Emissivity Debunks Climate Alarm

A commentator in a previous post said:

DC:  “When you change the amount of energy streaming in from the outside, or out – TO the outside, you change the equilibrium temperature, the temperature it settles on after a time.”

I totally agree with that.  And the only way to do that with radiation is by changing emissivity. If the emissivity of a surface and/or gas decreases then indeed there would be a rise in temperature.  This is precisely how a shiny “thermal space-blanket” works: first, it is a physical barrier to convective cooling for the body inside it. But second, shiny surfaces always have low emissivity and this means that the exterior of the blanket is a poor emitter of radiation.  Therefore, the temperature of the surface and its interior must increase in temperature in order to emit the energy being generated by the body inside the blanket.  This is all well and good.


Greenhouse gases do not decrease emissivity but are said to increase emissivity.  The fundamental nature of a greenhouse gas is that it is good at emitting thermal radiation. An increase in emissivity leads to cooling, as a decrease in emissivity leads to warming.

Meanwhile, the non-greenhouse gases of N2 and O2, which are 99% of the atmosphere, have very little to no emissive power at all and so in fact it is these gases that make themselves (99% of the atmosphere) be warmer than otherwise than if they had higher emissivity like greenhouse gases.

Additionally, a change in the components of the atmosphere doesn’t change the emissivity of the surface.  All of the concern is over the surface temperature changing and if this were to happen by radiation it would be by changing its emissivity, but changing the atmosphere doesn’t change the emissive properties of the surface.

The science of the radiative greenhouse effect and climate alarm is totally inverted, backwards to the fundamentals and definitions in thermodynamics, physics, mathematics, and logic.

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

18 Responses to Emissivity Debunks Climate Alarm

  1. A couple of questions: with the space blanket, it must have a higher temperature to emit its radiation, but is its maximum temperature still restricted to that of the heat source?

    Also on the earth’s surface the most efficient absorbers and emitters achieve the highest temperatures (asphalt, black sand, etc). Can you go into some more detail and give some practical examples of how temperatures would change by increasing or decreasing emissivity? Can you keep absorption high but emissivity low and raise temperatures above that of a heat source?

  2. For a given energy F that must be emitted, you would look at the equation F = e*sigma*T^4, where e is the emissivity between 0 and 1. So for a fixed F, then

    T^4 = F/e/sigma.

    So if e is maximum at 1.0, this gives the lowest T. If e reduces then F is being divided by a number smaller than 1, hence T increases.

    “the most efficient absorbers and emitters achieve the highest temperatures (asphalt, black sand, etc)”

    Actually, that statement is incorrect as you can see that it contradicts what was explained mathematically, above. In fact, the most efficient emitters achieve the lowest temperatures for a given absorptivity. If you have a chrome or some form of shiny wrench, leave it out in the sun and it will become much, much warmer than a black surface right beside it. This is because even though it has poor absorptivity, it has even poorer emissivity and the poor emissivity makes it have to become much hotter to emit the energy that it absorbs.

    The maximum temperature of the blanket would be like that given by the equation above, where F is the energy generated by the body inside. It is e that is being modulated.

  3. Black asphalt etc. do indeed get extremely hot, and given that such substances are both good absorbers and good emitters then this tells you about the true raw base power of sunshine at the Earth. It isn’t -18C! It’s damned hot. Lighter surfaces of course don’t get as warm, but that is because they’re not absorbing all of the sunshine. Note that the ocean absorbs as good as black asphalt!

  4. Pingback: Emissivity Debunks Climate Alarm | Principia Scientific International

  5. Tom in Oregon City says:

    Joe, the comparison is not quite correct. EMR is either transmitted through, reflected by, or absorbed by a given surface. The Mylar blankets work by REFLECTING the IR back to the source, rather than transmitting it through or absorbing it. Without radiative gases in the atmosphere, the IR surface emissions would be transmitted through to space without restriction. With the radiative effect of water vapor, we would indeed be much colder, since there would be no random-walk delay of energy leaving the surface.

  6. No, they work by being poor absorbers and poor emitters, and also by physically blocking convection. REFLECTING means that they are poor absorbers, not that the reflection sends any heat back to the source or causes the source to increase in temperature.

    The role of GHG’s is not about reflection, but about being good absorbers and emitters, and so the space-blanket analogy is totally incorrect, totally backwards.

    And no, without radiative gases in the atmosphere the atmosphere would have no emissive ability and therefore would be much warmer than the case with radiative gases which increase emissivity.

    Absorption in the atmosphere doesn’t require or cause the surface to increase in temperature.

    You are simply re-stating exactly what is backwards and incorrect about GHG theory.

  7. Tom in Oregon City says:

    Joe, without radiative gases in the atmosphere, the SURFACE emissions would depart directly to space, without restraint. And remember that even O2 emits, in microwave region. But I wouldn’t worry about the atmosphere not emitting: without water vapor, no life is possible here.

    What’s wrong with “GHG” theory is the modeled feedbacks that are non-physical, predicting crisis instead of the reality of a wonderful livability phenomenon. Radiation itself is measurable, and that radiation flows in both directions.

  8. Tom, whether the surface emits directly to space, or through an atmosphere which absorbs some of the emission, it doesn’t affect the temperature of the surface.

    “Radiation itself is measurable, and that radiation flows in both directions.”

    Radiation flowing in both directions does not mean that it causes temperature increase in all directions. Radiant energy is not always heat, and is in fact usually not heat.

    “What’s wrong with “GHG” theory is the modeled feedbacks that are non-physical”

    The model itself is non-physical, originating first in flat Earth physics, then in saying that radiation flowing both ways causes temperature increase on the source of radiation.

  9. Eilert says:

    I hear the argument, that without GHG’s in the atmosphere the surface would emit directly to space, a lot.
    This would only be the unphysical case, where the surface is not in contact with the atmosphere. This argument ignores the fact that radiation is not the only heat transfer mechanism. The heat can be transferred to the non-GHG’s through these other forms, but then does not have the ability to radiate to space. Which means that the heat stays inside the planetary system and must become hotter, not cooler, as the GHG theory suggest. (My guess an atmosphere without GHG’s would become so hot that it becomes unstable and would be blown away)

  10. “The heat can be transferred to the non-GHG’s through these other forms, but then does not have the ability to radiate to space.”

    Yep, excellent summary. That is exactly it. If GHG’s are increasing emission, then they would cause cooling, and the gases that are existing poor radiators are the ones keeping “warmer than otherwise”.

    I think that an atmosphere without GHG’s would still basically end up similar to how things are now – the radiation either emits from the surface directly or from surface + atmosphere together. The theoretical derivation of the lapse rate and its empirical measurement shows that the radiative properties of the gas have no effect on the temperature. Nikolov & Zeller’s paper makes sense of the real physics involved: https://climateofsophistry.com/2017/06/02/another-independent-paper-confirms-slayers-debunk-of-alarmist-greenhouse-effect/

  11. Tom in Oregon City says:

    Joe, you once linked to a page including heat equations, describing the radiative interaction between two surfaces. (( http://www.kostic.niu.edu/352/_352-posted/Heat_4e_Chap13-Radiation_HT_lecture-PDF.pdf )) Starting on page 21, there is a set of multi-body heat equations that explicitly describe HEAT as the NET transfer of energy between two surfaces, with the qualifier that reflection is not dealt with in the equations. Since neither the earth nor the atmosphere is a big reflector of IR, they are applicable. This is YOUR link, Joe. It explicitly defines HEAT as being the “radiation leaving entire surface 1 and striking surface 2” MINUS “radiation leaving entire surface 2 and striking surface 1”, a NET transfer equation.
    [JP: Yes Tom, and that means that neither of the radiation terms from either surface are heat. It means that heat is only the difference between the energy terms. It means that only a portion of the warmer object’s energy is heat. The only time energy is heat is when it is the remaining difference between energy terms.]
    The function of the radiative return to the surface is the reduction in the loss of temperature at night [JP: That’s not the radiative greenhouse effect.], and the allowance of the sun to heat the surface more during the day [JP: That’s not the radiative greenhouse effect.] — both because energy emissions from the surface are somewhat offset by the return. [JP: The energy is remaining in the system, not being returned to the system. The surface & atmosphere together are the outwardly radiating and cooling system, and with an atmosphere instead of just a surface, the system is larger and has more mass and thus cools at a slower rate.] The emissions are a physical reality, a property of the molecules. No paper can make those emissions not happen, and no model of the atmosphere can be correct if it does not quantify the emissions of atmospheric molecules and the distribution of energy by altitude that results from them. [JP: I’m not aware of anyone trying to make those emissions not happen!]
    Without water vapor, earth would be dead, so the argument about the temperature of the earth could certainly be considered meaningless. That said, in absence of the restraining power of water vapor in the atmosphere, earth would certainly look a lot more like the moon, which cools many times faster than the earth, even when comparing to dry desert surfaces (which cool much faster than wet earth and bodies of water), and taking into account the cooling processes of latent heat and conduction/convection (which only serve to speed up the cooling of the surface). [JP: H2O in all of its phases has much higher heat capacity than most other Earthly substances, hence when H2O is present things will cool (and also heat) at a slower rate than if they are not present.] Now, if the atmosphere couldn’t cool by radiative emission to space, it would become warmer than parts of the surface, and then would actually HEAT the surface, which again would emit that energy as IR. It would certainly change the dynamic of surface temperatures, but the earth would still cool quite well (again, look how efficient the moon is at shedding heat while only using radiative emission as its method). [JP: Tom, thanks for just explaining that having emissive “greenhouse gases” in the atmosphere serve to keep it cooler, and that if these gases weren’t present the atmosphere would actually be hotter due to having lower emissivity. Radiative greenhouse effect debunked!]
    The only way to defeat the warmists is to use accurate physics to combat their false modeling assumptions. [JP: Indeed! Thanks for confirming what the Slayers are saying about the deep fraud of climate alarm and its radiative greenhouse effect.] Ignoring the physical realities of molecules — especially the properties which have been measured and verified — can’t win the day. [JP: Not aware of anyone doing that. Your description of heat flow and reference to the textbook, and your comments about emissivity, which are identical to what the Slayers have been saying, take into full account the radiative properties of molecules, etc. I think our efforts have converged, which is great, finally! 🙂 ] In fact, creating a model of the atmosphere that ignores radiative return [JP: Not aware of anyone ignoring that there are TWO terms in the radiant heat flow equation, but I am aware of people trying to say that the second cooler term returns heat to the surface and acts like a radiative greenhouse effect, which of course is nonsense as you have kindly explained here.] is just as wrong as creating models that ignore albedo and precipitation heat transfer, and assume water vapor feedbacks that are not demonstrated in the real world.

  12. Tom in Oregon City says:

    So, then you agree that radiative return of energy from the atmosphere causes the surface to lose energy slower than it would without radiative return? That would indeed be significant, Joe.
    [JP: Tom, that’s not a or the radiative greenhouse effect, and I’ve never said anything to contradict that a surface with an atmosphere on top would cool slower than a surface exposed to space. I have however debunked that this has anything to do with the radiative greenhouse effect. It is not a radiative greenhouse effect.]
    And my comment that the earth would cool just fine without the radiative gases in the atmosphere, citing the moon as an example, should not be considered an agreement that those gases only COOL the earth. [JP: Wrong Tom. If they emit where there was no emission before, then they cool. Just as you explained in your previous comment.] They also delay the departure of energy [JP: Wrong Tom. If they emit where there was no emission before, then they are accelerating the departure of energy.], thus stratifying the temperature of the surface to make it more livable: they keep the surface warmer [JP: Wrong Tom. Non-emissive gases stay warmer than otherwise. And the adiabatic gradient keeps the bottom of the atmosphere warmer than the expected average, nothing to do with radiation. See Nikolov and Zeller’s paper.] while providing a more facile departure [JP: Tom…an object can not both be a heater and a cooler for the same secondary object at the same time. There is no radiative greenhouse effect.] of the same wavelengths of energy to space at TOA.

  13. I note that neither a chrome spanner or asphalt become hotter than the blackbody temperature of the sun’s energy impinging on them. So regardless of what the emissivity is, would observations of real world substances confirm my assumption that there are no circumstances in which a low emissivity object can have a higher temperature than the object it is receiving its heat from?

  14. Allen Eltor says:

    No. In fact over seventy percent of the planet, radiative return from the atmosphere hastens evaporation at the surface of water, chilling the surface of the water faster than it would cool on it’s own. This skin effect is one of the most well known, widely noted ancillary effects of the atmosphere: it’s infrared return to water chills it.
    Tom in Oregon City says:
    2017/07/06 at 9:33 PM
    So, then you agree that radiative return of energy from the atmosphere causes the surface to lose energy slower than it would without radiative return? That would indeed be significant, Joe.
    Furthermore this is only considering the part of the planet which is permanently or quasi-permanently covered with water.

    Any time conditions exist, where there is water on the ground and surface features due to rain, melted sleet, seepage, or any other kind of liquid H2O,

    infrared returns from the atmosphere, are chilling that section of the surface, just as they chill the surface of any other liquid water, i.e. oceans/ponds/lakes/rivers/streams.

    So whenever you get ready to admit that fact exists Tom, you can start confessing that eventually you learned from researching the matter yourself that

    1)it’s well known and has been for many decades, that infrared light chills liquid water.

    2)this effect isn’t limited to certain types of water. ANY water is chilled slightly by infrared.

    3)this effect is in place over: GUARANTEED: 70% of the planet.

    4)this effect is in place EVERYWHERE there is ATMOSPHERE as well as WATER on surfaces.

    5)this completely reverses the claim infrared from the atmosphere cools the surface of earth.

    At any given moment
    anywhere there is a sheen from water

    anywhere on the surface of earth – the atmosphere’s infrared is chilling that spot,

    through the direct agency of infrared light, and no other causal agent.

    This effect is well known and in fact has even been shown to exist in simple experiments from both Magic Gais barking,
    Science Darkening
    ”Pot’s Like Heroin”level-logic, Authority-Knob-Polishing Hicks,
    such as Roy Spencer the Magic Gas barking KooK managing U.S. Satellite data,

    (the one who said he ”stuck muh infrared thermometer from Home Depot up at the sky, and measured me a Backerdism!!!”

    prompting the thermometer’s manufacturer to issue a white paper telling him, ”Oh No, He fucking didn’t, because fake warmth created by the instruments’ resonance with the infrared spectrum involved, made them put comb filters in the instrument negating just such erroneous measurements,)

    to real scientists

    such as the author and amateur climate scientist from Germany
    who did his legendary experiment reminding everyone this effect had been known for at least a half century – PROMPTING Spencer
    to do his OWN experiment,
    verifying that – yep:
    once again:
    Magic GAiS Dun Made The Sky GiT HoT, YaW!! = 0, Real Science = 1.

  15. Allen Eltor says:

    So far Tom I’ve had people tell me that

    A sunlight warmed rock, subsequently immersed within a gravity-adhered frigid bath of thermally conductive, light blocking compressible fluids, is a magic, giant heater. These people believed in the magical gaissiness what – yew noe.
    Made a cold bath heat a rock dropped in it.
    Now Tom, you’re telling me that you believe basically,

    that if I take a pan, and put a fire under one end… a long rectangular pan,
    I put a fire in one end, and just keep that baby going…
    and then, the earth rotates.
    So if I have that fire going, under that long rectangular pan, it’s two burners wide,
    I’m heating one end, and the other end, I have it so it doesn’t touch anything,

    now, YOU’RE telling me, that as I basically rotate that rectangular pan – just emulating the half and half slide at all times going on, of the earth rotating in front of THAT fire – rotation, cycling, moving it from end to end wtfEvUr… I’m cycling this thing so it’s being heated, on one part, just like the Earth, in front of the sun, mathematically.

    You’re telling me that – Oh – Look Allen, down here on THIS end, where there’s no fire, the pan, is being heated! Well, locally? Ok.

    But then comes your bullshoot routine. You THEN tell me that if I put more water in that pan
    it’s gonna make that pan get warmer.

    W.r.o.n.g. answer, therm-0-deamus.

    LIsten to me.

    The earth is in front of a fire,
    and there is a big ol giant bath of cold fluids,
    conduction scrubbing that planet.


    Yeah Tom. It’s a big ol rock, getting lit by a fire. And there’s a – ok it’s a little tiny, thin bath, of
    conduction scrubbing,
    light blocking fluids,
    sucked down on the surface,
    by gravity and what-not.
    I mean generally. Mostly.
    Today my granddaughter had a birthday party, and I blew up some balloons, and then I tied them to the trees with string, so technically
    maybe that air is being held against the earth by trees.
    And a fence.
    But that’s as far as I go with that, I personally never could understand string theory very well.
    but I can see clearly it’s somehow sorta similar to gravity, because they can both hold air to the ground.

    Hot damn I’m gonna go get me a Climatastrophology degree, and spread the news that we need more trees and fences, or some air could be not getting to earth the way it’s supposed to. That could disrupt migrations, especially of mylar balloon populations around dollar stores, and schools, and whatnot.

    Ok enough. There’s a cold bath Tom,
    and it’s scrubbing away. Chill chill chill, rub rub rub, colder atmosphere absorbing heat from warmer planet. There’s a little pie slice in the back there, where deep in the night the air’s warmer than the ground, over at least part of the place – but it’s a big cold bath, stripping heat from a warm rock.


    Now. Into the bath of fluids, you get a thermometer, and pen and just write on your hand, cause this isn’t gonna take long.
    I’m gonna get a jar of firelight refractive insulation,
    and we’re going to mix it into this bath swirling around this rock,
    and we’re gonna check some shit and see if magic is real.

    You lay the light detector right there by the thermal detector, and you say ‘NoW’ when I have poured enough of this light refractive fluid into the larger bath of fluid
    conduction chilling this
    light warmed rock
    and blocking light to it

    and we’re gonna stop, and see the temperature when 1%, then 5%, then 10%, then 15%, all the way to 20% of the available warming firelight from the sun, our light source
    isn’t reaching the rock any more.

    Each time we – or I – I dont want you to take the blame for me pouring all this shit into the bath of critically vulnerable TwinKLeSQuiRTS and MiSaNTHRoPoGenic SeLFiE LoViNG, Self Haters –
    each time I,
    pour enough of this light refractive insulation into the bath
    so that
    less and less warming light
    warms the
    less and less light-warmed

    When I pour in enough refractive insulating media to block 1% of available warming firelight,
    how much do you think the temperature of the
    1% less light warmed rock, rose?
    Just guess. I dunno. You say. You believe in this shit. I don’t.
    Now I’m going to pour in enough refractive insulation to stop 5% of total available warming firelight
    from reaching the now, less light-warmed rock.
    How much do you think the temperature
    of the now less light warmed rock, rose,
    when the additional 4, for the total 5 % reduction
    in warming energy,
    never arrived to warm the
    less and less light warmed rock?
    I’m being serious. How much warmer does the light-warmed planet get,
    for every 5% warming light,
    no longer warming it?
    Again: you’re the man whose understanding of the Climatastrophological Con Stunt than me.
    You tell me how much warmer the rock got.
    You’re the guy reading the thermometer and writing it down. How much hotter, per 5% less light?
    OK this is cool huh, now, I’m gonna pour some more of this stuff in the bath, f*&k this spoon,
    I’m coming straight out of the bottle, right into the frigid, conductive bath blocking light to the
    light warmed rock,
    and I’m just using the light meter itself. F***k it we’re eye-ballin it here.
    I’ve poured enough light refracting media into the bath Tom, and now, there’s 10% less, than total warming firelight reaching through the bath to warm the rock. How much warmer is the thermometer showing the rock getting now that it’s being warmed by 10% less total light?
    We gonna get grants and do this shit for a living, Tom!
    Because I know you’re telling me that the thermometer
    is showing that rock in the bottom of that cold bath
    getting hotter and hotter,
    as less and less warming light,
    reaches it to warm it. Right?
    Cause we’re not gonna get any f*_king grants, Tom, reporting Science Denying Bull Sh_*.
    I can tell you that
    right now.
    Here we go. I’m gonna now pour this stuff in behind my back, like Stevie Ray Vaughn doing HIS thing, – I’m a Climatastrophologically in TouCH Mutha F&*ka! Just like S.R.V! POUR baby, POUR!

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KC5H9P4F5Uk <====Homie's like me pouring this refractive insulating media, into this bath, behind my back.
    See how he plays that song behind his back?
    That's how I'm pouring this Backerdistically Refractive fluid into this bath.
    Ok Tom in Oregon, I have enough in there, that it looks like 85% of total available warming firelight,
    is reaching the
    less and less firelight-warmed rock. 15% of total available warming firelight from the sun, is gone.

    S… how much has the temperature risen, due to – you know. Backerdistical Refractivity?

    Really. Seriously. How many more Backerdisms are now Backfracting the surface?

    Tom, you've put down your pencil and pad I told you you don't need to get,
    and are now going toward the refrigerator, there had better be two beers come back in this direction from that refrigerator Tom,
    or I'm gonna stop pouring this BaCKFRaCtive insulating fluid into the
    light blocking bath,
    conduction stripping energy
    from this rock it's keeping light from warming,
    behind my back like S.R.V.
    Good Job Tom. I thought you were gonna come back over here with one beer. I was gonna be like '' -Hey-heyHEY! – don't you understand about SCIENCE? '' Now. Temperatures have stabilized and I know you've recorded your findings.
    Were gonna go for broke. We're gonna pour in enough of the Magical Gassiness what's Backfractivation-burning the eyeballs right out of Sasquatches staring down into streams they're trying to fish out of, to make a living for their women and kids, at night.

    I don't know, if you know this but I keep close touch with Climatastrophological eventa related to metaphysical megafauna of the Area 51 to Southern Alaska migration route of critically endangered Sasquatch and Grizzled Bigfoot. They've been finding them with their eyes braised out of their heads, beside dry streams that have been backerdistically evaporated, leaving behind gasping, desperately climate-pressured Salmon and blinded, befuddled Bigfoot, of both the Grizzled and Gray varieties, to die agonizing deaths, without ever knowing what it was that Backerdistically Blinded and Evaporatively Eviscerated their fragile, threatened landscapes.

    Anyway, I poured in all the Backerdistical Refractivisms I have in my bottle that has the warning label on it, saying

    * * * * ''WARNING: There are NO EXPERIMENTS that can DUPLICATE this BULLSHIT!''* * * *
    20% of all available warming sunlight to the otherwise fully warmed rock, is now not arriving to heat said gently glowing orb. Except for the ocean part where it's more like a glare-filled festival of backerdistically reflectified get-the-f**-away-from-me-isms, since backerdistical rays cant make water a heater.
    How much hotter did the Earth get, Tom, each time we made 5% less light warm it?
    You say.
    Ok so maybe you don't believe, in – you know. The conservation of energy. I actually understand your claim. Less light reaching a rock to warm it, warms it more than when more light reached it and warmed it.
    And each
    and every time,
    less light glows out of the planet,
    because – you know: less glows in,
    how much more gets backflectified
    as less and less comes out,
    because less and less goes in?
    In other words,
    if I put insulation
    into a bath, around say.. Oh! I know! BEER!
    And I've got my
    thermally conductive
    somewhat light blocking fluid,
    conduction chilling my beer
    and I put enough
    refractive insulation
    into my bath around my beer,
    that 20% less light ever warms my beer,
    how much more
    of how much less
    comes back to re-warm it?
    I'm just asking. After all, I do claim to know a little bit about the
    Climatastrophological Con Stunt,
    But I can't see more backerdisms
    coming out of less forwardisms-in-the-first-place.
    Forgive me I know everyone isn't Climatastrophologically evolved, with the terminologies and everything. I've been reading about it a lot on the internet so I think I've got it down pretty well by now.
    Less and less light,
    warming a rock,
    makes more and more of the less and less going in to come back out, go back in.
    Seems like that'd be kinda hard to mathematically quantify. Maybe not for a climatologist.
    I know it's hard for those Bigfoot with their eyes burned out, to understand.

  16. Allen Eltor says:

    LoL That’s right, even climatologists say they have a hard time pinning that shit down mathematically ! Lmao!

  17. Allen Eltor says:

    Joseph that post was meant to be a humorous late-night screed not something to leave up; sorry for doing that,

    don’t you think you should go ahead and bin it?

  18. Rosco says:

    To my understanding the basic model of the “back radiative” greenhouse effect is based solely on application of the Stefan-Boltzmann equation with most Universities and their professors showing a layered atmosphere radiating a factor “f” times sigmaT^4.

    To my understanding the basic equations, Planck’s, Wein’s and the Stefan-Boltzmann equation were derived by observing the radiation emitted from a cavity containing a black solid and small aperture.

    Such emissions were continuous spectra as observed by plotting Planck’s law.

    We know, or should know, gases never emit continuous spectra under ambient, and even extreme laboratory, conditions. All emission and absorptions of gases are line spectra.

    It seems ridiculous to me to apply “laws” based on the observation of continuous spectra to substances that do not ever exhibit such a phenomenon !

    Common sense also shows that the assumption that all energy absorbed results in thermal properties only, as is argued by many who shall remain nameless, is nonsense. Primary school children understand this.

    You can apply as much energy as you like to water under STP and it will never exceed 100°C. Ice and all solids will melt with no increase in temperature until all has melted.

    Solar radiation capable of heating land surfaces to ~70°C rarely induce a temperature of more than the low 30’s in the oceans.

    Applying the Stefan-Boltzmann equation to substances such as gases, and probably liquids, is poor science. Real science shows emissivity of CO2 and water vapour decreases dramatically as temperature increases – “Gases are unable to follow Stefan’s Law. ” – P.-M. Robitaille. The Little Heat Engine: Heat Transfer in Solids, Liquids and Gases.

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