## Heat Flow

The climate science greenhouse effect is a simulacrum.  It is not science, nor is everything that is based on it science.  All of climate alarm is a simulacrum, a fraud, and most of what could have been real climate science has been infected and ruined by it.  It uses the words of science to give itself the appearance of science, but it does not actually contain the essence of science, i.e. the method or wisdom or rationality of science.  See the last post for more detail on this.  What it is, is an attack on human existence.

Let’s cover some basics about calculating the temperature that heating from sunlight is able to generate on a surface absorbing solar energy.

The temperature T induced by sunlight on a cooler surface when in thermal equilibrium is given by

F = ε*σ*T4

where F is the absorbed (and then re-emitted when in equilibrium) flux.  The absorbed flux is the solar insolation, ‘I’, multiplied by the absorptivity, and absorptivity is 1 minus the albedo ‘α’.  So then

I*(1-α) = ε*σ*T4

and you can rearrange for T to get the temperature of the surface absorbing the insolation:

T = (I*(1-α)/ε/σ)1/4

This equation predicts surface temperatures exposed to sunlight very accurately, as shown in real greenhouses, black asphalt, beach sand, car interiors, spacecraft, etc.

Now, the equation

Q = A*σ*(Th4 – Tc4)

is for heat flow.  (‘A’ is the area here so that the units of heat are properly in Joules.)  Q is just the portion of the energy which is flowing as heat.  This is a different thing than what we just looked at.  Q is not the value of absorbed solar insolation, I*(1-a).  Q is not the solar insolation energy.  If it was, then you would have

I*(1-α) = A*σ*(Th4 – Tc4)

but that equation is nonsensical, because the terms don’t make sense given the preexisting context of solar insolation absorbed into a surface.  In the first place, the units on the left and right hand sides don’t even match!  And then, what is Th?  Is Th for the temperature of the surface being heated by the insolation?  Let’s say it is.  If it is, then what is Tc?  What other surface is Tc the temperature of?  There isn’t another surface, because there was only one surface being heated by insolation.  Is Tc the temperature of the surface before being heated to Th?  If it was, that’s not what the original equation meant in the first place, because Tc and Th were the temperatures of two different sources, a warm one and a cool one, and Q was just the heat flow between them, not the external energy input to either of them.  If the left-side of the equation is the absorbed solar flux, then what is Th, and what is Tc?  Why does the solar flux depend on the temperature difference between two arbitrary surfaces on the right hand side, when the solar flux is being absorbed only by the surface absorbing it, and is its own independent quantity?  None of this makes any physical or logical sense any more.

The reason why this is important is because the believers in the alternative version of the greenhouse effect of climate science say that the last equation explains their greenhouse effect.  This has been discussed previously in “How to Lie with Math“, and “The Tautology of GHE Math” relates to it too.

The original equation for heat flow is a sensible equation, it is just that what the “IPCC greenhouse effect” believers try to do with it which makes no logical sense, as just easily demonstrated.  Let’s return to it and do the correct things with it:

Q = A*σ*(Th4 – Tc4)

So in the case of solar insolation on a surface, and in the reference frame of the laws of physics, thermodynamics and heat flow, heat only flows from hotter to cooler, and this is obviously what this equation describes.  If the surface where the insolation is supposed to be going is independently warmer than what the absorbed insolation would have been able to induce, then the solar insolation will not warm the surface.  The direction of heat flow will be from the surface outwards, rather than “from outwards” to the surface.

The radiative heat flow equation, in general, is simply about having two potential sources of heat, and determining how much energy can flow as heat between the two sources.  So, in the case of solar insolation on a surface, we have thus identified the two sources: 1) the solar insolation, and 2) the surface absorbing the insolation.  The heat flow equation is simply then

Q = A*(I*(1-α) – ε*σ*TS4)

where TS is the temperature of the surface.  That is, the amount of energy flowing as heat from the solar insolation to the surface is given by a function of the difference between the temperature of the absorbed solar insolation and the temperature of the surface.  Now the heat flow equation makes physical and logical sense in the context of solar heating on a surface, and there are no superfluous illogical terms.  An obvious result is that, if the absorbed solar insolation is equal in strength to the thermal emission from the surface, that is, equilibrium, then there will be no heat flow, i.e. Q = 0 and so

I*(1-α) = ε*σ*TS4

which gives us back

TS = (I*(1-α)/ε/σ)1/4

for the temperature of the surface when in equilibrium with the insolation input.  So now we’ve made the Stefan-Boltzmann equation method for determining the temperature of a surface absorbing radiation in equilibrium, totally consistent with the heat flow equation, by deriving it from the heat flow equation.  It always was there in the first place of course, it just hadn’t been required to demonstrate it until the IPCC greenhouse effect believers reinterpreted (incorrectly) some of the maths.

Note that there is an interesting logical condition to consider when the temperature of the surface is independently warmer than the temperature forcing from the insolation.  In this case, as was stated, the insolation will not increase the temperature of the surface because the heat flow direction will be away from the surface, rather than toward it.  Does that then mean that a surface at 1500C, when faced with solar insolation forcing of 1210C, sends heat to and thus warms the Sun which is already at 60510C?  Don’t you love logical opportunities to learn logical physics?  The answer is logically important in how it is essential to the meaning and situational understanding of the heat flow equation.

In the heat flow equation for the solar insolation on the surface,

Q = A*(I*(1-α) – ε*σ*TS4),

all of the terms are in-situ, that is they correspond to a specific locality.  First, consider Q; where is the heat flow that it denotes?  It doesn’t provide its own answer, so get to the next term, I*(1-α).  Aha!  That term definitely defines a location.  Why?  Because solar insolation is a function of distance from the Sun, and so whatever value that we’ve been using for ‘I’ is the value that it has at the surface with temperature TS.  That is, the equation denotes the heat flow directly at the surface’s location.

So now, if you want to know the heat flow at the surface of the Sun, given that the other TS surface was warmer than the local solar insolation upon it which therefore indicated a heat flow away from it, you need to use the insolation of solar energy at the solar surface and the insolation provided by the surface and temperature from TS at the distance it is away from the Sun.

Well you should be able to imagine in your mind’s eye what happens: the surface of the Sun will be way hotter than the temperature of the insolation from TS, and so the TS surface will not heat the surface of the Sun, because it is too cool at that distance.  The laws of thermodynamics are obeyed.

Note the final conditions of this scenario, then.  The surface was warmer than the solar insolation forcing temperature, and so the solar energy couldn’t raise the temperature of the surface.  The direction of heat flow was in fact, and obviously, from the warmer surface, towards the Sun.  However, the radiant heat from the surface doesn’t actually “make it” to the Sun because by the time it gets there, it has been diluted so much that it is too weak to do anything.  Locally, heat is flowing outward from the surface TS, but it is also flowing outward from the surface of the Sun.  In between, the heat seems to just get “lost”, and so where does it go?  To the heat and entropy of the space between the surface and the Sun, to the growing heat and entropy of the universe.  Locally, radiant heat flow can be “outward”; at the other location, however, it might not actually cause any heating, because of the local conditions there, and the heat flow can be outward at that location as well.

I mean just think of if it always did cause heating: then you’d have situations where as a hotter source heated something up, the radiation from the thing which got heated up would cause the source of heat to heat up further, which would then heat up the other thing some more…  Well this obviously quickly runs away and is a simple exponential positive-feedback, and that’s not how thermodynamics or reality works.

For those with the memory, that’s the heart of the error with Eschenbach’s steel greenhouse; he merely stopped the mutual-heating feedback cycle at the value he desired as if conservation of energy is a force that can suddenly stop the backradiation heating he used to amplify the temperature in the first place.  That is, as his outer shell warmed up, its “backradiation” continuously came back to warm up the interior sphere some more, which then warmed the outer shell some more, thus setting up a mutual heating cycle.  This cycle can’t stop just because it is convenient to stop it at a pre-desired value…the backradiation from the shell can’t just suddenly cut off its heating of the interior sphere at 240 W/m2.  The 240 W/m2 still needs to come back to the sphere from the shell which will still cause the sphere to continue heating up some more – it doesn’t matter what happens on the outside because it is the established conditions on the inside which set up the heating cycle in the first place.  That it indicates that more than 240 W/m2 would begin to be emitted to the outside if we naturally continued the heating cycle which was set up is the point!  That point indicates the entire logical error of the whole thought experiment!

## Energy Conservation

Stating the heat flow equation once again,

Q = A*σ*(Th4 – Tc4)

we often find this reinterpreted by climate science greenhouse effect believers as if it represents conservation of energy.  Typically the statement will be: “Since Q needs to be conserved, because it is the energy from the Sun, then if the atmosphere Tc warms up, the surface Th needs to warm up also in order to conserve Q, and this is the atmospheric radiative greenhouse effect.”  Of course as we’ve seen, that absolutely makes no sense.  Q is not the energy from the Sun, and the energy from the Sun is not dependent upon the difference in temperature between the surface and the atmosphere on the right hand side of the equation.  Q is simply the quantity of energy which flows as heat between two sources, it doesn’t specify the solar energy or relate to energy conservation.

Of course, the correct application of the heat flow equation with the solar insolation and radiant energy from a surface is

Q = A*(I*(1-α) – ε*σ*TS4)

which when in equilibrium results in

I*(1-α) = ε*σ*TS4,

which is just the Stefan-Boltzmann Law

F = ε*σ*TS4

Thus we have seen how the Stefan-Boltzmann Law for radiation and the heat flow equation for radiation can be directly related to each other, and we have shown that these do not lend any interpretation towards the alternative version of the greenhouse effect of climate science, the radiative greenhouse effect, which of course as we know failed the empirical and propositional test long ago.

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

### 80 Responses to Logical Physics Maths

1. D.M. says:

Another very good, and necessary, explanation Joe which anyone who has studied physics should be able to understand. Unfortunately it is the people who have little grasp of the physical laws (including the Climastrologists and politicians!) that need to be able understand what you have demonstrated. Can you summarise for them at the end, in simple layman’s language, what you have shown in the mathematics?

I only recently started looking into what was driving the global warming/ climate change hysteria and I am astounded at what I found out. The ignorance of physical laws shown by some of those who are not shy to let the world know they are Dr ??? or ??? PhD. I cannot believe that these “big names” in the “climate science” community can have qualifications which include physics. For a start did none of them learn about Prevost’s Theory of Exchanges and understand what it means? Do they even know a definition for temperature? I like the definition in my physics book from 50+ years ago – “Temperature is the condition of matter which determines the direction in which the resultant flow of heat takes place”. Maybe that definition should also have added that the heat flow is always in the direction from the higher to the lower temperature for the benefit of future “climate scientists”! One consolation is that schools in England are still teaching Prevost’s Theory as I found in this physics exam revision site -http://www.astarmathsandphysics.com/a_level_physics_notes/thermal_physics_and_gases/a_level_physics_notes_prevosts_theory_of_heat_exchange.html . There is hope for the future! Perhaps the climate PhDs should read this also!

Unfortunately many young people think that Wikipedia is an authoritative source of information, encouraged by teachers to use the internet, and they will learn about the “greenhouse gas” theory there (which must be correct!). Although I am a fan of the internet I don’t think you learn real science from it. It requires authoritative books which are logically laid out and clearly explain, step by step, the processes. (Just like you have been doing Joe in some of these blogs).

I don’t know if you have seen this relatively recent paper which shows a correlation between changes in the earth’s cloud cover and the changes in the published “average” temperatures. Although it is mentioned somewhere in the IPCC report they ignored it and concentrated on their beloved CO2! http://notrickszone.com/2013/12/01/ipcc-finds-the-important-natural-climate-driver-solar-surface-radiation-intensity-but-then-ignores-and-buries-it/ .

2. Truthseeker says:

D.M.,

Isn’t Prevost’s Theory one of the justifications that the alarmists can use for their version of heat flow physics? They are all about radiation does not choose a direction and therefore if a hot body is getting radiation from a cold body, then that must cause it to get hotter?

3. Greg House says:

Joe, I am not done with the reading yet, but my humble mind has already stumbled over “heat flow not causing any heating”.

I do believe intuitively that 150°C hot plate does not warm the Sun, but that famous formula above does not contain anything related to distance. That’s weird. The only logical explanation that occurs to me is that this formula is applicable only to distances close to zero. For significantly longer distances there must be something else.

4. D.M. says:

Truthseeker my reason for mentioning Prevost’s Theory was to show that a long time ago it was known that a warmer body and a cooler body radiating to each other would only achieve a state of equilibrium. The simple example in the link I gave explains this for school students.
http://www.astarmathsandphysics.com/a_level_physics_notes/thermal_physics_and_gases/a_level_physics_notes_prevosts_theory_of_heat_exchange.html

5. joeldshore says:

For a start did none of them learn about Prevost’s Theory of Exchanges and understand what it means? Do they even know a definition for temperature? I like the definition in my physics book from 50+ years ago – “Temperature is the condition of matter which determines the direction in which the resultant flow of heat takes place”. Maybe that definition should also have added that the heat flow is always in the direction from the higher to the lower temperature for the benefit of future “climate scientists”!

Since you seem to think that climate scientists don’t know that heat flows from higher to lower temperatures, perhaps you can show us that by providing us with a model of the greenhouse effect where the heat flow (i.e., the net of Prevost’s exchanges) is in the direction from lower to higher temperatures.

By the way, if you look at these more modern introductory physics textbooks, you’ll see that they all discuss the atmospheric greenhouse effect (as a real effect that keeps the Earth’s surface about 33 K warmer than it otherwise would be):

* Young & Freedman, “University Physics”, 13th edition.
* Knight, Jones, & Field, “College Physics”, 2nd edition.
* Freedman, Ruskell, Kesten, & Tauck, “College Physics”, 1st edition.
* Serway & Faughn, “College Physics”, 6th edition.
* Giambattista, Richardson, & Richardson, “College Physics”, 2nd edition.

If you instead want to read in a little more detail in an upper-level undergraduate textbook for physics majors, you can go to Kittel and Kroemer, “Thermal Physics”, 2nd edition. It advertises its brief discussion of the greenhouse effect right on the front cover: http://www.amazon.com/Thermal-Physics-Edition-Charles-Kittel/dp/0716710889/ref=sr_1_1

6. @D.M.

Yes I like that definition of temperature very much: “Temperature is the condition of matter which determines the direction in which the resultant flow of heat takes place”, with heat flowing from the higher to the lower 🙂

Again I am having people tell me in the comments at PSI that

Q = A*s(Th^4 – Tc^4)

is supposed to indicate conservation of solar energy where Q is the solar energy, and the hot term is the surface and the cool one the atmosphere. Conservation of solar energy does not occur between the surface and the atmosphere. Why would solar energy be conserved as a difference in flux, as a heat flow, between the surface and atmosphere? This reinterpretation of the equation simply has no logical or physical basis. Solar energy is conserved to the outside of the system, not inside between the surface and atmosphere. I just don’t know how these people are able to come up with these reinterpretations – are they daft, or know that they’re BS’ing?

Yes not surprising that the IPCC buries the science that sunshine and clouds are what affect temperature…ha.

7. Joel, analogies to the physical greenhouse effect of a real greenhouse do not prove that the radiative version analogy is correct. As is known by anyone capable of understanding science, the radiative version climate science greenhouse effect does not exist, and fails the empirical test. It doesn’t matter that people write analogies of “what if’s”, etc.

And yes, temperature increase requires positive heat flow, and so the radiative greenhouse and IPCC budgets do show and claim that heat flows from cold to hot, in plain violation of all physics.

8. Max™ says:

Greg, he mentioned that it was a formula for heat flow at a given location.

If you define the location to be elsewhere you have to account for it accordingly.

Defining the location as the surface of a planet and then trying to act like it gives information about heat flow at the surface of a star which is near the planet would be a bit silly when stated that way, wouldn’t it?

Similarly if you work out heat flow from the surface of the planet to the atmosphere and then try to claim it defines the heat flow from the atmosphere to space.

Yes, there is a relationship between them, and you can combine them into an overall description of heat flow from the surface to space, but you can’t infer absolute properties about one portion of that system simply by looking at another portion.

As an example, looking at the upward heat flow from the martian surface doesn’t tell you the conditions at the sun, it doesn’t even restrict it to being the same star.

Any number of different arrangements with brighter or dimmer stars at different distances could produce the same observable state at the surface of a planet like Mars.
____________

It’s just annoying seeing people act like surface radiation is a scalar and trying to add radiation values like scalars gives absurd results, hence why vectors were developed to work with such quantities.

Similarly for intrinsic and extrinsic properties.

You can add masses, you can add volumes, you can even average these properties if you want.

Does putting a piece of wood next to a piece of steel change the density of either material?

Well, temperature is like density, it doesn’t add, accordingly it doesn’t average.

Is placing an ice cube and cup of boiling water side by side the same as having a cup of room temperature water?

No, you can GET room temperature water from them after the systems interact, but until then you don’t argue the presence of an ice cube near a cup of boiling water means the water isn’t actually boiling, do you?

So accordingly you wouldn’t argue that averaging their temperature has any physical meaning, right?

So why would averaging different temperatures around the planet have any physical meaning?

Why would comparing said average to a nonsensical value calculated by adding vectors like scalars have any physical meaning?

Hell, there is an argument which is obvious after hearing it, but which I’ve not yet seen said explicitly: sunlight is a vector property, this means it has a scalar value and a non-trivial orientation.

Sunlight which is reaching the surface is oriented in a completely different direction relative to that surface at night.

Hence the important difference between 239 W/m^2 for 24 hours (equivalent to a dayside oriented vector and a nightside oriented vector) and 476 W/m^2 for 12 hours + ~0 W/m^2 for 12 hours, giving a dayside oriented and nightside oriented vector quantity to work with.

Emissions are always oriented the same way relative to the surface, so you can use 239 W/m^2 for 24 hours and then compare the 476 W/m^2 dayside oriented and ~0 W/m^2 nightside oriented vectors against the oppositely oriented emission vectors.

9. Greg House says:

joeldshore says:
* Young & Freedman, “University Physics”, 13th edition.
* Knight, Jones, & Field, “College Physics”, 2nd edition.
* Freedman, Ruskell, Kesten, & Tauck, “College Physics”, 1st edition.
* Serway & Faughn, “College Physics”, 6th edition.
* Giambattista, Richardson, & Richardson, “College Physics”, 2nd edition.
=========================================================

So, climate liars have found a way to insert the “greenhouse effect” lie in a few textbooks? That’s a disgrace.

It is exactly the same sort of disgrace as the IPCC reports stating impossible and clearly absurd “greenhouse effect”.

If your intent is to legitimate this unscientific crap by referring to those textbooks, then it is not different from legitimizing child molestation by referring to the catholic priests who molested children. Must be the right thing since priests did that, right?

10. Brilliant…above two comments…for very different reasons of course 🙂

11. Greg House says:

Max™ says: “Greg, he mentioned that it was a formula for heat flow at a given location. If you define the location to be elsewhere you have to account for it accordingly.”
========================================================

Since it is about heat flow from… to…, it is not just 1 location, it is 2 locations.

There always is a distance between locations. In the formula, as I said and as you know, there is no reference to locations. This can only be logical, if the formula is only applicable to cases where the distance is negligible. If you disagree with that, go ahead, please, and present your objections.

12. Greg I discussed that in the text, starting at the paragraph starting with “Note that there is an interesting logical condition to consider when the temperature of the surface is independently warmer than the temperature forcing from the insolation.” The location is specified by the application of the equation – you have two sources, not two locations in the equation…you have the two sources establishing the heat flow at one of the source locations.

13. Greg House says:

Joe, it’s OK, the thing is just a little bit confusing. You can obtain the right results, of course, but the explanation gets confusing, since the source is far away and locations do not have temperatures, so you need to introduce “temperature forcing” close to the location and that is not in the formula, and eventually you logically land at “heat flow without heating”. The problem is that our target audience will hardly take all that.

14. Yes I did see that, and is why I tried to specify that the equation is referring to locations in-situ, not at a distance. Yes, temperature forcing at one of the source locations.

15. Greg House says:

Just two words, Joe: target audience.

16. Arfur Bryant says:

Joe and D.M.

D.M., thank you for your first link. It addresses a question I posed to an online university physics forum and got the answer “Yes, Radiation from B to A always warms A irrespective of their original temperatures.”!

Joe, I’ve been reading up on Prevost’s theory. This link seems to be fairly clear…

… and quite apt to the GW debate.

My question is this: The theory (or at least how people explain it) appears to imply that radiation from a cooler body is absorbed by a warmer body but that the overall ‘net’ flow will always be from hot to cold. But wouldn’t the theory be the same if no cooler radiation was ‘absorbed’? E.g, if the ‘cooler’ radiation was either reflected, deflected or just passed through the warmer body, the result would still be the same (the two bodies would be at thermal equilibrium).

So, the arrow in D.M.’s link from cool to hot, whilst truly being emitted by the cooler body, has no bearing on the warmer body. Hence any ‘theorised backradiation’ would have absolutely no effect on the surface temperature.

17. D.M. says:

I like Max’s contribution above where he gives examples of other properties which can be added and which can’t be added together. The subject of averaged properties could form a separate complete blog from Joe, including a revisit to the subject of “flux”. I still read comments where fluxes are being added together (and averaged which includes additions) to obtain the desired outcome. This seems to be a subject which many people just cannot understand and is so fundamental to the “IPCC greenhouse effect”. (Ie. A flat earth with an averaged input flux).

I’m also not going to spend \$152 to purchase Joel’s recommended book which contains a brief discussion on the “greenhouse effect”. For \$152 I want specific factual scientific details along with experimental evidence to back it up!

18. Max™ says:

Since it is about heat flow from… to…, it is not just 1 location, it is 2 locations. ~Greg House

I would say it is heat flow “through” a given surface.

Though, I suppose you could try to represent it as something like a tensorial structure representing the heat flow through a sheaf of arbitrarily selected surfaces from location a to location b?

In general though if you pick a point between two locations, barring atmospheric effects or other obstructions, the equation Joe gave will produce an answer which is “right enough” for anything you may need to do with the information.

If the distances between the locations being considered are large enough that the inverse-square effects on radiation have to be taken into account then it should be obvious pretty quickly, like trying to work out the heat flow from the surface of the Sun to the surface of the Earth by just inputting 6000K and 289K, leaving you to wonder why the planet isn’t being blasted away under such a withering hellfire.

That works fine if the Earth is within a certain distance of the Sun, I would guess that anywhere the Sun is close enough to fill about half the sky you won’t be far off the right answer.

The angular size of the sky from the ground means you don’t have to ask if any of the surface emissions miss the sky completely; if they do we have greater problems than minor temperature variations, as someone managed to open a gate to the spaces between the directions we are familiar with, probably trying to summon the Sleeper or the Black Pharaoh or Cthulhu or something.

______

Oh, and yeah, I agree about it being a bit maddening seeing people adding fluxes naively, D.M.–though I’m compelled to ask if I need to roll a saving throw or am I just out of luck there–if you have flux with the same orientation, generally the strongest is going to overwhelm anything else. Shining two 100 Watt bulbs at a wall is not the same as shining one 200 Watt bulb at it.

Then you get people trying to add differently directed fluxes withough using vector addition… which starts my cheek twitching and teeth grinding.

19. @Arfur
The arrow from the cooler body can not perform any work on the hotter body, because there is no heat flow from the cooler to the hotter. They’re just making things up from that university forum. Cooler doesn’t heat hot while hot heats cooler – this is completely illogical, and doesn’t allow for the concept of equilibrium, and it is not what the radiant heat flow equation says. The “net” of the arrows is the ONLY thing that can induce temperature to move, not each arrow taken on its own, but only the sum of the arrows. Only the net sum of the arrows causes temperature to move, and it doesn’t move such that hot becomes hotter, only the cool becomes hotter.

20. Max I got a post coming just for you. You’ll see what I mean 🙂

21. @Arfur, you should send that guy my last two posts plus my next one coming up in a bit, and witness a conniption fit.

22. Arfur Bryant says:

Joe,

[“Only the net sum of the arrows causes temperature to move, and it doesn’t move such that hot becomes hotter, only the cool becomes hotter.”]

I’ve got that , Joe. I agree.

He has accused me of asking a dishonest question. I feel like saying to him:

So [“Is it possible for radiation emitted from a cooler energy source to heat a warmer energy source?”] is a dishonest question, but [“Yes. Radiation from B to A always warms A, regardless of their initial temperatures.”] is an honest answer?

On the other hand, I might not bother. 🙂

23. What an SOB! Accuses YOU of asking a dishonest question. Of course because he’s trying to make his dishonesty slide off him and stick to you. Haven’t I described that in a comment here somewhere lately? That’s what they do.

Yah…haha!! Great way to reply! Exactly! Hello!!??

24. joeldshore says:

Joel, analogies to the physical greenhouse effect of a real greenhouse do not prove that the radiative version analogy is correct.

The books that I referenced all talk about the radiative greenhouse effect, not the temperature in greenhouses. So, whether or not the analogy between the two is a good one or not is completely irrelevant.

[JP: The radiative greenhouse effect IS the analogy, and it is false. The textbooks discuss an analogy that doesn’t exist in reality.]

And yes, temperature increase requires positive heat flow, and so the radiative greenhouse and IPCC budgets do show and claim that heat flows from cold to hot, in plain violation of all physics.

No…They always show the heat flow, that is the net flow of energy is from hot to cold. Show me one model of the greenhouse effect shows otherwise.

Temperature increase only occurs in the presence of the sun.

[JP: With the colder atmosphere causing the warmer surface to become warmer still, a plain and silly violation of logic and physics and heat flow. Any radiative greenhouse diagram implies the colder atmosphere sending heat to the warmer surface…that doesn’t get hidden just because there’s still a “new flow” (lol) to the outside.]

Again, the analogy with water in a sink is useful in order to understand how reducing the ability of heat to escape from a body that is receiving thermal energy from another source (or is converting some other form of energy into thermal energy) can result in a rise of the temperature of the body.

[JP: Water and photons don’t behave the same way, and analogies don’t get around the fact that the real thing can’t actually be described directly because it doesn’t exist. Your analogies give away the fraud; you can’t describe the real thing directly, and when the math is used which has been created for the supposed real thing, it refutes itself empirically, notwithstanding the violations of thermodynamics it already implies.]

25. joeldshore says:

Arfur Bryant says:

So, the arrow in D.M.’s link from cool to hot, whilst truly being emitted by the cooler body, has no bearing on the warmer body. Hence any ‘theorised backradiation’ would have absolutely no effect on the surface temperature.

Such an idea is incompatible with conservation of energy. You can’t just have energy disappearing, i.e., having no effect on anything.

[JP: Joel, the radiation from the cooler body does not heat the warmer body. This is not energy disappearing, it is heat flow. The energies oppose each other with only the stronger causing heating. You’re trying to pretend that the cold has to cause heating or else energy isn’t conserved…so you don’t understand the first thing about heat flow, conservation of energy, etc.]

Joe Postma is correct that it is the NET flow that matters. Of course, he ignores the fact that the backradiation reduces the net flow (for a given temperature of the Earth’s surface) and this requires that the surface temperature increase so that the Earth is still radiating away energy at the same rate as it is receiving it from the sun.

[JP: Backradiation has been tested for heating, in real greenhouses and the open atmosphere, and it doesn’t cause heating. That’s because the energy from the cold does not heat the warmer, heat only flows from hot to cold. Your hypothesis has been tested and it failed.]

The division here is between people like myself and the guy on the U of Illinois website who have solved steady-state problems and know how they work and those here who apparently haven’t and can’t see the elementary errors that they are making.

[JP: lol. Cold doesn’t make hot hotter.]

26. Arfur Bryant says:

Yes Joe, You have described that very thing.

I’ve been posting on climate blogs for years trying to argue logic – and usually succeeding – but there has definitely been a sea change in the last couple of years toward specious arguments based on nothing more than an assumption. The worst of them then resort to sanctimonious appeals to their own authority,

The more I have read, the more I am convinced your crusade against their hypocrisy is right.

Kind regards,

Arfur

27. “The worst of them then resort to sanctimonious appeals to their own authority,”

You mean like Dr. Robert Brown? He’s the worst I’ve ever witnessed for that!

28. D.M. says:

Joel Shore says
“The division here is between people like myself and the guy on the U of Illinois website who have solved steady-state problems and know how they work and those here who apparently haven’t and can’t see the elementary errors that they are making.”

I can’t wait to find out what elementary errors my text books and lecturers made when I was a student 55 years ago. Still I am always willing to learn something new.

29. Greg House says:

Joe, maybe you just shouldn’t use the “net” word, because “net” implies 2 flows in opposite directions.

30. Well I think that’s part of their sophistry and redefining of things: net is supposed to indicate the residual, one way, is it not?; while “gross” flows would indicate two ways.

Could start using “residual” flow…but that is what net is supposed to mean…

31. Greg House says:

Guys, f***ing warmists (please excuse my French) use the same trick again and again. They replace the question “what happens to temperature” with “what happens to radiation/energy”.

As far as I understand, nobody knows for sure what exactly happens to radiation/energy, it’s all just theory, therefore all the attempts to clarify that are doomed. Worse, the readers are confused and likely to miss the central point, and this makes the f***ing warmists happy, of course.

Chronologically, all those theoretical things, right or wrong, only follow the observations. So, the fact that colder things do not warm warmer things is observed everywhere and by everyone, this is what we should focus our readers on. The same goes for the main point: impossibility of self-heating by own heat, which the IPCC “greenhouse effect is”. Let’s find an easy understandable argumentation based on observations and not fall into the same obfuscation trap again and again.

32. Yes I agree. Will begin work on that.

33. joeldshore says:

D.M. says:

I can’t wait to find out what elementary errors my text books and lecturers made when I was a student 55 years ago. Still I am always willing to learn something new.

You have yet to demonstrate that those textbooks and lecturers made any elementary errors. What sort of steady-state problems did you solve in the courses that you took?

34. Arfur Bryant says:

Joel,

[““The division here is between people like myself and the guy on the U of Illinois website who have solved steady-state problems and know how they work and those here who apparently haven’t and can’t see the elementary errors that they are making.””]

Ok Joel, simple question. Do you agree with the U of Illinois guy with his statement:

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

Yes or no?

35. Arfur Bryant says:

Greg & Joe,

Greg says [“Let’s find an easy understandable argumentation based on observations and not fall into the same obfuscation trap again and again.]”

Here is my observational-based argument:

Remember that, before 1850 (IPCC date), there was an ‘Atmosphere Effect’ (GHE if you are that way inclined). By observation and deduction, that AE/GHE was appx 32.2 deg C. (From current 33C less the ‘enhanced GHE’ of 0.8C since 1850.)

Some pro-cAGW writers (Schmidt, Trenberth, Lacis, scienceofdoom) have imbued CO2 with the ability to contribute 20-26% of the so-called Greenhouse Effect (GHE). They claim this is so because of the radiative properties of 0.039% of the atmosphere. The figure of 26% is so ludicrous one wonders how they managed to get this notion through what is meant to be an objective peer-review process. 26%? Really? They think that, back in 1850, 0.028% was responsible for 8.3C out of the 32.2C ‘GHE’, and yet a whopping 40% increase in that powerful GHG CO2 has only led to an unknown portion of 0.8C in 160+ years? Get real. ‘Thermal inertia lag’ has no supporting evidence. ‘Positive feedbacks’ has no supporting evidence. There is no observational evidence that any of the 0.8C rise observed since 1850 is due to CO2.

All the observational evidence indicates that CO2 has either no or not measurable effect on ‘global temperature’. If the radiative GHE existed, it existed before 1850 as well…

36. Arfur Bryant says:

Joel

[“Such an idea is incompatible with conservation of energy. You can’t just have energy disappearing, i.e., having no effect on anything.”]

Joel, energy doesn’t disappear, but it doesn’t have to be absorbed either. The idea of backradiation is incompatible with the conservation of energy as it increases the energy level of its original source. Whether or not the so-called ‘backradiation’ (if it exists) is absorbed for energy gain is the crucial question in this debate.

37. Greg House says:

Arfur Bryant says: “Here is my observational-based argument:
Remember that, before 1850 (IPCC date), there was an ‘Atmosphere Effect’ (GHE if you are that way inclined). By observation and deduction, that AE/GHE was appx 32.2 deg C. (From current 33C less the ‘enhanced GHE’ of 0.8C since 1850.)”
====================================================

Good job, Arfur. I stress the importance of reference to observations everyone is familiar with from the everyday life, and here you are right away making up a fake “observation” of 33°C “greenhouse effect”! We should “remember” that, as if that unscientific crap was real, I see.

38. Greg House says:

Arfur Bryant says: “[“Yes. Radiation from B to A always warms A, regardless of their initial temperatures.”]
Yes or no?
===================================================

Arfur, you know very well that colder things do not warm warmer things, it is exactly the other way round.

39. Greg House says:

Arfur Bryant says: “Whether or not the so-called ‘backradiation’ (if it exists) is absorbed for energy gain is the crucial question in this debate.”
================================================

No, this is not quite correct. The crucial point is not about “energy gain”, it is about temperature.

Our clever warmists understandably want us to discuss radiation and energy instead of temperature, because no increase in temperature because of fictitious “greenhouse effect” is easily observable for everyone, at the same time 99.99% of our target audience get lost and confused when radiation and energy are discussed.

You want us discuss exactly that, right?

40. Max™ says:

Of course, he ignores the fact that the backradiation reduces the net flow (for a given temperature of the Earth’s surface) and this requires that the surface temperature increase so that the Earth is still radiating away energy at the same rate as it is receiving it from the sun. ~joeldshore

The illuminated hemisphere of the Earth absorbs energy at a rate of 1.22×10^17 Joules per second from the Sun.

The entire surface of the Earth emits energy at a rate of 1.22×10^17 Joules per second to outer space.

If you follow the convention of representing this in W/m^2 then the rate is in units of Joules per second per square meter.

The Earth absorbs ~476 Joules per second per square meter from the Sun across the illuminated hemisphere.

The Earth can not emit ~476 Joules per second per square meter to space, as it is twice as much energy as it receives from the Sun.

2.55×10^14 * 476 W/m^2 = 5.10×10^14 * 239 W/m^2
Half the area * energy absorbed = the full area * energy lost to space

Here’s a quick sanity check.

Day side:
476 W/m^2 towards the surface —->
+ 239
The surface oriented vector is reduced to 239 W/m^2

Night side:

= —-> 239
The space oriented vector remains 239 W/m^2

Taken this way the Earth can be viewed as a mechanism for reducing the power of the sunlight vector from 476 —-> to 239 —->

That makes sense unless you think that the shadow of the Earth is as bright as those locations which are receiving direct sunlight.

41. Max™ says:

DAMN YOU WORDPRESS! Feel free to snip the one 3:53 PM one, Joe.

```Day side: 476 W/m^2 towards the surface ~~~> + The surface oriented vector is reduced to 239 W/m^2 ~~~>```

``` ```

```Night side: towards space = 239 ~~~> The space oriented vector remains 239 W/m^2 ~~~>```

42. Max™ says:

DAMNATION, TREATING MY CRAP ASCII VECTORS AS A CUE TO HIDE LINES!

43. joeldshore says:

Arfur Bryant says:

Ok Joel, simple question. Do you agree with the U of Illinois guy with his statement:

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

Yes or no?

Sorry, but I can’t answer your question under those conditions since the terms in that sentence are not well-defined. I agree with what I know he is saying regarding the underlying mathematics, although I am not sure if I would frame it as “warms A” because for a lot of people, that carries the connotation of heat flow from B to A…when in fact, the net flow of radiation…and hence the heat flow is from A to B.

But, the larger point is: Yes, he is absolutely correct that you have to count the radiation from B to A in the total accounting of energy that is used to determine the steady-state temperature of A. And, the steady-state temperature of A will be higher if some of the radiation that it emits is returned to it by B than if all of the radiation escapes with none of it being returned. So, if that is the sense it is meant that the radiation from B warms A, then yes, that is absolutely correct.

44. joeldshore says:

Max says:

The illuminated hemisphere of the Earth absorbs energy at a rate of 1.22×10^17 Joules per second from the Sun.

The entire surface of the Earth emits energy at a rate of 1.22×10^17 Joules per second to outer space.

No, Max. The Earth’s ****SURFACE*** emits way more than 1.22×10^17 Joules per second. The Earth as seen from space emits 1.22×10^17 Joules per second. However, the surface of the Earth is at a temperature where it is emitting about 1.99 x 10^17 Joules per second. And, the spectrum of the emissions, as seen from space, clearly shows why this is the case: At wavelengths where there are no significant absorptions by greenhouse gases, the Earth looks like a blackbody at its surface temperature, but there are big bites out of the spectrum at the wavelengths that the greenhouse gases absorb (and re-emit) radiation: http://www.barrettbellamyclimate.com/userimages/MODA.jpg

[JP: Joel we’re talking about radiation here and radiation does not consider the ground surface to be the surface of the Earth. Check your “sensing” predilection and exchange it for some intuition and logical thinking. The Earth’s radiative surface does indeed emit 1.22×10^17 Joules of radiant energy per second. The application of the +15C temperature is a fiction…there is no such scalar quantity for a non-uniform system. The best you can say with the S-B Law is to use what we call the effective blackbody temperature, which with the energy output from the Earth gives a radiative temperature of -18C. Not too coincidentally that is the kinetic temperature at Earth’s radiative surface, which is just like what we find in the photospheres of stars…which also have absorption lines. As always, an actual heat-flow analysis using even more than the equations in my latest post are required for a proper analysis.]

45. joeldshore says:

Arfur Bryant says:

Joel, energy doesn’t disappear, but it doesn’t have to be absorbed either.

How can it not be absorbed when the Earth is almost a perfect blackbody at the wavelengths of most of this radiation?

The idea of backradiation is incompatible with the conservation of energy as it increases the energy level of its original source.

This is nonsense. Show me how this is incompatible with conservation of energy. And, if you think the energy level increases, then I will be happy to enter into an exchange with you where you pay me \$1000 and I give you back \$900. I would be willing to do this exchange back and forth as many times as you want and you can tell me if you end up with more money than you started with.

Whether or not the so-called ‘backradiation’ (if it exists) is absorbed for energy gain is the crucial question in this debate.

This is one of the only places one can find where this subject is even debated. You won’t find any real debate on this in the physics community, which is why even those who deny the basic climate science behind AGW who are physicists or reasonably trained in physics (Fred Singer, Robert Brown, Richard Lindzen, Roy Spencer,…) desperately try to stop you guys from making the “AGW skeptic” community look even sillier than they already look.

[JP: This sort of anger and expression of discomfort indicates you have lost the scientific debate 🙂 The heat flow equation applied to you guys’ steel greenhouse, debunks the concept entirely. Neither you, Singer, Brown, Spencer, etc., have actually ever applied the heat flow equation to the set-up, and in the mean time they just say ridiculously silly things like that “Q” in the heat flow equation represents solar energy, etc. They just don’t know what they’re doing and might not have the expertise required to do it, which is why they don’t talk about it.]

46. Allen Eltor says:

Scientist: “Do you believe possible, suspension, spinning, in vacuum, of a sphere,
illuminated by light until it’s temp T stabilizes,
then subsequent immersion, still spinning, into a bath of frigid nitrogen/oxygen,
making every energy sensor distributed on sphere surface,
than WITHOUT immersion
into cold, fluid bath,
simply illuminating in vacuum?”

Joel D. Shore “UH ‘COURSE I DO, DON’t’CHEW?”
——-
That illiterate, innumerate,
s*** for brains
magic gais zombie –
——-
just violated the laws of thermodynamics.
——-
ON q.u.e.s.t.i.o.n. O.N.E.
=======
Scientist: Do you believe possible, suspension, spinning, in vacuum, of a sphere,
illuminated by light until it’s temp T stabilizes,
with subsequent suspension in fluid compound around the sphere,
reflective molecules (H2O/CO2) removing 20% energy
than when 20% more energy was arriving?

Joel D. Shore: “Of COURSE I believe that!”
——-
Putting up reflecting insulation so
less energy arrived on sensors
more energy arrived.

That’s t.w.i.c.e. in a row.

=======
Scientist: Do you believe possible, suspension, spinning in vacuum, of a sphere,
illuminated by light until it’s temp T stabilizes,
with subsequent suspension in fluid compound around the sphere,
of ADDITIONAL reflective molecules (H2O/CO2) removing 25% energy
from the sphere causing surface sensors to show even more energy arriving,
than when 5% more energy actually did?

Joel D Shore: “Yes i DO.”
——-
Putting MORE reflective insulation between LIGHT and SENSORS
than when MORE energy arrived.
=======
Three
s.i.m.p.l.e.
“ARE YOU DELUSIONAL?” checks.

E.A.C.H.
E.X.P.R.E.S.S.L.Y. IMPOSSIBLE in SIMPLE thermodynamics.
There’s no recovering.
There’s no ‘he didn’t understand.’
THAT
is WHAT we were
CHECKING for.

47. Taken this way the Earth can be viewed as a mechanism for reducing the power of the sunlight vector from 476 —-> to 239 —->

That makes sense unless you think that the shadow of the Earth is as bright as those locations which are receiving direct sunlight.

Yes exactly, perfect. Modeling REALITY than some isotropically illuminated fiction! 🙂 And since they love to convert flux into temperature, which is fine, that 476 input gives +30C temperature forcing on the day side, but which actually maximizes around +90C under the zenith…permanently. Physics is better than climate science fiction. It is really too bad they don’t let physicists do climate science.

48. the steady-state temperature of A will be higher if some of the radiation that it emits is returned to it by B

That is simply in direct contradiction of what the heat flow equation says. The heat flow equation with conservation of energy does not state such a silly thing. If reality worked this way, the interior sphere of Willis’ greenhouse would heat itself to infinity. If you want to learn how to apply to heat flow equation, my next post will be very helpful for you. Work it out yourself, doing the math step by step on paper. Most of it is worked out for you in the post, but it might be a better learning experience for you to work it out yourself while you read it: https://climateofsophistry.com/2013/12/08/revisiting-the-steel-greenhouse/

49. Max™ says:

No, Max. The Earth’s ****SURFACE*** emits way more than 1.22×10^17 Joules per second. ~joeldshore

There is a reason I said “emits … to space“, not “emits to the layer of air directly above the ground”, not “emits to tropopause”, simply “to space”, as in whichever processes are involved at the surface, as long as it loses 1.22×10 ^17 Joules per second to space it will tend towards radiative equilibrium with the solar input and terrestrial output to space.

Also, the surface emits at best ~60 Joules per second per square meter, any other heat transfer from the surface involves non-radiative methods of transporting energy up into the atmosphere.

Radiative transfer doesn’t magically produce energy so you can ALSO get convective and evaporative losses alongside full radiative losses, there simply isn’t enough energy available at a given temperature for this to happen.

50. Allen Eltor says:

Joel D. Shore
is a
Cain’t Cownt Climateur Clown.

I’ve seen trying to claim
He might be the Clueless Climateur who is always saying
“We’ve” updated the the books and the laws of the thermodynamic thingies – all that’s diffurnt now. Thay rilly inturgraded the qwantum now. Thay have bin fur some years.”

“It’s all updated with the qwantum stuff now!” as he makes dimwitted sh*t up out of thin air.

Thinking people he talked to, forgot
“100% energy on sensors”
compared to “80% on those same sensors”

compared to his bullsh*t story.

of an entire planet’s heat content & handling.
——-
He thought perfectly normal people were convinced sensors showed
not 100% light strike conversion to heat, typical for vacuum.
Not the 80% light strike conversion to heat, typical behind reflectant – when 20% energy
never arrives. According to this innumerate Cain’t-Cownt Clowne,
the world was made hotter than at full-sunlight in vacuum.
——-
Immersion from vacuum into frigid reflective fluid compounds
made thermometers all over a spherical globe, go UP
and remain so f.o.r.e.v.e.r.
=======
=======
Say what??
=======
And, Green House Gas Effect HICKS claim,
it was *specifically reflective media* (H2O/CO2) that
caused
the entire magical inversion
of the LAWS of PHYSICS.
=======
He isn’t mentally ill?
=======
He is. He has a personality disorder that makes him a compulsive liar.
A sociopath deceiving people for the thrill.
Or the “cause.”
=======
Whatever his reasons there’s no way he doesn’t know he’s lying.
Like Joseph observed and I did too, independently of his observation:

it’s too difficult to keep threading the needle to escape telling the truth,
for the people claiming it, not to be lying, intentionally.

51. it’s too difficult to keep threading the needle to escape telling the truth, for the people claiming it, not to be lying, intentionally.

That is itself one of the greatest conundrums of this debate. Perhaps it is so simple, or perhaps errors can really propagate with such efficiency?

Well, look at religion. Of course it is a new religion…so…there ya go.

52. Arfur Bryant says:

Joel & Greg,

You two guys are a prime example of why this subject has produced such bad feeling. I am the sort of target audience you really need to convert. I am a non-scientist who can understand the principles but cannot understand the desire to engage in scientific pedantry purely to score points. You should be trying to convince me using a reasoned argument instead of sarcasm and ridicule.

Joel,
Please state one example of any source A which, whether continuously charged by a separate power supply or not, will increase its temperature due to the presence of a cooler source which is heated by source A’s emitted radiation.

And your dogmatic refusal to accept that the guy from U of Illinois’ answer as writtenwas just plain ridiculous is noted.

Greg,
Do you honestly think I was the author of the statement [“Yes. Radiation from B to A always warms A, regardless of their initial temperatures.”]?

Do you not realise that I was only using the term ‘GHE’ in the pro-cAGW sense as a tool to demonstrate that there very own argument fails logically and observationally?

<["No, this is not quite correct. The crucial point is not about “energy gain”, it is about temperature."] But, in the context of this debate, does not an addition of so-called backradiation (energy) automatically assume a higher temperature? I know there is no observational evidence – I said so earlier! The point is that they have based their belief system on such a fallacy, and just gainsaying it gets nowhere, so I prefer to target the theory AND the observations.

53. joeldshore says:

Joe Postma says:

The Earth’s radiative surface does indeed emit 1.22×10^17 Joules of radiant energy per second. The application of the +15C temperature is a fiction…there is no such scalar quantity for a non-uniform system. The best you can say with the S-B Law is to use what we call the effective blackbody temperature, which with the energy output from the Earth gives a radiative temperature of -18C. Not too coincidentally that is the kinetic temperature at Earth’s radiative surface, which is just like what we find in the photospheres of stars…which also have absorption lines.

Yes, the Earth’s radiative surface emits 1.22×10^17 Joules of radiant energy per second, I agree. However, the question is then what controls where that radiative surface is? And, the answer is that the location of this surface is determined by the condition that the atmosphere above this surface have an absorbance small enough that, say, half of the radiation emitted at this altitude can successfully escape to space without being absorbed. In other words, the location of this surface is determined by the concentration of greenhouse elements…gases and condensed water droplets…in the atmosphere)

If the Earth had an atmosphere with no greenhouse elements (i.e., elements that absorb terrestrial radiation), then the radiative surface would be at the Earth’s surface.

[JP: As per https://climateofsophistry.com/2013/12/08/revisiting-the-steel-greenhouse/#comment-4902 (paper reference there), the radiative surface is set by the IR opacity, and is largely independent of atmospheric composition.

Actually without “greenhouse elements”, the atmospheric emissivity would be zero, and thus by definition would be much, much hotter than it is now.]

54. joeldshore says:

Max says:

There is a reason I said “emits … to space“, not “emits to the layer of air directly above the ground”, not “emits to tropopause”, simply “to space”, as in whichever processes are involved at the surface, as long as it loses 1.22×10 ^17 Joules per second to space it will tend towards radiative equilibrium with the solar input and terrestrial output to space.

Your statement was “The entire surface of the Earth emits energy at a rate of 1.22×10^17 Joules per second to outer space.” That is not correct if one adopts the usual definition of the Earth’s surface. The Earth-atmosphere system as a whole emits this amount to space.

Also, the surface emits at best ~60 Joules per second per square meter, any other heat transfer from the surface involves non-radiative methods of transporting energy up into the atmosphere.

An objects radiative emission depends on its temperature. It does not reduce its radiative emission because energy is being transported in other ways.

Radiative transfer doesn’t magically produce energy so you can ALSO get convective and evaporative losses alongside full radiative losses, there simply isn’t enough energy available at a given temperature for this to happen.

You seem to think that convective and evaporative losses reduce the amount it emits radiatively at a given temperature, i.e., that there is a total rate at which a surface can lose energy at a certain temperature, so that if it is losing some via convection then it will lose less by radiation. This is absolutely incorrect.

You might think this violates energy conservation but it doesn’t: The reason why the Earth’s surface emits less radiation than it would in the absence of convection is not because it emits less radiation than the S-B Law says it emits at a given temperature. Rather, it is because the surface is at a lower temperature than it would be if convection were not occurring (and the S-B Law tells us that the rate of emission increases as the temperature increases).

In other words, if I take my magic wand and remove convection (including evaporation), what would happen is that the surface would increase its temperature to the point where it is now losing energy at the same rate as it did before…but rather than it being lost by a mixture of radiation and convection, it is now lost solely by radiation at the new higher temperature.

This provides us with a nice coherent picture of what is happening: The radiative greenhouse effect works because the radiating layer is at a lower temperature than the surface. In the absence of convection, the radiative greenhouse effect would be even larger than it is (raising the surface temperature by more like 60-70 K rather than 33 K). However, convection reduces the radiative greenhouse effect by reducing the lapse rate.

The reason why convection can’t get rid of the radiative greenhouse effect entirely is because the atmosphere is only unstable to convection when the lapse rate is steeper than the adiabatic lapse rate, so convection reduces the lapse rate down the adiabatic lapse rate but no further.

[JP:

“In the absence of convection, the radiative greenhouse effect would be even larger than it is (raising the surface temperature by more like 60-70 K rather than 33 K)”

Joel without convection the atmosphere would not COOL the surface. As it is sunlight heats to the surface to as high as 90C already, while the air just above the surface is always much cooler than this. You don’t need a radiative greenhouse effect when sunlight is already heating the surface to 90C. And in any case the radiative greenhouse effect is empirically refuted with empirical measurements in a real IR trapping glass greenhouse. If it doesn’t work there it doesn’t work for the atmosphere either. There is no such thing as IR trapping to self-amplification of temperature. Physical facts. Also supported by standard thermodynamic theory.]

55. joeldshore says:

Neither you, Singer, Brown, Spencer, etc., have actually ever applied the heat flow equation to the set-up, and in the mean time they just say ridiculously silly things like that “Q” in the heat flow equation represents solar energy, etc.

No, Joe. What they say is that in the steady-state, the rate of heat flow Q from the Earth to space must equal the rate of heat flow from the sun to the Earth. That is why one sets the rate of heat flow from the Earth to space equal to the rate at which the Earth system absorbs solar energy.

[JP: It doesn’t matter if that’s what they say, since they haven’t actually done the heat flow analysis to show that the radiative greenhouse effect is wrong. Joel, Q from the Sun IS equal to the Q from the Earth. That is why it is wrong for you guys to set the Q from the Sun equal to the heat flow between the surface and atmosphere.]

56. Greg House says:

Arfur Bryant says: “I know there is no observational evidence – I said so earlier!”
===============================================

Earlier you said the opposite (2013/12/08 at 12:48 PM): “Remember that, before 1850 (IPCC date), there was an ‘Atmosphere Effect’ (GHE if you are that way inclined). By observation and deduction, that AE/GHE was appx 32.2 deg C. (From current 33C less the ‘enhanced GHE’ of 0.8C since 1850.)”

Most of us are familiar with the story “The Wolf in Sheep’s Clothing” http://www.eastoftheweb.com/short-stories/UBooks/WolShe.shtml.

57. joeldshore says:

D.M. says:

I’m also not going to spend \$152 to purchase Joel’s recommended book which contains a brief discussion on the “greenhouse effect”. For \$152 I want specific factual scientific details along with experimental evidence to back it up!

If you want more detailed expositions, I suggest a textbook such as Ray Pierrehumbert’s “Principles of Planetary Climate”: http://www.amazon.com/Principles-Planetary-Climate-Raymond-Pierrehumbert/dp/0521865565/

58. Books that discuss a false analogy don’t make the analogy true. The radiative trapping greenhouse effect is false…it can’t be replicated in any experiment or observations with the atmosphere, and radiant self-forcing to higher temperature violates basic heat flow.

59. Arfur Bryant says:

Greg,

For the last time…

That comment was being used as a basis for demonstrating the logical fallacy of the pro-cAGW argument using the ‘GHE as asserted by them’. If the GHE=33C is assumed to be true by the advocates, then it fails – by logic and observation of reality (if any such ‘global temperature’ can be a reality). Ok?

60. joeldshore says:

Joseph E Postma says:

If reality worked this way, the interior sphere of Willis’ greenhouse would heat itself to infinity.

No, it heats the interior sphere up to the temperature that all of us who solve the equations correctly show it heats the interior sphere up to.

As per https://climateofsophistry.com/2013/12/08/revisiting-the-steel-greenhouse/#comment-4902 (paper reference there), the radiative surface is set by the IR opacity, and is largely independent of atmospheric composition.

I don’t think that paper says what you think it says. I dare you to send your ideas to the authors and see if they agree with you or agree with the conventional science of the greenhouse effect.

You don’t need a radiative greenhouse effect when sunlight is already heating the surface to 90C.

Joe, we’ve explained to you many, many times that global energy balance arguments do not constrain the highest temperature that can be reached on the Earth – They constrain the average temperature (or the average of T^4, more technically).

It doesn’t matter if that’s what they say, since they haven’t actually done the heat flow analysis to show that the radiative greenhouse effect is wrong.

Well, that is true in a sense since it would take an incorrect analysis to show that and they have done correct analyses.

Joel, Q from the Sun IS equal to the Q from the Earth. That is why it is wrong for you guys to set the Q from the Sun equal to the heat flow between the surface and atmosphere.

Joe, to solve the steady-state problem, you have to apply conservation of energy at all the relevant interfaces. You can’t just solve it in a way where there is conservation at the shell but not at the surface of the interior sphere.

It is really too bad they don’t let physicists do climate science.

This statement would be a little more compelling if you could explain how physicists are prevented from doing climate science and if you could find physicists, even amongst those who share your ideological/political beliefs, who actually agree with your scientific arguments regarding the atmospheric greenhouse effect.

61. Joel as has been demonstrated, you’re not solving the equations correctly and you’re not even conserving the correct quantities, and you’re violating conservation of energy by having the outer sphere emit more energy than is supplied from the interior sphere. You apparently do not even know what conservation of energy means you need to conserve. As far as the climate science greenhouse effect, it is and has been refuted with simple empiricism. And again, Willis et al. did not actually do a heat flow analysis because that equation never appears on his post. To do the analysis, you use the heat flow equation, which as I have shown, conserves energy, which requires the shell to be cooler than the sphere while the shell doesn’t have the flux to heat the sphere. Physicists don’t do climate science because as we have seen, Spencer doesn’t know what a time-dependent differential equation is (!) and the lot you fellows haven’t applied a radiant heat flow equation in your life. Climate alarm is failing and has failed; eventually those behind the curve will figure out and realize the originating error in the first place: the climate science greenhouse effect, which has already been refuted for them.

62. joeldshore says:

Joel as has been demonstrated, you’re not solving the equations correctly and you’re not even conserving the correct quantities, and you’re violating conservation of energy by having the outer sphere emit more energy than is supplied from the interior sphere.

That is simply not the case.

[JP: Are you completely daft? Let’s say the inner sphere is as Willis said: 480 W/m^2. The outer shell is 240 W/m^2. The ratio of power emitted is:

Psh/Psp = 240/480 * (Rsh/Rsp)^2 = 0.5 * (Rsh/Rsp)^2. Therefore energy is not conserved in general, and only is by happenstance when (Rsh/Rsp)^2 = 2.]

Physicists don’t do climate science because as we have seen, Spencer doesn’t know what a time-dependent differential equation is (!) and the lot you fellows haven’t applied a radiant heat flow equation in your life.

Actually, Joe, at Kodak I solved it numerically for quite complicated geometries involving view factors and the whole bit. Solving it for the simple “steel greenhouse” case is a walk in the park by comparison.

[JP: You just demanded we take note that you have no idea what conservation of energy even means, that flux needs to be multiplied by area to get total energy, etc…]

63. Bryan says:

Joel Shore is a propagandist rather than a scientist (part one)
For instance he lists
Young & Freedman, “University Physics”, 13th edition as worth reading on the GHE.
However Young & Freedman, “University Physics”, 9th edition. (1995) has no entry for the GHE
He knows fine well that in a discussion at WUWT that all sides of the discussion agreed that the 13th edition contained a clumsy, incorrect ‘cut and paste GHE section’ that nobody not even Joel was prepared to endorse.
Now I have in the past used the 9th edition with classes and found it a good text book free of errors.
It is obvious that the new passages were inserted as a grubby sales pitch at the increasing number of climate science students.
Joel doesn’t care that he recommends an error filled section as long as it serves some cause or other.
The cause is not science or truth.

64. Bryan says:

Joel Shore is a propagandist rather than a scientist (part two)

Joel recommends as a serious physics examination of the GHE the textbook by Kittel called Thermal Physics.
Yet when we examine the 1990 edition it contains a supplement of just four lines on the GHE on page 115.
There are plenty of genuine ‘effects’ set out in physics textbooks such as the
Sebeck Effect
Peltier Effect
Hall Effect
Photo- Electric Effect
Etc
All genuine effects will be set out as follows
1. A full description of the effect
2. A theory explaining the effect
3. Experimental evidence to support the theory.
The GHE fails to supply any of the three essential parts so cannot be a genuine effect.

65. joeldshore says:

[JP: Are you completely daft? Let’s say the inner sphere is as Willis said: 480 W/m^2. The outer shell is 240 W/m^2. The ratio of power emitted is:

Psh/Psp = 240/480 * (Rsh/Rsp)^2 = 0.5 * (Rsh/Rsp)^2. Therefore energy is not conserved in general, and only is by happenstance when (Rsp/Rsh)^2 = 2.]

You’ve done the calculation wrong. There is 240 W/m^2 emitted by the outer surface of the shell and 240 W/m^2 emitted by the inner surface of the shell.

[JP: This is just amazing. The question still remains, whether you guys are extremely stupid or extreme liars. What is key for me now is that it is “extreme”.!

Joel, if you want to say the emission form the shell is 480, then:

Psh/Psp = 480/480 * (Rsh/Rsp)^2 = (Rsh/Rsp)^2

which is greater than unity, thus violating conservation of energy, as soon as Rsh > Rsp by any infinitesimal amount. And again, it does not have to be an infinitesimal gap.]

66. joeldshore says:

Joel recommends as a serious physics examination of the GHE the textbook by Kittel called Thermal Physics.
Yet when we examine the 1990 edition it contains a supplement of just four lines on the GHE on page 115.

It is not 4 lines; it is almost a page, or about 35 lines by my count: http://books.google.com/books?id=c0R79nyOoNMC&pg=115#v=onepage&q&f=false

There are plenty of genuine ‘effects’ set out in physics textbooks such as the
Sebeck Effect
Peltier Effect
Hall Effect
Photo- Electric Effect
Etc
All genuine effects will be set out as follows
1. A full description of the effect
2. A theory explaining the effect
3. Experimental evidence to support the theory.
The GHE fails to supply any of the three essential parts so cannot be a genuine effect.

Who made you the God of textbook-writing? A physics textbook is unlikely to discuss an effect that is more of an application of physics in another field than pure physics in as much detail as it might discuss other effects. (However, I am also sure I could find plenty of examples of the effects that you have cited appearing in textbooks without being set out in the way you have decided that they must be set out.)

Your excuses for continuing to deny the fact that the greenhouse effect is well-accepted in the physics community are pathetically lame.

[JP: Oh so now the textbooks YOU reference aren’t good enough anymore? You people are amazing.

“Well accepted” with only a false analogy to describe it and empirical observations which refute it, and textbooks which never really cover it. This isn’t the first time for science to discover a correction. Those behind the curve will simply be forced to catch up once the failure of climate alarm becomes more and more apparent.]

67. Greg House says:

Bryan says: “All genuine effects will be set out as follows
1. A full description of the effect
2. A theory explaining the effect
3. Experimental evidence to support the theory.
The GHE fails to supply any of the three essential parts so cannot be a genuine effect.”
=========================================================

A fake effect would be too set out as follows
1. A full fake description of the fake effect
2. A fake theory explaining the fake effect
3. Fake experimental evidence to support the fake theory.

Concerning the fake “greenhouse effect” we’ve seen all that.

So, Bryan, as you can possibly see now, your criteria only legitimize the fake “greenhouse effect”.

If I need to remind you why the “greenhouse effect” is fake, just tell me, I am here to help.

68. joeldshore says:

Bryan:

He knows fine well that in a discussion at WUWT that all sides of the discussion agreed that the 13th edition contained a clumsy, incorrect ‘cut and paste GHE section’ that nobody not even Joel was prepared to endorse.
Now I have in the past used the 9th edition with classes and found it a good text book free of errors.

I have no trouble endorsing what they wrote about the greenhouse effect. Even the part that goes beyond the greenhouse effect to talk about global warming in general seems reasonable to me. I might quibble about one or two statements, but that is pretty good since physicists writing about other areas outside of physics sometimes get the details a little wrong.

And, I laugh at the notion that the 9th edition of the textbook was totally free of errors. I have never found a physics textbook to be totally free of errors…and, it gets even worse if you consider statements that are perhaps not completely erroneous but certainly a bit unclear or ambiguous.

It is obvious that the new passages were inserted as a grubby sales pitch at the increasing number of climate science students.

Why don’t you give us your full name so the authors of the textbook know who to sue for defamation?

Look, the sad fact is that you will always find an excuse to believe what you want to believe, despite the best efforts of many people to educate you. You have been doing so for years and I don’t expect you to change now.

69. Exactly Bryan…passing references with no formal development of the physics and math is not a textbook on the GHE…these propagandists just pretend they can “name drop” a textbook reference because who has the time to go look up the textbook? In any case they present their own math for their GHE all over the web, and their predicted empirical observation that a greenhouse should get hotter inside than the solar heating FAILS.

70. Greg House says:

Joe, this is another nonsensical discussion about those ridiculous textbooks or ridiculous parts of textbooks.

Warmists will understandably try turning things upside down and I do not think we should fall for it. Concerning textbooks, the only discussion that could be useful to the readers would be about possible motivation of the a**holes authors who included the absurd non-existent “greenhouse effect” in their textbooks. In other words, there are 2 facts: 1)the IPCC/climate liars made up the absurd “greenhouse effect” and 2)some authors included that nonsense in their textbooks. The 2nd fact is of course secondary, I would not spend much time on it. The lesson is very simple: there are f***ing liars not only among climate scientists, journalists and politicians, but among physics textbook authors too. This is sad, but apparently a fact of life.

71. Arfur Bryant says:

Joel,

[“You’ve done the calculation wrong. There is 240 W/m^2 emitted by the outer surface of the shell and 240 W/m^2 emitted by the inner surface of the shell.”]

If the radius of the shell is such that it receives 240W/m^2, then it is receiving a finite number of W in total, so how is it possible for it to emit (240+240=) 480 W/m^2? (Ignoring any difference between inner surface radius and outer surface radius.)

72. Allen Eltor says:

Shore
FAILS
TEST QUESTIONS a REFRIGERATION STUDENT
can pass.

(1)DO YOU REALIZE it is IMPOSSIBLE to HEAT a SPHERE in VACUUM to STABLE temp
then IMMERSE it spinning
in a FRIGID NITROGEN/OXYGEN BATH
and HAVE TEMPERATURE go UP
rather than
DOWN?
—-
Refrigerator technician: YES i DO.
—-
JOEL the HICK Shore: “NO, – you- YOU don’t UNDERSTAND!!” “That HAPPENS ALL the TIME, It’s in ALL the TEXTBOOKS!”
“Honest!”
=======
(2)DO YOU REALIZE it is IMPOSSIBLE to WRAP INSULATING, LIGHT DIFFRACTING MEDIA around a SPHERE illuminated to stable temp in VACUUM,
and HAVE HEAT SENSORS DISTRIBUTED ACROSS SPHERE SURFACE
INDICATE MORE LIGHT ARRIVING,
than when MORE light WAS ARRIVING?
—-
JOEL the HICK Shore: Why ThAt HAPPENs, EVuR SiNgLe DAY! It’s in ALL thuh NEW TEXTBOOKS!” “Ya’LL!”
—-
Refrigeration student: {Looks at Shore} “Woah. What a fu**up.”}
=======
(3)DO you RECOGNIZE the IMPOSSIBILITY
of WRAPPING reflective insulation around a sphere heated in vacuum until 25% energy in
is removed from sensors,
and have those sensors indicate
YET MORE HEAT
than WHEN there was 20% REMOVED
by the SAME physically reflective/diffractive media?
—-
JOEL the HICK Shore: “Oh, yew just DON’T UNDERSTAND the MAGIC of
QWANTUM BACKERDiSTiCiCAL BULLSH*T
from a PROFESSIONAL GRANT WHORE!”
—-
Refrigeration student: “LoL! That’s crazy. ZERO for t.h.r.e.e.”
=======
What you need to do is contact everybody you can find who believes in the goofy s*** you drizzle
and tell them I said they’re fraudulent ignorant kooks
I can reveal ignorant ill educated dumbasses.
With offhand ease.
=======
The way I have you.
=======
Have one try to
T.H.R.E.E. FUNDAMENTAL QUESTIONS
which function as
——-
“IS JOEL D. SHORE DELUSIONAL?”
——-
checks.
=======
The people you send will need to prove they aren’t delusional
“fundamentals of thermodynamics” questions.
=======
joeldshore says:
2013/12/10 at 4:08 PM
Look, the sad fact is that you will always find an excuse to believe what you want to believe, despite the best efforts of many people to educate you. You have been doing so for years and I don’t expect you to change now.

73. Allen Eltor says:

The redundancy at the end was because I was enjoying clubbing Shore back down to the moral low ground he lives beneath.

Shore and his fraudulent science associates deserve “fully fraudulent” awards each,
in defense of Magick Gais & Laight pseudo science.

I invite all of you to use and adapt the three “ARE YOU DELUSIONAL?” questions into any conversation you have with any Magick Gais & Laight billy. In fact tell people about it who you think will use it to bludgeon this Pseudo-Science movement to the ground.

They are:
1. “Do you believe a sphere heated to stable temp through illumination in vacuum,
can be immersed in a frigid nitrogen/oxygen bath,
and have every temperature sensor on it’s surface indicate temperature rise of 90F/30C?

If the answer is “yes sometimes” they are already, question one, self certifying delusional.
No further communication concerning reality will be possible.
=======
This is MAGICK GAIS
FUNDAMENTALS:

“EVURBODIE NOES,

THUH

AT-MuSFeeYuR MaYKeS

thuh WERLD

git HOT.”
=======
Not exactly motherf**ker.
=======

2. Do you believe suspension of media physically diffracting 20% light from said sphere makes sensors show
more energy
than when there was
more energy?

More indespensible Magick Gais & Laight fundamentals.
If the answer is * * *EVER* * * yes:
you’re being hijacked by a delusional.
Willing or unwilling will be shown when you ask the three questions.
Do they stop, and say – hey, you know what? No SHIT. WtF???
Or
do they act like this
Mathematics Molester Joel D. Shore.

3. Do you believe suspension of media physically diffracting 25% light from said sphere makes sensors show
even more energy
than when there was 5%
more energy?

If he gives Y.E.S. or S.O.M.E.T.I.M.E.S.
that sh*t-for-brains-billy
just gave up a big
“Z.I.P. for T.H.R.E.E.”
in the
“IS IT A DELUSIONAL MAGIC GAIS HICK?”
assessment.

74. Allen Eltor says:

Obviously: belief in Magick Gais & Laight means they claim to believe in all three.

People like Joel D Shore fall into that bizarre category of people who staked their political fortunes on Magic Gais being real
before they learned whether a hot rock dropped in a cold river
has it’s temperature rise 90F or not
while being washed with the frigid fluid bath
blocking 20% of the energy to it.

75. Max™ says:

Joel, go work out what the surface areas of a sphere with radius=6371 km and one with radius=6372 km are.

Now convert that to square meters, and multiply them both by 235 W/m^2.

Notice how adding 1 km increases the area of the shell?

Did you catch that it would emit trillions more W than it was receiving from the powered sphere inside it?

Oh, but you’ll say it doesn’t have to be 1 km, that’s cool.

Work out the values for 6371 and 6371.001, that will support your argument I’m sure!

I mean, billions of W is a lot less than trillions, so it’s not that egregious a violation of thermodynamics, at least not for you, as you are apparently a wizard.

Can you get me an autograph from Gandalf?

[JP: Edited your W/m^2 to be W, since you’ve multiplied in the surface area. 🙂 ]

76. Max™ says:

Whoops, was waiting to see if a vbox install would work or keep jumping to 100% cpu.

77. Bryan says:

Joel Shore says

“If you instead want to read in a little more detail in an upper-level undergraduate textbook for physics majors, you can go to Kittel and Kroemer, “Thermal Physics”, 2nd edition. ”

This is the best Joel can come up with for a physics or thermodynamics textbook source where the greenhouse gas theory is properly set out from first principles.

I said ithe supplement was just a few lines.
Joel said it was ALMOST a page!!!!!
Gee Whiz
Nearly a page to cover the glass greenhouse and the atmospheric greenhouse effect.
To show us exactly why R W Wood went wrong etc
Is that it?

If Joel expects a serious examination of this conjecture by scientists he must do much better than that .
The Kittel ‘supplement’ references the IPCC for support not any other classic physics textbook.
The IPCC of course is completely unreliable as a reference as it in turn includes Greenpeace sources in its ‘peer reviewed’ literature.
At the moment Greenpeace are running a campaign in Britain that Santa Claus is in danger because of shrinking arctic ice.
No doubt it will also be sourced as IPCC literature.

78. D.M. says:

Thanks for that Bryan. I had hoped that it might discuss the “Greenhouse effect” and come to the conclusion that it was a violation of the physics detailed elsewhere in the book. Then it might have been worth \$152!

79. Greg House says:

Bryan says: “The Kittel ‘supplement’ references the IPCC for support not any other classic physics textbook. The IPCC of course is completely unreliable as a reference as it in turn includes Greenpeace sources in its ‘peer reviewed’ literature.”
==========================================================

This is another example of invalid argumentation. References to Greenpeace sources are one thing and making up the “greenhouse effect” is a different thing. There is no connection between them. The IPCC does not refer to Greenpeace at all when stating the absurd “greenhouse effect”. Making up the “greenhouse effect” is a hoax and textbook references to the non-existent “greenhouse effect” as a scientific fact are logically a further development of that hoax.