Willis Eschenbach’s Greenhouse Shell Game

Who’s What, Really?

For back-links to this debacle of the steel greenhouse produced by a non-scientist with no scientific education to speak of, see here.  It’s quite a funny story and it is not surprising that this fellow is one of Anthony Watts’ main science advisers…see here for an example of Watts’ own failed attempt at doing science.  (And see here for Roy Spencer’s, another main Watts adviser, own confused debauchery of logic and physics.)

Isn’t it strange that the “approved” mouthpieces of the skeptics are 1) scientifically illiterate people, who 2) defend and protect the originating basis of the climate alarm fraud, i.e. its sophistical version of a greenhouse effect, from criticism?

Yes, that is strange.  You see what’s happening?  They allow and indeed promote any manner of lively debate…except the one that matters.  Interesting.  Does it have an obvious answer?  It has a few possible answers: A) they’re just incompetent retards that mean well, B) they’re incompetent retards that don’t know they’re being used and had by the climate alarm cabal, C) they know what they’re doing and are purposefully protecting the single fraudulent basis of climate alarm while posing as skeptics and promoting debate which is ultimately useless because it never gets to the fundamental.  There is no answer which absolves them of responsibility for the crimes they’re committing – at best, they can claim incompetence.

Shell Games

Not that the steel greenhouse and thus the climate science greenhouse effect hasn’t already been debunked in the aforementioned first link, let us use another example to demonstrate how its very own postulations debunk themselves with a trifle application of logical, scientific, and mathematical analysis.

For reference, here is Willis’ steel greenhouse concept:

steel-greenhouse-2

 

Of course, as we’ve seen, Willis actually violates the law of conservation of energy with this diagram, but he justifies this by saying that he “only violates it a little bit”, “if he makes the violation small rather than large”, and that “this is how approximations work in science”.  Anyone with any actual scientific training or logical competence is on the floor howling at this point!

The sphere contains the source of energy, so let’s remove the sphere from inside the shell and make the shell itself be the container for the power source; say that the shell is uniformly “salted” with nuclear material and so the entire thickness of the shell is where the energy originates.

shell game

So, the shell contains a source of power which produces P0 joules per second of energy uniformly distributed within the material of the shell.

In Willis’ argument, the shell radiates energy back to the sphere, and this energy has to be absorbed by the sphere, independent of any consideration of the direction of heat energy flow between the shell and the sphere, because that consideration is ignored so that any emission results in subsequent thermal absorption.  Thus, let us follow that exact same argument, and say that the shell radiates energy back to the shell on its own interior, and this energy has to be absorbed by the shell, independent of any consideration of the direction of heat energy flow between the shell and itself.

Willis then states that since half of the energy is emitted on the inside, but the full amount of power needs to the emitted on the outside, then the energy emitted on the inside needs to be absorbed on the inside and cause the temperature to increase, irrespective of the law of heat transfer.

What happens on the inside of the shell is here irrespective of whatever occurs on the outside of the shell: Willis and the other advocates claim that if there’s any emission at all on the inside, then it has to be absorbed by the the interior because any emission always needs to be absorbed and to thus cause an increase in temperature.

Thus, the power flow at the inside surface of the shell is half of the source power P0, minus the emission from the inside surface, plus the ambient environment from emission from the inside surface.  So, using the law of conservation of energy with temperature considerations, the rate of change of temperature of the shell interior is given by

1]                                    mCp*dTint/dt = ∑Q’i

2]               ∑Q’i = (1/2)P0 – 4πRint2*σTint4 + 4πRint2*σTint4

The last two terms cancel each other since internal emission is balanced by internal absorption – the emission at any internal point is balanced by absorption from an ambient environment of the identical flux and temperature, and so

3]                                    mCp*dTint/dt = (1/2)P0

which has the solution

4]                                       Tint(t) = (1/(2mCp))*P0*t

which of course goes to infinity as the time, t, goes to infinity.  That’s the runaway heating which is always the end result of this type of reasoning, and it thus debunks itself, if anyone were honest enough to pay attention to their own logic.

Of course, what Willis (& Roy Spencer on other occasions) simply do is to arbitrarily stop the self-heating process at the value they want, by using mathematics which has nothing to do with the differential nature of heat flow and temperature change.  They say that the half of the energy which is emitted internally gets absorbed internally, causing temperature increase.  So, they add 1/2 to 1/2 and get 1, and then claim that cold can heat hot and also that same temperatures can heat up each other.

It’s convenient for them to stop there, but it isn’t logical: their physics says that any internal emission results in absorption and thus temperature increase irrespective of the heat flow equation (because they ignore the heat flow equation), and so when the temperature is increased to result in total power of 1, this has to then add to itself again since it is emitting upon itself, and thus it has to absorb itself and be heated up some more since that was the original premise of their physics.  But they then ignore their physics.

Isn’t it amazing what you can do with sophistry, incompetence, and dishonesty?

If You Care to Know

So what is the temperature of the inside of the shell?  Can you figure it out on your own?  Don’t read on, and see if you can figure out the physics and logic by yourself first if you like.

There is no loss of energy on the inside since any emission is replaced by absorption from the same thermal environment – the interior is essentially always in equilibrium with itself, thus it can’t change its own temperature via exchange of energy with itself.

There is a constant input of power P0, but this energy is lost only on the outside of the shell, and so the equation for the temperature of the exterior of the shell is

5]                                    mCp*dText/dt = P0 – 4πRext2*σText4

At equilibrium, dText/dt = 0, and so, P0 = 4πRext2*σText4. Thus the equilibrium temperature is:

6]                                         Text = [P0/(σ4πRext2)]1/4

That is, it is just given by the power spread over the exterior surface area.

This will in fact have to be the uniform temperature inside the entire shell volume, including its interior surface.  It doesn’t make sense to spread the power over the interior surface area to find the interior’s surface temperature, because if the interior surface area was very small, i.e. as its surface area went to zero, then the temperature of that surface would go to infinity.  That’s not logical, because if the cavity vanishes altogether, i.e. its surface area goes to zero, then you simply have a solid sphere, and a sphere with a uniformly salted power source shouldn’t have an infinite central temperature.  That’s how you think like a physicist.

Too bad it is so easy for these people to pretend other things instead – to lie, to be dishonest, to be incompetent, and to be accessories to fraud.

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

79 Responses to Willis Eschenbach’s Greenhouse Shell Game

  1. Tom says:

    I had an exchange with Willis on the Watts income generator site. I explained to him that, if he fully accepted the UN IPCC Keihl/Trenberth/Hansen etc nonsense, then he was stating that the earth was flat, lit 24/7 by a reduced power sun, and that this meant that the sun, by itself, cannot melt ice or evaporate water on earth (-18C GMST).

    After a lengthy exchange, where it became apparent that his grasp of science and reality was, at best, slight, he stated that the meaningless false average of the flat earth/cool sun “was good enough” for him.

    He denied that this false construct was at odds with the actual instantaneous relationship of matter and energy. I left him with the notion that, if the effect of energy on matter in the real world could be averaged, it would be fine if he had his top half in a hot oven and his bottom half in a cold freezer.

    He remains a deluded fool.

  2. Truly disturbing this level of criminal incompetence and lies.

    Great explanation of the averaging problem!

  3. David Appell says:

    You aren’t very clear about defining your variables here, but if you keep bombarding a material with energy and if it has no way to radiate that energy to the outside, then, yes, its tempertature will go to infinity. (Note you have no outward radiation terms.)

    If the Earth only received sunlight, but emitted no outgoing radiation itself, its temperature would increase without bound.

    [JP: Not being able to radiate is a question of emissivity. That’s not the concern with Willis’ sophistry or the radiative greenhouse effect.]

  4. David Appell says:

    Tom says:
    “…the meaningless false average of the flat earth/cool sun “was good enough” for him.”

    In what way is this a bad assumption, given the other uncertainties in the model?

    [JP: Compounding non-physical averages with existing uncertainties doesn’t improve the situation.]

  5. John Francis says:

    Jeez, Joe:
    I agree with your science. I disagree with your attitude, tone, and strategical motivation. Willis may be mistaken. I think he is. But.. He is no fool, far from it, nor IMO motivated by anything other than trying to understand the world and the people in it. And he is a great writer to boot. Ditto Anthony Watts. There is no reason at all for the aggressive condescending tone. Even if your mathematical/physical argument turns out to be 100% correct, you will have almost zero influence in the real world in the meantime. Tone it down! Michael Mann and his ilk are motivated to torture data and reason for the sake of fame. Anthony and Willis are not. Can’t you see that?

    [JP: John, Willis and Watts are indeed in the torture data & theory game, as has been historically demonstrated here with their interactions with me and their sophistical attempts to shut down debate on the greenhouse issue. They are absolutely culpable for fraud and are absolutely protecting the basis of climate alarm, and they deserve to be noted and outed for their crimes. THEY are lying to you, bullshitting, promoting bad science, preventing debate on the fundamental issue, protecting the basis of alarm, using sophistry, lying about their own scientific results, making stuff up out of nowhere, hiding their own scientific data, violating the 1st Law of Thermodynamics, ignoring feedback, they are absolutely hostile towards criticism of the greenhouse, they were absolutely originally a source of hostility…and you ask ME to be nice to them?

    That’s idiotic liberal pandering. These people are criminals, THEY are committing crime, and hurting people. They deserve to be held responsible with prejudice for their crimes.]

  6. geran says:

    Joseph, I salute you for continuing to hammer the WUWT crew about this. Your task is difficult because the simple violations of physics require massive efforts to debunk. But, there are also some easy ways.

    In the original post, by Willis, he states, near the end: “In order to get enough energy to allow for the known losses, the simplest model requires two atmospheric shells. A perfect greenhouse with two shells would give a surface temperature of 3W, or 705 W/m2.”

    So, he indicates that adding a second shell would then somehow provide “3W”, or 3 * 235 = 705 W/m^2. He is creating energy by adding a second shell!!!! If you’re looking for a perfect example of “sophistry”, there it is.

    Yeah, you MUST continue to hammer them. (And, don’t forget the infamous “mirror that can heat a light bulb” magic trick!)

  7. These people are criminals geran, and I look forward to the day where we get to hold them criminally responsible for their lies and the harm they’ve attempted to inflict on the world.

    There will come a reckoning, and when it finally comes, the masses will be calling for payback. I can’t wait to see these frauds try to squirm their way out of that…lol.

  8. Thomas Homer says:

    Joseph,

    I applaud your vigilance when confronted with this tedium. I recall reading a claim in an article that “heat trapping greenhouse gases continue to increase unabated”. It occurred to me that attempting to construct an argument against that claim is analogous to refuting the claim that the population of unicorns continues to increase unabated. I grow wearisome. Physical properties are that which can be measured. If there were a way to measure this phenomenon, then we would be measuring it. We’d have charts to reference. Charts that show the impact of altitude, i.e. how Denver behaves differently than Miami. Charts that show any difference of day/night. But mostly, the influence of atmospheric tides on this “heat trapping” property. Atmospheric tides vary the amount of atmosphere over any single location throughout a revolution of the Earth, so it must follow that the heat trapping phenomenon must vary as well, right? Alas, there are no charts to reference. If there are no charts then there is nothing we can measure (unless we’re to believe that none of the 97% of climatologists ever considered measuring it), and if there is nothing to measure then there is no actual physical property.

    Please continue your affront against the “unicorn” claim using your technical expertise. But I’d also like you to continue your discussion of how CO2 actually behaves in the real world. There have been recent claims that the oceans are absorbing more and more CO2 from the atmosphere, enough so that the ocean’s PH levels are influenced. Although, the force by which the oceans absorb CO2 is never clarified. I’m skeptical of this claim since the intersection of the oceans with the atmosphere is a surface area equation, not volume. If oceans did absorb CO2 from the atmosphere, then wouldn’t the air mass that travels across the Pacific be depleted of CO2 when it reaches the California shores? Yet the redwood forests in California with some of the tallest trees in the world contradict this. It would make more sense that the Pacific does not deplete CO2 from this air mass, and an abundance of CO2 is pooling on the western side of the Rockies (since it’s heavier than air) and this provides the Redwoods with the green, organic CO2 they need to reach such great heights.

    Another question I have about CO2 is: How does CO2 get distributed around the Earth? I’ve been very skeptical of how much useful information can be gleaned from the bubbles trapped in ice cores. How could a bubble ever be considered representative of the Earth’s atmosphere? Especially if CO2 is distributed by forces of wind. Clearly, if wind were distributing CO2 then it’s absurd to think that CO2 would be evenly distributed around the globe. But, if gravity is what actually distributes CO2, then perhaps it would be more evenly distributed (does this refute my own argument of the air mass travelling across the Pacific above?). And if gravity evenly distributes CO2, then any actual physical properties of CO2 would be evenly distributed. And how could we see record low temperatures if the heat-trapping phenomenon of CO2 were evenly distributed? In reading a few articles of how data is gathered from ice core bubbles, I was amazed to see the admission of how the data is manipulated and reconstructed to account for how the bubbles are exposed to various forces over such long periods of time. It seems to me that the numbers they publish are truly only averages of averages.

    And finally, I too find great solace in reading mathematics and/or logic, but I’ve yet to read those you’ve suggested in earlier posts.

  9. squid2112 says:

    Awesome article again Joe! … thank you!

    As opposed to John Francis, I applaud you for continuing to oust Watts, Willis and their ilk. They are in fact sophistic fraudsters and must be recognized as such. This “Steel Greenhouse” subject is a particular thorn in my rear, as it is the cause of my banishment from their blog in an attempt to shut me up and shut down my debate. As you are aware, I am somewhat of a layman in the world of physics. I believe I am a rather intelligent person, as my computer science accomplishments can attest, but Willis and Watts were not able to accommodate my simple questioning and reason, and therefore they shut down any debate with me and stopped further commenting from me. Pretty sad when they can’t even answer to such simple perspective. Tony Heller has fallen into exactly the same camp at his StevenGoddard blog. I was even a very nice guy about it all. Well, not anymore. Hit em’ and hit em’ hard, right where it hurts the most. I am one of those that is demanding “payback” and I will do so until my last dying breath. It would be one thing if they honestly didn’t know what they are doing, but alas, this is clearly not the case. They understand full well what they are doing and they fully well argue to that fact. Enough bullshit… only the truth is henceforth allowed.

    Thanks again Joe! … fantastic article and more to learn from

  10. CW says:

    To Thomas Homer’s comment; A scientist at NOAA named “Feely” has been publishing articles for a number of years relating to the increase of the acidification of the oceans. He, I believe, shared in the Noble prize list of scientists that supported Al Gore.

    Well, apparently, his work was questioned by another scientist working on his PhD. It appears this Dr. Feely neglected to include 80 years of actual data from tests runs around the world that actually shows the opposite trend. This issue recently came out in several other blogs. Dr. Feely only used his “computer model” results as the basis for his study. Just another scam by scientists inside the “big lie” camp.

  11. Rosco says:

    Seriously

    Trenberth et al says the atmosphere heats the Earth’s surfaces more than the Sun does – that is a fact of their diagram !

    Anyone who believes this is simply deluded !

    NASA make claims such as – “Greenhouse gases absorb some of the energy and trap it in the lower atmosphere. Less heat radiates into space, and Earth is warmer.” and then produce satellite documents celebrating 40 years of Nimbus measurements which all show MORE radiation to space not less !

    All of this shit is “peer reviewed” and completely contradictory.

    But how do they ignore Planck diagrams ? Planck’s equation defines radiation emission at temperature while the SB equation is less informative. If we accept Planck’s equation (I have no idea but I accept it as much as the Stefan-Boltzmann equation which is the integral of the equation by pi hence the area under the curve) then Planck diagrams prove that radiation from cold objects cannot heat a warmer object.

    Hotter objects emit photons at higher frequencies than colder objects. Also they emit more photons than colder objects.

    In an exchange between the 2 the hotter object always loses more than it receives.

    And the absurd Steel Greenhouse ignores the work done by the emissions from the sphere in heating the shell.

    Such an absurd proposition has never been observed in real life !

    The really funny thing is that it was proven centuries ago that radiation from a cold object cannot heat a warmer object. Pictet’s reflection of cold demonstrates how absurd the Steel Greenhouse and the rest of “peer reviewed” junk science really is !!!

  12. Thanks Thomas. Your points are a correct analysis indeed.

    The truth is that climate alarm is the shoddiest, most pseudoscientific field that has ever been accepted by the community. Everything about it defines sophistry and pseudoscience.

  13. Just right Rosco!

  14. Climate Researcher says:

    “Trenberth et al says the atmosphere heats the Earth’s surfaces more than the Sun does – that is a fact of their diagram “

    So how much do you think direct solar radiation raises the surface temperature of Venus?

    Hansen, Trenberth et al realized quite correctly that more energy is required than insolation supplies.

    You don’t know how it gets there only because you haven’t studied http://whyitsnotco2.com which was visited by 348 others yesterday. They are getting ahead of you.

  15. markstoval says:

    Joseph,

    Every time you post, it is a joy to read. If you can, please do more. I came to the “steel greenhouse” party late. I did not get to watch the debate “live” so to speak. A great loss in my opinion. (classes to teach and all that)

    A luke-warmer at WUWT (a Dr. Brown) agreed with a real skeptic on what happens when a CO2 molecule receives a packet of long wave energy from the surface. He said that the CO2 molecule would almost every time bump into a nitrogen, oxygen or argon molecule and lose that energy to the non-CO2 molecule thereby aiding convection and not doing any “back radiation” anyway. (even though I think he buys that “back radiation” happens.

    I also would like to see another post by you as to what, exactly, CO2 does in the atmosphere. And sorry for all the non-technical language in this comment; but I like to try and keep it as I would explain it to my poor deluded friends at lunch. 🙂

  16. Mindert Eiting says:

    When I pump air in the tyre of my bike, assuming an indestructible tyre, the pressure in the tyre will increase till the point it equals the pressure at the pump. So I will never get a run-away pressure in the tyre. Looks like a sound start if we want that the earth can never become hotter than the sun..

    When I make some very small holes in the tyre, then with a certain pumping effort (just keep pumping day and night), the pressure in the tyre will arrive at an equilibrium value. Next, I fix some of the holes. With the same pumping effort the pressure will be higher than before while a new equilibrium is attained (with a higher pressure air will escape faster through the remaining holes). This increase of pressure has nothing to do with back-flow of air from low to high pressure, which would violate thermodynamics. It is a nonsense issue. Increasing pressure has to do with the relationship between input and output in an open thermodynamic system in which we have a flow in one direction from pump to tyre to the outside.

    I am not a physicist but I own a bike. I want to know whether CO2 in the atmosphere can delay the escapement of radiation at TOA, similar to fixing holes in my tyre. If that is possible, the luke-warmers a right.

  17. No Mindert, that is not how it works. An analogy between pressure in matter which obeys the Pauli Exclusion Principle (Fermions) can not be analogized to Bosons which do not follow Pauli exclusion and can overlap eachother in constructive and destructive interference.. Such an analogy is wrong, and if used, then sophistical.

    In terms of radiation, the most CO2 can do is to be radiatively heated by surface emission, and then that heat will continue on down the gradient to outer space. This does not and can not cause the surface heating the CO2 to become hotter still, as is demonstrated by the correct mathematical analysis of the steel greenhouse, the 1st Law of Thermodynamics, the radiative heat transfer equation, etc.

  18. “In terms of radiation, the most CO2 can do is to be radiatively heated by surface emission, and then that heat will continue on down the gradient to outer space.”

    When atmospheric CO2 radiates it goes in all directions, since the orientation of the CO2 molecules are random. Up, down, and all around. Some of that makes it way back to the surface, and since radiation is energy, it warms it.

    [JP: Not all energy is heat. Only the difference between radiation terms is heat: Q’ = A*sigma*(Thot^4 – Tcool^4). Therefore, since the atmosphere is cooler, it does not send heat and thus does not heat the surface.]

  19. Rosco says:

    markstoval – I intend no criticism of you I merely quote what you write.

    “I came to the “steel greenhouse” party late.”

    “A luke-warmer at WUWT (a Dr. Brown) …”

    Robert Brown of Duke University is most decidedly not a “luke-warmer”.

    In fact he is one of the most aggressive promoters of the Steel Greenhouse effect ever to write a comment on this absurd nonsense.

    Here is his “proof” of the Steel Greenhouse effect as forwarded in an email by him.

    “I actually clicked on the link and followed it for once, and as I expected, the argument given in this article is absolute, incompetent crap. Are you guys actually incapable of doing simple heuristic reasoning, let alone managing a few lines of trivial algebra?
    If you heat the inner sphere at a constant power P, then it has to lose power P to infinity T_surroundings = approx. 0 (for planets, where the 3K temperature of “space” aside from the small cone subtended by the sun is close enough to zero to be able to ignore it). Assuming unit
    emissivity, this sets the equilibrium temperature of the inner sphere (of area A = 4pi R^2) absent the shell:
    P = sigma A (T_e^4 – T_3K^4) – approx. = sigma A T_e^4 (as T_3K^4 is approx. 0)
    P = sigma A (T_s^4 – T_e^4) = sigma A T_s^4 – sigma A T_e^4
    P = sigma A T_s^4 – P (see first equation!)
    or
    2P = sigma A T_s^4”

    There is of course one fatal flaw in this absurd “trivial algebra” and “hueristic reasoning” – he just invents the solution he wants without any justification at all.

    In the second line he simply ignores that the LHS of his “equality” is actually “P(net)” and NOT “P” as he writes.

    He then completely ignores the fact that unless you already know the value of T_s there is no possible solution to this equality.

    His algebra is simply absurd beyond belief because “P(net)” – what he should have written rather than “P” – is not an actual radiative flux at all and is in no way equal to any sigmaT^4.

    It is plainly the difference between two discrete temperature radiation emissions.

    He simply chose to make it equal to “prove” his absurd proposition – but they are not the same thing !

    Just because something has the same numerical value as per the innappropriate Stefan-Boltzmann equation algebra manipulations Brown performs does not necessarily mean it is equal to sigmaT^4.

    All Brown has proven is that “P”(net) + “P”(initial) = “P”(final) – not his stupid claim of 2P even if “P”(net) is numerically equal to “P”(initial).

    Plot the Planck functions for the temperatures corresponding to the two emission figures in this absurd construct and see how mistaken this so-called “proof” really is.

    Climate science is full of this pseudo-science algebra and it is just bullshit.

    The Planck curve for the difference between the temperature values calculated for 470 and 235 is obviously NOT the same as the curve for 235 – try it yourself as it will help the understanding of what is correct algebraic manipulation and what is not even though it appears to be correct.

    Therefore the following is true :-

    P(net) is never a true Planck curve and hence NEVER equal to sigmaT^4; AND,

    P(net) + P(initial) = P(final) is a trivial result and not “proof” of anything at all BECAUSE it is indeterminate unless you already know all of the values.

    This “proof” is meaningless nonsense ! The author does not even understand the basics of the “physics” he quotes !!

  20. Greg House says:

    Mindert Eiting says: “I am not a physicist but I own a bike. I want to know whether CO2 in the atmosphere can delay the escapement of radiation at TOA, similar to fixing holes in my tyre. If that is possible, the luke-warmers a right.”
    =======================================

    Mindert, as a bike owner you should know that this “delay” is the favorite obfuscation the warmists/trolls have been using for years on the Internet. No, 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, not by “delay”. Specifically they talk about the surface having 33°C higher temperature then the Sun can possibly induce, note: in absence of a more powerful source of heat. Owning a bike is surely an absolutely sufficient condition to understand what an unbelievable nonsense their concept is, you do not need to study physics.

  21. Rosco says:

    “I want to know whether CO2 in the atmosphere can delay the escapement of radiation at TOA, similar to fixing holes in my tyre. If that is possible, the luke-warmers a right.”

    The problem with this argument is that climate science says :-

    1. 83 % of the radiation to space comes from the atmosphere and a mere 17% directly from the surfaces – Trenberth et al Energy Budget is source for this (although the NASA graphs disprove this assertion); and,

    2. Oxygen and Nitrogen have little interaction with infra-red hence the only mechanism for these gases – 99% of the atmosphere – to cool down once they are heated is to transfer the energy to greenhouse gases which then radiate to space. (I do not believe this is right but quote it as they claim – reliable physics texts always state that everything radiates energy at every temperature above absolute zero.)

    There can be no doubt that the 99% of the atmosphere that is Oxygen and nitrogen actually absorbs energy and increases in temperature even if they do not interact with Infra-red to a large extent. It is 32 degrees C here today and that is not due to the tiny amount of CO2 and water vapour – O2 and N2 are heated to this temperature as well.

    There are 2 obvious implications to this :-

    1. Oxygen and nitrogen are the real heat trapping gases IF they cannot radiate IR to space – I repeat I don’t believe this for one minute but it is what climate scientists claim; and,

    2. Precisely how does increasing the main cooling mechanism for the atmosphere – the concentration of greenhouse gases – cause warming if they are solely responsible for over 83 % of cooling but only trivial amounts of warming, if any at all ?? surely an increase in concentration will enhance the ability of O2 and N2 to cool by increasing the frequency of energy transfer through collisions – more GHGs more radiation to space. Even if you believe “back radiation” can cause heating the net effect is zero by climate scientists own logic – 50% down + 50% up from this GHG “layer in the sky = zero net effect.

    Like all the pseudoscience I see presented by climate alarmists this claim is simply more gobbledygook !

  22. @Rosco, yes, Robert Brown is one of the most incompetent scientists, or rather competent sophists, I know.

    He states the equation Q’ = A*sigma*(Thot^4 – Tcool^4), and then says that Q’ is the energy from the Sun, and needs to be conserved! If Q’ is the energy from the Sun, then where is the energy from the Sun represented on the RHS of the equation!? He thinks that Q’ has to be conserved as the raw numerical flux value from the Sun, rather than it going to ZERO when the Earth and Sun are in equilibrium. He has no clue, or rather he lies very, very well.

    A real sick twisted freak who will also be one of the one’s paying for their crimes. Can’t wait to see him held responsible and accountable for his fraud.

  23. this “delay” is the favorite obfuscation the warmists/trolls have been using for years on the Internet. No, 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!

    That’s always been their strategy: when the main argument is debunked, switch it to a completely different one using completely different physics. Change reference frames.

    Sick, sick bastards.

  24. markstoval says:

    @ Roscoe

    Rosco says:
    2015/01/10 at 1:57 PM

    markstoval – I intend no criticism of you I merely quote what you write.

    “I came to the “steel greenhouse” party late.”

    “A luke-warmer at WUWT (a Dr. Brown) …”

    Robert Brown of Duke University is most decidedly not a “luke-warmer”.

    Thanks for that reply Rosco.

    Point 1) I must be confused over what the term “luke-warmer” means. I thought it meant that one agreed with Jim Hansen’s bullshit about CO2 warming the planet but disagreed on the amount of expected warming and if the small amount of CO2-caused-warming was good or bad. In other words, I was calling him a Jim Hansen fellow traveler. Did I misuse the term?

    Point 2) If he claimed to his old friend Peter Morcombe (gallopingcamel) that CO2 did not really get the chance to “back radiate” because the molecule would lose any receive energy by bumping into a non-CO2 molecule before it got the chance to radiate the energy — did he not pretty much refute the entire Jim Hansen back-radiation nonsense by saying that?

    Thanks in advance for any help you can give me on these two points.

  25. markstoval says:

    Hello All,
    There is a new post here:
    https://okulaer.wordpress.com/2015/01/11/to-heat-a-planetary-surface-for-dummies-part-2/

    by “okulaer” that goes over, in depth, the “steel greenhouse” idea.

    I wonder if anyone here would be kind enough to tell me if they think that okulaer got it right.

  26. Rosco says:

    markstoval – how about this ?

    Many people have tried to justify this absurd “steel greenhouse” proposition in exactly the same manner.

    This is simply an exchange of energy between 2 objects.

    The initial proposition (in this guy’s post) is that 240 x A (A = surface area of sphere) watts are emitted by the sphere and this is entirely due to an internal energy source that does not change.
    Initially the shell has no energy at all and no internal energy source it is solely “heated” by the radiation emission from the sphere.

    I have seen numerous textbook references that involve a problem such as this and NONE of them ever claim anything like the “steel greenhouse” back radiation causing additional heating proposition.

    Google radiation shield and you will find many reputable sources which show a radiation shield reduces energy loss BUT I HAVE NEVER SEEN ANY THAT CLAIM THIS CAUSES ADDITIONAL HEATING !

    Inanimate objects rely on radiative from an energy source to maintain their internal energy else they simply cool to levels approaching absolute zero.

    Anyway – if the sphere emits 240 x A watts = 240 x A joules per second this is the TOTAL amount of energy available to “heat” the shell. Let’s allow the proposition that it is OK to ignore the geometry and allow the shell to exist with the same radius as the sphere but no contact hence no conduction.

    They claim that the shell has 2 surfaces and therefore emits the same flux in and out. They claim the temperatures must be the same and therefore the shell emits 240 out. This leads them to claim that there is now a “deficit” which can only be “balanced” by the “back radiation” increasing the temperature of the sphere so we now have 480 out from the sphere causing the shell to emit 240 in and 240 out.

    This sounds reasonable (?) but it isn’t if you consider conservation of energy – they conserve flux NOT energy.

    The total energy available initially is 240 x A joules per second. This is absorbed by the shell which causes it to warm and hence it radiates over a surface area of 2 A – A in and A out.
    The way I see it 240 x A – the only source of heating – when completely absorbed is only sufficient energy to cause 120 x 2 x A joules per second. The sphere is at a temperature of ~255 K with the shell at a temperature of ~214 K.

    The entire 240 x A joules per second are necessary to just maintain the shell at this temperature and radiative emission level.

    The net energy exchange is 120 x A joules per second sphere to shell and 120 joules per second shell to space.

    I see this as conservation of energy. Also it agrees with the Stefan-Boltzmann equation of net energy exchange between 2 objects which is always hot -> cold.

    If you consider the Stefan-Boltzmann equation the ONLY way net energy can flow from the shell to the sphere is if the shell is HOTTER than the sphere. As the shell is heated only by the emissions from the sphere this NEVER happens.

    How can you have any heating effect on the sphere if the net energy exchange is always from the sphere to the shell and NEVER the reverse – it just defies logic and common sense – much like all of greenhouse climate science?

    Even if both the sphere and the shell are initially at the same temperature there is still no net energy exchange so there is no mechanism for the “back radiation” to increase the internal energy levels of the sphere – there is zero net energy exchange.

    And simple examination of Planck curves proves this beyond doubt and I encourage anyone to plot these curves in a spreadsheet and draw the graphs – it isn’t really difficult. Remember the Stefan-Boltzmann equation is the integral of the Planck equation and only Planck’s equation completely defines radiation emission.

    The reason Planck curves illustrate how impossible the steel greenhouse proposition is they clearly show that hotter objects emit “photons” at shorter wavelengths than colder objects. These photons are also higher energy photons as E = hc/lambda. As h and c are constants then smaller lambda (wavelength) means higher energy.

    Another reason Planck curves illustrate how impossible the steel greenhouse proposition is they clearly show that the emissions from a colder object are wholly contained within the curve for a hotter object.

    So a hot object is emitting not only significantly more photons across the whole spectrum but it is also emitting high energy photons that it simply NEVER receives back from a cold object.

    Even when both are at equal temperatures the maximum effect is replacement of photons emitted – there are precisely zero higher energy photons necessary to raise the internal energy to the level where it emits higher energy photons.

    This is the Achilles heel of this absurd proposition – not only is back radiation incapable of even replacing the photons lost by the warmer object it is also completely incapable of inducing the higher internal energy state necessary to emit higher energy photons.

    Is there any evidence to support my claims ? How about Einstein ?

    There is the evidence of the well-established photo electric effect.

    Unless the incident photons have the “threshold” energy they are absorbed with zero photo electric effect. This threshold energy is defined by wavelength – short wavelength hence high energy per photon.

    The number of incident photons is irrelevant – if they have less energy than the “threshold” levels there is no current generated – I guess that is why my solar panels don’t work at night even though Trenberth et al say the Sun shines at one quarter power 24/7.

    I cite this as evidence that photons can be absorbed with zero photo electric effect – they may well have a thermal effect BUT why wouldn’t this also obey similar laws ??

    Less energetic photons from a cold object CANNOT make a warmer object hotter still – it defies logic, common sense and both Planck’s and the Stefan-Boltzmann equations.

    Unless someone knows some other relationship between temperature and radiation emissions the steel greenhouse “self-heating” proposal is gobbledygook !

  27. Rosco says:

    And again

    This simply claims that if we simply insulate something well enough infinite temperatures are possible.

    Has this ever been demonstrated ?

    No of course not.

  28. Greg House says:

    The most simple explanation is that if the temperature of the sphere rises above 255K where the input stays the same 240 W/m², it means more energy output than input, which is absolutely impossible. You do not even need to read the article.

  29. markstoval says:

    Thanks for that explanation Roscoe. I pretty much thought the same but wanted some conformation. You went into great detail, and it was appreciated.

    And thanks to Greg for the short and sweet version that was pretty much my first thought on the matter was.

  30. Martin Hodgkins says:

    Talk about deja-vu! I always think of the shell being like making the sphere bigger – it just makes the surface area bigger and has a cooling effect if anything. The reflecting back and all that is imaginary, if it were all solid it would make no difference. All that fancy maths is no good without common sense – I know I am thick – but I am not as thick as anyone who thinks that heat goes round and round and accumulates without any extra input.

  31. Rosco says:

    “but I am not as thick as anyone who thinks that heat goes round and round and accumulates without any extra input.”

    Breathtaking clarity in that statement Martin !

  32. Man it’s nice to know there are at least some smart rational people on this planet!

  33. Rosco says:

    markstoval referred to a site by okluaer

    I’ll summarise his “proof” of the “Steel Greenhouse” effect – he claims it isn’t about back radiation but thermodynamics but it is really the same old tired inappropriate algebra Brown proposed based on back radiation and the Stefan-Boltzmann equation !

    The author uses a constant q/sigma in his equation and equates it to 240 W/sqm as opposed to Willis 235 W/sqm – it is irrelevant.

    I say this is inappropriate crap !

    He uses this “fact” to prove that the sphere must increase in temperature as the Shell absorbs energy from the sphere and begins to warm.

    He begins with

    q = σ(Th^4 – Tc^4) Th = T sphere and Tc = T shell.

    (Notice the same old error – q is not a flux equal to sigmaT^4 in this equation – it is q(net) and has an infinite number of values as temperatures change)

    which he then manipulates and expands to

    q/σ = (Th^4 – Tc^4); or,

    Th^4 = q/σ + Tc^4 ; or,

    Th = 4√((q/σ) + Tc^4)

    and claims this is appropriate algebra and can be used to calculate Th ???

    He uses a random temperature value before radiative equilibrium is established such as 50 K

    Th = 4√((240/σ) + 50^4) = 255.1K

    then at “equilibrium” writes

    Th = 4√((240/σ) + 255^4) = 303.3K thus proving his assertion.

    (~255 K is the T equivalent to 240 W/sqm and all he has really done is double the energy out of nothing just like Brown did in his stupid proof ! But these guys are so enamoured by how clever they are they can’t see what they are really claiming !)

    C’mon !!

    Anyone that believes this is an appropriate algebraic manipulation has the intelligence of a newt – not that I have anything against newts.

    What he is REALLY saying is the temperature of the sphere is equal to the temperature of the sphere plus the temperature of the shell ???

    Expand his equation (as he does initially) in reverse –

    Th = 4√((q/σ) + Tc4) and take each factor out of the brackets maintaining the 4√ term

    = 4√(q/σ) + 4√(Tc4)

    and it simply becomes Th = Th + Tc !

    because Th (= 4√(q/σ) + Tc( = 4√(Tc4).

    Even arguing that the term 4√(q/σ) is actually some initial temperature for the sphere while the temperature of the sphere can vary still does not disguise the fact that any equation such as

    Tf (for final) = Ti (for initial) + Tc

    has no valid scientific merit and is merely bullshit !

    OK – it works for Tc = zero ! But it is still unlike anything I have ever seen referenced in reputable science texts.

    I don’t recall any actual Physics reference claiming anything like this for radiative transfer.

    Didn’t any supporter of this inappropriate algebra notice this inconvenient truth ?

    What source could anyone cite establishing these algebraic manipulations are actually correct and scientifically valid.

    This argument is a convoluted proof of back radiation even though the author claimed it isn’t – the results are exactly the same.

    His logic is circular and a notational trick – not a real proof.

    The author of this forgot some of the fundamental rules of the scientific method including but not limited to:-

    1. No theorem can be proved by purely notational tricks.

    2. The fundamental rule of mathematical sloppiness is that you are allowed to be sloppy as long as you know how to do things correctly.

  34. What’s really funny is when you consider if the sphere was layered with a new layer of steel, touching the sphere. THAT won’t warm up the sphere, it will just be a new surface of the sphere, which is cooler.

    Here’s the funny part: They say that the radiative amplification of the heat source can only happen purely radiatively, and if there’s any conduction present between the sphere and the shell, then the effect won’t be able to manifest. And this is supposed to be evidence/proof for the atmospheric greenhouse effect.

    Errrm…isn’t conduction happening in the atmosphere fellas, between the surface and air?!! hahahahhahahaha idiots.

  35. Mindert Eiting says:

    Thanks for your comments, Joseph, but this leaves my question not yet answered. Luke-warmers can be right for the wrong reasons. I have read on the internet at least two accounts, one (and possibly the better) about a reduced cooling rate, which is not the same as warming by the impossible mechanism of back radiation.

    Remains the question where the back radiation idea comes from. How could people assume something which obviously violates thermodynamics in the realm of bosons? Perhaps it was invented by ideologues who wanted to fool people and used some ideas from the world of finance (energy budget). However, the concept of time is essential (also stressed by Joseph in other posts) and can be illustrated by cash flow.

    Suppose, you have a certain income and expenses, equalling each other. Once a month (closed system) or on a daily basis (open system) you get a salary and during that month you have your expenses. The amount of cash shrinks in a jumping fashion with a certain rate. That is your cooling rate. In the end you own nothing but you can increase the amount of cash temporarily by delaying expenses. It can be explained to children that more cash does not imply an additional income. By delaying expenses you do not get money from your creditors. The Second Law of Money-dynamics says that money flows from debtors to creditors only. Much easier than the greenhouse model and good for Americans who think that getting credit is the same as earning money.

    In the steel greenhouse we see some arrows but there is no time. This should be the red flag. If this would be a model of cash flow, we may demonstrate that it makes us as rich as Al Gore by treating credit as income. If this were possible, the whole issue could be explained to the general public.

  36. Andy Hurley says:

    Hey Joe , ever heard of Stefan the Denier ,funny old geezer but smart as a whip .
    I do not know or could not say if he is coming from the same angle as you but he argues that all the physical sciences are corrupted by alarmists and luke warmers much as you do.
    At any rate he is an interesting read if you ever have the time .

  37. Mindert, the thing is is that there is no “delaying of expenses” with radiation just because radiation is absorbed by another substance at a distance from the source. The source itself is not delaying anything just because at some distance away from the source, something else is absorbing some of the output. The source isn’t being delayed by something else, at a distance, absorbing the output from the source.

    The soruce can only be delayed by reducing its own emissivity. Again, something else at a distance from the source does not reduce the source’s emissivity. The shell does not reduce the emissivity of the surface of the sphere, and the atmosphere does not reduce the emissivity of the ground surface.

    All this analogy creation is the means by which climate pseudoscience exists, and its sophistical greenhouse effect. The ONLY thing that is true is a rational, logical understanding of the math and physics and Laws of Thermo, without any analogizing. No heat is sent from the shell/atmosphere to the sphere/surface, because they’re cooler, hence can not send heat. Hence the sphere does not warm because it has no additional heat supplied to it. That’s the math, that’s the thermo, and any analzogizing which gets more complicated than this, is wrong, and sophistical.

  38. He is indeed correct – the sciences are corrupt.

    Why Math Must Replace Science

  39. David Appell says:

    Joseph E Postma wrote:
    “The ONLY thing that is true is a rational, logical understanding of the math and physics and Laws of Thermo, without any analogizing. No heat is sent from the shell/atmosphere to the sphere/surface, because they’re cooler, hence can not send heat.”

    Is it your claim that cooler bodies do not radiate?
    Is it your claim that radiation does not carry energy?
    Is it your claim that a body that absorbs energy does not get warmer?

    At least one of these three must be true, in order to give your favored interpretaton. So which is it?

  40. Rosco says:

    “The fundamental rule of mathematical sloppiness is that you are allowed to be sloppy as long as you know how to do things correctly.”

    I stuffed my argument up – looks like I have the intelligence of a newt !

  41. Is it your claim that cooler bodies do not radiate?

    I have not implied such a thing anywhere or at any time. When I write the heat flow equation from thermal physics, Q’ = A*sigma*(Thot^4 – Tcool^4), the cooler body is clearly radiating. Hence I find it very strange that you ask if I make the claim you state…it has never been part of the debate.

    Is it your claim that radiation does not carry energy?

    The radiation terms are A*sigma*T^4 which has units of Joules per second, and so, clearly, radiation has energy. Hence again, I find your question as to whether I make the claim you state very strange, since it is opposite of what the debate has presented from my side.

    Is it your claim that a body that absorbs energy does not get warmer?

    I have repeatedly explained how a body which receives heat energy, will thus heat up. With the heat flow equation from thermal physics, written above, we see that heat energy flows from hot to cold only. The balance of radiation terms between a warm and cool body leads to the cool body being warmed up by the warm body. A cold thing has never warmed up a warm thing, in all of science’s known history.

    At least one of these three must be true, in order to give your favored interpretaton. So which is it?

    All of your claims are false and misrepresentative strawmen. It is your ignoring of the heat flow equation, and the laws of thermodynamics particularly the first, which leads to your erroneous conclusion about cold heating up hot. Heat energy doesn’t flow from cold to hot, it is as simple and basic and as clear as can be, and has a simple equation which demonstrates it. The inner sphere emits X Watts, then the shell emits X Watts from its exterior. Conservation of energy. The shell can’t make the sphere warmer.

    Hope this helps you.

  42. David Appell says:

    With the heat flow equation from thermal physics, written above, we see that heat energy flows from hot to cold only.

    What experimental evidence provides unique proof of this claim?

  43. David Appell says:

    Joseph E Postma wrote:
    “I have repeatedly explained how a body which receives heat energy, will thus heat up.”

    How then can you claim that “heat energy flows from hot to cold only?” That’s what I don’t understand. Either you think photons don’t carry energy, yor ou think that energy somehow vanishes when they are absorbed.

  44. “With the heat flow equation from thermal physics, written above, we see that heat energy flows from hot to cold only.”

    What experimental evidence provides unique proof of this claim?

    It’s the equation from thermal physics radiative transfer, thus it is not a claim. It’s the most basic thing in thermodynamics. It is what the equation says. Q’ is the heat flow, and its sign gives its direction, which is from hot to cold, the opposite of cold to hot. Always.

    Experimental evidence can be found any day. If you have a stovetop, power one of the elements to make it hot. This is like the sphere, or the surface of the Earth. Then put a passive ice cube near it, then in contact with it, which is like the shell, or like the atmosphere, and you will see that the element doesn’t get hotter. Additionally, you can use a preheated pan than is much hotter than an icecube, but still less hot than the element, and still, the element will not be made warmer than from the power it is being internally supplied when the warm pan is brought near or in contact with the element.

  45. How then can you claim that “heat energy flows from hot to cold only?” That’s what I don’t understand.

    Experimental evidence shows that cold doesn’t heat up hot, and the equations that have been developed to explain & describe this are what we use to quantify it.

    Q’ = A*sigma*(Thot^4 – Tcool^4).

    That equation quantifies the empirical fact and behaviour of how heat energy flow.

    The inner sphere emits X Watts, then the shell emits X Watts from its exterior. Conservation of energy. The shell can’t make the sphere warmer, and the shell doesn’t need to get warmer.

  46. Thomas Homer says:

    ” the sciences are corrupt ” – consider the NASA scientists that recently landed a probe on a comet. Calculating with the laws of gravity to such precision in measurements of mass and velocity. The same scientists that have landed several vehicles on Mars. Capable scientists indeed. Yet there is no device on any of the Mars Rovers that can measure the “greenhouse gas” property of CO2. The opportunity to prove out this phenomenon in near isolation with Mars’ 95% CO2 atmosphere is a scientist’s dream. These capable scientists didn’t forget to send that device, they didn’t send one because none exist. Again, if there were something to measure, we would be measuring it. These capable scientists are culpable for allowing this nonsense to propagate to the extent that the US is legislating as if it were true. This is indeed corruption of the highest order.

    Can we start a #ShowYourScience campaign? Remember when your physic’s teacher wrote “show your work” on a test when you solved the question in your head and only wrote down the correct answer? I want the same from any government proposal based on science. Why isn’t NASA clamoring for this? Aren’t they embarrassed?

  47. There is a move to undermine and hijack legitimate government Thomas.

  48. Opinionated says:

    Joseph,

    You say in a response to Mindert …

    The source itself is not delaying anything just because at some distance away from the source, something else is absorbing some of the output. The source isn’t being delayed by something else, at a distance, absorbing the output from the source.

    My understanding of heat flow is that you have to work out each one independently.

    So you seem to be saying that the heat flows are;

    Souce > Sphere > Internal Vacuum > Shell > External Vacuum

    So since the internal vacuum is at 0K (by definition) the flow from the Sphere is not reduced because Tcold (internal vacuum) = 0. Hence since the Source has a constant output, the Shell has a constant temperature.

    However, if you take the view of a unified radiation field between the sphere and the shell (http://claesjohnson.blogspot.no/2014/02/physics-illusion-2-photons-as-light.html) then the heat flows are;

    Source > Sphere > Shell > External Vacuum

    Which means that as the Shell heats up the difference between Tsphere and Tshell reduces, and since the energy output from the Source is unchanged, Tsphere must rise.

    I guess I am asking which heat flow model you are advocating.

  49. Claes Johnson’s work doesn’t imply or require that that sphere must rise in temperature because it heats the shell. The source tuning fork doesn’t vibrate more vigorously because it induces vibration in another fork.

    The radiation field between the sphere and shell is still one that reduces in flux intensity as the inverse square distance from the sphere. The shell thus “vibrates at a lower frequency” (temperature), but conserves total power as those vibrations are transmitted through the shell, and outward from its exterior.

  50. Opinionated says:

    What I meant to say was …

    “So since the internal vacuum is at 0K (by definition) the flow from the Sphere is not reduced because Tcold (internal vacuum) = 0. Hence since the Source has a constant output, the Sphere has a constant temperature.”

    My question still remains. When you are using the heat flow equations which refer to T(hot) and T(cold), if T(hot) is the Sphere, what are you using for T(cold), the Shell or the Internal Vacuum? If you are using the Shell, and given that T(Shell) will rise to an (lower) equilibrium point due to the energy from the Sphere (as per inverse square law), when you are comparing T(Sphere no shell) and T(Sphere with Shell), won’t T(Sphere with Shell) be greater than T(Sphere no shell) not because of any energy from the Shell, but because the flow of energy from the Sphere is reduced because T(Shell) is greater that T(vacuum – no Shell)?

    If the push from the energy source within the Sphere is constant and the flow from the Sphere is impeded by the temperature of the Shell, will not the temperature of the Sphere be greater than if the Shell did not exist?

  51. OK good questions Opinionated. This answers are found in this post which you can read if you like.

    The heat flow between the sphere and shell, at the location of the shell, is:

    Q’sh = Ash*σ*[Tsp4 * (rsp/rsh)2 – Tsh4]

    The energy that comes from the sphere is the first term on the right hand side, and so that energy is always fully accounted for. Now, Q’ always tends to zero when there’s no other work being done on the system to prevent it; that is, Q’ going to zero is when a system spontaneously moves towards thermal equilibrium. Q’ going to zero is how you determine the equilibrium conditions. Q’ not equal to zero means that the system is not in equilibrium. So, when Q’ goes to zero, then we have:

    Tsh = Tsp * (rsp/rsh)1/2

    Since rsp < rsh the temperature of the shell will be less than the sphere. As you will read in the linked post, when you re-run the math at this point, you will see that heat is never sent from the shell to sphere, at equilibrium or not.

    Before this equilibrium is reached, then we’d have Tsh < Tsp * (rsp/rsh)1/2, which means that the shell isn’t emitting (outwardly) as much energy as it is getting from the sphere. Where is the energy going? Of course, the missing energy is being absorbed into the shell, raising its temperature. When its temperature has raised sufficiently, then it emits on its exterior all of the energy it receives from the sphere on its interior, and this is when Q’ = 0, when the temperature of the shell is as written above.

    At this point, in real time of course, exactly simultaneously and in identical quantity as the shell receives energy from the sphere, the shell emits the same energy from its exterior. Q’ = 0 means that equilibrium has been achieved, that temperatures won’t change anymore.

    But if you look at the equation:

    Q’ = 0 = Ash*σ*[Tsp4 * (rsp/rsh)2 – Tsh4]

    it doesn’t mean that energy isn’t being emitted. The radiative terms are each still there, emitting. The term from the sphere is the sphere’s radiative energy. The Tsp term on the right hand side. Q’ is not the sphere’s radiative energy. The term of the sphere’s radiative energy, is the sphere’s radiative energy.

  52. Q’ can’t be fixed because it is not the energy from the sphere. If Q’ was supposed to be the energy from the sphere, then why is there another term for the energy from the sphere on the other side of the equation? Q’ is the heat flow between the two objects, not the energy from either one of them. The energy from the sphere is the term on the right hand side which comprises the energy from the sphere.

    Q’ and its magnitude and sign is for telling you which object will be heated, and how fast.

  53. If Q’ was supposed to be the energy from the sphere, rather than denoting the heat flow from the sphere to the shell, then you’d have:

    Q’sh = Ash*σ*Tsp4 * (rsp/rsh)2 = Ash*σ*[Tsp4 * (rsp/rsh)2 – Tsh4]

    And you can hopefully see the problem there.

  54. The problem is that the term with the Tsp drops out, leaving 0 = Tsh, always.

    When they write it this wrong way, Robert Brown, Willis, Spencer, and all them, then if Tsh increases, then they say that Tsp must increase too in order for the Q’ difference between them to remain constant.

    However, the left hand side can only equal the right hand side when Tsh = 0, contradicting that the shell can actually increase in temperature at all. This is because they erroneously make Q’ the energy from the sphere, thus placing it on both sides of the equation.

    Q’ = Ash*σ*Tsp4 * (rsp/rsh)2 = Ash*σ*[Tsp4 * (rsp/rsh)2 – Tsh4]

    is the same thing as

    Q’ = Q’ – Ash*σ*Tsh4

    Q’ has been mishandled, misunderstood, and misattributed, by these fellows, and with the radiative greenhouse idea. The physics and math is simply wrong, not getting the terms right.

  55. Opinionated says:

    Excellent Joseph. Clarity has been achieved.

    Thank you.

  56. Joseph E Postma says: 2015/01/08 at 9:46 PM
    “Truly disturbing this level of criminal incompetence and lies.”
    Joseph,
    Willis though incompetent, cannot be criminal, any more than the new puppy peeing on the kitchen floor. It is you that did not put down sufficient newspaper for the puppy, or the cute girly, that is not yet housebroken.
    “Great explanation of the averaging problem!”
    Joseph,
    Please explain how the average of temperature over both space and time, can have any meaning whatsoever? This is the criminal FRAUD, by folk that are paid for such fraud, by your taxes!

  57. Not disagreed with that Will.

  58. Opinionated says:

    Joseph, I think this is how to explain it without equations.

    The Sphere is at a constant temperature and heat flows from it at a constant rate.
    As the Shell receives that heat flow it will raise in temperature. However as the Shell temperature rises, the proportion of the heat flow from the Shell required to incrementally increase the Shell’s temperature also increases. The amount of energy required to raise the temperature of an object from 0K to 1K is much less than is required to raise the energy of the same object from 100K to 101K. This is why the Sphere energy flow is not “restricted” by the Shell. Even at equilibrium when the Shell is at the maximum temperature it is going to get under these conditions, it takes all of the energy from the Sphere to keep it there. This is the point the Willis and his ilk keep missing.

  59. Opinionated, yes, it takes all of the energy from the sphere to maintain the temperature of the shell. More correct would be to say that as the temperature of the shell approaches that of the flux it receives from the sphere, the harder it is for the sphere to increase the shell’s temperature. This is just because the flux differential between the sphere and shell gets smaller and smaller. However, generally if the thermal capacity is constant with temperature, then the difference in interal thermal energy in going from 0K to 1K is the same as going from 100K to 101K, as dQ = m*Cp*dT.

  60. markstoval says:

    Opinionated, yes, it takes all of the energy from the sphere to maintain the temperature of the shell. More correct would be to say that as the temperature of the shell approaches that of the flux it receives from the sphere, the harder it is for the sphere to increase the shell’s temperature. This is just because the flux differential between the sphere and shell gets smaller and smaller. …

    Joseph, just to make sure I am following this correctly I want to run another thought experiment past you. One that is simpler than the one under discussion.

    Take the original sphere (A) with its constant power source as described and put it in the vacuum of space. Then put an identical sphere (B) near it (say 2 diameters away or whatever) but this one does not have a power source. So I have one “hot” sphere (A) and one “cold” sphere (B) near each other. The hot sphere radiates in all directions and so will warm the unheated spear much like our sun does our planet. As sphere B warms up then it starts radiating in all directions also. As I understand your quote, we expect it to warm sphere B to a tiny degree until the temperatures equalize. But I don’t see how that is possible — so I am misunderstanding something. Can you help me out please.

  61. Joseph E Postma says: 2015/01/15 at 6:10 PM
    “Not disagreed with that Will.”
    The difference between incompetent and incontinent is precicely “WHATEVER”!
    To be criminal requires training.,

  62. @Mark,

    Yah so in that situation the other sphere will be heated non-uniformly over one hemisphere. Given internal conductivity etc. for the 2nd sphere, its final temperature distribution is admittedly a little difficult to work out, and might require some numerical finite-element approach to solve it, if there isn’t an analytic pure math solution (I’m not sure if there is).

    However, we can at least state some qualitative boundary conditions of the temperature solution: sphere B would be hottest at the point on its surface directly facing sphere A, and coolest at the opposite point, facing away. And, along that axis, would be a radial rotational symmetry. Hmm…there probably is a relatively simple analytic solution.

  63. Opinionated says:

    Mark, also since the sphere B is only getting a portion of the energy from A and only from one direction, it will always be much colder than A. Not only this but sphere B is emitting radiation in all directions which means that the “equilibrium” temperature of B will much lower than the temperature of A. The “equilibrium” temperature in this context is the temperature that B achieves and does not change of time. It is not the same temperature as A.

  64. Pingback: The Atmosphere is not Insulation or a Blanket | Climate of Sophistry

  65. TomP says:

    Can you explain why you apparently assume that the interior and exterior of the shell are insulated from each other, meaning Tint is not equal to Text? If that really is what you are assuming, then indeed the interior of a radioactive shell would indeed heat up indefinitely. However, my understanding is that the steel greenhouse model assumes that the shell is thin enough to ensure that the temperature is uniform throughout, meaning Text == Tint==Tsh, as in https://climateofsophistry.com/2014/11/18/the-pseudoscientific-steel-greenhouse-debunks-the-climate-greenhouse-effect/
    Please clarify your assumptions.

  66. TomP, if the shell is negligible thickness, then its inner and outer temperature will be equal. However if its thickness is appreciable, then it will be warmer on the interior than the exterior in this situation where the radiant heat input is on the interior. Only if it was heated from the exterior, then would the interior and exterior temperatures be equal. With the radiant heat impinging the interior, then when that heat diffuses out to the exterior, it occupies increasing surface area and increasing volume, and thus, the heat energy density decreases from the interior to the exterior, thus giving a reducing temperature.

    The interior and exterior are not insulated from each other – the heat received at the interior diffuses to the exterior, obviously.

  67. TomP says:

    The only way that the energy P0 can escape is from the exterior, which means Text is determined by the S-B equation. But then if Tint == Text your argument breaks down, there is no runaway heating and there is no net energy flow on the interior surface. I think the problem may lie in your Eq. 2] ∑Q’i = (1/2)P0 – 4πRint2*σTint4 + 4πRint2*σTint4

    It may help to resolve the puzzle by considering a hollow object like a flattened cylinder, with a top and bottom each of area A, but a very small height so that the area of the cylinder side walls becomes negligible. Write the internal fluxes Top->Bottom as Qtb and flux Bottom->Top as Qbt. Then the net flow at each is
    flux in = flux out
    Top: (1/2)P0 + Qbt = A*σT⁴ + Qtb
    Bottom: (1/2)P0 + Qtb = A*σT⁴ + Qbt

    However, from consideration of symmetry, it is apparent that Qbt and Qtb must be equal, meaning that they simply cancel out and we get P0 = 2*A*σT⁴, as expected.

  68. TomP, of course the exterior shell temperature is determined by the input power P0 distributed over its surface area. That is what is shown in equation 6 in the OP for readers already: Text = [P0/(σ4πRext2)]1/4

    And as I said in the previous reply: if the shell is negligible thickness, only then will its inner and outer temperature will be equal. However if its thickness is appreciable, then it will be warmer on the interior than the exterior in this situation where the radiant heat input is on the interior. If it was heated from the exterior, then the interior and exterior temperatures would be equal. But with the radiant heat impinging the interior, then when that heat diffuses out to the exterior, it occupies increasing surface area and increasing volume, and thus, the heat energy density decreases from the interior to the exterior, thus giving a reducing temperature.

  69. Ah, my reply is in the case where there is a central sphere heating the interior of the shell by radiation, as per the standard steel greenhouse pseudoscience.

    In this post, the shell is itself the heat source, with a uniform input of power in its volume. So yes, in this case, as opposed to the case with the inner sphere as in the steel greenhouse, the shell has equal inner and outer temperature for any thickness.

  70. IanC says:

    what a bunch of gibberish. the inner sphere is supposedly heated by nuclear fission therefore the heat source is much hotter than the surrounding filler and the surface can easily radiate more than 235W given conditions that affect the rate of heat loss.

    what local condition could cause a change in the rate of heat loss? a shell surrounding the sphere that acts like a heatsink, and when fully charged will send approx 235W out and 235 in. the 235 in will charge the heatsink of the sphere so that at near equilibrium it radiates 470W. the increase in heat of both the sphere and the shell are accomplished by sequestering energy that would have been simply lost into space.

    there is no magical increase in energy, it simply follows a different path.

    mindert’s questions should have led you in this direction if you had bothered to think.

  71. IanC, check the referenced backlinks for the debunk of your and Willis’ claims. If a power source produces 235 W, then since there are no other sources of energy, it will never emit more than 235 W, anywhere. Heat energy flow is outwards from the heat source only, not outwards, then back inwards from cool to hot, then back outwards, etc.

    The energy is lost to space, by the surface of the shell, as it is warmed by the power from the sphere inside. The only place energy is “sequestered” thus generating temperature increase (considering the sphere is already emitting its power) is in the shell, and once the shell has reached equilibrium with the energy input from the sphere, it emits the same total power to outer space. The sphere can’t receive energy from the shell because the shell is cooler, and heat energy only flows from hot to cool. Please see the fundamental equations of radiative heat transfer in this post and in the backlinks to learn how they work.

  72. IanC says:

    the sphere gets its energy from fission, and is not limited to 235W. even if you ‘seed’ the radioactivity, all you are doing is trading one point source of energy for many. but all of the points are producing more than 235W/m2 of energy, even if the average surface is only 235W. it is like saying the Sun’s surface cannot get hotter than 5000K even though the core is many multiples of that.

  73. IanC, the only relevance of calling it a nuclear source is that it produces a constant output of energy. The source could by anything else. The point is that there is a constant power source of 235 W. Hence, you can’t produce more energy than this. If the sphere has 1m^2 surface area, then its surface flux is 235 W/m^2, and the shell does not add either more power or heat to the sphere.

  74. IanC says:

    I totally agree that 235W is all that is available. at equilibrium the shell is radiating 235W.

    by adding the shell we have changed the ‘face’ to the outside environment. anything inside of that face is now dependent on how the energy flows to space. the shell heats up the sphere by withholding energy that would have warmed space instead. the heatsink inside the shell fills up until equilibrium is reached, if the power source is turned off then the shell still radiates until the heatsink is emptied.

    a practical example of this is a gold melting furnace. it is only hot enough to melt metal after minutes of power input to charge the heatsink. it stays warm long after the power is turned off.

  75. IanC, the shell is heated by there sphere, and then the shell emits the power from the sphere out to space. Energy isn’t withheld anywhere other than in the shell as it gathers the energy from the sphere and attains a temperature. This does not require the sphere to heat up, because at no time does additional heat flow into the sphere since heat energy doesn’t transfer from the shell to the sphere, because the shell is always colder.

    The practical example you mention is not related to any of this at all – that a heat sink takes time to heat up, and time to cool down, is not the radiative greenhouse effect nor indicative of one.

  76. IanC says:

    the sphere has a power source that produces a total of 235w per time interval. that energy is lost to space, a void that can accept energy without changing temperature.

    when the shell is put around the sphere, no energy is lost to the void in the first interval. 235w is sequestered inside the new composite. as more time interval pass, each with its 235w, the shell begins to warm up and start radiating to the void, but still less than original 235w that left the inner sphere directly before the shell.

    transmission of energy is controlled by the temperature of the two bodies according to k(T1^4- T2^4). therefore, as the outer shell increases in temperature the inner sphere must also be increasing in temperature so that it can get rid of the 235w. where does the energy come from to raise the temperature of both the sphere and the shell? it is the same energy that was NOT dumped into the void when the shell was put around the sphere.

    if you still think the sphere is only radiating 235w at equilibrium, please tell me where the energy went that was not put into the void. and tell me how there is a transfer of energy from the sphere and the shell if they are both at the same temperature.

  77. IanC, the energy from the sphere goes into the shell which thus warms the shell up, and then the shell emits the energy to the void. The energy from the sphere still goes to the void. When the shell warms to equilibrium with the flux it receives from the sphere, then the power from the sphere is emitted to the void.

    The purpose of the shell is to be warmed by the sphere inside it. The shell can’t cause the sphere to warm up because it is always cooler or at most the same temperature as the already-warmer sphere. The shell was placed there so that the shell itself could be warmed…by the already-warmer sphere inside.

    IanC:

    transmission of energy is controlled by the temperature of the two bodies according to k(T1^4- T2^4). therefore, as the outer shell increases in temperature the inner sphere must also be increasing in temperature so that it can get rid of the 235w.

    This is incorrect. That equation is for heat flow and is written dQ/dt = Q’ = k(Thot^4- Tcool^4). This is heat flow and it is not a conserved quantity, but goes to zero as a definition of thermal equilibrium. When Q’ = 0, then the shell has been maximally warmed by the sphere. You are mixing up energy, which can be shared without causing temperature increase, and heat, which causes temperature increase in the cooler thing that it flows into. At equilibrium Q’ = 0 so that Tcool = Thot, and there is no heat flow and thus no more temperature increase in the shell, but the energy is still shared between the bodies, in real time: as the shell emits power (235 W) on its exterior, it receives power (235 W) from the sphere. The equation you wrote is for heat flow, not energy conservation. Heat flow goes to zero (Q’ = 0), while energy is conserved by the exterior of the shell emitting the power (235 W in this case) in receives from the sphere, in real-time.

    IanC:

    if you still think the sphere is only radiating 235w at equilibrium, please tell me where the energy went that was not put into the void. and tell me how there is a transfer of energy from the sphere and the shell if they are both at the same temperature.

    As above, the energy from the sphere is dumped into the void between the sphere and shell, the shell absorbs it, warms up, and then emits that energy on its exterior. The shell doesn’t transfer energy to the sphere and the process of the sphere emitting power to the void and that power being transferred though the shell and warming up the shell doesn’t require the sphere to warm up. Again, you are mixing up heat flow, which is not a conserved quantity, with energy, which is conserved. The heat flow between the sphere and shell goes to zero. The power from the sphere is conserved by emission from the exterior of the shell, in real time.

    Please reread this current article, and this one:

    https://climateofsophistry.com/2014/11/20/gift-of-the-steel-greenhouse-keeps-giving/

    and this one

    https://climateofsophistry.com/2014/11/18/the-pseudoscientific-steel-greenhouse-debunks-the-climate-greenhouse-effect/

    and this one

    https://climateofsophistry.com/2013/12/08/revisiting-the-steel-greenhouse/

    Also see this textbook section on radiative heat transfer:

    http://www.kostic.niu.edu/352/_352-posted/Heat_4e_Chap13-Radiation_HT_lecture-PDF.pdf

  78. Pingback: The Ducks | Climate of Sophistry

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s