posters here. You probably won’t find a single statement anywhere in any physical (or other kind of scientific) textbook to the effect of ‘back radiation cannot heat the surface of the Earth’. Simply because ‘back radiation heating’ is a concept made up by the radGHE crowd in the first place. It isn’t discussed anywhere in any proper physics texts or studies. Because there is no such thing.

What you could find is a string of statements, physical laws, priciples and concepts that if sensibly put and read together will give you the basis for a sound, reasoned scientific argument showing that the pseudoscientists are in fact detached from reality. The concept of ‘heat’ as opposed to ‘energy’ would clearly be a reasonable starting point.

Good luck!

69. Arfur Bryant says: 20133/11/25 at 6:25 AM
Will,["Your question is based on brainwashing from Climate Clowns. They have convinced you that thermal radiative energy in the direction to a higher temperature absorber “is”. Sorry it “is not”."]

70. James says:

Joseph – that was some pretty lucid and eloquent writing at lunch time, it should be in an article sometime.

Arthur said: “So all I want to do is find something that can show even the most diehard warmist that the basic theory is wrong. Is that such a hopeless quest?”

Arthur, I assume you are debating some scientists. As Joseph said in this thread, there are many ways to examine the AGW argument, and at each fact check stop – there’s either a grey area or a metaphysical leap of faith. I will continue to apologize for my vagueness since among other reasons I have been away from this issue for a couple of years. The 33 degrees Celsius of warming, that is the derived ‘effect’ is it not? That is at least how they used to explain it to the public on wiki or through the University websites. That’s a lot of power / heat / energy every second of the day, no matter how you slice it. The proponents of this ‘observable’ effect pretty much used to admit that somehow there was an over-unity situation going on. They felt they had it nailed down by counting the heat twice or thrice – that is I believe why they rely on ‘back radiation’. I keyed on this aspect as ONE of the easily explainable defects of the GHE.

According to reputable experts in thermodynamics you cannot count heat twice, even if it explains an un-accounted for 33 degC. So for me this was like saying that if someone left a room full of 10 people then re-entered the room, there are now 11.

The highly publicized explanation of the GHE says that the returning heat adds to the original imparted heat from the Sun. They forget to subtract the heat or temperature when it leaves the surface. Whether the heat leaves the surface, or a person leaves the room the concept is the same. BUT I could be wrong I guess?

Question for all: If there was a glass sphere encircling the Earth, what would the effect be then?

71. James says:

Robert Felix, a retired architect has since devoted his life to researching Ice Ages. He is of the view that the oceans have been warming (lava not CO2) for quite a while now. Solar and cosmic rays do seem to cause all kinds of havoc within the Earth. Comet Ison is now approaching the Sun which apparently has two South poles at the moment,,,

http://iceagenow.info/2013/11/sun-south-poles/

72. Greg House says:

James says: “…So for me this was like saying that if someone left a room full of 10 people then re-entered the room, there are now 11.
The highly publicized explanation of the GHE says that the returning heat adds to the original imparted heat from the Sun. They forget to subtract the heat or temperature when it leaves the surface. Whether the heat leaves the surface, or a person leaves the room the concept is the same. BUT I could be wrong I guess?
====================================================

I guess you could. Maybe it would be better to avoid creating analogies. Of course, the heat leaving the surface, or better the radiation leaving the surface can heat, for example colder things. The point is that it can not, if reflected back, heat the source further, because even if 100% were reflected, it would be only equivalent to radiation created by another “surface” at the same temperature, and equally warm things do not warm each other, as we all know from our everyday life.

73. James says:

Greg: I appreciate the tip to avoid using analogies, except that they work with lay people, and hopefully scientists some day as well. Everyone that I have related the above analogy to gets the concept instantly. Why argue with success?

If an avid warmist who ‘believes’ in over-unity back radiation / GHE understands that a returning person cannot increase the number of original people in a room, maybe just maybe they can start to appreciate that the ‘leaving’ heat could never increase the original imparted heat if that heat ‘returns’.

You could have a lot of fun getting a believer to explain how the two situations are different.

The better a situation is understood by a teacher, the more directly and more effectively it can be related to the student.

74. Greg House says:

James says: “Why argue with success? If an avid warmist who ‘believes’ in over-unity back radiation / GHE understands that a returning person cannot increase the number of original people in a room, maybe just maybe they can start to appreciate that the ‘leaving’ heat could never increase the original imparted heat if that heat ‘returns’.
You could have a lot of fun getting a believer to explain how the two situations are different.”
======================================================

I do not see success potential in your example, that’s why I argue. The two situations are different. In your example the number of people in the room decreases first, but the temperature of a radiating body does not necessarily, e.g. if the body stays at a constant temperature, or even is in the process of heating. The body gives something up (as radiation), but it’s temperature is not decreasing, so warmists say like “if we returned what the body is losing, it’s temperature would increase”, and they have their examples about spending money, bank accounts etc.

75. Greg House says:

James says: “Everyone that I have related the above analogy to gets the concept instantly.”
===========================================

Well, warmists use their analogies with blankets etc. and people get the concept instantly. Except that their concept is false. Of course, there is a substantial difference, whether false analogies are used to promote truth or lie, but a skilled warmist debater would debunk your good false analogy still keeping his bad false one.

76. Sorry of that, Kitten has learned where the send button is, I still have to look.
She is now outside in the cold, looking for attractive guy cats.

Arfur Bryant says: 2013/11/25 at 6:25 AM
Will,["Your question is based on brainwashing from Climate Clowns. They have convinced you that thermal radiative energy in the direction to a higher temperature absorber “is”. Sorry it “is not”."]
Arfur, I was only pointing out that you do accept the Warmist conjecture that “back radiationj” can exist, and thus may be possible. I did not mean to imply that you are a warmis. It is obvious that you are not, as you have questions and ask for assistance. Any Watmist would not do that as they religiously “believe”. You seem to wishh to educate Warmists, that have no desire to learn as they already know. Tell me ‘bought teaching ability after you get the damned horse to drink! Horses are much more intelligent than earthlings. If you find folk that ask questions about the nonsense of AGW, neighbors or folk down at the local bar, I may be able to help with sound demonstrable engineering. Farmers, mechanics, and welders reall love that stuff.
Thought problems are for academic assholes. All are flocking to climate change as that is where the money is.
I have no knowledge, only strong opinion, I do try to learn! -will-

77. James says:

Greg: The GHE is an incomplete theoretical explanation of a 33 degC ‘fudge factor’ derived from poor science. It makes sense to debunk the fictional GHE using it’s own logic. You don’t win an argument spoken in French by explaining it to them in English. In their scenario, does the Earth get cooler when heat leaves the surface? Get them to explain this, it will be tough.

I believe the better and more elegant explanation of temperature has to do with pressure and atmospheric density. This is why it is colder the further above the ground you go – less density of atoms etc.

The GHE doesn’t deserve to be talked about except that it has political clout and staying power with kept scientists as cannon fodder. You have to battle them on their terms before they start to see any sense. But if you are succeeding so far then good for you.

78. Greg House says:

James says: “The GHE is an incomplete theoretical explanation of a 33 degC ‘fudge factor’ derived from poor science. It makes sense to debunk the fictional GHE using it’s own logic.”
==============================================

Well, like I said, you certainly can not do that by using false analogies, for the simple reason that they are not stupid.

79. James says:

Either a person accepts the double counting and over-unity of energy in vs. out, or you account for it. I account for it by showing where they only count it coming in and ignore it leaving. I’m showing in their model where they goofed.

In that vein I don’t think it is a false analogy at all. It should drive the point home in all but the most dense adherents to warmist theology. An analogy gets them thinking, and that’s always a good thing. But if they listen to your explanation then excellent work Greg.

80. Greg House says:

James says: “Either a person accepts the double counting and over-unity of energy in vs. out, or you account for it. I account for it by showing where they only count it coming in and ignore it leaving. I’m showing in their model where they goofed.”
===============================================

No, you did not count energy units at all in your explanation, you only counted people in the room and then claimed it was analogous to what happens with temperature. Maybe you should keep looking for analogies that are really analogous.

81. James says:

Greg, your nose is so close to the screen you may be missing the proverbial bigger picture. As you have said, those warmists are really smart, and when you change the term from heat to radiate it becomes correct etc. You seem to agree with much of their theory.

But what is really happening, physics -wise? Atoms are vibrating and moving above the planet surface, analogous to people moving. There are only so many atoms in the atmosphere etc. I disagree with your previous assertion that energy is not conserved, and that as energy is lost from the surface the temperature does not change.

You can’t have it both ways, either you double count with the warmists or recognize that energy in equals energy out. Mass is energy fundamentally, people entering a room equal people leaving it. So you don’t like my analogy – get a grip, I was talking to Arfur I believe until you pooped all over me. Good night to you anyway.

82. Greg House says:

James says: “So you don’t like my analogy – get a grip, I was talking to Arfur I believe until you pooped all over me.”
=================================================

You were talking in fact to everyone who reads this thread, offering them invalid argumentation.

83. Greg House says: 2013/11/25 at 9:08 PM
No, you did not count energy units at all in your explanation, you only counted people in the room and then claimed it was analogous to what happens with temperature. Maybe you should keep looking for analogies that are really analogous.
James says: 2013/11/25 at 8:47 PM
In that vein I don’t think it is a false analogy at all. It should drive the point home in all but the most dense adherents to warmist theology. An analogy gets them thinking, and that’s always a good thing. But if they listen to your explanation then excellent work Greg.

What a nice dialog of two folk that honestly disagree, but are still willing to listen to the other guy. Nice, we need much more of that. Yes I am, guilty of misjudgment as I am so opinionated.
To counter the AGW Climate Clown is way different. This is religous. The only way to counter
such is to “demand” evedence of their conjecture, complete with many many folk with pitchforks and torches. Unfortunatly in the US most would prefer to watch that on TV. rather than “demanding We are now a nation of wimps. Either of you,please show a method of getting wimps to have some balls?

84. Max™ says:

Just to add, the link/discussion above about radiation and matter being transparent if there are no available energy levels, this image from that link works best to illustrate the reasons, I think: http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/imgmod/radnion.gif

That touches on a pet peeve of mine, that people assume matter constantly emits at full power according to the SB law.

1. Each thermal photon which leaves the surface reduces the rate at which the molecule emitting it was vibrating. Molecules do not constantly vibrate at the same rate and constantly emit photons in all directions with no pause between emission events.

2. A cooling interaction between warm surface molecules in a solid and the cooler layer(s) of gas or liquid above it also involves molecular vibrations from the solid striking molecules from the fluid above it, exciting them while reducing the rate at which the solid molecule vibrates. Evaporation and convection are the terms for this process.

3. Evaporative, convective, and radiative cooling processes all have the effect of reducing the vibration in the molecules making up a solid. If a material is emitting radiation at full power as dictated by the SB law then it can not also transfer that same energy through evaporative or convective cooling. The SB law is only fully valid in a situation where evaporative and convective cooling are prevented, such as a body with unity emissivity in a vacuum.

___________

Similarly, gas molecules at terrestrial pressures undergo collisions with nearby molecules at a far greater rate than they emit photons.

This is all rather conveniently ignored when discussions of a GHE take place, drives me nuts.

85. Max™ says: 2013/11/25 at 10:56 PM
“This is all rather conveniently ignored when discussions of a GHE take place, drives me nuts”
Max, thank you for your coments, always something to consider. You seem to be much into stastical mechanics. Please remember that stastical mechanics. is still a theory! A quite useful theory but one of its major tenents, the equipartition theorm has been falsified. It falls apatr at both very cold temperatures and at very high temperatures. As far of molecules wiggiling at high rates. Why not “they appear to wiggle because of the high very noisy electromagnetic field”, produced by temperature that surrounds them, that can and must make them appear to wiggle. Thermodynamics is not a theoretical science, it is a emperical science, Built in is all the statistics that you ever need. It is not what may be, it is only what has been measured. Your statistical mechanics is ignored because has has no place in weather, climate change, AGW or the fictious GHE -will-

86. Kristian says:

James says, 2013/11/25 at 7:21 PM:

“Greg: I appreciate the tip to avoid using analogies, except that they work with lay people, and hopefully scientists some day as well. Everyone that I have related the above analogy to gets the concept instantly. Why argue with success?

If an avid warmist who ‘believes’ in over-unity back radiation / GHE understands that a returning person cannot increase the number of original people in a room, maybe just maybe they can start to appreciate that the ‘leaving’ heat could never increase the original imparted heat if that heat ‘returns’.

You could have a lot of fun getting a believer to explain how the two situations are different.

The better a situation is understood by a teacher, the more directly and more effectively it can be related to the student.”

The problem, James, is that yours is not a correct analogy. The ‘heating by back radiation’ concept is not similar to a static room full of people. It is similar to a room where people are constantly entering through the back door and leaving through the front door. And they start out doing so at equal rates. So, in this setup, if some of the people leaving through the front door then start returning to the room they came from, the room will fill up with people. That’s the concept. It is still absurd and physically impossible, but in theory it seems to work. It seems logical to laypersons. And that is (among several other factors) why this concept is so hard to kill. People buy it. Because it sounds plausible. Superficially.

87. Max™ says:

I’m not working from a statistical mechanics background, and equipartition isn’t broadly falsified, it just has a limited realm wherein accurate predictions can be made: above the scales where quantum effects dominate, and below the effects where relativistic effects dominate.

If you modify it to be probabilistic instead of statistical, the theory remains valid.

Note that a theory doesn’t mean a guess, there is no such thing as “just a theory”, a theory is a working explanation of a given phenomenon or class of phenomena which has yet to be falsified, and has produced successfully tested and confirmed predictions.

I’m working from a simple enough description of the physics involved, a single molecule can transfer energy to another molecule in a variety of ways.

Any given molecule can only lose a given amount of energy, and if–as postulated by the GHE folks–all molecules are always losing energy through thermal emission of photons, there is none available for other mechanisms.

These processes happen on very short timescales, true, but they do not happen continuously, which is actually part of what causes statistical mechanics and classical mechanics to break down at quantum scales, as both assume a continuum for certain properties like energy levels available for transitions.

When folks like Trenberth et al present an energy budget with values for upward surface emissions as ~390 W/m^2, with convective and evaporative losses tallying another ~97 W/m^2, they’re saying that the surface has more energy to lose while immersed in an atmosphere (~487 W/m^2) than it would be able to lose if exposed to a vacuum (~390 W/m^2) even if it were an actual black body.

Properly done, you subtract the ~330 W/m^2 downward emissions so the surface is only losing ~60 W/m^2 through radiation.

That doesn’t allow for the argument that back radiation adds energy to the surface, though, so it gets overlooked or argued around in an attempt to sidestep the problem.

88. Kristian says:

Max™ says, 2013/11/25 at 10:56 PM:

The claimed central mechanism for enhanced surface warming amongst the AGW dogmatists is a raising of the Earth’s ‘effective radiating level’ (ERL), that is, the mean altitude from where the Earth system appears to radiate its absorbed energy back to space. This postulation of this altitude is based solely on two things: 1) the Earth’s (‘measured’) average BB emission flux to space, and 2) the assumption that this flux somehow directly translates into a specific and physical ‘surface’ temperature as per the Stefan-Boltzmann law. This assumption rests upon the idea that everything with a temperature (and by that I mean EVERYTHING) must and does emit a radiative flux directly and only corresponding to its own physical temperature (well, and emissivity).

So, they say, there is a specific altitude in the atmosphere where the temperature is such that it corresponds, via the S-B equation, to Earth’s mean global emission flux to space. This is the layer that holds a temperature of 255K and it lies around 5 kilometers up from the surface … on average. Out from this layer (as if it were a solid surface) and unimpeded to space there apparently flows a flux globally of 239 W/m^2. And since this layer is situated slightly above 5 kilometers above the ground and the evened out global adiabatic lapse rate is about -6.5K/km, then the GHE is (5 x 6.5 =) ~33K. Lift the ERL and you warm the surface. For the ERL must always be at 255K, as long as the solar input and the lapse rate remain constant.

That’s it.

Well, I had an argument about this nonsensical idea with the commenter calling himself ‘Nullius in Verba’ a few months ago at Roy Spencer’s site.

I said that there is no natural law stating that a volume (or layer) of gas would emit directly to its surroundings in direct accordance to its physical temperature in line with the S-B law. S-B does not apply.

‘Of course it applies!’ he said. ‘It applies to all things with a temperature!’ That, after all, is what the whole idea of warming by raised ERL is based upon.

The problem with this, though, is that the hypothesis at the same time proudly proclaims that only radiatively active gases (‘GHGs’) can allow IR-radiation to be emitted to space from the atmosphere. A volume of gas containing only N2 and/or O2 couldn’t. They can hardly absorb IR, nor can they emit it at ‘normal’ temperatures.

So how can they be so sure that a specific gaseous layer in our atmosphere, containing 99% N2 and O2, by itself is able to perfectly emit to space, by the S-B law, the full needed and observed flux to space simply because it happens to have an average physical temperature of 255K?

The Earth system simply has to rid itself, over a certain period of time, of the same amount of energy as it absorbs from the Sun during that same period (lag included) to remain in dynamic equilibrium. This energy is released to space all the way from surface to ToA. Constantly. It does not relate to a single flux allegedly set by the temperature of a specific layer in the convective troposphere. Why, the mean global tropopause temperature is ~210K, but still a mean flux of 239 W/m^2 goes out through it (observe: ‘through’, not ‘from’!). That’s where it goes out, not at the postulated ERL. The ERL is friggin’ closer to the heated ground than to the convection top!

89. Arfur Bryant says:

Greg House:
["We should appeal to the common sense of common readers, not to authorities, especially in cases so obvious that there has been no need for a scientific authority to deal with that."]

Greg,

I agree 100%. Thank you for your comment and clarification. I would just point out that I was not appealing to authority (something I have always complained about the other side doing…), just appealing to the application of science. However, i do take your point. Thanks

90. Arfur Bryant says:

Kristian says:
2013/11/25 at 6:09 PM

["What you could find is a string of statements, physical laws, priciples and concepts that if sensibly put and read together will give you the basis for a sound, reasoned scientific argument showing that the pseudoscientists are in fact detached from reality. The concept of ‘heat’ as opposed to ‘energy’ would clearly be a reasonable starting point."]

Kristian,

Thanks for your comment. I believed (probably mistakenly) that I had found such a basis for a sound, reasoned argument. Unfortunately I had underestimate the sheer strength of the dogma with which my antagonists on the blackboard would react. I was therefore hoping to find a clear, unambiguous and inarguable statement from some reputable source. I realise now – with help from all posters here, that I may be on a specious quest.

Thanks again.

91. Arfur Bryant says:

James:

["So for me this was like saying that if someone left a room full of 10 people then re-entered the room, there are now 11."]

I agree with Kristian and Greg here, James. The opposition (I suspect) would argue that the person leaving the room is instantly replaced by another from the ‘source’, hence walking back into the room will cause warming. This, in my view, would be where the analogy fails, as it analogises energy to physical lumps (humans) who cannot pass through each other.

Yes, I had been arguing with ‘scientists’. Please see the following link from an inline ‘Physics Dept’ which may explain my desire to find the killer argument!

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

I have since asked him for a reference for his statement but he has not only refused to answer, but has not printed my response…

Regards,

92. Arfur Bryant says:

Will Janoschka says:
2013/11/25 at 8:02 PM

Will,

You are correct. My attempt to argue based on reasoning and logic against dogma and belief has come up short in this subject, although I have had some success in the past. It appears to me that both ‘sides’ are actually hardening their stance. If that is so, then so be it.

I remain in agreement with Joe and most of the posters here.

Regards,

93. Max™ says:

He seems to be treating the hot and cold radiation as though they don’t interact, and then argues as though the cold radiation adds to the available energy.

He does say correctly that it reduces the energy lost by the hot body, and then using the roundabout manner so often employed he’s following this line of unstated logic, I assume:

Body A emits power P1, if it was emitting into the CMBR then Body A will cool at a rate R and after a given period of time reach temperature T

Body B emits power P2, if it emits back towards Body A then Body A will cool at a rate less than R and after a given period of time be at a temperature greater than T

He then equates “reduced rate of cooling” with “warming”, this is very commonly done in discussions with GHE/AGW supporters. Engaging further will probably be fruitless, as you’ll now be trying to back out of the logical hole he has dug and dragged you down into.

What actually happens is Body A emits P1, Body B emits P2, so we have (P1-P2) as the net losses from Body A and calculate the actually cooling rate from there. It’s a hell of a trick, turning “cools slower” into “warms faster”, but hey.

94. Max™ says:

Went ahead and asked myself:

I’m confused, when you have two bodies radiating towards each other, doesn’t the radiation from the cooler body simply reduce the rate of energy lost by the warmer body?

If the radiation from a colder body could add energy to a warmer body, so should radiation from a body the same temperature, right?

Wouldn’t that mean you could put two objects the same temperature side by side and have them mutually heat up to arbitrarily high temperatures?

95. Arfur I think now that, since it is not really possible to argue theory, given that they can just make up and invent whatever alternative “theory” (i.e. belief system) they want with hand waving, that we can just bring it back to basic empiricism. And I thought you would have chosen this as your argument, but perhaps your mindset was more for authority theory reference rather than common empiricism. So here it is, again:

A real greenhouse should fundamentally operate by the radiative self-forcing postulate. The physics and math that is invented for the atmosphere to create the radiative self-forcing postulate is precisely the same physics and math that can be applied to a real greenhouse, and is often applied to a real greenhouse by many universities who advertise and “teach the concept”. You can find any number of references for the greenhouse effect using the plane-parallel-model, which physics can be applied in any situation conforming to the postulate. See Appendix H, pg. 86, of this pdf paper, for a very brief compilation of references who use the radiative self-forcing postulate as should be found either in a real greenhouse or the atmosphere.

And so this is a postulate. (Radiative self-forcing to higher temperature with back-radiation.) It has some math invented for it to provide some propositional basis for the postulate. Just because some math is invented for a postulate, doesn’t mean the postulate is now true!! If people don’t understand that, they should stay the hell away from science.

So this is a postulate. Does it have empirical confirmation? Is it HOW a real greenhouse operates in the first place? Answers: it is NOT how a real greenhouse operates in the first place. Secondly, the postulate is NOT observed in a real greenhouse. The postulate COULD have existed along-side the actual and known way that a real greenhouse operates, and this would have produced an empirical confirmation, but the empirical confirmation doesn’t exist, it wasn’t confirmed, and the prediction of the radiative self-forcing postulate doesn’t manifest. That is, in a REAL greenhouse, or any other experiment designed to test for it, the radiative postulate is not confirmed. It has NO empirical support. That’s not because the postulate doesn’t produce an empirical prediction, but because its empirical prediction is not confirmed.

Now perhaps you can simplify that and reword it, but what it comes down to is that the radiative self-forcing postulate of the version of the greenhouse effect that climate science uses, has no empirical basis. It is not how a real greenhouse operates, and it is not observed in a real greenhouse even though it SHOULD be found in a real greenhouse given the mathematical physical propositions of the postulate. It is also not found on the actual surface of the Earth, which the linked pdf paper above demonstrates with real-world observation. The postulate isn’t confirmed in a real greenhouse, and it isn’t confirmed on the surface of the Earth.

Also see this, which might make you happier. From Arrhenius’ 1896 Model of the Greenhouse Effect in Context, by Elisabeth Crawford:

Not surprisingly for a physicist, [American scientist Pierpoint] Langley was more punctilious about the correctness of the greenhouse metaphor from a physics point of view than he was with its antecedents. “On the faith of these two eminent names [Fourier and Pouillet],” he wrote, the notion that the processes whereby heat is trapped by the atmosphere are the same as those occurring in a greenhouse, “has been received as a physical datum.. where one well conducted experiment… would have shown that the action of the terrestrial atmosphere was directly the reverse of that of the glass in a hotbed”. The experiment called for by Langley was carried out by R.W. Wood in 1907. It showed that glasshouses retain heat through an absence of convection and advection rather than through the absorption and re-emission of long-wave radiation.

Directly the reverse. See that? The behaviour of the atmosphere is precisely the reverse of the behaviour of a greenhouse. And a well-conducted experiment, as Carl Brehmer and I performed, and others have performed such as Wood, etc., and all existing greenhouses in the world which are ongoing experiments, show that the radiative self-forcing postulate does not conform to reality.

96. Max™ says:

It’s a merry little dance they do when you try to pin them down on why it is called the greenhouse effect when greenhouses do not exhibit the effect.

97. Kristian says:

Max™,

Object A absorbs a constant heat flux from an external heat source. At the same time, since it has reached a steady state, a dynamic equilibrium with its heat source, it emits an equally constant heat flux of equal magnitude to its surroundings, to balance the incoming. There is no further buildup of energy within (at and below the surface of) object A, which like all real objects has a thermal mass (in which it has the potential to store absorbed energy), past the point where this steady state is reached, simply because it then finally manages to give off as much heat as it receives: heat loss = heat gain.

If, however, you were somehow able to reduce, limit or slow down this equilibrated outgoing heat flux from object A, as you seem to suggest would happen with ‘back radiation’ from its surroundings present, then energy would once more start to pile up within the object. Because once again, more energy would enter the system than what would leave it over a certain period of time. This is how objects warm. Object A’s internal energy would increase. Until the outgoing heat flux once more were to equal the incoming: heat loss = heat gain … only now at a higher mean temperature level.

The same would go if, during the original heating of object A, the rate of increase of the outgoing flux over time were to be slowed down by some means or other. Then more of the constantly incoming energy would be able to store up in total within it before dynamic equilibrium could be reached. And so, the final temperature would end up being higher.

The problem with this scenario is only this: There is no way you can physically impede or inhibit outgoing radiation from a heated object. So the radGHE proponents don’t even try to suggest that this is what happens. They don’t reduce, limit or slow down any flows/fluxes of energy anywhere, in any direction, to obtain their extra surface heating. No, rather they add extra energy in to the surface from a source separate from the Sun, and this extra energy and only this is what causes the increase in surface internal energy and thus its raised temperature. But as we all know, such a transfer of energy between thermodynamic systems is distinctly defined as HEAT (or work), and HEAT cannot spontaneously pass from colder to hotter.

So there is something fundamentally wrong with the very concept on which they base their original premise. And I must say, in this regard, I tend to agree with what Will Janoschka is proposing …

98. Richard111 says:

There is a facet of the GHE that has always baffled me. There seems to be some sort of conspiracy that creates the belief that a radiatively transparent atmosphere DOES NOT WARM BY CONDUCTION. Well, it does warm, and because it is radiatively transparent, IT CANNOT COOL BY RADIATION! Don’t talk about conduction back to the ground, warm air rises, it NEVER sinks.
So how come we aren’t cooked? Answer; those ‘greenhouse gases’. They radiate very nicely.
There is no such thing as a ‘greenhouse effect’. A solid layer of cloud is the nearest analogue to a greenhouse in the sense it reduces the rate of surface cooling at night and severely limits surface warming during the day.

99. Neutrino says:

Joseph,

Of course I’m changing the physical parameters. I added a second object. What would be the point seeing what happens when nothing changes?
Besides you do the same thing when you introduce a resistor in an environment and contemplate what the result is.

This is why I originally asked your position in my first post. Your writings lead me to believe that you would endorse the following:
A) When two or more objects are in a system together the highest attainable temperature is that of the component with the highest temperature.
So I ask again is this your belief? (simple yes/no would be helpful)

The reason I ask again is that if the above does represent you stand point (and I believe it does) then the geometry or arrangement of the objects is irrelevant.

This is in part why I find your objection to the simple example I produced strange.
Your objection was :”You’re changing the fundamental physical parameters of the system. It is simply increasing the power and reducing the surface area.”
By “fundamental physical parameters” I assume you mean the geometry or orientation of the cubes, because that is all that changes. The power was not increased; each cube still has the same power it started with which leads to the box composed of both cubes having twice the power. And yes the key to the entire example is in “reducing the surface area”. That’s what changing the geometry does, one cube blocks a portion of the radiation from another.

Your response, although it does not explicitly state agreement, leads me to believe you would endorse the following:
B) If an objects is blocked or prevented from radiating then the objects temperature will increase.
Do you agree that the temperature of the cubes increases when placed together? (simple yes/no would be helpful)

If your position is (A) then pointing out that the geometry changed should not matter. (A) states temperature will never rise, without respect to the geometry the system.
On the other hand if you endorse (B) then you are explicitly contradicting (A).

This scenario was not an attempt to describe the greenhouse effect. What it is though is an attempt to understand your position better.

100. You’re changing the surface area of the power emission. This is NOT about blocking emission with another body such as to raise a body’s temperature, and it IS precisely the type of language greenhouse believers look for to justify the faith. Changing the geometry is THE MOST important thing – it changes the flux. You have the same power proportions but you’re increasing the flux because you’re reducing the surface area of emission. This is NOT two equal temperature bodies heating each other up – it is simply reducing the surface area and thereby increasing the flux.

Again, clever attempt. But obviously, logically sophistical.

No I do not agree with any endorsement, other than the one I have before, and just now, explained to you. You are increasing the power by proportion, but not increasing the surface area by proportion, hence the flux increases because the power gets emitted over a smaller surface area.

Your sophist attempt at an endorsement of “If an objects is blocked or prevented from radiating then the objects temperature will increase” does not follow what you’re doing, and it is an obvious attempt for climate greenhouse sophistries.

Part A is fine – the hottest temperature of two bodies is the body with the higher temperature. Obviously. You don’t have two bodies any more when you put them together, so your conclusion B doesn’t follow logically nor is it based in the physics of what has occurred: you now have a single body with twice the power output but not twice the surface area, hence it has greater flux. QED. This is not two equal temperature bodies heating each other up.

101. From Langley’s Moon paper:

…we must remember that until a few years past it had been assumed by all writers of repute that the earth’s atmosphere acted exactly like the glass cover of a hot-bed, and kept the planet warm, in exactly the same way that the hot-bed is warmed, by admitting the light-heat of the sun, which was returned by the soil in the invisible radiation of greater wave-length to which the atmosphere was supposed to be impervious, and that thus the heat was stored. It was a necessary part of this assumption that the infra-red was not transmissible by our atmosphere, or was so in very small degree, but in 1881 the observations of the Mount Whitney expedition, supplementing previous ones made at this Observatory, showed that through the infra-red, as far as it had then been explored, the atmosphere transmitted the invisible rays with greater facility even than the luminous heat, so that the ordinarily received idea must be essentially modified…

Note here too that they seem to be assuming that a “glass hot bed” (greenhouse) DOES get hot by trapping infrared. It seems they had figured out that the atmosphere doesn’t do this, and then I suppose the realization that a “glass bed” or greenhouse doesn’t do this either came around the same time, with Wood.

So Arfur, it is simple: They lie about what a real greenhouse actually is and how it works, and the atmosphere doesn’t work that way and in fact works the opposite way, and the alternative postulate they created has no basis in reality, at all, anywhere. A real greenhouse functions the opposite of what the atmosphere does, and this is known, but they created an alternative version of the greenhouse effect where a real greenhouse and the atmosphere should operate the same way. What a god-damned logical mess. That was always their advantage. Now we have it solved. And now they have nowhere to run.

102. Arfur Bryant says:

Joe… all of you…

Thanks very much. Seriously. This has helped a lot.

Kindest regards,

Arfur

103. Max™ says:

A bit of a side-comment about the cube/two cubes, cut one of the cubes in half and place the halves a short distance apart, what happens?

Put the halves back together, what happens?

Now, Kristian:

Object A absorbs a constant heat flux from an external heat source. At the same time, since it has reached a steady state, a dynamic equilibrium with its heat source, it emits an equally constant heat flux of equal magnitude to its surroundings, to balance the incoming. There is no further buildup of energy within (at and below the surface of) object A, which like all real objects has a thermal mass (in which it has the potential to store absorbed energy), past the point where this steady state is reached, simply because it then finally manages to give off as much heat as it receives: heat loss = heat gain.

I never said anything about a constant heat flux, that is done often but is an unrealistic postulate in any case when trying to analogously describe the earth/sun system.

Heat probably shouldn’t be described in terms of heat loss/gain, it is energy loss/gain, and when that energy is being lost to a cooler body it is defined as heat flow, flux is power over area, also known as intensity, generally.

For the record, feel free to assume I’ve taken college level math and physics courses, if by chance I don’t recognize a term or understand a description I’ll ask for clarification or go look it up. :P

Now, the whole “when it gives off as much as it receives, heat loss = heat gain” bit, the planet does not receive constant power, so the argument kind of starts off on bad footing.

104. Max™ says: 2013/11/26 at 4:51 AM
I’m not working from a statistical mechanics background, and equipartition isn’t broadly falsified, it just has a limited realm wherein accurate predictions can be made: above the scales where quantum effects dominate, and below the effects where relativistic effects dominate.

Max, thank you for your thoughtful response. I would kindly disagree. A theorom that is falsified
anywhere within its extent must be reduced to a hypothesis to allow a definition of its extent The equipartion has been falsified at low temperatures and low frequencies where a continium dominates Electromagnet effects are always relivistic. If that limitation had understanding at the time, no claimed UV catastrophe would have been proposed.

If you modify it to be probabilistic instead of statistical, the theory remains valid.
Can you give an example of what you mean? I do not understand.

I’m working from a simple enough description of the physics involved, a single molecule can transfer energy to another molecule in a variety of ways. Yes indeed but limiting that to mechanical means is not acceptable when electric and electromagnitic means dominate.

105. Kristian says:

Max™ says, 2013/11/26 at 6:19 PM:

Seems to me you’re not addressing what I’m actually getting at. Issues about formalism aside (heat vs. energy, flow vs. flux), when more energy goes into a body over a certain period of time than what goes out of that same body, then there will be an energy surplus building up – the internal energy will increase. Whether this energy goes out at a certain intensity all over or whether it remains constant over that period is of lesser import. The point is, if you somehow manage to reduce the total amount of energy leaving the body over that period of time to below the total amount of energy entering it, then the internal energy will have increased and the body would under normal circumstances warm.

So, if the Earth’s surface absorbs a certain amount of energy from the Sun over say a day or a year (evened out across this period, you could very well use an average flux value like the 165 W/m^2, even if it’s not ‘real’, as all you want to know is how much energy is absorbed in total. You simply time this average flux with all the sqare metres and seconds at hand), it would normally also see fit to rid itself of an equal amount of energy to space over that same period, no matter how it does so, constant and equal flux in space and time, or varying flux in space and time, whatever. The total amount of energy ejected simply needs to match the total amount of energy absorbed over the period in question, for the Earth system not to warm or cool.

The argument is that the ‘back radiation’ from the atmosphere makes it harder for the energy being ejected back to space from the Earth system to do so, because the ‘heat flow’ (radiative cooling rate) out from the surface to its near surroundings (the atmosphere) is reduced.

But it isn’t. It can’t be. The rate of (radiative) energy leaving the thermodynamic system dubbed ‘Earth’s surface’ stays the same as long as the rate of energy entering it (from the Sun) stays the same. It doesn’t matter if the adjacent thermodynamic system dubbed ‘Earth’s atmosphere’ is 1 or 250K colder than the surface. The flow of energy going out from the surface (i.e. leaving the system) is based only on matching/balancing its energy input from its heat source. What will be different with an atmosphere at 1K as opposed to one at 250K colder than the surface, is what this flow of energy is capable of doing with the colder system. The same flow of energy from the warm system cannot warm the cool system as fast (not as much energy is able to store up within the same time frame) if the latter is only 1K cooler as if it were 250K cooler. Because at 1K cooler, the cool system would itself have a much larger flow of energy going out from it, than if it were 250K cooler.

So equating the rate of heating going down for a warmer absorbing cold system with the rate of ‘cooling’ going down for the emitting hot system (when this hot system is itself ‘constantly’ being heated/powered) is where people go wrong. And that’s where the concept of ‘energy exchange’ encounters a problem. Because whose to say that in such a situation the EM waves emitted from the cold system would ever reach and be absorbed by the hot system? Energy absorbed is after all energy absorbed, no matter what. It increases the internal energy of the absorbing system, no matter what. And this loophole is precisely what the radGHE’ers are capitalising on.

If each second 10 people constantly enter and 10 people constantly leave James’ room and then some of the 10 people leaving all of a sudden decide to reenter through the front door, then the room will fill up with people.

It doesn’t happen. No people reenter the room.

106. Max™ says:

The point is, if you somehow manage to reduce the total amount of energy leaving the body over that period of time to below the total amount of energy entering it, then the internal energy will have increased and the body would under normal circumstances warm.

Almost a tautology.

Just in case it has been missed, since it seems like many have forgotten who I am, I do not think the GHE exists, I do not think the planet is 33K warmer than it “should” be, I do not think the dynamics of an atmosphere is dominated by radiative properties of trace gases, and I do not think one can simply ignore the mass of an atmosphere or treat a surface emitting into an atmosphere as though it is in radiative equilibrium with space.

107. Greg House says:

Kristian says: “The argument is that the ‘back radiation’ from the atmosphere makes it harder for the energy being ejected back to space from the Earth system to do so, because the ‘heat flow’ (radiative cooling rate) out from the surface to its near surroundings (the atmosphere) is reduced.”
=================================================

Whoever made this argument, it is not the IPCC argument and this is not the IPCC “greenhouse effect”.

The IPCC “greenhouse effect” is not about reduced cooling, it is about the Earth surface heating itself (above the temperature the Sun heats it to) by its own returned/back radiation, the “greenhouse gases” serving only as passive reflectors. (And that with twice as much power it gets heated by the Sun, by the way). An absolutely impossible process.

I guess, the IPCC people had good reasons not to bring this “reduced cooling” as their central point, anyway they apparently have not presented any calculation of this “reduced cooling” in their reports. But they did present this “back radiation from greenhouse gases” very clearly in the 2nd and the 4th reports: http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/faq-1-1-figure-1.html.

“Reduced cooling” is usually introduced by warmists on blogs to distract the readers from the main point.

108. Allen Eltor says:

I tried to post long post twice but it didn’t appear I’ll check back later

109. Allen Eltor says:

If the two HUGE long posts appear please can em, I’m gonna split it in half and put it up again.
Apology in advance for any problem with multiple postings.

Richard said he’ll give pseudo-science the slack, that
the atmosphere ‘reduces/slows losses at night’.
I won’t personally or professionally, online or face to face,
give them that because even THAT:
that’s not true,
that’s not possible.

The atmosphere is a frigid fluid immersion bath,
driven against the surface
through the earth spinning a grand/hour.
* * * * * * *
The BATH is still MUCH COLDER
than the ROCK,
at NIGHT.

The FRIGID BATH creates
TWINKLING of the STARS: S.C.I.N.T.I.L.L.A.T.I.O.N.
SCINTILLATION
is DUE to C.O.N.V.E.C.T.I.O.N.

CONVECTION, DERIVED from CONDUCTION, and EVAPORATION,
leads to more CONDUCTION and EVAPORATION
TO REMOVE YET MORE HEAT.
* * * * * * *
VACUUM ALONE
can not
* * * * * * *
B.Y.
D.E.F.I.N.I.T.I.O.N.
* * * * * * *
R.E.M.O.V.E.
MORE ENERGY
than when AIDED
by CONDUCTION/CONVECTION.
=======
When
YOU are TRICKED/INTIMIDATED
into LYING
about A FRIGID FLUID IMMERSION BATH at ONE ATMOSPHERE PRESSURE
being a HEATER,
——-
the
TRUTH
was GONE
when
——-
* * *YOU* * *
***B.L.I.N.K.E.D***
——-
and S.P.I.T. OUT the M.A.G.I.C.A.L. WORDS,
——-
“I ADMIT IT: A FREEZING BATH is a HEATER!”
“MOST ESPECIALLY IF it’s DARK!”
——-
WHEN YOU SHOWED UP
ADMITTING
YOU SEE FRIGID REFRIGERATED BATHS
BEING HEATERS,
* * * * * * *
IT was O.V.E.R.
O V E R
as in
* * * * * * *
YOU’RE DONE.
* * * * * * *
You’ll never revert the ARGUMENT to
“CORE TRUTHS,”
because you already had a MOB
STAMPEDE YOU
from
“CORE TRUTHS”.
* * * * * * *
You’ll never be able to REFER to SIMPLY USING COMMON SENSE
without
becoming confused yourself,
eventually;
BECAUSE AT SOME POINT
THEY have YOU
saying ***YOU decided***
COLD AIR makes WARM ROCKS HOTTER
if you CLOSE a REFRIGERATOR
and the LIGHT GOES OUT.
=======
REALITY BASED
CONVERSATION was
D.O.N.E.
THEN.
=======
FRIGID AIR in YOUR REFRIGERATOR does NOT
MAKE YOUR COKE HOT
because the LIGHT goes off
WHEN the DOOR CLOSES.

Not YESTERDAY,
Not TOMORROW,
Not whenever some CLIMATEUR is FEELING FEMININE,
Not when the president of China manipulates the YEN so HE can BUY a new ESTATE,

N. ot
O. nce
N. ot
E. ver.
=======
WHEN YOU CONFESSED a SPHERE
covered in SENSORS,

SPINNING in a FRIGID BATH
of thermally CONDUCTIVE, CONVECTIVE GASES
at a pressure of one atmosphere,
was WARMER

than when you suspended
and SPUN that sphere
in VACUUM

your ever
winning the argument
appealing to COMMON SENSE
was
DONE.

110. Allen Eltor says:

Here’s the second part of it, hopefully it won’t double post.

B.E.F.O.R.E. AL GORE
DARED LAW ENFORCEMENT
to TRY to STOP HIS FOLLOWERS BREAKING the LAW
and didn’t get INDICTED
for MARKETS MANIPULATION

REAL SCIENCE LEFT this game NEVER to RETURN.
=======
If you people ever plan to win an argument with the perpetrators of this,
you’d all better figure out just how much fraudulence is involved.

Because a FRIGID FLUID REMOVING HEAT
CONTINUES to DO SO after YOU TURN
the HEAT SOURCE
off.
=======
There’s no sudden reversal of THERMODYNAMIC REALITY
having FRIGID FLUIDS suddenly start to
“warm the target’s surface”
just because the SUN goes DOWN.
——-
THERMAL CONDUCTION doesn’t VANISH
when you TURN the LIGHTS OFF.
——-

Until the people who DON’T believe in MAGIC GAiS
really recognize the DEPTH of the INVERSION
of REALITY
INVOLVED

the attempts to ‘get to core truths’ and ‘revert to common sense’
will always wind up with YOU
the REALIST
having to go back and INVERT REALITY
***FOR THEM***
=======
like it’s not really enslavement
if I humiliate you
until you go over and VOLUNTARILY
pick up my bags and carry them
explaining for me
why YOU see
it’s “the right thing.”
=======
Or it’s not really enslavement
If I make you humiliate EACH OTHER
=======
until you ALL pick up
MY FAKE SCIENCE
and CARRY IT AROUND FOR ME
=======
DEFENDING it to people
FOR ME
and CLAIMING
YOU
BELIEVE it.
=======

When I’m saying
what Im saying
to you all,
I’M NOT JOKING
or
JUST MAKING CONTRARIAN HAY.

I mean EVERY single WORD of it:

I INVITE ALL READING to simply
STEP FORTH with a REASONABLE ARGUMENT
for how, when you CLOSE
the REFRIGERATOR
the CHILLED GAS you’re WASHING EVERYTHING WITH,
starts WARMING IT,
because the LIGHT WENT OUT.
=======
Because THAT’S what YOU’RE ADMITTING YOU BELIEVE HAPPENED
when the SUN went down if you claim the atmosphere slows warming.
=======
The FRIGID THERMALLY CONDUCTIVE AIR
you WASHED your SODA WITH
started HEATING your SODA
when the light went out.
——

If you can’t bring yourself to fathom
the FINALITY of that
don’t claim
you don’t see
what all the obtuse and off-center thinking is about,

because if you don’t grasp what I just said,
you’re DEFINITELY

part of the PROBLEM.
NOT part of the SOLUTION.
=======
That all being said about, or to, no one in particular and, to everyone simultaneously.
I saw Richard remark I think with Arfur, that he’s really interested in the most straightforward, honest method to use analyzing the whole thing so it doesn’t start crossing logical boundaries of truthful discussion.

You all each and every one of yas need to understand:
You’re looking for REALITY BASED LINES of THINKING
and potentially REALITY BASED RESULTS of such thinking
in a
FRAMEWORK DEFINED BY

NON-REALITY BASED
PRECEPTS and POSTULATES;
CONCEPTS and CONSTRUCTS.

111. Max™ says: 2013/11/26 at 6:19 PM
A bit of a side-comment about the cube/two cubes, cut one of the cubes in half and place the halves a short distance apart, what happens? At one millimeter spacing?
If they each has 1/2 the Power supplied to the whole cube each temperature will decrease, by an imesurable amount as the radiative area has increased b 4/1000 of a square meters as the separation incerases in diistance both temperatures will decrease as now the total radiative surface for all that power has increased from six square meters to eight square meters.

Put the halves back together, what happens?
All goes back to the orgninal temperature and flux
as now no power change no geometry, change, no radiance change, no flux change, so no temperature l change. All of the above is a function, only of complex geometry.
Put all the power in one of the two halves, the powered half will increasein temperature. while the unpowered half will decrease in temperature. The true values are best left as a calculation for the students, else they will never learn, especially with the geometry of distance.

Heat probably shouldn’t be described in terms of heat loss/gain, it is energy loss/gain, and when that energy is being lost to a cooler body it is defined as heat flow, flux is power over area, also known as intensity, generally.
Max, here I must respectifly take issue.
/rant on/
Radiative intensity or radiance has nothing to do with flux,. Irradiance has the same dimensional values as flux. They ar totaly not related. Both radiace and irradiance are potentials, the ability to produce such flux to a surface at zero Kelvin
with 100% absorptivity at all wavelengts and all directions . All of the instruments that measure each accuratly, are always corrected for their own temperature and absorptivity. this give a baseline for potential. Flux is only liniearly dependant on the difference in the two potentials not ov the value of either potential. Spontanious flux is “only” from a higher potential to a lower potential.
/rant off/ Thanks for reading.

112. Kristian says:

Max™, I’m not ‘out to get you’ or anything. I know perfectly well that we agree on the main issue here. I’m just trying to figure out what you’re saying. To me you seem to say that ‘back radiation’ exists but it just reduces the outgoing energy from the surface. Well, if it reduces the outgoing energy from the surface while at the same time the Sun keeps supplying it with as much incoming energy per unit of time as before, then why and how isn’t the internal energy of the surface increasing? We all know it doesn’t and can’t from ‘back radiation’. So how do you explain it? That’s what I wonder. To me (and to Janoschka, it seems) it’s quite clear. No energy ‘reenters’ the surface from the atmosphere once it’s gone, radiated off as energy (heat) loss.

113. Kristian says:

Max™ says, 2013/11/26 at 8:23 PM:

“(…) I do not think the dynamics of an atmosphere is dominated by radiative properties of trace gases, and I do not think one can simply ignore the mass of an atmosphere or treat a surface emitting into an atmosphere as though it is in radiative equilibrium with space.”

Exactly. You can not ignore the mass of an atmosphere.

114. Kristian says:

Greg House says, 2013/11/26 at 8:30 PM:

““Reduced cooling” is usually introduced by warmists on blogs to distract the readers from the main point.”

I agree. Their argument is the one I’m referring to.

115. Max™ says:

Part of the confusion, Kristian, is probably because I don’t treat radiative transfers as two way, the hot source emits in accordance with the emissivity/area however much it takes to cool it after taking into account convective/evaporative losses, the cold source does the same, when a hot source and cold source are able to view each other you subtract the difference in temperatures in the q =(T_h^4 – T_c^4) manner described above and elsewhere.

Incidentally, I got an answer from that ask van site… not sure what to make of it:

Q: I’m confused, when you have two bodies radiating towards each other, doesn’t the radiation from the cooler body simply reduce the rate of energy lost by the warmer body? If the radiation from a colder body could add energy to a warmer body, so should radiation from a body the same temperature, right? Wouldn’t that mean you could put two objects the same temperature side by side and have them mutually heat up to arbitrarily high temperatures?
- Max
Memphis, TN, USA

A: Right, the radiation from colder (B) to hotter adds some energy to the hotter body (A), but not as much as (A) was losing by radiating. So it reduces the rate at which the hotter body (A) cools off. If something else (say radiation from an even hotter source like the sun) was already heating (A) enough to balance A’s outgoing radiation, the extra radiation from (B) can cause (A) to heat up.

It’s really not complicated. Just write down each energy flow (A->B, etc.) Each one is positive, and the 2nd law says that the flow from hotter to colder is always bigger than the reverse. The basic point for the most important application is that inserting a cool absorbing atmosphere between the earth and cold outer space gives a little back-flow of radiation toward earth, raising its temperature above what it otherwise would have been.

Mike W.

I’m curious if he missed the bolded section where I pointed out that he was describing a perpetuum mobile?

116. joeldshore says:

I’m curious if he missed the bolded section where I pointed out that he was describing a perpetuum mobile?

He didn’t miss it. He explained why it is wrong. Body A is providing energy to Body B, but not as fast as Body B is losing energy.

It is really not that complicated if you think in terms of conserved quantities that you are more used to dealing with: If you and a friend are throwing out money at the rate of \$5 per second and then you start catching some of the money your friend is throwing out and throwing it back to him (and he does the same to you), both of you will lose money at a slower rate. You won’t both become richer and richer.

Of course, to simulate the greenhouse effect, you need to add in a “hotter” source: For example, If you are receiving \$100,000 of income each year and the government imposes a WEALTH (not income) tax of 10%, then your steady-state wealth would be \$1,000,000 because that is the wealth at which the amount that you pay out equals the amount that you receive in income. If the government decides to give you a rebate of 1/4, i.e., to return 1/4 of the tax that you pay each year, your new steady-state wealth would be 1,333,333 million (to the nearest dollar).

This is analogous to the greenhouse effect because income is analogous to power received from the sun, the tax is analogous to power radiated, wealth is analogous to temperature…and, the tax is proportional to wealth just as the power radiated is proportional to temperature (although for simplicity I made it just a linear proportionality.

Dealing with conserved quantities like energy or money really is not that difficult, which is why that physicist at U of Illinois is getting so frustrated with the inability of people to comprehend simple concepts that they don’t want to understand.

117. Arfur Bryant says:

Max,

["I’m curious if he missed the bolded section where I pointed out that he was describing a perpetuum mobile?"]

Precisely! Thank you. I had exactly the same argument with Lucia on The Blackboard.

The Ask Van site has not published my request for a reference to support Mike W’s comments. I have asked again.

Guys,

I know I’m not a scientist but, in my own ‘logical’ way, I have repeatedly made these very arguments on other blogs. ‘They’ have no proof, they have only an appeal to their own authority, and a pre-disposition towards groupthink.

Hence I now accept that Allen Eltor’s statement…
“You’re looking for reality based lines of thinking and potentially reality based results of such thinking in a framework defined by non-reality based precepts and postulates; concepts and constructs.”
…is very likely true.

118. Actually it looks like that idiot completely missed the point, and avoided answering your question. So the fellow subscribes to the radiative self-forcing, backradiation version of the greenhouse effect.

See my next comment coming up soon (below) for perspective/answer on that.

119. Oh analogies analogies…lol.

Well let’s bring it to reality then, to empirical reality: a real greenhouse functions the opposite way that the atmosphere functions. The alternative version of the greenhouse effect of climate science postulates that a real greenhouse and the atmosphere operate the same way. One solution might be that both effects are in play. However, the alternative version of the greenhouse effect of climate science specifies a unique physical observable if the effect is actually in play: this observable is not observed. A real greenhouse operates by its original real function only: preventing the atmosphere from convection. The alternative postulate of climate science is not observed; it should be observed because the mathematical proposition for the radiative self-forcing postulate is relatively simple and should be universal, but, the proposition fails the empirical test. Going then from a real greenhouse to the atmosphere, the proposition of climate science can be tested for the atmosphere as well, to see if this alternative version of the greenhouse effect is operating in the atmosphere, even though it isn’t operating in a real greenhouse. Again, the proposition has a physical observable, that is not confirmed. This confirms the previous result for a real greenhouse because of course we expect true physics and ontological math to be universal.

Experiments with resistors are probably not the most direct. Experiments, which have been done, with the real atmosphere and real greenhouses, already demonstrate that the alternative version of the greenhouse effect of climate science is incorrect. This places the entire field of climate science in “a pickle”, but where has such scientific advancement ever been.

Cold doesn’t warm hot, that’s not what the heat-flow equation says, a temperature can not heat itself, that’s not what the heat flow equation says, and the radiative self-forcing postulate has been refuted by empiricism, as it always had been.

120. Neutrino says:

”squid2112 says:
I’m curious. If a colder thing can make a warming thing warmer still, why are my outside lights the same temperature (and color) as my indoor lights, when it is well below freezing outside? Shouldn’t my indoor lights be burning hotter and brighter than my outdoor lights?

Joseph E Postma says:
Great example Squid.”

Why is this a great example?

Yes if a colder thing can make a warmer thing warmer still then the environment should be affecting the temperature, and colour, but by how much? Why not actually find out how much the temperature would change?

Using some numbers to actually estimate how big, or small, the effect I should expect.
Assume outdoor temperature is -20C, indoor temperature is 20C and the temperature of an incandescent bulb is 2500C.

From SB the outdoor flux is 233W/m^2, the indoor flux is 419W/m^2, and the bulb is radiating at 3.35 million W/m^2.
So what is the effect of moving the bulb from outside to inside?
Again calculating from SB the outdoor the bulb temperature would 2500.05C while indoor bulb temperature would 2500.09C for an increase of 0.002%.

Is the colour change from a temperature difference that small perceptible? My guess is no.

Asking questions is always good but actually thinking about them is even better.

It took me less than 5min to do the calculations and estimate answer to the question posed.
The ambient temperature change going from a cold to a warm environment does not have a significant effect on the temperature of an incandescent light bulb.

121. Cold doesn’t heat hot Neutrino. :)

122. Neutrino says:

Joseph,

Do you even realize the point of what I just wrote?

You responded to the original question with “Great example”. It’s not, it’s a terrible example.

The conjecture was if “cold heats hot” then the temperature, and hence the colour, of light bulbs should change based on the ambient temperature. Assuming for the sake of the argument that “cold heats hot” I calculated what the actual effect would be under this assumption. The effect turned out to be miniscule and I think completely unobservable to the human eye.
So the original question really was not ‘great’. The question would not highlight any difference between paradigms of “cold heats hot” or “cold doesn’t heat hot”.

I think the person who wrote it was under the impression that the difference in temperature, and colour, would be noticeable and in a sense prove something one way or the other. The question as posed wouldn’t lead to an observable colour change so it doesn’t really answer anything.

123. Greg House says:

joeldshore says: “This is analogous to the greenhouse effect”
=====================================================

The same old “analogous to the greenhouse effect”-lie, we’ve had it so many times.

The “greenhouse effect” as presented by the IPCC is just self-heating by own heat of the Earth surface, unfortunately very few people know that. Self-heating by own heat is absolutely impossible, this is well known on the high school level already.

Nothing real can be “analogous to the greenhouse effect”, since there is no “greenhouse effect”.

124. Wow Neutrino does it make you so angry when I say that cold doesn’t heat hot? You know that cold doesn’t heat hot, right? I mean, you don’t actually want to debate that, do you? You’re not as stupid as Robert Brown, are you?

The example was a good one because of the logic which it contained, logic which you are seemingly unable to grasp. Not surprising after the childish logic of the two boxes example you managed to confuse yourself with ;) I mean that was really simple-minded. :)

Cold doesn’t heat hot, and any example that pertains to that fact is a good one, and only confusing to people who wish to have faith in climate religion.

But we already have our answers – we already have all the answers that climate science and its version of the greenhouse effect requires…it is all fully answered and there is no real debate anymore, other than how to get people to understand, and whether they can:

Well let’s bring it to reality then, to empirical reality: a real greenhouse functions the opposite way that the atmosphere functions. The alternative version of the greenhouse effect of climate science postulates that a real greenhouse and the atmosphere operate the same way. One solution might be that both effects are in play. However, the alternative version of the greenhouse effect of climate science specifies a unique physical observable if the effect is actually in play: this observable is not observed. A real greenhouse operates by its original real function only: preventing the atmosphere from convection. The alternative postulate of climate science is not observed; it should be observed because the mathematical proposition for the radiative self-forcing postulate is relatively simple and should be universal, but, the proposition fails the empirical test. Going then from a real greenhouse to the atmosphere, the proposition of climate science can be tested for the atmosphere as well, to see if this alternative version of the greenhouse effect is operating in the atmosphere, even though it isn’t operating in a real greenhouse. Again, the proposition has a physical observable, that is not confirmed. This confirms the previous result for a real greenhouse because of course we expect true physics and ontological math to be universal.

Experiments with resistors are probably not the most direct. Experiments, which have been done, with the real atmosphere and real greenhouses, already demonstrate that the alternative version of the greenhouse effect of climate science is incorrect. This places the entire field of climate science in “a pickle”, but where has such scientific advancement ever been.

Cold doesn’t warm hot, that’s not what the heat-flow equation says, a temperature can not heat itself, that’s not what the heat flow equation says, and the radiative self-forcing postulate has been refuted by empiricism, as it always had been.

Raising the temperature of the ambient environment around a warmer object will only warm the object when the ambient environment becomes hotter than the object. A cold ambient environment does not increase the temperature of a warmer object. Your math was precisely as I demonstrated as a lack of comprehension of how to use the heat-flow equation.

The fact of the matter, sweeping aside the endless arguments by analogy and inversions of theory, is that the empirical fact confirms traditional science and traditional thermodynamics. Even forgetting what theory the empirical fact demonstrates, what it demonstrates on its own is that the radiative self-forcing version of the greenhouse effect of climate science does not exist. That’s an empirical fact. The postulate of climate science refutes itself. Climate science scientifically refutes itself by predicting an empirical observable that observation subsequently contradicts. The only thing people should be doing is figuring out a way to educate people about this fact, rather than speculating whether or not it can still be made to be true, when it is already an empirical fact that it can’t be made to be true.

125. That’s all they have Greg, is the things they believe to be “analogous” to the greenhouse effect. LOL

They can’t actually demonstrate their version of the greenhouse effect, they can only demonstrate analogies to it.

Well a horse is analogous to a unicorn, too, you bunch of f***ing morons…hahahhaha :)

126. Max™ says:

He didn’t miss it. He explained why it is wrong. Body A is providing energy to Body B, but not as fast as Body B is losing energy. ~joeldshore

Now, if Body A is hotter than Body B, according to him Body B is adding energy to Body A, not just effectively reducing the energy Body A emits, as I would think happens.

So, if Body A and Body B are the same temperature as in my question, and they’re assumed to have the same emissivity/absorptivity, however far apart for the view factors to be ignored, the medium between them is ignored for simplicity, then Body A is adding energy to Body B, and Body B is adding energy to Body A.

If a colder body can make a hotter body warmer, what happens if you increase the temperature of the colder body?

Does it stop heating up the warmer body if it isn’t quite as cold?

How about when it is just barely colder?

If it makes it warmer then, it should make it warmer when they’re both the same temperature, and you now have a perpetual motion machine, good game thermodynamics!

127. Allen Eltor says:

LoL. Just LoL.

128. Joseph E Postma says: 2013/11/27 at 5:04 PM
Wow Neutrino does it make you so angry when I say that cold doesn’t heat hot? You know that cold doesn’t heat hot, right? I mean, you don’t actually want to debate that, do you? You’re not as stupid as Robert Brown, are you?

Max™ says: 2013/11/27 at 7:19 PM
He didn’t miss it. He explained why it is wrong. Body A is providing energy to Body B, but not as fast as Body B is losing energy. ~joeldshoreHe didn’t miss it. He explained why it is wrong. Body A is providing energy to Body B, but not as fast as Body B is losing energy. ~joeldshore

Well we now have at least two names for two arrogant academic assholes. (AAA)
Untill both of you try to understand the thinking of the AAA nothing will be effective.
Let me explain an experiment I did in 1966,as a small shop wanted to sell there product, spun
aluminuim sphere halves that fit together nicely. I wanted to see what emissivity we could get with with a dirable finish on aluminum They had three 1 mm thick samples 6 cm 9 cm and 12 cm diameter. The price was cheap, 10% of what our shop would. cost. I wanted all three, boss agreed. I asked the purchasing guy to see iv he could get them to wire brish them inside and out. He did and a comitment fore more at the same price. They went to our finish shop for compleate coarse (fast) black anodize inside and out. I had a vacuum and 20″ bell jar setup, with LCO2 cooling and electrical resistance heating, for an isotherm, and many other structures for adabatic support.
Let me give you the calculations for 100% emissivity so you can check, then the result.
Power source (isopower) = 5 watt electrical resistance heater to be applied where ever.
Isotherm = The 12 cm aluminum sphere maintained at 0 degree Celsius.
Calculated: radiance of 0 Celsius 0.01 watts/ cm^2* sr.
9 cm sphere with 5 watt power >> 33 degree Celsius, radiance 0.0159 watts/ cm^2* sr 5 watts to 0 degree Celsius. .Measured >> 37 degree Celsius.
6 cm sphere with 5 watt power >> 68 degree Celsius, radiance 0.0244 watts/ cm^2* sr 5 watts to 0 degree Celsius. Measured >> 74 degree Celsius.
9 cm sphere with no power but instead a6 cm sphere with the 5 watt power >> 33 degree Celsius, radiance 0.0159 watts/ cm^2* sr 5 watts to 0 degree Celsius. .Measured >> 37 degree Celsius.
the center 6 cm sphere with 5 watt power >> 93 degree Celsius, radiance 0.0324 watts/ cm^2* sr 5 watts to 33 degree Celsius. Measured >> 101 degree Celsius.
The last one was suprising as now the 5 watts was going through 4 surface emissivities, rather than 2.. If you have an answer let me know, “please”.
My take on this from my thermodynamics (not from college) Is that my only 5 watts is dissapated from the higest temperature to the lowest temperature by whatever means are available even if it must go through 2 more surfaces.
The AAA physics is that all objects radiate in all directions at a flux equal to that radiance, with flux in opposite directions. With blackbodies either calculation give the same result, with emperical measurement not so much! Which is a better explanation of what physicaly “is”?
BTW backfilling with 14.7 psi air caused all temperatures,exceptr the isotherm, to drop like mad! But yet the conductive thermal flux times area from the 12 cm to the temperature controller remained stubbornly at 5 watts will-

129. Richard111 says:

Yep! I keep asking “Why haven’t the greenies patented this idea?”

130. joeldshore says:

Greg House says:

The same old “analogous to the greenhouse effect”-lie, we’ve had it so many times.

The reason why we are forced to resort to analogies is that you guys fail to understand basic arithmetic when applied to the actual problem. So, it is necessary to present remedial principles on how conserved quantities in general work.

Apparently you believe that energy behaves differently than any other conserved quantity, and hence you can safely ignore the analogies and perpetuate your iMpenetrable veil of ignorance.

131. Joel what part of ‘you have no empirical evidence for your alternative greenhouse postulate and so the only thing you can do is resort to analogies’ don’t you understand?

Don’t answer.

It is a fact of nature that the alternative greenhouse postulate of climate science is not empirically confirmed, and given the number of years this has been going on, and, umm, that fact, it obviously, by empirical experimental scientific definition, contains a fundamental theoretical error.

132. Allen Eltor says:

You’re another one of the sh**head hicks I personally caught claiming you believed in “magic back & forthisms that no math can cownt, and no instrumunt kin mayzur, but thay’re thair alright.”

joeldshore says:
2013/11/28 at 6:24 AM
Greg House says:

The same old “analogous to the greenhouse effect”-lie, we’ve had it so many times.

The reason why we are forced to resort to analogies is that you guys fail to understand basic arithmetic when applied to the actual problem. So, it is necessary to present remedial principles on how conserved quantities in general work.

Apparently you believe that energy behaves differently than any other conserved quantity, and hence you can safely ignore the analogies and perpetuate your iMpenetrable veil of ignorance.

133. squid2112 says:

@Neutrino says:
2013/11/27 at 12:36 PM

Neutrino, let me push this a little further. The 60W light bulb in my over (while roasting my Turkey) is EXACTLY the same color as the light bulb in my deep freezer. I will also postulate that the temperature of each of the filaments is also EXACTLY the same temperature. Why isn’t the light bulb in my oven brighter than the light bulb in my deep freezer?

If you are saying that it is, but it is just too little of difference to measure, then I would suggest that even if a GHE does indeed exist, there is no way humanly possible to ever measure it. The example I am giving is much more extreme than anything found in our atmosphere. The GHE therefore becomes moot and as valuable as unicorns and pixie dust, and just as much observable as each.

134. Allen Eltor says:

Hey sh**head: why don’t you give us all your scintillating explanation of how energy enters into and leaves the matrix of a solid.

When you can’t figure out anything about it explain how a frigid fluid bath BLOCKED 20% energy in and made temps rise,

then washed the entire sphere in frigid fluid indefinitely and made temps RISE. Rather than LOWER which is what all conductive frigid baths do.

Tell us how the atmosphere warms the earth at night because the sun goes down,

the way the cold air in a refrigerator warms my two liters of coke because the lights go off inside.

——–
I don’t remember where I cornered and beat Joel Shore down in public for claiming he believes in “magical backerds & forthisms” that “are always thair but only speshul elite unemployed mentally ill people like Joel, can see,” or I’d go to the thread and post the link. I’ve caught TJFolkerts doing it, JoeLDShore, DBHoffer, and every one of them lock up like a transmission with no oil when you call them on it to their face because they know they got caught lying.

I personally wouldn’t let JDShore,TJFolkerts or DBHoffer, wash my fleet trucks.

135. squid2112 says:

@Joe, @Neutrino,

Raising the temperature of the ambient environment around a warmer object will only warm the object when the ambient environment becomes hotter than the object. A cold ambient environment does not increase the temperature of a warmer object. Your math was precisely as I demonstrated as a lack of comprehension of how to use the heat-flow equation.

This statement nails PRECISELY my point!

If I have a light bulb that burns at 2700k, it will ALWAYS burn at 2700k no matter the ambient temperature such that the ambient temperature <= 2700k … period!

I could place the same 2700k light bulb into a blast furnace at temperature 2699k and the light bulb will still be the exact same color and temperature (2700k) …. PERIOD!

Similarly, I could take my 2700k light bulb to the coldest depths of the Antarctic, and it will still burn at 2700k .. exactly the same color, exactly the same temperature .. period. No additional energy added to the lighting of the bulb, nothing. It will burn exactly the same. This is an extremely simple and testable experiment to prove that cold cannot make warm even warmer still. I observe this very phenomena every day of my life (and so do you).

Furthermore, a 2700k light bulb burning in space (lets say, outside the ISS) will also burn at exactly 2700k, despite an environment incapable of anything but radiative transfer. So now you have a light bulb in what should be, according to your GHE hypothesis’, the “perfect” environment for the most efficient radiative transfer, and yet the bulb will still burn at exactly 2700k with no change in energy supplied. PERIOD.

And when I say period, I don’t mean Obama’s definition of period, I mean absolute and unequivocal … game over… There is not “back radiation” heating possible from a cooler anything, there is no GHE possible in this universe … period.

136. Allen Eltor says:

I’ve got an analog for magic backerdism Joel Shore TJ Folkerts style: a warm rock dipped in a reflective bath that reduced energy in but made temps over a whole sphere, go up.

Another analog for magic backerdisms that mock the hicks who purpot they’re real is that same reflective bath being cold yet making every single heat sensor on a globe go UP due to immersion in them.

Another analog for them to recognize mocks them is magical atoms that ABSORB the FREQUENCIES they’re ALREADY EMITTING yet not violating fundamental energy charge quantization parameters.

A good analog for the spark going out in all their pin heads is a man in an alley smoking crack. They get on that Magic Physics and the next thing you know

a thermally conductive,
convective bath,

removes less heat at night than if the object in question were in vacuum.

Can you imagine how just insidiously evil a liar, he has to be, for Joel Shore to come here trying to tell people he heard of a thermally conducive, convective bath, that removed less heat than if the target object were in vacuum?

That’s yet ANOTHER of the M.A.N.Y
M.A.N.Y.
M.A.N.Y.

FLAT out B.I.Z.A.R.R.E. claims of these kinds of VAPOR-HEADS: magic, thermally conductive, convection cooled fluid baths that remove LESS heat than vacuum alone. Especially when Joel shuts his refrigerator and the light goes out.

The cold air swirling around his two liter soda begins to WARM the soda because the refrigerator light went out.

I’ve got so little respect for these sh***eads it would be difficult for me to catch them in public and not humiliate them endlessly just on the general principle that they’re lying con men I’ve got no respect for.

137. Phil says:

Having read the comments above, it seems that people like joeldshore seem to have a fundamental misunderstanding of physics. He seems to think that (in this example of an electrical resistor receiving a constant power and, in equilibrium, radiating that power at a temperature given by Stefan-Boltzmann) the input power and thus radiated power has all to appear as heat somewhere, either in surrounding bodies, which are heated up or in the resistor itself, which is also heated up. I can’t understand why he assumes that it all has to appear as heat somewhere, when there is an infinite capacity for the energy to remain in the emitted photons.

138. Phil says:

As an add-on to my previous. Given that the heat doesn’t materialise instantly, would Joel get a different answer if the surrounding bodies were a millimetre away, or a billion light years away?

139. Neutrino says:

Max™ says:
”If it makes it warmer then, it should make it warmer when they’re both the same temperature, and you now have a perpetual motion machine, good game thermodynamics!”

Why don’t you actually try and see if the temperature continues to increase or if it converges to a finite number instead of just speculating?

Using 2 identical 1m cubes separated by a 1m gap. Each powered internally by 1800W and in isolation comes to -3.45C.
The view factor between the parallel faces of cube A and B is 0.20. This means that only 3.3% of the radiation emitted from either cube hits the other one.
Each cube needs to radiate its internal power source directly to the outside environment to maintain equilibrium. This means that 96.7% of the cubes surface (or 5.8m^2) needs to radiate 1800W. Quick calculation leads this to a temperature of -1.16C.

Clearly it’s not an infinite number.
Actually finding out the answer to questions, rather than just speculating about them, leads to a much better debate.

[JP: Each cube DOES radiate its power directly to the outside, no matter if another equal cube is near it. Equal temperature bodies do not radiatively or conductively heat each other up because there is no heat flow between them, as per the definition of heat flow. However if you combine two equal objects into one but don't also increase the surface area by a factor of two, then with smaller surface area the new single object be warmer than the two previous objects... Just because of the smaller surface area.]

140. Neutrino says:

Squid,
I was trying to answer the question you posed.
” If a colder thing can make a warming thing warmer still … Shouldn’t my indoor lights be burning hotter and brighter than my outdoor lights?”

You proposed testing what effect ambient temperature would have on the temperature of an incandescent light bulb. That’s what I did. From my simple estimate the answer is clearly No.
The lack of a visible colour change in incandescent light bulbs when moved from a freezer to an oven is not proof that cooler objects do not have an effect on warmer objects. That’s why it is bad example, it doesn’t shed any light on the debate.

If you want to extend this to higher ambient temperatures that’s fine go ahead and do it, here are the numbers when I did:
A bulb in a -100C deep freeze would only be at 2500.01C.
A bulb in a 200C oven would only be at 2500.59C.
A bulb in a 500C oven would only be at 2504.18C.
A bulb in a 1000C furnace would be 2530.30C.
A bulb in a 2000C furnace would be 2770.71C.

The closer the ambient temperature is to the hot object the larger and easier it is to see the effect. Clearly when the ambient temperature gets high enough the colour change would be noticeable but at normal real world temperatures, including ovens and freezers, the effect I think is way too small to detect by the human eye.

[JP: Speculation using mathematics which has already been demonstrated to be incorrect physics doesn't lend support to the speculation. A real greenhouse does not get warm via the alternative version of the greenhouse effect of climate science. This is fact, not speculation, and not analogy.]

141. Phil says: 2013/11/28 at 1:25 PM
“As an add-on to my previous. Given that the heat doesn’t materialise instantly, would Joel get a different answer if the surrounding bodies were a millimetre away, or a billion light years away?”

While I would never defend any statement of Dr (hic) Shore. Your question defies analysis! It all depends on geometry. You seem to misunderstand the difference between thermostatics and thermodynamics. Thermostatics is where all is fixed except understanding and your work is to explan the reasons for all of the observed values. Thermodynamics requires at least one dependent variables “solutions’, and Two or more true (measured) values, .but the reasions and the calculations required for the solution(s) is well known. The greatest unknown in this situation is the geometry which must be completely defined prior to any solution. In your powered radiative only situation is precisely no if the radiative dissapation were unchanged, but always if any geometry were to change. For example if the flux were constant you have no change th temperature, with size, if the receptor were way over yonder. if power rather than flux were held constant, the temperature is inversly related to size or surface area., is inversly related to surface emissivity and directly related to any surface, reflective, or emissive at any temperature above the temperature of over yonder. There is nothing in thermodynamics that requires any “new” concept like “back radiation”. -will-

142. Hey that’s a great point Phil that I’ve never thought to materialize into words. Exactly…they think everything has to appear as heat somewhere, for some reason. Shore thinks that the heat flow equation is a “magic energy sink” when all the terms in the equation show exactly what and where the energy is: in the photons, and if possible, some in heat flow.

143. JP 2013-11-29 10:39
Are you kidding David? Here we have a fact about the reality of the climate-science greenhouse effect being non-existent, and instead you want to talk about resistors again. My error is in following the climate science lead and using mere analogy to make a point. The problem with analogy is that it isn’t quite the point, is it? Therefore I made it simpler, talking about the actual point, the actual fact. Let’s just state the actual fact again shall we, instead of talking about resistors? I’ll make the correction and point in a future blog post too. As far as resistors, only an ambient environment warmer than the resistor will warm the resistor, by definition. That isn’t difficult. But there a much more direct and important reality, that we can directly state, instead of analogizing about (again, my bad for following the climate science lead):

While David is no better than JD Shore, your statement “As far as resistors, only an ambient environment warmer than the resistor will warm the resistor, by definition. That isn’t difficult. “,
must be very difficult, as it is blatantly incorrect, and easily falsified. No “back radiation” no colder warming warmer only the power source increasing the resistors temperature as it must, as the environment temperature increases, even if that new temperature is still below the original resistor temperature. The power supply must do that so long as it is producing a fixed amount of power, just as it must decrease the resistor temperature if the environment temperature is decreased. The environment does no heating the power supplies that amount of power, the result is the “increase” in resistor temperature always “above” the temperature of the environment. The Climate Clowns have again snookered you into thinking that a powered body temperature is “greatest” when radiating to near zero Kelvin. In fact that is the “lowest” temperature as that is the lowest environment temperature. At a fixed power, that power onlr determine only the difference in potential vectors that will produce a single flux with the sign of the difference indicating the direction of flux The S-b equation, Joseph, is vector addition. The Poynting flux at any location is always the vector sum of all the Poynting vectors at that location and frequency or all frequencies if thermal radiation! -will-

144. Max™ says:

Went ahead and asked another question for Van:

I thought electromagnetic radiation being transferred between two bodies involved vectors.

Is that incorrect, wouldn’t you end up with the remainder of the greater out of the two opposing vectors?

If so, wouldn’t that make the transfer equation:
Q = σ(T_h^4 – T_c^4)
…rather than treating each quantity alone?

145. Max™ says: 2013/11/29 at 9:26 PM
Went ahead and asked another question for Van:
Van being a member in good standing of the (AAA) perhaps never heard that the Poynting flux at any location is always the vector sum of all the Poynting vectors at that location and frequency or all frequencies if thermal radiation! Van will likely say No! that is not part of climate science, but only part electrical engineering dealing with electromagnetic radiation. The (AAA) has already claimed that thermal flux never interferes with other thermal flux even at the same frequency.
Why are you asking Climate Clowns silly questions? Ludwig Boltzmann, Stephan’s student, worked closely with John Poynting, Maxwell’s student! -will-

146. Truthseeker says:

Joe, I had a comment on WUWT in the most recent Dr Tim Ball thread disagreeing with a statement by Anthony Watts at the end of the essay about the greenhouse effect. It will not surprise you that the comment was snipped.

Be that as it may, I wonder if you can comment on this contribution by one “Ldb” the link for which is … http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/11/29/the-important-difference-between-climatology-and-climate-science/#comment-1487481

“There is no easy way to define it because it is a Quantum effect and most layman don’t have that background and hence that creates the problem.

Lets see how I go with a fast short form and you will have to bear with it as I will have to butcher some QM to make this understandable.

Ok temperature is energy in classic physics and at school they teach you that it’s the speed or motion of a gas. Well that’s a half truth like all classic physics rubbish. Molecules can contain vibrations in there bonds so if you want to visualize it imagine the molecules a CO2 molecule where the oxygen atoms could spin faster around its own axis but not move any faster as a joint molecule. Now I warn you I am taking big liberties here because the spins really are not anything you can describe in the classic normal sense. These are a form of quantum spin and like all quantum spins they represent energy and that energy is just like all other energy it can move around.

So CO2 is weird you can actually put energy into the molecule spins without the molecule moving absolute motion faster and that is what they call pumping. That’s what causes all the problems with classic physics because you can’t use all the normal formulas because it behaves in a way that classic physics doesn’t cover.

All green house gases exhibit this strange behaviour and they are all called active gain media and if you google that you will probably find you also get the other thing they are all called which is active laser media (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gain_medium). In a laser you control the effect to get a stimulated emission but all the gases will pump always it’s just a matter of how much. The fact you can make a CO2 laser tells you CO2 is a gain media and that’s the stupidity of the dragon slayer argument they are trying to deny the impossible.

Now out in the earth atmosphere there are a pile of things that will change how much pumping occurs in the CO2 and that really is what climate science is supposedly trying to work out. That is a very open debate and I certainly don’t have the answer but the CO2 has to pump it’s a gain media under all circumstances as far as I know and I did a quick search but I can’t find any situation it has ever been reported with a negative optical gain.

So I can’t answer how much it pumps with sunlight in the atmosphere that’s a climate science question I only know what it does under controlled conditions in the lab.

I should add one thing climate scientist won’t tell you CO2 is extremely active to not just light but all forms of energy. It will for example pump from electrical discharge and some RF and magnetic fields rather easily … and that opens a whole other can of worms.”

147. Max™ says:

Pumping involves stimulating an atom or molecule into a higher energy state and then letting it subside, releasing the energy in the process.

Lasers make use of the fact that these state transitions depend on certain properties which every molecule/atom of a given species shares.

If you stimulate CO2 molecules in a certain way they will all respond the same way and they will all release the energy in the same way, giving you a nice coherent wad of photons, making use of mirrors and or diffractive lenses/grates or other optics you can get the entire collection of photons to exit the device with the same orientation.

Gain is simply taking a given signal or input, adding energy from another source, and increasing the power/amplitude of the output.

He seems to be arguing that CO2 takes the input of IR from the surface, something magical happens, and it emits that IR back at higher power?

148. Arfur Bryant says:

Would anyone care to comment on this experiment?

http://www.espere.net/Unitedkingdom/water/uk_watexpgreenhouse.htm

Regards,

149. Max™ says: 2013/11/30 at 6:07 AM
Gain is simply taking agiven signal or input, adding energy from another source, and increasing the power/amplitude of the output.
He seems to be arguing that CO2 takes the input of IR from the surface, something magical happens, and it emits that IR back at higher power?
Good response, Gain is difficult when the source cannot be identified. Consider my keyboard kitten. She can pounce upon my keyboard once, then all computer ist Kaput. She gains weight from eating cat food, but she gains nothing from people food, instead she runs everywhere then returns to be petted upon with no gain in weight. “Gain” seems to be another Climate Clown Weasel word.. You wish to have wonderful kitten? For you, my special friend, I offer a very good price.

150. Arfur Bryant says: 2013/12/01 at 12:28 AM
Would anyone care to comment on this experiment?
http://www.espere.net/Unitedkingdom/water/uk_watexpgreenhouse.htm
Regards,
Yes indeed!
Read my response to Max,
As a honest business person cannot offer new Kitten for sale. I hab 6 Turkeys, 3 Goats, and one fine Camel. For you, my special friend, I offer a very good price for the lot.

151. Allen Eltor says:

A lot of infrared gets in to the earth, from the sun, whereas they’re blocking it all in this “experiment”… which is pretty radically different from the earth scenario

In a reproduction of the earth’s atmosphere being present, with the light being comprised of sunlight spectra, about a fifth or so of the sun’s total energy is blocked from ever seeing sensors at earth’s surface.

44ish percent of the suns total output ya see
is infrared.

CO2 in the atmosphere, along with water and methane, block about half that.
So 22% total energy in, gets blocked by those gases
No earth sensor ever sees that energy. That energy’s GONE because OF CO2 and water.
=======

Here is a situation with no infrared in,
but all infrared out, and since pure CO2 refracts infrared,
the experiment’s showing it having a harder time getting out of the enclosure.

The nitrogen oxygen will just let accrued infrared radiate out, and since there’s NO infrared coming in, regular atmospheric air won’t impede infrared emitting off the cardboard. There’s also the better conduction/convection cooling from the nitrogen and oxygen. CO2′s heavier than the other two so it’s convection driven contact coolings’s reduced a good bit too.

Why do ya think they block all the infrared from the lights?

Because they didn’t want to wind up in the same place Al Gore and Anthony Watts did, when they tried to do an experiment with “air vs air + CO2″ in two jars.

It’s pretty straightforward fraud, nothing special, one of the P.S.I. guys should do a piece explaining how he experiment’s perfectly correct for what it is.
Nothing magic there.

But as soon as half the input starts being infrared light, ya see – 44% infrared IN – then of course, the CO2 is NEVER gonna catch up to the temp of the regular air one, because it’s receiving darn near a quarter less energy in the first place.

It’s pretty standard, straightforward fraud, that’ll only fool someone who doesn’t think it out.
——-
Incidentally one of the first big photographic/experimental cons to come out about Magical Backerdisms was when some people shined an infrared laser into a box. Laser goes through, silence from the audience. Start adding magic gas, and less… and less.. and less of the infrared light, gets across and out of the box.

They SCREAM at you “THAT’ TaiR’s thuh ERTH.

What the criminopathic dips**ts forget to mention is that the infrared light trying to get across the box, is the SUN. And the far side of the BOX, is the EARTH. And the MORE CO2 they ADDED, the COLDER the OTHER SIDE of that BOX, by definition, had to GET.

So, differen’t experiment, slightly different setup on the con, but sure: you can do it yourself and it’ll work just like that, I think.

152. Allen Eltor says:

The phrase “and since there’s NO infrared coming in,” above is a left-over from an edit; sorry.

153. Allen Eltor says:

The experiment is real,
The results are real.
What he is saying
is not.

154. Allen Eltor says:

You can see there him saying, “only the radiation should pass” and of course

“radiation is passing,” it’s “infrared radiation, that’s 44% energy passing, from the sun to the earth” : in a wall that gets blocked and deflected away, by water and co2.

Like all these magic gassers, this one’s just saying whatever words he feels like having drizzle off his fingers.
Obviously when someone’s first-timing it, and they aren’t really savvy in the lingo spammo, it’s not time for a cursing out over fraud.
But it’s just wrong, in the description of actual events happening to the description of the initial setup parameters. It’s classic wannabe sientsy sounding libtard pseud-science.

155. Greg House says:

Arfur Bryant says: “Would anyone care to comment on this experiment? http://www.espere.net/Unitedkingdom/water/uk_watexpgreenhouse.htm
=============================================

Arfur, would YOU care to comment on this experiment?

I mean, a few fakes there are quite obvious and you must be well prepared after reading on blogs and this thread in particular.

156. Alan Siddons says:

See The effects of infrared absorbing gasses on window heat transfer,
http://gaia.lbl.gov/btech/papers/29389.pdf
a study conducted by Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory.

The premise was that “heat trapping” greenhouse gases ought to be ideal insulators for double-paned windows, whose R-value is normally next to nothing. In theory, greenhouse gases would absorb and hold in the heat that windows readily dump to the environment. The results, even when you use Sulfur hexafluoride, the KING of greenhouse gases? Utter failure.

157. Arfur Bryant says:

Thanks all.

Allen, I appreciate the detail. Alan, thanks for the link.

Greg, that is a fair question. Here are my thoughts:

1. The box is not a true representation of the Earth. The box is enclosed. Therefore there is no ability for CO2 to radiate to space, and little room for convection or a lapse rate.
2. I would have liked to see a third box with a ‘doubling’ of CO2 (appx 0.08%) so that any suggestion of this as replicating the Earth atmosphere would be (slightly more) appropriate. I doubt that any temperature change would be noticed with a doubling of CO2. Also, I would like to see a fourth box with no CO2 at all, to see if the observed warming happened anyway.
3. I had already considered the disparity of using the water bath in preventing any infrared hitting the surface.
4. There is no disagreement – as far as I know – that CO2 absorbs infrared radiation. Once absorbed, the energy level of the CO2 molecule is higher. In the real atmosphere this ‘warmer’ CO2 molecule can then radiate to cooler atmospheric molecules (not necessarily the surface, which is likely to be warmer) and thus warm those few molecules. In this experiment, with 100% CO2, I would expect an increase in temperature as the CO2 molecules are now vibrating with more energy.
5. One interesting aspect – to me – is that the temperature change differential (warming) in the first 5 minutes is maintained (does not increase) as time passes. This suggests that any warming effect is very quick and may be instantaneous (less than 5 minutes). From this I deduce that all the CO2 molecules have been irradiated and there is no further warming possible (or at least likely). The single degree rise after 20 minutes is probably due to other factors.
6. The authors don’t specify where the temperature is taken. In particular, the surface (cardboard) does not appear to be heated (although I suppose it should be by conduction at least). This is what is predicted by the IPCC so, again, the relevance is lost.
7. The Greenhouse Effect is not just about absorption by CO2 (ghgs), but also about what happens to the re-emitted radiation once the CO2 molecule heats up. In this case, there is no recipient for that re-emitted ‘backradiation’ other than the walls of the case for the short period of time that they are cooler than the gas. This would not happen in the real world, which is not a closed system.
8. One could argue that this experiment actually supports the case for scepticism. If the warming of 10 degrees in five minutes happened in the ‘air’ box with only 0.037% CO2, the enormous extra amount of CO2 in the ‘CO2′ box has only resulted in a further 5 degree change which has not increased further. Hence why I would have liked to see another box without CO2…

All in all, it shows that CO2 absorption of infrared is real. It does not explain what is likely to happen in the real world.

I hope this all makes some sort of sense from a non-scientist. Sorry I can’t spend more time thinking about it. Busy day.

158. Greg House says:

Arfur Bryant says: “All in all, it shows that CO2 absorption of infrared is real.”
=========================================

Arfur, what reason do you have to attribute the difference in temperature (assuming it was real) to absorption of infrared by CO2?

In other words, is it possible to achieve different temperatures using gases that do not absorb IR at all? You should have asked yourself this question first. If yes, then there can be other reasons than absorbtion of IR. Key word heat capacity.

Anyway, if we look at the difference in heat capacity between the air and pure CO2, given the tiny concentration of CO2 of 1:2600 in the air, we can expect like between 0.0001 and 0.001 °C difference in temperature caused by doubling CO2 in the air. No additional experiment needed.

Again, the IPCC “greenhouse effect” is about Earth surface heating itself by it’s own heat, which is well known to be absolutely impossible. Keep it always in mind.

159. Alan Siddons says:

“this ‘warmer’ CO2 molecule can then radiate to cooler atmospheric molecules (not necessarily the surface, which is likely to be warmer) and thus warm those few molecules.”

Maybe, Arfur, but remember that neighboring N2, O2, and Argon molecules are of course unable to be warmed by IR radiation! Neither are other CO2 molecules. Here’s a snippet from a Department of Energy report:
http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/alternate/page/environment/appd_a.html

“What happens after the GHG molecules absorb infrared radiation? The hot molecules release their energy, usually at lower energy (longer wavelength) radiation than the energy previously absorbed. The molecules cannot absorb energy emitted by other molecules of their own kind. Methane molecules, for example, cannot absorb radiation emitted by other methane molecules. This constraint limits how often GHG molecules can absorb emitted infrared radiation.”

This is sort of a miniature confirmation of Greg’s reminder, that a body cannot be heated by its own heat. Not even a molecule.

160. Alan Siddons says:

PS: Now I notice that the Department of Energy has retired that link. Here’s where the original report can still be found, however:

http://www.oregon.gov/energy/RENEW/Biomass/docs/FORUM/0585942.pdf

161. @Truthseeker 2013/11/30 at 4:43 AM

The comment has lots of words little content. We can stop using analogies and interpretations of theory. A real greenhouse demonstrates that the alternative version of the greenhouse effect does not exist.

162. @Arfur 2013/12/01 at 12:28 AM

From the link:

Conclusions:
Due to the infrared radiation absorbed by the pure carbon dioxide this gas is heated by far stronger than the air consisting mainly from nitrogen and oxygen. The fraction of carbon dioxide in the air is acting as an greenhouse gas.

This is not the greenhouse effect, and the fellow did not test for the greenhouse effect of climate science. The proper way to do the experiment is discussed in this paper.

163. Arfur Bryant says:

Greg and Alan,

["Arfur, what reason do you have to attribute the difference in temperature (assuming it was real) to absorption of infrared by CO2?

In other words, is it possible to achieve different temperatures using gases that do not absorb IR at all? You should have asked yourself this question first. If yes, then there can be other reasons than absorbtion of IR. Key word heat capacity."]

That is why I said I would have liked to see the experiment done with two more boxes – one without CO2 and one with a doubling of CO2. To prove the point that CO2 has such a small effect due to its sparsity. The one without CO2 (and any other absorbing molecules) would show whether or how much warming was due to the presence of absorbing molecules.

Assuming the warming was real, I would say that the experiment shows that CO2 absorbs infrared radiation. A fact which I suspect is not in doubt. What the experiment does NOT show is the ‘greenhouse effect’, as it does not show how the supposed backradiation warms the surface.

I agree with you both, I am just trying to be objective about the properties of CO2. Yes it absorbs infrared and yes it will therefore increase in energy. What is not clear is what it can then cause to warm up by re-radiating. As one case has 100% CO2 and the other only 0.037% CO2, I would expect the first case to warm more. That is what happens (if the experiment is honest).

I understand that a body (or molecule) cannot be heated by itself, but it can be heated by absorbing infrared radiation from a warmer source.

164. Arfur Bryant says:

Joseph E Postma says:
2013/12/01 at 11:06 PM

Joe, I agree 100%. It is just another example of the pro-cAGW commenters ‘making the jigsaw pieces fit by using a hammer’! :)

165. James says:

Speaking to the warmist’s belief structure, has anyone run across this question?:

The 33degC GHE gives a reliable average boost in temperature. Is this a second by second phenomena, a 24 hour daily phenomena? I frame it that way to ask this basic question from the warmist camp – is this a constant energy boost, is there an equilibrium, how quickly does this work?

If the Earth were to start out at -18degC average temp, and then the GHE naturally kicked in, cloning that incoming solar energy, how long till +15 degC is reached? Does the Earth dump that 33degC every night and re-boot every day for it’s new cloning efforts?

Or would Day 2 result in an average of 15 +33 degC and so on? Curious minds want to know. There’s Newtonian physics, there’s relativistic physics and now the emerging field of cloning physics and I just want to get a good handle on it. Thanks for your patience as you bring these details to light.

166. Allen Eltor says:
167. Greg House says:

Arfur Bryant says: “Assuming the warming was real, I would say that the experiment shows that CO2 absorbs infrared radiation. A fact which I suspect is not in doubt.”
==============================================

Again, Arfur: the experiment does not show that. You attributed the difference in temperature in the experiment to absorption for no scientific reason. Even if CO2 does absorb IR. Like I said, other gases not known to be capable of absorbing IR can demonstrate a similar change in temperature.

168. Greg House says:

James says: “The 33degC GHE gives a reliable average boost in temperature. … If the Earth were to start out at -18degC average temp, and then the GHE naturally kicked in, cloning that incoming solar energy, how long till +15 degC is reached?”
================================================

James, this warmists’ 33°C self-heating of the Earth is a fiction, an impossible process.

No thing can warm itself my it’s own heat, including the Earth.

169. Greg House says:

Arfur Bryant says: “I am just trying to be objective about the properties of CO2. Yes it absorbs infrared and yes it will therefore increase in energy.”
==============================================

Even that is not clear. As far as I understand, CO2 won’t let some portion of IR through, which does not mean that it absorbs it. Maybe it scatters it only.

170. James says:

Yes Greg.
Anyone else able to see these questions from the warmists perspective? And hence help to wake them up.

171. Neutrino says:

Joseph you have entirely missed the point. Squid posed a question based on the hypothesis that If a colder thing can make a warming thing warmer still”. The only possible way to evaluate his question is to actually use that hypothesis.

The same applies to Max’s hypothesis If it makes it warmer then, it should make it warmer when they’re both the same temperature”. Regardless if you believe the hypothesis you actually have to use it to evaluate the veracity of the assertion.

The commonality in both their questions is the if. I understand you don’t think that the hypothesis is true, you have asserted that many times. But that doesn’t change the fact to answer their hypothetical questions/assertions you must assume that it is.

Additionally both of their questions/assertions are false if you assume the hypothesis is true, no the colour would not noticeably change and no the objects would not indefinitely heat up.

Finally, the questions/assertions are misleading because although they both superficially appear to be correct when they are actually evaluated both are found to be false. Presenting or endorsing them as some kind of proof of your point of view or a contradiction to the given hypothesis sounds a lot like sophistry.

[JP: As has been identified clearly now, the climate science tactic of using analogies to explain a theory rather than explaining the theory itself is a fraudulent sophist ruse.

The greenhouse effect of climate science is an alternative version of the real greenhouse effect that functions in a real greenhouse. This alternative version is a simulacrum of physics that is not the real thing, nor is it independently real as a separate aspect of physics. The mathematical physics proposition of the alternative climate science greenhouse effect predicts an observable which is subsequently not observed, hence the postulate is refuted empirically, plus there are all manner of theoretical problems if you want to take that route. A powered heater, such as the ground surface, or a single resistor, heating its environment, does not get hotter still by "return" heat or "trapped" energy from the thermal environment it has just created.

There is no climate science greenhouse effect. It is that simple. This is the point I hope you can learn to appreciate. All other arguments and analogies are beside the point.]

172. Arfur Bryant says:

Alan,

["Maybe, Arfur, but remember that neighboring N2, O2, and Argon molecules are of course unable to be warmed by IR radiation! Neither are other CO2 molecules. "]

I know that, Alan. The CO2 molecules can only warm any other molecules by conduction (diffusion), unless their emitted radiation is absorbed by a molecule capable of such absorption which happens to have lower energy than the emitter. That is how I see it. That is why CO2 can have only a very small effect in the atmosphere. But they do absorb infrared and therefore they must – as far as I am aware – become warmer themselves.

Regards,

173. Arfur Bryant says:

Greg,

Again, Arfur: the experiment does not show that. You attributed the difference in temperature in the experiment to absorption for no scientific reason. Even if CO2 does absorb IR. Like I said, other gases not known to be capable of absorbing IR can demonstrate a similar change in temperature.”]

And

["Even that is not clear. As far as I understand, CO2 won’t let some portion of IR through, which does not mean that it absorbs it. Maybe it scatters it only."]

I have always been under the impression that CO2 is able to absorb such radiation. If you have any evidence that it does not, I’d really like to see it. By saying “other gasses not known to be capable of absorbing IR…” you seem to be contradicting yourself. The ‘air’ box had lots of ‘other gasses not capable of absorbing IR – ie N2 and O2, and yet they did not warm as much as the CO2. This seems to me to suggest CO2 absorbs the IR for energy gain.

Regards,

174. Greg House says:

Arfur Bryant says: “I have always been under the impression that CO2 is able to absorb such radiation. If you have any evidence that it does not, I’d really like to see it.”
=============================================

You seem to be a little biased, Arfur. Your IMPRESSION will stay until you have seen some solid evidence of the opposite. Why don’t you ask for some solid evidence supporting your “impression”?

175. Greg House says:

Arfur Bryant says: “By saying “other gasses not known to be capable of absorbing IR…” you seem to be contradicting yourself. The ‘air’ box had lots of ‘other gasses not capable of absorbing IR – ie N2 and O2, and yet they did not warm as much as the CO2. This seems to me to suggest CO2 absorbs the IR for energy gain.”
================================================

Here you seem to be a little biased again, Arfur. I did not say those other gases were N2 and O2. I suggest you look at heat capacity values of gases.

176. Arfur Bryant says:

Greg,

With all due respect, I am not sure if you are trying to help me or to confuse me.

Either CO2 is capable of absorbing IR or it is not.

You say:
["You seem to be a little biased, Arfur. Your IMPRESSION will stay until you have seen some solid evidence of the opposite. Why don’t you ask for some solid evidence supporting your “impression”?"]

Here are a few sources of information from both pro-cAGW and sceptical viewpoints:

**

http://lasersparkpluginc.com/uploads/CO2_Absorption_Data.pdf

“Carbon dioxide absorbs infrared radiation (IR) in three narrow bands of frequencies, which are 2.7, 4.3 and 15 micrometers (μM).”

“There are three general vibrations for a CO2 molecule: a symmetric mode, a bending mode, and an asymmetric mode (Figure 1). Each mode is able to absorb certain bands of wavelengths, with the bending mode absorbing longer wavelengths (667 cm-1) and the asymmetric absorbing shorter wavelengths, 2349 cm-1 (Figure 2). (Kverno) Ultimately, the energy from the photon has two pathways. It can either be converted into thermal energy by the conversion of the internal kinetic energy of the CO2 molecule to the kinetic energy of a different, inert molecule such as N2. Or the molecule can reemit a photon at a lower frequency.”

“Absorption of visible and near IR radiation in the gaseous atmosphere is primarily due to H2O, O3, and CO2″

“It is hardly to be expected that for CO2 doubling an increment of IR absorption at the 15 µm edges by 0.17% can cause any significant global warming or even a climate catastrophe.”

“Carbon dioxide is a potent absorber of infrared radiation, especially near 15 microns.”

“Absorption and emission by the well-known 15 4m bands of CO2 forms the basis for experiments on the remote sensing of the atmospheric temperature
profile from satellite-borne instruments.”

So, Greg, as far as I can surmise from sources available to me, CO2 has the ability to absorb and emit IR.
You also say:
["Like I said, other gases not known to be capable of absorbing IR can demonstrate a similar change in temperature."]

So now I will ask you to show me some evidence for that statement.

I am extremely sceptical about pro-cAGW arguments. I am not trained in science to any high level but I have a good grounding. I can usually formulate my arguments with pro-cAGW commenters purely and simply on logical grounds. I tend not to accept words on face value unless they are supported either by evidence or, at the very least, logical reasoning. If you want me to accept that CO2 does not absorb IR and cannot be warmed by that absorption, please help me out. I would add that I am not saying that the ‘Greenhouse Effect’ meme is valid, just that I can accept that CO2 is an absorber of IR.

Regards,

177. Greg House says:

Arfur Bryant says: “So, Greg, as far as I can surmise from sources available to me, CO2 has the ability to absorb and emit IR.”
====================================================

Arfur, I opened 3 of your links and no surprise, they refer to absorption of IR by CO2 without references to experiments proving that.

Let me make the same point for the 3rd time, since you do not seem to understand simple logic.

Firstly, it is probably easy to find experimentally that CO2 dies not let all the IR through. This alone is however not enough to maintain that CO2 ABSORBS this IR, because it can be reflected/scattered as well. That was my point. Since for practical reasons it possibly does not matter what exactly happens with this IR, I can well imagine that this aspect was not studied.

Secondly, if gas A is completely transparent to IR and gas B is not and gas B gets warmer than gas A by equal warming, this fact alone is not sufficient to maintain that gas B gets warmer BECAUSE it absorbs IR. Because, Arfur, it is still possible that gas B gets warmer for other reasons, like other transparent to IR gases and just scatters IR instead of absorbing it.

This is simple logic. So, you can not prove the absorption of IR by CO2 by mere reference to change in temperature, which you unfortunately did. Get it now?

Now I think we can drop it, because absorption or not, the difference in heat capacity of the air because of doubling of CO2 concentration would be absolutely negligible.

178. Greg House says:

Arfur Bryant says: “I am extremely sceptical about pro-cAGW arguments.”
==============================================

Yeah, “cAGW”, I see.

Arfur, people who do not support the unscientific notion of AGW usually do not feel it necessary to add this “C”. Because, if there no AGW, saying CAGW does not make sense. It is like talking of C-unicorns, you know.

179. Greg House says:

Arfur Bryant says: “If you want me to accept that CO2 does not absorb IR and cannot be warmed by that absorption, please help me out.”
===================================================

If CO2 absorbs IR and gets warmer therefore, it is already included in it’s well known thermal properties. Since it’s concentration in the air is extremely low, it’s influence is also extremely low, about 0.0001-0.001°C.

You can not really replace the “back radiation warming” fiction with “direct absorption”. The IPCC people apparently knew that. You are just wasting your time.

180. Arfur Bryant says:

Greg,

["You are just wasting your time."]

I agree. Thank you.

181. Neutrino says:

Joseph,
You say:” The mathematical physics proposition of the alternative climate science greenhouse effect predicts an observable which is subsequently not observed, hence the postulate is refuted empirically,”

I assume this is in reference to Squid’s light bulb question?
What exactly does the “alternative climate science greenhouse effect” predict in this case?
Neither you nor Squid actually ever stated this and it is essential in evaluating the hypothesis.

So I’ll ask again, what is the predicted temperature of the light bulbs when in a warm and a cool environment? Does this change in temperature, if any, have a noticeable effect on the perceived colour of the bulbs?
Not answering those two questions means that no prediction has been made and logically if there is no prediction then there cannot be an observation that falsifies the nonexistent prediction.

If this is truly a “Great example”(your words) then it has to have a prediction that can actually be refuted , so what is it?

182. Right, sorry Neutrino, I was assuming people would be cognizant of the subject matter etc.

No, not talking about light bulbs – light bulbs are an analogy; talking about the real, direct thing. The actual greenhouse effect in a real greenhouse and the alternative version of the greenhouse effect of climate science that should apply to a real greenhouse and the atmosphere and surface.

With the traditional greenhouse effect, the temperature inside the greenhouse can not exceed the temperature of the maximum solar heating. With the climate science version of the greenhouse effect, the temperature inside can exceed the temperature of the maximum solar heating. The latter is an “empirical observational” that can be tested (the former is too of course).

And so, real greenhouses only demonstrate the former, and they do not confirm the latter postulate which comes directly out of the climate science greenhouse maths. The latter postulate does not occur hence is refuted. Experiments like “Wood’s box” are used to test for the outcome, and also experiments on the ground surface itself as I analyzed with data from Carl Brehmer.

Plus there are all the theoretical objections, which come down to the statement that the thing which causes the heating does not get heated by the thing it heats. In this case the heater is the ground surface with incoming radiant power (not electrical power, etc), and the thing being heated is the environment around the ground surface. The cooler subsoil and the cooler atmosphere does not cause heating of the heater (the warmer surface). That however is the postulate of the climate science greenhouse effect, but it is refuted empirically and propositionally.

183. Allen Eltor says:

Scientist: Do you believe, a sphere suspended spinning, with surface sensors distributed evenly around it, can be heated through illumination, in vacuum, until T is stable,
then sphere immersed, spinning in frigid, fluid, gas bath,
and every sensor on said sphere, show heat on surface rise?

Magic Gais loon: “Why Yes. Don’t you?
===
Scientist: Do you believe a reflective molecule suspended in a fluid, diffracting 20% E in, from arriving at sensors behind screen, can make them display more energy arriving?

Magic Gais loon: “Yes!”
===
Scientist: Do you believe adding MORE physical diffraction media (CO2/H20) until 21% E never arrives at sensors immersed in reflective bath, will cause sensors to report more E arrived
than when E diffracted from sensors, was only 20%?

Magic Gas loon: “Yes – why yes I do!”
=======
What is there is left to say to a pinhead
who answers:

“Oh HECK Yeah!”

“That’s real – that’s real science to me!”

“I mean, it’s REALLY, ..really.. REAL!”

“Don’t you understand how that can happen?”

to the first three “Are you d.e.l.u.s.i.o.n.a.l.” questions you ask
before you even crack a book?

184. Allen Eltor says:

Hilarity with Monckton of Brenchley, Magic Gais Believer:

Hurry go look before it disappears LoL

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/12/04/al-gores-polarbeargate-scientist-forced-to-retire/#comment-1492221

Steven R Vada says:
December 5, 2013 at 2:29 am
The things you described are the textbook definitions of scientific misconduct. When he connects ‘Dr.’ to his name he’s making claims he doesn’t practice “Sloppy methodology,” “too much extrapolation” and some “unjustifiable speculation, yes,”
and he hasn’t “had his career shattered.”
He’s been given full retirement wages, a tenth of a million dollars, and told wait three years to return.

If you’re so concerned about how we discuss our employees –
you can pay his wages and \$100,000.

===
Monckton of Brenchley says:
December 4, 2013 at 4:41 pm
“Sloppy methodology, ”
“too much extrapolation”
and some
“unjustifiable speculation, yes.”
“Scientific misconduct, no.”
“Give him a break.”
“Because ….he’s had his career shattered…”
“Give him a break.”

===
Steven R Vada says:
December 5, 2013 at 2:35 am
*Five years
above

===
Steven R Vada says:
Your comment is awaiting moderation.
December 5, 2013 at 3:03 am
The arrogant tone of people who are found believing in one of the greatest scientific scams in history’s foundational tenets –
“a sphere, heated in vacuum, with sensors distributed on it’s surface,
suddenly showed dramatic temperature rise – that’s as in ‘it got hotter’
when said sphere was immersed in a cold nitrogen/oxygen bath diffracting 20% of original energy in from sensors altogether,”

is stunning.

Do people actually believe, temperatures on the globe shot up because a reflective cold nitrogen/oxygen bath, was provided as environment instead of vacuum?

Monckton I’m an Electronic Engineer whose money’s made keeping the radiation communications space age buzzing around us intact and up to date.

I know what shoddy science is when I see it, my profession is the one which designed most of what has those rovers bouncing around on distant planets, and has the satellite communications age sporting that saucy attitude like it’s kind of neat having it about.

My electronic radiation communications age works fine.

But I notice in your field you’re having a hard time of it so I ask climate people some basic questions, so I can see if they’re actually in contact with what a real scientific concept is.

I have three questions I currently use:

(1) Do you believe it possible to suspend spinning in vacuum a sphere, with energy sensors distributed on it’s surface, to be illuminated until temperature stabilizes at temp T,
and then immerse the sphere in a frigid, reflective nitrogen/oxygen bath,
and have sensors on that sphere show more energy arriving on them,
than when the sphere was in vacuum?

The answer Monckton had better be no or there’s going to be a real explanation coming.

(2)Do you believe diffractive media in suspension around a sphere with sensors on it
blocking 20% energy from ever arriving on those sensors
can make those sensors show more energy arriving, than when 20% more actually was?

Again Monckton if the answer is no you had better have one very good explanation why.

(3) Do you believe if diffractive media in suspension are increased in volume until they are blocking 21% of energy to target sensors, this can make the sensors register even more energy arriving?

If you have answered “yes” to even one of these – your comprehension of a hot rock in cold water is immediately shown in dire jeopardy.

In order to believe in Green House Gas Effect you have to answer “You betcha I believe in that! That’s real science to me!”

to all three.

You’ve declared you do believe in Greenhouse Gas Effect,
therefore you affirm you also
believe all three.

That means you’ve got quite a long way to go before you’re qualified to scold anyone in the U.S.
on what we consider scientifically unacceptable.

We can check the Electronic Communications field’s performance easily.
We can also check the Greenhouse Gas Effect field’s performance easily.

I’m completely comfortable with my grasp of the physics associated with a reflective, frigid fluid bath related to an object immersed in it.

I’m also completely comfortable with my forefathers’ decision to not ask British Lords what they think about quite a wide variety of subjects.

185. Allen Eltor says:

Ah I didn’t separate the three posts, there in the middle – there’s the end of one; then there’s a little one or two line “grammatical correction [above]” post,
then the second contextual one. Could you separate them with some spaces please J.P.?
Sorry.

Kinda like below when it’s sorted out some I think:

“Because ….he’s had his career shattered…”
“Give him a break.”
=======

Steven R Vada says:
December 5, 2013 at 2:35 am
*Five years
above
=======

Steven R Vada says:
Your comment is awaiting moderation.
December 5, 2013 at 3:03 am

(Thanks a lot; peace on yas)

186. Neutrino says:

Joseph,

I have been trying to understand your perspective on radiative exchanges and now think I have a good idea of where you stand. Could you verify if the below is an accurate description: This is not an analogy but a physical scenario.

A small sphere with 25cm radius and powered by 100W, in isolation it will come to a temperature of -55C.
A large spherical shell with 75cm internal radius and external radius of 76cm and powered by 2000W, in isolation this sphere will come to a temperature of -9C.
Insert the small sphere is inside the large shell. Since the small sphere is colder than the large shell heat will flow from the shell to the sphere and it will warm up until it is the same temperature of the shell. At this point both sphere and shell are the same temperature so no heat is transferred and both will remain at this constant temperature.

Am I correct in assuming that the larger shells temperature remains unchanged?

187. Hi Neutrino,

Having two powered sources is of course a different scenario than the simpler one of a single source of which is framed the alternative radiative version of the greenhouse effect. Whatever happens in your new scenario doesn’t translate over to the IPCC greenhouse effect. However, it is a neat question as far as its own scenario goes.

Right so I agree with your numbers and the larger sphere gives 275 W/m^2 and the smaller one 127 W/m^2, which correspond with the temperatures you state. So, certainly at the beginning, yes the warmer shell must warm up the cooler interior sphere. Now the question is if, since you have two independently powered systems, what happens next?

So in between the sphere and shell is a cavity, and this cavity gets filled with radiation. Such a condition is what creates a blackbody spectrum distribution of the energy of the photons.

Another thing to consider is that, at the shell, the sphere’s flux gets reduced due to distance, and so there can never be heat transfer from the sphere to the shell since even if the sphere becomes the same temperature as the shell, the sphere’s flux will always be smaller than the shell’s at the shell and hence heat can’t flow into the shell. However because the environment is isotropic as seen from the sphere, the sphere will come to the same temperature as the shell so that its local surface flux is equal to the incoming flux. Given then the conditions at the interior of the shell, where the heat flow direction can only be in the direction of the sphere and not into the shell, then it seems to indicate that the shell need not rise in temperature.

The cavity between the sphere and shell will contain a blackbody distribution of the energy of the photons. This distribution will correspond with a particular temperature. In fact it is the temperature which determines the distribution, as per Planck’s Law. So, what determines the temperature? In the lab, or anywhere else, it is the source that determines the temperature. So then given that the shell and the sphere are the same temperature, the radiation in the cavity will correspond with that temperature.

So now would be to wonder about what happens to the energy. Actually the scenario you describe is isotropic and symmetric and so it can be translated to two infinite plane parallel walls. One warm wall one cool one. The warmer wall will warm the cooler one until they are the same temperature. The cool wall will not warm up the warmer wall because the direction of the heat flow equation is…never in that direction. Once the two walls are the same temperature, then there is no heat flow at all, Q = 0. Each wall still emits all of its energy, it is just that none of this energy flows as heat.

Hope that helps. And of course, whatever happens here is not the IPCC greenhouse effect.

188. Neutrino says:

Thank you, that does help.

The problem here is that you are in effect ‘disappearing’ energy. The total input to the system is 2100W but you claim the exterior shell is only radiating 2000W to the outside world. This is the direct consequence of your claim that the shells temperature does not change. If the system is only radiating 2000W then what happens to the other 100W?

The only way for energy to escape the system is from the radiation leaving the shells outer surface. For this to total up to 2100W the surface must increase in temperature by over 3C. There is no way around this conclusion if you maintain Conservation of Energy is required. This necessitates that the cooler inner sphere must have a positive effect on the warmer outer shells temperature.

Your insistence that radiation form a cool source to a warm target cannot be absorbed, and hence increase the temperature of the warm object, leads directly to the conclusion that energy is not conserved (2100W in and only 2000W out).

If you accept the Law of Conservation of Energy then your belief about transfer, or lack thereof, between cold and hot objects must be incorrect.

[JP: Your conclusion is unwarranted though. Beyond a certain distance, a source of heat can't heat anything. Does this mean that its energy has been disappeared? No. Beyond 123 light days, the solar energy can't heat anything above the CMB (2.7K); does this mean that the solar energy is not conserved? No. If we agree on the heat equation, then the application of the equation does not depend on my interpretation of things - we simply apply the equation in the correct way, and there is only one correct way. It is the equation which says heat doesn't flow from cold to hot and that cold won't increase the temperature of hot - it is not me saying this, it is the equation saying this. See the next post: http://climateofsophistry.com/2013/12/08/revisiting-the-steel-greenhouse/%5D

189. TomP says:

[quote]Neutrino says:
2013/12/08 at 1:51 PM
Thank you, that does help.

The problem here is that you are in effect ‘disappearing’ energy. The total input to the system is 2100W but you claim the exterior shell is only radiating 2000W to the outside world. This is the direct consequence of your claim that the shells temperature does not change. If the system is only radiating 2000W then what happens to the other 100W? [/quote]
Neutrino, you are absolutely correct. The smaller sphere is dissipating 100W and the only place this can go now is the larger sphere -there is no other place for it to go. That means that the larger shell now has to dissipate 2100W instead of 2000W. Inside the shell, the temperature will become isothermal, meaning there are no if’s and but’s about 2LTD or whatever, but the fact remains that the outer shell is dissipating more energy into space, therefore it has to heat up.

[JP: Problem is that you can't actually demonstrate that with the heat flow equation. If you use the heat flow equation which we all agree on, then the 100W from the sphere at the shell can not heat the shell since the shell is hotter http://climateofsophistry.com/2013/12/08/revisiting-the-steel-greenhouse/

Qsh = Ash*σ*[Tsp4 * (rsp/rsh)2 - Tsh4]

Since Tsp = Tsh and rsp < rsh, then the heat flow at the interior of the shell is away from the shell, which means the sphere can not heat it.

You’ll have to come up with a different heat flow equation to get a different result.]

190. Neutrino says:

You still need to account for the missing 100W. Simply stating that this 100W is unable to heat something doesn’t account for where it goes. Energy cannot be destroyed, whether or not it heats something doesn’t change the fact it still must exist somewhere.

You are claiming, for whatever reason, that a system with a continuous input of 2100W only has an output of 2000W. This is a violation of the Law of Conservation of Energy.

The equations as applied by you lead to this result. This is not my conclusion but rather it is yours.
To maintain Conservation of Energy you need to account for what happens to the missing 100W. Where did it go?

[JP: It is the conclusion of the heat flow equation, not myself. The equation works itself out...if you do the math properly like using inverse square law where you should etc. You are welcome to apply the heat flow equation and work it out. It is fun math to do on paper. On the interior of the shell, the heat flow is

Qsh = Ash*σ*[Tsp4 * (rsp/rsh)2 - Tsh4]

Since Tsp = Tsh and rsp < rsh, then the heat flow at the interior of the shell is away from the shell, towards the sphere, which means the sphere can not heat the shell. The shell is capable of doing heating work in the direction of the sphere, although at the sphere this potential goes to zero since equilibrium is found there. On the outside of the shell though, it emits P = Ash*σ*Tsh4. This is different from the steel greenhouse case where the interior of the shell sent no heat towards its interior and it was cooler than the sphere inside, and all the energy was emitted outwards. In the case now which you created, the shell is sending heat both towards its interior and its outside. So, total energy does get conserved, because the heating potential is not only being emitted outside of the shell at its temperature, but also on the inside in order to maintain the interior’s (the sphere) temperature. If you add together the absolute value of the heat potential from the shell, at the shell, of the interior and exterior portion, and given Tsp = Tsh, then

Psh = Ash*σ*Tsh4*[2 - (rsp/rsh)2]

and so since rsp < rsh, the term in the square brackets is greater than 1, meaning the energy from the interior sphere is being accounted for. If rsp = rsh, then you just have a single object and so the square bracket term = 1, and the object emits to outside at its temperature. If rsp = 0 then there is no sphere and the square bracket term = 2, however, the interior of the shell is isothermal at the temperature of the shell and so no heat energy actually flows inside, and thus only the unitary outside term contributes to energy flow. Maybe I’ll write an addendum to the steel greenhouse post on this. But for now the point for you is that energy does indeed get conserved in your scenario, using the standard heat flow equation.]

191. @Neutrino 2013/12/09 at 4:32 PM

Actually the setup for your scenario doesn’t quite allow for a proper analysis. You specify 100W and 2000W but you don’t specify the temperatures, and the temperatures depend on the radius of the sphere and shell so that the power can be a flux. This can change the heat flow analysis from what I showed above. By specifying 100W and 2000W and the 100W sphere is (initially) cooler than the 2000W shell, this puts limits on what the radii can be. With heat flow, power, energy, etc., we specify the temperatures. So then you have a larger hotter shell surrounding a cooler smaller sphere. That was what was set up…right, ok. What happens inside the shell? Isotherm. Outside the shell? Inverse square. What happens to the 100W of the inner sphere? That energy gets bumped up to whatever the equilibrium temperature emission will be when the sphere comes to the inner isotherm of the shell. It becomes part of the isotherm radiation field, which will be a black body spectrum, inside the shell.

192. And…right, so the inner sphere’s 100W isn’t really a concern anymore because after it gets warmed up to the shell’s isotherm, it’s actually emitting Asp*σ*Tsh4, (Tsp = Tsh), which is by the definitions more than it was emitting (100W) before it was heated. What happens to the energy? It isn’t capable of doing work since the sphere’s universe is the isotherm of the interior of the shell…basically there’s heat death inside the sphere, no energy gradients, like what the real universe is said to eventually end up like with all of us inside the “shell”. It is kind of like when the heat we emit merges with the heat of the CMB – where does it go? Did the energy disappear? No, we EMITTED it. It goes to the radiation field inside the “shell”, but this field is only ever capable of doing the work associated with its temperature. Trapping two equal wavelength photons in a cavity doesn’t create a photon of half the wavelength (higher energy, basically higher temperature), they just superimpose. Two equal blackbody distribution sources of photons combining in a cavity don’t create a new BB spectrum with a higher energy spectrum, moving up the Wein’s Law curve or something, that then returns to their sources to heat them up some more. A cooler one and a warmer one definitely will not do that either of course, but the warmer one will heat up the source of the cooler one if the cooler one is close enough.

193. And so that’s one last thing: photons superimpose. Matter does not. All these analogies with matter “building up” pretending that photons have to likewise “build up” are false. If matter behaved like photons then two rocks could slip right through and into each other and occupy the same space until you separated them again. Which is as senseless as saying that photons build up when trapped inside an enclosure and thus cause an amplification of temperature above their source. The photons just superimpose, and they don’t change their spectrum, hence they don’t change the temperature other than that of something cooler.

194. TomP says:

[quote] JP: It is the conclusion of the heat flow equation, not myself. [/quote]
If you are putting 2100 W in and getting 2000 W out then you are violating the conservation of energy. So, if your equation says you can put in 2100 and only get 2000 out, which one do you think is wrong, your equation or the law of conservation of energy? I know what conclusion a physicist would reach.
It’s as simple as that.

195. TomP, learn the heat flow physics math: http://climateofsophistry.com/2013/12/08/revisiting-the-steel-greenhouse/

I am not solving the equation – it solves itself. And it is not my equation. If you have a different way to solve it or a different heat flow equation, then show it. Your argument isn’t even following its own logic, because after the shell heats the interior sphere then the sphere emits MORE than 100, and so more than 100 would have to show up outside. That’s not the way heat flow works. Use the physics equation. The heat flow equation is not mine, it’s what everyone agrees on.

Let’s do better than the cool sphere and warmer shell, and just start with the sphere and shell at the same temperature. Then put the sphere inside the shell. The sphere and the shell are independently temperature T. They each emit a power P = A*σ*T4. Obviously the larger area shell emits more power than the smaller area sphere. Let’s look at the heat flow equation:

Q = A2*(F1 – F2)

for the heat flow at surface A2. This is just like having two opposing pressures or forces with only what exceeds of the stronger portion over the weaker portion resulting in action. That does not mean energy is not conserved because the larger and weaker portions taken individually might be larger than the net balance between them. Such as if the force from the right is 10 and that from the left is 9, with a balance of only 1 capable performing any action. This does not mean that the energy from the opposing forces is lost or not conserved – the energy is USED in producing the balance. And that is not “my” heat flow equation, it is physics’. If you have a different one then show it.

Given the two surfaces are equal temperature T and the sphere’s flux reduces by inverse square from its surface, then at the interior surface of the shell

Qsh = Ash*σ*T4[(rsp/rsh)2 - 1]

and since rsp < rsh then rsp/rsh < 1 and so Qsh is negative, which means it won’t rise in temperature due to the interior equal temperature sphere. That establishes and proves that the sphere doesn’t heat the shell, but in terms of the shell its internal Qsh = 0, since the interior is isothermal; that is, when rsp = rsh, then Qsh = 0, toward the interior.

If we apply the equation to the surface of the interior sphere, then

Qsp = Asp*(Fsh – Fsp), and Fsh – Fsp = 0 since the flux from the shell is isotropic inside the shell, that is, any point on the sphere’s surface sees a uniform “sky” in all directions which provides a uniform flux at temperature T. So Qsp = 0.

With Qsp = 0 and Qsh = 0, the heat flow equation directly demonstrates the “word equation” of the initial set up – two equal temperature objects which by the definition of heat flow can’t and won’t heat each other up to higher temperature.

The energy or power emitted in the interior is USED to establish the conditions there, it is not lost. You don’t conserve force vectors, you’re only left with their balance.

196. TomP says:

JP – so you are saying that you can ignore the law of conservation of energy? Think of it this way – from the standpoint of an observer outside the shell, all he sees is 2100 watts going in, but he only sees 2000 watts coming out. That is impossible. The additional 100 watts have to be accountedf for, and the only logical explanation is that the temperature of the shell rises in order to restore equilibrium.
If you are a real physicist, you must realize that your equation must be wrong somewhere. It really is as simple as that. It’s your job to explain the discrepancy, not mine.

197. If you have another heat flow equation, show it. The 100 Watts aren’t even that important…after the shell has heated the sphere to a higher temperature it emits even more than 100 Watts, and it still doesn’t heat the shell. If the sphere and shell are the same temperature, the sphere still can not heat the shell. Even if the sphere is hotter than the shell, it STILL might not be able to heat the shell given the reduction of the sphere’s flux with distance. Cup your hands around an ice cube (magically suspended in the air ;) ), the ice cube won’t make your hands hotter. Heat flow is the most basic way to define temperatures and thermodynamics…what was it: Temperature is the state of matter that causes heat to flow from higher temperature to lower; heat is that which flows from higher to lower temperature. Etc. It is not my job to come up with a new heat flow equation, nor do I think there needs to be one. If you think there needs to be one, that IS your job. Let’s see it.
The 1st Law is simply that energy can not be created nor destroyed; energy isn’t being destroyed it is being fully accounted for by the terms in the heat flow equation: Q = A2*(F1 – F2) or a simple case for two infinite plane parallel plates Q = A*σ*T14 – A*σ*T24: the energy terms are entirely there, they’re not being destroyed. No energy is lost anywhere; Q, heat, is just the balance, it doesn’t have to represent the total and it is not the thing that conservation of energy is expressed through.

198. Let’s put it this way: if two equal temperature bodies can radiatively heat each other up, such as the sphere inside the shell, I have never seen it; I have never seen a physics equation which shows this and this was never part of my physics training. What is part of physics is the equation which we’ve been using and which I think we all still agree on, repeated here for the case of two plane parallel walls for simplicity:

Q = A*σ*(T14 – T24)

If T1 = T2 then Q, heat flow, equals zero, which means no heat flow, which means no temperature change, as per the very definitions of those very things. There is no other heat flow equation that exists and no other interpretation.

199. TomP says:

The problem is that you are assuming that the sphere and the shell are isothermal.
Here is the correct derivation –
Definitions
rsp = radius of sphere inside shell
rsh = radius of shell
Ash = area of shell = 4pi.rsh^2
Asp = are of sphere = 4pi.rsp^2

Wsp = energy supplied from external source to sphere
Wsh = energy supplied from external source to shell

Write the flux F(T) = sigma.T^4 to simplify the equations.
First consider the radiant energy from a point of the shell surface inside the shell. A proportion α impinges on the sphere, and the remainder (1-α) impinges on some other point of the shell.

Then the energy balance at the surface of the sphere =
energy in = energy out
Wsp + α.Ash.F(Tsh) = Asp.F(Tsp) …(1)

[JP: The set of laws of thermodynamics is not about conservation of vector energies - you have to put things in terms of heat flow, using the heat flow equation. Heat flux vectors oppose each other, not add. If you have the inner sphere at some initial powered temperature, you need to use heat flow to see if the flux from the shell is capable of heating it; that means you subtract one from the other, not add. What you're doing here is simply not thermodynamics. Opposing energy flows do not add, they subtract. A force out and a force in oppose each other, not add.
Look at all of these links discussion radiative heat transfer:
http://amrita.vlab.co.in/?sub=1&brch=194&sim=802&cnt=1
http://www.nzifst.org.nz/unitoperations/httrtheory5.htm
http://www.mhtlab.uwaterloo.ca/courses/ece309/lectures/pdffiles/summary_ch12.pdf
http://www.kostic.niu.edu/352/_352-posted/Heat_4e_Chap13-Radiation_HT_lecture-PDF.pdf

The last one has the very problem in discussion on pg. 29. You have one sphere with its own power and temperature placed inside a shell with its own power and temperature, result with unit emissivity is Q = A*s*(T1^4 - T2^4). And that's it. That's the heat flow. There's no having to add the power from the sphere with the shell to get the sphere temperature, it is about subtracting the fluxes to see which direction the heat flows and therefore what is capable of changing temperature - and temperature does not increase when heat is flowing away. Now you would use an understanding of thermodynamics to think about what that heat flow means: heat flow is the energy that moves from hot to cool, which causes cool to rise in temperature, until the heat flow stops. When does the heat flow stop? When Q = 0. (And it should be Qdot, actually, as pointed out by the link...something I haven't been denoting explicitly...but I don't think WP can put dots on top of letters.)

On pg.32 it has your parallel plates you're arguing with me about at PSI. Solution: Q = A*s*(T1^4 - T2^4), just as I've been writing. And again, what is heat flow? It is the energy which flows from hot to cool, and it stops when hot equals cool. When Q = 0, when T1 = T2.

None of these problems have energy adding on top of energy, because radiant heat flow is a problem of opposing energy flux vectors. Every single heat equation in these links has the energy fluxes subtracting, not adding. None of your work here follows heat flow and thermodynamic theory. It's random mathematics, and not physics.]

The energy balance of the shell =
energy in = energy out. The energy in is the externally supplied energy plus the net radiation from the sphere, plus the radiation re-absorbed from another point on the shell. The energy out is outgoing radiation from the external surface:
Wsh + ( Asp.F(Tsp) – α.Ash.F(Tsh)) + (1-α).Ash.F(Tsh) = Ash.F(Tsh) …(2)

Combining (1) and (2) we get –
Ash.F(Tsh) = Wsp + Wsh …(3)

In other words, the shell radiates the input energy Wsp+Wsh into space, thereby conserving energy.

Doing some more substitution and canceling terms we get –
Asp.F(Tsp) = Wsp + α.(Wsp+Wsh) …(4)

Now do some more sanity checking. If Wsp tends to zero, then from (3)
Ash.F(Tsh) –> Wsh, which is what we expect.
From (4) we get
Asp.F(Tsp) –> α.Wsh

This is the point we need to consider what our alpha is. It is the solid angle subtended by the sphere from a point on the shell.
However, this is simply (rsp/rsh)^2, which is the same as (Asp/Ash)
So if Wsp –> 0, then (4) tells us
Asp.F(Tsp) –> α.Wsh = (Asp/Ash).Wsh, or
Ash.F(Tsp) –> Wsh
In other words, if Wsp –> 0 then Tsp –> Tsh and the interior is isothermal – as we expect.

Finally we need Tsh, the temperature of the shell.
From (3) we had
Ash.F(Tsh) = Wsp + Wsh

If we denote T0 as the temperature of the shell when Wsp = 0, then
Ash.F(T0) = Wsh
Therefore
F(Tsh) = Wsp/Ash + Wsh/Ash = (Wsp/Ash) + F(T0)
that means that since (Wsp/Ash) > 0, then Tsh > T0.

200. Neutrino says:

The Conservation of Energy is a fundamental Law. If I placed a box on the table in front of you and told you that with a continual input of 100W an output of 200W continually occurred you should dismiss me out of hand. Likewise if I told you that with a continual input of 100W there was 0W output you should also automatically dismiss me.

You say:
”Actually the setup for your scenario doesn’t quite allow for a proper analysis. You specify 100W and 2000W but you don’t specify the temperatures”

When I first introduced the scenario I stated:
”A small sphere with 25cm radius and powered by 100W, in isolation it will come to a temperature of -55C.
A large spherical shell with 75cm internal radius and external radius of 76cm and powered by 2000W, in isolation this sphere will come to a temperature of -9C.”

The fact that Input must equal Output is how I originally, and I assume you as well, calculated the temperature of the sphere and shell. I assumed that the total power inputted must be equal to the total power outputted. Without that assumption I did not, and neither did you, have a power to use on the LHS of the SB equation.

You say:
”But for now the point for you is that energy does indeed get conserved in your scenario, using the standard heat flow equation.”
and:
”So, total energy does get conserved, because the heating potential is not only being emitted outside of the shell at its temperature, but also on the inside in order to maintain the interior’s (the sphere) temperature.”

How can you say that energy is conserved? By definition output is an external reference. The only output possible in this system is through the thermal radiation emitted at the outer shell. Any transfers that are internal to the shell are by definition not an output. All that an observer can see and measure is what is emitted externally.
If you maintain that the shell is at only -9.1C, its original temperature, then it is only emitting 2000W.
Again I ask, how does the other 100W exit the system?

You say as well:
It is the conclusion of the heat flow equation, not myself. The equation works itself out…if you do the math properly like using inverse square law where you should etc. You are welcome to apply the heat flow equation and work it out. It is fun math to do on paper.”

If that is the conclusion of the equations then you are misapplying them. Conservation of Energy demands that the answer be different. I have done the calculations and I agree it is fun to do math (also I have read everything you have posted here in the last month or so).
For the answer to be correct Conservation of Energy must be maintained. This puts a limit on what the correct answer can be. I am not saying that your equations are misapplied and that your answer is wrong the Law of Conservation of Energy is saying that they are.

If I put a black box on a table in front of you and told you only that it had a continual input of 2100W and a continual output of 2000W would that be possible?

201. Tpeel says:

Jp, you’ ve used an awful lot of words to say that you can’t answer the question- what happened to the conservation of energy?

Sent from Samsung Mobile

Climate of Sophistry wrote:

202. @Neutrino 2013/12/11 at 9:27 AM

The laws of thermodynamics are not actually restricted to an analysis of the law of conservation of energy only. The laws of thermodynamics say that energy can neither be created nor destroyed, but it can only be changed [i]from one form to another[/i]. And that’s important… the form of energy. Energy comes in forms. For example, kinetic: the energy of motion; potential: the energy of, say, altitude, or compression in a spring; etc. And all such forms of energy are relative, and can even be made to disappear – for example the kinetic energy of a bullet will become zero if you move at the same speed of the bullet. All of what we’re talking about, certainly what I’ve been talking about and what heat sphere/planes/greenhouse etc. has to do with, is the thermal form of energy, i.e. temperature, and flow of heat from that temperature. This form of energy is also relative because its potential for action, heat flow, like moving at the same speed of the bullet, disappears if you make yourself the same temperature as the thermal form of energy.

So when you talk of “increasing the power”, what are you really talking about? When you do that you go on to perform some simple “conservation of energy” analysis, but is that what you should be doing given the context? Do we find that kind of procedure in thermal texts such as this: http://www.kostic.niu.edu/352/_352-posted/Heat_4e_Chap13-Radiation_HT_lecture-PDF.pdf ?

No we don’t. We do not find the solution you are attempting to create in thermal physics. What you need to do, because what you are doing in the context of the form of energy, is manipulating temperature. Well, that is all figured out already, such as in the referenced link text, and in the equation I’ve been repeating, which is the energy (as form of heat) flow analysis which needs to be performed. Note that these examples never need to reference the power, they just reference the temperature, and it is implicit that the objects are emitting radiant power because that is precisely required for a radiant surface temperature; there is no distinction.

So when you increase “the power” by X amount, what you are doing? Well you’re changing something’s temperature, of course. This is the form of energy in question. The equation is already there to handle that for you, such as the one referenced here many times, and also in the linked thermal physics text. So, for the inner sphere and outer shell case example, if you increase the power of the sphere what you’re doing is increasing its temperature. Well, obviously the laws of thermodynamics now apply, and all of them of course, such as the ones which limit how and where heat energy flows, not just some simple analysis of scalar energy, but vector heat flow. The laws of thermodynamics specify limits to what energy can do – cold doesn’t raise the temperature of hot, because heat energy doesn’t flow from cold to hot, etc. A relatively simple equation comes out of all of this: Q = A*s*(T1^4 – T2^4).

So, you increase the power X Watts; great, what does that do to the surface temperature of the object? For the sphere, it will increase its temperature to an addition of that power over its surface area. There’s nothing wrong with that of course and of course that hasn’t been the subject of cold heating hot. However, whether the new temperature heats anything else is then still determined from an application of the Q equation, and that is your answer. And the answer is that if the other T is still larger, then the heat flow is still away from that other warmer object, and hence the other warmer object doesn’t increase in temperature due to the cooler temperature of the cooler object. If the outer shell is passive then the increased temperature of the sphere will adjust a new temperature for the shell as well. If the shell is itself heated and is at a warmer temperature, then the sphere will only heat the shell if the heat flow equation specifies that it should, which by definition requires the sphere to be warmer never cooler than the shell, with the appropriate factors applied for distance etc; otherwise the warmer shell will heat the cooler sphere until equilibrium is attained, and such a condition is specified by the heat flow equation via temperature, such that Q = 0 at the relevant position.

The way you are attempting to perform thermodynamics is incorrect, and you are not using the heat flow equation correctly, or if at all. Thermodynamics is performed by the heat flow analysis and its equation. Opposing heat flows like opposing forces subtract, not add.

203. Allen Eltor says:

I saw Tom Peel on a post back in 2009 waxing euphoric at Chris Colose, magic gais pseudo-science apologist, singing hymns to him he thought were filled with lots of “content” about “the magic gais & the Backerdistical glow.”
=======
Thanking Chris Colose for his breathtaking explanation of the backerdistical hotter’n possible-isms, “Thanks for the fast reply, congratulations on an excellent site, I like the balance of readability and solid technical content!”

So when he starts acting stupid, you might as well know he’s been familiar with the unwinding of the whole scam, since before Climate Gate: and he’s still a Magical Laight & Gais Web-Vangelist, so you’re gonna be wearing out another keyboard,

interfacing with willful stupid.

204. Allen Eltor says:

“Solid technical content!”
Ya’LL.

205. TomP says:

JP: as you seem to have lost interest in explaining why the conservation of energy principle doesn’t apply, I thought it might be worth going back to your original posting.
you say:
[
in climate science greenhouse argumentation the supposition is made that if you have a powered source holding an object’s temperature, and this temperature is higher than the surroundings, then if you raise the temperature of the cooler surroundings the object also has to raise in temperature in order to maintain the heat flow differential so that the object can still emit the same amount of energy supplied to it from the circuit.
]

However, if you take a look at how electrical engineers choose the correct dimensions for resistors, this is exactly how it is done.
Just for on example, see http://www.ohmite.com/techdata/res_select.pdf
Application Notes, page3
Resistor Selection
S T E P S 3
S E L E C T A R E S I S T O R

…. The factors which affect the temperature rise act inde-
pendently of each other and are summarized as follows:
1. Ambient Temperature
As the maximum permissible operating temperature is a set
amount, any increase in the ambient temperature subtracts from
the permissible temperature rise and therefore reduces the per-
missible watt load.

So according to your argument, it would appear that whole generations of electrical engineers been using climate pseudophysics to unnecessarily overdesign electrical circuits.

206. Well first off TomP don’t say something so stupid in your opening sentence…it makes you look like a retard.

Second my quote:

in climate science greenhouse argumentation the supposition is made that if you have a powered source holding an object’s temperature, and this temperature is higher than the surroundings, then if you raise the temperature of the cooler surroundings the object also has to raise in temperature in order to maintain the heat flow differential so that the object can still emit the same amount of energy supplied to it from the circuit.

is indeed valid in terms of a cooler temperature not being able to warm a warmer object. Climate science thinks that the cooler atmosphere should warm the warmer surface, which is of course idiotic.

Thirdly, in The Fraud of Climate Science Analogies, which you’ve seen, I explained that I had picked up a bad habit of using analogies to debunk the greenhouse effect, as can be seen in the few posts leading up to that one, in the same fashion as to how climate science only uses analogies to explain its version of the greenhouse effect…as its version is indeed only an analogy. Of course this is not scientific, logical, and it is fraudulent. It is much more simple to merely state the facts, as seen here:

http://climateofsophistry.com/2013/12/04/a-tale-of-two-versions/

http://climateofsophistry.com/2013/12/07/logical-physics-maths/

http://climateofsophistry.com/2013/12/08/revisiting-the-steel-greenhouse/

because such simple facts and simple direct logic deftly and trivially expose the climate science radiative greenhouse effect as a fraud.

So this has worked out quite excellently. I experience an oversight, and in return the whole climate science alarm and greenhouse playing field gets fully exposed for all of the fraud that it is.

Thanks to you guys for helping me to crystallize all of this greenhouse fraud and for all of the assistance – I do deeply appreciate it, and apologize for having to call you a retard. Your help is most valued, and I don’t find it retarded, but wonderful and lovely. The climate science analogy of the greenhouse effect is merely an analogy, and hence is not real. QED :)

207. TomP says:

is indeed valid in terms of a cooler temperature not being able to warm a warmer object. Climate science thinks that the cooler atmosphere should warm the warmer surface, which is of course idiotic. – but this is exactly what electrical engineers do when they choose the dimensions of a resistor – they believe that the cooler atmosphere warms the warmer surface of the resistor.
You are telling us that electrical engineers are wrong.

208. No, that is precisely NOT what they are saying. They are saying that if you apply power to a resistor already at an ambient temperature, then it will increase in temperature above the ambient temperature. And there is nothing wrong with that.

Of course, analogies to the radiative greenhouse effect are generally sophistic, and in this case it is as well. In fact the radiative greenhouse effect only exists as an analogy.

These posts will help you:

http://climateofsophistry.com/2013/12/04/a-tale-of-two-versions/

http://climateofsophistry.com/2013/12/07/logical-physics-maths/

http://climateofsophistry.com/2013/12/08/revisiting-the-steel-greenhouse/

because such simple facts and simple direct logic deftly and trivially expose the climate science radiative greenhouse effect as a fraud.

As far as the post I made, I have explained already that my mistake was in attempting to create an analogy, when arguing by analogy (which is what climate science does for its version of the greenhouse effect) is in fact sophistry – A bad habit I had picked up from debunking all of the bad analogies climate science uses for its analogy of the greenhouse effect.

It is much easier and logical and truthful to simply state the case of the claims of the radiative greenhouse effect, and then directly show that they are wrong, based on standard (not analogical) physics and standard (not analogical) empiricism. Nothing in electrical engineering demonstrates cold warming hot, of course – it is the input power that raises temperature, by definition, and also since, by definition and all of standard traditional thermodynamics, heat does not flow from cold to hot. No electrical or any other type of engineer would ever make the claim that cold heats hot, unless they’re really stupid or deliberately lying about something.

You are attempting to tell us that hundreds of years of thermodynamics and engineering is wrong. You can sell that to the gullible in need of a new guilt-religion, but it doesn’t pass around the readership here. This couldn’t have worked out any better for demonstrating and exposing the fraud of climate alarm and its greenhouse version sophistry.

209. DVW says:

@Joe Postma @Will Janoschka: Thanks for your comments on my reaction of 24/11 re van Andel etc. My fellow blogger on the Dutch climate critical website (climategate.nl) has this website on climate theory (elaborated together with van Andel), which may also be of interest to you guys:
http://www.climatetheory.net/introduction/
Dolf van Wijk

210. DVW says: 2013/12/26 at 10:17 AM
@Joe Postma @Will Janoschka: Thanks for your comments on my reaction of 24/11 re van Andel etc. My fellow blogger on the Dutch climate critical website (climategate.nl) has this website on climate theory (elaborated together with van Andel), which may also be of interest to you guys:
http://www.climatetheory.net/introduction/
Dolf van Wijk
Thank you for that link. I have read two chapters, I will read more. Comments:
1) I do not accept that heat transfer from any part of the atmosphere goes ever in a direction of a higher temperature. 2LTD,, thermal radiative heat transfer included. Suh has never been demonstrated, only claimed.
2) All thermal radiative heat transfer is proportional to the difference in .two (temperatures each raised to some power.) For wavelengths from 3-30 microns Flux = emissivity x area x 4sigma x absolute temperature ^3 x delta T with the sign of the delta T giving the direction of the flux. This is the first derivative with respect to temperature of the S-B equation. I use that form for low altitudes because except for the transparent 8-13 micron band, 93% of the radiation is ansorbed within 40 meters and the temperature difference is very smalll, for a total of 60 milliWatts/m^2. CO2 at 14.6 microns is absorbed within 2 meters.
3) Both the distance and delta temperature increase with altitude to the tropopause. this means the flux increases all the way up to actually 200 Km just like Miskolczi and van Andel described. at about 7 Km the pressure is low enough that the radiance opposing the flux is so small that the absolute temperature of the water and CO2 molecules alone determine the outward flux.
4) The mean free path for any altitude can bbe measured using a chopped source and synchronous demodulator. wnen the signal drops to 1/2 power you are at the mean free path length.

211. JP, in your quest, Try http://nullschool.net/ for some help from those that are indeed physical.