## No Heat Trap

CO2 does not trap heat. In fact nothing traps heat and that entire concept which comes from climate alarmism is false. Here is the definition of heat:

“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.”

from G. J. V. Wylen, Thermodynamics

So, heat is a transient phenomenon and only exists when transferring from something warmer to something cooler.  Heat is also a local phenomenon specific to and existing between two specific objects.

The atmosphere is cooler than the surface and decreases in temperature further with altitude. Thus, heat flows away from the warmer surface to the cooler atmosphere. Heat can’t be “trapped” at the warmer surface by the cooler atmosphere because heat spontaneously flows from hot to cold, and this can’t be stopped.

If we look at the equation for radiant heat flow between the surface and atmosphere, we have:

Q’ = σTsurf4 – σTatmo4

And so, if the atmosphere warms up to be closer to the warmer surface temperature, then the surface actually contains LESS heat.

Read that again:  If the atmosphere warms up, then the surface contains LESS heat.

That’s straight from the equation for heat flow: if the cooler term becomes closer in temperature to the warmer term, then the warmer object contains less heat to send to the cooler term.

If the atmosphere warmed up to be identical in temperature to that of the surface, then the surface would actually contain Q’ = 0 (that’s zero!) heat.

This all goes to the fact that climate pseudoscience and its greenhouse effect use improper and even inverted definitions of physical quantities from the physical sciences.  By inventing the false idea that “heat can be trapped” (it can’t, according to definition), it then goes on to say that the cooler atmosphere causes the warmer surface to trap more heat, whereas the actual mathematical and empirical definition states that a warming atmosphere results in the warmer surface having less heat!

It is for the very fact that heat reduces when two objects becomes closer in temperature that thermal equilibrium can be reached at all…asymptotically.  If the heat from the warmer object stayed the same, or rose, when the warmer object heated the cooler object, then this would lead to unbounded self-reinforcing temperature increase which would never reach thermal equilibrium.  Heat has to go to zero, it has to decrease, when the cooler object warms up, or else this universe could never have existed.  It is impossible for heat to stay constant.

## Purpose

Guys, this is just the simplest thermodynamics, and also the simplest way to sophize science by inverting terms and definitions that otherwise unwary people won’t be aware of and won’t be able to detect.

I said a long time ago that this is all about creating a simulacrum of merit in order to take over (eventually global) government policy regarding everything from the economy to personal rights and freedoms, and of course the carbon credit was going to be the new currency for this global hijack of the human race.  It was the Chicken Little Strategy to global domination.

Just look at what the idiots are doing up in Canada – they actually have a position in government called “Minister of Climate Change“:

Catherine McKenna practiced competition and international trade law in Canada and Indonesia and was senior negotiator with the United Nations Peacekeeping Mission in East Timor. She also served as senior advisor on the former Chief Justice Antonio Lamer’s review of Canada’s military justice system. Catherine co-founded Canadian Lawyers Abroad, a charitable organization that works in developing countries and with Indigenous communities in Canada. She served as Executive Director of the Banff Forum, a public policy organization for young leaders. Catherine taught at the Munk School of Global Affairs. Catherine and her husband live in Ottawa with their three children. Catherine was elected on October 19, 2015 and was appointed Minister of Environment and Climate Change on November 4, 2015.

So in other words, this person has no real-world experience at all.  She has no science training or experience, no mathematics training or experience, no experience in actually running a business, no experience creating jobs or managing a company or employees, etc.  All she does is “policy”. How cute.  Who’s policy?  How can a person uneducated in the sciences and mathematics be competent to assess recommendations from so-called science advisers?  How can you vet your science advisers and what they tell you if you have no idea what they’re telling you, and you merely “trust” them?

And so isn’t it perfectly fitting that such an unmeritorious person becomes the government Minister of Climate Change.

## Heat is Not a Conserved Quantity

If we go back to the radiant heat equation:

Q’ = σTsurf4 – σTatmo4

and noting everything we did about it above, the single response we always get from the climate pseudoscientist alarmists and their clandestine supporters is that

“Q’ is a constant because it is the heat/energy from the Sun, and so if Tatmo increase then Tsurf has to as well, in order that Q’ stay constant. That’s the greenhouse effect.”

We already covered this above but it bears going over again because it is the response that you will always get to an explanation of what heat is and what the heat equation means.

Again, in that quote (and we’ve had it from any number of the usual characters multiple times…Monckton, Spencer, Watts, Brown, etc.), they are simply inverting and redefining heat.  In fact they are simply completely trashing and obfuscating the entire concept and definition of heat, just totally sophizing it, so that they can make that statement they do and pretend that the definition which was just provided to them doesn’t have an effect.  It’s just complete and total ignorant sophistry.  Again:

Firstly, Q’ (heat) is not a constant, but is a transient, local term, specific exclusively to the two objects which make up the two terms on the right hand side of the heat equation.  It is not a constant, and in fact becomes smaller, not larger, when the two objects become closer in temperature.

Secondly, the heat Q’ between the surface and atmosphere is not the heat or energy coming from the Sun.  The heat Q’ between the surface and atmosphere is the heat Q’ between the surface and atmosphere.  That’s it.  It has nothing whatsoever to do with defining or representing anything from the Sun at all.

Their statement amounts to saying that the heat coming from the Sun can be measured by the difference in temperatures between Earth’s surface and atmosphere.  Does that make sense to you?  That the heat from the sun is given by the difference in temperature between Earth’s surface and Earth’s atmosphere?  If you feel that something is wrong with that concept, then congratulations you at least have enough intuition, if not the science training, to count as a rational human being.

The heat from the Sun to the Earth, following the definition of heat, is given by the difference in radiant energy between the Sun & Earth:

Q’ = σTSun4 – σTEarth4

Now that makes sense.  Of course the heat from the Sun to the Earth is given by a function of the difference between the solar and terrestrial temperatures.  Of course that’s what is, and that’s all it is.

And in fact, in thermal equilibrium, the heat Q’ between the Sun and the Earth is zero!  So that again completely debunks their sophistic statement above: the heat from the Sun isn’t a conserved finite constant, but is zero, and is not given by the difference between the Earth’s surface and atmospheric temperatures, because that’s not zero!

It’s just amazing what they’re getting away with.  And just think…they’re getting away with a lot more and a lot simpler of things than this.

With the heat Q’ from the Sun to the Earth generally being zero assuming long-term thermal equilibrium, and noting that the radiant energy from the Earth is composed of components originating from the ground surface and the atmosphere, then we have:

σTSun4 = σTEarth_Surf4 + σTEarth_Atmo4.

Now, there is actually a conserved quantity here but it isn’t the one the climate pseudoscientist alarmists and their clandestine supporters have been able to identify, or which they obfuscate and ignore.  Anyone know what is a big giant constant that travels around the sky?  Anyone?  The Sun?  Yes, the radiant energy from the sun is a constant, and that is the term on the left hand side.

Note that the radiant energy from the Sun is not the same thing as the heat Q’ from the Sun to the Earth!

What we have now in the last equation is a true conservation equation under thermal equilibrium conditions, and now the way that this conservation equation works is that if the atmosphere warms up, and therefore emits more energy, then the surface will have to emit less energy, and that means that it has to cool down, in order to conserve the energy coming from the Sun.

I mean there you have it folks.  The only way to make this simpler is to ask you to think about standing in the full sunshine in the autumn: The warmth you feel is from the Sun, and the cold crisp atmosphere you feel is making you cold, not hotter.

There is no climate science greenhouse effect.

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

### 42 Responses to How Heat Debunked Climate Pseudoscience and its Greenhouse Effect

1. geoffseidner says:

Jewish people traditionally call this LUFTGESCHEFT.
A magnificent phrase used in many contexts.
I have also written about the greenhouse chimera on Catallaxy a mere few days ago.
http://catallaxyfiles.com/2016/08/23/university-research-and-the-pub-test/comment-page-1/#comment-2126825

2. John Turner says:

Another excellent article from you which I have enjoyed reading. There is a question (not a criticism) I have about the equation showing heat flow from the Sun to the Earth. At thermal equilibrium Q’ = 0 may be interpreted by some who are not physics trained as implying TSun = TEarth when what I think TSun represents in this context is the T of matter at the average distance of the Earth’s orbit when it absorbs energy from the Sun. Which as you have said in other papers is not the T of the Earth’s actual surface but the T of the atmosphere at an altitude of about 5.1 km.

3. Thanks Joe, stunningly simple. Even a politician or a journalist ought to grasp this. Cold can never make warm even warmer. The concept of radiative heat transfer has been misunderstood for over a century.
Energy that ends up re-radiated back to its emitter can not make that emitter any warmer than it was – if that was not so, engineers have missed a trick to supply the world with free and unlimited energy. Just a few minutes of thought will confirm what I just wrote. There is a deep-rooted mis-understanding about the apparently automatic absorption of any level of energy by any substance, regardless of that substances existing temperature and, crucially, its absorptivity and emissivity characteristics. Only when the substance under radiation is at a lower energy level than that radiation will that energy be absorbed and only then can it cause that substance to gain energy and thus rise in temperature, how much depends on its absorptivity and emissivity characteristics.

4. Arfur Bryant says:

Joe,

Out of interest, have you seen this latest gem from Dr Spencer PhD?

I am aghast… It has to be a joke.

By the way, Hans Schreuder, you are correct:
There is a deep-rooted mis-understanding about the apparently automatic absorption of any level of energy by any substance, regardless of that substances existing temperature and, crucially, its absorptivity and emissivity characteristics. Only when the substance under radiation is at a lower energy level than that radiation will that energy be absorbed and only then can it cause that substance to gain energy and thus rise in temperature, how much depends on its absorptivity and emissivity characteristics.

Regards,

Airfare

5. Arfur Bryant says:
6. Yes you are right about the equation John. I just left it “simplified” so people could see the point. Perhaps using symbols for local flux would have been better. I could have also linked to previous articles where the values were modulated by distance etc.

7. Thanks for the link Arfur. Maybe I’ll write an article debunking that one. A gem indeed.

8. Rosco says:

So, as usual, Roy Spencer did not actually perform the “experiment” just waffles on how it supports his belief that the second law of thermodynamics is wrong !

9. Gary Ashe says:

Joe.

There is a guy on that spencer thread, in the comments posted his paper, it appears he has put the cat among the pigeons.

I get the gist, but not the maths, basically he agrees everything thats absorbs, emits.
But unlike spencer he claims the colder object’s radiation arrives at equilibrium to the warmer object, [is made more engetic by the warmer objects radiation] and there is no nett heat flow, just thermal flow is only oneway,…..

Basically more energised atoms energising less energised atoms flowing between 2 objects with a temperature difference. i think.

10. Yah how cute…comes up with a thought experiment and then concludes that it empirically supports his wishes. Idiotic.

11. Rosco says:

It is a shame that thermodynamics removed the term “heat” from that which a body contains more of when it is hotter and substituted “energy”.

It means we have to talk in convoluted ways to describe something which seems so obvious to a lay person – if something is hot it contains more “heat” – yet this is wrong in thermodynamics.

Thermodynamic “heat” is kinda stupid.

Black had it right in my opinion but he was written off as wrong when “energy” entered the scene.

12. Rosco says:

Has Spencer, or Brown for that matter, EVER actually done any experiments other than thought bubbles ?

13. Iampeter says:

It’s a pretty complex experiment but does it need to be? I’m no scientist but couldn’t he prove his position by pouring coffee into a thermostat and demonstrating as it gets even hotter? Or even simpler: wouldn’t just pouring a cup of hot tea into a cup get forever hotter because the cup will keep heating? How could all of mankind have missed this phenomenon?

Like I said I’m not a scientist so maybe I’ve got it all wrong but the concept of heat moving only in the direction of hot to colder has never seemed all that complicated to me.

14. Exactly we would have discovered that long before formally developing thermodynamics, engineered it and exploited it etc. And then definitely would have discovered it when we formally developed thermodynamics and those fellows doing all those experiments in the 17 through 19 hundreds. It would be a well defined phenomenon instead of something so easily debunked and which uses inverted language etc.

15. Arfur Bryant says:

So, Roy, next winter, why don’t we tell all the old people suffering hypothermia from living in cold rooms that all they have to do to get warmer is:

Add another chair to the room, or
Add a table (or maybe two?), or
Add another TV set – no need to turn it on, its mere presence will make them warmer!

Un-frickin-believable…

16. Rosco says:

I once quoted several reputable references which defined problems in thermodynamics involving sphere/shell systems. This is one :-

Consider a black sphere of radius R at temperature T which radiates to distant black surroundings at T = OK.

(a) Surround the sphere with a nearby heat shield in the form of a black shell whose temperature is determined by radiative equilibrium. What is the temperature of the shell and what is the effect of the shell on the total power radiated to the surroundings?

(b) How is the total power radiated affected by additional heat shields? (Note that this is a crude model of a star surrounded by a dust cloud.)
( UC, Berkeley)

Solution:
(a) At radiative equilibrium, J – J1 – J1 or J1 – J /2.

(b) The heat shield reduces the total power radiated to half of the initial value. This is because the shield radiates a part of the energy it absorbs back to the black sphere.

This is another:-

A spherical black body of radius r at absolute temperature T is sur­rounded by a thin spherical and concentric shell of radius R, black of radius R, black on both sides. Show that the factor by which this radiation shield reduces the rate of cooling of the body (consider space between spheres evacuated, with no thermal conduction losses) is given by the following expression: aR2 /(R2 + br2), and find the numerical coefficients a and b.

Robert Brown said these are completely different problems to the “Steel Greenhouse” model as it doesn’t involve a constant internal power supply ???

He ridiculously writes that as both the sphere and the shell are initially at the same temperature magically the shell then commences heating the sphere using the radiant energy emitted by the sphere as the sole source of the shell’s temperature – mumbo jumbo, voodoo thermodynamics !

This despite Q = sigma( T1^4 – T1^4) = 0 !

The funny thing I notice in ALL of the thermodynamic examples is they always involve statements such as a body “at absolute temperature T” … calculate …

Just how is something supposed to maintain itself “at absolute temperature T” with no energy supply ?

Apparently these guys don’t understand basic thermodynamics yet they’re such experts they have no problem adding the radiation from a colder body to a “constant Q” to force the already hotter body to radiate more. If that isn’t the transfer of heat from cold to hot what is it ?

The first example said ” (Note that this is a crude model of a star surrounded by a dust cloud.)”

I suppose stars don’t have an internal power supply ?

None of the examples I could find ever mentioned any “back radiation” heating despite stating – “The heat shield reduces the total power radiated to half of the initial value. This is because the shield radiates a part of the energy it absorbs back to the black sphere.”

Back radiation heating is gibberish and shows that these guys absolutely do violate the fundamental laws of physics by transferring heat from cold to hot – something which has never been demonstrated – only the opposite has ever been proven by empirical evidence.

All of Spencer’s thought bubbles are just that – thought bubbles which achieve the result by supplying less energy from a clod body to an already hotter body which is already radiating more yet he some how sees a temperature increase.

I think these guys don’t actually believe the results of the cavity experiments – that objects radiate in proportion to their temperature.

The cavity experiments were conducted so the radiation emitted was solely due to the internal temperature by assuming any radiation entering the cavity through the small aperture from outside was unlikely to escape and hence the emission was solely due to the internal temperature.

I think they believe the emission observed by the experimenters was not P = sigma*T^4 but the net form of Q = sigma*(Tcavity^4 – Tbackground^4) despite the fact that all texts write that everything radiates in proportion to its temperature being a cornerstone of physics,

17. Rosco says:

J – J1 – J1 or J1 – J /2 should be J – J1 = J1 or J1 = J /2.

Funnily enough the answer doesn’t provide the temperature of the shell but it is J/(2*sigma) or 1/(4th root of 2) times T.

18. Will Janoschka says:

Joseph,
What was done circa 1975 By a few arrogant academics (physics) was to replace the hard to teach, but east to understand “entropy times temperature” with something called “internal energy”. All readily understandable by engineering as the noun phrase, “sensible heat of that mass”! This gives the thermodynamic definition of ‘temperature’ as sensible heat/entropy!
Now so clever they could claim that “heat” can be only the verb form that engineering calls flux. A shift of power normalized by a unit cross-sectional area. If such a shift in power is spontaneous; such flux is always proportional to some difference in potential between the two sides of the normalizing cross-sectional area. For thermal conductivity that difference is delta T. For thermal EM flux such is proportional to sigma delta T^4 or its linear derivative form (4 sigma T^3 delta T), only provided the emissivity of all bodies remain constant over that temperature range.
Please remember that EMR flux is never ‘heat’ and any mass in the space interval ‘tween the transfer can only modify the intervening reactive impedance, always requiring ‘adjustment’ of said potential difference. Sorry this is not meteorology with their motto, “Simple, straightforward, and wrong”!

19. Rosco says:

Click to access SecondLaw.pdf

The second law of thermodynamics states that all natural processes are irreversible. A corollary of the Second Law of Thermodynamics (which we shall not prove) is :-

In a reversible transformation, heat can only be converted to work by moving heat from a warmer to a colder body

Another:-

In the absence of external work done on a body, heat can only move from warm to cold.

Neither of these support the “thermodynamics” practiced by “greenhouse advocates”.

All of the stupid examples they cite claiming heat transferring from cold to hot such as the absurd comparison to a microwave oven involve a supply of electricity through a power cord – something I think we might have noticed connected to the atmosphere.

I just don’t see why they cannot grasp this.

20. Will Janoschka says:

Rosco says: 2016/08/29 at 9:16 PM

Click to access SecondLaw.pdf

“The second law of thermodynamics states that all natural processes are irreversible. A corollary of the Second Law of Thermodynamics (which we shall not prove) is 🙂 ”

Woha!! What a deceptive use of language! Is insolation ‘natural’? How about ‘evaporation”? How about ‘condensation’ Just what do you consider ‘irreversible’? Are you ‘The Donald’, or are you ‘The Witch’?

“In a reversible transformation, heat can only be converted to work by moving heat from a warmer to a colder body”

Heat converted to work? Moving the new ‘heat’ which can only be the motion itself. From ‘warmer’ to ‘colder’? Just what is warmer?, just what is colder?, just what is temperature? What the hell can you possibly be moving, reversible or not?

21. SkepticGoneWild says:

Spencer has now performed an actual experiment. But looking at the set-up, I don’t think the results support what he claims.

Maybe others can look at the setup and comment on the results?

22. This is just like Anthony Watts doing his idiotic experiment and while they think that simply reporting some numbers supports their preconceptions, they don’t actually scientifically quantify the findings. Therefore:

Spencer finds 3 F change which is extremely precise with his device….but experimentally negligible. That could be the room air temperature changing when the air gets mixed with the cool gas. While his measurement device is precise the experiment itself has a much larger experimental uncertainty.

If something more than just circulating room air temperature was changing and messing with the device, given the change in flux in going from looking at dry ice to a room temperature board there should have been far more than a 3-4 F change. God sakes that change can be merely from the ice blocker (it’s white!) allowing more SOURCE input onto the heating target just by reflection.

Fail.

23. Arfur Bryant says:

So, let me get this straight. If I pour hot coffee into a thermos and then magically insert a separate energy supply (heating coil) into the coffee through the insulation, I can therefore ‘prove’ that the addition of the insulating thermos has radiatively warmed the coffee further?

How about Dr Spencer places the cardboard ‘ice shield’ in between the lamps and the black receptor? Now check the temperature of the receptor. In this case, the addition of a cold object has most definitely NOT increased the temperature of the warm object…

In the real world, the lamp energy source (the Sun) radiates through the cold (ice) object (atmosphere) to reach the black receptor (Earth) The addition of another object in the atmosphere (CO2/cardboard) which can receive LW radiation from the Earth and then re-radiate (so-called backradiation) will NOT increase the ‘internal/thermal energy’ of the receptor because the ‘backradiation’ does not possess the ability to allow the molecules of the receptor to reach the higher energy state required to heat up – as the backradiation is of a lower energy (lower frequency) than that of the Sun.

The Warmists and Luke-warmists are now (and probably have always been) confused between insolation with insulation. Carbon Dioxide is NOT an insulator!

Why does Dr Spencer need to re-charge the ice bowl every so often? Why not do the experiment and leave each system for a week without recharge before seeing if there is an increase in the receptor temperature? Why can’t a freezing OAP get warmer by standing in front of a mirror? Or two mirrors?

Having said all that, his daughter (Fig 1) is stunning…

24. Arfur Bryant says:

Para 3: …as the backradiation is of a lower energy (lower frequency) than that of the Sun. should have read “a lower energy (frequency) than the receptor is capable of emitting” – although both statements are correct.

25. Richard says:

I had a run in with Mr Spencer, very interesting, they didn’t like my analogy using a kettle , hot water and a teapot , I didn’t like theirs. The always revert to the pot on the stove. I would say a very weak analogy as to make it represent the atmosphere in some kind of way , though flaky , you would need an outlet pipe at the top to vent hot water and inlet pipe at the bottom for incoming cold water. Oh they had a great laugh at my expense but a hot water pot on the stove with the same water?
I am banned now.

26. Will Janoschka says:

Joseph,
Notice also that no work is ever included. I will try to highlight from G. J. V. Wylen, Thermodynamics

“Heat is defined as the form of energy that is transferred across a boundary by virtue of a temperature difference or temperature gradient.” Definition 1

“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.”

Definition #1 makes no such implication, exactly the opposite is implied; it is the specific type (or form) of energy “that is (or can be so) transfered”!

“Thus, heat is a transient phenomenon.”

Cannot be… the power flux can be transient; but is not heat (energy) either; as it is not an time integral of power.

“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.)”

And that form of energy is universally referred to by the proper name ‘sensible heat’.

“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.”

The actual transfer agent of sensible heat is called thermal power or thermal flux.

“At that point we no longer have heat transfer, since there is no temperature difference.”

The flux may cease. But the whole presentation is but total corruption of any possible concept of heat energy.

“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,”

The two systems together contain exactly the same amount of sensible heat! Entropy has increased however, unless yet another system at lower temperature is included.

“for heat is defined as energy being transferred across the system boundary.” Definition 2

Which is heat? A form of energy, or is it instead energy being transfered. The only form of energy that is transfered by conduction (a differential temperature potential) is the sensible heat of some amount of mass. Nothing is ever implied by the first definition about where that form of energy resides before or after some sort of transfer only that the system of mass at different temperatures can have a spontaneous flux upon his introduction of “thermal communication”. That flux is not energy at all, but instead a power that is proportional to the temperature differential. This requires that sensible heat is persistent even while being transfered as flux.
Your G.J.V. Wylen must be bat shit nuts!

27. a little follow up to my kettle , hot water and teapot anology-

“Ed Bo says:
August 30, 2016 at 1:40 PM
Richard:

The earth and its atmosphere have no mass transfer (that isn’t utterly trivial) with the rest of the universe. So the analogy you keep trying to foist on us, with outgoing water constituting mass transfer, is just not appropriate.

You keep dodging the key question about Roy’s analogy. Why?”

I am not allowed to this as i am banned, my reply would be why does Roy keep trying to foist on me an pot on a hot stove with a lid on it.

28. Now help me here.

I have a room with two heaters in it set at 22 degrees, one at the top one at the bottom of the room- some mad people seem to see the atmosphere in those terms. What they imagine in this false scenario is that the top heater is going to make the bottom of the room hotter. Even in this false scenario this does not happen.

29. songhees says:

http://theclimatescepticsparty.blogspot.com/2016/08/climate-exit-clexit.html
Latest book and documentary.
‘The Deliberate Corruption of Climate Science’.

30. ilma630 says:

Joe, hopefully relayed but forgive me if not, do I detect more sophistry here: https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/09/07/how-climate-feedback-is-fubar/ … “The climate is a passive system that manifests surface temperature amplification by delaying surface emissions and returning them to the surface some time in the future where they are combined with new incident power from the Sun.”

31. Yes, that is precisely a word description for what Spencer does with his model here:

https://climateofsophistry.com/2016/08/31/simple-time-dependent-model-refutes-the-atmospheric-greenhouse-effect/

They, quite simply, send heat energy from cold to hot. This group of people is the tip of the spear in spreading the climate alarm lie.

32. How come the really most basic thermo equation, i.e. Q = U * A * dT, is so sadly neglected? The atmosphere is not that different from the insulated envelope of your house, the furnace, etc. and simple conduction is not nearly so hand wavy as S-B radiation.

33. WE’s steel dome is really a steel colander, 99.96% hole and .04% GHGs.

340 W/m^2 ISR arrive at the ToA (100 km per NASA), 100 W/m^2 are reflected straight away leaving 240 W/m^2 continuing on to be absorbed by the atmosphere (80 W/m^2) and surface (160 W/m^2). In order to maintain the existing thermal equilibrium and atmospheric temperature (not really required) 240 W/m^2 must leave the ToA. Leaving the surface at 1.5 m (IPCC Glossary) are: thermals, 17 W/m^2; evapotranspiration, 80 W/m^2; LWIR, 63 W/m^2 sub-totaling 160 W/m^2 plus the atmosphere’s 80 W/m^2 making a grand total of 240 W/m^2 OLR at ToA.

When more energy leaves ToA than enters it, the atmosphere will cool down. When less energy leaves the ToA than enters it, the atmosphere will heat up. The GHE theory postulates that GHGs impede/trap/store the flow of heat reducing the amount leaving the ToA and as a consequence the atmosphere will heat up. Actually if the energy moving through to the ToA goes down, say from 240 to 238 W/m^2, the atmosphere will cool per Q/A = U * dT. The same condition could also be due to increased albedo decreasing heat to the atmosphere & surface or ocean absorbing energy.

The S-B ideal BB temperature corresponding to ToA 240 W/m^2 OLR is 255 K or -18 C. This ToA “surface” value is compared to a surface “surface” at 1.5 m temperature of 288 K, 15 C, 390 W/m^2. The 33 C higher 1.5 m temperature is allegedly attributed to/explained by the GHE theory.

BTW the S-B ideal BB radiation equation applies only in a vacuum. For an object to radiate 100% of its energy per S-B there can be no conduction or convection, i.e. no molecules or a vacuum. The upwelling calculation of 15 C, 288 K, 390 W/m^2 only applies/works in vacuum.

Comparing ToA values to 1.5 m values is an incorrect comparison.

The S-B BB ToA “surface” temperature of 255 K should be compared to the ToA observed “surface” temperature of 193 K, -80 C, not the 1.5 m above land “surface” temperature of 288 K, 15 C. The – 62 C difference is explained by the earth’s effective emissivity. The ratio of the ToA observed “surface” temperature (^4) at 100 km to the S-B BB temperature (^4) equals an emissivity of .328. Emissivity is not the same as albedo.

Because the +33 C comparison between ToA “surface” 255 K and 1.5 m “surface” 288 K is invalid the perceived need for a GHE theory/explanation results in an invalid non-solution to a non-problem.

References:
ACS Climate Change Toolkit
Trenberth et. al. 2011 “Atmospheric Moisture Transports …….” Figure 10, IPCC AR5 Annex III
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/IOTD/view.php?id=7373
http://principia-scientific.org/the-stefan-boltzmann-law-at-a-non-vacuum-interface-misuse-by-global-warming-alarmists/

34. Allan says:

CO2 absorbs some of the heat radiated from the surface, converting it to molecular motion. The COs molecules in turn transmit that energy via conduction to the molecules of other gases in the atmosphere and also lose some of that energy in the form of radiation, which is radiated in all directions. Thus some of the radiation from the surface is prevented from leaving the atmosphere and passing out into space, since it is converted into molecular motion. Some of the resulting radiation is directed back toward the surface instead of into space, or directed laterally into the atmosphere.

35. Extremely poorly worded but somewhat correct, and indeed, in none of that, in any case, can the cooler atmosphere cause the warmer surface to become warmer still by radiative interaction. Because that violates science.

36. Gary Ashe says:

Plus its mixed in a flux with direct sunlight, being absorbed by the molecule at the same time, is it right Joe that a longwave photon emitted by co2 and absorbed by the surface, is re-emitted from the surface as an even longerwave,,,,,as radio wave ?.

37. Well you can’t really track individual photons that way, because if they reduce in frequency then there has to be more of them on exit to get the same total energy. However, yes you’re correct – energy flows downhill not bump itself up. No heat is transferred from the atmosphere into surface at all under normal conditions.

38. Gary Ashe says:

Heres a heart-warmer Joe.

Courtesy of the British centre for Climate Change education, ”the Guardian”.

“A Trump presidency might be game over for the climate,” said Michael Mann, a prominent climate researcher. “It might make it impossible to stabilize planetary warming below dangerous levels.”

Kevin Trenberth, senior scientist at the US National Center for Atmospheric Research, added: “This is an unmitigated disaster for the planet.”

It is bye bye EPA, and bye bye Nasa earth science’s, Nasa re-focused [pun intended] on looking out, instead of in.

How he will/they are going to achieve the axing of climate science i am not sure, i do know Trump is putting the science back to meteorology/ists.

And he was crystal clear, ”not one more American dollar will go to UN climate change”.

All in all a the start of the end,,,,,,,Mann’s and the rest of them will be gone,,,,,and their work government owned, when that work is finally open to critical review, they may if theres any justice in this world end up disgraced, bankrupt and in jail.

39. These disgusting people.

40. Gary Ashe says:

Merry Christmas Joe.