Simple Definitions

They Agree with the Debunk

From “Thermodynamics”, G. J. V. Wylen, John Wiley & Sons, 1960:

“Heat is defined as the form of energy that is transferred across a boundary by virtue of a temperature difference or temperature gradient. Implied in this definition is the very important fact that a body never contains heat, but that heat is identified as heat only as it crosses the boundary. Thus, heat is a transient phenomenon. If we consider the hot block of copper as a system and the cold water in the beaker as another system, we recognize that originally neither system contains any heat (they do contain energy, of course.) When the copper is placed in the water and the two are in thermal communication, heat is transferred from the copper to the water, until equilibrium of temperature is established. At that point we no longer have heat transfer, since there is no temperature difference. Neither of the systems contains any heat at the conclusion of the process. It also follows that heat is identified at the boundaries of the system, for heat is defined as energy being transferred across the system boundary.”

Thus, there is no heat transfer from the atmosphere to the surface, or from a cooler object to a warmer object in general. And since positive heat flow is what is required for temperature increase, then no cooler object raises the temperature of a warmer object by utilization of its thermal energy.

As heat is defined as the “energy transfer across a boundary by virtue of a temperature gradient”, and the direction of this transfer is “down the gradient”, i.e. from higher to lower temperature, then it is impossible for thermal energy held within a cooler atmosphere or a cooler object to transfer by heat to a warmer object that is itself the original source of heat. Given that this is a general definition, its resultant restrictions must apply to all the modes of heat transfer being conductive, convective, and radiative (or just physical and radiative). “Secondary heating”, i.e., where heat is transferred from cool back to warm after warm has heated the cool, is an incommensurate postulate to the definition of heat.

Thus, the climate science definition of the greenhouse effect, upon which alarmism and its associated socially, politically, and economically regressive and scientifically destructive political movement is based, is false.

This point, which the Slayers were one of the first in presenting to the public and the scientific discourse, is why and when the political movement operatives switch to an alternative definition and argument – that the atmosphere (or a cooler object) retards heat flow thus leading to higher surface (or source) temperature.

Well, fundamentally changing the definition and the mechanics mid-stream only indicates dishonesty, ideology, and outright fraud.  It indicates that they’ve been cornered.

And it also indicates that they themselves debunk and reject their own definition of the greenhouse effect.

An important caveat to the definition of heat and its effect on temperature:

“Positive heat input into an object from an external source is what is required for a temperature increase in the object caused by that external source.”

And of course this is a basic definition in thermodynamics: ΔU = mCpΔT.

So, given that the atmosphere cannot provide positive heat input to the surface, it therefore cannot cause the surface to warm up.

This is important because this also precludes their secondary argument that the cooler object retards heat thus leading to higher temperature.  It doesn’t work that way – temperature is only increased when there is a positive heat input.  And the heat input from the Sun is already full & constant – the atmosphere doesn’t increase the heat input or heat “build up” from the Sun…it is already maximized.

And note that the simple, correct concept of the atmosphere being heated by the warmer surface, by whatever mechanism including absorption of infrared from the surface by CO2, is not “the” or even “a” greenhouse effect.  What the politically, socially, and economically regressive and scientifically destructive religious alarmist movement required was not that the cooler atmosphere is warmed by the warmer surface, but that the cooler atmosphere heats the warmer surface.

So, both of their arguments are refuted by basic definitions in thermodynamics, and their vacillation on the actual definition they use only indicates the baselessness of their movement and their “science”.  If you just look at what they openly did – changing argument, mechanics and definitions mid-stream – then anyone with respect for reason and rationally-conducted arguments would have sufficient reason to reject them.

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

11 Responses to Simple Definitions

  1. songhees says:

    Latest book and documentary.
    ‘The Deliberate Corruption of Climate Science’.

    Debate between Dr Tim Ball and Elizabeth May
    Scroll down to Ian Jessop part 1

  2. markstoval says:

    This was a great post. It’s logic is simple and easy to understand and is based on longstanding definitions and known fact. Thanks for the effort. This one is a great post to link to for some of my confused friends. (thinking of a dear friend science teacher)

    Thanks Joe.

  3. This just sounds like the truth to me. I’m not a scientist but it just makes more sense than what other scientists espouse regarding climate.

  4. johnmarshall says:

    Thanks Joe, can’t get any clearer that that above.

  5. squid2112 says:

    Great post Joseph!

    This is confirmation of my bicycle wheel analogy and proves to me that I have a pretty clear understanding of how thermodynamics (in general) works and why the so-called “radiative greenhouse effect” is not possible.

    As Aristotle once said “told ya so!” … hehehe

  6. Carl Brehmer says:

    Even though you are spot on, you are not telling the con-men who are running this particular con game anything that they don’t already know. Con-men know that they are running a con and like all con jobs this one is based on a false premise. As you point out, this particular con is predicated on the false notion that a “greenhouse gas” mediated “greenhouse effect” not only exists but is threatening to make the planet uninhabitable.

    In order for a con job to work the only people who need to “buy-in” to the con are the “marks”. We, the common man, are not the “marks” in this particular con game; thus those running this con do not care if rank and file human beings believe in the “greenhouse effect” hypothesis or not. The “marks” in this particular con-game are those who are in positions of leadership—government officials such as President Obama, religious leaders such as the Pope, the various heads of scientific organizations such as the World Meteorological Society, the CEO’s of mass media such as CNN, NBC, Nature magazine, National Geographic, etc., the leading global financial institutions such as the World Bank, the deans and principles of institutions of learning at all levels who have the authority to fire teachers and professors who speak out against the con.

    If you want to hear Ban Ki Moon explaining who the “marks” are in this particular con game watch this video.

    Starting at 1:36 you will hear him explain that his goal was/is to enlist the leaders of religions to the “cause” because they will in turn bring their followers into the “cause” who will in turn put extra political pressure on government leaders. The Pope’s recent conversion to the “cause” was a major win for Ban Ki Moon in this ongoing con game. Just Google “ban ki moon pope francis – images” and you will see dozens of photos of Ban Ki Moon schmoozing Pope Francis.

    Rather than trying to persuade each individual Catholic, by converting the Pope he automatically enlisted more than one billion Catholics into the “catastrophic anthropogenic climate change” cause. Now supporting the U.N.’s “climate agenda” is a Catholic’s moral obligation whether or not they believe in the “greenhouse effect” hypothesis because they are (in their minds) morally obligated to obey the Pope.


  7. geran says:

    My thermo book from college was written by both Van Wylen and Sonntag. Page 73 has the exact same text.

  8. Pingback: Global Warming 'Science': Three Impossible Outcomes - Principia Scientific Intl

  9. Pierre R Latour says:

    I found your quote on page 59 of Van Wylen, “Thermodynamics”, 1960 I used at VaTech, 1961.

    I can feel the heat from a campfire, energy transferring from hot flame to my cold body.
    I can feel the heat from sun on a cold ski slope, energy transferring from solar radiation to my cold skin.
    I can feel the heat from my body swimming in a cold lake, energy transferring from my warm body to cold water.

    It is a puzzle to me why greenhouse gas promoters don’t feel the same way I do. Maybe they are inhuman.

  10. Pingback: The Ducks | Climate of Sophistry

  11. Pingback: Three Impossible Greenhouse Gas Outcomes | Principia Scientific International

Leave a Reply

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

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

Facebook photo

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

Connecting to %s