(Guest article contribution by: Dan Fauth)
If you’ve ever used a Hydro Flask, you are probably as enamored with this product as I am. Hydro Flask makes the claim that their containers will keep your chilled beverage cold for up to 24 hours and your heated beverage warm for 6-12 hours. By my experience, this is not an exaggeration. Imagine the pleasure of indulging in 40 ounces of ice cold beer at the end of a six hour hike into desert wilderness. In fact, don’t imagine it, do it! So good!
In this paper, I am going to reveal the secret of the Hydro Flask. In order to do so, I must subject you to a fair bit of science.
To understand what it takes to keep things hot for 6-12 hours compared to keeping things cold for 24 hours requires a basic understanding of thermodynamics. Sadly, much of this may be new to you. This knowledge will also serve you well in understanding the natural forces which really do affect our climate.
Heat can only flow in one direction, from warmer to cooler. It’s never the other way around. To do otherwise would violate the Laws of Thermodynamics. There are four methods by which heat can flow and each method has its own efficiency and hierarchy which is dependent on the environment in which it operates. These four methods are evaporation/condensation, conduction, convection and radiation.
Evaporation is far and away the most efficient means of removing heat from a warm body. Our bodies engage in this technique constantly as we sweat to maintain our desired body temperature. This is also the primary method by which the Earth cools its surface, be it land or water. Condensation is just the inverse of evaporation or evaporation in reverse.
Evaporation is so incredibly efficient at cooling because it involves phase change, namely a liquid material converting to the gaseous form of that same material. In the cases of our bodies and the Earth’s surface, we are talking about evaporating water.
For water, which gets my vote as being the most miraculous substance in the universe, we can witness one aspect of this miracle every time we boil water. You have a pretty good idea how much heat you need to add to freezing water to increase its temperature to the boiling point, from 32 F to 212 F, a temperature increase of 180 degrees Fahrenheit. Once the water hits the boiling point, it then takes over five times that amount of heat to convert all of that water to steam (water vapor) with essentially no temperature rise at all.
Another miracle of water is that it doesn’t have to boil to evaporate. But it still takes that same amount of energy per unit volume to make the transition from liquid to vapor. Your sweat is a case in point and the same thing happens with soil moisture and the water in our lakes, streams and oceans. It is the evaporative process that carries most solar heating away from the earth’s surface. It’s very efficient. Nature loves it.
Conduction, the second choice of Nature, occurs when a warm body is in thermal contact with another body. This technique is used regardless of the phase state of the material. It may be solid to solid, solid to liquid, solid to gas or any combination of the three states of material common to planet Earth. The heat flow is always from warmer material to cooler material regardless of the phase states.
If the material receiving the heat from the other material is liquid or gas, thermal conduction usually results in convection. When added to conduction, convection greatly increases the efficiency of heat transfer. If you have a convection oven and have compared the preheating and cooking times to that of a conventional oven, you know just what this means. Before diving into the subject of convection and how it relates to Earth’s climate, we need to know a bit about air, the stuff that makes up our atmosphere.
Because water vapor has the unique ability to change phases within our atmosphere it is found in extremely variable amounts from nearly zero to over 4% by volume. For this reason it is standard procedure when discussing the composition of air to characterize it as being dry air with no water vapor. Dry air is composed of 78% Nitrogen, 20.9% Oxygen, and 1% Argon. CO2 and methane, both so called greenhouse gases, are also present in trace amounts at 0.04% and 0.0002% respectively. Again, water vapor content in the atmosphere varies dramatically ranging from very nearly zero in arid regions to more than 4% being present in powerful hurricanes and typhoons. Atmospheric water content also varies greatly with altitude as the air within the troposphere (the portion of our atmosphere from surface to around 40,000 feet) becomes cooler with height and water vapor condenses out to form clouds and precipitation.
It is important to note here that all matter has the capacity to store thermal energy, even our atmosphere. This concept of heat capacity is a fundamental property of all matter. Nitrogen for instance has a specific heat capacity of 0.25 btu/lb 0F at sea level pressure. As you may remember from science class, a btu is defined as the amount of heat required to raise the temperature of 1 pound of liquid water 1 degree Fahrenheit. At one quarter of this value, four pounds of nitrogen in our atmosphere can store the same amount of heat as one pound of liquid water. The total mass of our atmosphere is estimated at around 5.5 quadrillion tons. This is a lot of heat storage.
Water vapor has a specific heat capacity of 0.36 btu/lb 0F at sea level pressure, so 2.8 pounds has the same heat storage capacity as 1 pound of liquid water. With water though we should never forget that in making the change in phase state from liquid to gas, each pound of water vapor is storing an additional hidden 970 btu of thermal energy that is not evidenced by temperature. This energy storage associated with phase change is called Latent Heat. This latent heat can be released should the water vapor condense to form clouds or precipitation as it does typically high up in the atmosphere.
Let’s now take a look at how much heat on a percent basis is contained within the constituents of our atmosphere.
Average water vapor content in the troposphere is somewhere between 1% and 2%. If we assume 1% water vapor and we take the specific heat capacities, the latent heat in water vapor and the proportional makeup of the atmosphere, we wind up with the following distribution of heat storage in the troposphere, ranked first to last: Nitrogen: 72%; Oxygen: 17%; Water Vapor: 10.5% ; Argon: 0.5%; CO2: 0.04%; Methane: 0.000%.
So in air containing 1% water vapor, Nitrogen contains 72% of the heat, oxygen is second with 17%, water vapor is third with 10.5% and so on. CO2 and Methane are insignificant. Forget them. They are of no consequence in influencing atmospheric temperatures within the troposphere where life resides. This basic physical fact may be contrary to what you have been told. You have likely been told that CO2, methane and other so called greenhouse gases trap heat in our atmosphere. This is not possible. Given that each CO2 molecule is surrounded by 1,950 nitrogen molecules and 522 oxygen molecules (based on air containing 78% nitrogen and 20.9% oxygen) which are in thermal contact with the CO2 molecule, CO2 has no ability to trap heat beyond the proportions previously listed. Thermal contact requires that should they somehow be heated independent of their neighbors, they must instantly begin sharing that heat with the neighbors. This in turn would induce convection which moves heat away from the Earth’s surface toward space. It can be no other way.
On dry areas of the Earth’s surface, evaporation is absent due to the lack of moisture. Nature’s second favorite means of heat transfer is active here. The air at the surface is in thermal contact with the ground and once the ground is heated relative to the air, the heat must flow to the air as nature always strives to equalize the temperature of adjacent matter.
Warming the air causes it to expand and it becomes less dense relative to the cooler air above it. Like a hot air balloon, the warmer air becomes buoyant and rises above the surface thus being replaced with cooler air that in turn accepts heat from the warmer ground. This process of rising warm surface air with replenishment by cooler air is called convection. Conductive heat transfer from the solid or liquid surface to the air layer with which it makes thermal contact initiates this convection. So long as the sun is shining, the solar radiation impinging the ground will continue to keep the ground warmer than the air above it and the conduction/convection heat transfer process will keep the air circulating with the temperature gradient moving heat away from the surface. At night the convection process will eventually equalize surface and air temperatures and the air will become calm as convection grinds to a halt.
It is important that you understand that greenhouses work by allowing light rays to enter the inside of the greenhouse where the electromagnetic energy from the sun is converted to thermal energy within the molecular composition of the surfaces and air within the greenhouse. The walls and roof of a greenhouse present a barrier to convection, just like your car with the windows closed, and this restriction allows the greenhouse temperature to rapidly rise to the point where thermal conduction between the glass and outside air equalize the energy flows and stop the temperature rise. Even at greenhouse temperatures over 100 0F, radiant heat loss is not significant. Because our atmosphere is completely open to convection within the troposphere, the term “Greenhouse Effect” is a complete misnomer. The term is not just inaccurate, it is deceptive.
Radiation is the least efficient method of heat transfer and generally requires a very high temperature for the radiating source. Radiation is of utmost importance in terms of getting heat to transfer across a vacuum. The sun and light bulbs are good examples of high temperature radiating sources. Light bulbs are vacuum tubes and since the sun is surrounded by the vacuum of space, you may view it as a naturally occurring vacuum tube. It is the fact that the presence of the vacuum precludes more efficient methods of heat transfer that allows the light bulb filament to achieve the high temperatures necessary to emit bright visible light.
Since as described earlier, the Earth’s surface is in thermal contact with the atmosphere and the surface of the Earth is not at a high temperature as compared to the sun or a light bulb, radiation can be ignored in terms of cooling the Earth’s surface. Radiation is nature’s last resort when it comes to equilibrating temperatures. It is far, far less efficient than the other forms of heat transfer.
Now back to the Hydro Flask.
The Hydro Flask container is constructed of two stainless steel containers, one inside the other with the only point of contact being at the upper rim where they are connected. The space between the two containers is filled with nothing meaning that a vacuum has been pulled on this space such that almost no air molecules are present. As with the vacuum of space, there is no temperature present in this cavity between the inner and outer containers. Temperature requires matter. No matter, no temperature. This space is neither cold nor hot. This is a mysterious concept because you can’t measure the absence of temperature. To do so would require the insertion of some instrument, but since a vacuum is defined as the absence of matter, inserting something into a vacuum renders it no longer a vacuum. It’s a mind bender. You must use your imagination. Nonetheless the heat transfer properties of a vacuum are very special.
As described, the Hydro Flask’s only thermal contact point is at the upper rim and of course the hollow stopper which is made of plastic with poor thermal conductivity. This design, with the stopper in place and firmly sealed, eliminates evaporation and greatly reduces conduction / convection. At the temperatures desired for hot and cold beverages, radiant heat transfer is nearly non-existent.
With hot coffee inside the Hydro Flask at 140 degrees Fahrenheit, and with room temperature at 70 degrees, the heat wants to get out and bring the coffee to room temperature. The sides of the inner container are also at 140 degrees, but because of the vacuum next to the outside surface of the inner container, conduction is impossible and 140 degrees is too low for significant radiation of heat. The only way for conduction to work is to pass through the contact points at the rim and stopper of the Hydro Flask. The smallness of this area of thermal contact at the rim combined with the insulative properties of the stopper greatly limit conductive heat transfer. The temperature of the coffee is sufficient to allow some heat to traverse the rim and stopper, but it is a slow and inefficient process taking 6-12 hours. As the coffee cools, the rate of heat transfer slows as the temperature differential between the coffee and outside air diminishes. The power of a vacuum to stop conductive heat transfer is truly amazing.
With a chilled IPA at 40 degrees inside the Hydro Flask and outdoor temperatures at 100 degrees, the desert heat would love to warm up your beer. As with the coffee example, conductive heat transfer is pretty much limited to the top of the flask. Now the interesting question here is why the beer stay cold does for 24 hours but the coffee only stays hot for 6-12 hours?
Liquids are less dense at higher temperatures, so with coffee, the hottest coffee is at the top. As the coffee cools from heat conduction at the top of the flask, this cooling effect causes the top layer of coffee to become denser, so it moves toward the bottom of the flask. Convection has been induced in the coffee. As described previously, this convection enhances the heat transfer efficiency dramatically by always keeping the hottest coffee at the top.
With the cold beer, the warmest part of the beer is at the top as with the coffee, but the “warm” beer is becoming warmer, so it doesn’t sink and initiate convection. The warmest part of the beer stays put and doesn’t enhance cooling of the beer. Thus the beer stays cold much longer than the coffee stays hot.
The implication here is that if you turn your coffee flask upside down, so that the hottest least dense coffee is at the top, which is now the bottom of the flask next to the vacuum, the coffee should stay hot for much longer because you have stopped convection in its tracks. Using this technique, you may get many more hours of hot coffee available to you. The physics says this will work. Try it and see!
Now that you have a better understanding of the thermodynamics of heat transfer than 99% of the people on the planet, let’s conduct a brief examination of the radiative greenhouse effect (RGHE).
The Powers That Be (TPTB) want you to live in fear that catastrophic human induced climate change is at your doorstep. Excessive burning of fossil fuels has been vociferously identified as the culprit. We are all guilty, especially Americans, and we must change our evil ways. Since this is a global problem, we will have to give up our national sovereignty and work together with all other humans on planet Earth. No holdouts allowed!
The case for carbon based climate change, previously known as anthropogenic global warming (AGW), has at its foundation the Radiative Greenhouse Effect. Every school child knows that the greenhouse effect is what allows the Earth to maintain the moderate temperatures which allows for life as we know it. All of the fear mongering government agencies and university science departments whose funding is dependent on this climate of fear will give you their particular version of the greenhouse effect. Let’s start with the agency with the forked tongue on their logo.
NASA says:
“When they absorb the energy radiating from Earth’s surface, microscopic water or greenhouse gas molecules turn into tiny heaters— like the bricks in a fireplace, they radiate heat even after the fire goes out. They radiate in all directions. The energy that radiates back toward Earth heats both the lower atmosphere and the surface, enhancing the heating they get from direct sunlight.
This absorption and radiation of heat by the atmosphere—the natural greenhouse effect—is beneficial for life on Earth. If there were no greenhouse effect, the Earth’s average surface temperature would be a very chilly -18°C (0°F) instead of the comfortable 15°C (59°F) that it is today.”
There you have it. The sun heats the Earth’s surface, the surface radiates to the atmosphere and the “bricks” which compose 0.04% of our atmosphere radiate back to the surface adding more heat than the sun did initially. This is the radiative greenhouse effect and every purveyor of climate alarm uses some variant of this deception. The deception as you now can see works by substituting radiant heating for evaporation and conduction / convection. Back heating of the Earth’s surface is clearly impossible with evaporation and conduction / convection, but somehow “climate scientists” are able to make the case that back-radiative heating doesn’t violate the Laws of Thermodynamics. It does, but it’s not as obvious as with the other heat transfer methods. It fools most of the people all of the time. And yes, this makes those people FOOLS.
Now you may ask the question: “Why isn’t Hydro Flask smart enough to make a new and improved version of the Hydro Flask coffee mug that fills the vacuum space with carbon dioxide, methane, water vapor or even better, sulfur hexafluoride which has, as reported by EPA, a global warming potential on the order of 12,000 times that of CO2. Surely it would keep the coffee hot for at least a year. In fact, if we can back-radiate more heat than we started with, as the radiative GHE implies, we should be able to heat the coffee to boiling. In fact, if you think this out logically, you should be able to warm yourself in front of a mirror just using your radiative body heat. How’s that for NASA science?
Now that you know real thermodynamics and you are smarter than all of the astrophysicists at NASA, you understand that the Earth is surrounded by an atmosphere which has both mass and large thermal storage capacity. This fact alone completely explains the moderate temperatures found on planet Earth. Not only is a greenhouse effect not necessary, but it is impossible given the extent of thermal contact within the troposphere and nature’s preferred methods of heat transfer.
So where does radiant heating or cooling become important in moderating temperatures on planet Earth? Only in the upper reaches of the atmosphere where the vacuum of space abuts the thinness of our outer atmosphere. This is the area where thermal molecular contact is lost and the only option for planetary cooling is radiant emissions. Theoretically, greenhouse gases which are more radiatively active than nitrogen and oxygen, could enhance this cooling, but that would first require additional heat to get to this part of the atmosphere and that amount of heat is set by the mass and composition of the troposphere. Additional greenhouse gases cannot upset the balance of heat flow from the Earth’s surface to space. More CO2 means more plant food and that is a wonderful thing.
Within the troposphere, evaporation/condensation, conduction and convection rule our climate, and no greenhouse effect is remotely possible or needed. That’s Real Science!
The secret of the Hydro Flask reveals the deception hidden within the Anthropogenic Global Climate Change scam. The truth is out!
-By Dan Fauth,
Independent Scientist and Engineer
April 6, 2016
Climate of Sophistry 
You wrote: “Radiation is the least efficient method of heat transfer and generally requires a very high temperature for the radiating source.”
Least efficient? High temperature? The moon — certainly not a star, and not even a quarter as hot as a bonfire — is cooled only by radiant emissions, and it cools at a much faster rate than earth does, dropping precipitously in the first hours after sunset, in a steep logarithmic curve. How can it do that, using only radiative emission, when the earth has FOUR cooling processes in operation, if the radiative process is less efficient than the other techniques of heat transfer? Indeed, why does the earth not cool at a faster rate than the moon, even when compared at the same starting temperatures and “dryness” (like desert rock)?
And you neglected to identify the composition of the Hydro Flask: 18/8 polished stainless steel, which has a very LOW emissivity of 0.16, making it harder for radiative transfer to occur than from most other sorts of containers. It’s not just the vacuum between the layers, it’s the composition of the layers, that retards transfer of heat.
http://www.hearth.com/talk/wiki/stainless-steel-properties/
You also wrote that radiative emission only is effective at the upper reaches of the atmosphere, but not elsewhere. Perhaps you might explain what property of matter allows radiative emission to be turned on or off based upon atmospheric pressure.
CO2 is certainly not a problem for the earth, and it’s certainly wonderful for plants, but you should accurately represent the Physics while correctly attacking the CAGW deception.
In context, the statement is accurate. You’re changing reference frames a bunch of times and then upsetting yourself about it. Stay in the frame please.
Tom, I have posted this article not just for the obvious purpose of debunking the anthropogenic climate change myth, but also as an honest and transparent means of obtaining peer review as opposed to the pal review that most academic “climate science” papers receive. So thank you very much for your comments. The solid surface materials of both the Earth and Moon are good solar absorbers, but they are also good insulators. As such, only the top layer, perhaps a foot or so, experiences diurnal temperature changes. Below this you have stable temperatures both on Earth and on the Moon. Unlike Earth, the Moon with no atmosphere can only radiate away the heat. The minimal amount of diurnal differential thermal energy contained in that top foot is quite minimal, so it is not a problem for the Moon to dump this energy back to space. The logarithmic rate of cooling is indicative of the insulative properties of the Moon’s surface materials. The immediate surface cools quickly and this slows logarithmically as heat flows from the underlying material. The Earth with a 5.5 quadrillion ton convecting atmosphere and even more massive oceans that mildly convect move heat throughout these materials and therefore contain enormous thermal inertia; resistance to heat gain and loss. You just can’t compare the Earth and Moon thermodynamically. Your postulate on the reflective properties of the inner shells of the Hydro Flask has been covered on this site numerous times. As the site administrator has explained in so many ways, you can’t create a secondary heat source by reflecting or re-emitting the original heat source. This violates the LOTs. Go back and reread the explanation as many times as it takes. Or just stand in front of the mirror and heat yourself with your body heat. The implication of the back heating of a radiative source is that back heating if taken to its final conclusion explodes the Hydro Flask. This has never happened. To postulate such nonsense is unadulterated sophistry.
Pingback: The Hydro Flask Challenge to Anthropogenic Climate Change | ajmarciniak
Water latent heat of evapouration is 760cal/g (in old money) and the heat required to raise the tempeature if 1g of water from 0C to 100C is 100 cal. ergo. the heat required is 7.6 times not 5.
The reason why cold beer stays cold longer than hot coffee is temperature difference of the coffee is higher therefore radiation rate is higher. If your room was hot the coffee would stay hot for longer. The speed of radiation is constant but intensity changes with temperature.
Durango, two errors in your comment, a missing time index and a straw man. Make the distance between you and the mirror half a light year. In one year it may happen that you cool down by several degrees. The returning radiation makes you less cool than without a mirror, because the radiation did not ‘cool’ (if the universe did not expand) but you did. It has an effect. Nobody says that the radiation makes you warmer than you was one year ago (straw man). The system you-mirror has a higher heat capacity than the system only-you. Two containers A and B connected by a pipe. Make a hole in A and pump air through it. After some time both have equal pressure. Take the pump away and you get a back flow from B to A, because air escapes through the hole in A. Without B the air pressure in A would drop faster because the system has less air capacity. Nobody says that B is an additional pump. The system will never explode. Sophistry is making assumptions your opponent never made. Perhaps you should review your article whether it contains conceptual errors.
Pingback: The Hydro Flask Challenge to Anthropogenic Climate Change - Principia Scientific Intl
John, All the reference sites I’ve checked show something like this: https://www.e-education.psu.edu/earth111/node/841 which states:
“A calorie is the amount of heat it takes to raise the temperature of 1 gram (0.001 liters) of pure water 1 degree C at sea level. It takes 100 calories to heat 1 g. water from 0˚, the freezing point of water, to 100˚ C, the boiling point. However, 540 calories of energy are required to convert that 1 g of water at 100˚ C to 1 g of water vapor at 100˚ C. This is called the latent heat of vaporization.” This yields: 5.4. You get the same thing working with btus; latent heat of water 970 btu/lb / (212-32) = 5.4 I’ve no idea where you got 760 cal/gram as the latent heat of water, nor what you mean by “old money”. To your second point that the heat loss is through radiation, it does us no good to merely speculate as to the nature of the mechanism of heat loss. I will be conducting the upside down Hydro Flask experiment this weekend and I will report back. You are correct that the driving force for radiation increases with temperature. Just as I’ve indicated in my article. Thanks for commenting.
More on the miraculous properties of water:
From: https://www.e-education.psu.edu/earth540/content/c3_p3.html
“Latent Heat & Heat Capacity
These are the relevant physical properties of water and their significance–all of which are shaped by the hydrogen bonding between polar water molecules:
• Heat capacity (highest of all solids and liquids except NH3)
• Latent heat of fusion (highest except NH3)
• Latent heat of evaporation (highest of all substances)
• Thermal expansion (in the first section we showed that the temperature of maximum density decreases with increasing salinity)
• Conduction of heat (highest of all liquids)
• Surface tension (highest of all liquids)
• Dissolving power (the “universal solvent” dissolves more substances in greater quantities than any other liquid)
• Transparency (large absorption of radiant energy)
Heat capacity and latent heat are key properties that allow water (the oceans in particular) to play a major role in “regulating” Earth’s climate. Water absorbs solar energy and releases it slowly; thus, larger bodies of water do not change temperature rapidly. Likewise, the high latent heat of vaporization (see below), indicates that when water vapor (derived from evaporation of water at the ocean’s surface driven by solar energy receipt at low latitudes) condenses into liquid droplets at high elevations or high latitude, the latent heat is released into the environment. In Lesson 4, we will examine this role in more detail, and we have already alluded to the fact that large lakes can help buffer temperature changes.”
Let me improve on the above:
Transparency (large absorption of “solar” radiant energy)
the latent heat is released into the environment “directionally toward space”. Please note that “heat” is a vector.
@Mindert – the greenhouse effect people do indeed say that your own radiation reflected back at you from a mirror will act as an additional heat source, and make you hotter.
If they really do, Joseph, that’s obvious nonsense already violating the First Law. I have done some exercises making me to conclude that back radiation may be a bit effective in very unlikely (theoretical) circumstances not violating the Second Law. That makes the issue so difficult. To give an example, back radiation from the earth may slow down the cooling rate of the sun (without nuclear fusion) if in six minutes the sun would cool at such a tremendous rate that it would have become cooler than the earth. Not very practical.
Several off-line commenters have expressed some discomfort with my statement: “All of the fear mongering government agencies and university science departments whose funding is dependent on this climate of fear ….” My insinuation here is clearly that government agency personnel and university scientists have sacrificed their integrity for a paycheck. The belief system that I have challenged is that scientists in matters of personal integrity should be placed on a pedestal well above the politicians, lawyers, bankers and car salesmen who we know from experience should not be fully trusted. It is impossible to put yourself in the place of a climate change beneficiary, but we can try.
Here’s one fictitious example: Let’s pretend that I’m a climate scientist fresh out of school with a Ph.D. in atmospheric chemistry. NASA has hired me at good pay and my first project is investigating the “Methane Hot Spot” in the San Juan Natural Gas Basin of northern New Mexico. I love my work and I’m good at it. I enjoy the select company of my highly trained peers from NOAA and other government agencies. The “Radiative Greenhouse Effect (RGHE)” is the foundation upon which all anthropogenic climate change is structured. We don’t talk about it, we don’t discuss it, and it’s not even included in our Physics text books. It is the goose that laid our golden egg. The government is handing over boatloads of tax dollars that if not spent on science would otherwise be squandered on other lesser pursuits. If I admit the fraudulent nature of carbon based climate change, I’ll be labeled a heretic, my co-workers will hate me and I’ll likely lose my job. All I have to do is keep quiet. I am not about to bite the hand that feeds me.
Now me talking: “I don’t know that I would act differently.” Since I’m not in their position, I don’t have a problem tackling the falsity of the RGHE and climate change. I’m standing up for Science, because I have the knowledge to do so, but that doesn’t mean I have more integrity. I just have less to lose.
Well said.
durangodan01:-
Old money, the calorie has been changed to joules, with different figures.
I went to school in the 50’s where we actually carried out experiments in physics. One was to calculate the latent heat of evapouration of water at normal atmospheric pressure. My figure was 680cal/g and the answer we were told was the correct one 760cal/g as claimed in the then text books. The latent heat of solidification of water stated as 88cal/g. My memory insists on the schoolboy remembered figures.
You make a mistake here, which,comes straight after explaining why there can be no greenhouse effect.
”’Additional greenhouse gases cannot upset the balance of heat flow from the Earth’s surface to space. More CO2 means more plant food and that is a wonderful thing.””
There are no such thing’s as greenhouse gases, other than in a gardening/agricultural context, you just went to pains to explain it in laymans terms, then YOU re-inforce the very notion.
Otherwise it is a good read, thanks for putting it together Dan, and thanks for emailing me Joe.
I’ve seen Warmists try to use the thermos bottle as “proof” of the GHE. I’ve tried to explain why that is wrong. But, I never had the patience to explain it this thoroughly. This post is now more ammo for me.
Thanks.
Guys,.
I am debating a local politician, [on facebook ] she was dumb enough to insult me in the first reply, she made a sophistical statement about co2 heating the planet, and tipping points etc, all the sophistical jargon you would expect from a clueless talking head.
Anyway it was fun, leading her down the numbers path to mans 12 parts per million co2 contribution, and emphatically state ”in the real world 12 parts per million of extra manmade co2 added to the natural carbon cycle cannot over-heat the planet, anything that says different is sophistry, i await her reply.
Give us your thoughts did i ”handle” her right.
Very nice good work Gary!
@Dan Fauth
A wonderful ‘Revealing of Truth’ in ‘layman’s terms’.
However: Almost perfect.
Some of the comments already noticed a few points of (minor) critics.
I believe, most of them are ‘constructive’ till now.
I do hope, you will consider some of them and be willing to edit/extend your original text.
My wish, you to edit your original text, is especially to recalculate all measures in ‘metric’.
The IMPACT could be so much greater (Stephan Schneider: ‘being honest AND effective’).
Background: Dutch, living in Germany and ‘Convinced Denier’, having many friends and relatives here around (Who just do not understand and thinking ….I…nuts …..)
Joseph.
I am just an ordinary guy, surrounded by ordinary working class people.
I get extremely frustrated by middle class liberals and their constant Fucknuttery,
I am taking a stand, i’m sick of listening to suit cladded talking-head british liberals, spouting utter Fucknuttery about our climate, i’m not party political, we do not have party politics where i live, we have local representation in a national Parliament, but we have the same civil service besuited middle class liberal idiots making policy, more taking IPCC policy as gospel.
So now i am going to resist, fight back even, firstly im going to set up a local group on facebook, called ”Manx Friends of Carbon” then i am going to get vocal with local representatives at public meetings, by asking questions that reveal in front of a crowd how little they actually know about Co2, i will ask questions after complementing them, questions i know they will not know the correct answer to, and so will revert straight IPCC sophistry in a different reference frame.
Simple questions like ”how much co2 is in the atmosphere Mr X”’
To receive a reply something like ”lots” it has doubled in the last 30yrs, thats why the poles are melting”’ thats when the fun starts, and i take his salary of 50k per annum and double it, then explain to him in front of HIS gathering how i am going to donate to a charity of his choice a £ for every molecule of man re-released CO2 by volume in the air that we are both currently breathing, with the £100k representing a million parts of that air, then i will hand him £1.10p, then i will explain the maths to him that mans 3% contribution to the total carbon content of the atmosphere of 0.038% by volume is 11 parts per million, then tell him that after 100yrs of unregulated industrial abuse, a billion motor vehicles or more, run for their whole useful life span, all the deforestation put together for 100yrs and a myriad of otherways we have pumped co2 into the sky, the amount of co2 man has set free, and we are both breathing in is 11 parts per million, and it is absurd that he or anyone else could possibly even contemplate the idea that an extra 11 parts per million of Co2 could effect the climate to even the slightest measurable degree.
I would like to pinch some of your posts joe every now and then, reproduce them and give them in my new group.
and give them ”’credit”’ in my new group.
Sorry I came in late on this but I can’t let BS stand !
Tom OreganCity says :-
“Least efficient? High temperature? The moon — certainly not a star, and not even a quarter as hot as a bonfire — is cooled only by radiant emissions, and it cools at a much faster rate than earth does, dropping precipitously in the first hours after sunset, in a steep logarithmic curve.”
I am sorry to say this but arguments such as this demonstrate that the person proposing such nonsense has taken no trouble to examine their statement or they are practicing deceit.
Firstly a lunar hour lasts more than a day on Earth – 29.5 Earth hours according to NASA. Secondly lunar cooling involves solid surface materials which ALWAYS radiate with more power than gases which have < 1/1500 times the density.
So the BS claim in the above statement "it cools at a much faster rate than earth does" is simply and demonstrably untrue – it takes more than 177 EARTH hours for the lunar surface to cool from 90 C to minus 180 C on the graph shown – not "dropping precipitously in the first hours after sunset" as claimed.
You must be HONEST if you compare 2 different things !
There are numerous examples of localities on Earth where the AIR temperature changes at a similar rate if one simply observes weather data. For example Alice Springs in central Australia has an average temperature change of ~15 – 16 degrees C between minimum and maximum year round and thus a temperature change rate of ~1.33 degrees C per EARTH hour – not too different to that indicated in your graph if you are honest !!
However, if you took the trouble to look at the Diviner data you'd see that equatorial ROCK lunar surfaces cool from about 370 K to about 270 K in 6 lunar hours with a rate of 100/177 C/EARTH hour – or about 0.56 degrees C per EARTH hour – Diviner PDS Level 3 Data Products date March 15 2015.
Even Singapore has an average rate of cooling similar to this – ~7 – ~8 C over 12 EARTH hours.
This is a better comparison as the regolith is not found on Earth but the rocks are similar and thus we note the rate the air temperature changes on Earth can far exceed or often equal the lunar cooling rates !
And we simply do not measure surface temperatures on Earth often. The changes in surface temperatures exceed the air temperature changes every day due to the exact mechanisms Joe mentioned above.
Your claim that is "dropping precipitously in the first hours after sunset" is simply not true when a REAL comparison is undertaken !!
Pingback: The True Deniers By Anthony Bright-Paul | RUTHFULLY YOURS
The mathematical physics case for the clear explanation by Dan Fauth was made in a 115 page paper by Gerhard Gerlich and Ralph Tscheuschner titled “Falsification of the Atmospheric CO2 Greenhouse Effects Within the Frame Of Physics” published in The International Journal Of Modern Physics. If you don’t have the necessary background to wade through the physics and the mathematics, the conclusions staring on Page 92 are an easy read. Their comment about computer models is worth framing: “… the running of computer climate models is a very expensive form of computer game entertainment”.
Reblogged this on 4timesayear's Blog.
Honest questions here as I’m not a physiscist. A few fundamental questions that I’m not sure you covered.
First, you mentioned that there is thermal loss through the four mechanisms but into the vaccum of space it would seem the only way you actually lose heat is through literal loss of atoms (solar wind perhaps?) or conconduction with fast moving particles bouncing off the atmosphere or more likely radiation. If it’s radiation would the density of molecules change the radiation and bounce more of that radiation back to earth similar to a polarized lens?
Second question, burning anything creates gas – are we adding more atmosphere with which to trap heat? I’d have to imagine those gasses went somewhere. Adding 11 more parts per to the original parts per million of anything greenhouse or otherwise would seem to be likely to trap more heat.
Not trying to be inflammatory, I find this puzzling.
Just a question of something that has puzzled me for a while. I use a thermal imager and i have noticed that i get a perfect return image from a glass window of myself and of the background in various shades of heat. I also get a perfect picture of the moon (but not stars) when i thought that heat transfer through a vacuum is not possible so how does a thermal imager get the image.
”Second question, burning anything creates gas – are we adding more atmosphere with which to trap heat? I’d have to imagine those gasses went somewhere. Adding 11 more parts per to the original parts per million of anything greenhouse or otherwise would seem to be likely to trap more heat.”
Robert How will more ”’heat” be ”trapped” please ?.
As i understand it, heat rise’s and expands, all the way space,
Robert.
Let me expand on that in as few words as possible, as a layman, i dont undersand the psychic’s very well, so i try to visualise what i read instead, so in as few words as possible heres what i mean.
I strike a match, the heat/hot gases created rise and expand immediately, and do not stop rising and expanding until all the heat is dispersed to the colder atmosphere.
If talking about an incoming photon striking the surface and then being ”trapped” as you describe it, after being reflected back to the atmosphere,that these extra 11ppm must cause some extra heating/”trapping”, i just dont see how they could make any measrable difference.
How can a photon arriving at the surface at 6000k then leaving a millions times weaker have any measurable ”heating” effect, even if co2 were 5000ppm, when the photon is re-emmit back to the surface from the atmosphere, where does the work/energy come from for photon to have any additional heating effect.
I cant
Robert asks: “Second question, burning anything creates gas – are we adding more atmosphere with which to trap heat? ”
Robert, look up “partial pressures”. The atmosphere “knows” how to handle extra gases. Rainfall is a consequence of this “knowledge”.
Also, the atmosphere does NOT “trap” heat. The atmosphere is a conduit for heat moving to space. The concept of “trapping heat” originated with Warmists, who did not understand physics, and still don’t!
Thank you geran.
Thank you for taking the time to respond gentlemen. I really appreciate it, because these topics aren’t always vert intuitive. I’ll try to avoid the word “trap” going forward, because I don’t think it necessarily says what I mean it to, and it feels like a loaded word. So forgive me. With that…
@Gary – The first question is if CO2 causes a spectrum of light to pass less efficiently through the atmosphere compared to say, Nitrogen, wouldn’t that then disallow less of that energy to be released as light back out into space? Various wavelengths of light travel more easily through certain mediums easier than others. Perhaps the particles of light act upon various CFCs or CO2 or CO etc… to turn into something other than light. For instance that light could turn into heat energy or change the molecules/atoms into others, etc. If the density increases it seems like this kind of effect would happen with greater frequency, and therefore heat energy would increase because the density of thermal potential of the atmosphere increases because the number of actual particles that comprises the atmosphere is larger.
@geran – If my understanding is correct, a higher pressure of gas does create heat. I suppose what I’m saying is if we increase the amount of pressure because the atmosphere contains more gas (of any kind) that would cause the atoms to bounce off each other more rapidly and disperse more heat amongst the ground, the air and release the remaining heat through radiation and light. Higher pressures drive heat up (similar to how when pressure in a CO2 tank drops it suddenly plummets in temperature but the opposite effect). Rain makes sense for hydrogen and oxygen but not CO2… unless you’re saying that the additional carbon causes an increase of rainfall, which in of itself sounds like some sort of notable change. Or maybe you mean the white clouds change the amount of reflected light from space than whatever is below it? I may not be quite getting what you mean though.
A follow up thought is that CO2 isn’t the only thing that gets released in fossil fuel combustion, and at least some of that soot is a darker color than, say, snow. If you’ve ever been to China or Taiwan or London for any length of time you know what I mean. If the soot lands on snow it increases the thermal load of the ground, because darker colors absorb more wavelengths of light and store the light energy as heat energy and transfer that to the ground much quicker than it would if it were a white cloth, say. Similar to my second question – the optical nature of darker colors increases the thermal load capable. A lot of extraterrestrial probes we’ve launched use a similar technique to identify the makeup of the atmospheres on other planets. So perhaps this is partially a question of optics of the ground from space. That is to say, what color is the Earth from the perspective of space in all spectrums of radiation including visible and invisible spectrums of light? If that color gets darker, it will almost certainly add more thermal energy to the system. Too bad we didn’t have satellite imagery a few thousand years ago to see what the response spectrum delta was.
Robert.
I am sure someone will give you a more detailed reply,
If the density increases it seems like this kind of effect would happen with greater frequency, and therefore heat energy would increase because the density of thermal potential of the atmosphere increases because the number of actual particles that comprises the atmosphere is larger.
I dont so, i think the atmosphere expands, how i visualise it, is this way.
A huge game of ”whack-a;mole” at the top of the atmosphere, as heat/gases rise in columns, and bulge out, the top of the atmospheres height varying depending on the pressure beneath, the differing pressure’s beneath driving our weather systems, or partly atleast,
The suns energy comes in, it can only do its work once, I am not aware of there being a difference in the energy balance in/out, but i may be mis-understanding that, if i am please correct me Robert i am here to learn, You have shifted the goalposts alittle, with the addition of pollution, that kind of pollution can be legislated out of existence.
I will finish with a simple summary, i think we are just at the start of an ever increasing cycle of co2 enrichment, we have kick-started a planetary greening, and WE have to keep feeding it, because the sun isnt in any hurry to be warming the planet to release ocean stored co2, i feel ive read enough to believe correctly that the uptake of co2 by a greening planet will eventually consume all our re-released plant food, and the greening will slow, and the 2% or so of water in our atmosphere, and the 2/3 of the planet it covers, will carry on controlling our climate, in all 3 forms.
Robert says: If my understanding is correct, a higher pressure of gas does create heat.
>>>Your “understanding” is NOT correct. To raise the pressure of an enclosed gas REQUIRES energy input.
Robert says: I suppose what I’m saying is if we increase the amount of pressure because the atmosphere contains more gas (of any kind) that would cause the atoms to bounce off each other more rapidly and disperse more heat amongst the ground, the air and release the remaining heat through radiation and light.
>>>How do you plan to increase the pressure of the atmosphere?
Robert says: Higher pressures drive heat up (similar to how when pressure in a CO2 tank drops it suddenly plummets in temperature but the opposite effect).
>>>It seems like you are trying to understand thermodynamics, but your terminology is confusing.
Robert says: Rain makes sense for hydrogen and oxygen but not CO2… unless you’re saying that the additional carbon causes an increase of rainfall, which in of itself sounds like some sort of notable change. Or maybe you mean the white clouds change the amount of reflected light from space than whatever is below it? I may not be quite getting what you mean though.
>>>You appear confused about trying to apply gas laws to the atmosphere. Realize that over any surface of Earth, the height of the atmosphere is constantly changing. Earth’s atmosphere is a dynamic system. It changes in pressure, temperature, and volume (height), as needed.
Pingback: Climate change…it’s SCIENCE! – Minty Cool