A Discussion of the Equations of Transfer

I was having an email discussion with an old professor of mine (from undergad) about the fraud of the radiative greenhouse effect who has himself implied doubt about the greenhouse effect.  Actually the proff is Dr. Essex who wrote the book “Taken by Storm“.  He suggested that I look at the “equations of transfer” in regard to the problem, which of course I have already done extensively and am quite familiar with.  I will post the reply here since it may help some people:

“Are you still using Haberman’s “Applied Partial Differential Equations with Fourier Series and Boundary Value Problems”?  We used that when I took your class in 2000.

For the flow of heat in matter we end with the diffusion equation as a function of space and time.  If there is a heat source, then Q (heat) gets tacked on to the equation and Q can also be a function of space and time.  The scenario with the radiative greenhouse effect is that you have matter, the ground surface, where there is basically no internal heat generation, but you do have Q at the surface boundary, i.e. at the very first element of the surface, due to sunlight.

Q of course is heat.  Making this simpler than the Sun “going around” the surface location, we can just use constant values to inspect the qualitative and some quantitative features of the solution to this type of problem.  To do that we must use and understand what Q is since whatever is governing Q is basically setting the boundary conditions of the problem, and the behaviour of these solutions are typically largely determined by the boundary conditions.

Q, being heat, is not simply the energy from sunlight, but is given from radiant transfer by a difference of flux values, which are of course proportional to temperature.  For example in a plane-parallel model with emissivities and absorptivities all unity, then Q = Flux_hot – Flux_cool = sigma(T_hot^4 – T_cool^4), and the positive Q means that the heat is flowing to the cooler object, which would cause the cooler object to increase in temperature until Q = 0.  It is simpler to use local flux when dealing with sunlight so that you don’t need to think about how the surface flux of the Sun is diluted by distance, but of course that is there.

So radiant Q is a flow given by a difference of local fluxes between two source objects.  The argument of the radiative greenhouse effect from climate alarm is that Q from the atmosphere to the surface is increased by increasing greenhouse gases, therefore causing the surface to increase in temperature.  Quite plainly, this argument reverses heat flow directionality since the relation between the cooler atmosphere and warmer surface (this is their general state relative to each other) is that heat, using the definition of heat, flows from the warmer surface to the cooler atmosphere.  They call their heat-reversal mechanism “back-radiation”, the argument being that any additional presence of radiant energy in the atmosphere will cause temperature increase on the surface; this conflates energy for heat, because energy is not always heat and can only manifest or act as heat when flowing from warm to cool, causing the cool to increase in temperature.

Q between the Earth’s surface and Earth’s atmosphere is positive, meaning that heat is flowing from the warmer surface to the cooler atmosphere.  Their other argument attempting to explain the mechanism of “back-radiation” is that making Q less positive will increase the temperature of the warmer surface.  This is a complete fabrication and pseudoscience of thermodynamics, and here is where their argument reduces to Zeno’s Paradox.  Q is supposed to become less positive, in fact it is supposed to go to zero, but if in doing so this increased the temperature of the warmer object, then this would also increase the temperature of the cooler object, and then you effectively have Zeno’s Paradox or a variation on it (you never reach the end because the finish line of Q = 0 is itself running away from you).  What they are doing is treating Q as a conserved, constant quantity, which of course heat isn’t, and typically denote heat as given by the energy from sunlight, which is of course not Q (heat) in the first place given that Q is a difference of source fluxes, not a source flux in and of itself.”

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

6 Responses to A Discussion of the Equations of Transfer

  1. songhees says:

    @pplonia #climate
    ‘HumanCaused Global Warming, the Biggest Deception in History’.
    On Amazon.ca http://www.drtimball.com

  2. Rosco says:

    Supposedly Planck solved the “ultra violet catastrophe” with his equation for radiant emissions. Further evidence that his equation is correct, or at least the best available thus far, is that mathematical transformations of his equation by differentiation and integration produce the empirically derived Wien’s and Stefan-Boltzmann equations.

    It can be shown by plotting Planck curves for T1 and T2 that the manner in which climate scientists perform their algebraic manipulations is just plain wrong – it does not produce the “right” answer ever.

    It can be further demonstrated by plotting Planck curves that the expression Q(net) = sigma(T1^4 – T2^4) is correct every time which is something climate scientists defy with their incorrect use of the SB law. They often use the SB equation with Q(net) as a constant to “force” T1 to increase to maintain the emission when background temperatures increase even though they, T2, are colder than the object, T1.

    I cannot explain the results of summing temperature values using Planck curves but I do know the result is not a Planck curve and hence NOT equal to sigmaT^4.

    In fact the resulting temperature curves plotted by extracting the temperature from Planck’s equation versus increasing wavelength is exactly a straight line at the value of each individual temperature- as it should be !

    But the curves based on algebraic sums of flux versus wavelength are curves which increase or decrease in temperature value versus increasing wavelength. Algebraic sums of flux increase while differences decrease.

    Plot a series of similar curves correctly using Q(net) = sigma(T1^4 – T2^4) and all resulting curves are straight horizontal lines at the appropriate values – ONLY the sum value is slightly different – it commences at the temperature of the second highest value of the series and runs a few K over the highest value and represents ~1% error and I suspect this is due to floating point errors inherent in computer spreadsheets at very low values – for example the denominator of Planck’s equation has values of 10^-40 at wavelength of 0.5 microns.

    Even emissivity is irrelevant in such an analysis if it is a constant. However, using multiples or sums of Planck curves do not result in the result being a Planck curve except when the “Net” form is used. This leads me to suspect using a fraction multiple of the SB equation may not be strictly correct – the resulting curves do not “work”. Perhaps this assumption about emissivity is mistaken – it is possible.

    I consider an analysis of this nature confirms exactly what Joe says about Q and directly disproves what climate scientists allege – unless they know of some other relationship between the laws of radiant emissions physics.

    Why anyone would expect an equation involving the inverse exponential of the inverse of temperature to be amenable to the laws of simple algebra is beyond me in the first place !

  3. Pingback: Is Murry Salby Right? – Newsfeed – Hasslefree allsorts

  4. Claudius Denk says:

    The horse is dead, Joe. You can stop whacking it.

  5. These idiots haven’t stopped trying to ride it! lol

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s