In this presentation I debunk another sophistical pseudoscientific claim that supposedly “proves” that the Earth is flat, that the radiative greenhouse effect is real, and that climate alarm is true.
Categories
-
Join 530 other subscribers
- Follow Climate of Sophistry on WordPress.com
Recent Comments
- Nepal on Back to the Parallel Plates
- Pelagius on Back to the Parallel Plates
- Nepal on Back to the Parallel Plates
- Pelagius on Back to the Parallel Plates
- CD Marshall on An Experiment to Demonstrate Ontological Mathematics
- CD Marshall on Back to the Parallel Plates
- Leon Hiebert on Back to the Parallel Plates
- boomie789 on Soul Camera – How Does Your Soul Work?
- boomie789 on Soul Camera – How Does Your Soul Work?
- boomie789 on Soul Camera – How Does Your Soul Work?
- CD Marshall on Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide Paradox
- DIN on Soul Camera – How Does Your Soul Work?
- DIN on Soul Camera – How Does Your Soul Work?
- petraliverani on Soul Camera – How Does Your Soul Work?
- J Cuttance on Back to the Parallel Plates
Climate of Sophistry 
Round earth physics is physics – not skepticism. I am not skeptical that the climate is changing – it is. I am not skeptical that the earth is warming due to man burning fossil fuels – it is not. Just think about this rhetorical question – If CO2 is such potent insulator (and re-emitter) why have we not designed our homes (attics or even ceilings) to take advantage of this mystical CO2 property.
Yes indeed.
The blackbody curve grows as temperature increases. How does absorption by GHGs gases grow Earth’s surface BB curve?
Sounds like they want a bigger cake from eating it.
So obvious now. Thanks JP.
Yes, exactly! Downstream absorption doesn’t have an effect on the source.
Another EXCELLENT presentation … Thanks Joseph !!! … keep’em coming !! .. 🙂
Joseph,
The way I have seen spectra used to justify the RGHE is when they show a plot of incoming radiation from the Sun by frequency and outgoing radiation from the Earth taken from above the atmosphere and the outgoing radiation has a gap or “bite” at the frequencies related to water vapour and CO2 (mostly water vapour).
What is the best way to counter that argument?
Thanks for all you do, Joe. History will record that in this “dark age” of “science” there were men still willing to do honest work and to speak out against the crowd.
Hell, thanks to all the slayers for that matter.
Thanks guys.
@Truthseeker: Indeed, that’s exactly what this presentation is about. Just because the atmosphere, a cool gas, creates an absorption spectrum as the IR light from the surface passes through it, does not mean that the cool atmospheric gas is heating the warmer surface. How would it heat the warmer surface, you say? Well, they say with “backradiation”. And that mechanism is debunked in this presentation and in the 1st one.
There are two ways to increase an object’s temperature in thermodynamics (and there is no other method outside of thermodynamics): via work, and heat. Backradiation does no work since work is a mechanical process like friction or like an adiabatic change, and so, backradiation would therefore have to function as heat if it were to cause the warmer surface to become warmer still; backradiation can not function as heat since heat can only flow from hot to cold, and cannot reverse and flow from cold to hot. Heat flow is irreversible and thermodynamics textbooks go on at great length about that.
As to the alternative sophistical argument which tries to avoid and skirt around the fact about heat flow, i.e., that backradiation “slows heat flow from the surface, thus leading to it to become warmer”, well, this is simple sophistry. Heat flow is not a conserved quantity and indeed goes to zero, tends to zero, automatically seeks zero, as thermal equilibrium is approached and achieved. The conserved quantity is energy, and energy is not always heat, but heat is always energy. Remember that: energy is not always heat, but heat is always energy. Look at this diagram:
The two source curves are energy, but only their difference is heat, which means that neither of the source curves are fully heat. Either source curve is fully energy, but neither source curve is fully heat; only their difference is heat, and this difference goes to zero as the heat flow from the warmer one to the cooler one warms the cooler one to bring it to thermal equilibrium with the warmer one.
Remember the basic radiant heat flow equation:
Q = P2 – P1
where P is the power from two different objects, and Q is the heat flow. Q goes to zero to achieve thermal equilibrium, and so is not a conserved quantity, but both of the P’s still fully exist and are still emitting their full value.
Therefore, the warmer one is not emitting less energy, and therefore “having to increase in temperature”. The warmer one is always still emitting its energy, it is simply that its energy doesn’t transfer as heat to the cooler one once the cooler one warms to equilibrium. The value of the heat flow is not the conserved quantity.
Perhaps you can distill that.
But look…thermodynamics is the most poorly widely understood field of physics. Either these people are so bad at science and physics that they just can’t help but to create sophistry with their attempt to do science, like a bull in a China shop…it just ain’t gonna work out, or they’re actually really evil despicable people that are happy to have people believing in flat Earth physics and inversions of thermodynamic theory, etc etc.
I think I’ll do the next presentation on that comment…the difference between energy & heat etc.
Nice vid JP. Good explanation for the general public I think.
Sadly, I have had some doofus try to tell me that Bier-Lambert was evidence of the rGHE myself. At that point, I just told him he didn’t know what he was talking about and walked away. Sometimes stupid can’t be helped. You can quite literally show them the paradoxes and they still won’t or can’t resolve that something they “believe” in is incorrect.
Joseph,
Thank you for the reply. It brings together all of the content from your previous posts together very nicely.
Thanks,
TS
@Matt – God, that is the stupidest thing ever. A remarkable and uncannily consistent and reliable thing I have discovered with these people, is that they attempt to invert and utilize the very physics and arguments which debunk them. It got to a point where I began simply thanking them outright for such good arguments against the rGHE, as they attempted to come up with new arguments for the rGHE!
The rGHE debunk is one thing…but the other thing which stands out as much more strange, as much more “queer”, as much more boggling, is how these people can be so consistently stupid and erroneous, and what it is that drives them. If it was true stupidity, it wouldn’t be so consistent. In the end I had to conclude that treachery and stupidity amount to the same thing.
Anyway, yes, as light is attenuated passing through an absorbing medium, this makes the light source hotter and brighter…and thus makes the light brighter as it is being attenuated! LOL
Idiots!
Please delete this, if you find this inappropriate.
I was debating this retard …
“Holy crap. I actually spent a few minutes to investigate this paper/the author as i wanted to figure out where this “physicist”. You realise that this guy Joseph E. Postma, who you seem to worship and clearly have done no research on, isn’t even a physicist haha he did his degree in Astronomy AKA he is a fucking moron. The only person who would publish that article was set up by a climate science denier. “Joseph E Postma has published NO peer-reviewed paper in any legitimate science journal on climate science”. He is literally complaining about a basic undergrad concept that is taught in first year for basic approximations. Did you just read this once and then not research the problems and massive errors this guy has made? Your fairly good use of the english language made me assume you would have gone that far. I would suggest checking your sources. The paper you are referencing isn’t peer reviewed, so this guy just got it published without anyone else with a lot more experience (he has one year of school on this topic FYI) I just called someone from the faculty of the university of calgary and he isn’t allowed to teach anything higher than first year. LOL you are referencing someone who teaches one maybe two first year courses a semester as a sessional prof. man i am literally laughing out loud. I knew when i reviewed it it seemed wrong and felt like he didn’t take so many things into account. I also read his only other publication and it is a little better, not by much… so your main source is on a climate denying web page, from someone who has 1 year of education with an undergrad in astrology who isn’t even allowed to teach passed first year uni courses. I found 4 or five web pages very quickly where his paper was torn to pieces and the mistakes hes made are right in your face. Doesn’t get much better than that. So Eat Shit man! you are so dumb i am loving this, you came out with so much confidence, and you have not even looked into your source. I was going to leave this but I just so happened to google him and i had to call someone from the university of calgary anyways so good. I knew you were dumb when you said “because of this basic ass first year model for the greenhouse effect you believe in flat earth” . that statement alone was mind boggling. Before you respond, because you are going to be triggered for sure, do more research, spend some time looking at reviews and other scientists views and what they can blatantly point out as bullshit in this paper. (with lots of examples of simple experiments that will prove his paper to be garbage.) I will leave you with the summary of part one of one of the reviews of his paper which was written by a much much more educated and qualified scientist and researcher. Chris Colose.
“To summarize Part 1, Joseph E. Postma did not like a simple model of Earth’s radiative balance where we approximate the Earth as a sphere with uniform solar absorption. Of course, this is never done in climate modeling or in more detailed analyses appropriate for scholarly literature, so it is more an exercise in complaining about undergraduate education than an attempt to correct what he calls a “paradigm” in climatology. Nonetheless, the 0-D energy balance model is a useful approximation on Earth when coming up with an average emission temperature (~255 K), since air circulations and oceans tend to even out the diurnal temperature gradient on Earth, in addition to the thermal inertia provided by the system.”
In the future please try to do more research before spamming the internet with your garbage. you don’t know how to research. you don’t know math. and i truly do hope you have a lot of close family who can help you wipe your ass, you are clearly too stupid to do it yourself. This is just one of many many reviews of this paper that point out many flaws and problems.
I would encourage anyone to look do your own research, especially if someone posts a paper that was not peer reviewed, or ever published in an academic journal. Like the moron who posted it here in the youtube comments without ever researching his source. Continue to live blind Bob you sad sad human.
Thanks for the laugh though, you had two academics in stitches for a good twenty minutes. good stuff. Keep trying though! you’ll get there one day! PEACE”
—
The ignorance level is too amusing.
What would be your response?
My response would be that it is the realm of the intellectual coward to attack the person or the qualification rather than what the person said. You’ll ”notice that your ‘debating’ opponent did not, at any time, try to give evidence as to why he believed Joseph was wrong.
I would prefer if, just once, the ‘believers’ would try to debate the physics instead of the individual.
It is truly pathetic but it is the way the ‘groupthink’ mob work…
Yes, that’s all they have. If you had that encounter recently, most of that comment is copied from some origin that occurred years ago. That’s what I’ve been dealing with for years.
Few comments: it’s their “0-d model” not mine. It’s where the rghe originates. It doesn’t matter what “d” it is…the mechanism of backradiation heating/slowed cooling is the phenomenon and this mechanism violates thermodynamics, and doesn’t exist.
I know how you feel, Joe.
I’ve been trying to explain to mathematicians for years that the derivative of a^x is not a^x * ln(a)
For example, consider 2^x
x = 1,2,3,4,5
2^x = 2,4,8,16,32
delta 2^x = 2,4,8,16,
delta(delta 2^x) = 2,4,8
clearly the derivative of 2^x is 2^x, not 2^x * ln 2
Euler made a mistake, but Euler can’t make a mistake, so I must be wrong. Then 98% of dimwitted sophists attack. They don’t refute me. They just dismiss and regurgitate “theory”.
I got great respect for you, Joseph. We will prevail.
That’s very cute Mark. But given the context here, I don’t find it funny.
I don’t know who Mark is. Sorry. You got me all confused now.
Your dx is quite large.
I can’t understand what you’re saying. Maybe I am stupid.
Look at the last diagram:
Click to access chapter4.pdf
They really do claim the cake grows from eating it. The bite causes the rest to bulk out. Is this pure 100% bullshit? or is this measured?
Your argument about the derivative thing is incorrect because your dx is too large. With large dx then the approximation to a true infinitesimal derivative is poor. Your unique example with large dx has nice round numbers. As dx becomes smaller, the approximation to a true infinitesimal derivative becomes better. Rework your example with 5 numbers, starting at 1, but incrementing by 0.1, 0.01, 0.0001, and see what happens (instead of incrementing by 1). Answer: the numerical derivative approaches the infinitesimal derivative of axln(a).
Yes, they make the same error there in that pdf as everywhere else: just because there is an absorption spectrum does not mean that heat can reverse flow from colder atmosphere to warmer surface, or that the surface itself is restricted from emitting energy as per the Stefan-Boltzmann Law. The energy which needs to go to space is then emitted by the warmer atmosphere instead of the surface. Note that when a gas warms from radiant absorption and forms an absorption spectrum, that this is not talking about the radiative greenhouse effect underlying climate science and climate alarm. Yes, the atmosphere would warm from radiant absorption and the creation of an absorption spectrum, but this is not the radiative greenhouse effect and it doesn’t require that the surface become any warmer. Even in this case, the signature expected from this legitimate type of warming (which, again, is not the radiative greenhouse effect), called the “tropospheric hot-spot”, is also not found or observed.
Yes, the absorption spectrum is measured, but it is not a radiative greenhouse effect.
I agree with your explanation. Thank you. Would you agree with the following:
co2 is a radiative coolant
co2 slightly blocks convection
co2 slightly adds to atmo mass/pressure/heat capacity
=
co2 climate sensitivity is ~0.01C
Afrophysics,
You are hiding behind a screen name because you are not confident of what you are talking about. Apparently you are a climate activist. Listen, there is no such a thing as radiation between atmospheric air layers or “atmospheric slabs” which is the basics of the radiative model. Between air layers there is only convection for they are in intimate contact with each other. There is no need for a PhD or peer-reviewed paper to tell you that you’re wrong and your model is wrong. Just ask a high school kid and will tell you that you’re way too wrong-There is no radiation within the atmospheric air mass. If the basics of your science is so wrong, then imagine how many peer-reviewed and published paper are wrong out there. A published paper is not necessarily science. Only after it has passed the test of 7.4 billions will it be called science. A reviewer or two can be wrong, but the public can never be wrong. The public has spoken about your science and it is not worth the ink in which it is typed.
Afrophysics,
co2 is not a radiative coolant
co2 does not blocks convection
co2 does not add appreciably to atmo mass/pressure/heat capacity
Climate sensitivity is not a demonstrated climate parameter for the effect of carbon dioxide is time dependent, and climate sensitivity as defined is time independent. Climate sensitivity thus is not equal to 0.01C; it is variable depending on emission time.
“co2 is a radiative coolant”
If it emitted then it would have higher emissivity than the other main atmospheric gasses O2 & N2 which don’t emit, and thus, this would make CO2 an atmospheric coolant. This is part of the entire inversion of logic and physics of the RGHE postulate, where CO2 emission is claimed to cause heating, rather than the cooling which it would actually produce if it did emit. I don’t know what the emissivity of CO2 is at STP, and neither do I know the emissivity for O2 and N2 at STP. Difficult to find those quantified numbers. But I do know that O2 & N2 are poor emitters and have low emissivity, and that this fact makes these gasses hold on to their thermal energy. If CO2 had higher emissivity than them, then it effectively would be an atmospheric coolant. If it had lower emissivity, then it would be an atmospheric warmer. In either case, the question of CO2‘s emissivity itself debunks the inverted RGHE physics which says that high emissivity leads to warming, which is opposite of physics reality.
“co2 slightly blocks convection”
Have never heard that before. Mixed in the atmosphere it is part of the convective mass. I suppose that CO2 has a molecular mass of 40, and N2 is 28 and O2 is 32, so CO2 is a bit heavier. If that’s what you mean. But it is still such a tiny fraction of the atmospheric mass, weighted for population.
“co2 slightly adds to atmo mass/pressure/heat capacity”
Negligibly.
“co2 climate sensitivity is ~0.01C”
Unmeasurable, if it is.
Then we pretty much agree. I was using the explanations and conclusions found in these two papers:
Click to access Wagoner%20AJP%202010.pdf
Click to access CoolingOfAtmosphere.pdf
—
Well, nothing is measureable. We can’t even calculate Earth’s temperature without an atmosphere, as the superhot surface will evaporate ocean water to form a new atmosphere. I think 0.01C is a sensible number. We can concede that for fun, just to not be fully contrarian.
nabil, where did you get the idea that I’m a climate activist? I’m a skeptic who is sampling the marketplace of ideas. I’m removing my own doubts by asking tough questions, and JP has done a good job of answering them.
You are the guy with the NPR recollection, aren’t you Afro ‘, was it pudgy little Micky Mann or Hansen ?.
Interesting story, any way to dig up the young reporters piece ?.
You an engineer Afro ?.
@Gary
You got me, Gary. I posted someone’s nasty comments directed at me for making him read Postma’s “An absence of …” . Before this I had no idea Postma was so vilified by the climate cult.
Here was my reply to him:
“Aw, the poor climatard can’t refute the science, so he attacks a messenger. How typical. Colose was refuted for his strawmen, red herrings, and lies by others. Of course climatards don’t care about substance, only empty words. Did you not bother to read the exchange between Postma and Colose? Colose ran away after being exposed for being a pathological lying sophist. Colose didn’t even describe Postma’s arguments correctly.
The funny thing is, none of your rubbish actually refutes the fact that the climate cranks you worship do in fact use a flat-earth/cold-sun model. The mistake of diluting the sun’s energy to the dark side of earth, is there for all to see – including students learning it for the first time. The radiative greenhouse effect is a FUDGE FACTOR between flat-earth assumption and reality (-18C vs. 15C … 33C GH effect).
“you don’t know math”
No proof, eh? All you have to do is disprove Postma’s math. You didn’t do it. Colose didn’t do it. You must have missed that. You paid too much attention to the strawmen and lies. You flat-earthers may believe the sun shines on both sides of Earth simultaneously, but it doesn’t. Oops my bad, there is no “other side” in your reality.
“thanks for the laugh”
No, thank you for the laugh!
Like all turd-flinging monkeys, you launched an attack with no substance!
Also thanks for pretending to call U of Calgary, while actually copying and pasting lies verbatim from alarmist blogs (skepticalscience, etc). Hilarious!
Silly flat-earth climate cranks never learn, but they sure do fake a lot.”
Lol nice.
Joseph, I’m glad you thought to do these videos. You actually seem to have a knack for doing them.
I would agree to keep them short–less than 20 minutes. And remember, more than half of your viewers do not have a solid background in physics. So, your clear explanations help. A beneficial teaching aid is to explain things 3 times, in different ways. You want folks to understand as clearly as possible.
Teaching why something is “pseudoscience” is a good way to teach actual science. Many people are afraid of science, but revealing a hoax becomes mentally interesting. It becomes fun to those folks that always thought science was too “nerdy”.
Keep up the great effort!
Will keep on. Cheers.
Joseph, have you read Dr. Latour’s article at PSI?
Simultaneous Conduction And Radiation Energy Transfer
http://principia-scientific.org/simultaneous-conduction-radiation-energy-transfer/
In it, Dr. Latour is making an ardent claim that “yes Virginia, a cooler object can make a warmer object warmer still”. He is claiming that specifically through “radiation”, a cooler object can indeed make a warmer object warmer still. Unfortunately, I do not possess the mathematical skill set to counter him, as I believe his hypothesis to be absolutely false.
Perhaps you would be so kind, in your spare time, to present comment on his PSI article debunking him? .. I know I would appreciate if you could.
Thank Joseph … keep up the GREAT work my friend!!
So Pierre is acceding to Spencer now?! I have a hard time believing this article is actually Pierre.
PL: “The rigorous model of simultaneous thermal and radiant energy transfer proves energy transfer by radiation can flow from a colder radiator to a warmer one, heating the warmer one further.”
I’ll note that his definitions are incorrect to begin with:
PL: “Radiant energy can transfer from a colder to a warmer radiator.”
The question isn’t about radiant energy. It is about the form of energy called heat, as heat is what is required to increase temperature, not simply the presence of energy. The cool end of a metal bar has thermal energy as well, but it doesn’t send heat to the warmer end.
I’m going to have to write a short rebuttal to Pierre’s article. It’s incorrect.
Goodness….400 years of science and only now we are discovering COLD warms up WARM – “Toto, I’ve a feeling we are not in Kansas anymore”
Lol!
Hi Squid!
You say: “He [PL] is claiming that specifically through “radiation”, a cooler object can indeed make a warmer object warmer still. Unfortunately, I do not possess the mathematical skill set to counter him, as I believe his hypothesis to be absolutely false.”
PL makes the same mistake as many. He assumes “photons emitted” automatically mean “heating”. Joseph has the patience to explain it completely, but I just like to use the simple illustration of “heating” with ice cubes.
Ice cubes emit IR photons. So, PL should try heating a cup of coffee with ice cubes. He is allowed to use as many ice cubes as he wants. Heck, use a whole room filled with ice cubes!
It’s just amazing how the 2nd LoT ALWAYS holds.
Surprised to see this from Pierre. Something strange about it.
Joseph, I was hoping you might. I just love reading your explanation of things. You do a very good job of covering all bases with irrefutable facts. I greatly appreciate all of your hard work. Thank you!
Geran, I like that one too. I also have some really good analogies that I have built over the years that I believe fully illustrate nature, like my bicycle wheel analogy. However, my analogies, even though quite coherent, common sense and I believe are quite accurate, they cannot stand up to the type of mathematics that Joseph provides so well. You cannot refute math. I would love to respond to Dr. Latour’s article myself, but I would quickly get my rear-end whooped because I cannot properly support my arguments with mathematics.
Joseph, I was shocked to see that on PSI yesterday morning. I have never read such a thing from Dr. Latour before. I have held a great deal of respect for Dr. Latour and I found that article very disappointing and now must reassess my position regarding his works. I cannot properly explain, especially in the mathematical world, why he is wrong, but I know instinctively he is absolutely wrong. Like in my bicycle wheel analogy, a photon from a cooler object cannot add either “energy” or “heat” to a warmer object. You cannot apply lesser energy to the wheel and expect to increase the spin of the wheel. I am absolutely convinced beyond doubt that this is exactly how molecules, radiation and energy works. I see it around me every single day. I work with electrical equipment at work that demonstrates this every single day. I am certain that I am not wrong on this. Just wish I could explain it better in mathematical terms. The very fundamentals of the Laws of Thermodynamics are based precisely on my bicycle wheel analogy. The Laws of Radiation Physics are based precisely on my simple bicycle wheel analogy. Everything in our universe operates on that very simple and fundamental principal. It could not be otherwise. Our universe could not exist if it were otherwise.
Sorry, I kind of blathered on there. I will step aside, go back to my coding and let the professionals take it from here…
Thank you guys for all that you do !! … you are wonderful folks!
Just read through the math. I can see why he thought he arrived at the conclusion he did, but the equation was wrong.
PL’s conclusion:
The correct equation for heat flow when there are differing emissivities can be found on pg. 32 of this radiant heat transfer textbook. You can see that Pierre’s/Marty’s equation isn’t correct.
The equation should be (and I(net) should be Qdot):
Qdot = = σ[T(h)4 – T(c)4] / (1/e(h) + 1/e(c) – 1)
The emissivities do not enter at the top of the equation for each T term, but at the bottom and in their summed inverse, minus 1. The example for which this equation is derived (following on from earlier first-principles) is for a heat shield with *highly reflective* barriers, such barriers of course having high albedo (low absorptivity), and these do not actually enter the equation.
I can see why Hertzberg derived his equation in the way that he did, but it’s not correct.
Squid you should write a little “heat flow for dummies” thing using your bicycle wheel analogy – not that it is dumb, but quite excellent and easy to understand and communicate. It’s brilliant. I’d like to post it as an article.
Heat flow is basically work, and remember I’ve noted that there are only two ways to increase an object’s temperature: via heat, and work. Well, heat is really just another subtler form of work. Higher frequencies of light and faster vibrations of molecules can do work that lower frequencies and slower vibrations can’t. Eventually the bicycle wheel is moving so fast, that you can’t do any more work on it. Or, if it is already turning faster than you can muster, it will do work ON YOU.
The point being (of my earlier comment on Latour’s article), that heat still doesn’t flow from cold to hot, when using the *correct* equation.
Now discussing on PSI: http://principia-scientific.org/simultaneous-conduction-radiation-energy-transfer/#comment-15373
Pingback: Carbon Dioxide: Utterly Useless in ‘Trapping Heat’ or ‘Delaying Cooling’ - Principia Scientific International
Joseph, I like your idea and I shall attempt to run with it. Perhaps, if I can muster a good enough article, perhaps you will post it here? .. If I can produce something acceptable, I will give it to John and perhaps he would present at PSI?
I will set out and try my best to create such a thing. Don’t hold your breath, could take me a bit of time as I am usually buried under stacks of work. I will make an honest attempt. Let’s see what I can do … 🙂
Yes that’s what I meant! To post as an article!
Joseph, I left a few comments on that thread.
Respectfully,
Jeff
Joseph, great stuff on the PSI discussion!!! .. Thank you so very much! … It is perfectly clear, even for a mathematically challenged individual as myself. I understand every bit of your maths. Great stuff!
Great! Latour got put in the wrong direction or something.
You’ll like my last comment:
“there’s no mechanism by which something slower can catch up to something faster.”
That’s basically heat flow right there. The slower things, i.e. the lower frequencies and the slower vibrations, can’t catch up to and bump the faster things to make them faster.
AKA, your bicycle wheel analogy 🙂
Thanks Joseph, you HIT IT OUT OF THE PARK at PSI !!!
I left this comment for you at PSI :
And that my friends, is what you call “Priceless”
Oh, but Joseph, what about the “Flux Capacitor” ?? .. hmmmm??? … LOL!
Sincerely,
Jeff
——-
I believe at this point, the most appropriate thing for you is …
[ MIC DROP ]
🙂 … Cheers! .. have a GREAT day and thank you so much for your work!
Yes I need to stop posting and go. Poor daughter is begging me to play with her. Think I said enough anyway at this point! Cheers.
John Cook – I hear on the ABC radio sometimes – always points to the graph of emission to space recorded by the Nimbus satellite included in Petty’s book as proof of heat trapping and hence the radiative greenhouse effect. So do Spencer, Watts etc. etc.
With that big bite taken out between wavenumbers ~600 to ~800 almost coinciding with the peak emissions for a 300 K curve they crow that this is proof – all that energy “trapped”.
However in a wavelength curve this “bite” moves to the right of a plot and does not coincide with the peak emissions.
In either curve the emission is the same despite the different peaks.
I seriously doubt that any of these guys understand the transition from one variable to another in Planck curves and that you cannot make simplistic statements like they do.
In Petty’s Nimbus graph it seems the CO2 will destroy us , in a wavelength plot it is on the fringe and seems irrelevant.
I once took the time to do a rough calculation for the curve from Petty and found the area under the curve was approximately 280 W/m2 – higher than the average 239 W/m2.
I’m not even sure they understand the curve represents perhaps thousands of different emissions from differing sources.
The first post, Jimmy says, “– …If CO2 is such potent insulator (and re-emitter) why have we not designed our homes (attics or even ceilings) to take advantage of this mystical CO2 property.”
The fraud is such an affront, to even the most fundamental of physics
that it is claiming a fireman’s refractive canvas coat, – suspending more and more refractory insulation
between a fire – and an object
is provided so the fire department can make the fireman’s back hotter and hotter.
Firemen wear thick refractory coats, to make their backs c.o.o.l.e.r. in the presence of a fire.
People aren’t told to grab a dry blanket made of refractory material and put it around them when they run through a burning area, so that less light getting to their skin, can make more light come out of their skin.
That’s how *obviously *fraudulent Green House Gas Warming FRAUD is.
When the scam first broke discussion of it’s obvious NEVER-ENDING violations of thermodynamics
were the first thing the scammers faced day after day
but they were all POLITICAL LACKEYS whose
self manufactured ”reputations” were based solely on government employment:
and were simply that
they were the
SMARTEST MEN
in the
ENVIRONMENTAL
MOVEMENT.
The atmosphere is a COLD BATH
comprised of COMPRESSIBLE FLUIDS
Augmented through suspension of refractory,
insulating media.
These refractory insulating media
currently block about 20% of total available sunlight
the surface.
If you want to watch a magic gas idiot
bark sullen insults then silence,
tell them
”Show me that OTHER time,
when men warmed a rock in a vacuum
till it was as warm as their light could get it,
and when it wouldn’t get warm enough,
they put it into a bath of frigid fluid,
and when it STILL wasn’t warm enough,
they suspended more and more,
light blocking,
refractory,
insulating media in it,
such that less and less light,
went into the rock,
so more and more light,
came out of the rock.
Show me that other time
that happened.”
Tell them to go get their thermobilly friends,
and have them all come back
and tell you about that OTHER time,
when people put more and more refractory insulation
between a thermal sensor mounted to a fireman’s shirt
and a fire,
and the fireman’s sensor showed
more and more light from the fire
thermalizing and re-emitting
to/from the shirt,
as more and more
refractory insulation was added
and less and less light from the fire
thermalized and re-emitted from it.
Every Adult Human Being Who Ever Claimed,
our
cold atmosphere
can have more and more
light blocking media added to it,
so less and less light gets to a rock,
and more and more come out of it,
deserves to have that written on paper
and taped to his back at business meetings.
It needs to be neatly stenciled on their tombstone:
”He said,
less and less light
going in a rock
makes more and more come out
if you stopped it with CO2″
The government employees/profiteers’
SCIENCE ASSASSINATION MOVEMENT
used UNQUALIFIED BLOGGERS
to
LIBEL
MIS-REPRESENT
and
ENGINEER MASS HARASSMENT
of SCIENTISTS who TOLD the WORLD OTHERWISE.
They then simply turned and orchestrated accusations the same was being done to them: and since they were professional media often, it was simple for them to do it; and science was slowly strangled while the entire world watched.
This march for science facebook page really are not keen at all on your science Joe, they keep deleting my posting with your link to here in them, funny stuff, i wrote LOL! this is great, all these screen shots of censorship over Greenhouse effect thermo, it is just so ”climate science”.
Soon these screenshots will be all-over the scepitical blogs, Thanks.
Left it 10 mins and posted again, its still there.
This what stirred a minor fluster.
Greenhouse effect postulate, take all shortwave energy from the sun in 24hrs, add in all the theoretical back radiated weak energy, to get figure for total energy absorbed per square metre of planet surface, divide mechanical heat created in surface between both weak long wave and super strong shortwave sources, ,…….complete woo woo, the back-radiated weak long wave infrared cannot be absorbed, by the surface that is operating at a far greater frequency, whilst also under a direct shortwave energy flux. it doesn’t matter how much weak long wave phonic energy is bouncing around being deflected about between higher frequency emitters, it cannot create work, therefore it cannot create physical heat. therefore the hypothesis is expensive woo woo……any temperature fluctuations the Earth’s systems undergo are and have been completely natural.
And this is what they deleted 10 times or so, it was just paste post to me, i would of carried on 100 times.
https://climateofsophistry.com/…/fraud-of-the…/ I get my Thermo from asking Astro-Physicist Joe Postma and his work colleges questions, they mainly classically Newtonian Physic’s trained guys working in the applied science’s, they know their Thermo, i would like to see you try to float the sophistry of back-radiated thermal flow with Joe, see how smart you are then with your woo woo.
Link my video series! Tell them they’re literally doing flat Earth physics!
These poor idiots. Science has become such a travesty.
Can i copy and paste a direct invitation and link from you Joe to discuss the vid or Thermo with you, my ham-fisted efforts are ok for newspaper comments sections or facebook, but i would like to see a smart ass come in here and try his luck, they are few and far between,
Iv’e read every comment ever shown here Joseph, i miss the ”debates” like with those pair of ”climate modellers” who dropped by etc, i call them the Greg days, I liked Greg, he could start an argument even when in agreement, i still see him over at ”fat Anthony’s” but he has toned it down, it was entertaining.
As would be if another cold makes warm warmer sucker is enticed in, and destroyed with correct terminology.
So in all honesty i would spam it with a copy and paste direct invutation to them to come and discuss the videos directly with you.
Of course!
Molon labe – come and try to take thermodynamics from me…fools.
Sorry Joe delete that first try will you.
They just keep deleting me now Joe, they really don’t like your Thermo vid links.
I’ve had enough now, just typical they have to ”control” debate..
EmAn
As a former optical physicist I can tell you that you are spouting sheer gibberish. The increasing IR radiation we see in the atmosphere corresponds EXACTLY to CO2. And we pump 40 gigatons of CO2 into the atmosphere every year.
“Slow energy”? “weak photons”? You know photons are leptons, right? Oh wait, you clearly don’t. Entertaining, I admit, but having exactly ZERO scientific merit.
Like · Reply · 8 minutes ago
Gary Ashe
T1 -100C T2 +100C, Atmosphere and desert floor, T1 low frequency [slow] T2 high frequency [fast], slow T1 cannot flow into fast T2 and make fast T2 faster turning it into T3.
Like · Reply · Unable to post comment. · Edited
And thats me done.
Be Lucky Lads.
Poor sad idiots.
BTW, my final reply to Latour:
PL: “May I conclude you now abandon your criticisms as nonsense after I blew them out of the water?” – and a bunch of other shite.
JP:
“As for specific criticism and some reasons why your paper would not be accepted.
PL: “The First Law of Thermodynamics, conservation of energy for the radiator says: Rate of energy out/in by conduction at T to/from surroundings at Ts = rate of energy in/out by radiation from/to surroundings minus/plus the rate of energy accumulation/depletion within the radiating body.”
Firstly, that is one of the most convoluted, unreadable statements I’ve ever come across. I’d ask for a re-write edit based on this sentence alone. Thankfully you then wrote it as an equation:
“Rate Out = Rate In – Rate of Accumulation
Qo(t) = Qi(t) – m Cp dT(t)/dt”
Since you’re using Q then these terms should mean heat, although you don’t call them heat, and so again it needs editing and a re-submission based on that alone. However, then something gets much worse. The right-most term is indeed called heat and one will typically find it as dQ/dt = m Cp dT/dt or more simply dQ = m Cp dT. But…this *is* the rate of heat energy in for an object, and it *is* the rate of heat energy out for an object, depending on the sign of dT, and, this *is* the rate of accumulation for an object. Your equation is literally stating:
Rate of Accumulation = Rate of Accumulation – Rate of Accumulation
or
m Cp dT(t)/dt = m Cp dT(t)/dt – m Cp dT(t)/dt
which is senseless.
However, given that convoluted preliminary sentence, it seems that in this equation you’re actually trying to separate conduction from radiation, but that isn’t clear at all from the terms in the equation written since they simply denote heat out and in. Your Qo(t) is actually the heat from conduction, and Qi(t) is the heat from radiation, given your convoluted intro sentence. But given the way that you have inverted in writing in that convoluted sentence almost every single term in its relationship to what should be positive and negative, because you go from in/out to out/in several times, it becomes exceedingly difficult to track what you’re actually doing especially when you factor in that the individual terms drop any notational reference to the conduction and radiation that they’re supposed to correspond to. It’s a hair away from being totally unreadable…strictly it is actually unreadable, and totally inconsistent. And I’ll also note that that first equation which you start from has no reference stated for it from source material.
At this point, without going any further, your paper is being sent back for major revisions asking you to use proper English sentence structure, and proper & consistent mathematical and physics notation. If the author didn’t know what that meant, and the paper then came back with the same English and mathematical grammatical syntax convolution, then the paper would immediately be recommended for outright rejection. The author would need to go find somewhere else to publish.
Going further, for the sake here, not that I would have if this was a paper I was reviewing (it would have been sent back by now), you state:
“Qo(t) = Qi(t) – m Cp dT(t)/dt
At steady state, T is constant, dT/dt = 0, out/in = in/out and Qo = Qi. Let Qc be rate by conduction and Qr rate by radiation. Qo is Qc if Qc > 0. Qi is Qr if Qr > 0. Qc = Qr”
If dT/dt = 0, this means that there is no heat flow, and so all Q’s should be equal to zero. dT/dt = 0 defines all Q’s equal to zero. Instead you are saying that the conductive heat input must be equal to the radiative heat loss, or in other words, that heat is entering and leaving at the same time. There is some sort of underlying ambiguity which has been set up here but for now we will go with it given that heat is said to be leaving and entering at the same time via different mechanisms but at equal rates.
However, since you’ve stated that dT(t)/dt = 0, then since the object is in thermal equilibrium, Kirchhoff’s Law will be in effect; all of your subsequent discussion and where you arrive at heat flowing from cold to hot depends upon Kirchhoff’s Law not being in effect, but you started the analysis with the very conditions under which Kirchhoff’s Law is defined to be in effect…i.e. when dT(t) = 0, i.e. in thermal equilibrium. So there’s a logical error here. You’ve set up the conditions under which Kirchhoff’s Law is *defined* to be in effect, i.e. dT(t)/dt = 0, thermal equilibrium, but then you go on to dispense with it.
Your equation and text itself is inconsistent because your preliminary convoluted sentence is referring to the Q’s as those from convection and radiation, but then you write the equation as Q’s in and out. So now I must correct this and sort it out: m*Cp*dT refers to an object, and so any Q’s relating to this must also refer to same object, so that if dT is positive, then dQ is positive, i.e. if the object has risen in temperature then it has taken in heat – positive temperature change = positive heat input. So getting rid of the heat in and out notation which makes no sense, and using heat from conduction and heat from radiation notation, then
dQc + dQr = m Cp dT
So now if dT = 0, then dQc = – dQr. The heat input from conduction equals the heat output from radiation, or vice-versa. And this must be a general result applicable to all situations. If we very carefully read your text, it eventually becomes somewhat clear that you state the same thing.
So if we now look at your later equation or just insert terms to dQc = -dQr…
dQc = k(Ts – T) –> that makes sense because the object is the reference; if there is positive heat +dQc into the object from conduction then we expect Ts to be greater than T, and k is always positive.
dQr = sigma * (α εs Ts4 – αs ε T4) –> that makes sense (in this writing) because if absorptivities and emissivities are unity, then positive heat dQr into the object from radiation is because Ts is greater than T.
So putting it together, and this is the same equation found in your text:
k(Ts – T) = -sigma * (α εs Ts4 – αs ε T4)
and given that your dQc = – dQr is a general result for the thermal equilibrium you’ve defined it thus applies to all situations of such, and so we can then look at an ideal case where absorptivities and emissivities are all unity:
k(Ts – T) = -sigma*(Ts4 – T4)
Thus, if Ts was less than T, then the left hand side would be a negative number, -x say.
-x = -sigma*(Ts4 – T4)
or
+x = +sigma*(Ts4 – T4)
The only way that the right hand side can be a positive number is if Ts is greater than T…however, this is in contradiction to the earlier condition requirement that Ts was less than T.
Thus, there is a fundamental, general error, lurking somewhere in your creation here, and so it is no wonder that you could find heat flowing from cold to hot…once the initiating error is set up, subsequent errors can only follow. And we have now proven that there is a general error embedded somewhere in your creation. In other words it is mathematically impossible for dQc = – dQr. This isn’t a possible expression in physics or the mathematics. Certainly it can lead to heat flowing from cold to hot…because that is impossible…an impossibility can come from an impossible expression.
The impossibility must arise when we say that
dQc + dQr = m Cp dT
can have a condition where dT(t) = 0 without both dQc and dQr being zero. In other words, the only condition where dT(t) = 0 is if both dQc & dQr equal zero. If dQc and dQr were not zero, then it is not possible for dT(t) = 0. dQc = – dQr only when they both equal zero. Why would that be?
Is there a non (Ts – T) = 0 solution for
k(Ts – T) = -sigma*(Ts4 – T4)?
So
(Ts – T) = -(sigma/k) * (Ts4 – T4)
(sigma/k) is always positive and is just a scaling factor so let’s just remove it so that we have focus on the variable terms:
(Ts – T) = – (Ts4 – T4)
Well, again, this is actually just the same thing as above: if (Ts – T) > 0, and since all T > 0, then (Ts4 – T4) > 0, and so the negative sign is impossible. The error is indeed in saying that
dQc + dQr = m Cp dT
can have a condition where dT(t) = 0 without both dQc and dQr being zero. It’s mathematically impossible. Probably related to the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics.
As I said at the beginning, there was something strange about saying that the heat loss from conduction must equal the heat input from radiation under thermal equilibrium as a general condition. It’s much more sensible to say that, at thermal equilibrium, both of the heat exchanges from conduction and radiation must each be zero. Notwithstanding that thermal equilibrium was defined in the setup, but then the defined condition of thermal equilibrium, i.e. Kirchhoff’s Law, was dispensed with.
If we look at the full general equation:
k(Ts – T) + sigma(α εs Ts4 – αs ε T4) = m Cp dT
and given that we have proven that there are no mathematical solutions for dT = 0 without both terms on the left hand side also being zero, then that condition can only arise when both terms of the left hand side always have the same sign. That is, either temperature is increasing and both terms contribute positively, or temperature is decreasing and both terms are negative. They both approach zero from the same side of positive or negative as dT approaches zero. Why?
If k(Ts – T) was positive, then that means that heat was flowing from the warmer surrounding Ts to the cooler object T. However, if the other term was negative due to the effects of absorptivity and emissivity, then that would mean that, for that radiative mechanism, heat was flowing from cold to hot. That is a violation of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics because the mathematical law of entropy increase does not allow two objects to spontaneously diverge in temperature by any mechanism, since that would mean that there existed a mechanism to spontaneously and passively decrease entropy.
I’ve said it elsewhere, but to repeat: the Laws of Thermodynamics are actually laws of mathematics, i.e. ontological mathematics or the mathematics of existence. Such mathematics is a self-consistent and complete system of logic. If you create an error of mathematics, then you will find the same error popping up other places. That’s what happened here. The logic of the physics was violated by setting up thermal equilibrium and then dispensing with the conditions of thermal equilibrium, i.e. Kirchhoff’s Law. It was then found that the equations under those conditions lead to self-contradiction. It was then found that such a contradiction arises due to a violation of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. It’s all in the math, and in this case the math of the 2nd Law.
The reason why papers are simply sent back without further perusal when there are early indications that there are problems with the paper, is because it takes so much time to figure out where people eventually really go wrong. And it is never of any use asking the author to agree with you.”
———-
My comment here: So much flow blowing my criticism of your paper out of the water! lol
Joe.
This Karoly guy you need to confront..
Here if i am correct, he is claiming, although not so as the public would ”get it”, but he is claiming the sun was only needed to kick start the ”system” after that the ”system” becomes the prime source of ”radiative” heating of the earths surface along it’s entirety, as if when the sun shines it is a mere candle compared to the blowtorch back-radiation, i thought only the strongest source of heat, could heat an object, even when the object is in thermal contact with multiple contacts, He is claiming the sun doesn’t causing heating, i mean that really is what he is saying when he says the sun plays a minor role in the heat created at the surface,
Apart from that absurdity, this guy is somehow a big fish in the game.
……………..https://www.desmogblog.com/2016/09/15/australia-s-climate-denialists-senator-malcolm-roberts-fails-high-school-science-maiden-speech
“There is a wealth of ‘empirical evidence’ from observations of the surface energy balance at every observing site around the world with relevant instruments and measurements.
Downward long-wave or infrared radiation from the atmosphere to the surface is a vital component to warming the Earth’s surface. The atmosphere warms the surface and cools the surface. In fact, on average through day and night and over a whole year over the whole Earth’s surface, downward infrared radiation is more important than downward solar radiation from the Sun in warming the surface.”
It’s all such a sham. It, science, is not at all what it pretends to be. Detecting IR via the photoelectric effect does not mean that heat transfers from cold to hot. They’re so stupid, so simple minded, not thinking about what they’re actually looking at and what effects of what they’re looking at can actually have and not have via alternative mechanisms. It’s all such a sham.
Tell him Gary, that he just tried to tell you the warm water in a boiling pot, heats the bottom of the pot more than the fire. Tell him he’s full of shit and it shows by the fact he’d say something as effing stupid.
Thanks joe this the one,
Allen.
Yes i think a plate over the top piled with ice, for the steam to condense on, we have pretty much the same thing, anyway doesn’t matter does it, what is in the pot, is never going to get hotter than what is underneath the pot, assuming the energy received is constant.
Now i am going to have a guess at what happens when the energy input stops, I’m guessing the heat would be drawn into the plate of ice on top, so the hot plate would still remain the hottest part of that cooling system, the density of the liquid in the pot controlling the rate the energy/heat flows up to the iced plate. in assumption no energy escapes the system any other way, and the ice is passing on the energy [radiating it away via radiation] whilst remaining a constant minus whatever.
In the end the system would freeze from the top down until all in the pot, and both plates were the same freezing temperature as the is ice plate, because there is no more energy in the system.
I would appreciate being put straight.
Be lucky.
Finally, someone else thinking clearly. I´ve been trying to comment on science of doom about the flaws in the arguments of the greenhouse, and I recently commented on his explanations where he points out how the atmosphere cuts the emitted intensity to nearly nothing in the wavelengths of co2, and claims that it shows how it INCREASES the energy. I got banned of course, and the result is a blog where I pick the measurements and arguments apart. I am quite raw with the words sometimes, but please have a look. We are in this together and it is urgent that we reveal this fraud.
https://lifeisthermal.wordpress.com/
@LifeIsThermal
Yes, it is all bad, poor science, actually false science and pseudoscience.
Do you have a bio we can read somewhere?
I posted this video on my Facebook blog page with the following introduction. Please let me know if I need to edit or correct anything.
“You will often hear from Global Warming proponents that satellites have observed the heat being “trapped” in the atmosphere by CO2 because they can detect the infrared bands leaving the earth and that energy has a gap in the wavelengths that CO2 is known to absorb.
This video by Astrophysicist Joseph Postma falsifies this claim. The atmosphere being warmed by the surface is NOT what the Greenhouse Effect hypothesis claims. It claims that the surface is being warmed by the atmosphere!
When the surface absorbs light from the sun and warms, it neither becomes hotter than the sun nor does the surface shine visible sunlight when it cools (The surface radiates in longer wavelengths mainly in the infrared spectrum).
Likewise when Carbon Dioxide absorbs infrared radiation from the surface it doesn’t become hotter than the surface and it doesn’t emit the same frequencies it absorbed from the surface when it cools to space.
This is why there is a gap of infrared light in the satellite detectors. It is NOT the Greenhouse Effect. The CO2 is still cooler than the surface. It is not therefore warming the surface, nor “slowing the rate at which the surface cools thereby making the surface warmer than it would otherwise be” (what a con job that convoluted sentence is!).
The surface cools to the atmosphere and to space. The atmosphere cools to space only. Both the surface and the atmosphere cool when the sun goes down. Including the CO2!”
How many scientists who believe in back radiation ”GHE” would think ”hang on a mo” ”back frequency effect” or the ”back re-radiated radiation GHE.
That post above is as sweet as a nut, you may stumble over it again in a comment section, as i un-ashamedly rip it off.
Haha! Be my guest!
A friend of mine has been having a bit of fun thinking up how real world technologies and devices might behave if the back radiation concept could be applied to mechanical force etc. One that tickled me was “back traction control” a very dangerous phenomena that could lead to car crashes from sudden stops due to runaway road holding!
Back chat = Liberal Logic.
Oxymoron intended.
Be lucky.
Yep that’s a great summary @wickedwenchfan.
hah…yes, if you brake the back-hold from the road makes you brake harder then you would have otherwise, thus causing you to reverse!
That’s exactly what the radiative greenhouse effect is! You’re braking so hard that the back-hold from the road causes you to reverse and flow backwards…or, stops the car from going forward as much thus leading to the car reversing.
Back-hold from the road causes you to flow back to where you came from. To get back home, just hold the brake really hard and you’ll zoom straight back into your garage…no GPS necessary!
🙂
I like the back traction concept. I lol’d.
Stream of conscience hopefully logical ramble:
I was recently pondering analogs for their BS~ery and had a corollary thought. What the f*wits have unwittingly done in their pursuit of their ridiculous conjecture, in my view, is reverse entropy, aka built a time machine (among other things). But they don’t get what they did because they are sophists. This is why they think it is ok to algebra the SB equation when the flow is irreversible and goes one direction only (for all practical purposes). Except the real world doesn’t behave that way. Which is why they have to bend themselves into pretzels to manufacture confirmation bias built evidence out of tree rings, ocean acidification and other ridiculous shitty studies to show what should be possible to demonstrate in a lab with no atmospheric corollary setup necessary. Just show us the basic physical “rGHE” effect. Show us the mathematics that goes with it so we can test it ourselves. But they can’t come up with simple experiments that support the garbage theory, (they can’t!!) so they call everyone who disagrees with their rubbish names and try to destroy us and threaten to imprison us. Scumbags.
Cold does heat hot. When you reverse time. Oops, we’re going the wrong direction guys. We’re such idiots….
Since these clowns can time travel now, maybe they can help me out. I’d like to place a $1M bet on the 1919 World Series and take the winnings and buy gold to put in an account in the Cayman Islands. Since they can time travel should be no problem right?
They’re goblins. Time machine goblins…lol.
The second law of thermodynamics is a fundamental law of nature. All scientific proofs can be based on the second law of thermodynamics. Stephan-Boltzmann’s law is a fundamental law of nature too which has been proven both theoretically and experimentally. You can base a scientific proof on Stephan-Bolzmann’s law. In case of conflict the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics takes precedence.
I have a question. I know this is a video from 2017, but hey you asked in the video to ask questions via this website so here I am.
So I understand finally that the earth is round and not flat. It also has two sides. Could the heat warm up the surface during the night. For exampl: the candle and the tube. What if the candle goes out? Wich it does on average for 12 out of 24 hours a day. Could it be that the next day when the candle is on again the surface will warm up more then the other day? In other words: could it be that the radiative greenhouse effect does warm up the cooler night time?
My background is average John Doe with a slightly bigger brain then average. If that helps you what language to chose to explain this to me. I have watched your previous video’s and understand heat goes from hot to cold and is unevenly distributed around the planet wich creates weather of course.
@Jeroen – what you describe is NOT the radiative greenhouse effect, i.e., simply that the next morning starts increasing temperature from a warmer temperature. That’s not the RGHE.
As in the video, the RGHE requires that the gas makes itself hotter than the temperature at which it is being heated, and in fact, that the gas provides to itself any number of times MORE ENERGY than what the candle light is providing. For example, the earth’s supposed RGHE requires that the atmosphere provides around TWICE the heat and energy to the Earth than the Sun does. A basic violation of the 1st Law of Thermo.
Hi Jeroen,
If more scientists did what you did and asked obvious questions that any layman can grasp, we wouldn’t be in the mess we are currently in. What you describe is to do with a property called “heat capacity”. That is, how long something takes to heat up or cool down. You can answer your own question by looking at what happens when you turn a heater on and off at home. The maximum temperature you can attain is still limited by the power output of your heater. The heating element cannot be made hotter by the change in insulation of your walls. The GHE does not claim to make the air in your room hotter. It claims to make the element of your heater hotter. That is increase the amount of radiation emitted by the surface. This can only ever be what the surface directly absorbs from the sun just like the heating element is limited by the amount of power the electricity provides.