## Heat Flow Cold to Hot when both Conduction & Radiation Occurring?

PSI recently had a paper submitted where the author claimed that there are solutions to thermodynamics with heat flowing from cold to hot, as long as heat was flowing from hot to cold via a different mechanism at the same time.  Paper is here; author’s name has been removed.

Here we will present the review, just because it’s great reading for math and physics Übermenschen.

———-

For specific criticism and some reasons why your paper was not 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:

“PL: 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 in your text, 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:

“PL: 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 (4) 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 (4) as 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 defined 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.  The objects diverge in temperature and entropy decreases if heat flows from cold to hot because that would mean that the cold object loses thermal energy thus decreases in temperature, while the hot object gains that said energy and thus rises in temperature; this is a decrease in 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.

This entry was posted in Sophistry and tagged , . Bookmark the permalink.

### 44 Responses to Heat Flow Cold to Hot when both Conduction & Radiation Occurring?

1. Derek Alker says:

To kill an error is as good a service as, and sometimes even better than, the establishing of a new truth or fact. Charles Darwin

Seems appropriate, brilliant work Joe.

2. This is how the interaction went after this review:

PL: “I agree, that’s my equation”.

JP: “Well, it says –x = +x.”

PL: “Um, just get rid of the negative sign I had in my equation!”

Now that’s pretty funny!

3. It’s a weird thing this 2nd Law because it seems straightforward, but here I am, a warm blooded creature lit by a hot light bulb on a planet lit by a hot sun and it seems to me that even though heat does *not* go from cold to hot, cold things do get hotter and things do get more organised. I am not saying this guy is right I am just saying the 2nd Law seems a bit strange in real life.
Martin.

4. Sunsettommy says:

Here Is a comment I just got today,that bothered me:

“>>
Heat cannot be trapped. Heat cannot be stored, contained or reflected back. This is a law.
<<
I used to have a parabolic mirror (about 6" diameter) that would hold a cigarette at the focal point. When I focused sunlight on the end, it would light the cigarette. I wonder where the heat came from if it wasn't reflected?
And heat can't be stored, but internal energy can. The First Law of Thermodynamics is often stated as dU = [delta]Q + [delta]W (where U is internal energy, Q is heat, W is work, and [delta] is supposed to be a lower case Greek delta, but HTML doesn't work on this site).
Jim"

He was replying to the previous comment from Richard 111,who wrote the first line.

5. Sunsettommy says:
6. D. V. Schroeder, Thermal Physics, Addison Wesley Longman, 2000:

“Much of thermodynamics deals with three closely related concepts: temperature, energy, and heat. Much of students’ difficulty with thermodynamics comes from confusing these three concepts with each other.”

The commentator is making the same mistake – confusing energy with heat. It is solar energy being reflected, not heat. The strictness of language is fundamentally important in thermodynamics. It is am important distinction.

The energy only manifests as heat when it is focused on the cigarette. It would not manifest as heat if it was focused on something already hotter than what the focused light energy could generate.

Also:

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

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

Thus, Richard111 is correct: heat is a transient phenomenon and cannot be trapped stored, or reflected. And to be sure, internal energy is just energy, not stored heat.

The commentator is doing the usual thing of the confusion of terms, loose language, and resulting in either accidental or intended sophistry.

The strictness of language in thermodynamics is paramount. It’s not f***ing Shakespeare!!! Although these jerk-faces all treat it that way! You CANNOT interchange and be loose with the terms temperature, energy, and heat!!!

7. Sunsettommy says:

Mine,

“You wrote SUNLIGHT,which the mirror concentrate to a small point. He is talking about HEAT not being reflected,but IR can be reflected,just like Visible light.”

“So sunlight isn’t a form of heat energy? What has been heating the Earth for 4.5 billion years if it wasn’t the Sun?”

“When Visible light strikes a surface, the energy in it is converted to heat, since it encounters matter, that warms up.”

8. See…these idiots don’t abide definitions and are all confused. Sunlight energy is NOT heat unless it meets a situation where it can manifest as heat.

9. Sunsettommy says:

He says I am wrong in his reply,but then agrees with this posted, “G. J. V. Wylen, Thermodynamics, John Wiley & Sons, 1960:”

I has replied,

“When Visible light strikes a surface, the energy in it is converted to heat, since it encounters matter, that warms up.”

“That is absolutely not the Thermodynamic definition of heat. Heat only appears at boundaries. It is a transfer of energy from one body to another due to a temperature difference across a system boundary. Heat may be transferred by conduction or radiation or both. (And sunlight contains more frequencies of EMR than just visible light.) Once heat enters a system, it is no longer heat. A bucket of hot water does not “contain” heat. But it does have a higher internal energy than a cold bucket of water with the same mass.”

He is all confused,since Visible light is NOT heat at all. Wasn’t disputing Thermodynamics at all. Not sure what he is getting on, since all I was pointing out is that Visible light is NOT heat at all.

He is a mess when he writes like this,

“So sunlight isn’t a form of heat energy? ”

So confused

gargle………

“Solar radiation are composed of light waves of specific energy levels, NOT heat.”

10. “Solar radiation are composed of light waves of specific energy levels, NOT heat.”

Yes that is correct.

This statement wasn’t correct though:

“When Visible light strikes a surface, the energy in it is converted to heat, since it encounters matter, that warms up.”

If the light is absorbed as heat then it is converted to thermal energy, i.e. an increase in temperature.

11. But remember, light is not always absorbed as heat! It is only absorbed as heat, thus to increase temperature, if the object it strikes is of a lower surface energy flux density.

12. Sunsettommy says:

Thanks for the clarification.

Here is his latest in reply to what I wrote:

“Solar radiation are composed of light waves of specific energy levels, NOT heat.”

The photon is the quanta of electromagnetic (EM) radiation and energy carrier for radiation heat transfer.
Maxwell: “In Radiation, the hotter body loses heat, and the colder body receives heat by means of a process occurring in some intervening medium which does not itself thereby become hot.”
So, yes, EMR is heat, by definition.”

He seems to say my line is wrong,which you told me is correct. According to him it seems that energy AND heat are together in the Solar radiation traveling through interstellar space to Earth.

Confusing!

Then follows up with another reply:

“Temperature is an intensive Thermodynamic property. Entropy is an extensive Thermodynamic property. Entropy and Temperature form a conjugate pair–their product is energy. Pressure (an intensive Thermo property) and volume (an extensive Thermo property) also form a conjugate pair–their product is also energy. If temperature is in Kelvin and entropy is in Joules/Kelvin, then their product is Joules.

Energy comes in many forms: heat energy in calories or BTUs, work in joules, ft-lbs, newton-meters, watt-hours, ergs, dyne-centimeters, pascal-meters^3 and so on. Energy is an extensive Thermo property.

Heat is the transfer of energy across a boundary due to a temperature difference. It is (heat) energy in motion–kinda what Thermodynamics means.

The First Law deals with internal energy (a state variable), heat (a path variable), and work (another path variable). The signs of heat and work are not standard, unfortunately. I learned the Clausius standard, that is heat applied TO the system is positive and work done BY the system is positive. That gives us the equation dU = [delta]Q – [delta]W. Many are using the IUPAC standard which is heat applied TO the system is positive and work done ON the system is positive. That gives us the equation dU = [delta]Q + [delta]W. You need to keep your signs straight, but either equation is valid.

Do I pass or am I confused?”

He is making mountain out of a molehill, bla bla bla, is what I see.

13. These people are just disgusting sophist goblins who like to hear themselves talk.

Maxwell’s quote does NOT define all EMR as heat. Note that Maxwell refers to transfer from hot to cold, and thus only the EMR transferring in that direction acts as heat for the cooler object. Again, note the quote about confusion between heat, energy, and temperature.

Light is energy. It, this energy, only acts as heat when transferring from hot to cold.

14. Sunsettommy says:

Lets see if I got it understood,

Light photon is an energy carrier from a radiating source,that can become heat when it reach a boundary,which is a temporary event, going from high energy state to a low energy state,a one way transfer, that becomes equalized, which then cause heat to stop being manifested.

He seems to say that Energy AND Heat occupy the same place in a light photon,that is where I get confused, as they are different things, being mentioned in the same place. How can Light have different states like Energy and Heat within itself at the same time,that is what he seems to be stuck on.

You say it BECOMES heat, only when energy is being transferred to a cooler object?

15. The *effect that light energy has will be as heat when the appropriate conditions are there…i.e. when going to a lower energy object. Otherwise the energy doesn’t act as heat…isn’t able to do that “work”.

16. Heat is something that energy sometimes manifests as. Energy will act as heat when it is traveling down a gradient; it can’t act as heat when it travels up.

17. Sunsettommy says:

“Heat is something that energy sometimes manifests as. Energy will act as heat when it is traveling down a gradient; it can’t act as heat when it travels up.”

Others see it:

Bryan said
June 23, 2013 at 3:57 am

Ball4

To sum up.

All energy is measured in Joules.

Not all Joules are equal in their ability to perform thermodynamic work in a given situation.

No physics textbook will say heat is transferred spontaneously from a lower to a higher temperature object.

In the case of a purely radiative transfer of energy between a higher temperature object and a lower temperature object.
1. Photons are emitted and absorbed in both directions.
2. Energy is transferred in both directions
3. Heat transfer is a one way process always spontaneously from higher to lower temperature objects.

https://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2013/06/05/psi-theory-destroyed/#comment-96152

18. Perfect!

19. Sunsettommy says:

It was still resisted by many anyway.

20. Goblin chorus.

21. squid2112 says:

SunsetTommy,

Just remember, slow cannot speed up fast. Lesser energy cannot increase the state of greater energy. These are fundamental and universal laws that all things in our universe must abide by. There are no exceptions! .. were it not for this very simple and fundamental behavior, our very universe could not exist! .. For all the reasons that Joseph has continually illustrated, from virtually every approachable direction, under no circumstances can a cooler object lead to increased temperature of a warmer object. period. .. It is irrefutable.

I suggest you ask your friend to produce for you just a single empirical experiment that can prove otherwise. Just one. And no, not some stupid “thought” experiment, but an actual physical experiment that is proof that a cooler object can cause the heating of a warmer object.

Also remember, placing two banana’s next to each other on your kitchen counter cannot cause either banana to warm. Neither can adding additional coffee to your cup make your coffee any hotter than it originally was. It is simply not possible in this universe!

Finally, based upon the discussions you have been commenting about, it is quite clear to me that your friend is indeed painfully aware of these things and is simply trying to bullshit his way through your conversation by obfuscating and talking in circles. He obviously does not have control and command of the maths and principals behind Thermodynamics, and is simply trying to baffle you with the brilliance that he does not have.

22. Can you guys believe what was actually going on with PL once I looked at his math? Isn’t it amazing what transpired? You should see the sh*t storm of emails of him pleading that heat can flow from cold to hot, that his equation can be correct if you just arbitrarily change terms, etc. It’s insane.

This is not a serious, as in honest or well-intentioned or etc., move on PL’s part. This is not at all about science and legitimate debate. No one, no one in the world writes an equation which says that –x = +x, i.e. -2 = +2, admits that that’s what they’re equation says and is, and then just says, in some cockamamie argument, to get rid of the negative sign to make it work. This is NOT serious. These people prey on our naivety that we do not expect people to outright lie and deceive and sophize. We must all know by now and appreciate that they do. Cotton proved it. PL has proven it again.

It is not serious to say what he said, therefore, there is some other purpose to it.

To me it is just such a…an insane occurrence, with what happens. What happened is not serious. No one seriously does what was done. In no way do we ever see things like this in science. Where someone’s equation is, on mathematical certainty, proven to be wrong, and in being wrong, supports the 2nd Law. But then the person asks for the signs to be changed so that heat can flow from cold to hot and violate the 2nd Law. But then not just that, to then go on at length pretending the appearance of an argument which could confuse bystanders with sophistry. It’s quite literally insane on one level, but then so skillfully so! It becomes intelligently psychopathic.

In any case, everyone continue their vigilance and wariness of what we’re facing and the vectors they may use to try to trip us up, etc.

It’s almost like whatever spiritual force had been using Cotton for its sophistry and insanity, has now moved on to PL. They sound exactly the same if you were to read PL’s emails since he presented this,

23. geran says:

Somewhat off topic, but hopefully interesting–

I have been lurking at Lukewarmer sites over the past few months. I have noticed a definite reduction in passion to CO2. One site that used to proclaim “CO2 produces warming”, now frequently ridicules CO2 believers.

Maybe, just maybe, reality is seeping through to these folks.

24. Maybe!

25. squid2112 says:

Off topic:

I have thought of another very simple experiment to show that CO2 cannot possibly provide any warming effect, and in fact creates just the opposite, an increased cooling effect. It is a pretty simple experiment that most anyone should be able to perform.

Simply build 2 small boxes (about 2 cubic meters) each, and with each cut a space for a window. Build these boxes out of some sort of relatively good insulating material. Foam Board would work just fine. Now take two dual pane insulated windows. Replace the gas in one with CO2 and leave the other with Argon (most widely used gas for windows). Heat each box to a specific temperature, something say 1C above outside ambient temperature. Once you have reached target temperature, remove the heat source and then simply observe the windows using your favorite IR measuring device. You will notice that the CO2 window will show to be much brighter than the Argon window.

So, why is the CO2 window brighter (hotter)? … Because CO2 makes an incredibly poor insulator whereas Argon makes for a good insulator. This shows you that CO2 allows for much more efficient energy transfer than most other gasses. One can do this same experiment by replacing the Argon gas with Nitrogen (primary gas in our atmosphere). You will see the same results. Again, proving that CO2 in in fact an atmospheric coolant by enhancing the transfer of energy. … ie: Great absorber = Great emitter.

26. DurangoDan says:

Squid, This experiment only works if the boxes are placed in a vacuum chamber or if the target temperature is very high. At ambient Earthly temperatures conduction and convection overwhelm radiative heat transfer and you will see no difference. Given these constraints, your experiment is far from simple. Review my Hydro Flask article for clarification on this.

27. DurangoDan says:

Here’s a thought experiment: take three identical incandescent light bulbs, fill one with CO2, one with Argon and keep the third as the vacuum tube that it is. Plug them in and observe the difference.

28. Rosco says:

Just a comment on the last two hypotheses.

One does not need to perform any experiments in a vacuum ! The radiant emission from an object at any temperature is proportional to its temperature – the cavity radiation experiments that provided all the data leading to the various laws of radiation physics establish this beyond doubt !

It seems an IR thermometer does actually work in an atmosphere !

As to CO2 being a poor insulator all the data from carefully conducted experimental analysis may not agree with your assertions.

From the Engineering Toolbox we have

Air Cp 0.024 kJ/kg.K thermal conductivity 1.01 W/m.K

CO2 Cp 0.0146 kJ/kg.K thermal conductivity 0.844 W/m.K

Argon Cp 0.016 kJ/kg.K thermal conductivity 0.520 W/m.K

Air is generally considered to be an effective insulator but CO2 is better on those figures – it heats easier and cools slower.

Argon is a better insulator but heats easier than ordinary air.

What is interesting in these figures is IR absorption may explain CO2’s lower Cp value but what about Argon ?

And if CO2’s ability to “back radiate” thus heating the Earth’s surfaces is real why does it have a lower thermal conductivity – shouldn’t it be higher if it is sending all those watts of DLR down to the surface ?

I find it amazing many ignore the experiment conducted by Pictet using parabolic mirrors to reflect radiation from a cold object to a sensitive air thermometer. Even though he conducted the experiment more than 2 centuries ago he got it right and “experts” today get it wrong.

Usually a hot object was placed at the other focus and the thermometer recorded an increase in temperature.

In the “reflection of cold” experiment a really cold object was placed at the focus and the thermometer recorded a decrease.

Pictet was smart enough to realize the thermometer became the hot object in this case and it radiated its thermal energy to a cold object proving the radiation from a cold object does not make a warmer object warmer full stop. Pity the advocates of nonsense aren’t smart enough to realize the implications of this.

There is one unanswered question abut this experiment though. Assuming the many people who replicated the experiment are telling the truth why does a thermometer in perputal thermal contact with the constant temperature air show a marked immediate decrease in temperature when a cold object is placed at the focus of a parabolic mirror almost 16 feet away. A flask of ice water would not change the ambient air temperature.

29. Allen Eltor says:

When free photons from three sides of an anvil strike, they’re all moving at whatever speed light moves at, in that medium. In our gas atmosphere it’s about 2/3rds the speed of light. In vacuum it’s 186,000 miles per second.

But the green yellow blue red light colors, all arrive at the same speed, and their capacity to move freely is CLEARLY exhibited by what happens when they strike the sides of the anvil.

In gas, molecules act in what’s called idealized ways, being significantly energetic to break free from each other. Lack of physical structure hindering proton/electron relationship geometries gives that well known spherical, rebounding structure that makes gas mechanics so simple, and the rules, so few.

When objects contract into solids, what’re called amorphous liquids, etc – crystalline configuration is considered to be the standard, basic phase for most matter.

And in any case there’s one thing that definitely happens.

Electron freedom is not significantly nor even substantively, it becomes nearly completely curtailed, relative to what was present when it was rebounding around like a helium filled beach ball. (so to speak.)

There are rules to that shit and these rules are the reason other phases of matters’ laws are more complicated when analyzing them mathematically.

One of the things that is the cause of these rules is the lack of energy in solids, allowing the almost magnetic effect of +1 & -1 charge relationships, atomic particles have, to suck the protons and electrons down into a configuration we know of as the – again – crystalline configuration.

When this goes on, this shrinkage is obviously available in charts, volume of a given mass as gas vs solid is vastly different, and each gas has a slightly different volume it’s electron orbit geometries inflate to.
Now.
These orbital geometry inflations aren’t all that variant in general and – in fact you kinda, if you look at charts awhile, you wanna off-handedly say, ”seven-fifty, seven hundred, eight hundred times’ inflation, for most stuff we find in gas, or vapor state, this rate of inflation’s something to bear in mind, when you”re staring at a video of a pound of say, iron ore gasified, vs another pound, sitting there in your hand as you heft that mass-volume ratio.

So what we’re saying here – this is just a fact – is that there’s a 700ish, 750ish, 800ish times volume contraction here.
And there’s not only contraction. Remember: these solids, liquids, etc – they contract until their molecules tie together somehow and

again here – in your crystalline state, this is a situation in which a very very very well described and tested family of configurations appear with solid phase matter and this is orderly, much more than less, it’s actually termed orderly in textbooks, rows of these molecular nuclei
and these are called, a matrix. Points in rows matching regularly repeating points on squares, and iircorrectly other geometries too because not all crystals are square but we think of crystalline phase of matter ok, in squares, when we’re teaching it. And these matrix conditions are the heavy nuclei of something and there’s still, this other,

photonic energy entangling part,

the electrons, which really matter in this since they process radiation.

These are the objects entangling photonic energy and they fraction the stuff off, accordiing to whether they have the properly oriented ‘spin condition’ or what’s called spin identity by guys, too.
Condition indicates the particles have the characteristics of something that does – and the spin identity is sorta relative to which orientation electrons and photons meet in.

This spin condition mediated relationship, is the identity upon which entanglement, hinges.

And it’s representation to you is made almost identically to the mutual engagement of – again- electrons – and magnetic fields not concentrated into identity as photonic in the macro sense.

Magnetic fields and electrons relate – according to rules bounded by conditions that indicate they each engage in a form of rotation relative to each other: spin condition makes it possible to have actual rules about when a magnetic field, approaches electrons on a wire, electrons will be pushed to one side or other, in other words directionally – and it reverses with an opposite mag field.

Electrons tend to find resonance as opposite spin pairs, within any particular geometry or orbital.

If there’s 8 in a region, there’ll tend to always set up, 4 electrons of one spin, and 4 of another;

and furthermore photons have their own spin identities and photons of a given spin, entangle on electrons with the opposite spin identity. In physical particle boogie, oppositely orientated, spin-identity possessing entities, entangle with entities which exhibit the opposite charge sign.
(Yeah I know, at some point, ”yeah but what about – – ? has to take place but we gotta move on to the light falling on the anvil,
and dipshits who don’t know why thim photonicals don’t git backerds up in thim maissis uh maddur. I will not start repeating, “F***g HiCKS” I will NOT.. i AM moving oN… moving oN…

When you have reached the energy entanglement on your electrons
suspended around your gas molecule nucleus,
that your total energy can no longer really defy proton-electron pull,
the light entangled on the electrons – the photonic concentration, it’s there,
but it doesn’t predominate in determination of electron motion.

The electrons compact down into a tiny wall region within the matrix of a solid,
that has a name. Lattice. And this is much like the cardboard boxes surrounding a shipment of bowling balls in a rail car.

This shrinkage creates something that is basically identical to what you call in electronics, or in electromagnetics, mutual induction. In radiation communications, we have electronic engineering; and in electronic engineering related to electron-mediated, and magnetically-mediated parasitic force tapping – sapping, draw-down – from one higher charge concentration on an object to one with a – lower force or charge concentration – this effect is very well understood by people.

And one of the facts that’s not so intuitively recognized but that anybody can figure out is real is that when the orientation of the charge having component, becomes more and more aligned such that standard electromagnetic force rules dictate energy will flow between them, it does.

And when they share this energy, the precise amount of energy that goes into the component that had less of some charge or other – is always measured and mathematically accounted as leaving the one that had the initially more high charge. They equilibrate, or in other words as per Thermo laws when charge gets equal between the two – one’s charge fraction lowering, the others’ growing – there’s no more reason for flow.
Charge differential
per molecule
has been equalized

and in electron/photon entanglement,
this effect occurs, when electrons, CRAM PACKED into – relatively – much smaller lattice-structure geometries

overlap and share entangled photonic concentration between them.
According to – basically ,the exact, same rules, that go for ALL spin mediated particle-force interactions in physics.

When any photonic concentration slams into a matter exposed to free space on a facet,

The same forces that make all electrons entangle with all photons, and all electrons able to hand-off higher and lower concentrations within the compressed, overlapping-geometry conditions of the lattice, without discrimination related to the concentration/frequency/color it arrived as part of,

shows very clearly what all the mathematics and instruments tell us.

At the surface of something common like iron – there are electrons in spaces hundreds of times more compressed than when they were energized sufficiently that their photonic concentrations drove them apart, inflating as gas or vapor.

And this means their electron-electron distances are miniscule. The nuclei of the atoms, making up the molecules of a crystal don’t expand or contract their occupied geometries. The electrons do.
And many many of them are held at angles enforced by the repeating regularity of crystal geometries that recur again and again along the physical dimensions of a mass of solid matter.

So the identical hand-off between electrons that happens in gases, begins to happen related to photonic/electronic entanglement, and hand-off of charge from higher, to lower concentration molecules. Really, it’s – electrons here.

These vastly more concentrated geometries, create a condition such that – when an individual concentration of photonic potential impacts on a facet of solid matter,
more than one electron is taking a bite out of that photonic concentration as it slams into the wall of stacked-up, and spread-out surface electrons, clinging to the wall of that facet exposed to free space on the surface of the block of iron, or rock – it’s fundamentally identical in all solid matter.

The electrons’ extreme closeness doesn’t allow them to move, in as many degrees of freedom. There is some jostliing but the only place electrons are actually free to move, is on the surface of some things when we encounter that oft-seen, oft-repeated phrase, ”seething sea” of loosely bound, what are called free, surface electrons.

Indeed this spin-mediated particle-force relationship’s is part of the physics in explaining Einstein’s Nobel prize for the photo-electric effect. Surface electrons in tightly compressed electron-concentrated lattices, are moved to the side, when photons of sufficient force concentration slam into them.

No matter how energetic
No matter how fast it hits – you can apply some light in a vacuum along one face of the anvil in the story about Rudolph the Infrared Nosed Anvil, and it’ll arrive at a higher speed than in air. You can fire that light through glass you pour right onto the face of the anvil, you can do whatever you want to encourage that photonic concentration to drive energy back into a lattice that already has a higher concentration that that arriving –

but the fact is that every single time
every single test
ever gets done
The INSTANT the lower frequency radiation stream vanishes,
the radiated energy of the higher frequency light emitter – the warmer object
returns to match E.X.A.C.T.L.Y. the ENERGY being DELIVERED by the sources that are creating the higher frequency emissions average, in the warmer object.

Any
fu***ng MORON

Who doesn’t know that
doesn’t have any business discussing radiation and entanglement of electons and photons, and those electrons’ subsequent overlap-created fractioning of photonic concentrations entangled.

This is why
Magic Gais,

the story about suspending more and more refractory insulation
between a fire and a rock
making more firelight come out of the rock,
as less firelight gets to the rock,
popular with the HiCKS who thought green house gases can warm the planet,
they reduce the surface energy density of, by 20%.

Go look on any sunlight, top/bottom atmosphere chart.

See those notches, about H2O and CO2, where sunlight doesn’t get down to sea level?
Yeah that’s CO2 and H2O refracting away sunlight that would otherwise hit earth.

Know what it’s called when you reduce surface energy density of a surface, through suspension of refractory insulation between fire and an object? Cooling.

That’s why a fireman’s heavy canvas coat is comprised of refractory canvas fibers. The fibers block more and more light from the fire,
and guess what doesn’t happen
more and more light from the fire,
doesn’t reach the fireman’s back.

That’s why they give him a blanket, a coat, of insulating, refractory media between the fire
and the object the principle protects: the fireman’s back.

It’s a temperature inversion scam.
Everybody knows the 33 degree ‘green house effect’ is actually refusing to use the proper law of thermodynamics to solve the temperature of some atmospheric air.

Atmospheric air is of the compressible fluids or gas/vapor phase matter and you must solve for the density of compressible fluids or your temperature calculations fall short.
The difference in the case of the EARTH’S atmosphere if you don’t do the calculations using the
CORRECT LAW of THERMODYNAMICS to find OUT the TEMPERATURE of an ATMOSPHERE?

33 Degrees.

If you ONLY do the STEFAN-BOLTZMANN MATHEMATICS which SOLVE temperatures for solids, liquids, amorphous liquids, etc – NON COMPRESSIBLE-PHASE MATTER

for the EARTH’S ATMOSPHERE
you come up 33 DEGREES SHORT.

When green house gases
blocked 1% totals sunlight
they reduced surface energy density by – how many percent? 1.

When green house gas concentrations in the atmosphere blocked 10% total sunlight
they reduced surface energy density by how many percent? 10%.

When they block 20% total sunlight energy to the surface,
how much do they surface energy density? 20%.

There is no such thing
as suspending more and more refractory insulation
between a fire and object warming it
such that less and less firelight leaks into that object
and having more and more firelight leak out of that object.

Not
Once
Not
Ever.

Later guys.

30. Allen Eltor says:

LoL there at the end I said ”fire and object warming it”. That’s funny

31. Allen Eltor says:

Many years ago I made a vow to myself, that I would not EVER: not ONCE – speak about this entire atmospheric chemistry and radiation scam at a level I couldn’t communicate it to,

to a WELDER.

Because when the SOPHISTS TOLD YOU ALL they DEFIED you to DEPICT THIS as SIMPLE
and they drove out EVERYBODY who wasn’t WILLING to match wits with SOPHISTS
that even the GOOD guys

WOULD not EVER in a MILLION YEARS
explain this to the local WELDER
explain this to the local STORE manager
explain this to the local TRUCK DRIVER.

And furthermore YOU’RE NOT explaining it ultimately, to HIM.

YOU are explaining it to HIM,
so HE can explain it to HIS CHILD
who is the one who goes in there EVERY DAY and faces FAKE PSEUDO-SCIENTIFIC PROGRAMMING.

1)I will not EVER bring up an argument where anyone has to crack a book.
YOU don’t NEED a BOOK to EXPLAIN that a FIREMAN’S REFRACTORY CANVAS COAT
does not make MORE firelight arrive at SENSORS mounted on his shirt
by making LESS firelight arrive at SENSORS mounted on his shirt.

And besides if a TEENAGER can’t HUMILIATE a PUBLIC EDUCATION UNION MEMBER in front of EVERYONE in THEIR CLASS with it

is going NOWHERE.

Many years ago I made this pact to myself that I will NEVER: not EVER – take it seriously as science because MAGIC GAiS is PSEUDO SCIENCE.

And it shows LoL in the offhand way I even discuss it. Also when I used to troll global warmers at Topix I learned to do the limping broken-wing bird thing then humiliate the shit out of sophists. That’s really where I developed a love for doing that broken English, never edit once, don’t give a f*** thing.

It’s wrong, I know; and it seems like I’d have more respect and take things more seriously, but until the people who are into overthrowing this scam go RIGHT back to the BASICS that YOU can teach a CHILD

then the \$HAMELE\$\$ EDUCATOR\$ of YOUR CHILDREN
are going to CONTINUE to TEACH YOUR CHILDREN TRA\$H P\$EUDO P\$CIENCE.

Every post I make I assume I am talking to welders and truck drivers and waitresses’ kids.

Because it’s going to be THEM who confront the educational unions. When THOSE KIDS start simply HUMILIATING the LIVING SCREAMING F&&&& out of the FRAUDS telling them
INSULATION
between a ROCK and FIRE
makes MORE FIRE come out of the ROCK
because LESS FIRE is getting into the ROCK.

You can draw all the graphs and use all the big terms you want, BUT the PEOPLE who BREAK this SCAM
are going to be the ONES who WRITE a BOOK:

”HOW to TEACH your KID to HUMILIATE a MAGIC GAS BARKING, THERM-0-BiLLY HiCK.”

So I apologize Joseph for making you, and also your readers here, bear the burden of being the victims of a rude joke by me, I’m going to make it a point to stop doing it at some point.

I was raised up in a home where my parents busted chemistry frauds. And I learned very swiftly that you don’t have to convince all the experts standing around a snake-oiler. You gotta convince those farmers, that THEY can say something to that snake-oil peddling bastard’s face, that’ll make it plain how little regard they have for a thieving fraud.
You can convince all the PhDs you want. THEY’LL BE SCARED to SPEAK OUT.
You can convince all the working Engineers you want. They’ll be scared to be blacklisted.
You can convince all the welders you want. They’ll be disregarded and mocked to their faces.
YOU
GOTTA
CONVINCE
ALL the 13 YEAR OLDS.

THEY aren’t SCARED of SHIT
and THEY’LL turn 21, MOCKING PROFESSORS to their FACES
if you
GIVE them
the PLAINEST,
SIMPLEST story.

Which admittedly mine is not. It’s a sorta parody of that ”I MAY be CRAZY – or NOT. But I’m most CERTAINLY RIGHT down at the BOTTOM of it all.

It’s a temperature inversion scam
about a firelight warmed rock in a vacuum,
having a cold fluid bath wash energy off of it, cooling, it,
and then having refractory insulation suspended in the bath,
until less, and less firelight, get into that rock.
Then telling people that as less and less firelight get into that rock,
more and more firelight is going to come leaking back out of that rock.

32. squid2112 says:

@DurangoDan,

Until you can perform the experiment and prove me wrong, I stand by my statement. Full stop.

33. AfroPhysics says:

Since CO2 is 400ppm, or 1/2500th of air, co2 would have to be at 2500C to raise the ambient air temperature by 1C. How do I know? Kinetic Theory of Asses. The CO2 molecules would need to be bumping and grinding at that much energy to effect its neighbors while still maintaining its momentum.

Climate psyence debunked.

34. markstoval says:

I think many here will get a kick out of a post and then the following thread at WUWT. The utter confusion of heat and energy transfer is obvious from the first comments on the following thread. I got a kick out of it, and hope some here might also.

Story: Sun-Cloud-Ocean Update

35. sunsettommy says:

Mark,

I just left a posted comment from the WUWT source you posted,

I agree that they can’t even stay in the ballpark on what they think it all means.

36. There is NO heat transfer from cold to hot at all. The net energy transfer only is the heat. Neither of the energies are heat. Only their difference is the heat.

These morons just butcher and sophize everything.

37. markstoval says:

I try to remind folks there that the Slayers are banned because the WUWT luke-warmers can not counter their arguments. So, I mention Joseph and others in a veiled way when appropriate. Like this:

“Not since a certain group got banned from this site, and any mention of them forbidden, have I seen this much decent argument. Many on this thread don’t know what thermodynamics says, nor do they know the definition of HEAT but we are arguing science not politics and that is a good thing. I would link to some cogent explanations of some of these items, but then I would be breaking the site policy.”

And it really is too bad that the main luke-warmer site on the internet is afraid to even allow links to Postma’s essays or work. I mean, how anti-science is that? Does “winning” trump the scientific truth? In their own way, the luke-warmers can be as bad as the alarmists.

38. Hi Joseph,

Not part of the thread, but I thought it was importantto get in touch. Christopher Monkton has just been giving a presentation on his “mathematical proof” of low feedback sensitivity. Of course mathematics must model physical reality in the first place to be proof of anything other than maths itself, so that doesn’t bother me. What concerns me is at the 40 minute mark he uses a “voltage amplifier” circuit which he then equates to temperature amplification in an atmospheric feedback loop in the atmosphere and shows an electrical engineer building the “voltage amplifier” to prove his maths in a real equivalence experiment.
Can you please look at this clip from the 40-45minute mark and point out where the sophistry is please? I think it’s worthy of a full debunking post on its own, but I would appreciate a simple reply here too.

Thanks,

Stephen Wells

39. @ Allen Eltor

“I was raised up in a home where my parents busted chemistry frauds. And I learned very swiftly that you don’t have to convince all the experts standing around a snake-oiler. You gotta convince those farmers, that THEY can say something to that snake-oil peddling bastard’s face, that’ll make it plain how little regard they have for a thieving fraud.
You can convince all the PhDs you want. THEY’LL BE SCARED to SPEAK OUT.
You can convince all the working Engineers you want. They’ll be scared to be blacklisted.
You can convince all the welders you want. They’ll be disregarded and mocked to their faces.
YOU
GOTTA
CONVINCE
ALL the 13 YEAR OLDS.”

YES!!!! Spot on! I am an equivalent to the welder and I take on University graduates all the time. But teaching my son and his friends to do the same to their teachers is where I get the most satisfaction.

40. nabilswedan says:

The chain of logic gets interrupted in this paper…..
If the author thinks that radiators of cold can exist, then what is the author waiting for? Patent the invention and become a millionaire! I would buy a machine that can cool only my skin without cooling the surrounding air right away. Why such a machine does not exist on the market?

41. mkaastrup says:

Dear mr. Postma.

Would you kindly recommend me a good college level textbook on thermodynamics in which for instance the formulas for transfer of heat through conduction and radiation that you describe, are given? I have 4 English language textbooks here at home, but they are not that good, and two of them are downright bad (Randall A. Knight: Physics for scientists and Engineers). I need references for my climate book, and since you’ve clearly learnt thermodynamics well, you might be able to refer me to books that teach it well.

42. CD Marshall says:

@mkaastrup
Can’t vouch for all of them but I have found these to be good…

An Introduction To Thermal Physics by Daniel V. Schroeder
Applied Thermodynamics by Onkar Singh
Basic And Applied Thermodynamics by P K Nag

But that’s just me 🙂