By Flanders & Swann (my comments to follow after video & lyrics):
(the actual song starts at about 2:05…but the lead up is great to listen to as well)
(Michael = M, Donald = D)
M: The First law of Thermodynamics.
M: Heat is work and work is heat
D: Heat is work and work is heat
M: Very Good.
D: The Second law of thermodynamics.
M: Heat cannot of itself pass from one body to a hotter body
D: Heat cannot of itself pass from one body to a hotter body
M: Heat won’t pass from a cooler to a hotter
D: Heat won’t pass from a cooler to a hotter
M: You can try it if you like but you’d far better not-a
D: You can try it if you like but you’d far better not-a
M: ‘Cos the cold in the cooler will get hotter as a rule-a
D: ‘Cos the cold in the cooler will get hotter as a rule-a
M: ‘Cos the hotter body’s heat will pass to the cooler
D: ‘Cos the hotter body’s heat will pass to the cooler
Heat is work and work is heat and work is heat and heat is work
M: Heat will pass by conduction and
D: Heat will pass by conduction and
M: Heat will pass by convection and
D: Heat will pass by convection and
M: Heat will pass by radiation
D: Heat will pass by radiation
And that’s a physical law
M: Heat is work and work’s a curse
M: And all the heat in the universe
M: Is gonna cool down,
M: ‘Cos it can’t increase
M: Then there’ll be no more work
M: And there’ll be perfect peace
M: Yeah, that’s entropy, Man.
M: And all because of the second law of thermodynamics which lays down:
M: That you can’t pass heat from a cooler to a hotter
M: Try it if you like but you’d far better not-a
‘Cos the cold in the cooler will get hotter as a rule-a
‘Cos the hotter body’s heat will pass to the cooler
Oh, you can’t pass heat from a cooler to a hotter
Try it if you like but you’ll only look a fool-a
‘Cos the cold in the cooler will get hotter as a rule-a
And that’s a physical law
M: Oh, I’m hot
D: That’s because you’ve been working!
M: Oh, Beatles, nothing!
That’s the first and second laws of thermodynamics.
Allow me to summarize in my own words:
Heat flows from hot to cold; cold does not cause hot to become hotter; hot in warming cold does not become hotter still because it warmed the cold; only the colder temperature rises when it is heated by hot; a temperature can not heat itself.
Debunk the Greenhouse Effect
Now just to make the distinction for new or unfamiliar readers, this short preamble, then I’ll continue:
Real greenhouses function because there is no atmospheric radiative greenhouse effect. The greenhouse effect that is discussed by climate science for the atmosphere is an entirely different thing than the greenhouse effect of a real physical greenhouse. This is a very convenient hijack of definitions and concepts for creating confusion. A real greenhouse gets warm because it traps hot air. It prevents air which has been heated by the surfaces inside the greenhouse which have themselves been heated by sunshine, from convecting away (hot air rises, the glass roof stops this) and being replaced by cool air from above. That is the physical mechanism of a real greenhouse (because of its solid glass roof) and it has nothing to do with the supposed radiative greenhouse effect in our atmosphere. The underlying physical mechanisms are completely different, and so the term “greenhouse effect” which should correspond to a factual physical greenhouse and the physical trapping of warm air, gets hijacked and contorted and ambiguated with this other atmospheric radiative conception for the atmosphere. It’s a total disaster for clarity, definitions, conceptualization, logic, language, etc.
However the most ironic thing about this, is that the supposed radiative greenhouse effect (which is postulated for the atmosphere) should actually be found and exist in a real physical greenhouse too, because the physics should translate over – but it isn’t!
The only place the supposed radiative greenhouse mechanics exists is within climate alarm – it exists nowhere else in all of industry and all of science and all of physics, etc. It should exist everywhere else because as a basic principle of physics, it has to be universal, and it has to be applicable anywhere else that similar situations exist. Alas, it is nowhere else to be found. It should be seen in a real greenhouse of all places for goodness’ sake! But the radiative greenhouse effect isn’t even found there. Only the real greenhouse effect is found in a real greenhouse.
There literally exists no empirical evidence for the atmospheric radiative greenhouse effect version anywhere. Tests that have been performed to empirically demonstrate it have always and consistently failed to find it, among both critics of the atmospheric radiative greenhouse effect and its supporters. Real physical greenhouses exist; the idea of a radiative atmospheric greenhouse effect is a fiction which hijacks the name of the real thing in a real greenhouse.
The radiative atmospheric greenhouse effect was invented to stand-in for what the lapse rate already naturally explains about the atmosphere – that the bottom of the atmosphere has to be warmer than the blackbody average of the whole system (planet Earth) as seen from outer-space. This radiative greenhouse idea was invented because the lapse rate of the atmosphere, which is a fundamental physical characteristic of all atmospheres around all planets, is left out of the energy accounting and mathematical models that climate science and climate alarm uses for modelling the Earth.
The atmospheric greenhouse effect (AGHE) depends solely upon one of two alternative ideas. And yes please note this, that the supposedly scientific theory of the atmospheric greenhouse effect doesn’t even have a consistent explanation. In any case, we either have that 1) the colder atmosphere heats up the surface, or 2) the atmosphere acts like a mirror and sends surface radiation back to the surface to heat itself up above its own temperature.
Option 1) is a plain falsity because of the Laws of Thermodynamics. Cold doesn’t heat up hot, heat doesn’t flow from cold to hot, hot in heating cold doesn’t become hotter still because it heated the cold. QED. This option doesn’t need to be considered any further. To be sure, this used to be the most common argument and used the phraseology of “backradiation” to “justify” the heating. However, thermal backradiation heating is simply thermal heating from cold going to hot. This is the argument that some organizations still use, but people who are involved in this debate with me have abandoned it because it is so plainly absurd and anti-scientific, and they’ve gotten badly trashed for using it.
Option 2) can be used to develop much more complex sounding mechanics, that usually revolves around a phraseology of “trapping” radiation or heat. All you need to do to figure this one out is take the postulate to the perfect limit, where the atmosphere was a perfect mirror and reflected 100% of the thermal electromagnetic radiation from the surface back to the surface. Again, the Laws of Thermodynamics: a temperature can not increase its own temperature; a temperature can not heat itself; a temperature can not transfer heat to the same temperature or itself. What happens to your temperature when you stand in front of a mirror and get your radiant heat reflected back to you? Nothing. Does shining a flashlight into a mirror make the flashlight shine brighter? No. (Children know this).
So, that’s it. All of the arguments for this atmospheric radiative greenhouse effect (which hijacks the name of the real thing of a completely different process in a real physical greenhouse) fall under one of those two options. Many of the posts on this blog are an analysis of the variations on the arguments, but the summary here is basically all you need to debunk the atmospheric greenhouse effect of climate science and climate alarm.
Without this fake atmospheric radiative version of the greenhouse effect, climate alarm has no basis and no validity whatsoever. Carbon dioxide is plant food and nature wants us to bump it back up to healthier levels of concentration in the atmosphere that are better matched to the evolutionary development and geological history of life. What is a healthier level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere? Four to five times the concentration it is now – from a scant 400 parts per million of the atmosphere, to a healthier and more robust 2000 parts per million of the atmosphere. If you want to help save the planet, then help figure out a way to get carbon out of the ground and back into the atmosphere and into the biosphere where it originally was and belongs. If the carbon in the ground can be used for producing energy for improving the standard of life of man along the way, then it is a mutual, circle-of-life, Gaiaesque benefit for all.