Math is True but Words can Lie
If any of you have been reading the material on Illuminism, you will know that mathematics is the basis of reality, and that this is probably something I agree with given my favorable review and presentation of that material.
However, while mathematics is a Formal language, English and any other verbal language are Natural spoken languages. And with human languages, the inevitable result is that you can lie with them. Because mathematics can be complicated and it is readily apparent that even people with PhD’s in science have a hard time understanding it, it is therefore possible to present a totally valid mathematical equation and at the same time totally misrepresent what the equation means. This is, of course, the purview of sophistry and those who produce it.
What I will do here is give you some simple math, and the correct words and correct descriptions to understand it, and then contrast that to some mental garbage that has instead been presented in order to lie about what the math actually means from some examples that I’ve been personally witness to.
Case Point #1
Let us look at the equation for radiant heat flow between a hot object and a cold object. In the equation below, the scenario could be for two walls facing each other which have unit emissivities and absorptivities, so that these factors, and the areas, can all be cancelled out of the equation. The equation is thus:
Q = σ[ (Thot)4 – (Tcold)4 ] Eq.{1}
and it couldn’t be any more simple. It simply says that “Q”, which is the rate of heat transfer between a hot object and cold object, in Joules per second per square meter, is equal to a constant “σ” (sigma) times the difference of the fourth powers of the temperatures of the two objects. This makes sense: the greater the difference in temperature, the more heating power the hotter object will have on the cooler object because it will be that much warmer than the cooler object.
In Equation 1, Thot and Tcold are called independent parameters, meaning that they’re determined independently of the equation itself, by measurement, say. On the other hand, Q, the heat transfer rate, is a dependent parameter because it obviously depends on the values on the right hand side of the equation. For example, if you increase Tcold (or decrease Thot), then you decrease Q because you made the difference between the hot temperature and cold temperature smaller. Conversely, if you increase Thot (or decrease Tcold), then you increase Q because you made the difference between the hot temperature and cold temperature larger. The equation is for telling you what the value of Q is given two temperatures, and so Q is not a fixed independent parameter but is rather dependent upon the two temperatures.
Greenhouse effect believers who apparently do not understand physics, although they can do some simple math, have stated that if you fix Q in that equation, and then increase Tcold, then Thot has to increase “in order to keep Q constant”, and “therefore cold heats up hot”. This claim is made because they have this faith belief system that cold things make hotter things hotter still, rather than um, you know, hot things making cold things hotter still….(lol). The person (a sophist) even went out of their way to rearrange the equation so that Q was no longer a dependent parameter on the left hand side of the equation, in order to make it look like this:
Thot = 4√[Q/σ + (Tcold)4] Eq.{2}
All this is, is a simple algebraic rearrangement of Equation 1; doing such a thing does not change what the actual original physical equation represents in the first place. The only way this simple algebraic rearrangement makes sense is if you were giving a problem to a student, in which you knew the temperature of the cold object and you also knew the current rate of heat transfer between the hot object and cold object, and were thus asked to determine the temperature of the hot object. Problems like this are done simply for the training of mathematical competency and relating it to theoretical physical problems; the Q parameter in Equation 2 still depends on the difference between Thot and Tcold and can not in any way be independently fixed.
If you understood Equation 1, then it is clear that is impossible to “hold Q constant” if you increase Tcold. To say that you want to hold Q constant in Equation 2, actually makes Q an independent source of input energy and heat that no longer has any relation whatsoever to the difference between Thot and Tcold and the heat transfer equation, and so that is a completely different problem and set of physical principles you’re dealing with. Pretending that you can hold Q constant in that equation, in order to further pretend that cold heats hot and thus there is a greenhouse effect, is pure sophistry – albeit advanced sophistry. It is outright lying with (or should I say, about) mathematics, in no uncertain terms.
How to actually do it
If you want a physical equation that denotes temperature as function dependent on external independent parameters, such as an independent fixed heat source “Q”, then you have to go through the development for such a thing as I showed in last year’s paper where we proved that there is no GHE in operation in the atmosphere. I’ll quickly show this here.
Tobj = q / (m*Cp) Eq. {3}
where “q” (different from big Q; but see ahead) is just the internally held total thermal energy content of an object of mass m, with thermal capacity “Cp“, at temperature “Tobj“.
To know how the temperature changes as a function of a change in the internal energy, we take the differential with respect to time:
dTobj/dt = 1/τ * dq/dt Eq. {4}
where τ = m*Cp for convenience. Now, in terms of energy input and output and the first law of thermodynamics, the temperature will change when the time-derivative of q, dq/dt, which is the total rate at which energy is entering or leaving the system, is non-zero. To follow the unit convention above from Equations 1 & 2, where big “Q” is a rate of heat transfer, then dq/dt = Q. Q now represents the sum of independent and dependent energy inputs and outputs, and so can actually be composed of multiple terms – two terms if there is an input and output.
In terms of radiation, the energy output from the surface of the object is σ(Tobj)4, and so that is the output term of Q which is dependent on the object’s current temperature. That leaves an input term for Q which can be an independent parameter which doesn’t depend on any other terms in the equation. Changing the notation a little bit, Q can now just represent the independent input, while σ(Tobj)4 represents the dependent output. So this gives us
dTobj/dt = 1/τ * (Qin – σ(Tobj)4) Eq. {5}
which is a non-linear differential equation. The input term is positive because it will serve to increase the temperature, while the output term is negative because output provides cooling. This is the only way in which you can speak of fixing an independent variable labelled “Q”; it works here because Q is a true independent variable which does not actually depend on the other terms in the equation.
To make this loook similar to our initial setup, if Tobj refers to a passive cold wall (Tcold), then Qin can refer to a hot wall with constant temperature, and then Qin = σ(Thot)4 leaving
dTcold/dt = σ/τ * ((Thot)4 – (Tcold)4) Eq. {6}
When the temperature of the cold wall increases, then all that happens is that the rate of increase of temperature of the cold wall decreases, because the difference in temperature between the hot wall and cold wall becomes smaller. It is basically in this way that the condition of thermal equilibrium is achieved in nature. And note that an increasing temperature of the cold wall does not affect the temperature of the independent hot wall! Cold does not heat hot in real physics.
Now that we have a new equation, I should point out that it is obviously still possible for people to lie about what it means, misinterpret its use, and create greenhouse effect sophistry and obfuscation with it. Of course, I know exactly how that would be done and what would be said, but I’ll save having to write about it for another article, when a sophist inevitably tries to do it.
Case Point #2
This development nicely brings us back to a recent example of someone trying to use mathematics to lie, and misrepresenting what the mathematical equations actually are, and what they say.
Equations 5 & 6 are differential equations and in a very simple mathematical sense they can be said to be “time dependent”, because they can be solved as functions of time. However, and this is a big however, in terms of physics the equations are not actually physically time-dependent differential equations when the independent input term, Qin = σ(Thot)4, is a constant term, meaning that it has no time dependence. If you’re actually trained as a physicist, then distinguishing which mathematical parameters actually have physical time dependence and which ones don’t is very important – it couldn’t be any more fundamental to physics. A real physicist would not say that Equations 5 & 6 are time dependent, because none of the terms are explicit functions of time as used in the averaged-out constant cold sunshine models of the greenhouse effect.
And so this brings us to our good old friend of the most traditional greenhouse effect lie: constant cold sunshine on a flat static Earth! The mathematical/physics lie here is in claiming that an averaged, constant power input, is the same thing close enough as a time-varying input, and that a differential equation using those constant terms is time-dependent, and of course that the Earth is flat or static (not rotating, no day & night), and that sunshine is too cold to be able to heat anything above -180C, etc.
Essentially, the greenhouse effect premises are just a big tangled plate of a spaghetti of lies.
With graphs
Let’s numerically compute the greenhouse effect constant input sunshine model at -180C, and see what it produces:
Details on how to numerically compute a non-linear differential equation in Matlab can be found in the appendix of the “Absence of…” paper.
Wow, it just produces a temperature on the cooler surface of 255K (-180C), which is the temperature of this fictional input.
Now, let’s compare this result to an actual time-dependent differential equation that uses real, actual, time-varying, and even temperature-dependent parameters in the heat flow equation, that even models the latent heat of fusion of ice:
This data can be read about in the “Absence of…” paper.
Gee look at that: a model that actually tries to represent something in reality using equations which actually reflect reality, i.e. true time-dependence, and true dependence on the real-world behaviour of matter, and true solar input, produces a temperature oscillation that never goes below freezing (00C), and produces temperatures in excess of 300C!
That’s enough to melt ice into water and to even produce clouds from evaporation which creates yet another latent heat barrier from condensation. And this is still a very crude model, which can be greatly expanded and improved as discussed in the paper. If this model is crude, it is only because the constant-input model which creates the GHE is a complete fraud.
So, do you know what the GHE (greenhouse effect) believers do to their time-independent model which can’t get anything above 255K with their freezing cold fictional sunshine? When I was in undergrad, a few of my friends and I had this joke about the “magic constant” – the magic constant, “M“, is a term you can add to any equation in order to make it produce the correct answer. The GHE sophists literally do this:
dTcold/dt = σ/τ * ((Thot)4 – (Tcold)4) + M
where M is magically the GHE. The GHE is the magical term which lets their models melt ice into water, produce clouds, and give warm days at the beach with foot-scalding sand, because they screwed up solving the complicated heat flow equation and got the derivation all wrong! They add in M = GHE in order to make their incorrect solution appear to produce the correct results.
Typical undergrads…
The Problem of Letters
I am beginning to realize that this must be very difficult stuff for most people to understand. It all seems perfectly obvious and clear to me, but if people with bigger letters beside their names than I have can’t even figure it out, and wildly flail about sophizing the mathematics, then maybe it really is that complicated for most people. I don’t think it is complicated and so that’s why I always suspect that the people who lie about the math must be doing it on purpose, but, maybe Napoleon really did mean for us to not underestimate stupidity. I guess it makes sense that stupidity pulls itself off as extremely confident, which creates the appearance of authority and purpose, because that is of course exactly how stupid stupidity would be. Stupid doesn’t know how stupid it is; the working solution for the masses and stupid people in general is to relegate to following whoever appears to be an authority, and such is quite independent of competence. This is of course the history of the disasters of our history.
Climate of Sophistry 
Thanks Joe, well argued and presented.
WUWT has the results of their experiment posted but yesterday it was impossible to comment or even see the results. I have hopes that today will be different.
This part here:
is probably my favorite bit of that, though the magic constant is fun too.
Great stuff Joe!… Thank you! … I can understand this perfectly! 🙂
Very nice article, Joe! Maybe you would like to take the next step and explain that fallacy of making an independent parameter out of a dependent parameter in more simple terms, maybe using examples from our everyday life. Just for everyone to understand.
That curve for your “Time Dependent Thermal Model” looks pretty good. Could you tell us the values for albedo, emissivity and latitude that you used for your calculations of “real solar values”?
You see, when I “reverse engineer” the numbers from your graph, I get unphysical results. For example, consider the days when the temperature is always =273 K. A blackbody at this temperature would be radiating 315 W/m^2, 24 hr per day. if we lower the emissivity to 0.95 (which about right for ice), then the emitted IR is down to ~ 300 W/m^2, 24 hr per day. Since it receives no sunlight during the night, it must average 300*2 = 600 W/m^2 during the day. This would work with a noontime power of ~600 W/m^2 * pi/2 ~ 940 W/m^2. But we all know that the current albedo of the earth is ~ 0.7 with an insolation of ~ 1370 W/m^2, or ~ 960 W/m^2 at the equator at noon. So even at the equator, the sun is just barely able to melt the ice during the day using “real” values.
To bump the average temperature up by ~ 10 K as you seem to suggest in the graph get would require ~ 345 W/m^2 average (~ 300 W/m^2 at night and ~ 450 W/m^2 at noon) for emissivity of 0.95. This equates to ~ 1080 W/m^2 at noon to provide enough joules during 24 hours to get the surface temperatures you get.
So you are basically requiring sunlight stronger than the average sunlight at the equator in order to achieve your results. The rest of the world would, of course, be much colder.
To understand all that, it is best to refer to the paper in which it is all explained. The values used are all from reality and from measurements. Nothing is invented or embellished, as that would of course not be doing real science, as we see, of course, in the type of sophistry models that require the GHE.
It is often said in science that “everything should be made as simple as possible, but no simpler.” I made it as simple as possible,
Your results require noon sunlight of ~ 1000 W/m^2 of noon sunlight, which (when integrated over 12 hours) gives and average daylight solar power of ~ 640 W/m^2 (or ~ 320 W/m^2 on average for 24 hr.) This is possible (barely) at the equator with typical cloud cover. These number are all easily calculated by anyone with a little knowledge of physics and calculus. Are there any numbers that I have presented here that you think are “invented” or “embellished”? Any specific mistakes in any of my calculations that you would like to point out to your readers?
Unless you can refute those “simple results”, there is no way that your model can represent anything but the highest temperatures possible on earth — certainly not the average temperatures on earth.
You failed to to do the research and find the answers to your questions. This is your problem, and it keeps you ignorant. As simple as possible can be too simple, as is borne out in the GHE models which are so simply they don’t represent anything at all but a simple fiction. You may prefer your verbiage to measured data and real physics, but I know what reality is actually doing in real time with that data and physics.
Tim, look: https://climateofsophistry.files.wordpress.com/2012/11/a-discussion-on-the-absence-of-a-measureable-greenhouse-effect.pdf
It even has links in the index section to the appendix where this information is located, it’s in table form so I can’t easily copy paste it, but again, the refutation you’re looking for is there.
Bonus: http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/grad/surfrad/surf_check.php
Joe, I’m not sure how you managed to get NOAA to lie for you, but that is impressive:
I mean, clearly they’re lying and that isn’t a measurement of downwelling solar energy or anything, so there is no way that a location further south than Nevada could receive more than 1000 W/m^2…
[Reply: 🙂 ]
” You may prefer your verbiage … “
A very odd reply, since i gave numbers, but you provided only verbiage in your response.
Once again
* Are there any numbers that I have presented here that you think are “invented” or “embellished”?
* Are there any specific mistakes in any of my calculations that you would like to point out to your readers?
I know you are busy trying to address other issues as well. Perhaps your readers — who think think your post is “well argued”, “great stuff” and “very nice” — could point out the mistakes in my argument.
Your model clearly has some things going for it — the fact that it does indeed look at changes with time is laudable. But a “back of the envelope” calculation based on pure conservation of energy shows that the temperatures of your model can only occur at either ….
* the equator with “typical” cloud cover
* ~ 40N or 40S with no cloud cover.
Both are possible, but both are far from “average”. I would not be surprised if your model does a good job for these circumstances, but it is NOT indicative of the whole world with typical albedo.
I’ll go this one round with you Tim, and then I’ll start trashing any more useless comments that purposely miss the point.
TJF said: “A very odd reply, since i gave numbers, but you provided only verbiage in your response.”
I already provided you the reference which has all the numbers you asked for. Thus, you are being disingenuous in this statement.
TJF asked: “Are there any numbers that I have presented here that you think are “invented” or “embellished”?”
Yes, you made up the numbers in your head, and although they might approximate something like you find in reality, my numbers are actually measured from reality.
TJF asked: “Are there any specific mistakes in any of my calculations that you would like to point out to your readers?”
Yes, your model doesn’t have enough physics in it, and leaves out several fundamental aspects of our actual, real-world, physical environment, that my model actually tackles.
N.B., the whole planet can not be globally modeled with a single equation. Temperature is a local intensive metric and there is no actual average temperature of the whole globe nor a way to model such a thing. Heat flows occur locally and in real-time and this is the only valid scientific way of actually developing an understanding of the system thermodynamically; the GHE models don’t even model the real physical Earth but a fictional and gross (both ways) simplification, and so they literally have nothing to say about the real thermodynamics of the Earth, and believing them inevitably will only cause confusion, wrong science, wrong postulates and ideas, wrong math, etc etc.
Max, that doesn’t negate anything I said. The fact that you & Joe think that graph supports his point merely shows that you do not understand my point.
Desert Rock is 36N. In May, the sun will be tilted somewhere between 0 and 23 degrees toward the northern hemisphere. Lets call it 16 degrees, so that the sun will be 36-16 = 20 degrees from the zenith at noon. Well, cos(20) = 0.94, so direct sunlight would be ~ 0.94 * 1370 = 1290 W/m^2. Take out ~ 200 W/m^2 absorbed by the atmosphere and there we are — the ~ 1090 W/m^2 in the graph.
So Joe’s numbers are like Nevada in late spring (on a clear day). Joes’s numbers say that someplace like Nevada in May should be ~ 15 C on average. So places in a band from ~ the equator to ~ 40 N would be close to the temperatures he predicts.
The entire southern hemisphere would be below Joe’s “average” temperature”. Any place that is cloudy would be below Joe’s average temperature (with only ~ 100 W/m^2 filtering through for ~ 12 hours on a cloudy day, the temperatures would plunge). You can’t average numbers that are <=15 C (often MUCH less than 15 C) and get an answer that is ~ 15 C. Ain't gonna happen.
SHOW US WHERE MY NUMBERS ARE WRONG.
You’re missing the PHYSICS Tim, and not reading what you should be. Your numbers miss out on all sorts of PHYSICS.
“Yes, your model doesn’t have enough physics in it, and leaves out several fundamental aspects of our actual, real-world, physical environment, that my model actually tackles.”
I am simply pointing out that conservation of energy limits the results you have to the equatorial and/or cloudless parts of the earth. All of your other more detailed physics you consider can move energy around and even out the variations, but it cannot create energy. Your patch of ground in the final figure emits over 300 W/m^2 * 86400 s = 2.6 x 10^7 J/m during one day. If can only absorb that much solar radiation in areas with ~ 1000 W/m^2 noon sun (average clouds where the sun passes thru the zenith; cloudless areas up to ~ 40 degrees from there.)
Tim, really, “cannot create energy”? Then please pray tell, neither can the GHE models create the energy they need, which they don’t have enough of. lol
Anyway you’re still not on the physics. You’re still simplifying it too much. Those clouds needs to come from somewhere, and they don’t come from M.
tjfolkerts says (2013/05/28 at 12:23 PM): “For example, consider the days when the temperature is always =273 K. A blackbody at this temperature would be radiating 315 W/m^2, 24 hr per day. if we lower the emissivity to 0.95 (which about right for ice), then the emitted IR is down to ~ 300 W/m^2, 24 hr per day. Since it receives no sunlight during the night, it must average 300*2 = 600 W/m^2 during the day. This would work with a noontime power of ~600 W/m^2 * pi/2 ~ 940 W/m^2. But we all know that the current albedo of the earth is ~ 0.7 with an insolation of ~ 1370 W/m^2, or ~ 960 W/m^2 at the equator at noon. So even at the equator, the sun is just barely able to melt the ice during the day using “real” values.”
==========================================================
I smell a contradiction here.
You say “the days when the temperature is always =273 K. A blackbody at this temperature would be radiating 315 W/m^2” and then you get “600 W/m^2 during the day”. This corresponds to a much higher temperature than your assumed “always =273 K”. Contradiction.
“Case Point #1”
============================================================
A fresh case of #1 kind (http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/05/28/slaying-the-slayers-with-watts-part-2/#comment-1319462), from Curt:
“wikeroy, you say: “I did the basic course in thermodynamics 30 years ago. I went to the [attic] and looked through the books. Couldnt find the word [backradiation]. Probably some new definition.”
In engineering heat transfer texts, it’s usually referred to with a term like “radiative exchange” between bodies. Right near the beginning of the chapter on radiative heat transfer in any of these texts, you will see an equation for the radiative heat transfer between two bodies with some constants multiplying the term (Th^4 – Tc^4), where Th is the absolute temperature of the hotter body and Tc^4 is the temperature of the colder body. The Tc^4 term is the “back radiation”, whatever you choose to call it.”
[JPReply: Nice spot Greg…you have it pinned exactly! That is exactly what it is.]
Yes, really. You really cannot create energy. 🙂
And you are right, the GHE models also cannot create energy. Good thing they don’t.
The most fundamental expression of conservation of energy in a non-isolated system is
(energy into a system) – (energy out of a system) = (change in energy within a system)
The Trenberth diagram has for every square meter every second:
* 161 + 333 = 494 J into the “surface system”
* 396+ 80+17 = 493 J out of the “surface system”
* 356+80+17+78 = 531 J into the “atmospheric system”
* 333+169+30 = 532 J out of the “atmospheric system”
We could throw in the “whole earth system” with 341 J in and 169+30+40 = 341 J out.
Energy is conserved. The difference between between the results (494 vs 493; 531 vs 532) can be attributed to round off and/or a small bit of net warming or cooling (ie “change in energy within a system”).
[JPReply: Your physics is still wrong, as of course is that of Trenberth’s. You DID create energy out of nowhere when you state that the atmosphere provides 200% more heating power input than the Sun. I mean, LOL. Read my paper and learn the correct way to do it. Tim, dude, a flat Earth is not what exists. 161 W/m2 from the Sun is not what exists. Those don’t have anything to do with reality, man. Why keep defending a meaningless fiction when you could have much better, real actual physics.]
Well, Tim, you really can’t average temperatures of any sort and get a temperature, an average over intensive properties is nonsense.
What is the average density of your room?
What is the average hardness of your room?
Any answer you give is as good as any other, so why should the average temperature be different?
[JPReply: Nice spot Greg…you have it pinned exactly! That is exactly what it is.]
=====================================================
Someone has commented on that directly on the “crime scene”: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/05/28/slaying-the-slayers-with-watts-part-2/#comment-1319965.
Nice.
Sigh …. Greg says:
I guess I needed to be more specific.
1) The black body surface is radiating 300 W/m^s 24/7 from about Day 3 to Day 6. That is about 2.6 x 10 ^7 J/m^2 during 24 hours. This is constant.
2) Since the ice is melting slowly over this time, conservation energy requires that the surface be ABSORBING more than 2.6 x 10 ^7 J/m^2 total during 24 hours.
3) Since it absorbs none at night, it must absorb more than 2.6 x 10 ^7 J/m^2 of total solar energy during the 12 hours of sunlight (or an average of more than 600 W/m^2 of incoming sunlight (not outgoing thermal IR)).
4) Given the sinusoidal nature of the sunlight, to get 2.6 x 10 ^7 J of solar energy, the sunlight must have a peak noon power of around 950 W/m^2. Do the integral.
So some place like Desert Rock, NV on a series of sunny, late spring days would indeed behave about like the model predicts.
tjfolkerts says (2013/05/29 at 9:12 AM): “Sigh …. Greg says: …”
==================================================
Sigh sigh Tim. You have cut out the essential part of my quote from your contradiction.
Again, you assumed ALWAYS 0C: “the days when the temperature is always =273 K” and then you came with a higher temperature, so it was not “always”. But you assumed “always”. Get it? It is a contradiction. Kindergarten stuff. Contradicting oneself so clearly is very very bad for a scientist.
Now I gotta laugh — my reverse-engineering numbers are almost exactly what the original model uses.
Joes model starts with his “real life” data that is …
* in AZ @ 36 N (not NV @ 36 N)
* mid summer (not a month from mid-summer)
* sunny.
The net result is over 1000 W/m^2 of peak sunlight. 🙂
So, of course, with such a region of unusually strong sunlight, it is not surprising that no GHE is needed to maintain temperatures above freezing.
***************************************************
It seem that Joe is using the code from his “Appendix J” for the calculations in the final graph in the top post where the latent heat of water is included. That code uses
Flux_In = (1370*0.82 + 75) * sin(2*pi/86400*time) * (1 - albedo)which is 1138.44 W/m^2 at noon using his albedo of 0.95 for ocean water. So (as I said before) his model does predict that sunny places near the equator can be above freezing without a GHE. No surprise there.
How about running the simulation at 45 N where maybe 70% as much sunlight arrives at the surface .?
How about running the simulation where 3 days out of 10 are cloudy?
Tim, great that your doing the research. It answers your questions, and as you can see, the data is all from the real world.
Your conjecture, though, that the GHE doesn’t exist in Arizona, is a bit of a laugh! Don’t be so ridiculous about this…you’re making progress.
Yes indeed, I discussed all about how to extend the model to the rest of the planet and what boundary conditions will need to be satisfied. And also how to extend the model to include even more physics.
If you try to write again that the GHE doesn’t exist in Arizona, or anything to that effect, I will just trash the comments…well, maybe I’ll leave them for Greg and Max. Just, please don’t say something so awful…it annoys the heck out of me. 🙂
Your statement on Arizona is tacit agreement that the GHE doesn’t exist.
Greg, sorry I misinterpreted your comment earlier, but I must admit that I still do not get what you point is. I am simply working with Joe’s numbers.
* Joe’s model shows a constant temperature of 273 K for several days — see his graph in the top post.
An analysis of THOSE DAYS (~ Day 3 – Day 6) is simple — the outgoing IR is always (DURING THOSE DAYS) ~ 300 W/m^2. And the net flow of energy is into the system (the ice is slowly melting). So the net flow into the system must be greater than 300 W/m^2. Somewhere around 950 W/m^2 peak noon sunlight would match that average of 300 W/m^2, so there must be more than 950 W/m^2 of noon sunlight.
**********************************************
So how much more than 950 W/m^2 is he using? This is a little tougher, so i had started with the easier situation above. Now I am switching from the constant temperature of 273 K that existed before to the variable temperature that exists later.
Well, the asymptotic solution varies between 273K and ~ 303K. Over night, the radiation from the ground is around 300 W/m^2 (273 K) . At noon, the radiation from the ground is around 450 W/m^2 (303 K). The average will be around 350 W/m^2, This requires about 1100 W/m^2 of peak sunlight. The numbers in the graph only work for sunny areas relatively close to the equator.
Relatively close to the equator goes a long way without needing a GHE.
Include some of the other boundary conditions as discussed in my paper and then you have a global solution without a GHE. Referring to the Zero Energy Balance plot from Tim Ball.
Joe says: “Your statement on Arizona is tacit agreement that the GHE doesn’t exist.”
That is not at all what my statement says. (I hope that doesn’t annoy you too much).
1) Your model seems to predict a temperature that is too low for 36 N even during the middle of summer. Your model would be even farther off for regions father from the poles.
2) heat is carried away from regions with the strongest sunlight (like AZ in he summer, or oceans near the equator) toward the poles by air and water currents. So such place AZ will have a net lose of energy by these currents, so they need even more energy to maintain their warm temperatures.
3) it is not always sunny.
******************************
I will agree that if the GHE didn’t exist, I would quickly move farther south to someplace like AZ where the sun alone might keep the ground warm enough to be habitable.
Hi Tim, this is just a start at actually getting a real physical understanding of the system using real actual physics that actually correspond to reality. We can not approach reality in any way, shape, or form, when using the GHE models with averaged input etc. Already, the true reality-based physical model indicates no GHE is there. Of course, there is more to add and a bit more physics to include, and these are known, and they will button up the edges. And, it is simply already exempt from the reality model that the colder atmosphere needs to heat the warmer surface at twice the power of the Sun; this simply isn’t required, or indicated…or anything.
Joe, as I have pointed out long ago, the “continuous hemispherical system input” is
F⊙ (1-α) * 0.5
not
F⊙ (1-α) * 0.637
You are too big by a factor of 4/pi, corresponding to integrating the input along the “equator” where the sun passes directly over head. Once again, you are calculating the effect at the equator, and extrapolating it as if applied elsewhere.
The input along the equator would be F⊙ (1-α) * 0.637
The input near the poles would be about F⊙ (1-α) * 0
Averaged over the whole hemisphere, it is F⊙ (1-α) * 0.5
(as it must be to conserve energy)
[JPReply: Yes I did used to have that diagram show the 0.5 factor, and I could go back to that. 0.5 corresponds to +30C as the average input temperature, instead of +49C, which is still well above the surface average in any case.]
*******************************************
I (and I think everyone else) will agree that averaged inputs will not give anything close to a realistic model of the earth.
[JPReply: No, you’re not getting away with that. They, you, whoever, all believe that the averaged inputs are totally physically reasonable and they undoubtedly imply that the atmosphere is twice as hot as sunshine, etc. Dr. Spencer has just explicitly said precisely this, in his challenge to us, and specifically said that the averaged-out models give a totally realistic model of the Earth. Can’t pretend that this isn’t exactly their position and what we’ve argued endlessly about before. You’re on the precipice now Tim…come on over, I’m a very nice guy in the heat of the real-time sunshine ;)]
However, averaged inputs are still useful for rudimentary understanding and to explore constraints based on (for example) conservation of energy.
[JPReply: Well that contradicts what you just said. Since the averaged inputs do “not give anything close to a realistic model of the earth“, then no, they do not really provide an understanding of the physical boundary conditions. In terms of the most basic, irrelevant, not really needing to be confirmed, most simple and not really all that helpful rudiments, yes, the 1st Law analysis just tells us that energy in = energy out; but this is not sufficient physics for the actual dynamic boundary conditions of a continuously time-dependent system.]
The integrated flux in for 24 hours must equal the integrated flux out for 24 hours for the system to reach a steady-state solution (eg toward the end of your final graph above where the temperature patterns repeat). I think we can all agree on this.
[JPReply: First Law of thermo.]
The same is still true if I divide those integrated fluxes by any constant. In particular, we can divide both by 84600 s and call that number the “average flux per second”. These numbers as simply easier to deal with.
[JPReply: As you have said, averaged fluxes don’t correspond to the realistic system or its responses. This is specifically the problem.]
Consider some hypothetical spot on earth (not specifically the spot in your graph above).
* Some spot on the earth @ a constant 273K loses 300 W/m^2 at any particular second.
* This spot on the earth @ a constant 273K loses an average of 300 W/m^2 over the course of 24 hr.
* Some spot on the earth receives between 0 W/m^2 (night time) and 940 W/m^2 (noon) at any particular second of a perfectly sunny day.
* This spot on the earth receives an average of 300 W/m^2 over the course of 24 hr.
The second half of the statement is not “wrong”, It is simply less specific. The integrated result from the second line (ie the 24 hour average) shows that the long-term results would not vary.
[JPReply: And it needs a real-time model to actually describe the physics, in combination with knowledge of the physical local boundary conditions, which are more complicated than a simple instantaneous 1-st Law global constraint. That constraint is satisfied, but not so simply. ]
32 C is a more reasonable “input temperature” for the hemisphere than 49 C — although you are now going against your own rule about avoiding averages.
[JPReply: Tim I don’t use that as an average input. The diagram is a visual aid for developing an understanding of the real-time system. The equation uses real-time input and responses.]
More importantly, the “input temperature” for the other 12 hours is -270 C.
[JPReply: Well that’s bit of a stretch of language; but yes, there is no input at night, something that the GHE models don’t even get right. Stop agreeing with the criticisms of the GHE! 🙂 Just kidding I like making friends with you.]
Look at your own model — the temperatures for a string of sunny days at a location where the sun gets fairly close to the zenith only reaches this “input temperature” around noon. Other times of day — and all night long, the temperatures are much lower.
* areas with less direct sunlight (most of the earth) would be cooler (often MUCH cooler)
* cloudy days with ~ 10% as much sunlight. getting through would be cooler.
You seem to be using a “best-case scenario” and treating it as “typical”
Your model actually seems pretty good to me. Try your model for a more “typical” location. “Appendix J” seems to be for sunny oceans near the equator. Try running it
* 30 N with 0.866 as much noon insolation
* 45 N with 0.707 as much noon insolation
* the equator with every third day being cloudy.
If I had more time, I would download he trial version of Matlab and do it myself.
[JPReply: This is of course discussed in my paper and I discuss some of the boundary conditions that would need to bet met. You may run into trouble if not icnluding those conditions. What I need to do is further develop the model etc. But yes, that is exactly what the model can do. The paper itself was all about data taken by Carl Brehmer in Arizona.]
PS, when i said “not give anything close to a realistic model of the earth”, i meant in terms of seasons or day/night temperature variations or tradewinds or storms. It is still a reasonable way to address conservation of energy for the planet as a whole.
[JPReply: Addressing energy conservation is the most trivial thing that can be done; it becomes especially worse when such a simple consideration is used by all the fellows (including you, in the past, perhaps not anymore) to mess up the actual physical conditions and create a meaningless fictional model and then extrapolate further fiction from it.]
Max™
Over at the WUWT thread you referenced an interesting resource, Hyperphysics
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/hframe.html
I want and need to understand about the quantum understanding of photons and radiative heat exchange, as it applies in the atmosphere with CO2. The resource index item on “absorption, quantum” had this:
“Taking the electron transitions associated with visible and ultraviolet interactions with matter as an example, absorption of a photon will occur only when the quantum energy of the photon precisely matches the energy gap between the initial and final states. 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.” This seems to say that an object is transparent to photons from a lower temperature source, but I would like confirmation of this.
Also, a warning about this Hyperphysics. If you follow the index on “Greenhouse Effect”, or “Global Warming”, you will see the standard consensus POV.
Yeah they tow the rope there, or toe the line, or whatever, but still lots of good information there.
Amusingly some of the very same pages provide arguments which undermine the GHE, even simple things like the proper use of the SB law as T_hot minus T_cold which prevents using the radiation from the atmosphere as an input for the surface.
tjfolkerts says (2013/05/29 at 10:20 AM): “Greg, … I must admit that I still do not get what you point is.”
=====================================================
The “I do not get your point” trick is not bad, congratulations. Pretending to be stupid is sometimes indeed a better option.
I remember Willis being a great master of that. Every time he was caught to contradict himself or simply saying nonsense when fooling the readers, he started with “I do not understand what you mean” or “what is it about?” and so on.
Hey Tim, just to be clear, one of the boundary conditions I’m talking about is the fact that the amount of energy absorbed around the equator is NOT actually balanced with the output around the equator. This range of imbalance actually extends to about +- 40 degrees in latitude. More energy comes in in this range than comes out, then the situation reverses at higher latitudes. So this is one of the global boundary conditions that needs to be satisfied, but it has to be done on a local-by-local basis with local heat flow equations, and such an equation should be the 2-D pde cited in the paper, but it also has to include latent heat storage of two types (fusion and condensation). So, that’s how it gets more complicated. However, this first go at creating a local heat flow equation at the very surface already indicates that nothing like twice the heating from the atmosphere than from the sun is there, and that indeed, there is NO need for any heating from the atmosphere in a “GHE physics” fashion at all…it is simply not part of reality, or the laws of thermo, or real heat flow equations.
I would like to see tjfolkerts giving me an ecuation explaining how a cube of dry ice at less than -82ºC can warm a burning coal at 340ºC. As thermodynamicas show us, for the dry ice cube to warm 1ºC the coal must cool itself by 1ºC. Then, if that thing could be true, we could start a fire using enough dry ice underneath a pile of wood… 🙂
Thanks Max.
What Tim keeps ‘forgetting’ is that the temperature at Earth’s surface (or at any specific layer in the Earth system) is not set by radiation alone, but by radiation (incoming/solar) AND the weight of the atmosphere (a gas in a gravity field). Earth’s surface is not a black body in a vacuum. The Stefan-Boltzmann law doesn’t apply. It only applies to black/gray bodies in vacuums or to bodies much, much hotter than their surroundings, so that convective heat losses can be neglected.
The energy/heat balance must be there of course. And it is. But you cannot directly translate those balancing fluxes into a temperature accounting for radiative transfer alone.
Earth’s atmosphere restricts the free buoyancy of conductively heated surface air and also the free evaporation of H2O from the ocean. This means that the surface has a harder time ridding itself convectively of absorbed solar heat fast enough with a heavy atmosphere than with a light one pressing down on it. What must happen? The surface temperature and hence the surface air temperature must rise to keep the global convective engine running adequately.
Equation 5 above
describes an object with heat entering one side via conduction and heat radiating from the other. In equation 6, simply replacing Qin with Thot)4 (a hot radiating surface) indicates that there are now 2 objects separated by a space and that the original object will now radiate heat from both sides. As a result
should become
If the 2 objects are touching, then the SB equation can not be used to compute the heat flow from the hot wall. Since you are using the SB equation, the objects can not be touching.
Thanks Kristian…good point to remember about the mass of atmosphere having an effect too.
Robert, the second object receiving radiation has one side only; the scenario was for a wall which is an infinite heat source/bath/sink. Heat is then conducted through the receiving wall indefinitely. Adding a layer to a heat bath doesn’t reduce its output by 2…the new layer just warms up and then emits/conducts the energy to the other side.
A heat bath is normally stirred and heat is transferred by advection, not radiation. In that case, the resistance to heat flow is significantly reduced and the heat flow will not follow the SB model.
When radiation is the mechanism of heat transport, then the temperature of the source has to increase to maintain the same heat flow through a second barrier.
Sorry that didn’t mean a liquid bath, it meant heat sink/source, which is sometimes called a bath. Loose terminology. Radiation from a surface which is an infinite heat source.
The temperature of the source does not have to increase in order to heat up a cooler object. That is precisely what this post about lying with math is about, precisely. It doesn’t work that way. The source heats the barrier; this doesn’t mean the source heats up or require that.
A few quick replies:
Ron C The absorption/emission that you are looking at is not directly related to temperature. If you have studied that Bohr Model, that is the sort of thing they are discussing — orbital energies are quantized, so hydrogen atoms can only emit or absorb specific energies of photons (eg teh Balmer series). For CO2, the vibration modes of the atoms are quantized, which limits the energies of photons that CO2 can absorb or emit (eg a band near 15 um). N2 & O2 have no vibrational modes that correspond to IR energies, so they can’t absorb/emit effectively in theses wavelength regions.
Kristian, Certainly all forms of energy transfer must be considered — radiation along with convection & conduction & phase changes. Conversely, you cannot ignore radiation. A surface — whether in vacuum or not, emits EM radiation. Pressure does not “suppress” this outgoing radiation. Conduction nor evaporation suppresses this outgoing radiation (other than by lowering the surface temperature). Incoming radiation does not suppress this outgoing radiation.
Since “The energy/heat balance must be there of course”, then tell us how to calculate the energy input/output to the surface from a static air pressure. “This means that the surface has a harder time ridding itself convectively of absorbed solar heat fast enough” .. but there is only enough solar power to warm the surface to a maximum (average) temperature of ~ 255K (yes, Joe, I know it is higher on the sunny side and lower on the night side).
Eduardo wonders: “I would like to see tjfolkerts giving me an ecuation explaining … ”
Consider a block of burning coal 10 cm on a side burning at 340 C = 613 K. That is 8006.2 W/m^2, or 480.4 W total outgoing IR using the SB equation (assuming it is a black body). This assumes no other sources of energy to the coal (specifically, no radiation from other objects, so we could imagine the coal is surrounded by deep space (and please, lets not get into “there is no oxygen in outerspace”)) Now put some ‘warm’ (compared to the -270 C we had before) dry ice around it at -82 C = 191 K. That will supply 4.5 W of extra power to hte cube. Assuming the chemical reaction continue the same, that will be a total of 480.4 + 4.5 = 484.9 W into the cube. It will warm up to 341.4 C, which allows it to radiate away that 484.9 W. We could move it to a room at 20 C, and the coal would warm to ~ 348 C.
I have never figured out how it is so hard to understand that two sources of energy added together will warm something more than a single source will by itself. Of course, the dry ice by itself without the input of the chemical energy can’t warm the coal to 340 C, but no one ever said it would. You idea of adding “enough dry ice” doesn’t work. You can’t say “one block provides 4.5 W to the cube, so 100 blocks piled up will provide 450 W”. Any photons from the “farther blocks” are absorbed by the closer blocks, so only the closest black matters here. Put another way, the block was already 100% surrounded by dry ice in this example. You can have the coal “more than 100%” surround by dry ice.
[JPReply: Tim the radiation from an ice cube doesn’t heat you up. You heat it up. Cold plus hot does not make hotter, but medium.]
Well, if the two walls are the same temperature, then, according to the first law, heat will not flow between them. If there is no flow, then the outer wall can not radiate toward space.
However, since the outer wall actually is radiating heat to space, it follows that there must be a temperature difference between the walls and that the outer wall must be colder than the inner wall. Otherwise, the arrangement violates the first law.
[JPReply: Energy is shared between the walls when in equilibrium, but there is just no heat flow. No heat flow doesn’t mean energy isn’t shared. The outer wall radiating gets its energy from the shared equilibrium state of the inner wall and source. This conserves the 1st law.]
tjfolkerts says (2013/05/30 at 12:54 PM): “Consider a block of burning coal 10 cm on a side burning at 340 C … Now put some… dry ice around it at -82 C … That will supply 4.5 W of extra power to hte cube.”
====================================================
No, dry ice will not supply any power to the cube. This is absurd and physically impossible, because the assumption that it will logically leads under certain conditions to an absurd physically impossible consequence.
I gotta love your persistence with that mantra, Greg. 🙂
And no, it will never lead to any physically absurd conclusions. I’ve heard your attempts and all fall short.
Cold doesn’t cause hot to heat up.
“Cold plus hot does not make hotter, but medium.”
But “A little energy added to more energy makes yet more energy” — conservation of energy. The photons from the cold ice (in conjunction with the energy already added by the heater) “warms you” more than the radiation from even colder outer space would“.
Several recent experiments (at Roy Spencer’s blog and WUWT) show “back radiation from cooler objects making warmer objects warmer still”. Until you all come to accept the correct physics, there is really nothing more that can be said.
Joe, this is not the equivalent of pouring hot water into cold water and getting warm water. This is the equivalent of putting one pellet of self-heating nuclear waste in cold water and another pellet in warm water. The pellet in the warm water will be hotter than the pellet in the cold water.
[Reply: The hot pellet just heats both the waters…this doesn’t mean the pellet is heated by the warmer water…IT is heating the water. The colder water cools the pellet less than the warmer water; neither waters heat the pellet.]
Those experiments do not show the results they’re pretended to and don’t change our position; we’ll be writing about them in due course and debunking them.
Adding ice-cubes to hotter radiant heat is part of the lying with mathematics, in this case lying about physics. You simply can’t make it work that way. It can be proven trivially mathematically similar as I did in this article.
They have a model where the Earth is literally flat, static, and sunshine is cold; we have a model where the Earth is round, rotating, and sunshine is its real value. I have never understood how this debate can even exist given the mental boundary conditions either of us subscribe to: if they wish to insist in their position that the Earth is flat and sunshine is cold, theirs and the demise of the GHE is inevitable. The sphericity of the Earth has been known for a long time…eventually this knowledge will penetrate into climate alarm. Why NOT do better science and make better models that inform us more accurately of the actual system…why would anyone not want to do this? The data already shows that there is no GHE, and that a round rotating Earth with real-valued sunshine works as a better model this way. I mean flat Earth, really? We’ve already won. It is simply a matter of stating that the Earth is round and sunshine is hot in a way that people can understand, because apparently this is so much more difficult to understand than flat Earth’s and cold sunshine that is never even felt.
Defense of the GHE is all about a political operation to sustain AGW and the question of “how much warming” so that carbon can be controlled and taxed, and thus for more control over people. “Skeptics” who defend the GHE, when all you have to do is say “no” to a flat Earth and “yes” to a round Earth, are 5th Column operatives of AGW alarmism and the financial/political goals behind it. Their strategy is to corral skepticism into a position that, in the end, supports AGW and the financial/political goals behind it, by keeping the question one of “how much warming”. If you get rid of the GHE by saying “yes” to a round Earth, all of AGW its whole basis crumbles. This is why such people defend the GHE and a flat Earth, because they’re not who they pretend they are.
tjfolkerts says (2013/05/30 at 9:09 PM): Several recent experiments (at Roy Spencer’s blog and WUWT) show “back radiation from cooler objects making warmer objects warmer still”.
===========================================================
Yeah, two fake “experiments”. Watts faked the statement he “refuted”, and the other guy apparently faked the data. You guys can make anything warmer or hotter or whatever just like that.
Joe, we are just going around with words, and (in my perspective) you are simply attacking strawmen.
You have heard all the sorts of things I would say, and I have heard all the sorts of things you would say. There are lots of things to dislike about climate models and estimates of global temperatures and proxies for past temperatures and carbon taxes and the feedbacks. But ‘back-radiation’ is not such an issue.
At the end of the day, either you (and a handful of your friends) are right, or all the thermodynamics textbook for the last 100 years (not to mention countless actual devices built on such principles) are wrong. I know where I would bet my money.
Here’s one parting question for you (and Greg). What experiment could be done that would convince you that you are wrong? Be specific.
tjfolkerts says, 2013/05/30 at 12:54 PM:
“Kristian, Certainly all forms of energy transfer must be considered — radiation along with convection & conduction & phase changes.”
Indeed. As total heat loss from the surface. You know, the flux that is actually physically detectable. Heat transfer is all that matters when it comes to ‘heating’ and ‘cooling’ things. The surface gains 168 W/m^2 of heat … and loses 168 W/m^2 of heat, of which (according to T&K97) 66 is by thermal radiation (IR). If there were no convective fluxes, i.e. no atmosphere, the surface would lose all its 168 W/m^2 through radiative means. And the surface would be much colder.
Look, the 240 flux coming in at ToA from the Sun, as the 240 flux going out, are radiative HEAT fluxes. As is the 168 coming in at the surface … and the one going out. Your 390 and 324 fluxes are NOT.
“Conversely, you cannot ignore radiation.”
Who’s ignoring radiation? No one. What’s being ignored is the fact that ‘radiation’ is not automatically ‘radiative HEAT’. You’re the one doing the ignoring. Or should we say ‘conflating’.
“A surface — whether in vacuum or not, emits EM radiation.”
Of course. Has anyone stated otherwise? It however isn’t able to (and doesn’t need to) rid itself of all its absorbed heat through radiation when in a medium like air.
“Pressure does not “suppress” this outgoing radiation. Conduction nor evaporation suppresses this outgoing radiation (other than by lowering the surface temperature). Incoming radiation does not suppress this outgoing radiation.”
So, Tim, if the original outgoing radiation (a result of the emission temperature set by the absorbed solar heat) always escapes freely, then how is the surface ever going to warm beyond that emission temperature? You will have to somehow add extra heat to accomplish this. Not extra energy. Extra heat. ‘Net’ energy. Because the solar heat isn’t ‘piling up’. It escapes freely. It isn’t suppressed as you say. So you need a positive transfer of ‘thermal energy’ from somewhere else. Well, Tim, where will you add this extra heat from? What source?
You see, you’re confusing the radiative heat loss from a surface that’s constantly being heated with how much (at which rate) this heat is capable of warming a cooler object. This is Problem 1023 all over again. J is constantly going out from the sphere. It never changes as long as the internal heat input to the sphere never changes. However, the shell is only absorbing J – J1. This means J from the sphere is only ever capable of warming the shell so far.
Listen, if the heat going from the sphere to the shell were reduced already at the sphere’s surface, then the shell would only receive J1, not J. That means it would only emit J2inw and J2outw (J1/2). The shell couldn’t warm as much as before.
In other words, you cannot BOTH let J1 from the shell reduce the amount of heating that J from the sphere can accomplish upon absorption by the shell AND let it reduce J itself before it even arrives at the shell. You cannot have it both ways.
But you’re not reducing it at all, are you Tim? It cannot be reduced. As you say. You’re ADDING the ‘back radiated’ flux. As does Trenberth&Kiehl.
No can do. ‘Back radiation’ is by definition PART OF the original outgoing radiative flux. It is not an independent, extra flux coming in. Hold your hand up between the light bulb and the mirror, Tim. Where’s the heat coming from? Does the reflected (or ‘back-radiated’) flux constitute extra, independent incoming energy?
“Since “The energy/heat balance must be there of course”, then tell us how to calculate the energy input/output to the surface from a static air pressure.”
Huh? Who said anything about the air pressure providing energy? The air pressure restricts the free convective and evaporative heat loss from the surface. How hard is that to comprehend? It’s utterly basic. The escape of energy from a surface as radiation (EM energy waves) can not be restricted. That’s the difference. Photons do not have charge, massive or spatial properties. Energy escaping a surface by movement of molecules away from it can of course be restricted. And that’s what the weight of our atmosphere is doing. It doesn’t restrict the escape of thermal radiation from the surface. It restricts free convection and free evaporation. Combine this with solar input and the thermal mass of earth, water and air and you get a mean temperature increase.
““This means that the surface has a harder time ridding itself convectively of absorbed solar heat fast enough” .. but there is only enough solar power to warm the surface to a maximum (average) temperature of ~ 255K (yes, Joe, I know it is higher on the sunny side and lower on the night side).”
Radiatively, yes. Well, not 255K. 233K. If there were no atmospheric weight pressing down and the 168 W/m^2 absorbed by the surface were distributed evenly across the entire globe at any time, then the mean surface temperature would be 233K. In reality, it would be much lower.
With the mass of the atmosphere on top of it, however, and with a substantial thermal mass to contain absorbed energy, the surface temperature is free to increase beyond this level. In fact, all the way to 288K in our case …
Don’t be so full of it Tim. The heat flow calculus textbooks of the last 100 years don’t have any mention of the GHE anywhere, and they still don’t. Don’t be such a liar. It is only found in flat Earth models. You came so close, then backed away…don’t know what happened to you.
If you want to believe in a flat Earth, it will be your downfall eventually. We’ve already won when our position is that the Earth is round while yours is that it is flat. Why would anyone want to take your position? Why would anyone want a flat Earth model with a magic constant required when they can have a spherical model actually behaving like reality without any added heating? You are either insane, or a fraud defender of climate alarm.
Backradiaiton doesn’t act as heating to its own source. This is a plainly wrong idea that violates all of the thermodynamic heat flow textbooks of the last 100 years. And it only comes out of flat Earth models…believing the Earth is flat. Fiction begets fiction. To call highlighting the difference between a flat Earth and a spherical Earth a “straw man” is completely idiotic.
[JPReply: Energy is shared between the walls when in equilibrium, but there is just no heat flow. No heat flow doesn’t mean energy isn’t shared. The outer wall radiating gets its energy from the shared equilibrium state of the inner wall and source. This conserves the 1st law.]
To be perfectly clear – if there is no temperature difference, then there is no net heat flow. This is the standard equilibrium condition where the heat energy emitted from one wall is totally absorbed by the other, and vise versa. In this condition, no heat will enter or leave the system.
If one of the walls is radiating away from the system and the other is providing the heat, then there must be a temperature difference between the walls. This is the most basic thermodynamic law after conservation of energy. What you are suggesting is a clear violation of the first law. (No math required.)
[Reply: Energy is not always heat flow. Energy can be spontaneously shared in an equilibrium system without there being heat flow – it is distributed throughout. The heat flow occurs on the side where equilibrium doesn’t exist; on the inside, the ensemble shares the same/equivalent energy states freely. Energy is lost as heat on one side, on the inside the energy is shared evenly in the ensemble. For example, the source wall and the receiving wall can be at the same temperature, and then the receiving wall can be very thick such that energy conducts slowly into and through it. Heat flow is properly occurring in the receiving wall as heat conducts through it there; the walls facing each other just share the energy state of the source, at the very surface.]
That is because they don’t need to. They do discuss radiant heat and how to perform the calculations. They might not use the phrase “back radiation”, but the concept is fully covered.
As specific examples, in the Principles of Heat Transfer (Kreith, 1967), the Radiation chapter has a section on the atmosphere. The Infrared Handbook (Dept of the Navy, 1978) has 3 chapters on the atmosphere. Of course, many meteorology books from the last 100 years also have sections on this subject.
[Reply: Sections on the atmosphere which don’t name the GHE. Which don’t use the term backradiation heating. No heat flow calculus textbook, anywhere, ever, shows that cold heats up hot.]
tjfolkerts says: (2013/05/31 at 12:10 AM): “But ‘back-radiation’ is not such an issue… all the thermodynamics textbook … actual devices … What experiment could be done…”
=====================================================
I fully understand your need to blatantly lie about back radiation warming which is the basis for the “greenhouse effect”, so I am saying it for the readers: both “greenhouse effect” and “global warming” are pure lies. Of course, big lies are efficient, and this is a very big one, besides, you have a propaganda machine both in MSM and on “skeptical” blogs, but the first rats have already started leaving the ship, as you might have noticed. Maybe you should consider joining them. Later you can say that you were not an evil liar, but just a simple naive guy.
Folkerts is another evil grubworm who learned to lie on the internet as a way to some fame.
If he, or Joel Shore, or David M Hoffer, wanted to realize that three colors of light impinging on three sections of the face of an anvil
coming out the back, fractionalized, and delayed – in terms prodigious relative to the near or full speed-of-light they arrived as free radiation –
A.L.W.A.Y.S.
but A.L.W.A.Y.S.
of lower frequency than that which came in
if THEY WANTED to REALIZE that MEANS there CAN’T be any BACK RADIATION HEATING
because the PROFOUND POWER to CONTROL demonstrated by the electron lattice proves itself in the above
THEY COULD.
They WANT to L.I.E.
and M.A.K.E. names for themselves as VAST DECEIVERS
so in their minds they can COMPARE themselves to the most evil people in history and smirk THEY did THEIR part to HAMPER and DAMAGE human history.
===
Y.O.U. can’t T.E.L.L. me THEY don’t REALIZE what that PROFOUND POWER to DELAY, and indeed FRACTION photonic input through DISTRIBUTIVE AVERAGING, means.
Folkerts knows what that means.
HE KNOWS that – if the solid lattice can average THREE colors of LIGHT coming in THREE SIDES of that anvil,
making the light that emits from the tip, ALL one basically averaged COLOR
it means the CONTROL over that LIGHT in EVERY SENSE of the question
is
A.B.S.O.L.U.T.E.
===
M.A.Y.B.E. they’re too stupid
to NOT be ABLE to O.U.T.S.M.A.R.T.
an ANVIL.
M.A.Y.B.E.
Never: I mean, not E.V.E.R.
N.O.T. ONCE
underestimate HOW S.T.U.P.I.D.
a S.O.C.I.A.L.I.S.T.
can BE.
But I think
it’s pure evil urge to REBEL
and have PRIDE in the fact that although there wasn’t something G.O.O.D.
to do to make a name for themselves,
there WAS, something E.V.I.L. to do
to make a name for themselves.
After all: can you imagine, not being able to explain the above concept to a crew digging a ditch by the side of the road, during some hot afternoon where everyone’s got on glasses and it’s just BAKING hot, and people need something to bullshoot about?
Can you IMAGINE
a GROUP of MEN
who COULD NOT have it EXPLAINED to them that the ABSOLUTE CONTROL exhibited by the solid’s electron lattice
shows the LATTICE controls that DIRECTIONALITY in ABSOLUTE TERMS?
Seriously: we have this Folkerts HACK in here saying things like HE THINKS THERE WOULD BE NO WARMTH in the atmosphere if not for WATER and CO2.
Talking about how “if there was no ATMOSPHERIC PHASE CHANGE REFRIGERANT, (water) and a T.I.N.Y. fraction of percent CO2,
the WORLD would be UNINHABITABLE because it would be FRIGID.
That’s past stupid it’s just TRYING to see how much evil a sociopath can do with a keyboard and an endless number of words to type on it.
===
INSISTING for YEARS
he can’t GRASP that ABSOLUTE
ELECTRON LATTICE CONTROL
over every color of light coming in.
INSISTING for YEARS
that ABSOLUTE control
over SPEED of movement through the lattice –
over PHOTONIC FRACTIONING
when FREQUENCY of photons is altered and reassigned
===
All I can say is HE CAN PLAY STUPID as LONG as HE WANTS
but it’s not going to be ANY HARDER to MAKE HIM LOOK like a FOOL.
ONE FOOL
plus
ONE anvil.
===
I JUST SHOWED YOU
which one’s GOT MORE BRAINS.
===
And if THAT’s claimed to not be the case because Folkerts, Shore, Hoffman, Spencer, Watts, can prove they have social security numbers and thus must be able to generate SOME biotic electrical activity or be declared DEAD as an anvil,
===
Then I GUARANTEE YOU it won’t take me ONE FULL PARAGRAPH to SHOW ANY GROUP of PEOPLE
which one knows more about PHYSICS of LIGHT HANDLING INSIDE an anvil.
Because these evil hillbillies don’t really HAVE any excuse that leaves them with a vestige of respectability intact.
I think everybody ought to go over to their favorite
Magick Backerdism/StupidityWithoutBorders blogs
and check on their INTERPRETATION on WHO’S SMARTER: an ANVIL
or a MAGICK BACKERDISM BELIEVER.
I wouldn’t piss on Tim Folkerts’ head if his hair was on fire.
Joel Shore the same.
Same thing for David M Hoffer.
ANYBODY
who goes in front of MILLIONS
declaring THEY BELIEVE in MAGICK BAKKERD RaYDeeYaYSHuN
deserves
what they GET.
Joe, what “happened to me” is that I have read and understood physics books.
You have a very hard time “reading between the lines”. Textbooks of the last 100 years don’t have any mention of the about falling iPods, either, but I am still quite confident that they will accelerate downward at ~ 9.8 m/s if I drop one. The power of science is that you don’t have to list every single example — you can generalize. Rules of thermodynamics and radiative energy transfer should apply in all circumstances — including IR radiation from CO2 molecules to H2O molecules. The “-Tc^4” term in (episolon)(sigma)( Th^4 – Tc^4) *is* “the greenhouse effect”.
Besides, there ARE lots of examples of textbooks discussing the GHE. You just choose to disregard them. So YOUR statement is an outright, obvious lie.
You are also very poor at understanding what others are saying. No one (that I know ) says that “backradiaiton acts as heating to its own source”. *That* is the fiction here!
TJF: “The “-Tc^4″ term in (episolon)(sigma)( Th^4 – Tc^4) *is* “the greenhouse effect”.”
That is the lying with mathematics part. Stop lying.
Textbooks discussing the GHE use flat Earth models…I have seen them all. Since they use such, they are all wrong by definition.
TJF: “No one (that I know ) says that “backradiaiton acts as heating to its own source”. *That* is the fiction here!”
That is EXACTLY what is said in the textbooks. Now you’re trying to change it to this new argument, which I have identified is simply lying with mathematics.
Look Tim, you’re an identified liar, and you change your position around, etc. The GHE postulate keeps on changing how it actually works etc. etc…this is defined pseudoscience and cultism. The Slayers have never needed to do this and our criticisms have always been the same, and they’ve always applied to every new version of the GHE which is created.
Kristian says “If there were no convective fluxes, i.e. no atmosphere, the surface would lose all its 168 W/m^2 through radiative means. And the surface would be much colder. ”Exactly! And if there were no GHG’s the atmosphere could not lose any energy to space, so there could be no convective loses! Sure, there would be convective loses on the warm, sunny side, but there would be an identical return of energy as the air subsided on the other cooler side.
Thanks for providing such a clear simple argument that the surface would indeed be much colder without GHGs! 🙂There is some hung grammar in that post sorry about that.
===
Seriously: can you REALLY, REALLY BELIEVE
a MAN could GO on the INTERNET
and think for YEARS
the light averaging inside a solid,
where the light coming out is ALWAYS assigned by the solid it’s frequency,
and moved through the lattice with PERFECT ease of control, regarding speed of movement –
Can YOU REALLY IMAGINE YOURSELF
being UNABLE to HAVE it EXPLAINED to you,
WHAT that MEANT?
I’ve ridiculed Folkerts and Shore both, before, as well as that David Hoffer character.
===
I once knowing what he would say, injected myself in a comment, where Folkerts was wagging his stupid on the internet for all the world to watch,
by saying “Why do you think the entire infrared astronomy field is DROP-a-pin-dead-SILENT about the MAGICAL BACKERDISMS where EARTH FREQUENCY EMISSIONS are supposed to be FILLING up the ATMOSPHERE?”
===
Now- I KNEW AHEAD of time, WHAT he WAS GOING to SAY: and S.U.R.E. enough, he DID:
do you know what he said, When I said, “why hasn’t someone in the entire world wide infrared astronomy field, STEPPED FORWARD with the SLIDES showing earth emissions getting ever greater?
===
LOL
I KID YOU NOT
F.O.L.K.E.R.T.S.
came trolling up, as ON CUE like I KNEW he WOULD,
and said that GEM that JUST KEEPS on GIVING, which I’ve suckered a MANY a ONE into saying:
“The REASON they HAVEN’T, is BECAUSE THEY ARE TRYING to AVOID that FREQUENCY light!”
===
I
KID
you
NOT
===
It was FOLKERTS: I KNEW he’d come up and SAY it,
and HE SAID it with that PERFECT STUPIDITY of ABSOLUTE certitude he’d never be caught
that
HE BELIEVES the REASON magical BACKERD radiation CAN’T BE PHOTOGRAPHED in the sky
is because THEY DON’T WANT to SEE it.
===
===
And I had set the whole thing up, PERFECTLY, TOO. It wasn’t the abbreviated version of the question I just threw up,but it was all couched in PERFECTLY plain terms: the whole “don’t you think if it was there for the past TWENTY YEARS as EVERY SINGLE HUMAN BEING on EARTH involved with SCIENCE was TRYING to GET a GRIP on the SITUATION: EVERY single HUMAN BEING on EARTH,
looking for that EASY A paper
looking for that NOBEL PRIZE winning paper
lookng for that TIME MAN of the YEAR award:
the ONE who FINALLY POINTED and said “LOOK! MAGICAL BACKERDISMS FINALLY SHOWN to be CORRELATED to CO2 levels!”
===
That slug-slime-for-brain-fluid TIM FOLKERTS popped up like someone
HIT a TARGET at a CARNIVAL and said
in FULL-THROATED, BELIEVER-CHIRP,
===
“THAY caint DuHsCOVER it CAWS THAY GOT FILTERS FOR IT!
CAWS THAYs TRYIN to NOT look at that!
It’s PuhLLooSHUN tuH THIM so.. THAY DONT NO to TELL US THAY got PITCHERS!”
I just smiled and let that one sit there,
a steaming pile of BUHLIEVERiSM crapped all over the page for
EVERY person reading to came by and examine.
TJF, I am sorry, but I am having a very difficult time keeping up with all of your different definitions of the GHE. Could you please nail down one of them and stick to that so that I may begin to learn how your GHE actually works? Is there really more than one GHE? When does one type work and another type not? Do they all function at the same time? I would like to understand just one of them at a time please.
Thank you.
TJF, could you explain to me how our atmosphere sheds heat to space via “convective losses”?
Thank you.
TFJ, another quick question for you, and this is probably more of a maths question. If I have 100 units of energy striking the surface, and then the surface begins to radiate those units of energy, which in turn encounter GHG’s that re-radiate the shed units of energy back to the surface. How many total units of energy exist within the system? Assume nothing, that is, assume that 100% of the units re-radiated by the GHG’s is imparted on the surface. Assume 100% perfect efficiency. Again, how many units of energy? Forget about all of your fancy physics for a moment, forget about laws of thermodynamics, forget about collisions, photons and all that. Just how many units of energy are in the system?
Don’t encourage him Squid…
We already had him comprehend that there’s a fundamental problem with the standard GHE models, and that my model does the job without the GHE. That was a major success. But then he ran away from it and is now just repeating sophistry and old arguments.
Pennies From Heaven (how to get rich with the GHE)
Indeed, a new phenomena has been discovered! Pennies DO fall from heaven! This is a story of how I became rich by employing the “Green House Effect”.
On an afternoon in June the clouds parted and the sun began to shine. The birds began to chirp. My golf ball began to find the cup. Suddenly, seemingly out of nowhere, pennies began to fall from the sky. First there were 10, then 20, then 100. In short order I counted 1000 pennies crashing down from the heavens. To my amazement, these pennies didn’t just simply sit idle in the grass, they began to bounce back to whence they came. Astonishingly, pennies also remained nestled between the blades of my freshly mowed lawn. Whats more, the pennies heading back to the heavens seemingly hit a ceiling of sorts and came right back to earth. Now I had 2000 pennies! I thought to myself, “this is pretty cool”, but then, just as I prepared to gather my bounty, what did my lying eyes see? Those 2000 pennies began the very same process! What was once 2000 pennies was now 3000, 4000, a million! Well, suffice to say, this was quite a specticle. Now, as long as I keep at least 1 penny repeating this process, I can gather as many pennies as I wish and whisk them off to my local Bank of America, where I have become as rich as Al Gore!
(disclaimer: if attempting this at home, please wear appropriate protection. Falling pennies can hurt!)
tjfolkerts says: (2013/05/31 at 8:36 AM): “No one (that I know ) says that “backradiaiton acts as heating to its own source”.”
====================================================
And of course you are lying again.
It has been clarified many times on the threads where you were active that the “greenhouse effect” as presented by the IPCC is exactly the physically absurd warming effect of back radiation (from “greenhouse gases”).
Joe,
“[Reply: Snipped for sophistry.]”
Relax. When he starts like that, it simply means he’s got nothing. He’s flailing, just wants to get out without having to concede any points and hence initiates the deployment of his diversionary arsenal, for instance in the shape of puerile sidetracking tactics like this one. Shore does the exact same thing. Every single time. Notice how they completely ignore the crux of the opposing argument and/or manage to utterly warp and misrepresent it (by ‘misunderstanding’ or ‘misinterpreting’ it) and thus are able to avoid addressing it that way.
I am wondering, with all of this back-radiation garbage floundering about, cold stuff hotting up hot stuff, cats and dogs living together, how do you suppose they keep this place frozen? http://www.weather.com/travel/inside-icehotel-20130530 … beautiful pictures by the way!
Thanks Kristian. Oh yes Shore does it all too well as well, indeed. Also just look at the diversion from Watts and Spencer with their new experiment, right after we completely answer their challenge and demonstrate a real-world model without a GHE. Tactics…it is all about tactics, all they have is diversions, it is why there are so many diversionary versions of the GHE. The math of heat flow here specifically shows that cold never heats up warm.
Actually, most of them explain in detail, how radiation from a colder object contributes to the temperature of a warmer object. Fairly standard stuff really in a furnace or a nuclear power plant. This was understood before anyone described the Greenhouse effect. The clowns with the bogus models did not invent this to confuse people.
I know radiation is difficult to grasp, and that back radiation seems completely illogical. It took a while playing with an IR thermometer before I could trust what it was displaying. You should get one (about $10) and play with it. Don’t worry about the sky – just point it at things around the house and in the yard. I was completely surprised.
Goodness gracious an IR thermometer does not work by being heated by a colder object. Radiation from an icecube does not heat a warmer object. This has been covered in the pages before. In a furnace or nuke plant, heat comes from the source.
And in the climate, heat comes from the Sun. So What?
The point is that IR radiation comes from everything that is warmer than absolute zero.
Wait? If it is not heated by colder objects, how does it work? You do understand the physics .. don’t you?
“So what” is that the Sun heats the Earth, not the atmosphere. Colder objects don’t heat up warmer objects either via conduction, convection, or radiation.
Robert Clemenzi says (2013/05/31 at 3:14 PM): “Wait? If it is not heated by colder objects, how does it work? You do understand the physics .. don’t you?”
=======================================================
Your back radiation heating the source crap is not physics. But I understand what you mean. It is totally absurd and physically impossible.
What sort of ir thermometer is it, praytell?
Greg House says:
2013/05/31 at 4:12 PM
The sentence you quotes was referring to IR thermometers. Sorry I was not clear. I don’t think your comment makes sense in that context.
Joseph E Postma says:
2013/05/31 at 4:04 PM
I think you missed the point – the sun heats the Earth and burning fuels heats a furnace. They are similar systems. In the furnace, colder metal makes warmer metal hotter. It is a part of the basic design. That is true of both radiation and conduction. It the case of conduction, you can test that by touching the handle of a hot frying pan. No magic, no math. If you touch it quickly, it is not too hot. (Well, not right next to the pan, of course!) But if you grab it, the temperature will increase until it burns you. Thereby proving that something cold (your hand) can make something hotter. It really is that simple.
[Reply: That is the last thing that it proves. It takes time to transfer the heat into your hand and that’s why if you grab it longer, then it burns you. It is not about your hand making the pan hotter.(!) It is the temperature of your skin that increases until it burns you, not the temperature of the pan increasing from your hand! And no, colder metal does not make hotter metal hotter. Trapping heat from the source is heat from the source being trapped, not the colder walls causing heating.]
Max™ says:
2013/05/31 at 5:42 PM
One that measures IR. I guess I don’t understand the question.
Robert Clemenzi says (2013/05/31 at 6:57 PM): “It the case of conduction, you can test that by touching the handle of a hot frying pan. No magic, no math. If you touch it quickly, it is not too hot. (Well, not right next to the pan, of course!) But if you grab it, the temperature will increase until it burns you. Thereby proving that something cold (your hand) can make something hotter. It really is that simple.”
==========================================================
This is the most unbelievable comment I ever read on climate blogs. I’ll save it. A cold hand makes a hot frying pan hotter, well… I suggest you tell this Mr.Watts as an idea for his next scientific experiment.
Speaking of which, do you know, Robert, that opening your eyes makes a light source brighter? Like a bulb? No, you do not? Look, it is easy to prove. Turn the light in your room off, close your eyes and ask the nurse to turn the light on. Note that you can see the light with your eyes closed. Now open your eyes. The light has grown brighter, you can see it clearly! OK, that’s it, now take the pills and let the nurse take care of other patients. By the way, it is nice that you have access to the internet there.
OMG. I will have to remember to wrap the handle of my frying pan with “blue ice” to cook my food faster. Joseph, I cannot believe the absolute stupidity of Robert Clemenzi’s posts. Please do not snip his insane comments. I want a record of this. Who is this guy anyway?
If the actual, measured, temperature of the handle goes up, then it is actually hotter. I am not suggesting that your hand will make the pan hotter – just the handle.
Better yet, use aluminum foil. Measure the temperature of the handle, loosely wrap it in aluminum foil (so you get more radiation than conduction) and wait for the foil to get hot. Then measure the temperature of the foil and the handle. You are claiming that they will be the same. Perhaps you can let me know what the results are. Either way, report the results to WUWT. If you are correct, they will have a lot of explaining to do.
[Reply: Preventing convective cooling does not mean that your hand was the source of the heat to make the handle hotter.]
Uh…
Also includes bolometers, microbolometers, cooled and uncooled types.
Let’s not forget http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pyrometer models either.
Most of which are some form of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermography as well.
Simply stating “I’ve seen proof of the GHE because I pointed a $10 IR thermometer at stuff” belies your ignorance of the mechanism by which an IR thermometer functions, that is understandable in most instances… though I’m not sure how Roy, someone who supposedly specializes in remote sensing, is able to make the same sort of basic error.
Squid asks “TJF, could you explain to me how our atmosphere sheds heat to space via “convective losses”?”
It can’t. (I don’t think I ever said such a thing, but please point to what I said that might have made you think that I thought that).
Instead, it of course lose energy to space the only way it can — via IR radiation.
So if there are no IR loses (ie no GHGs), then there can be no net loses from the atmosphere to space (no conduction, convection, or radiation). Once steady-state is reached, there can be no net transfer from the ground either (that would defy the definition of “steady-state” ). That means there can be no net convective/conductive) transfer to the atmosphere. (Note that such a conductive/convective transfer is similarly missing from Joe’s models — as it should be in his case).
And as Kristian pointed out correctly, with no net convective loses possible from the surface to the atmosphere, the surface would indeed need to be cooler than it is now.
Greg says: “And of course you are lying again.”
No, of course you are misunderstanding again, (and I will readily admit that people on both sides mis-state and mis-understand).
But consider the original statement from Joe “Backradiaiton doesn’t act as heating to its own source.”
There are a couple of misunderstandings in that short statement.
1) The back radiation is does not “heat” the ground. The thermodynamic definition of “heat” is the NET flow of thermal energy, which will always be from warmer to cooler (ie the surface to the atmosphere) as summarized by the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics.
2) Even if the statement meant “any energy flow at all” (instead of net energy flow), there is still the problem with “its own source”. The “source” of the “back radiation is the thermal energy of the atmosphere. Where that energy came from initially is immaterial at that particular instant. The atmosphere has thermal energy. The CO2 molecules can use some of that energy to create IR photons. The photons can hit the surface, getting annihilated in the process and giving their energy to the ground.
For the original statement to be literally true would require that the ground to send NET thermal energy to the ground (the energy’s “own source”). No moderately-well-informed source would say either of these things — let alone both at once. (But you all are welcome to seeks one that says anything close to this.)
For what its worth, I think Robert’s comments about grabbing handles of pans are mis-guided. The warmth of the hand would be an insignificant factor in the handle’s temperature in any sort of realistic setting. Heck, the “thermal mass” and thermal conduction could well cool the handle when you grab it! .
Max, thank you for the references. I have often been curious as to how some of these devices work. The more I am understanding how they work, the more I am understanding just what bullshit it is that Watts and Spencer are trying to pull.
Max™ says:
2013/06/01 at 12:34 AM
Based on a Google search, I am guessing that the quote you provided above came from
http://www.ehow.com/facts_5021494_types-infrared-thermometers.html
I am using an uncooled device by Inland – $10 at MicroCenter. It contains a non-focusing image intensifing mirror and has a wide field of view. It does not contain a laser. In all likely hood, the sensor is a microbolometer that changes resistance as its temperature changes, though I haven’t been able to find a specsheet to verify that. According to the link, microbolometers contain a mirror to increase the sensitivity of the reading – yet another example of something cold making something hot hotter.
I used it enough to trust the readings to be related to the amount of radiation detected. As for temperature, the device assumes an emissivity which is not the same for all objects. As a result, it measures “apparent temperature”, not “actual temperature”. However, if used for relative IR intensity (not actual temperature) the device is extremely useful. The results are repeatable.
By the way, for the devices that have them, the lasers are just to help point the device. The readings are the same whether the laser is on or off.
I don’t understand your comment about Roy. Infrared cameras on satellites are used to detect clouds and to measure the temperature of their tops. Since the temperature of the troposphere tends to decrease with increasing altitude, this provides a measure of cloud thickness which is related to storm strength.
Bonus question – Why are satellites NEVER used to determine the temperature of land? Just the ocean and clouds?
[Reply: Preventing convective cooling does not mean that your hand was the source of the heat to make the handle hotter.]
I did not say that is was the “source”, simply that it would happen. In the same way, no one is saying that the atmosphere is the source of heat in the greenhouse effect. All they are saying is that, without an atmosphere, the temperature of the surface would be different.
TJF said: “So if there are no IR loses (ie no GHGs), then there can be no net loses from the atmosphere to space”
Which means that GHG’s are cooling gases and the atmosphere would be hotter without them, because N2 and O2 have almost zero emissivity, while, as you said, GHG’s allow the atmosphere to cool.
Net energy doesn’t mean that cold causes hot to heat up just as long as hot heats up more. That is lying with mathematics again.
Saying “simply that it would it happen” is of course exactly how people lie and sophize, conveniently leaving out the details, and thus making unwarranted implications.
TJF is correct that greenhouse gases cool the atmosphere. What he didn’t say is that the temperature of the atmosphere would be constant from top to bottom (no thermal gradient) and that the temperature would be hotter than the boiling point of water.
[JPReply: And so GHG’s are coolants.]
Actually, doing experiments is how people do science. The results either exist, or they don’t.
[JPReply: Experiments are meaningless if the underlying principles are ignored and lied about.]
Focusing radiation is not the same as spontaneous transfers of energy from cold to warm bodies leading to an increase of the warm temperature.
Holding a sheet of paper in the sun for hours won’t burn it, using a magnifying lens for a few seconds will, is that a case of the lens making the paper hotter?
No, of course it isn’t, that’s stupid as hell to even suggest.
________
A microbolometer measures whether it is losing or gaining energy from a target, negative readings are assigned values below the internal temperature of the device, though there is a campaign apparently to remove this fact from places like the wiki, nonetheless when you look into the actual theoretical and engineering papers behind remote sensing it is obvious that at no point does any such BS effect as “cold makes hot hotter” take place.
If what you were saying were true, Robert, then we would not need to cool infrared telescopes, now would we?
GHG’s allow the top of the atmosphere lose energy to space by emitting IR radiation to space.
GHGs prevent the bottom of the atmosphere and the surface from losing energy to space by blocking IR radiation from the surface,
Since the surface is always warmer than the top of the atmosphere, the GHG’s block the “bright” IR from the warm surface and replace it with “dim” IR from the cool atmosphere. So in these band (eg near 15 um for CO2), the net IR escaping to space is LESS when the “cooling” GHG’s are present. Conservation of energy forces the OTHER wavelengths to get “brighter” ie the surface must get warmer to shed as much energy as is arriving.
[Reply: You’ve already agreed that that is not how it works, because the GHE isn’t actually required in reality. An inert gas can only cool.]
Robert,
I suspect that discussing the temperature profile of the atmosphere without any GHGs will proive quite problematic. All sorts of other factors come into play …
* is your world rotating?
* do any gases (like ozone) still absorb some of the incoming sunlight)?
* are there aerosols that absorb sunlight and emit thermal IR?
* are there still clouds?
All of these details will play a huge role in the final state of the atmosphere. If nothing else, you should make clear what sort of assumptions you are making.
[Besides, there do not exist any known planets or moons that have an atmosphere but no GHGs (all have some significant amount of CO2, CH4, NH3, or H2O). ]
Oh, and the atmosphere would not be isothermal, it would be isentropic, an isothermal atmosphere would still allow work to be extracted from the gravity induced density gradient.
tjfolkerts says (2013/06/01 at 10:00 AM): “The thermodynamic definition of “heat” is the NET flow of thermal energy, which will always be from warmer to cooler (ie the surface to the atmosphere) as summarized by the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics.
2) Even if the statement meant “any energy flow at all” (instead of net energy flow), there is still the problem with “its own source”. The “source” of the “back radiation is the thermal energy of the atmosphere.”
====================================================
You know very well, since you have been active for years in this debate, that the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics does not contain any reference to “net” between a colder body and a warmer one, and this for a very good reason, namely that the assumption “from cold to warm” leads inevitably to an absurd physically impossible consequence: more energy output than input. The”net” thing is an invention of warmists.
And now you distort the term “its own source”, knowing also very well that not the atmosphere, but the Earth surface is meant. “Earth warms air and air warms Earth back” (“greenhouse effect”) is absolutely absurd.
Please, stop lying.
Robert Clemenzi says (2013/06/01 at 12:30 AM): “Either way, report the results to WUWT. If you are correct, they will have a lot of explaining to do.”
========================================================
Yeah, explaining… The WUWT owner and his team do not explain. They delete, like this one: https://climateofsophistry.com/2013/05/13/slayers-putting-up-not-shutting-up/#comment-2235. Without any explanation. As I asked later why, this was the answer: “[snip – your language is the issue -mod]”. Then I asked “Language, I see. Please, tell, what bad language I used. I can not find any in my comment. No insults, nothing. Or was it “contradict each other”? Or “Both can not be true”? Or this one: “Antony’s one has not proven what it was intended to prove”? Or “This can not be true”? Or maybe “Antony made a mistake by misinterpreting the opponent’s point”? So, what exactly was the “language issue”, apart from the scientific point?” This was deleted, too, without any comment.
Watts personally distorted/faked in his article and in his video a statement by Alan Siddons to discredit him, and then proved this fake false. This fake statement was false, right, just Alan did not say that. You can ask Watts if he is going to take all this back and apologize.
Max™ says:
2013/06/01 at 12:05 PM
I agree. If I point the device at some thing cold, like liquid nitrogen, the temperature of the sensor will drop a few degrees. If I then point it at something a bit warmer, like a cube of ice, then the microbolometer will get a bit warmer. That is how it works. Even though the sensor is always warmer than ice, moving the target from liquid nitrogen to regular ice will cause the sensor to get warmer.
I am glad we agree on this.
[Reply: SOPHISTRY! Becoming the norm now. The ice is not the intrinsic cause of the sensor becoming warmer…it doesn’t itself heat the sensor.]
IR telescopes are looking at very dim objects. As a result, there are not a lot of photons. Cooling the detector increases the sensitivity and makes it easier to separate the signal from the noise. I am sure you are aware that they work best in space. This is because there is no atmosphere. There are a few IR telescopes on mountain tops, but none (that I know of) at sea level. This is because the lower atmosphere is opaque (because of greenhouse gases) at the frequencies of interest.
As a side, some laboratory IR spectrometers require liquid nitrogen cooling. While this helps with the sensor, the primary function to the reduce the amount of water vapor in the optical path. Six inches of atmosphere at normal humidity is enough to make spectrometery impossible.
Robert Clemenzi says “2013/06/01 at 10:05 PM): “I agree. If I point the device at some thing cold, like liquid nitrogen, the temperature of the sensor will drop a few degrees.”
====================================================
Why doesn’t it make the temperature of the sensor increase, Robert?
I am glad the pills help.
tjfolkerts says:
2013/06/01 at 3:26 PM
Tim, your points are valid. Perhaps saying “no IR emitters” would be closer to my intent. That would cover no ozone, aerosols, or clouds. If the rotation was too slow, then I would expect the atmosphere to liquify on the dark side because of surface cooling. So yes, lots of assumptions. I developed this model several years ago to try and understand the unusual temperature structure of the atmosphere. By starting with an atmosphere with no emitters and then adding a few, I was able to explain most of what is observed. What really surprised me was that none of the books I looked tried to explain the structure. The DALR was always explained, and there were always comments effect of clouds condensing. But not much else. The was also that weird spectra plot showing a sort of hole where CO2 “absorbs” but without an acceptable explanation.
As far as other planets, I have tried to take what I learned and apply it to those. The answers are not what I see in the sources. Give it a try.
By the way, the original greenhouse theory was developed before the discovery of the tropopause and, as far as I can tell, it was never updated to take that into account.
Time to move on to more productive activities. Most of this discussion comes down 2 issues
1) The semantics of “to warm” vs to “heat” vs “to slow the cooling of” vs …. Either you have to be very precise (using words like “heat” exactly correctly) or you have to be very forgiving (understanding approximately what was meant). In reality, this means people will argue the semantic, not the science.
2) Whether the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics says NO thermal energy can go from a cool object to a warm object, or if it is simply says that the NET heat must be from warm to cool (which is what textbooks and professors and even “common sense” say). The fact that many people here take a position contrary to accepted science guarantees that the views here will have a hard time reaching beyond the handful of people who regularly read this blog.
Q = s*(Th^4 – Tc^4) is an equation we’ve always used. Tc plays the role that it does in that equation. What is a lie is to say that “NET” means that cold heats hot while hot heats cold, just as long as there’s more hot heating of cold than there’s cold heating of hot, so that the NET is from hot to cold, then you can have anything happen. This is the lie, and is wrong. Cold does not raise the temperature of hot. Hot raises the temperature of cold. In Q = s*(Th^4 – Tc^4), hot is causing the temperature to increase of cold, and cold does not cause hot to increase. The way the lie goes is to say that the NET has to be 1, because hot is 2 and cold is 1. But then insane people say that 1 is also allowed to make 2 = 3, and so that the 2 going to 3 makes 1=2, and then the net is still 1 because 3-2=1. But then, we can also say that 2 makes 3=4, and so the 3 going to 4 makes 2=3, and then the net is still 1 because 4-3=1. This is stupid. Cold does not cause the temperature of hot to increase, and Q isn’t supposed to be fixed in this equation. It is just lying with math probably because people don’t understand physics or math. If you want a correct equation where you can hold an input Q constant, you get the results either of a flat Earth models or a spherical model, and nothing like what is claimed with the NET argument is required in the spherical models, but it is with the flat model because the flat model needs the magic constant M. The magic constant M of the flat model is the same thing as the confused argument about net heating meaning that cold heats hot.
It can all be discarded for reality. For a model based on reality. Which we even saw Tim Folkerts agree with it being a better model that doesn’t require the GHE.
Yup, it is very difficult to understand.
“Which we even saw Tim Folkerts agree with it being a better model that doesn’t require the GHE.
Read carefully.
I agreed it seems to be a pretty good model in many ways (although I have not verified the details in detail). It includes heat capacity and even latent heat in some versions. It includes “real data” for sunlight during a 24 hour period. The results show day/night variations and average temperatures that are in the “right ballpark”. In these ways it is better than many models (eg the “steel shell” model).
But in other ways it is worse. Even in a 100% sunny location in summer, it only gives ~ 15 C (~ 60 F) as an average temperature. This is about 10 C too cool for Arizona where the “real data” came from. And it will almost certainly be even farther off for other locations. For all of Joe’s talk of “boundary conditions”, I see no calculations for a “typical” location farther from the equator or in winter, or when 1/2 the days are cloudy.
Show how well your models works using truly “typical” inputs of sunlight, not cloudless summer sunlight.
******************************************************************
Ideally, a better model would combine such models — include diurnal variations and heat capacities like Joe’s model, and thermal radiation like the “steel shell”.
I have just posted results for a “steel greenhouse” test I have completed This shows 2 things
The steel greenhouse of Willis is valid.
A reflector placed in front of a source of heat which is provided with a constant power input will allow that body to reach a final higher temperature. I.e. this shows Watts lightbulb experiment to give valid results
.
http://climateandstuff.blogspot.co.uk/2013/06/the-copper-iron-green-house-revisited.html
Please feel free to pull this experiment apart here or at the post.
I would be interested to hear how you can explain these results.
Cheers
The problem with ‘the NET HEAT approach’ becomes evident in the powered situation, not in the regular non-powered situation where the warm object cools and the cool object warms either way. In that situation the warmists can use their ‘also some transfer of heat from cool to warm only more from warm to cool’ mantra to cover up their violating the 2nd Law, because they can get away with it – the warm object still cools, only more slowly. That’s the whole point. They claim the reduced cooling part results from transfer of heat from cool to warm so that the heat going from warm to cool, although still the larger transfer, is somewhat made up for or countered.
This doesn’t work in the situation where the warm object is powered and thus constantly being heated before the cool object is placed in thermal contact with it.
Why is that? Because the warm object is no longer cooling. So the heat transfer from cool to warm will now cause the warm object to actually become warmer than what it was. Because it warms in spite of the fact that the escape from the warm object of the heat provided to it by its original heat/power source is unobstructed.
This is where their big apparent blind spot is to be found. They simply appear incapable of seeing it. Or rather unwilling. No matter how many times it’s pointed out to them, they refuse to ‘get’ the problem. They ‘don’t understand the question’. The constant heat from the original source escapes freely and in full as radiation. All the time. No piling up. No restriction. So how, then, can the warm object become even warmer? You would need a second heat source for that. Well, the only option is the cooler object. So in this situation, the cooler object actually ends up making the warmer object warmer still. In complete and flagrant violation of the 2nd Law.
This is the specific outcome that you never see backed up in any physics or engineering textbooks. Not even remotely mentioned as an eventuality.
What the sophists do, however, is they use the first situation above, where the true violation is hidden within the actual cooling of the warm object, to sell their argument about warm becoming warmer still (because they know no one would or could disagree with the fact that a warm, non-powered object will cool more slowly with surroundings less cool than before), simply extrapolating the postulated effect in the first situation to the second one, where the warm object is already heated, without ever having to show or discuss exactly how the extra heating is supposed to be accomplished. They only ever state it as an ‘inevitable’ corollary of what happens in the first situation, still explaining it by ‘reduced cooling’.
That’s why you will always see them referring to examples and cases of the first situation only and then rather use these to justify their claims about the second. They have yet to produce a single reference to an actual case proving these particular claims to have any kind of merit. And they know there is no such case. Because it’s nonsense. The ‘back radiation effect’ doesn’t exist.
So they have one way out after having made the claim. One way only. Diversionary tactics all the way down.
It’s quite revealing how these people absolutely will not discuss how the warm and constantly powered object is supposed to become even warmer when all the heat from the power source escapes freely from the object as radiation.
Folkerts doesn’t. Shore doesn’t. Brown doesn’t. Spencer doesn’t. Watts doesn’t. Weinstein doesn’t. Eschenbach doesn’t. None of them does.
And it’s easy to see why. Because this is the heart of the matter. This is where it is shown directly how they violate the 2nd Law.
And they know it. So they avoid the issue like the plague, at all costs. Desperately waving in a different direction, feverishly throwing red herrings about, as soon as it comes up.
TJF: “But in other ways it is worse.”
Oh that’s much like GHE logic then. It heats because it cools. It is worse because it is better. Right. Can’t have a model completely like reality, we need to salt it with some fiction from the old ways as well. 🙂
TFP, you make the same mistake as the experiments on WUWT. Our reply to that will apply to you as well.
Could you say where this response is please – or repeat the relevant points here
Thanks
It is not released yet. Still writing it up.
tjfolkerts says:
2013/06/02 at 6:35 AM
Time to move on to more productive activities. Most of this discussion comes down 2 issues
1) The semantics of “to warm” vs to “heat” vs “to slow the cooling of” vs …. Either you have to be very precise (using words like “heat” exactly correctly) or you have to be very forgiving (understanding approximately what was meant). In reality, this means people will argue the semantic, not the science.
2) Whether the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics says NO thermal energy can go from a cool object to a warm object, or if it is simply says that the NET heat must be from warm to cool (which is what textbooks and professors and even “common sense” say). The fact that many people here take a position contrary to accepted science guarantees that the views here will have a hard time reaching beyond the handful of people who regularly read this blog.
=========
To your stupid ass, “moving on to more productive activities” is further rumination with your Hot/Cold challenged friends, of how much phase-change refrigerant it takes, to set a wooden spoon on fire.
==========
You came here to frivol and get ridiculed for not knowing the power of an anvil, turning light of three different colors into another, lower frequency color.
Your having
q LITERALLY: been
proven DUMBER than an ANVIL.
Now you’ve got to go back and be careful not to mention you got owned with people knocking you around with the offhand ease of ridiculing a monkey
who thought a miles deep
frigid
fluid
gas
bath
dosed with 1% PHASE CHANGE REFRIGERANT – water
that had a warm rock spinning submerged at the bottom of it,
is a HEATER.
==========
You’re so stupid people actually are relieved when you’re around:
the perfect poster child for the perfect stooge.
Coming, carrying the torch of a CLOWN who pointed an I.R. THERMOMETER at the sky and exclaimed “Lookie, I’m MEASURING a BACKERDISM!”
who had to be told by the manufacturer “Oh no he didn’t because they combed out the gas WATER/CO2 signal.
To which said clown replied, “Jist ignore what thay sed: Lookie Ya’W, I’m MEASURING a BACKERDISM!”
==========
THAT’s
the field you came here bearing the torch for.
And THAT’s the reason everybody laughs in your face.
==========
It has A.L.W.A.Y.S. been known that MASS MEDIA draws DIP$#!+S BY the MILLION
and that TRUTH draws ADULT THINKERS
OUT of those millions of
“it’s a big warm blankie” class
D!P$#!+$
by the HUNDRED;
or maybe the THOUSAND.
==========
And YOU Folkerts
are a SNAPSHOT
of the numberless THIRD RATE intellectual insects
who can be PERSUADED to FORGET what RED LIGHT leaving an ANVIL means
—–
who can be PERSUADED to THINK a MILES DEEP
-15 degree, thermally conductive FLUID BATH
with a WARM ROCK SUBMERGED, SPINNING in it
comprises a HEATER.
—–
And that the 1% SHOT of ATMOSPHERIC PRESSURES PHASE-CHANGE REFRIGERANT,
added to it,
WATER,
is the ELEMENT heating the ROCK.
====
You’re an embecile, and a clown.
No one I know has the regard for your intellect they’d ascribe to anything other than a dumb beast of burden.
—–
A member of a herd: so stupid that even after months of reflecting
you’re CONVINCED the PEOPLE who told you a hockey stick generator
looked into a bore hole
and made a tree into a
treemomitur;
—–
and that the best analog for a -15degree FLUID BATH with a shot of REFRIGERANT was a BIG, WARM BLANKIE
—–
Those people who told you that,
you think,
are right when they tell you
“they believe” engineering is built on “un-numberable back-&-forth-isms” as heat migrates through objects, that no differential mathematics can number, but –
“TRUST THIM, THAY’S THAIR.
LooKe THAY DUN thuh MAYuTH! And IT DON’T SHOW IT!
So THAT meenz IT’S THAIR! We told Ya’S!”
=====
I don’t know anyone who upon seeing your name, doesn’t have a story about YOU uttering the STUPIDEST utterances in a particular conversation.
Same thing goes for Joel Shore, David Hoffer, Roy Spence, Gleickstein or Eisenbach, Watts –
=====
A.L.L. together, you as a GROUP have
the BRAINS to THINK a FRIGID FLUID BATH is a WARM BLANKIE.
Then BARK it.
To the WHOLE WORLD LoL.
THAT is where you come from.
THAT is where you return to.
The AREA51/BIGFOOT/Green House Gas Effect,
Network.
==========
Where they throw that $#!+ up on their shoulders and carry it around chanting “GrEEnHouSe, GrEEnHouSe.”
==========
BEING CAUGHT as UTTERLY incompetent is a badge of AUTHORITY in your leaders’ field.
A BADGE of MEMBERSHIP
among the PEOPLE you’re HERE to REPRESENT.
==========
The MOCKING name for someone who pretends he understands something he doesn’t, is
CLIMATOLOGIST. The PEOPLE who TEACH SCIENCE YOU BELIEVE in.
Hence the DEFINITION of someone who BELIEVES in that $#!+ being a
“$#!+-f0r-brains”
Magic Gasser.”
A MAGIC GAS “BELIEVER.”
Not a THINKER.
NO ONE ACCUSES you HICKS of ever having HAD a thought; except maybe Roy Spencer who once “THOUGHT” he was “measuring uh..BACKERDiSM!” standing out there pointing his infrared thermometer at the sky, with his mouth hanging open.
=====
You’ve got GAVIN SCHMIDT to ‘explain’ your ‘science’.
You’ve got JIM HANSEN to ‘explain’ your ‘science’.
You’ve got MIKE MANN to ‘explain’ your ‘science’.
You’ve got K. TRENBERTH to ‘explain’ your ‘science’.
You’ve got PHIL JONES to ‘explain’ your ‘science’.
You’ve got ROY SPENCER to ‘explain’ your ‘science’.
You’ve got WILLIS EISENBACH to ‘explain’ your ‘science’.
You’ve got IRA GLIECKSTEIN to ‘explain’ your ‘science’.
You’ve got PETER GLEICK to ‘explain’ your ‘science’.
You’ve got JOHN COOK to ‘explain’ your ‘science’.
You’ve got DANA NUCCATELLI to ‘explain’ your ‘science’.
=====
The O.N.L.Y. T.H.I.N.G. that G.R.O.U.P.
has in C.O.M.M.O.N.
is having EITHER BEEN revealed U.T.T.E.R.L.Y.
INCOMPETENT –
for not knowing
how to USE the TOOLS of MEASUREMENT they were PAID to USE,
or having been revealed
a CRIMINAL.
A FRAUD
=====
Or BOTH
=====
Like that PEDO-MUSTACHED H.I.C.K. ANTHONY WATTS said
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
***********************************
“YOU PICKED
the
WRONG FRIENDS.”
***********************************
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
So YOUR HUMILIATED,
TATTERED REMNANT
of a FAKE EFFECT
===
will be REPEATEDLY MOCKED to DERISION,
G.R.O.U.N.D. into the stuff of LEGENDARY STUPIDITY
while YOU and your IGNORATTI friends,
The ‘MAGIC GAS’ component
of the “AREA51/BIGFOOT/MAGIC GAS audience
RUN,
rally,
HOLD HANDS
and nervously SING SONGS of INSPERATION, Ya’LL,
to FLEE AGAIN
as REAL SCIENCE
comes
bearing LIGHT
and TRUTH.
OPENING THREADS then DESPERATELY CLOSING THEM.
LoL
LoL
LoL
Because of the * * *FLOOD* * * OF PEOPLE
LAUGHING THEM to DERISION
wherever they DARE pause to congregate and start agitating about
“Perfesser Bore Hole Backerd’s
MAGICk GAiS”
=====
Their BELOVED “REPUTATIONS”
A.L.R.E.A.D.Y.
being an internet meme for
“Stupid-as-a-Stump,” “$#!+-for-brains”
aka
“a MAGIC GAS believer.”
=====
That’s YOU *Tim Folkerts*
=====
the REPRESENTATIVE EPITOME
of
“TOO STUPID
to TEACH about LIGHT from a FIRE
warmng a ROCK.”
=====
But STUPID ENOUGH,
to get to believe in
MAGIC GAS
and magical BACKERDiSMs
And have you carry that $#!+ from BLOG to BLOG : a WATER BOY
for people like Anthony Watts
who performs OPEN-and-hurriedly CLOSE thread SNEAK yellow JOURNALISM
BECAUSE HE’S ASHAMED of PEOPLE
COMING OVER THERE
HUMILIATING his H.I.C.K.S.
DERAILING his GROUP HYPNOSIS sessions
where the locals get together with that just-right mix of new readers to make it seem authentic and spontaneous AND MUMBLE AWE at thuH…MAGICK HEETUR!
=====
THAT’S how CHICKEN SHIT Anthony Watts is.
HE CLOSES THREADS on HIS OWN BLOG
Before word gets out the thread’s OPEN
so MAINSTREAM PEOPLE don’t arrive and MOCK HIM
and his LOCAL HISSY-POSSE of
D!P$#!+
DOLTS.
———-
who LIKE WATTS,
admit freely: THEY are MYSTIFIED by F.I.R.E.
warming a ROCK.
=====
YOU CARRY WATER for people SO ASHAMED of THEIR SCIENCE they CLOSE their OWN THREADS
lest people arrive and ASK them what makes them think submerging a WARM ROCK in a FRIGID IMMERSION BATH is JUST LIKE a BIG, WARM, BLANKET.
lest people arrive and ASK them what makes them think a frigid immersion bath is WARMING the ROCK it’s COOLING.
lest people arrive and ASK them what makes them think BLOCKING 25% of incoming sunlight is GYARUNTeeD HEATING.
lest people arrive and ASK them what makes them think enormous liquid oceans of refrigerant, at an average temperature of about four degrees, lying around on the ground, comprise WARMING more than if the solid substrate was just exposed. The ground doesn’t reflect high energy blue light: it ABSORBS it. WATER kicks it out so much the planet’s called THE BLUE PLANET.
lest people arrive and say ANYTHING factual.
Because if they do, it goes against ANTHONY WATTS’ JAMES HANSENS, KEVIN TRENBERTH’S and YOUR
belief system
about how a REFRIGERATOR
heats a ROCK.
In MOST fields if you have a ROCK and cover it ten thousand feet deep in REFRIGERANT
then set in place a REFRIGERATION CYCLE
COOLING the rock, additionally, or while still INSIDE a FRIGID FLUID NITROGEN/OXYGEN bath,
That’s a COOLER.
==========
Not where the H.I.C.K.S. you ECHO CHAMBER with congregate.
Ten thousand feet deep reservoirs of REFRIGERANT and an ACTIVE REFRIGERATION CYCLE
to YOU MOUTH BREATHING SHIRTFRONT DRIBBLERS
is a HEATER.
==========
I tell you this here because if I told you where you flock with your belief-based
CARTOON HEETUR friends
they’d BAN me for MOCKING you to DERISION.
If there was something about you people to respect, I’d SAY it. JUST to COVER myself.
=====
I find not ONE
SINGLE THING
about ANY of you
that I would recommend someone look to,
for education on ANYTHING.
==========
These Dragon Slayers
THEY’LL RECOVER from some mislabeled analogies.
==========
YOUR friends will * * *N.E.V.E.R.* * * RECOVER
from CONFUSING a MILES DEEP
FRIGID FLUID BATH
with an INTEGRATED PHASE CHANGE REFRIGERATION system
for a GIANT warm BLANKiE.
==========
And most PARTICULARLY for confusing the REFRIGERANT
with a HEATING ELEMENT in that miles-deep, FRIGID, FLUID BATH,
the warm rock is spinning submerged at the bottom of, at about a thousand miles an hour.
You’re a hillbilly DOLT, I personally wouldn’t trust to care for a DOG.
==========
* * *JUST BECAUSE YOU BELIEVE THE ABOVE* * *
THAT ALONE INSTANTLY QUALIFIES you as STUPID BEYOND regard
as anything but a pseudo-scientific prostitute: encouraged to go out and peddle filth the people who profit from it, aren’t MAN enough to go spread themselves.
They have to perform SNEAK OPEN and CLOSE thread management
so people don’t tell them
their GIANT WARM BLANKIE THEORY IS obviously a BUST
still held to only by the MENTALLY ILL,
or PROFESSIONAL FRAUDS.
I know which one you are Folkerts as does pretty much everyone who’s seen you in action.
LoL “SNEAK THREAD-OPEN and CLOSE on your OWN BLOG
because of the MASSIVE number of people telling your Magic Gassers
the frigid fluid bath isn’t a warm blankie
just because scammers whose $#!+ they believed, stopped people from printing it.
What evil,
just pure plain evil,
H.I.C.K.S.
This ENTIRE heating question ARISES because GREENHOUSE GASSERS INSIST they BELIEVE in
an EARTH ENERGY BUDGET
that shows MORE LIGHT LEAVING
that COMING IN.
alleging to account as well for planetary core heat.
=====
CAN YOU IMAGINE
drawing a CHART
showing a LIGHT BULB
S.H.I.N.I.N.G. ONTO a BOWLING BALL
submerged in a larger, globule of URETHANE
shining a LIGHT inside
THEN TELLING PEOPLE YOU JUST MEASURED MORE LIGHT COMING OUT
than YOU KNEW YOU WERE PUTTING IN,
then TELLING PEOPLE it was because of BACK RADIATION?
=====
That is p.r.e.c.i.s.e.l.y.
WHAT you HAVE HERE.
P.R.E.C.I.S.E.L.Y.
=====
So WHEN (one of these dragon slayer guys, I don’t know which one) PUT UP AN ANALOGY saying
“YOU CAN’T MAKE A LIGHT BULB WARMER with it’s OWN HEAT”
THAT’S WHAT THEY were ALLUDING.
That you CAN’T make a 100 WATT BULB
give off 120 WATTS of HEAT.
So that DIPSHIT ANTHONY WATTS, CLAIMS HE ACTUALLY MADE 120 WATTS
come OUT of an OBJECT with 100 WATTS going IN.
DECLARED VICTORY
and PROCEEDED as THOUGH HE HAD DONE SOMETHING INTELLIGENT.
==========
* * *TO YOU THE READER* * *
* * *CAN YOU IMAGINE IT* * *
THAT you WOULD TRY THIS “120 WATTS OF HEAT out of a BOWLING BALL IRRADIATED with 100”
IN FRONT of PEOPLE?!
CAN YOU IMAGINE
BELIEVING in a MAGICK HEETUR in the SKY
SO MUCH
that as a COLLEGE EDUCATED ADULT HUMAN BEING
you would be STUPID ENOUGH to CLAIM YOU PROVED a BULB EMITTING 100 WATTS
can be MADE HOTTER and issue 120 WATTS?
———-
THIS IS PRECISELY the KIND of INTELLECTUAL DOG $#!+ that DRIZZLES from ANTHONY WATTS’
BEFUDDLED
H.E.A.D.
———–
HE THINKS HE PROVED you can MAKE a 100 WATT BULB emitting 100 WATTS
HOTTER,
and have it
EMIT 120 WATTS
and IS NOW GLEEFULLY ADVERTISING THIS
on the INTERNET.
Ya’W.
==========
A
G.R.O.W.N. MAN.
Put that ON the I.N.T.E.R.N.E.T.
===========
Now DID I TELL YOU HE is STUPID?
D.I.D.
I
T.E.L.L.
you
==========
He is as STUPID
He is as EVIL
He is as IGNORATTI
as they come?
Let me ask you THIS:
Is that MOUTH BREATHING HILLBILLY H.I.C.K.
a CALIFORNIA LIBERAL and MEDIA WHORE?
==========
YES
HE
IS.
==========
Does THAT explain to you how he can be so EVIL that he just falls out there, THAT STUPID?
You say.
I’ll let YOU decide how STUPID that ignorant mutt is.
The ”GREENHOUSE URETHANE” EFFECT.
MAKING that BOWLING BALL
irradiated/electrically heated with 100 WATTS
MAGICAL BACKERD RaYDeeYaY’tN
THIM BACKERDiSMS.
TUH thuH TEWN uv:
120 WATTS.
WATTS
UP
WITH
THAT
H.I.L.L.B.I.L.L.Y?
What a H.I.C.K.
The BEVERLY HILLBILLIES of “SIYUNTs RuHSERCH.”
“The leading edge of Magical Backerdisms”
Brung tew yew raight heeyur.
==========
What a clown.
Just – what a disgusting little media clown.
“Lookie Ma’W! I made a MAGICAL BACKERD BOWLIN BAWL outta DADDY’s Brunswick!”
Can you IMAGINE
being SO MATHEMATICALLY BACKERD
you CONFUSE
making the surface of a 100 watt light bulb’s temperature rise,
with making it give off 120 watts, as per Perfesser Backerd?
Then
* * * POSTING THAT* * *
* * * on the INTERNET? * * *
That YOU think that’s a MATHEMATICAL PROOF
of Magick GaiS’s MIGHTY-MIGHTY POWER
to BACKERDiZE?
=========
“Look MA’W, DADDY’S Brunswick’s GONE TRENBERTHIAN!
That URETHANE I SPRAYED it DOWN with, dun gone FULL BACKERD! Jis’ like in thuh TEXT BOOKS!
LOOK OUT! MuH infurReD
TREEMOMITUR
is sayin… it’s at uH..
TIPPING point!
==========
What choice has he got?
I know: start another character assassination thread early one morning, then when his HICKS who BELIEVE in his HILLBILLY BACKERDiSMS come in and BLOW each OTHER
stop comments on the thread,
lest anyone come in and “MISREPRUSINT muH BACKERDiSMS.”
What a despicable little mouth breathing pedo-mustache modeling, hick.
And you know the evil thing about that Watts character? The Pedo-Mustache Modeler?
(That’s what he models: a big gut and a pedo mustache, on a small, small mind)
He would rather insult these Dragon Slayers BECAUSE he knows they’re honest.
Not like (as he calls them) “OUR FRIENDS” in the climate scammer camp.
He KNOWS they’re honest so he simply treats them the way he’d treat a dog. The way he saw his teachers in climate science, treat people. His leaders in modern Backerdistic pure f**g evil because it’s fun, and adheres groupies who like to watch human beings be abused.
I’ve got the respect for Anthony Watts I’d have for a blowfly that tried to land on a turd. I’d know he was just being himself, but on the other hand I knew if I showed him one once of regard tomorrow there’d be a thousand more like him.
He’s an evil little manipulating SIMP: CRYING and WHINING like a BURNED DOG when he doesn’t get his way,
then doing exactly what he cried about
to the first honest man he can.
You don’t see him DARE be so arch against “HIS FRIENDS” in the government/media climate scam racket.
Because he’s just another liberal California media PUNK
WHO YOU CAN’T TRUST
to ANALYZE a LIGHT BULB
CORRECTLY.
==========
I don’t give a rat’s patootie who actually held the thermometer in their hand, by the way.
It’s a FALSEHOOD RIGHT OUT of the LOW QUALITY, ON-THE-CHEAP TYPE, he is known for,
and that
HE WAS PROUD to ADOPT in his
“Let’s ASSASSINATE some HONEST MEN’S CHARACTER” segment
on his HICK
Area51/Bigfoot/Backerdisms
blog.
It’s as ANTHONY WATTS as it GETS.
He’ll claim later “OH IT WASN’T ME!”
Because he’s a moral-less SNAKE
He doesn’t want the NOTORIETY to go AWAY.
So he can MILK it for PRESTIGE and MONEY.
So he chose CHARACTER ASSASSINATION
of the HONEST side
of this FUNDING FRAUD SCAM.
In fact HE has WILLFULLY MISREPRESENTED the Dragon Slayer peoples’ position for YEARS this way:
L.Y.I.N.G.
BECAUSE HE CAN
FRAUDULENTLY MISREPRESENTING PEOPLE
BECAUSE he CAN.
He’s a liberal media whore and SNAKE.
The whole LIGHT BULB issue is FULL-ON PROOF of his UTTER lack of moral integrity.
There seems to be different definitions of both the GHE and the role of “back-radiation”. If people are arguing that back-radiation WARMS the surface I would disagree. Then other times I hear it said that it “slows the rate of cooling” from the surface and this I don’t necessarily disagree with (bear with me)…energy from the sun is absorbed by the Earth’s surface then re-emitted as infra red, which in turn is absorbed by Greenhouse Gases in the atmosphere which then re-emit the photons in all directions simultaneously…half will be Earth-bound. What this effectively means is that the net flux of energy from the Earth’s surface to space is reduced…since there is slightly more Earth-bound photons than there would otherwise have been without Greenhouse gases…hence the “gradient” of the flux (please excuse me if this is all just ridiculous terminology I know what I want to say just not sure how to say it) is less steep…hence the rate of cooling of the Earth’s surface is slower than it would otherwise be.
The thing that has most struck me about your blog is the “difference between night and day/flat Earth/cold sunshine” part of it. The point I’m struggling to get at is I’m not sure how necessary it even is for you to “fight” the idea of back-radiation. Looking at it as defined in the first paragraph of this comment (just for the sake of argument) the obvious question is “how much does it slow the rate of cooling by?” I never see this being made clear by anyone supporting the GHE theory. With back-radiation defined as above then surely the GHE only works with a continuous input of solar energy…but at a point on the Earth’s surface there isn’t one…there’s night and day. Unless the rate of cooling is slowed to the point that “the cooling” lasts longer than the entire period from sundown to sunup, then overall the GHE will be nil even accepting the existence of “back-radiation” as defined.
Apologies if I’m missing something obvious here I’m not a scientist and am probably grossly over-simplifying.
[JPReply: Hi Graham. Not sure if I get your line precisely, but in regards to reduced cooling at night time from GHG radiation, no reduced cooling is actually observed. That was covered in my paper. Also, in regards to GHG adding with incoming solar to cause more heating, this isn’t observed to occur either. The reason is thermodynamics – any radiation from the atmosphere is a result of previous heating from the Sun, and it can’t actually cause more heating.]
Allen Eltor says: 2013/06/02 at 5:48 PM
The whole LIGHT BULB issue is FULL-ON PROOF of his UTTER lack of moral integrity.
—————-
Allen perhaps you would like to use your erudite discourse to criticise the experiment I did using no light bulb – just a heated block of aluminium. This showed an increase of 5°C when a part “steel greenhouse” is placed in the path of IR.
In one case a polished sheet of copper is used and this shows the largest increase in temperature of the heated block.
i.e. this could be likened to the watts light bulb experiment except the block power is more controlled and better measured.
I’m sure your careful use of CAPITAL letters could add much to this discussion.
Cheers.
http://climateandstuff.blogspot.co.uk/2013/06/the-copper-iron-green-house-revisited.html
SOPHISTRY through LYING about MATH:
* * *ANTHONY WATTS* * *
CHARACTER ASSASSIN,
BACKERDiSM BuHLIEVER
(It’$ GREEN!)
winds up PUTTING UP the PERFECT ANSWER to Joseph’s thread here.
G.L.E.E.F.U.L.L.Y. naming H.I.S. THREAD for
“ASSASSINATING the CHARACTER of HONEST MEN”
“Slaying the Slayers”
Huh..?
==========
P.
U.
R.
E.
LYING
* * *M.A.T.H.E.M.A.T.I.C.A.L.* * *
* * *SOPHISTRY* * *
==========
FROM a PURE, LYING, SOPHIST.
SLAYING YOUR REPUTATION Anthony Watts for being
P.R.E.C.I.S.E.L.Y.
what Joseph here SAID you ARE:
A
L.Y.I.N.G.
MANIPULATING
MATHEMATICAL DECEIVER
HYPOCRITE
and
LIBEL-MONKEY.
He makes sure he doesn’t offend “HIS FRIENDS” in the Climate Scam Racket, doesn’t he?
Honest men who WORK for a living?
F**K em. They DESERVE WHAT THEY GET.
THEY HAVE the WRONG CLASS of FRIENDS,
like that FACIAL TWERK Watts, told Joseph Postma.
==========
No, you ignorant HICK BILLY MAGIC GAS TRAMP,
JOSEPH’S FRIENDS
are HONEST MEN.
==========
Y.O.U. are the one PEOPLE are RIDICULING
as a *SHIFTY, BEADY-EYED, POSTURING SIMP:
alternately BRAGGING about your BRAND presence, or
BEGGING VOTES so you can be most POPULAR or
LIBELING HONEST MEN whose intellectual SHOES you’re not fit to POLISH.
Men who KNOW YOU CAN’T MAKE BULB that EMITS 100 WATTS
HEAT ITSELF till it’s emtting 120
Or whatever your RAT-faced Comrade-in-Kook Trenberth, built into his
UNIVERSALLY LAUGHED AT
“MOR POWUR OWT THAN WINT IN, YA’LL”
“ENERGY BUDGET.”
Since IMPOSSIBLE SECOND LAW BREAKING DRAWINGS,
showing MORE POWER COMING OUT than GOES INTO something,
isn’t CALLED in TRENBERTH/SPENCER/WATTS- WERLD,
what it’s CALLED in REAL SCIENCE:
“TRASH drawn up by some INTOXICATED LIBERAL before we FIRED him and got a real scientist, who can COUNT and doesn’t HAND us DRAWINGS that BREAK the LAWS of THERMODYNAMICS by showing MORE ENERGY COMING OUT of a HOT ROCK than we PUT IN”.
thefordprefect says (2013/06/02 at 12:46 PM): “I have just posted results for a “steel greenhouse” test I have completed … I would be interested to hear how you can explain these results.”
==============================================================
I am sure your new “results” are fake, like all the other “experiments” “proving” back radiation warming we have seen before, The last two from Watts and another warmist.
Allen, I wish I could selectively block your posts, I can’t read any of it due to wincing constantly.
The power source is adding energy, the addition of the plate is reducing losses, the plate is not adding energy to the heated body.
thefordprefect says:
2013/06/02 at 7:17 PM
Allen Eltor says: 2013/06/02 at 5:48 PM
The whole LIGHT BULB issue is FULL-ON PROOF of his UTTER lack of moral integrity.
—————-
Allen perhaps you would like to use your erudite discourse to criticise the experiment I did using no light bulb – just a heated block of aluminium. This showed an increase of 5°C when a part “steel greenhouse” is placed in the path of IR.
In one case a polished sheet of copper is used and this shows the largest increase in temperature of the heated block.
i.e. this could be likened to the watts light bulb experiment except the block power is more controlled and better measured.
I’m sure your careful use of CAPITAL letters could add much to this discussion.
Cheers.
http://climateandstuff.blogspot.co.uk/2013/06/the-copper-iron-green-house-revisited.html
=========
I think it proves you’re a principled builder who knows how.
But the GHE as described by warmers has MORE LIGHT LEAVING the GLOBE than comes IN.
Your experiment looks very real to me: no extra parts, suspension by thread, I’m assuming you tried for cotton, settled with cotton/polyester; it looks very well made, I don’t doubt you one whit.
But prefect whether you know it, GHE math really DOES involve some people marching out calculations, showing MORE SUNLIGHT ENERGY OUT of than INTO
the GLOBE.
==========
That is insane and it is impossible,.
You and I, know this and know any possible assumptions made MUST BE FALSE until that is gone.
Therefore: anyone who endorses it, WILL by definition prefect, be wrong.
And is ENDORSING prefect the MASSIVE violation of law.
Kristian says (2013/06/02 at 1:14 PM): “…because they know no one would or could disagree with the fact that a warm, non-powered object will cool more slowly with surroundings less cool than before…”
=======================================================
I could and I disagree with that.
Is it really your point, Kristian, that colder objects make warmer objects cool more slowly by supplying the latter with energy? Or is it another physical mechanism?
As far as I understand your point, you disagree that a body at a stable temperature can be warmed by a colder body, but at the same time you agree that a colder body can have a warming effect on a cooling warmer body (making its cooling slower). Do I understand you correctly?
Graham W says (2013/06/02 at 6:23 PM): “If people are arguing that back-radiation WARMS the surface I would disagree. Then other times I hear it said that it “slows the rate of cooling” from the surface and this I don’t necessarily disagree with …)”
=======================================================
Then you contradict yourself, Graham. You can only have either both or none.
If back radiation or radiation from colder objects does supply warmer objects with energy, then it would both slow the rate of cooling warmer objects and warm warming warmer objects or warmer objects that are at a stable temperature initially.
If back radiation or radiation from colder objects can not supply warmer object with energy, then no warming/slowing cooling effect whatsoever is possible, regardless of a warmer body being initially in the process of cooling, warming or at a stable temperature.
The warmists trick is very simple: they talk about “slowing the rate of cooling” because this makes the nonsense less obvious. It is still the same nonsense though.
Joseph E Postma says:
2013/06/02 at 9:27 AM
I use it also – The Tc term is the definition of “back radiation”, or more correctly
Also, when you have a surface that is cooling, Th is a function of Q (the heat loss) and time. Specifically, the decrease in temperature is the integral of the product of Q and the specific heat of the material over time.
[JPReply: Tc in that equation doesn’t cause Th to become hotter. Th as a function of Q is not the same Q as in the cited equation. This is more obfuscation and lying with math.]
Allen Eltor says:
2013/06/02 at 11:58 PM
Actually, they don’t. Every model sets energy in at the top of the atmosphere (TOA) equal to energy out at TOA as one of the boundary conditions. This also applies to every element of the analysis. For the temperature to remain constant, energy out must equal energy in.
[JPReply: This is the whole 2-1 = 1 which is the same thing as 3-2 = 1 and so it must work gambit. It doesn’t work. Real physics and science works, such as in my paper.]
I read what you said, and I saw the statement, “lower frequency radiation can enter a solid body emitting higher frequency energy.
Unfortunately, that’s not the case, but I like your work prefect and I see you did build a very real experiment.
The term for what happens was answered as the radiation age progressed in the early 20th century.
It’s called ‘non-thermalized re-emissions’
As you see I referred to the ‘light leaving the tip of an anvil always being ABSOLUTELY of LOWER FREQUENCY than incoming on it’s sides,
and that light always being ABSOLUTELY devoid of it’s previous color’s identifying characteristics.
This ABSOLUTE control, of course precludes lower-frequency light, entering a region higher or equal frequency light, is being simultaneously emitted.
Non-thermalized re-emission is the event that occurs when a photon turns around on the surface of a solid. It’s not pure reflectance, it’s reflectance from regions where there would normally be absorption, but for the emissions already taking place.
I see you’re a very considered experimenter prefect; I thought you were actually serious about this when I first came and saw you talking about it.
Because I don’t want to see you receive more bull on this, look to the story about the anvil.
It’s got it’s OWN back story that goes like this: two radiation engineers are sitting around pondering the stranger things in life and one of them says “it’s a funny thing we had to get all the way into the radiation age to realize the answer was always there: just checking the light that comes from an anvil.”
But for the people who discovered it, it wasn’t clear at all. It LOOKS like thermal absorption, it seems to RETARD EMISSION similarly to thermal absorption: then what’s the technical difference, and why does it matter?
There are SEVERAL technical differences, and they matter, because if you don’t process the light handling right, LoL
you wind up like Trenberth and his Backerdized Brusnwick Bowling Ball: with 120 watts coming out of a 100 watt ball.
On paper.
For people to hang up on the garage wall and laugh their asses off in perpetuity,
as we MOST CERTAINLY, shall.
Thanks for your reply. I don’t think that I explained what I meant very well, let me try again a different way. Every object emits photons towards every other object all the time, though because some objects are hotter than others and hence contain more energy, there is a net flow from where the warmer object is losing heat towards where a colder object is gaining it. So the sun is hotter than the Earth’s surface, hence the net flow of photons between those two objects is from the sun to the Earth’s surface. On the other hand, the Earth’s surface is warmer than the atmosphere above it and so there is also a flow of energy in that (opposite) direction. Then according to the GHE theory, the Greenhouse gases absorb photons and re-emit them in all directions, so half of these absorbed and re-emitted photons are now headed back to the Earth’s surface again.
So a point on the Earth’s surface is continuously and simultaneously warming (gaining heat from the sun) and cooling (losing heat to the atmosphere) during the day (overall it’s warming but both warming and cooling is happening, there’s just more warming than cooling). So what the back-radiation is doing is reducing the rate of the cooling part since there is this additional flow of Earth-bound photons (from the atmosphere) which wouldn’t be there if it weren’t for the Greenhouse gases…
Now my point was, this definition of the GHE would make sense only when wrongly averaging out night and day and pretending that the source of energy is constant. With a constant source of energy from a colder sun (plus no night and day variation) the effect of this reduction in cooling of the Earth’s surface would inevitably lead to the build up in energy that gives you the warmer temperatures with the GHE. BUT at a point on the Earth’s surface there IS night and day and the sun ISN’T colder as you have pointed out many times!
So at night there is no longer any source of energy whatsoever from the sun. So surely over the course of an entire night any additional energy that may have been “built up” in the day as a result of the reduced rate of cooling, then leaves the system anyway…this is what I was trying to get at. Even if you DO accept that back-radiation “does something” is not the difference between night and day enough to dispute the existence or extent of the Greenhouse Effect anyway?
[JPReply: Hi Graham. Yes this does seem to be a good description of the processes. Backradiation is no more relevant than backconduction. How much backconduction is there from the atmosphere to the surface keeping the surface warm? That is of course a silly question and queer way of thinking about it; the same is true for backradiation. Indeed on a local basis the GHE models are nothing like reality; the law of conservation of energy isn’t even obeyed on a local basis. Globally it is but the global system is not a flat Earth with no day and night and cold sunshine etc. You have to do a local analysis to anything about local processes. Also in real time. Where do clouds come from? They come from the sun shine. Can they come from the Sun shine in the GHE models? No. Can they in a model like mine? Yes. The GHE models are simply a fiction. The whole thing is extrapolating from fiction. And then we get abused for wanting to look at reality lol.]
Allen Eltor says: 2013/06/02 at 11:58 PM
GHE math really DOES involve some people marching out calculations, showing MORE SUNLIGHT ENERGY OUT of than INTO the GLOBE.
==========
Therefore: anyone who endorses it, WILL by definition prefect, be wrong.
And is ENDORSING prefect the MASSIVE violation of law.
————-
Thanks for the reasonable response!
I do not know of any climate scientist that says there is more energy out of the globe than into it.
Using willis’s iron greenhouse the energy out of the system is equal to the energy generated within the system otherwise the system is not in steady state.
Surround a nuclear warmed core with a continuous shield of iron. the first thing that happens is that the energy emitted from the shell is zero increasing untill it is at same level as the core was emitting WHEN the shell temperature reaches that of the core
It may be possible to see that happening in my tests but it is very indistinct.
When the shell reaches the same temperature that the core was, the IR emitted will be the same as the IR emitted from the core before being enclosed.
BUT the shell has 2 sides and both will be emitting the same amount of IR the internal emissions add to the power of the core.
The shell is emitting 2 times the original IR 0.5 to the core and 0.5 to space
This additional IR MUST come from the core there is no other source.
The core is still only generating the same amount of IR from internal sources. The additional IR comes from the “back Radiation” from the shell.
i.e.all energires are ibalanced as before. BUT the core is hotter.
The core warms during the time that the shell is warming aLL that blocked radiation must be going somewhere. A steady state is reached and the core temperature is now hotter than before. The additional energy has come from the time when the shell was not emitting full IR as it was warming.
If you now remove the shell the temperature increase caused by the shell emitting less energy than its steady state condition will now emit this “saved” energy as a decayingburst.
Looking at the TOTAL energy over time budget of [core to core with shell to core with shell removed] there will be a total energy out equivalent to just the core without any shell so no magic power source is available, no laws are contravened.
You can even simulate this condition using delay lines resistors and capacitors and current sources usin LTC spice – I have.
The main contention seems to be that it is said by some that the shell cannot add energy to the core allowing it to reach a hotter temperature. However my tests show that this is possible.
[JPReply: “BUT the core is hotter” . Unfortunately the experiments at WUWT prove the opposite of this and the argument for Willis’ shell game. The same result will apply to your set up.]
What do you tell a Magical Backerdism Belief-Based Faux Science Wacko,
when he tells you about the new “net law” where you get all the energy you want whenever you want it, wherever you want it, just becauseyou want it?
You tell him the old classic about Rudolph
the Red Nosed Anvil.
How he’s going to get the COLOR light
Rudolph says
And he’s going to get the AMOUNT of light
Rudolph says
And how he’s going to get it WHEN
Rudolph says,
And how he’s going to get it
whether he WANTS it or not,
And how he’s going to get it
whether he LIKES it or not.
And how Rodolph doesn’t do it
for LOVE
Rudolph does it because he’s
OBLIGATED
by the OLD
LAW.
Graham W says (2013/06/03 at 3:48 AM): “I don’t think that I explained what I meant very well, let me try again a different way. … So what the back-radiation is doing is reducing the rate of the cooling …”
=======================================================
You have already said that and you also said “If people are arguing that back-radiation WARMS the surface I would disagree”. Then I said to you that you contradicted yourself, so you removed one part in your second “explanation” so that the contradiction would become less visible.
Nevertheless, it is clear that you understand that people would understand that back radiation does not supply the source with the energy to increase its temperature, still you keep saying “reducing the rate of the cooling”, which is physically the same impossible absurd process.
Right, just saying this second thing does make the hoax less obvious, it is indeed better designed to fool people. I guess it is more to come from you of the same kind.
thefordprefect says (2013/06/03 at 5:55 AM): “The main contention seems to be that it is said by some that the shell cannot add energy to the core allowing it to reach a hotter temperature. However my tests show that this is possible.”
==========================================================
As I said before, I do not see any reason to believe that your “tests” are not fakes.
Back to the Willis core and shell scenario, it demonstrates exactly that no back radiation warming effect is physically possible, because the assumption that it is leads inevitably to an absurd physically impossible consequence. I believe that Joe was the first one who noticed that and later I made it more clear putting the idea in a more simple way. We have already had that and you know that very well.
It is interesting that recently we have been able to observe a sort of “fake experiments wave”. I guess it is more to come.
Greg, I had written that second comment this morning (GMT) and at that stage your initial response to me had not been posted. All I had seen at that point was Joe’s reply to my first comment and this had prompted me to try to explain what I meant again in a different way because I didn’t think I had put it across very well the first time. I was not reacting to your remarks in any way because I hadn’t seen them so wasn’t even aware at that point that they existed. Then a couple of hours ago (its 5pm now where I am) the posts started coming through, your response to my first one last night and then later my second one that I had posted this morning, with another response from Joe. I guess this is just because of the time zone difference. I’m not trying to trick anyone.
It’s not the same as just having two objects next to each other of different temperatures. In that case the colder object won’t be warming the warmer one/reducing the rate of cooling of the warmer one, agreed. So if the Earth’s surface was only surrounded by non-GHGs I would agree with you. The thing with the Greenhouse gases as opposed to the other gases in the atmosphere is that they have radiative properties, such that they are absorbing photons which are travelling in the direction from hot to cold then re-emitting them in all directions…so half of these are then Earth-bound again. But these all came from the Earth’s surface in the first place (and originally the sun) so they are not in effect adding any energy to the surface of the Earth that wasn’t already there to start with, they are simply meaning overall that the Earth’s surface loses less energy less quickly than it would have done without the presence of GHGs…therefore slowing the rate of cooling IS the appropriate phrase and NOT warming.
Then what I was saying is that this effect would only be relevant to the overall temperature of the whole system if day and night is averaged out such that you had a continuous input of energy from the sun. You’d need that for this reduced rate of cooling to have any lasting effect on temperature…but because in reality there IS night, where there’s no input from the sun, then any effect from the reduced cooling in the daytime would be cancelled out.
Why not take a little time and tell me exactly what is fake about the experiment. I have not faked anything.
You must have a good reason for calling FAKE
is it –
The material construction?
Temperature measurement?
Analysis?
What?
Joseph E Postma says:
Please explain. In a passive system with no external heat sources, I thought heat would be conserved.
[JPReply: The Q from the heat transfer equation in this article is not the same thing as the Q associated with Tc/Th.]
Greg says: “As I said before, I do not see any reason to believe that your “tests” are not fakes.”
Skepticism at its finest — ‘I would rather believe my own pre-conceptions that look at results from real experiments’.
“Back to the Willis core and shell scenario, it demonstrates exactly that no back radiation warming effect is physically possible, because the assumption that it is leads inevitably to an absurd physically impossible consequence.”
Just what exactly do you think is “absurd”?
* it conserves energy.
* it obeys the 2nd Law of thermodynamics.
* it has no “run-away” infinite temperature.
* it agrees with a century of physics and engineering textbooks
* it explains the global temperatures much better than models without “back-radiation”.
Be Specific! Show your work.
*************************************************************************************’
PS Joe, you STILL have not directly addressed that your model uses data from sunny locations near the tropics close to mid-summer, and STILL you get ice reforming every night. Your model for sunniest places on earth still is barely up to the global average temperature. So, yes, back-radiation still is needed. Run your models at 30 N on the first day of spring with 30% cloud cover to get “typical” results for your model..
Tim you seem to miss what the model and the boundary conditions can do without the GHE. The first law of thermodynamics is not obeyed locally.
Greg House says, 2013/06/03 at 12:24 AM:
“Is it really your point, Kristian, that colder objects make warmer objects cool more slowly by supplying the latter with energy? Or is it another physical mechanism?”
Huh? Where did I say anything about the cooler object in any way supplying the warmer with energy? I clearly stated that that was what the warmists are claiming. Any normal person, however, wouldn’t.
“As far as I understand your point, you disagree that a body at a stable temperature can be warmed by a colder body, but at the same time you agree that a colder body can have a warming effect on a cooling warmer body (making its cooling slower). Do I understand you correctly?”
No, that’s precisely it. A colder body will not have a warming effect on a warmer body cooling. A colder body warmer than the surroundings or simply the colder surroundings being less cold than before will however create a less steep temperature gradient between the cooling warm body and its surroundings. Thus, it will cool more slowly. This only has to do with the steepness of temperature and hence radiation gradients between objects, not with the colder objects transferring energy to the warmer objects. This is only what the warmists would want people to think is happening.
My point was, they can get away with this approach whenever the warm body is actually cooling, because then it doesn’t get physically warmer than before, its temperature simply drops at a slower rate. That doesn’t mean they’re right. And this specifically becomes evident when the warm body is already constantly supplied with power/heat from a heat source. Because then the warm body would have to become warmer than what the heat source itself could manage. Which would constitute direct heat transfer from cool to warm. This is the situation where the warmists are caught red-handed, so to say.
When the warm object, heating the cool object, is itself constantly heated by say an internal power source, then the warm object doesn’t care about its surroundings. It only cares about its source. Whatever it receives it gives away. Whether the surroundings are at 0 K or just 1K cooler than the warm object. It doesn’t matter. What happens is, the heat going out from the warm object (always of equal magnitude as long as the constant source is active), can do less to heat the cooler object the warmer it gets. Because the temperature gradient between the two becomes flatter and flatter, so does the radiation gradient:
a) The cold object is at 0 K, same as space outside of it. At the first instance, the entire heat flux going from the hot object goes into heating it, because none is as of yet emitted to space. So the cold object starts warming rapidly.
b) The cold object has now become rather ‘cool/warm’, halfway to the temperature level of the hot object. Only half the heat flux from the hot object now goes into further raising the temperature of the cool/warm object, because its heat loss to space is equal to half the hot object’s heat flux. Hence, the heating rate of the cool/warm object has slowed down considerably. It is still getting warmer, though.
c) The cold object is no longer cool/warm. It has become as hot as the hot object. None of the heat flux going out from the powered hot object is now capable of raising the temperature of the until recently cooler object any further, because its heat loss to space is now as large as the heat flux from the powered hot object. Its heating curve has practically asymptoted to zero. Its temperature is however still constantly being maintained at this final level by the powered hot object’s heat flux. Without it, it would start cooling at once. It simply cannot make it any hotter.
The radiation gradient between the hot and cold objects corresponds directly to the temperature gradient, going from very steep in a) to level in c). Remember also, the entire heat flux (Q) always go from the hot to the cold object, even when the cold object has become equally hot. Q is simply ultimately balanced by an equally large heat flux leaving the dynamically ‘cooler’ object as loss from its rear to space. So, it can no longer get any hotter. The heat transfer is nil. This situation is represented by the progressive narrowing of the beam from hot to cold as the gradient between them flattens.
Darn, once again my image didn’t show up. Here’s the link:
Joseph E Postma says:
2013/06/03 at 11:34 AM
Same question – Please explain.
Graham W says (2013/06/03 at 10:15 AM): “It’s not the same as just having two objects next to each other of different temperatures. In that case the colder object won’t be warming the warmer one/reducing the rate of cooling of the warmer one, agreed. …the Greenhouse gases … have radiative properties, such that they are absorbing photons which are travelling in the direction from hot to cold then re-emitting them in all directions…so half of these are then Earth-bound again. But these all came from the Earth’s surface in the first place (and originally the sun) so they are not in effect adding any energy to the surface of the Earth that wasn’t already there to start with, they are simply meaning overall that the Earth’s surface loses less energy less quickly than it would have done without the presence of GHGs…”
=======================================================
In your story there is a contradiction again. In your story your “greenhouse gases” do supply the Earth surface with energy. Even if you say that this energy was lost by the Earth surface, it is still an energy supply. So, you can hold at the same time that “reducing the rate of cooling of the warmer one” by the colder one is both possible and impossible.
Apart from this contradiction, the main point is whether such an energy supply (from cold to warm) is possible. The answer is no. The assumption that the warmer body warms the colder one and the colder one warms the warmer one back or reduces its cooling would lead in case of the warmer object at a stable temperature initially to an endless mutual warming and more energy output then input, which is apparently absurd.
Nice explanation Kristian.
Kristian says (2013/06/03 at 3:21 PM): “A colder body will not have a warming effect on a warmer body cooling. A colder body warmer than the surroundings or simply the colder surroundings being less cold than before will however create a less steep temperature gradient between the cooling warm body and its surroundings. Thus, it will cool more slowly. This only has to do with the steepness of temperature and hence radiation gradients between objects, not with the colder objects transferring energy to the warmer objects.”
=============================================================
Kristian, before I start commenting on what you have written, I would like to be absolutely sure that I understand your point correctly.
So, is it correct in your view that if we have 2 situations: a) body H is hot, body C is cold, no other bodies, vacuum between them and b) the same body H is equally hot, but the cold body W is warmer than C but colder than H (otherwise the same as C), then the H would cool faster in the presence of C only then in the presence of W only? Let us say, in both situations by 10K and the temperature of H is100K higher, than the temperature of W. So, we compare just the speed of cooling by the first 10K in both situations.
If your answer is “yes”, what I expect, please, give your version of the physical mechanism behind this difference in the speed of cooling (of H by 10K).
Please, note that just saying “it is because the initial difference in temperature is different in the given situation” is not the answer. I am specifically asking why this given different temperature gradients cause the alleged difference in the rate of cooling, by what exactly physical mechanism. So far I understand that you clearly excluded any energy supply from cold to warm by radiation, so, again, what is this physical mechanism?
Greg,
I’m not 100% sure what you want me to explain here …
But anyway, the rate of radiative energy emission from a hot surface in a vacuum is decided by the temperature difference to its surroundings/nearby objects only:
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/thermo/cootime.html
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/thermo/cootime.html#c2
There is nothing in here about countering ‘cool’ radiation being received and absorbed by the hot object. The temperature difference simply sets the steepness of the radiation gradient (through the radiative field) faced by the EM energy waves being emitted from the hot surface directly at the surface. This corresponds to convective cooling where energy is drawn faster from a hot surface if the temperature gradient away from it is steeper. Or the difference could be said to be one of air pressure between two regions. The greater the difference in pressure, the faster the flow of air. It also corresponds to an electrical current which is larger the greater the difference in potential (voltage) between two points (Ohm’s law).
There’s nothing magical about it.
It’s important to note that with a reflecting surface facing the hot one, the direct connection between temperature and radiation gradient breaks down. The Stefan-Boltzmann law relates specifically to black and gray bodies.
If a hot object is completely surrounded by a perfectly reflecting surface, the hot object will not cool and the mirror will not warm, because there is no radiation gradient between the two (even if there is a physical temperature difference between them).
Greg, do “greenhouse gases” absorb radiation and then re-emit this simultaneously in all directions? This is what I have been told. If this is wrong I would like to know, and I’d like to know what is right. If this IS right, then it follows that some of the photons which would have otherwise been travelling away from the Earth’s surface will have now been redirected downwards again, by a known physical mechanism.
There is no reason that I am currently able to see why these redirected photons would not collide with the Earth’s surface, supposing they do not collide with another gas molecule on the way down. Presumably some will do this (collide with another gas molecule) and some will “get through”. If there is a reason why they will not reach the Earth’s surface, again please explain that because I would genuinely like to know and be educated about these things. I’ve already said I’m not a scientist. I don’t know if I’m right about what I’m saying and I’m willing to be told I’m wrong and accept it so long as I can understand why I’m wrong.
If these redirected photons hit the ground then it seems to me they will be adding back some of the energy that was lost. However, as I said before, all this energy came originally from the sun, then from the Earth’s surface towards the atmosphere, so it is not providing the Earth’s surface with a source of NEW energy. Energy will continue to flow from hot to cold…all the physical properties of these greenhouse gases mean is that part (presumably only a small percentage) of the lost energy comes back again, temporarily, leading to a delay in that energy getting to its ultimate destination which I guess is back out to space (again please correct me if I’m wrong).
Now, the amount of this delay is also something that I would really like to know…because as far as I know the photons are moving at the speed of light…so we can’t be talking about a very big delay? I have absolutely no idea what kind of delay the GHE adherents mean when they talk about how “the rate of cooling is slowed”. It seems to me that unless the delay is somehow longer than the period of time from sundown to sunup then the GHE at any location on the Earth’s surface where there isn’t a continuous source of sunlight (ie most places most of the time apart from “the land of the midnight sun”!) will be nil overall.
Kristian says (2013/06/03 at 10:31 PM): “Greg, I’m not 100% sure what you want me to explain here …”
=================================================
I said it twice and put it in a very simple way. I asked you how exactly do you or whoever you refer to imagine colder objects affect rate/speed of cooling of warmer object in vacuum without touching each other, by what physical mechanism. This is the third time now.
If someone says “it must be by back radiation”, “both ways” etc, then this is wrong, but nevertheless the idea is understandable and logical.
Now, you say “no, it is not back radiation, there is no energy transfer from cold to warm”. Then I ask you “what is it then in your view? what physical mechanism is supposed to do that?” and you answer essentially “I do not understand the question”.
Your analogies about “steepness”, “radiation gradient” and “pressure” are at best illustrations and do not answer the question about physical mechanism I asked you. Or you need to prove that the radiation of a colder body really put some pressure on the warmer body and causes it radiate more slowly. I have never heard of that being proven. But, you know, if you like analogies and seem to be somehow trapped in it, I ‘ll help by suggesting an alternative analogy. Imagine you
radiatesend letters, 5 letters a day to the nearby town N. Then you decide to send letters to a faraway town F. Will this increased “distance gradient” make you send like 10 letters a day, at a higher sending rate?So, this example illustrates that it is not so that physical properties of a remote object necessarily affect a remote process. The same goes for radiation, and if someone claims there is some influence in a certain particular case, then I am asking (again) to explain theoretically how and prove that it really works exactly that way. You failed to do that.
Robert Clemenzi says:
2013/06/03 at 1:26 AM
Allen Eltor says: 2013/06/02 at 11:58 PM : …” But the GHE as described by warmers has MORE LIGHT LEAVING the GLOBE than comes IN. ”
==========
Robert says:
—————
Actually, they don’t.
Every model sets energy in at the top of the atmosphere (TOA) equal to energy out at TOA as one of the boundary conditions. This also applies to every element of the analysis. For the temperature to remain constant, energy out must equal energy in.
===========
“For the temperature to remain constant, energy out must equal energy in.”
Hey NO SHIT Archimedes, –
The WHOLE POINT is that THERE HAS TO BE THE SAME AMOUNT OUT, as IN.
Did ANYBODY ever SHOW YOU the IPCC 2007 aka the KIEHL/TRENBERTH ENERGY BUDGET?
What N.A.S.A. and others claim they think is the ENERGY BUDGET
for PLANETARY LIGHT handling?
==========
Why you’d conflate the Kiehl-Trenberth/IPCC 2007 energy budget with “step by step analysis” is beyond me,
but in any case, I told you GHGE BELIEVERS publish OFFICIAL STATE-of-the-Hypothesis CHARTS they claim are ‘models’ indicating
the WAY THEY THINK
HEAT DRIZZLES out of a WARM ROCK
into a
MILES DEEP
FRIGID
TURBULENT
FLUID
GAS BATH.
And IN THOSE CHARTS,
THEY PUBLISH that THEY THINK 168 WATTS of LIGHT drives INTO a WARM ROCK.
They SIMULTANEOUSLY on the IDENTICAL CHART show THEY THINK of the ORIGINAL
how many?
168 WATTS of LIGHT
390 RADIATES OUT.
Because 324 WATTS of the ORIGINAL 168 in
gets BACKERDiZED
(ABSORBED by the ROCK)
causing subsequent ROCK EMISSION
as long as 168 watts are IN
OF 390 WATTS.
==============
That’s some AMAZING $#!+, ISN’T IT CLEMENZi?
That’s the kind of radiation “law” YOU believe in?
==========
168 watts hits the floor,
but we sprayed it with Daddy’s “Trenberthian Backardizer” urethane he keeps in the closet for Brunswick bowling ball,
and MAGICALLY,
of the 168 watts the FLOOR EMITS,
324 watts, are TRAPPED and BACKERDIZED back into the FLOOR
———-
and we know about the Magic Gais claim that what gets BACKERDIZED is ‘FIDDY-FIDDY’ with
HALF emitting UP
HALF emitting DOWN
so in TRUTH, when we spray the floor with DADDY’S BRUNSWICK BACKERDiZiNG URETHANE
and we let 168 watts of light hit the floor,
324 WATTS of BACKERDiZED light go UP: AWAY from the FLOOR
324 WATTS of BACKERDiZED light go DOWN: INTO the FLOOR.
Causing the floor to of course THEN emit, 390 watts, as long as we irradiate with 168.
=========
Whatever your reasons, you’re a liar when you say you’re not witnessing breakage of law in about six different directions.
YOU SAY, YOU DON’T SEE, 168 WATTS go INTO a WARM ROCK
324 of the 168 re-emitted, come back from a MIRROR
making SUBSEQUENT MEASUREMENTS SHOW
390 watts COME OUT of that rock.
==========
You’re ALSO
a BALD FACED LIAR when you say YOU DON’T SEE 100% of 324 WATTS going down, with an a.m.a.z.i.n.g. 100% absorption rate.
==========
You’re ALSO
a BALD FACED LIAR when you say YOU DON’T SEE that if that 324 DOWN is the MAGICAL FITTY-FITTY UP/DOWN RATIO simply PLASTERED ONTO the whole thing to cover the SCAB called G.H.G.E. Hypothesis,
that what that 324 down is, is SHORTHAND for 324 DOWN/324 UP.
Which has the ground being irradiated with 168 watts, GIVING OFF 650.
Half of that light comes back DOWN
Half of that light keeps going UP.
==========
* * *YOUR problem is,* * *
YOU SAID YOU DON’T SEE MORE OUT than IN.
As everybody looking at the chart SEES, is YOU LYING.
You’re LYING EXPLICITLY when you say you SIMPLY DON’T SEE MORE OUT
You’re LYING IMplicitly WHEN YOU SAY you don’t NOTICE the MISSING 324 BACKERDIZED in the UP direction.
==========
Top of Atmosphere be DAMNED: what YOU’VE got to answer to is how you saw 168 become 324. THEN, become 390, with a FRIGID CHEMICAL BATH causing a WARM ROCK to emit
more than TWICE the heat coming IN
=====
MAGICAL 324 WATT BACKERDiSMS
It’s RIGHT THERE ON YOUR CHART of YOUR MODEL.
So we have 168 absorbed, then another 324 absorbed.
Then 390 out.
Yeah that makes PERFECT mathematical sense.
=====
With everything wrapped up tidily, balanced to the last photon like the 100% absorption of the 324 down,
by simply grabbing a MAGICK MARQUER
and WRITING
235 OUT.
AT the Top of the Atmosphere.
=======
Hot DAYUM this CLIMATOLOGY’s not so HARD once ya REALIZE you’ve gotta just have
the SAME AMOUNT IN
as ya DO GOIN’ OWT!”
==========
==========
You knew there were INEQUALITIES in the FLOW of LIGHT from POINT to POINT without more explanation than “well, I had the blank spot, I had the MAGICK marQuer, I knew how much was coming in, I knew it had to BALANCE.”
Which makes you simply ANOTHER PATHOLOGICAL LIAR who CAME ONLINE to see if you could DAMAGE SOCIETY by TEACHING people LIES.
———
I don’t CARE about who you are, I just had to check YOUR math
to see YOU
can’t add
can’t subtract
can’t divide
can’t multiply
WELL ENOUGH to turn ONE HUNDRED SIXTY EIGHT WATTS up INTO a MIRROR
into 324 WATTS BACK down, OUT of THAT MIRROR.
=====
ROBERT CLEMENZI
is HERE TO LET ALL of YOU KNOW
that HE HAS NO PROBLEM
with shining 168 WATTS onto a ROCK
having that ROCK, emit the 168 BACK OUT
and have the MIRROR which has the 168 IMPINGE
reflect 324 watts BACK down INTO the ROCK
so that the ROCK then EMITS 390.
ON and ON
in a CONTINUOUS CYCLE.
This
makes PERFECT SENSE
to Robert Clemenzi.
==========
Thank YEW
PERFESSER BORE HOLE
for that SCINTILLATING MATHEMATICAL EXPOSITION
of
MAGICAL BACKERDiSMS
for our BREATHLESS READERSHIP
not ONE of whom has
(1)given the international sign of ‘this m*****f***r’s NUTS
by rotation of index finger pointing at the head
or
(2) seen bemused, visions of a perpetuum mobile
being sold by a man wearing glittered attire, on a unicycle, in New Orleans.
For “Uh DoLLuH-TwO NinetyEIGHT an’ FITTY sints.”
==========
For THOSE of YOU STILL IN DOUBT
NOW would be a GREAT time for ya
to hit ‘GOOGLE’ then ‘IMAGES’ then type
“KIEHL-TRENBERTH/IPCC 2007 ENERGY BUDGET”
and CHECK and SEE, if Y.O.U. SEE a FELLOW in NEW ORLEANS on a UNICYCLE
peddling PERPETUAL MOTION.
==========
NOTE CAREFULLY
that out of ONE HUNDRED SIXTY EIGHT WATTS of LIGHT IN,
not a SINGLE WATT
is TAKEN from the SURFACE through simple CONDUCTION.
———-
Note ALSO that out of this ALLEGED “FIDDY/FIDDY” MatheMuHTiSTiCkuL experience,
THERE’S NO RECORD of the 324 WATTS radiated UP.
Only of the 324 WATTS radiated DOWN, of which of course, ONE HUNDRED PERCENT is absorbed.
———-
Am it getting “MATHEMATICAL ENOUGH” yet?
Because IT’S YOUR OFFICIAL MODEL, HILLBILLY.
It’s the one
YOU’RE here
to claim YOU don’t see errors in.
———-
MIND YOU THIS is the MODEL
that ANTHONY WATTS and ROY SPENCER and CLEMENZI here,
claim is the G.O.S.P.E.L. according to the L.A.W.S. of THERMODYNAMICS
==========
and
T.H.E.Y.
C.L.A.I.M.
THEY SEE
NO VIOLATIONS
W.H.A.T.E.V.E.R.
in this ‘model.’
==========
It’s a MODEL alright. It’s a MODEL of WHAT HAPPENS when a HIPPIE goes to WORK having eaten too much ACID at the BONGO-CIRCLE.
==========
YOU the READER: if YOU’RE INTERESTED in KNOWING WHO here is LYIING
==========
Who here is being a LIAR and COVERING it through SOPHISTRY
==========
Go check CLEMENZI
claiming to CHECK ME
and Google FIRST JUST in SEARCH, what I said: “Kiehl-Trenberth/IPCC energy budget”
and LOOK
at the LINE of PEOPLE SAYING
that THAT MODEL DOES NOT BREAK LAWS of THERMODYNAMICS.
***E.V.E.R.Y. S.I.N.G.L.E. GLOBAL WARMER BLOG or SITE is THERE***
with hardly ANY OTHER SCIENCE FOUND willing to TOUCH it.
==========
Now you’ve GOT the RETURNS, just LEAVE ALL THOSE THERE, and NOW, hit “IMAGES”
and of course, since it’s the SAME SEARCH, you’ll get just SCORES of these “Kiehl-Trenberth/IPCC returns, of THEIR MODEL: of THEIR GREEN HOUSE GAS EFFECT BELIEFS
showing what THEY CLAIM
is the STATE
of THERMODYNAMICS
relative to a WARM ROCK
spinning a THOUSAND MILES PER HOUR
at the BOTTOM
of a
MILES DEEP
FRIGID
NITROGEN/OXGEN
FLUID
BATH
with a SHOT of 1%, ATMOSPHERIC PRESSURES, PHASE CHANGE REFRIGERANT, water.
==========
Clemenzi here says HE SEES NO REALITY of 168 WATTS INTO the ROCK
with 390 COMING OUT.
Clemenzi here says HE SEES NO 168 WATTS OUT of a ROCK
INTO a MIRROR (some gas)
being RETURNED to the ROCK
MAGICALLY as 324 WATTS of LIGHT.
Clemenzi here says HE SEES no VIOLATION of THERMODYNAMIC PRINCIPLES
in 168 watts coming into a MIRROR from a ROCK
having 324 WATTS come back OUT. Headed BACK DOWN into the rock that
emitted the original 168;
with ANOTHER 324 WATTS MISSING the ROCK emitted into the SKY;
because REMEMBER people ALL MAGICK GASSERS
explain that the BACK RADIATION is ‘FIDDY-FIDDY’ –
FIDDY purSINT UP and, FIDDY purSINT, D.O.W.N.
==========
LOOK at WHAT YOU ARE READING when YOU PERUSE that MAGICK GAiS MODEL
and COME BACK here and WATCH the
MATHEMATICAL
SOPHISTRY
a.t.t.e.m.p.t.e.d.
to JUSTIFY SAYING
it’s defenders THINK
IT’S REAL thermodynamical MATHEMATICS
==========
Saying THEY THINK IT’S REAL and WORTH TEACHING in THERMODYNAMICAL TEXTS.
==========
Remember: WE HAVEN’T EVEN CRACKED a BOOK to speak of.
JUST SHOWN YOU THE GREEN HOUSE GAS EFFECT,
as PRESENTED
==========
by it’s FINEST DEFENDERS.
==========
WE HAVEN’T CRACKED a BOOK yet examining this:
just looked at THEIR MODEL.
==========
Clemenzi: “No it AIN’T SHOWIN’ more OWT than uH.. GOiN INN”
His DEFENSE: “Buhcawz LOOK at thuh TOP THAY ROTE 235 UP THAIR.”
==========
That’s a MATHEMATICAL DEFENSE to him.
THAT’S MATH
to him.
That MODEL
looks MATHEMATICALLY BALANCED
to him.
==========
When YOU’RE a GROWN MAN
and YOU GET on the INTERNET
and YOU TRY to DEFEND putting 168 WATTS into a BOWLING BALL
and YOU THEN TELL PEOPLE that because you SPRAYED that BOWLING BALL with
PERFESSER BORE HOLE BACKERDS’S
MAGICK RADIATION MULTIPLIER
that NOW THAT BOWLING BAWL has dun binn… BACKERDiZED
and PUTTING IN 168 WATTS
means the URETHANE reflects back INTO that BACKERDiZED BAWL 324 WATTS
so that BALL is THEN EMITTING 390 WATTS
You
had better be one SMART M**RF**KER
to not reveal
yew dun buHLeeeved in uh..
Magical BACKERDISM.
==========
And YOU’RE NOT THAT SMART, CLEMENZi.
==========
FAR
FROM
IT.
==========
Again Clemenzi:
I HAVE a BOWLING BALL
I inject that BOWLING BALL with 168 watts of LIGHT.
I CHECK that BOWLING BALL and it’s emitting 168 watts of LIGHT.
———-
I GO ONLINE and ORDER a CAN of BIG-DADDY TRENBERTH’S
MAGICK BACKERDiZiNG URETHANE
and SPRAY that BALL with the DIRECTED AMOUNT.
———-
That
BRUNSWICK
is NOW
BACKERDIZED.
==========
When IRRADIATED with LIGHT
it will NOW “Go Trenberthian”
when irradiated with light.
==========
I AGAIN INJECT THAT BALL with 168 WATTS of LIGHT.
but the BALL has been “BACKERDiZED” and “GOES TRENBERTHIAN”:
the BALL NOW gives off 390 watts when I irradiate it with 168,
due to 324 WATTS
of the ORIGINALLY EMITTED 168
————
COMING OUT of BIG DADDY TRENBERTH’S
BACKARDiZiNG URETHANE TREATMENT
causing the BALL to NOW EMIT, 390 WATTS.
==========
Don’t you try to TELL me
YOU DON’T SEE MAGICAL BACKERDiSMS.
The third rate intellect which would do anything but push that into a TRASH CAN
is either
(1)MENTALLY ILL (a fervent believer like those who visit Anthony Watts/Roy Spencer’s sites and claim they KNOW it’s REAL
(2)a CYNICAL CON MAN, agreeing with PURE CONCOCTION so you can be part of “the mainstream” and MILK it for FAME, MONEY, whatever. (Watts, Spencer, Trenberth, etc)
Lookout YA’W i SPRAYED muh MIRROR with TRENBERTHIAN BACKERDiZER and NOW, when I TURN on the 168 WATT LIGHT,
324 WATTS COMES OUT!
What an evil cynical HICK to tell people he’d have that taught in school.
Does anybody reading this really think
any grown men believe
that tripe isn’t violating so many laws it’s a PROOF something’s wrong with the THINKING
of them endorsing it?
Despite the usual formatting, your posts are on point 🙂 hehe
168 comes in….324 comes out. Magic.
Joe says once again: “Tim you seem to miss what the model and the boundary conditions can do without the GHE.
I have told you what I see — a model that operates with uncommonly bright sunlight but still can’t get above freezing overnight.
What “boundary conditions” are you talking about? What am I missing? If nothing else, copy a paragraph or two from your paper that explains what you mean.
“Uncommonly bright sunlight”, as in the real actual sunlight that actually produces clouds and water. Why prefer a sun that is twice as far away as it actually is and can’t make things in reality occur that it is actually known to do?
Boundary conditions such as the law of conservation of energy not being locally obeyed. Latent heat transport. The actual geometric phase space and distribution of sunlight, the true radiative surface of the Earth (i.e. not the ground surface), etc. Essentially, do better physics than the stupid GHE models. No GHE is required when this is done. The GHE has always been hocus pocus and anti-scientific.
Greg,
This warm object is no longer provided with a constant heat flux from a hot reservoir. It no longer gains any heat. It being in thermal contact (across a vacuum) with cooler surroundings, it thus has no choice but to start shedding its internal energy to its cold reservoir – it will cool by transferring its internal energy as radiative heat to its surroundings. At what rate, then, will this energy be shed/transferred? How fast will it radiate as it cools? And specifically, what determines this rate in your opinion, Greg? I would very much like to hear your take on this. I’ve given you mine …
You say you disagree with my stating that a hot unpowered object will cool faster to cold surroundings than to surroundings less cold. But you haven’t substantiated your disagreement. Why wouldn’t it cool faster? What’s your ‘physical mechanism’? You’re very much welcome to convince me. But I must say that your aggressive pursuit of this matter baffles me. All I can think of is, you must be bored.
Pray what is the ‘physical mechanism’ behind Ohm’s law? Behind stronger convective currents whenever temperature and/or pressure gradients between two points are steeper? What ‘pulls’ the electric current in one direction? Or the flow of air? What changes its magnitude? Its speed?
The answer, as I see it: ‘The potential difference’ between the two points.
“The potential difference between two points”. Yes that is precisely what creates action – from more to less. I’ll be speaking on this is a related post soon.
Like gravity and the steepness of a hill …
Which us just like voltage potential, which is just like “thermal potential” (temperature differential), etc.
Kristian says (2013/06/04 at 1:58 PM): ” I would very much like to hear your take on this. I’ve given you mine …”
===================================================
My take on this is this. The assumption that a cooling body can be made to cool at a slower rate without any additional input of energy into this body is absurd and physically impossible, because this assumption leads logically and inevitably to the consequence that there is additional output from this body (without any additional input). In other words, the consequence would be that energy is created out of nothing. This is absurd and physically impossible, hence the initial assumption is equally absurd and physically impossible (reductio ad absurdum).
No wonder warmists need back radiation to cause this slowing down cooling. I guess they understand what I have just written. Their approach is wrong as it has been demonstrated, but at least their first step, involving energy supply from cold to hot is understandable and logical. Unfortunately I can not say the same about your approach.
OK, to complete that here comes simple math in a simplified example.
So, a body B initially at 0K has been warmed by a certain amount of energy E to 3K. If it cools completely to the initial 0K by radiating, it gives this E away. Let us say, to simplify the calculations, that it cools like that: 1 second at 3K, then 1 second at 2K and then 1 second at 1K, a kind of jumping. At 1K it radiates amount of energy E1 per second, at 2K it radiates E2 per second and at 3K it radiates E3 per second. So, to cool down completely it radiates E3+E2+E1 and this must be equal to the initial input E, so we have E3 + E2 + E1 = E , input=output.
Now let us see what happens to the output, if without any additional input of energy the cooling of our body B (from 3K to 0K) has been made slower, like 2 seconds at 3K, then 2 seconds at 2K and then 2 seconds at 1K. The output of energy will be now 2xE3 + 2xE2 + 2xE1 = 2x(E3+E2+E1) = 2xE. The output is 2E now, which is twice the input E. Apparently absurd and physically impossible.
This above proves that cooling can not be slowed down without an additional input of energy.
No, Joe not ““Uncommonly bright sunlight”, as in the real actual sunlight that actually produces clouds and water.”
Rather “as in never cloudy, mid-summer, near the equator”. I think I have said that now 4 or 5 times. You model takes a mid-summer, cloud-free sun passing withing ~ 20 degrees of the zenith (Arizona in the summer), And STILL your models can’t thaw water over night. Does that sound like Arizona in the summer to you?
I notice that you steadfastly refuse to even try something “truly typical” like 30% clouds, at the beginning of spring/fall. it would only take a minute or two to change the albedo to 0.7 and the to move the model 1000 km farther north.
[JPReply: Tim you seem not to be able to comprehend what it is that the model can do that the standard models can’t. Why would you defend a known-false model when you can go to something better? As I’ve said, what I showed in the paper is just the start of a real-world model and already it indicates no GHE augmentation of heating…and it even had empirical data to prove it. Also, the paper used local conservation of energy whereas in fact for that location there should have been more energy trapped/absorbed than emitted. Plus if you extend the model to a 2-d pde then you can see what effect the ground temperature has on heat storage etc. If you’re going to say you don’t want my model, then what is it you want? You want to go back to Spencer’s flat Earth where all of the physics that comes out of my model is re-hidden and forgotten about again? You have no other option now. Why is it that you want to believe in the GHE so badly? As we’ve all shown here repeatedly now, the GHE has no basis in reality at all. Do you have an emotional attachment to it? Is it a religious thing? Is it because “other people say its true” and you just have to go along with the herd? You don’t have anything scientific, or factual, or empirical, to support the GHE, at all. You know full well at this point that there is nothing to support the GHE.]
“the true radiative surface of the Earth (i.e. not the ground surface)”
And what, pray tell, is raising the “true radiative surface” above the ground level? What could be radiating from within the atmosphere?
[JP: And what does that have to do with the GHE? If the GHE is about setting the radiative surface, that has nothing to do with Willis’ shells game, backradiation causing heating, all of the models like Spencer’s, etc., because then this is just about the adiabatic gradient, and nothing more. Then the fact that no hotspot exists shows that the radiative surface has not increased in altitude anyway.
This is just yet further proof that the GHE is not actually defined. It is anything the believers want it to be so that they can keep believing in it. Your statement proves that the GHE is entirely pseudoscientific and has no actual known physics to explain it, because the physics for it changes every day. It is completely arbitrary.
The average incoming surface is set by the average albedo, which is therefore at the cloud tops (cloud albedo determines most of the total albedo). For both Earth and Venus, if you apply the cloud-top altitude with the adiabatic gradient, you get the correct surface temperature. The point is that the incoming radiative surface is not the ground surface of the Earth, let alone the outgoing surface…actually the outgoing and incoming surface seem to be the same altitude, which is interesting.]
Greg says: “The assumption that a cooling body can be made to cool at a slower rate without any additional input of energy into this body is absurd “
Greg that is — word for word — what insulation does. Either admit you are wrong, or find a better way to say what you are trying to say.
As for the rest of your statement, you are mis-accounting the energy. And it is not worth the effort to once again try to give a better explanation. Without sitting down with you, I don’t see how your entrenched misconceptions can be corrected.
Your equation above is completely wrong. If, as you say, “the cooler has been made slower”, then the amount of energy released per second would be smaller. This means it would take longer to cool to 0K. Have you heard of a thermos? They slow the rate of cooling (or heating) and don’t require a power source.
Greg House says, 2013/06/04 at 4:39 PM:
“Now let us see what happens to the output, if without any additional input of energy the cooling of our body B (from 3K to 0K) has been made slower, like 2 seconds at 3K, then 2 seconds at 2K and then 2 seconds at 1K. The output of energy will be now 2xE3 + 2xE2 + 2xE1 = 2x(E3+E2+E1) = 2xE. The output is 2E now, which is twice the input E. Apparently absurd and physically impossible. This above proves that cooling can not be slowed down without an additional input of energy.”
Eh, no Greg. Taking twice as long to shed the (same amount of) energy as before doesn’t mean that amount itself has doubled. It means it’s released more slowly. You half the rate and double the time. E remains the same.
The radiation is released more slowly, not primarily as a result of the temperature of the hot object itself, but because the temperature/radiation gradient through the radiative field surrounding the object faced by the EM energy waves being emitted already at the surface of the object is less steep than before. Because of this change in ‘potential difference’, the wave propagation of energy away from the surface will simply slow down.
This dependence on the surrounding gradient vanishes as soon as the hot object is connected to a constant supply of power, though. Then E (U) stays unchanged and that means Q stays unchanged as well. The object will have a fixed input of heat and hence a fixed output of heat, regardless of how much cooler its surroundings are. The only thing that can change in this setup is how fast the hot object can heat its surroundings and/or nearby cooler objects.
Greg, you’re starting out with the radiation from the Sun being an input as everyone else is, right?
Then you have the ground radiating as an output, again, everyone agrees here.
The mismatch is with the atmosphere radiating back towards the ground, you contend it is an input and should be added to the input from the Sun, I and Joe and others contend it should be subtracted from the output of the ground.
Your version: 240 Sun_in*24 hours, 160 to ground plus 330 Air_in, for 490 Total_in, 390 Ground_out which leaves 60 radiative ground->space and 100 Non-radiative Ground->Air plus 80 Solar->Air for 240 in*24 hours and 240 out*24 hours.
My/our version: 480 Sun_in*12 hours, 60 radiative Ground->Space plus 180 Air->space for 480 in*12 hours and 240 out*24 hours
We’re simply stating that the atmosphere is not an energy source for the ground (for the silly reason that the atmosphere is itself supplied energy by the ground) and that the Sun only shines on half the planet at a time.
You’re arguing in favor of the idea that the ground receives twice as much energy from the air as it does from the sun, and incidentally the sun shines on all points constantly.
The fallacies of global warming by atmospheric CO2
There are 3 fallacies promoted by various warmists:
1)Some claim that back-radiation from CO2 warms the earth’s surface;
2)Others claim that by absorbing IR from the surface, CO2 “traps heat”, thereby warming the air;
3)Others claim that more CO2 in the air raises the effective radiating level at the top of the atmosphere, thereby reducing the cooling effect and resulting in warming.
1) On the first point, there is downwelling IR (DWIR) from the atmosphere incident upon the surface, most of it from water vapor. In circumstances when surface objects are cooler than the nearby air, that radiation can warm those objects, although most of the warming is due to conduction.
However, CO2 radiation is mostly 15 microns, at the weak end of the IR range. It turns out that most materials found on the earth’s surface can not absorb IR between 6-25 microns, and thus CO2 back radiation is reflected, and no surface warming occurs from it.
http://objectivistindividualist.blogspot.ca/2013/02/infrared-absorbing-gases-and-earths.html
2) In a parcel of air, each CO2 molecule is surrounded by 2500 other molecules, 99% of them N2 and O2 which are radiatively inactive. The temperature of the air parcel is set by conduction, convection, and latent heat transfers from water. The lapse rate measures the fact that the air cools and thins with altitude. When a CO2 molecule succeeds to emit a photon, it loses energy, which is immediately replaced by collisions with N2 and O2 molecules. The heat transfer in the troposphere is mostly from N2 and O2 to CO2, and not the other way around.
Click to access JCao_N2O2GreenGases_Blog.pdf
3) Satellite measurements of Earth emission data show that the IR photons absorbed by CO2 molecules are not re-emitted before the energy gained is redistributed by collisions with other non-greenhouse gas molecules. We know this because the re-emission of radiation does not occur at a black body temperature of 288K and instead occurs at a black body temperature of about 210 to 220K characteristic of general air temperatures at altitudes from 10.5 km to 22 km.
This part of the atmosphere is called the tropopause, where the temperature does not vary much from an average of 217K. Any change in the effective radiating level in the tropopause will not lower the temperature, and not cause warming.
Click to access Gravity%20Rules%20the%20Greenhouse%20EffectV2_R.%20Clark_9.27.10.pdf
Thanks Ron, great timely summary.
Kristian says (2013/06/04 at 11:13 PM): “Taking twice as long to shed the (same amount of) energy as before doesn’t mean that amount itself has doubled. It means it’s released more slowly.”
=====================================================
Yeah, this is unbelievable.
I am sure you know very well that the body radiates in accordance to its temperature. A certain amount of energy per second. Basic physics. If it stays longer at certain temperature, like 2 seconds instead of 1 second, it radiates twice as much energy. Does not fit in your concept, I understand, so drop your absurd concept, it would be the right choice.
Max™ says (2013/06/05 at 12:04 AM): “Greg, you’re starting out with the radiation from the Sun being an input as everyone else is, right? … you contend it is an input and should be added to the input from the Sun…Your version: 240 Sun_in*24 hours, 160 to ground plus …You’re arguing in favor of the idea that the ground receives twice as much energy from the air as it does from the sun…”
===================================================
I have never said that nor anything like that. This is total crap what you have written about me. Shame on you.
tjfolkerts says (2013/06/04 at 5:24 PM): “Either admit you are wrong, or find a better way to say what you are trying to say.”
=======================================================
Thank you for indirectly admitting that I am right on the issue.
As for the phrase you pulled out of the comment, it is absolutely clear in the context of the comment what is meant.
Of course, given that there are liars around on blogs who will certainly try to distort and obfuscate the issue, I will, of course, follow you friendly peace of advice and put the conclusion in a little bit more detailed way when referring to it without the context of the entire explanation.
Greg House says, 2013/06/05 at 8:18 AM:
“I am sure you know very well that the body radiates in accordance to its temperature. A certain amount of energy per second. Basic physics.”
Greg, please get a grip. What I know very well is that the body radiates according to, NOT its temperature, but to the temperature DIFFERENCE between it and its surroundings. THIS is the basic physics: Q = Aes*(T_h^4 – T_c^4). You do get this equation, Greg, do you not? You are aware of it …? If not, you should learn it. It shows you exactly what you need to know.
A body radiates only according to its temperature when 1) its surroundings are at 0 K, or 2) it is constantly heated by a power source giving it a fixed surface emission temperature. It can be approximated also as a ‘pure radiator’ when it is very much hotter (like 3 times + as hot in absolute temperature) than its surroundings. But this will change as it cools, as long as the surroundings can be considered an infinite heat sink.
Kristian says (2013/06/05 at 10:56 AM): “What I know very well is that the body radiates according to, NOT its temperature, but to the temperature DIFFERENCE between it and its surroundings. THIS is the basic physics: Q = Aes*(T_h^4 – T_c^4).
…A body radiates only according to its temperature when … or 2) it is constantly heated by a power source giving it a fixed surface emission temperature.”
===========================================================
The formula describes what a colder body C would get from a hotter body H, so? Less colder body would get less. Equally hot body would get nothing.
This formula says nothing about how much the hotter body radiates away at certain temperatures. It does not contradict my demonstration about input/output above. This formula does not support your concept at all.
For the record: your point was not about heat transfer, it was about alleged changes in the rate of cooling of hotter bodies caused by colder bodies without any energy supply from cold to hot.
An irrelevant formula can not save your concept, it remains absurd.
Whoops, I think that was supposed to be to Tim, not Greg, it’s hard to read past the big oddly formatted Allen posts.
I need to correct and clarify part of my post above.
My first point above is that the actual earth’s surface is not a black or gray body, but absorbs and emits radiation selectively, and in fact absorbs very little CO2 radiation. I have been advised of a study that shows soil samples do absorb longer wavelengths than 6 microns, but I note that in the study, most of the absorption was below 12 and nothing was absorbed above 14. So the stated range was in error, but the point is confirmed: 15 micron radiation was not absorbed.
Greg House says, 2013/06/05 at 5:49 PM:
“The formula describes what a colder body C would get from a hotter body H (…)”
I’m afraid it describes no such thing. It describes how the temperature differential between the hot and the cold body determines the rate of heat transfer, how much energy will be radiated from the hot body to the cold body. Nothing else. The formula specifically focuses on the radiative properties of the hot body, the one actually doing the radiative transferring of energy. Its only interest in the cold body is its temperature. But knowing that is necessary to estimate the heat transfer rate. It’s not enough just knowing the temperature of the hot body. Unless it is very much hotter than the cold one.
“For the record: your point was not about heat transfer, it was about alleged changes in the rate of cooling of hotter bodies caused by colder bodies without any energy supply from cold to hot.”
For a body physically cooling, a change in its rate of cooling is a change in the rate of heat transfer, Greg. A body is not capable of cooling if it doesn’t transfer parts of its internal energy as heat to colder surroundings (disregarding ‘work’).
“The formula describes what a colder body C would get from a hotter body H (…)”
“I’m afraid it describes no such thing.”
Sorry, I misread the bold part … Yes, it does describe exactly that.
The point is, the hot body wouldn’t radiate away as much at the same temperature if its surroundings were less cold than before. Because the radiation gradient through the radiative field surrounding the hot body would’ve become less steep. A change in ‘potential/thermal differential’.
Only if its surface temperature were fixed by a constant power/heat source (and in a vacuum) would it always radiate according to its set emission temperature. Well, it isn’t fixed. It’s cooling. That’s the whole point. That’s the crucial difference between the two scenarios.
Anyway, I think I’m done with this ‘discussion’. There seems to be no talking to you …
Kristian says: Greg House says, 2013/06/05 at 5:49 PM: “The formula describes what a colder body C would get from a hotter body H (…)”
I’m afraid it describes no such thing. … Yes, it does describe exactly that.
==========================================================
Right, it does describe exactly that, and you can not derive your concept from this formula, what you apparently did, otherwise you would not have referred to it as supporting your point.
So, you simply do not have a point, you are simply repeating the same thing without any basis in science. It seems that your mistake roots in misrepresentation of that formula.
All your argumentation about steepness, potential/thermal differential or pressure is an unfortunate example of misleading analogies. You can only talk about analogy to steepness etc. as an illustration after you have proven that radiation behaves like that, not the other way round. You seem to completely inverse the normal logical way of thinking.
One example to illustrate this last point. If you get for whatever reasons the idea that elephants can fly, and then you see a picture of an elephant and find great similarity between his ears and wings of a bird, you still can not conclude that the elephant can fly by waving his ears. Just because the similarity. No way.
So, heat transfer formula does not mean that a colder body causes the warmer body radiate at a certain rate, faster or slower, it is absolutely not there. It is only about colder bodies getting energy from warmer bodies, that is all.
Note, how warmists fight for their back radiation warming from cold to hot. Fake experiments, misleading “thought experiments”, banning commentators etc. Even they are smart enough not to suggest that colder bodies have certain warming effect on warmer bodies via mere existence of colder bodies, just like that, without any transfer of energy from cold to warm! Maybe you need to think again about all that.
Watts reader taking him to task again for his attempt to destroy science so he could see some popularity for his own sake: endorsing sophistry for a piece of the pie: and what Watts and those like him have done to the face of scientific education:
Steven R. Vada says:
June 7, 2013 at 12:01 pm
The entire world was intimidated into claiming they actually believed and believe in this bullsh** and the only people you find around in media, STILL claim they do. It’s been the price of being popular in the eyes of men.
Those who gave into it are responsible for things such as this:
Question: you have a warm rock spinning at the bottom of a miles deep, frigid, fluid gas bath. The frigid gas bath is augmented in it’s direct contact cooling through convection and a small percentage additionally of atmospheric-pressure naturally cycling phase change refrigerant which enhances convective processes and removes additional heat.
The most typical analysis of the miles deep frigid fluid bath are those compatible with analyzing:
(A)a deep frigid fluid bath augmented with phase change refrigeration driven convectively
(B)A big, warm, blankie.
In today’s GHGE believer world, the answer your child will be taught is (B).
Thank your GHGE believer for that.
Question 2: You are warming a spinning rock by irradiating it with broad band light.
The rock has temperature, T.
You immerse and spin the rock in a fluid, gas, refrigerated bath.
The temperature of the rock, T,
will go:
(A)down
(B)up
Thanks to every single human being who endorsed the GHGE “theory” if your child doesn’t answer (B) that test question will be graded as wrong.”
“Right, it does describe exactly that, and you can not derive your concept from this formula, what you apparently did, otherwise you would not have referred to it as supporting your point.
So, you simply do not have a point, you are simply repeating the same thing without any basis in science. It seems that your mistake roots in misrepresentation of that formula.
All your argumentation about steepness, potential/thermal differential or pressure is an unfortunate example of misleading analogies. You can only talk about analogy to steepness etc. as an illustration after you have proven that radiation behaves like that, not the other way round. You seem to completely inverse the normal logical way of thinking.”
Wow, rarely have I encountered a person, alarmist or otherwise, with such a warped and entrenched outlook on things. You simply take the cake, Greg.
You proudly state: ‘you can not derive your concept from this formula’ Q = Aes*(Th^4 – Tc^4).
I hardly need to ‘derive’ my concept at all, Greg. This formula shows exactly what the ‘concept’ is. It specifically describes the ‘concept’. You even agreed to this by saying: ‘The formula describes what a colder body C would get from a hotter body H (…)’.
Yes.
Look at the formula, Greg. It applies specifically to two bodies without external/internal heat input. You still seem to ignore this. The output from Th is not fixed in any way. It is completely dependent on its surroundings.
Q is the power radiated from Th to Tc as it cools, A is the radiating area of Th and e is the emissivity of Th. Do you get it? It specifically describes the size/rate of the heat transfer. For unpowered objects, the heat TRANSFER between them equals the heat LOSS of the warmer body and the heat GAIN of the cooler body. They’re one and the same. Not so when the warmer body is powered to keep a fixed surface temperature – then it will not cool (nor will it warm by cooler surroundings). Because its heat output will always equal its heat input. Its E is maintained. Th above, though, doesn’t have a heat input to balance. It is unpowered. Its E will thus be drained, fast or slow.
It is perfectly straightforward. You insisting that this is absurd and physically impossible only goes to show us all how you simply don’t get the ‘concept’. If Th is initially at 3K and Tc at 0 K, with A and e considered 1 so as to be neglected, Q by simple calculation will be 4.6 x 10^-6 W. If the surroundings (Tc) were initially warmer, say 2K instead of 0 K, then Q by way of the same operation would be 3.7 x 10^-6 W. The heat transfer from Th to Tc is now smaller/slower, even though the temperature of Th is 3K in both instances. Hence, it will take Th longer to lose the same amount of energy (E) in the latter case as in the former.
What’s not to understand here …?
Greg, all you do is jabbering. You have yet to explain us how you picture an unpowered warm body at say 300K will initially cool (lose its E) just as fast to surroundings at 200K as to surroundings at 0 K.
Please do.
Kristian says (2013/06/10 at 12:18 AM): “You … state: ‘you can not derive your concept from this formula’ Q = Aes*(Th^4 – Tc^4).” I hardly need to ‘derive’ my concept at all, Greg. This formula shows exactly what the ‘concept’ is. .. It specifically describes the size/rate of the heat transfer.”
========================================================
No, no rate. Size only. The colder body C gets something from the hotter body H, that is all. You can not reasonably squeeze any “speed of cooling” out of it. Your concept has no basis… (see above). You contradict yourself and now have started going in circles.
And it is also of little relevance, since the IPCC concept is back radiation warming.
Pingback: Another Greenhouse Idiot | Climate of Sophistry
BTW, the person who inspired this post was Dr. Robert G Brown, from Duke University. He’s a PhD that doesn’t understand basic math, lol. Roy Spencer usually ends up trying to use the same lie as well.
Pingback: The Fraud of the AGHE Part 13: The Difference between Math and Physics | Climate of Sophistry
Pingback: Logical Physics Maths | Climate of Sophistry
Pingback: Why not Backradiation? The Amazing Nature of Light | Climate of Sophistry