Can Climate Science be any more Ridiculous?
Let’s simply state what the First Law of Thermodynamics is. From Wiki:
First law of thermodynamics: When energy passes, as work, as heat, or with matter, into or out from a system, its internal energy changes in accord with the law of conservation of energy. Equivalently, perpetual motion machines of the first kind are impossible.
So whether you’re talking of a steel shell around a heated sphere, or a gas around a planet, or a component of a gas around a planet, ask yourself the question:
“Does it pass energy as work, heat, or with matter, into the sphere or planet?”
Consider the passive steel shell around the internally heated sphere, the so-called steel greenhouse.
1. Does the passive steel shell do work on the sphere? No, it doesn’t touch the sphere, or at most, simply rests upon the sphere’s surface.
2. Does the passive steel shell send heat to the sphere? No, it’s passive firstly, and secondly, it’s cooler. It has no heat to send to the sphere. Therefore, it sends no heat to the sphere.
3. Does the passive steel shell pass matter into the sphere? No, there’s no exchange of matter.
Therefore, the shell does not cause the sphere to heat up beyond the heat input that the sphere is internally provided. QED.
The same goes for a gas around a planet, in the context of the sophistically-named “radiative greenhouse effect” of climate pseudoscience.
The First Law of Thermodynamics is all you need to debunk climate alarm, and its sophistical greenhouse effect.
Comical, really.
Climate of Sophistry 
“Does the passive steel shell send heat to the sphere? No, it’s passive firstly, and secondly, it’s cooler. It has no heat to send to the sphere. Therefore, it sends no heat to the sphere.”
The passive steel shell radiates; those photons carry energy. When those photons strike another object, their energy is ether reflected or absorbed. Absorbing energy heats a material.
Couldn’t be simplier.
[JP: Thanks for another example of science sophistry, David. Those photons from the cooler shell don’t carry heat to the sphere, and heat is what is required to raise the sphere’s temperature. Energy is not always heat, and heat is the difference between sources of energy, flowing only from hotter to cooler. So, sorry, but it is just a slight, tiny bit more complicated than your “simpler” minded analysis.]
Reblogged this on the Original "Mothers Against Wind Turbines™" and commented:
Climate alarmists will say anything, to promote their agenda!
This is only true of the internal heat source is constant temperature, not constant energy production. If the shell has heat capacity, then it slows the departure of energy from the sphere. If the heat source produces a constant energy output, then the sphere will grow hotter than it would without the heat capacity of the outer shell, which now will resist the flow of energy outward. Or would you have us believe that no matter the thickness of the outer shell, the temperature gradient from the sphere to the “outside” is zero?
The earth is certainly not surrounded by a steel shell, but even you agree that there are gradients in the atmosphere as radiation, conduction and convection all remove heat from the surface for final disposal in space, with warmer space at the bottom and colder space at the top. And even you agree that without that atmosphere the earth would be have an entirely inhospitable temperature at night.
A bad example, I think. Our “sphere” is warmer with the “shell” than without it, because the sun — even though it’s an external energy source — is a almost constant energy output heater, and does not regulate itself based upon its recipient’s temperature.
Rather, simply, if the shell “has heat capacity”, then it takes a non-negligible time to be warmed up to equilibrium as it collects energy from the sphere. This is with constant energy production/input from the sphere and it does not require the sphere to become hotter, as it can’t, because no heat flows from the shell to the sphere.
Without an atmosphere, the Earth would also have an inhospitable temperature by day. That the atmosphere, a gas, anything, holds energy because it has a temperature, is not the climate greenhouse effect.
Joe, there is an “outside”, which is surely not, in your thinking, the same temperature as the heat source in the sphere. The outer surface temperature of the sphere will have a temperature consistent with the energy input from the source, and the outside temperature environment, as the sphere sheds heat by some combination of radiation, conduction and convection.
[JP: It was Willis who originally claimed that the temperature of the shell exterior would be the same as the temperature of the source on the sphere, thus violating conservation of energy. Since the shell has larger surface area, then it will emit a lower flux, and thus be a lower temperature, than the power input on the sphere. There is no heat flow from the environment to the sphere since the sphere is the only power source, and so the sphere only achieves the temperature of its power source. Vacuum is the only consideration here, but if we added a gas environment between the sphere and shell, and exterior to the shell, it still won’t cause the sphere to emit more power than what its internal power source is, as the gas is not a power or heat source.]
Add the shell and then the outside of the shell will reach equilibrium with the “outside” environment. Because the inner sphere doesn’t have instantaneous transfer of heat to the shell, it will now have a higher temperature than it would if it were “connected” to the cooler “outside”.
[JP: The sphere is the only source of power, and so the outside environment only gets heated by emission/conduction etc. from the shell exterior. The shell and sphere do not raise to a higher temperature than if there were only vacuum, or a passive gas environment, because there are no other sources of power.]
Recall that the work done by heating is a function of the temperature of the hotter sphere as well as the the deduction due to the temperature of the cooler shell. That is, the hotter object cools slower in the presence of a warm object than it does in the presence of a cold object.
[JP: You are misusing terms. The work done by heating is given by the change in temperature of an object multiplied by the mass and specific heat capacity of that object. Heat transfer, rather, is given by the difference between radiative emissions, and heat transfer goes to zero when equilibrium is achieved. Energy still leaves through the system exterior, but on the interior, when equilibrium between the sphere and shell is reached, there is no more heat flow. Rate of cooling in varying thermal environments is not the greenhouse effect.]
Or, if that does not make sense to you, consider enlarging the shell to a thousand times the diameter of the sphere: now that heat must travel through the shell before the full cooling effect of the “outside” can operate on it.
[JP: This will simply result in the shell now having a much lower temperature, having a surface area millions of times larger than the sphere. Still though, the shell will get warmed, and then transfer that energy outwards on its exterior. This does not and can not require the sphere to become warmer, as the cooler shell can not transfer heat to the warmer sphere.]
The sphere must be hotter than it was when it was connected directly to the “outside”, if for no other reason than the physical reality of the temperature gradient due to increasing shell surface area and distance from the heat source.
[JP: A temperature gradient does not cause the hotter side of the gradient to get hotter, but rather causes the cooler side to get hotter. The cooler side will remain cooler if it has a larger surface area from which to emit the source energy.]
Once again Joe, you cast pearls before swine. The swine that think they know enough physics to debunk you, yet they are unable to distinguish between temperature, radiative transfer and heat flow.
To illustrate, consider a swine observing a well lit room in a Standard Atmosphere (+15C etc), looking at an ice cube which is, by definition, at something less than 0C. Can the swine see the ice cube (assuming it’s not blind)? Yes, because the ice cube reflects the room light as visible radiation.
Is the ice cube emitting IR radiation? Yes, of course, as does anything at at temperature > than 0K.
Does heat flow from the ice cube to the room because of this radiation? No. Unless you are a climastrologist, or a common, or garden, cretin or liar. Heat flows from the hotter room to the colder ice cube, which melts. The ice still emits IR radiation as it melts and when it becomes entirely liquid but the room temperature NEVER INCREASES because of this. In fact, all other things remaining static, the room temperature will cool slightly.
It’s that simple, unless the swine is a liar, cretin etc.
You got that right!
“Those photons from the cooler shell don’t carry heat to the sphere.”
They carry energy. What happens when energy is absorbed by a material — say, when you sit in front of a fire?
[JP: The fire is much hotter than you are, and is why it heats you up, because it can transfer heat energy to you. You don’t heat the fire up because you can’t transfer heat energy to it, because you are cooler.]
“Energy is not always heat, and heat is the difference between sources of energy, flowing only from hotter to cooler.”
So it’s your belief that a body doesn’t emit energy in a particular direction if there is another body in that particular direction?
So how does the first body know the second body is out there??
[JP: Q’ = A*sigma*(Thot4 – Tcool4). That is how and why heat energy only flows from hot to cool, and why cool doesn’t heat up hot. Energy is emitted both ways, but heat only flows one way, thus only the cooler can warm up, but not the hotter. Radiative emission is not itself heat. Only the difference is heat.]
“Radiative emission is not itself heat. Only the difference is heat.”
Nailed it. Right there. The do-gooders, mouth breathers, liars and faith merchants who think they understand basic physics dare not accept this, lest there goes their faith/propaganda/income/energy tax.
It would provoke bedwetting if you pointed out that every single item of matter in the universe is unavoidably racing, monodirectionally, to cool towards 0K.
It is both amusing, and worrying, that these fools are so gullible that they think that every energy exchange is 100% efficient, or better. Don’t even mention entropy, or they’ll call you a conspiracy tin-foil hat wearer.
Joe, wouldn’t it be sufficient to just say that the “greenhouse gases” are supposed to send back to the surface almost twice the amount of energy they receive from that surface, thus making it clear to anyone how absurd the “greenhouse effect” is? Why the “steel greenhouse” again, who cares about it?
It’s simply so convenient to ridicule, and I like showing the physics. Yes indeed, your point is sufficient.
JP wrote:
“The fire is much hotter than you are, and is why it heats you up, because it can transfer heat energy to you. You don’t heat the fire up because you can’t transfer heat energy to it, because you are cooler.”
You didn’t answer the question.
What happens when photons from the fire — which carry energy — impact your body?
[JP: I did answer the question in your quote of my response. It is not that the photons carry energy, it is that they carry heat, because they come from a warmer source (the fire) than your body. So the balance of radiation between you and the fire means that the fire warms you up, with the higher frequency photons that transfer to you as heat. The lower frequency photons from you going to the fire can not heat it because they, and you, are not higher frequency/hotter than the fire.]
“Radiative emission is not itself heat. Only the difference is heat.”
Are you claiming that radiative emissions — photons that carry energy E = h*nu — do not carry energy?
[JP: No, that’s a strawman. I said: “Radiative emission is not itself heat. Only the difference is heat.” All photons have energy, but that energy is only acts as heat when going from hot to cool. From cool to hot, there is no heating, because only the difference is transferred as heat, thus from hot to cool.]
Greg House says:
“Joe, wouldn’t it be sufficient to just say that the “greenhouse gases” are supposed to send back to the surface almost twice the amount of energy they receive from that surface, thus making it clear to anyone how absurd the “greenhouse effect” is”
Is it your claim that the atmosphere doesn’t radiate?
If not, then show how much energy is in the radiation that strikes the ground.
[JP: That’s another strawman. No one claimed the atmosphere doesn’t radiate. It just doesn’t heat the ground, since it is cooler than the ground. Heat only flows from hot to cool.]
“JP: Q’ = A*sigma*(Thot4 – Tcool4). That is how and why heat energy only flows from hot to cool, and why cool doesn’t heat up hot.”
Your equation describes heat transfer. That doesn’t mean it describes the details of the underlying physics. That is precisely your error — an unwarranted (and illogical) translation of an equation into a physical model.
To make your claim, it seems to me you must not believe the Stefan-Boltzmann equation. Why not just come out and say that?
[JP: This comment makes no sense whatsoever. The Stefan-Boltzmann equation is right there in the heat transfer equation…lol. And yes, this is the radiative heat flow equation which is used in heat flow models, and it summarizes the underlying physics of heat only flowing from hot to cool due to the balance of energy and frequency between the hot and cool objects.]
Reblogged this on Roald j. Larsen.
Joseph, are you censoring comments already?
[JP: Just trashing some of yours to make you have to work harder by reposting them a few times.]
“Those photons from the cooler shell don’t carry heat to the sphere.”
Interesting. Can you give me experimental proof of a photon that doesn’t carry energy?
[JP: Strawman via sophistry of terms. Photons from the cooler shell don’t carry heat to the warmer sphere.
Q’ = A*sigma*(Thot^4 – Tcool^4)
Therefore the shell doesn’t heat the sphere.]
Curious how your commenters seem so quick to resort to ad hominem attacks.
I am not confused about heat; the second law is in my books, too. Energy — as in the work equation you cited above — can flow in both directions between objects, but since the energy emissions of any object are exponentially connected to its temperature — T^4 and all that — energy flowing from a colder object to a warmer one cannot make that warmer object warmer still. That is childishly obvious, and it would be useful to a civil discussion to acknowledge that we both agree on that point.
[JP: Glad to see you understand this. Will it last?]
But surely you must agree that the lesser energy volume from the colder object can replace some of the energy already emitted by the hotter one: the work equation says exactly that.
[JP: “Some” does not to equate to more, which is what is required for the hotter object to heat up. Thus, the presence of the cooler object doesn’t cause the warmer one to heat up. The warmer simply warms the cooler.]
The heat flow, then, goes from source (at a constant flux, according to your setup of the thought experiment), outward to the surface of the sphere. That surface is emitting energy to the “outside” — doing work upon that “outside”, whatever it is, therefore reducing the temperature of that surface from the maximum temperature which could be generated by the constant flux from the internal source. Surely you can agree to that, as well?
[JP: The outside is simply the vacuum of infinite space. So the sphere radiates into that space. The sphere’s surface temperature is simply the power distributed over the surface, converted to radiative flux temperature.]
Adding a layer with heat capacity would reduce the work done by the surface of the sphere because of the rising temperature of the inside surface of the shell, as energy is conducted through that material.
[JP: The sphere just heats the shell, and the shell takes some time to warm up if it is not negligible. The shell then emits the power from the sphere on its own exterior, to the vacuum of infinite space. The sphere heating the shell does not require or mean that the sphere becomes hotter…it can’t get hotter, since there is no additional heat or power being supplied to it – the shell is passive, and cooler.]
It’s as simple as this: There is work done by the heat source on the sphere, raising its temperature. There is work done by the surface of the sphere, either on the “outside”, or on the intermediate shell, which cools the surface of the sphere while warming the recipient, either the infinite “outside” or the quite finite “shell”. It is obvious that the diameter of the object affects the temperature of the outside surface, because it affects the distribution of energy across the surface area. Therefore, like an onion, there is an internal temperature gradient through the object, from the heat source out to the outside.
[JP: A larger external surface area means the flux is diluted, which means lower temperature. Of course there is a gradient in both temperature and flux. The existence of this gradient doesn’t mean that heat flows up the gradient to warm the source…rather, heat flows only “downhill”.]
With the outside not presenting any reflection of energy, or retarding energy flow outward in any significant manner, any object which intervenes must slow the cooling of the sphere surface, thus increasing its temperature (always below the maximum available from the heat source) until it can overcome the reduction in flow because of that intervening object.
[JP: The surface of the sphere is never cooling, because it has an internal power source, and so a question of “slowed cooling” doesn’t even enter here anywhere. The surface of the sphere gets a temperature given the flux which must be emitted from it, and then this flux can heat other external objects “out there”, such as a shell. The shell will get heated from this flux to the requisite temperature given its own surface area, and then the original energy from the sphere gets emitted on the outside of the shell to outer space.]
How does that in any way violate the 2nd law, Joe? You seem so preoccupied with the whole CO2 thing that you can’t agree to simple resistance of energy flow causing a slower cooling rate, and that flies right in the face of the work equation you yourself cite. How is that?
[JP: Forget the 2nd Law – go to the 1st: does the shell send energy as work, heat, or matter, to the sphere? No it doesn’t. The important one would be as heat, but it doesn’t send energy as heat since it is cooler than the sphere. Your argument doesn’t follow the science & physics of heat flow and thermodynamics. There’s your problem.]
Is it possible for this group of commenters to reply in a civil manner, with no name-calling?
[JP: Is it possible for you to learn the 1st Law of Thermodynamics, and the subsequent restrictions on heat flow? I find that to be more important than being civil.]
One other note: if the shell doesn’t keep the surface of the sphere warmer than it would be without the shell, how does a blanket work on a heat-generating human body in a cold room?
I think I’ll go experiment with that right now. Good night, and I thank God that my blanket doesn’t fail to keep me warmer like you believe your shell fails to keep your sphere warmer.
[JP: Your body heats up the blanket and then your skin is touching a warm blanket, hence feels a warmer contact, rather than touching cooler air and having that air which automatically convects and wicks heat away from your skin. A sense-perception based analogy does not change the mathematical fact that Q’ = A*sigma*(Thot^4 – Tcool^4), and hence, cold doesn’t transfer heat to hot.
Adding a shell layer of steel physically touching the sphere will not make the sphere warmer – the touching shell will simply become the new surface of the sphere, and this new surface will be a little cooler since it has a larger surface area.]
Joe, how do we know that a colder body radiates anything towards a warmer body, photons or whatever? Any physical evidence? Because, if it does not, then we do not need such constructions as “they carry energy, but not heat”.
That is a good point Greg. Only the balance, as heat, actually seems to move at all. The rest they can abuse with sophistry, as you imply.
Joe wrote: ” The surface of the sphere is never cooling, because it has an internal power source, and so a question of “slowed cooling” doesn’t even enter here anywhere.”
This is getting ridiculous. Of course the surface of the sphere is cooling: it is shedding energy to the “outside”. If it were not being cooled by its radiative relationship with space, it would heat to infinite temperature, a physical impossibility but required by your reasoning.
[JP: From http://www.vocabulary.com/dictionary/cooling: “the process of becoming cooler; a falling temperature“. The surface of the sphere is a heat source, with constant power input, hence it is not cooling. It is radiating heat to cooler surroundings, because it is a heater – we don’t say that an active heater is cooling, especially when it’s temperature is not dropping.]
Correctly stated, the surface is being heated by the internal source of energy, and cooled by radiation to space. The claim of “constant temperature” is only valid because in such an operational system, equilibrium will be reached.
[JP: Rather, correctly stated, the sphere is itself the source of power – say it has nuclear material within it – that is, it is the heat source, and it passes its heat to the cooler surroundings, i.e. the vacuum, or the shell etc. The sphere is constant temperature because it has constant power generation and output, and this power is distributed over the surface as radiant flux emission, which determines its temperature. Since the sphere is the only source of power, i.e. it contains the only source of power, then it is constant temperature because a constant temperature will emit a constant power.]
The addition of the shell changes causes that equilibrium to change, to a different temperature.
[JP: I’ve demonstrated the maths of such a claim, and it debunks itself with its own infinite results. This claim is also refuted by the 1st Law of Thermodynamics. The sphere heats the shell to the requisite temperature given the shell’s surface area, and then the shell emits the power provided to it from the sphere on its own exterior. The 1st Law of Thermodynamics and also the radiant heat flow equation, which is an essential corollary of that law, both specify and demonstrate that the sphere can not be heated because of the presence of the shell.]
Kindly provide your understanding of the work done on space by the surface of the sphere.
[JP: As with your understanding of the term “cooling”, perhaps English and physics isn’t your primary language. It is not possible to “do work” on empty space, and this is a physically nonsensical question. With either the sphere or sphere with shell, the exterior radiates to outer space. The radiant flux reduces as the inverse square law.]
Joe also wrote: “having that air which automatically convects and wicks heat away from your skin”.
Admission that the skin is being cooled by the air, but kept from cooling by the blanket.
[JP: That’s not a problem. As was explained and can be easily thought about, if you layered the sphere with a new shell layer of steel, it wouldn’t make the sphere hotter. The sense-perception analogy with an ambient environment and air is false. The physics and math of the situation we’re actually discussing with only radiant emission and vacuum is what is relevant.]
Now, with regard to heat. Kindly describe the unit for heat, would you? In my book, it’s in joules.
“energy, work, quantity of heat joule J N·m m2·kg·s-2” (from http://physics.nist.gov/cuu/Units/units.html).
It’s energy, Joe. No magic, no distinction, no unique properties. Work is energy.
[JP: I suppose you were unable to recognize that this is demonstrated by the heat flow equation, which I’ve shown in the OP and eslewhere: Q’ = A*sigma(Thot^4 – Tcool^4). Indeed, heat has units of joules, but heat only flows from hot to cool. The energy from the cool source does not act as heat for the warmer source.]
Greg wrote: “Joe, how do we know that a colder body radiates anything towards a warmer body, photons or whatever? Any physical evidence?”
Simply, Greg, all objects above absolute zero emit energy, and those thermal emissions — energy — flow in all directions. There is no alternative. The work equation which Joe himself cites reveals that the net work done by a hotter object on a cooler one is the result of emissions from the hotter one MINUS the emissions from the cooler one (back to the hotter one).
[JP: The cooler one does not send heat to the hotter one, as established by the first law and the heat flow equation just shown.]
The statement “they carry energy, but not heat” is a contradiction in terms. Unless, of course, you can find a physical distinction between a joule of work and a joule of something else. Conservation of energy denies you that right to discriminate, actually.
[JP: Again, see: Q’ = A*sigma(Thot^4 – Tcool^4). Both objects have energy emission, but only the difference between them acts as heat. Energy can take many different forms and is not exclusively “heat”. Energy is only “heat” as per the heat flow equation – the flow from hot to cool, causing the cooler to rise in temperature. No heat flows from the cooler to the warmer at all, and in fact the flow is the reverse of that – from hot to cool. You can not claim that all energy is heat, as this is simply wrong, and sophistical, and violates and contradicts the first law of thermodynamics, and probably the rest, and also the heat flow equation.]
When you understand that it is the exponential radiative power understanding itself that enforces — no, creates — the second law, that false distinction will have less attraction.
[JP: The exponential fourth-power of total radiative emission doesn’t itself create the laws of thermodynamics. But it is a feature of them.]
Energy is energy. Some photon wavelengths represent small amounts of energy, others, large. But regardless of wavelength, energy is conserved. All objects above absolute zero emit energy, and an object in the path of such an emission, hot or cold, must either absorb, reflect, or transmit such an emission, in keeping with physical laws. No magic. No appeal to desired outcome or governmental antics. Just physics.
[JP: None of that equates to heat flowing from cool to hot, and a cool object heating up a warmer object. A hotter object can not be warmed by the radiation from a cooler object – rather, the hotter object warms the cooler object, and then the energy from the warmer object continues on on the other side of the cooler object, conserving energy.]
So, I asked “how do we know that a colder body radiates anything towards a warmer body, photons or whatever? Any physical evidence?” and here is the Tom OregonCity’s answer: “Simply, Greg, all objects above absolute zero emit energy, and those thermal emissions — energy — flow in all directions. There is no alternative.”
Tom, you can not be that stupid not to understand that your answer does not contain any physical evidence, it is a mere repetition of the same claim. It is “because it is so” kind of answer. What a disgrace.
You are welcome to make another try though.
Joe, I suggest you trash any answer from Tom if it is the same demagogic repetition without evidence. Should go generally for any post, in my humble opinion. Sort of “no demagogy” policy, it is long overdue. Otherwise the trolls will make any reasonable conversation impossible.
Well just look at them…that’s exactly what theyre trying to do…lol.
Joe,
Your wannabee-physicists critics aren’t physicists. They think they are, but they aren’t. I am full square with your citing of, and adherence to, the standard heat flow and power equations. If you think about it, they have been calculated, engineered and observed for ~150 years in any system in the real world involving heat engines and heat transfer. If we were all missing the magic of cold heating hot, I’m quite sure General Electric, Honda etc would have exploited that for profit. They can’t because it doesn’t happen.
When I was taught university physics, before climastrology got going, they gave me a qualitative description of the LoT, which was suggested could be used when engaging with people who lacked the mental capacity to cope with the counter-intuitive nature of 2-way energy transfer, but one way heat transfer. It went:
Zeroth Law – Temperature is a physical quantity in its own right – anywhere.
1st Law – You can’t win – you can only break even.
2nd Law – You can only break even even if you can get to absolute zero.
3rd Law – You can never get to absolute zero.
It meant then, and it means now, that in any natural system, with no additional independent source of energy, or work done on the system, that the heat emitted by the source is on a one way trip to the space sink. In such a system, no warming of the source can ever occur, regardless of the nature, quantity, mix or amount of matter between the source and the sink.
That is in complete accordance with the observed data in nature. There is no such thing as a free lunch. The members of the Free Lunch Society who are trying to dance on the head of a non-existent pin by conflating 2 way energy exchange with 1 way heat exchange are cretins. Or liars.
Great stuff Tom. Thanks.
J.P.:
Heat only flows from hot to cool.
ST:
Heat flows in both directions simultaneously. The increase in temperature of the cooler object is a result of the fact that the flow from hot to cold is greater than the flow from cold to hot. The cooler object will be heated (it’s temperature will increase) the hotter object will be cooled (it’s temperature will decrease). But the rate of cooling of the hotter object will less than it would be if it was not receiving some heat from the cooler object.
It’s important to be aware that the laws of thermodynamics in this regard have to do with relative heating/cooling, not absolute heating/cooling. IOW, it’s the net heating/cooling of each object that is being delineated in the laws.
http://www.solvingtornadoes.com
Tom says: “2-way energy transfer, but one way heat transfer … heat emitted by the source”
==========================
In my humble opinion this sort of terminology leaves much space to trolls for obfuscation. Now, both cold and warm bodies emit (and absorb, right?) energy, but only the warm one emits heat? This would be the logical conclusion. No one will understand that.
By the way, Tom, any physical evidence of this 2-way energy transfer? I mean specifically from cold to hot. How would you physically, experimentally detect that? Please a concrete answer.
It is understandable, but it is indeed that they choose to sophize around it.
My understanding goes that far that I could repeated it as a student and get an A, but…
Hi Greg,
You asked for a ‘concrete answer’ on physical evidence of 2-way energy transfer, specifically from cold to hot. I thought I alluded to that in my post at 2015/01/08 at 7:03 PM – with reference to an ice cube, visible to me in the same room, but which doesn’t cause me to heat up.
If we were in adjoining, identically well-lit rooms, mine at +15C, yours at +10C, and we were separated by a glass wall, there would be 2-way energy transfer in the visible spectrum, from cold to hot, as you queried. This is confirmed by seeing each other. Heat, on the other hand, only flows 1 way, from my room to yours.
What am I missing?
@Greg House
Re your 2015/01/09 at 8:28 PM
Agreed. We need to be ruthlessly consistent and correct with terminology. I know I’m long removed from academia, so guilty where correctly charged.
It’s not that the ‘warm’ body emits heat and the ‘cold’ one doesn’t. They both emit IR energy which is characterised by the respective source temperatures. As you well know, heat flow, strictly from warm to cold, occurs only because of the difference in temperature of the 2 bodies. If they are both at the same temperature, they both continue to emit energy, but there is zero heat flow between the 2 bodies.
Tom, assuming you are internally heated to 37C and alone in the vacuum, and suddenly an ice cube appears next to you, then you would absorb it’s radiation according to the 2-way concept, right? Which means you would radiate away more as well, so according to the SB Law your temperature would increase. Am I missing anything?
As for the visibility of ice cubes, I have just conducted a scientific experiment. I took an ice cube with me to the room without windows and turned off the light. Immediately the damned thing became invisible! Stopped radiating, right? Or what was wrong? My eyes were wide open, I swear…
Greg – wot? The ice cube never ‘radiates’ visible light. It reflects it, if visible light is available. In a room with no visible light there is none available for it to reflect, so it becomes “invisible”.
So no. It didn’t stop radiating, it stopped reflecting when the light was turned off. It was, however, radiating IR constantly. Surprised you didn’t know this.
@Greg House
Our posts and replies are getting out of sync, as it seems we are being ‘unmoderated’ at different times. I’ve answered your 2015/01/09 at 10:47 PM question, now your earlier 2015/01/09 at 10:27 PM has popped up.
The preamble to the question contains an incorrect assertion: I would not “radiate away more as well”, hence, my temperature would not increase.
You asked “Am I missing anything?”.
I think you are Greg. Find out what, and why, by scrolling up to solvingtornadoes’ post at 2015/01/09 at 8:09 PM.
Thanks to ST for saving me the typing.
Tom says: “The ice cube never ‘radiates’ visible light. […] Surprised you didn’t know this.”
========================
Exactly, Tom. This is what I was trying to tell you. It refutes your argumentation though, surprised you did not understand that.
So, again, I am waiting for REAL physical evidence. Or maybe the 2-way concept should be abandoned?
And please, Tom, do not ignore my example about you and the ice cube in vacuum. Do you have anything to say about it?
“The ice cube never ‘radiates’ visible light. It reflects it, if visible light is available. In a room with no visible light there is none available for it to reflect, so it becomes “invisible””
It radiates infrared radiation, as an infrared camera shows. If it didn’t radiate, you could shine IR on it all day long and increase its temperature to infinity..
Tom wrote:
“As you well know, heat flow, strictly from warm to cold, occurs only because of the difference in temperature of the 2 bodies. If they are both at the same temperature, they both continue to emit energy, but there is zero heat flow between the 2 bodies.”
So how does emitted heat from a cooler body “know” it’s traveling towards a warmer body and “know” not to go there? ‘
[JP: It is not heat if it is emitted from a cooler body – heat is only the portion flowing from hot to cold, causing cold to warm up. See the definition:
Q’ = A*sigma*(Thot^4 – Tcool^4)
You are wrong to call all energy “heat”.
The radiation energy from the cooler body is fully accounted for, but heat is only the portion balance of energy going from hot to cool, which can only cause the cooler thing to warm up.]
Greg House says:
2015/01/09 at 8:28 PM
Tom says:
“2-way energy transfer, but one way heat transfer … heat emitted by the source”
Greg House says:
In my humble opinion this sort of terminology leaves much space to trolls for obfuscation. Now, both cold and warm bodies emit (and absorb, right?) energy, but only the warm one emits heat? This would be the logical conclusion. No one will understand that.
Solving Tornadoes:
The confusion has to do with subtleties of terminology. And there is more than one way to become confused. I think it is important to be as clear as possible as to the following:
1) Energy is a thing. It is a noun. (It can’t be created or destroyed.)
2) Heat (flux) is not a noun. Heat is NOT a thing. It is a process. Heat (flux) is a process by which energy changes its location. A big source of the confusion is that many people see heat as a thing. In a sense, they are using it interchangeably with energy.
3) Heating/cooling involves the increase or decrease in the measurable temperature of an object as a result of heat (flux). A big source of the confusion is that many people see heating as a process when in actuality it is a result of a process. In a sense they are using heating (the result of a process) interchangeably with heat/flux (a process).
So there are three things here. 1) A thing, 2) a process, and 3) the result of a process. And the terminology that we use to delineate these three things in common usage is a big source of the confusion. The word “heat” sounds like a noun to our ears. But it isn’t, it’s a process. (This is why the term flux was created.) And the term “heating” sounds like a process to our ears, but it isn’t. It’s the result of a process. (It might be best to avoid using the term “heating” altogether and, instead, refer to increase or decrease in measurable temperature).
http://www.solvingtornadoes.com
Me, and an ice cube, in a vacuum. I presume you chose a vacuum to exclude heat transfer other than by radiation. Beyond that, I have no idea what you are waiting for me to answer that I haven’t already. Did you read ST’s post?
It would help if you could ask direct questions, which don’t include loaded preamble and incorrect conclusion(s). Better still, get to your point.
Tom says: “The preamble to the question contains an incorrect assertion: I would not “radiate away more as well”, hence, my temperature would not increase.”
===================================
In frame of your 2-way concept you would absorb the radiation from the colder ice cube in my example and and consequently radiate away more, which means your temperature would increase. Which is equivalent to the absurd ans physically impossible “cold warms hot”. Thus the concept is refuted by reductio ad absurdum. Done.
Your attempt to bring our ability to see an ice cube as the proof for 2-way concept was unfortunately a blatant deception, since you knew that it not so that the ice cube RADIATES visible light towards our eyes.
So, we are essentially done with the scientific part. Of course, your can infinitely troll around the issue, but maybe you can find a reason not to do that.
Greg – from what I’ve read of your posts, we agree on the big point, that the atmospheric radiative GHE is fiction and we can both explain why. If you want to have an argument, and you clearly do, pick someone else. Be sure to lower your image by chucking out cheap shot “troll” insults – Godwin’s Second Law.
Maybe you could find a reason not to do that.
Nice. I have never seen anyone hit that nail on the head so simply.
Often the warmists over at WUWT and elsewhere will point out that CO2 in the atmosphere has to be radiating energy downward towards the surface and, therefore, the surface must be heated up to some degree. The answer to that seemingly logical conclusion which is not really so lies in the fact the terminology is being misused.
Do you think the terminology is misused out of ignorance mostly or out of calculated intent to deceive? I wager that for most commenters there that it is ignorance. I also wager that many of the “main players” know better.
Look guys, the heat flow equation has two radiation terms in it, which represent energy: Q’ = A*sigma*(Thot^4 – Tcool^4).
So, there are two radiation terms, of energy, but, only one-way flow of heat. The heat is only the difference between the energy, not the energy terms themselves.
At this point, after explaining it to them so many times, they have to be held responsible as if they if they are doing it out of intent to deceive, even if it is just a mistake they made but their ego’s are too large to admit and correct it. That does end up equating to intent to deceive. And they will be held responsible for their crimes, when the time comes.
“Two radiation terms” are not necessarily there. 2-Ways concept requires a physical evidence. Example: if A,B and C are 3 points on a straight line and you drive from B to C at the speed S, the time it took you can be described as (AC – AB)/S which does not mean “two driving terms” physically. Actually there is only one driving in the example. It can be confusing sometimes.
David Appell (@davidappell) says: “It radiates infrared radiation, as an infrared camera shows.”
=====================================
OMG, IR camera again… We’ve had it so many times…
Is it your point, David, that warmer detector absorbs IR from a colder body? Is it how IR thermometers/cameras work? Please…
Just comment on my example about Tom in vacuum above, it would be sufficient.
And David, since you here and won’t go away so easily, I suggest you comment on the key issue which is this: “the “greenhouse effect” as presented by the IPCC and established in the climate (pseudo)science is not about delay. It is about “greenhouse gases” intercepting outgoing IR from the surface and sending it almost DOUBLED back! This is how they get their warming”. Here David, I hope you are smart enough to see that in the picture: http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/faq-1-1-figure-1.html
markstoval says:
Often the warmists over at WUWT and elsewhere will point out that CO2 in the atmosphere has to be radiating energy downward towards the surface and, therefore, the surface must be heated up to some degree.
ST (Jim McGinn):
I suppose it depends on which connotation of the phrase, “heated up,” one intends:
Quoting myself, #3 above:
“A big source of the confusion is that many people see heating as a process when in actuality it is a result of a process. In a sense they are using heating (the result of a process) interchangeably with heat/flux (a process).”
Do they intend to imply that downward radiating energy from the CO2 will transfer energy to the surface? If so then what they are saying is accurate (but inane, see below). Do they intend to imply that the downward radiating energy will increase the temperature at the surface? If so then what they are saying is wrong.
All matter produces radiation, constantly and in all directions. This is well known and the laws of thermodynamics account for this (and, therefore, there is really no reason to call attention to this. One would only do so if one was confused or attempting to confuse their audience.). The laws of thermodynamics have to do with what is measurable. Temperature is measurable. The net flow of energy always goes from hot to cold, as measured by temperature. Ultimately it is just sophistry to even bother to draw attention to the fact that radiation moves in all directions simultaneously. Usually the sophists don’t know they are being sophists, they are just ignorant. But it is the responsibility of the person that is making an argument to not leave the door open to ignorance-based interpretations by sophists. IOW, it is the responsibility of the person making the argument to make sure they have removed any possibility of ambiguous interpretation from their own argument.
markstoval says:
The answer to that seemingly logical conclusion which is not really so lies in the fact the terminology is being misused.
Do you think the terminology is misused out of ignorance mostly or out of calculated intent to deceive? I wager that for most commenters there that it is ignorance. I also wager that many of the “main players” know better.
ST (Jim McGinn):
I don’t know. There seems to be a lot of stubbornness going both directions. The sophist refuse to stop interpreting phrases like “heated up,” as referring to a process (rather than the result of a process) and the anti-sophists refuse to stop using ambiguous terminology (like, “heated up”) that opens the door to sophistry. All of it plays into the hands of people whose only goal is to keep the public confused so that the flow of money doesn’t stop.
Thank you for such well considered questions,
Jim McGinn
Solving Tornadoes
Do you believe in cold steam?
@ Jim McGinn (Solving Tornadoes)
Thank you for all your input on this thread. You seem to have a good knack for expressing things so that I can see it clearly. As a teacher, I know that different people need to hear things differently — no one can be all things to all people. I also enjoyed the post at the link above.
The only problem I am having is that you have all the navigation and search boxes in a deep black and I can’t see it well. When I get to my Mac tomorrow at work I’l be able to see it better than on this terrible little laptop I am using at home.
Anyway, thanks for the help. 🙂
~ Mark
In terms of energy transfer I tend to view things in terms of the difference between potentials and all energy wants to acheive equilibrium:
The Sun has far greater potential energy than the Earth and the Earth is embedded in the Heliosphere therefore, the Sun is discharging energy into the Earth as both bodies seek equilibrium.
Both bodies are part of a system and both are aware of each others potential energy but energy is only transmitted from the Sun to the Earth but not vice versa as it is the process of equalization that is driving the system.
Does that make sense?
Yes it makes sense Damian. At no point does a “response system” (the Earth) have the power to flow back up the gradient. Rivers flow downhill.
Pingback: The Ducks | Climate of Sophistry