I already debunked the steel greenhouse idea, but here I will simplify it all to one crystal clear concept. Won’t bother with quotes from these people etc. since that has all been covered previously. Let us just look at their pictures:
Do you see what they did there? Look at what is being radiated outward originally by the sphere core, and then what is being radiated outward afterward by the shell. Look at the numbers and the units.
They conserved energy flux density, not total energy! Energy flux density, W/m2, is not a conserved quantity. Only the total energy measured as power, W, is. And of course W, a Watt, is a Joule per second (J/s), which is the flux multiplied by the surface area of the emitter. They didn’t factor in the surface areas of the objects at all, but doing that is essential if you intend to conserve energy.
Radiative flux decreases as the inverse square of the distance from the source. Total radiative power doesn’t! The inverse-square law of radiative (and gravitational for ex.) flux is one of the most basic and fundamental laws in science. The people who promote this steel greenhouse thing either don’t know it, or they’ve heard of it but don’t know how to apply it. The scientific incompetency of the people who believe in the greenhouse effect and climate alarm should be enough to indicate that the entire ideology must be wrong. And it does.
They actually do no math at all, and no physics at all, and then assume the result they want in the first place. It is really awful to do that.
Due to the inverse square law, the shell only receives a flux given by
1] Fsh = Fsp(Rsp/Rsh)2
where Fsh is the flux at the shell, Fsp is the flux from the sphere, and R is the radius of either the sphere or the shell. This equation for the flux at the shell conserves the total energy. This necessarily requires that the flux is not conserved. The flux immediately begins decreasing in intensity as the radiation moves away from the sphere. Rsp is always smaller than Rsh and hence Rsp/Rsh is always less than 1, and therefore Fsh is always less than Fsp. And that ratio less than one decreases at its square. That’s the inverse square law.
Even if we just pretend to go along with their doubling of the original core flux Fsp, then we still simply arrive at Fsh = 2*Fsp(Rsp/Rsh)2 and so the flux at the shell is still, obviously, a function of distance from the sphere. Either way it is impossible that the shell could outwardly emit the same flux as the sphere.
The flux that the shell absorbs on its inside corresponds to the temperature that it will develop. Using the standard Stefan-Boltzmann equation gives
2] Tsh = (Fsh/σ)1/4
The flux received on the inside of the shell determines the temperature the shell can achieve, and assuming a thin shell then this temperature is what determines the outward flux on the outside of the shell, which will be the same flux as received on the inside, and thus, equation 1].
You can go back to the steel greenhouse debunking thread and read the original silly argument made for it, but here I will walk you through what actually happens:
First we start with the sphere core radiating 235 W/m2 over its surface area, which means it has a surface temperature of -19.20C (using the Stefan-Boltzmann equation and the usual ideal blackbody assumption).
The flux from the sphere decreases as the inverse square of the distance ‘r’ from the surface of the sphere, and so as a function:
3] Fsp(r) = 235*(Rsp/r)2
where r > Rsp.
Now we add a shell around the sphere. The shell has a radius at r = Rsh and so the flux from the sphere at the distance of the shell is:
4] Fsp(Rsh) = 235*(Rsp/Rsh)2
The shell absorbs this radiation on its interior, and with the simplifying assumption of it being of negligible mass and thickness, then the temperature induced by this flux is the same on the inside and the outside, and so the temperature of the shell is:
5] Tsh = (235*(Rsp/Rsh)2/σ)1/4
This temperature will be less than the temperature of the sphere because the radii ratio in the equation is less than 1, and the temperature of the sphere is given by (235/σ)1/4. The shell then radiates on the outside at this temperature, and thus, this exterior radiation will fully emit all of the energy that is absorbed from on the inside from the shell.
And that’s what happens. That’s it.
The shell’s temperature is maintained by the sphere. The shell’s temperature is created by the sphere, and it requires all of the sphere’s energy to maintain it, because the same amount of energy that the shell receives on its interior, it loses on its exterior.
The shell is not an independent ambient system around the sphere. It doesn’t provide heat or energy to the sphere that it is being heated by – the only heating that is being done is from the sphere, to the shell, and in thermal equilibrium, the sphere supplies exact amount of energy that the shell emits on its exterior. Since the shell emits all of the energy from the sphere, then it is not possible, for at least this reason, for the shell to heat the sphere. Of course there are many other reasons from the viewpoint of the various explanations thermodynamic physics could provide for that.
In the silly steel greenhouse idea, the shell causes the sphere to heat up some more because the shell is said to emit to the sphere. However, if the sphere now has an increased temperature, then it emits more energy as required, and thus, the interior of the shell has to see more energy coming from the sphere, and thus, the shell has to warm up some more again, and thus, the sphere would see yet a higher “ambient” environment it itself created, and thus would have to warm up some more again, etc. The runaway heating problem can not be avoided by arbitrarily stopping the physics after a single iteration.
By the direct math and physics of this steel greenhouse scenario, it debunks the climate greenhouse effect itself. When you do the math and physics correctly, you would never even invent the steel greenhouse idea in the first place.
The steel greenhouse is the debunk of the climate pseudoscience greenhouse effect.
End with some Physics
Just a quick comment that was posted by Rosco, which helps make the point from the previous post on the nature of light.
Remember the Planck curves of the two temperatures, and that only the hotter one has microstates activated at high frequency?
Recall that Q is the difference between the two Planck curves, i.e., it is the heat flow between the two objects. If these two objects were facing each other, then the hotter source object loses high energy, high frequency photons that the cooler object neither can nor does replace. That’s what the black, middle curve shows – what frequency components the cooler curve is missing, particularly at the highest frequencies. Since it is missing those frequencies, that is why radiation from a cool object can not heat up a warmer object. The hotter source radiation is certainly going to activate some higher frequency microstates and energies in the cooler object, and thus raise its temperature, but it is impossible for the cool object to do that in reverse because those are the very frequencies it lacks, let alone having even higher ones.
Photons and the thermal microstates that they correspond to are not equal when the frequencies and energies are different. The terrestrial spectrum emission doesn’t, and can’t, have the same effect that the solar spectrum originally had on heating the planet.