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.
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?
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.
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!
Pingback: Emissivity Debunks Climate Alarm | Principia Scientific International
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.
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.
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.
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.
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)
“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/
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.
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.
Joe, then what do you call the absorption by the surface of IR emissions from atmospheric molecules, in keeping with the Heat formulas in the link you provided? When atmospheric gases emit energy, they do so in all directions, which means about half strike the earth’s surface when they are not otherwise captured by other atmospheric molecules. Those emissions are the DEDUCTED flux from the formula for heat loss from the surface, as provided in that link.
[JP: Tom for goodness’ sake. Yes, and it means that the emission from the cooler object does not heat the warmer one, and that heat energy cannot transfer from cool to warm, and that the cool object can not increase the temperature of the warmer object. You are saying and pointing out everything required in order to understand what heat flow is and that a cool object can and does not increase the temperature of a warmer object by energy exchange, yet you persist in implying conclusions to the opposite. Strange!]
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?
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,
”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:
Magic GAiS Dun Made The Sky GiT HoT, YaW!! = 0, Real Science = 1.
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
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
less and less warming light
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
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?
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 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
somewhat light blocking fluid,
conduction chilling my beer
and I put enough
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.
LoL That’s right, even climatologists say they have a hard time pinning that shit down mathematically ! Lmao!
Wow, Allen, you have lots of time to write, don’t you.
My college degree is Math/Physics from Dartmouth, and I have a good grasp on properties of matter including radiative behavior, and certainly on thermodynamic behavior. No matter how many words are written, no matter how many pejorative ad hominem remarks are hurled, these behaviors of matter cannot be changed: (1) all objects emit EMR when above 0K, some well, some poorly, but NO MATTER emits & absorbs ZERO EMR, (2) objects receiving EMR will absorb that EMR in accordance with their
emissivity[JP: must have meant absorptivity] curve, regardless of temperature, (3) objects absorbing more EMR than they emit will experience an increase in temperature (be HEATED) unless being sufficiently cooled by other methods, (4) objects emitting more EMR than they absorb will experience a decrease in temperature (be COOLED) unless being sufficiently heated by other methods.
Until the basic physical properties of matter are agreed upon and accounted for, no model of the atmosphere can be correct. Further, any behavior of the atmosphere — albedo, cosmic ray effects, precipitation, chaotic winds, etc. — which is not properly accounted for in a model proportionately damages the accuracy of that model.
We probably agree that there is no climate crisis, and that CO2 is not the enemy. But asserting that radiative behavior of gases in the atmosphere does not transfer energy to the surface [JP: No one said that. Stop implying that people say things they never said. The radiant energy emitted by the cooler atmosphere does not transfer heat to the warmer surface.], or that without that radiative behavior the earth would even be habitable, does not advance either science or the political battle over control of energy.
wickedwenchfan wrote “blackbody temperature of the sun’s energy”
EMR has no temperature. It has wavelength, and momentum. Temperature of the sun dictates its emission spectrum, from gamma rays to radio waves, but none of those emitted wavelengths has a temperature, because to have temperature, you must have matter.
and wrote: “no circumstances in which a low emissivity object can have a higher temperature than the object it is receiving its heat from?”
Referring to only one ultimate source of heat in the discussion, you are correct. In the case of the earth, it has high emissivity, both land and water.
Allen Eltor wrote: “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”
The sun also directly hastens the evaporation of water, but you would not be so bold as to suggest that the sun chills the surface.
Your attempt to bypass the physical properties of matter does not change the facts: The sun adds energy to the surface it shines upon. Hold a heat lamp, or a match, or your hand, or a block of dry ice over the surface of the earth, and the surface will receive and absorb EMR from all of those objects, adding energy to the surface. [JP: Still so confusing for you Tom! A lit match would add energy to the cooler surface, but much colder dry ice certainly would not add energy to the warmer surface. Reference the definition of heat.] But the surface of the earth is also being COOLED by EMR emission and by collision transfer of energy (conduction and latent heat escape by evaporation both depend on this energy transfer method)
All EMR striking the surface of the earth is absorbed according to the surface
emissivity[JP: Again, don’t you mean absorptivity?] curve and independent of the temperature of either the emitter or the surface. [JP: Please study the definition of heat Tom! There is of course a dependence on the temperature of two objects as to which one will absorb energy from the other…lol!] That process adds energy to the surface. [JP: Only if the energy is heat…LOL!] Evaporation is a separate process, made more probable when there is more energy to distribute. But it’s not the received energy that chills the surface, it’s the cooling property which does so.
Arguing against the basic physical properties of matter does not advance the science of the climate. [JP: Yes Tom, please stop doing that.]
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?
Mr. Postma: Regarding your statement regarding greenhouse gases:
“An increase in emissivity leads to cooling, as a decrease in emissivity leads to warming.”
While increased emissivity of a heat *source’s* surface will increase heat transfer (“cooling” of the source), in a “greenhouse gas” scenario, where a gas sits between a heat source and a heat sink, increased emissivity of the gas *reduces* heat transfer (thus “warming” the source).
[JP: No…in this case the atmosphere is the emitter via its GHG’s. An emitter will have a lower temperature for a higher emissivity. Thus if the atmosphere increases in its emissivity, it will cool to radiate the same amount of energy as before. If the absorptivity and emissivity increase together then there is no effect on temperature.]
Consider simple radiant heat transfer from a source to a sink. An intervening gas with zero emissivity will not restrict the flow of radiant heat from source to sink, the rate of heat transfer will be at its maximum, and temperature of the source will be at its minimum. A gas with non-zero emissivity will absorb and re-emit the transmitted radiant energy, reducing the heat transfer rate from the source to the sink, and raising the source temperature.
[JP: Heat is not a conserved quantity. Changing the emissivity of the gas in the cavity doesn’t change the emissivity of the source surface itself, and hence the source surface emits just as much energy as it did before, and thus won’t raise in temperature. Going from a gas 0% absorptive and emissive to one which is 100% absorptive and emissive would only have an effect on the gas itself…and the higher emissive gas would be cooler.]
Every time radiant energy is absorbed and re-radiated, the flow of heat is reduced, [JP: Heat is not a conserved quantity.] and the temperature of the source will be higher [JP: No…when heat flow reduces it means that thermal equilibrium is approaching, which means that temperatures stop changing, not increase.]. Therefore any increase in the intervening gas emissivity increases the source temperature. This is the essence of the greenhouse effect. [JP: Yep, and is one of the many reasons why the RGHE is wrong, bad physics.]
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.
Rosco: Consider that the flaw in describing emissions from gases is the idea that the emissivity factor is a single scalar value, when it is instead a function dependent on wavelength. Consider also that the heat equations, describing FLUX from two objects in radiative communication, may use S/B Temperature-dependent terms, but that doesn’t escape the point that it accounts for FLUX from BOTH objects. If the flux is generated by relaxation of an excited state, why does it matter to the simple understanding that EMR has been emitted from a molecule, and that EMR has energy in keeping with the wavelength of emission, and when it strikes an object with emissivity sensitive to that wavelength, it will be absorbed, thus increasing the energy of the object it strikes, just as it reduced the energy of the object that emitted it.
Radiative gases emit energy. It can be measured. When it strikes the earth, the earth will absorb it. If we can agree on that, then we can proceed to discussing the effects of that absorption.
[JP: Good lord Tom, you really have a difficult time with this definition of heat thing. Radiant energy from the cooler atmosphere does not heat the warmer surface. The warmer surface does not “absorb” the energy from the cooler atmosphere in any sense that it causes an increase in the warmer surface’s thermal energy content and hence temperature.]
So, I’m trying to get a handle on the more sophisticated argument about CO2 raising temperature by “delaying cooling”. CO2-back-radiation -“adding-heat” seems to be old school now, which no educated warmist would touch.
This discussion about emissivity seems to be headed in the right direction to help me get a better grip, but I need an answer, straight out, to the question: “Does CO2, in fact, delay cooling, thereby causing things to heat up?”
[JP: Since I’m pulling this out of the moderation bin where it ended up a while ago, I’ll embed answers here. I know it has been discussed more recently but will nevertheless address it.
Answer is: No. That sentence, that concept, is false physics in regards to the RGHE mechanism. If you reduce emissivity then things would heat up. But GHG’s increase emissivity. Having the additional medium of an atmosphere which is a significant mass radiating at low power, then the atmosphere naturally “stays warm” over night. If that atmosphere radiated more efficiently, as in with more GHG’s with higher emissivity, then atmospheric cooling would in fact increase overnight.]
Given, say, a certain emissivity, can CO2 still cause this emissivity to take longer to cool things off? [JP: CO2 is supposed to be what provides the emissivity…so more CO2 means higher emissivity which means cooling.] And what would this mean? — What sort of time frame are we talking about? — Fractions of a second? — Days? Or does “delaying cooling” mean increasing equilibrium temperature? … and how would this be possible without adding more energy than is being received?
If the temperature reaches equilibrium, then what difference would it make how long temperature took to get there, if we are talking about a relatively small temperature or a relatively small time frame?
Or, if Earth receives ONLY so much input from the Sun, there is only so much cooling that is possible, and so how much more cooling can be done than is already being done at the given solar input? It seems as if invoking the “delaying cooling” argument requires that we also assume that more input is somehow being required to create the extra heat that necessitates the cooling. But if all the cooling that can be done IS being done, then no more cooling CAN be done at the given solar input, no matter how much more CO2 comes into Earth’s atmosphere.
See? — I have multiple lines of confusion on this “delaying cooling” angle.
Can somebody straighten me out? Thanks.
[JP: Well I hope we’ve helped in the mean time. We expect conservation of energy with the solar input. At least to first order approximation. Given that, we know how much energy the Earth would radiate. The emissivity of the Earth’s radiating components has an effect on their temperature; if the atmosphere increased in emissivity, as one of the radiating components, then it would become cooler.]
I can’t find atmo greenhouse effect there. Maybe it’s all in your imagination?
Tom’s checking the tables of the Backerdistical Con Stunt
to find out exactly how much more light comes out of a rock,
each time insulation makes an additional percent of available warming firelight not go into it.
”but are said to increase emissivity, ”are said”…………I’ve hung my hat on they do.
Mixing radiating gases with non-radiating energised gas’s is like sticking a chimney into a sealed room isnt it ?.
Same amount of central heating, colder room.
99% can only cool by venting their essentially ”trapped” energy to space via the 1 percent, chimneys, the wider they are, is the colder it gets, the more radiating gas, the more radiating, the more radiation radiated, the more energy to space = less energy in the 99%, new lower steady state T, isnt it.
Global cooling by chimney gas or AGE for short, you are either of AGE or not, biggest obstacle to AGE is Kidulthood, and the kidults serious emotional incontinence.
2 Qs how much of the energy radiated to space is via the 99% percentage wise.
And how hot can co2 get .. i understand the asphalt example Joe, How much hotter do radiating gases get compared to the 99%. as the emissivity rises.
Also is the emessivity how they calculated global in cooling in the 70’s when i was at school watching vids about global cooling, more Co2 and Methane, more energy loss less heat, leading to considerable contraction in the testicle sack area, with possible frost-bite for the oldman.
Ps do you have any info on the Blue/Red team examinations of Climate Science.
Panel names or anything ?.
I hope it’s old pro’s Physicists verse’s Mann Trenbreth Schmidt, etc,
I’m pretty sure 25yrs ago Hanson was banking on gradual co2 reductions causing gradual warming, global warming by design.
Trying to explain the atmosphere in terms of heat is weird. Heat is a byproduct of resistance, it’s an effect not a cause, like trying to observe an animal in terms of it’s spoor.
Our theories of the Universe are constrained by light and mediated by gravity in order to provide stuff like heat to Humans. Exactly the sort of myths you would expect to be created by little Homo Sapiens surfing Gravity to perambulate and fearing heights, using their eyesight as a primary sense and fighting a constant battle with the environment to regulate their temperature.
Our theories of the physical reality of the Universe are weird, it’s baked in, right down to the most fundamental way we express it:
“In physics, a state of matter is one of the distinct forms that matter takes on. Four states of matter are observable in everyday life: solid, liquid, gas, and plasma.” Wikipedia
When we observe the Universe solids are pretty rare, we only see liquid on Earth with the exception of maybe Io and the gas is mainly in a plasma state because 99.9999999 percent of the observable Universe is plasma. We don’t observe gravity or any other “forces”, we observe energy seeking equilibrium. A Star isn’t energetic because it contains a lot of energy, a Star is a cathode and it’s energy is seeking equilibrium with it’s environment and plasma is a byproduct of transfer of energy. Everything we observe is energy seeking equilibrium.
The potential difference in energy between the Sun and the Earth is the major “force” acting upon the Earth. All of our theories about how anything in this system works should begin with the cathode and anode relationship between the Earth and the Sun.
Then again, I may just have been hanging about with too many Velikovsians.
At least none of the Velokovskians believe in the Greenhouse Effect either.
Isn’t heat energy? And isn’t assessing the potential difference in energy between the Sun and Earth , then, concerned with heat? — if heat us energy?
“us” = “is”
“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?”
Refer to my previous comment about this: https://climateofsophistry.com/2017/07/06/emissivity-debunks-climate-alarm/#comment-29651
Asphalt would be closer to the blackbody temperature, but the chrome spanner will typically be significantly higher in temperature due to its low emissivity.
If you have two objects with equal absorptivity, then if one of them has lower emissivity then the lower emissivity one will be warmer for the same energy output they need to satisfy. In general you need to look at the absorptivity over emissivity ratio. If the ratio is one then the object will behave like a blackbody even if either term is not equal to one. But if it is less emissive than absorptive, it will be warmer than a blackbody, and if it is less absorptive than emissive it will be cooler.
Joe, you keep in-line commenting on my posts without allowing any more response from me. Not exactly an open discussion method.
In particular you keep saying that radiative return to the surface from radiatively active molecules in the atmosphere is NOT the “greenhouse effect” (again, I quote that name because it is inaccurate). [Not sure where you’ve been, but what I say is that such an idea as with the RGHE cannot function in the way that is claimed, i.e. raising the surface’s temperature, because it violates the Laws of Thermo and the definition of heat.] But that’s exactly what it is: a description of the behavior of surface temperatures [JP: Yes, that’s what I refer to, and said “description of the behaviour” is bad non-existent physics.] as a result of the inability to shed heat quickly [JP: Heat isn’t a conserved quantity.] due to the return of energy already shed to the surface, only to be shed again. These are all measurable flux elements. [JP: Yes Tom, see the radiation heat flow equation: Q = F2 – F1. See how both flux elements are there? Both flux elements are there, yet only the cooler surface increases in temperature because the radiation can only act as heat in the greater portion of the warmer flux subtracted for the cooler flux.]
In the past, you once wrote this (November 2014): “There are countless photons being emitted. The ones directed out, go out, and they carry the energy supplied from the surface below if we’re talking about the atmosphere emitting to space. The atmosphere loses all of the energy it picks up from the surface, and so it has none left to go to the ground. The vector subtraction means that thermal flux from the atmosphere doesn’t go to the ground. Just like forces subtracting pushing from either side of the box. The forces remain full forces, but there’s only movement from the stronger to the cooler.”
How do you square that with your current agreement that energy flows both directions? That quote was from your post on the site “There is no greenhouse effect”.
[JP: Very easily Tom! Because I’m referring to heat, that concept of which you are apparently perennially unable to grasp, adopt, and use. 🙂 lol]
The debate is about the feedbacks predicted by the warmists, which are NOT measured, but predicted by parameterizing the horribly inadequate models in order to “fit” them to data: garbage in, garbage out.
[JP: GIGO. Exactly. See the radiative greenhouse effect!]
How about some reasoned discussion, instead of continued refusal to post my comments?
[JP: After all this time, you still don’t know of the definition of heat and can not acknowledge it. Thus, reasoned debate is not possible with you, thus, you remain on the moderation list.]
There is another “canary in the coal mine” – lots of people like Tom claim “Joe, without radiative gases in the atmosphere, the SURFACE emissions would depart directly to space, without restraint.”
There is actual data to demonstrate indisputably that a surface with an atmosphere cools far more quickly than a surface radiating directly to space.
The basic property that an atmosphere has is that it radiates far less powerfully than almost all solid surfaces.
The lunar data shows that the rate of temperature change by radiation alone is less than the rate of temperature change we know occurs in air temperature changes on Earth – if we actually measured the ground temperature we may be surprised.
The Moon has often been used by alarmists as supporting this “SURFACE emissions would depart directly to space, without restraint” nonsense.
Remembering that in 6 lunar hours a rocky surface on the moon cools from ~390 K to ~275 K at an average rate of 115/6 = ~19.2 K per lunar hour. Remembering that 1 lunar hour is 29.5 Earth hours this translates to 19.2/29.5 = 0.65 K per Earth hour.
Plenty of places on Earth have changes in AIR temperature that exceed this. For example Baghdad – a desert location where the atmospheric “greenhouse effect” due to water vapour is almost non existent – has a daily summer range from 25°C to 44°C – a 19°C change in 12 hours results in an average temperature change rate of more than double that of the Moon.
Even averaging it over the whole 24 hour period it is still higher than the observations from the Moon. The surface would change more than the air.
Any so-called “1st law” analysis based on energy in must equal energy out and hence you can calculate the temperature is just wrong.
There are unlimited real life basic science examples where this is not true but the most obvious is the oceans.
The Sun heats desert surfaces to nearly double the values the ocean reach – water is subject to the same influx of energy but instead of increasing in temperature as a result it evaporates without significant increases in temperature.
There are countless examples where it is impossible to use any “1st law” analysis to make the outlandish statements many “experts” make – it simply is not true that energy in must equal energy out and this provides a mechanism for calculating temperature – it is total BS.
The fundamental model of the greenhouse effect is absurd beyond belief for so many reasons I cannot believe people can argue it and think they are clever.
There is almost no spectral overlap between the Solar radiation and the IR emitted by the Earth in response and hence any sum of radiative fluxes as they do is absurd beyond belief – Satellite Thermal Control Engineering states unequivocally that the Solar absorptivity of a material and its emissivity are never equal due to the spectral difference.
Hence adding 239.7 W/m2 Solar (itself a ridiculous “average” that has no real physical reality) to 239.7 W/m2 IR from the atmosphere (a figure arrived at by applying the SB law to a gas which has none of the characteristics of the cavity radiation experiment observations) is completely wrong even if you disagree with the points I make in brackets or the points that energy does not always result in thermal effects – the spectra are different with little overlap – it is crucial to get it right for satellites.
So, emissivity is what it is.
I’m still trying to apply this to the more common alarmist argument today, which claims that CO2 delays cooling. Wouldn’t “delaying cooling” mean “changing emissivity”? … and this is a no-no?
“Back radiation” adding heat is clearly a no-no, and I just do not see this argument even being presented anymore in the more sophisticated alarmist camps. The argument presented now most often seems to be the “delaying cooling” argument.
I’d like to see Joseph Postman spend more time on THIS argument. His videos that I have watched seem to be focused on the heating-by-back-radiation fallacy, which, these days, seems to be a straw man that no longer needs deconstructing. What needs clearly deconstructing is the CO2-delaying-cooling claim.
As I’m seeing it — and tell me if I’ve got it wrong — a warmer surface radiating towards a cooler surface creates a radiation field between the two surfaces, where the radiation density (if I can call it that) is greater in the vicinity of the warmer surface than it is in the vicinity of the cooler surface. The rate of emission from the warmer surface is what it is, as the rate of emission from the cooler surface is what IT is. These cannot change, because they are fundamental properties of the surfaces emitting, right?
Now, within this “radiation field” between the two surfaces, the radiation field density “seeks” an equilibrium condition, right? — remember, correct me, if I’ve got it wrong. The only thing that can change is the location between the two surfaces where a particular density might be observed, and this would correspond to a temperature at that location between the two surfaces.
The warmer surface (Earth) has limited input (from the sun), which limits how warm it could ever become, and the cooler surface (atmosphere with “greenhouse gases”) can never get as warm as the warmer surface, but it can increase the amount of radiation from itself to the warmer surface, which might change the radiation density of the field between the two by pulling the location of equilibrium temperature closer to the cooler surface (farther from the warmer surface), but it can never delay the rate at which the warmer surface emits its radiation. It can never delay the rate of cooling — it can only move the location of equilibrium temperature, while the rate of cooling remains the same.
Is this anywhere near correct. Please, if it is grossly wrong, then delete every word and post a correct analysis along these lines. Thanks.
Can you help me please? I’m in a (respectful for a change) discussion on the issue of this very subject with someone. I have asserted that no surface can attain a higher temperature via radiation absorption than the blackbody temperature of the sun’s energy at the relevant distance from the sun.
My debate opponent has said Selective Surfaces such as engineered for vacuum tubes do attain higher temperatures, with high absorbtivity and low emissivity surfaces receiving the sun’s energy.
I have pointed out the high emissivity of the “greenhouse gasses” but this is irrelevant at this stage to the onlookers and my standing in the debate. If I am wrong and he is right I need to know. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selective_surface
Can you clarify for me? Can radiation from the sun with a theoretical black body temperature heat an object to a higher temperature in these circumstances? Everything I’ve read from you so far I have taken as no, but as this person says he has measured temperatures of higher than 120C in such devices and is about to go and do more experiments to record for me on it, I would really like to be prepared in advance!
Joseph, from your first comment above:
“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.”
I think you meant “much COOLER 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.”
A surface will have the same absorptivity as emissivity, for a given temperature. It can emit the same as it is absorbing.
If they have equal absorptivity and emissivity then it results in a blackbody, mathematically. Kirchoff’s law is for equal wavelengths and so if absorption and emission occur at different wavelengths (visible, IR) then there can be an unequal absorptivity over emissivity ratio hence if the surface is more absorptive than emissive it will be hotter than a blackbody. A blackbody is the most efficient possible case hence is coolest generally. Emissivity less than 1 is less efficient at emitting, kind of like a friction to emission. For a given power output, a lower emissive surface is warmer.
I’m confused. So are you saying it IS possible for an object to become hotter than the theoretical blackbody temperature of the energy incident upon it? Because that’s not what I have understood from your writings thus far. I refer to refutations of Steel Greenhouse etc.
Can you clarify further and in as layman like language as possible?
The steel greenhouse and the RGHE in general are NOT about emissivity changes and the effects of such. The RGHE in fact contradicts the real physics of the effects of emissivity. I’ve talked about this a lot. This OP in fact…I think. Just on phone for now. Waiting for an opportunity to get on keyboard again.
I look forward to it. I know you’ve written a lot on this already and I’ve read virtually all of it, but lay people like myself need constant correction if we are to combat what is thrown at us out there.
So I will keep my question simple:
If we have sunlight of 1300W/m2 impinging on a selective surface with high absorptivity and low emissivity, are there any circumstances where that surface can become hotter than the 116C that 1300W/m2 says is possible to achieve with a SB calculator? Is it possible for a surface to reach 130C? 140C? Everything I’ve read from your articles would suggest no to me, but just to be sure it’s better for me to ask again rather than just assume.
My articles are mostly about the error of backradiation and what the alarmists claim it can do with the RGHE. Emissivity is separate physics and I’ve not discussed it extensively except for in pieces like this OP. I’ve to now assumed that it was simple enough to understand and also understood to be about different physics principles than the fraudulent RGHE. And also simple to understand how the RGHE and alarmism contradict the real physics of emissivity. Guess I should make it more clear, since the real physics of emissivity is itself an independent debunk of the RGHE and climate alarm.
Short answer: Yes. The scenario where you have high absorptivity and low emissivity is the very circumstance where the surface will become hotter than the BB.
Well that’s embarrassing for me. I shall have to eat some serious humble pie now. As usual these sort of foot in the mouth experiences always happen where they do the most damage
It is important to separate that emissivity effects are not at all relevant to the mechanism itself of the RGHE. And then, although you may have made a mistake, you are nevertheless vindicated because the correction to the mistake, the real physics of emissivity, still debunks the RGHE and climate alarm.
It is important to make and understand these distinctions else the lying liar enemy will more than happily exploit the confusion and say that since there are scenarios where a surface can become warmer than BB due to emissivity, then the RGHE is ok too because “it’s like that”.
It is not at all like that and the real effects of emissivity debunk the mechanism of the RGHE!
After all this time repeating things like “it’s not possible to heat things hotter than sunlight” from you, I must say I am shocked at the admission.
It’s not that I don’t get the distinction that ghg’s have high not low emissivity but your constant reinforcement that you “can’t trap heat” and the great lengths you’ve gone to to say that energy from a cooler object can’t increase the temperature of a warmer one. It’s frustrating to read this now, to say the least
Understated in such statements is the assumption of “all things being equal”, such as no changes in emissivity since that’s physics not involved in the mechanism of the RGHE and climate alarm.
And I’ll say again, the physics of emissivity further debunks the RGHE and climate alarm. 🙂
Well, yes I can see frustrating…we’re working from a vastly different set of assumed knowledge I guess.
All the stuff about not trapping heat and the directionality of heat flow hasn’t changed!
Cold sunshine can’t create temperatures above -18C. I would ask you to be much more careful in future. This scam will be brought down by ordinary people like me, not by people with degrees like you. When someone like myself takes down an alarmist with a PhD it is 100 times as effective as when two scientists argue with each other over equations infront of a bewildered public.
I now have to find a way to extricate myself from this blunder, without losing all credibility on the subject. I’m just hoping that the vacuum tube solar collector that my opponent gave as an example uses concentration of sunlight to help achieve the higher temperatures he claimed.
Either concentration of sunlight, or low emissivity in some relevant components.
Definitely not backradiation or RGHE! You can be assured of that.
Can’t say that makes me feel any better to be honest.
You see I had already pointed out that ghg’s have higher emissivities, but here is the response.
“I do see what you are saying, and I’m fairly sure it can be addressed in terms of extinction being a bulk phenomenon plus heat from absorbed IR is largely conducted away from absorbing molecules to the rest of the gas mix. But that’s just hand-waving, let’s address one issue at a time. I’ll find the theory links again when I have a chance.”
You see, he knows he’s got me. But having displayed my ignorance on it actually being possible for radiation from a cooler object to increase the temperature of a warmer object AFTER ALL, then any bullshit about how this might occur in the atmosphere becomes a credible claim against me and reinforces the propaganda that ordinary people should just “trust the experts” and that scientists who dissent are deliberately misleading a gullible public.
I will fix it. I just fucking pissed at the moment.
These people are master criminals and have spent their entire life learning how to lie and how to exploit others’ lack of knowledge for their lies. They lie much, much better than you can tell the truth. More in a bit.
What I don’t understand is all of your posts like this one
Because basically what you are saying now is that heat can “pile up” after all. Thermos flasks, steel greenhouses, etc, etc. If the energy source inside is kept constant but you insulate with a space blanket or similar then emissivity drops and the temperature inside must rise to compensate. This would include the heat source.
Emissivity hasn’t been the main concern with the RGHE. If you’ve made a mistake about emissivity it isn’t a problem. These are the great kinds of mistake to make because in their correction you find that the RGHE and climate alarm, which is my and presumably your interest, are debunked once again. You get to magnanimously admit a mistake, but then still have the advantage of having a better understanding of physics debunk the RGHE and climate alarm in a new way.
“It’s not that I don’t get the distinction that ghg’s have high not low emissivity”
That’s the important part, and the part which you now understand debunks the claims of the RGHE and climate alarm. The context of the discussion has not generally been about lowering emissivity, because this isn’t what GHG’s are said to do. And so I’ve written in the context of such things being equal. There is thermal energy “pile up” when the emissivity is low, yes. This is not “heat pile up”, although colloquially we would use language like that. More accurate to say thermal energy “pile up”.
Heat still never flows from cold to hot even with differing emissivity effects between the two objects. Pierre Latour demonstrated what the math would be for such a situation and proved that it was impossible.
There’s no problem here. You may have said something not taking into account or perhaps knowing about emissivity, but now that you do, now you know more and you know that it still debunks the RGHE and hence climate alarm.
Im holding off on admitting a mistake. I’m still not convinced the guys vacuum tube attains temperatures higher than 100C. At least not without using some form of magnifying glass type concentration of the energy. I am not familiar with any material that you can leave in the sunlight that naturally achieves such temperatures, so I will be more careful in future, but I will still await his proving his argument rather than prematurely apologise.
Hey WickedWenchFan – what Joe is saying is that you can’t make something that absorbs all the energy from a fire, wind up hotter than the average temp of that fire’s total spectrum.
He’s also saying you can’t make something emit more total energy – than you put into it.
And those objects are in FACT not being made hotter than the energy warming them.
These tuned objects are being warmed by light in the bluer spectra – it’s just that the AVERAGE temperature of ALL sunlight TOGETHER – the blue + the red, – obviously including yellow and green, but all sunlight averaged together, is a yellow kelvin temperature number.
Your guy’s object is being warmed by something more concentrated, a hotter color light than the average yellow fire if you’re collecting light out of like sunlight.
Sunlight with it’s great generic spectral displacement – that bell curve, – it shows you that – oh HELL YeaH – there’s quite a BIT of light in that sunlight
that’s actually hotter than,
all the sunlight’s spectra added together yielding up that classically well known yellow light average Kelvin temperature color.
Something that glows off a spectral profile equal to the TOTAL of sunlight – that AVERAGE temperature color is yellow.
Half or so, of sunlight’s infrared/near infra – 52%.
12%near infrared and about 40% true infrared.
And of course it’s half this true infrared, the greenhouse gases keep from warming Earth: 20% of otherwise available warming firelight of the sun, in the infrared – never warms earth it’s refracted to space.
Then there’s about… I dunno, I think about 17% of your light’s the temperatures you can see,
and then the rest is the blue stuff that’s all hotter, than the AVERAGE temperature of sunlight.
Remember: people can talk about emiss this, and emiss that, but –
until they show you
the very very VERY FIRST
light warmed rock
being washed by a cold bath conduction chilling it
having it’s temperature raised through mixing more and more
light blocking insulation into the bath so – less and less light warms the rock,
they’re still the magic gas barking hillbilly rendered SO STUPID by their CHURCH’S TEACHINGS
That when you ask them
”What happens to the temperature of a light warmed rock, 20% less light warms?”
Their religion obligates them to tell you with a straight face that ”Wayle if the magic insulation makes it not nevur warm it, the less light warms it, the more it warms it.”
This is a sunlight spectrum chart I kinda rustled up – I dunno why I even put it here, but – it’s kinda cool to at least be able to stare into the picture of it with those wings going off on the blue side where – a lotta that light’s as hot as a firecracker.
Matter of fact
the very first thing you (almost) always notice about your first couple of days up on some mountain: if you’re outdoors, by LUNCH if you’re at real high altitude like 8,000, 10,000 -you are as read as a BEET by lunch where the sun hits on your nose, forehead, ear tips, neck etc
because the sunlight intensity load that wasn’t burning you at sea level?
Yeah it was stripped of more and more of the sun’s hotter bluer light,
so you burned moderately and tanned some. Or hardly burned at all, ya know?
Up at altitude you can burn so bad – it’s like somebody staked you out on an ant hill. And it starts happening RIGHT away. Just a FEW hours in and that hotter, bluer light, is eating your skin UP.
Anyway peace and give those T.h.e.r.m.-=(0)=-B.i.L.L.y. hicks
For being so arrogant
They think they can make the planet nod it’s head that oh yeah
if you let less and less light warm a rock
using the MAGICAL gassiness,
sensors will show more and more light warm the rock.
The magical gassiness what dun – yew noe
elevated the levels of the “Backerdistical Con Stunt.”
CORRECTIO I wrote 17% VISIBLE sunlight WickedWenchFan I’m sorry have been reading something, having to do with atmospherics having to do with 17% of something. My bad there I kinda brain farted & pretty bad visible light’s like 43% of the light.
This doesn’t really impact the actual visual cue you have there showing all the light that is in fact – bluer – hotter, than your classically considered average yellow sunlight Kelvin color but it is a typographical error so I need to say something about it, sorry.
And now i can’t remember wtF was 17%.
Ah well, i guess that’s why they make helmets.
If i’d have only known, then.
Joseph, you gave this response to my comment:
Your response consisted of 5 sentences, and I agree with every sentence. Yet, I still maintain the points I made in my original comment are correct. So, either you’ve confused me, or I’ve confused myself!
If time permits this weekend, I will do some actual experiments with my wrenches in sunlight. I’ll get back to you.
“I will still await his proving his argument rather than prematurely apologise”
Oh yes absolutely! Make sure you see what actually happening etc. I am assuming this is about RGHE stuff, and so you can be assured that there is no situation whatsoever in which the RGHE can be demonstrated. If someone is concentrating raw incoming sunlight or lowering emissivity, this has nothing to do with the RGHE and they in fact debunk the RGHE.
Chrome-plated wrench—-92 ºF (33.3 ºC)
“Black” wrench—-103 ºF (39.4 ºC)
White electrical tape—-94 ºF (34.4 ºC)
Black electrical tape—-113 ºF (45 ºC)
All surfaces receiving same angle of sunlight. Temperatures had reached equilibrium. Conduction and convection losses should be the same, i.e., no affect on results. Temperatures taken with hand-held IR thermometer (Southwire 1000ºF Dual Laser)
This primitive setup should verify my comment:
(Joseph, if you want photos of setup, email me. I don’t have your email address.)
“If time permits this weekend, I will do some actual experiments with my wrenches in sunlight. I’ll get back to you.”
Yes, do, because this is a very common anecdote. We have sunny weather predicted here too…
You’ll have to measure the temperature with a physical sensor, not an IR sensor, because the reflectivity of such surfaces screws up the IR reading.
“Temperatures taken with hand-held IR thermometer (Southwire 1000ºF Dual Laser)”
You’ll note in the manual that it should say somewhere that the IR sensor conversion assumes 0.95 emissivity or something along these lines. So the result you got isn’t valid quite yet. You’ll need to use a physical sensor. I have a multimeter that has an IR sensor but also a physical probe. Have to use the physical probe. Once the wrench has been out for a while put the physical temperature probe on the sticky side of the back tape, then stick the tape to the wrench, and see where it goes.
Physical probe also means something as simple as a baby’s thermometer. If they go high enough. Any physical matter based thermometer.
“Physical probe”—-EXTECH Instruments, Mini Multimeter, MINI 15A
Chrome-plated wrench—-93 ºF (33.9 ºC)
“Black wrench”—-106 ºF (41.1 ºC)
I suspect the Sun is getting higher in the sky is the reason for the slightly higher temps.
I would like you to clarify further for me if you would.
I quote from the link of yours that I copied and pasted above. You have dozens of posts like this and if I am to learn I need to clear up the confusion:
“There is no such thing as “heat pile up”. This is a non-existent concept. You can think of it, like you can think of a unicorn, but it doesn’t exist. Heat does not pile up, it readily and freely flows into whatever is around
“In your house, insulation helps prevent the furnace-heated air from escaping your house and being replaced with cold air from outside. It doesn’t make the furnace burn hotter. In your water heater, it helps the water retain its temperature after it has been heated. It doesn’t make the water hotter than the heater.
You can wrap a heat source with as much insulation as you want. All that will happen is that the insulation will reach the temperature of the heat source, and the heat source will not rise in temperature.”
So this seems to be contradicted by the emissivity discussion on this post.
If the insulation is in the form of a thermos flask with very low emissive walls why won’t we get higher temperature of the heating element inside it? What is the differentiation between these two conflicting claims made in your posts. Neither may have anything to do with the greenhouse effect, but if I don’t know why there is this apparent discrepancy between the absolute claims you make in most of your posts and the caveat of this one, I leave myself open to attack from those who would manipulate my ignorance.
Alright well in this case it means that the absorptivity and emissivity must be pretty close for your wrench.
Do you have a mirror to try this with? Just be careful not to get the sun in your eyes.
“Do you have a mirror to try this with?”
Sorry, I don’t do mirrors. See Anthony Watts for all mirror “experiments” and pseudoscience.
There is no such thing as heat pile up in the context of the RGHE, and neither in general because heat is not something which can be stored or piled. We see the RGHE people always talking about heat piling up but this violates the definition of heat, and in their mechanism it also required heat flowing from cold to hot. All of their statements in fact have to be violations of something, since they start with talking about heat in a way that heat does not exist.
The RGHE and climate alarm has not been about reducing emissivity. If it had, then I would believe it. Because if you reduce emissivity, then yes, things have to increase in temperature in order to emit what they need to emit. What climate alarm says is the exact opposite – that increasing emissivity leads to a higher temperature. This is exactly opposite of reality.
I am hoping that it will dawn on you just how much of a lie the RGHE and climate alarmism is, given that all this time they have been duping you/us about the real effects of emissivity hoping that we’d never look into or understand it.
Yes, I am talking about insulation with the same emissivity…with “all things being equal”. Because in fact, if we increase the emissivity of the insulation, which is what the alarmists say is happening with the “atmospheric insulation” around the Earth, then such a change in the insulation would cause cooling of the thing inside the insulation.
What needs to be appreciated here is the subtle, sly, and careful destruction of physics that the RGHE and climate alarm performs. So, they do say that GHG’s cause more atmospheric emission, but they don’t call this an increase in emissivity. They just leave out what it means about emissivity. They have to leave it out because otherwise it refutes their argument.
So then they say that with increased emission from the atmosphere, more backradiation will go back to the surface and thus make the surface warmer. So then most of our effort has gone into saying, ok, all things being equal, backradiation doesn’t heat and can’t make the surface warmer and can’t add another whole factor of input to the surface. That whole mechanism doesn’t exist or occur in the first place, leaving aside emissivity.
But now with this OP and with your questions, it is clear that we shouldn’t have focused so much on their backradiation mechanism (which doesn’t exist in the first place), but should have also added more focus on the emissivity physics. Because if they are saying that GHG’s increase emission, that what that means is an increase in emissivity. So here on that point, once again in the first place, an increase in emissivity of the atmosphere would make it cooler, not warmer. They’re trying to prove something that doesn’t exist and hence everything that does exist contradicts every facet of their argument and premises.
The GHG argument is that they increase atmospheric emission because they’re good emitters. If they increase emission, then this means that the atmosphere increases in emissivity and can radiate energy better than it could before. Higher emissive surfaces or gases are cooler. The RGHE people simply ignore this, and go on to claim that backradiation can cause heating or some form or another of temperature increase, and get into all of their sophistry about that.
What is shocking to me here is the degree to which they violate and ignore very basic physics.
I’m trying the experiment myself today too!
Hope that Canadian “sun” can warm things above freezing….
You folks need more CO2 up there!
So all the posts giving direct and specific examples by you of putting a heating element and coffee in a thermos flask, amongst many other similar examples, and saying that the heating element wouldn’t rise in temperature, were wrong then??????
Because at the time, on non of those posts that I’m aware, did you say that you could change the temperature of the heat source either higher or lower. You specifically said it wasn’t possible.
No they’re correct. None of those change the emissivity of the heating element itself.
Ok now we are getting somewhere. You also said non of the substances receiving energy from the heat source can become hotter than the heat source. So is this correct REGARDLESS of the emissivity of the object being heated? If it had an absorption of 0.9 and emissivity of 0.01 for example would it still not get hotter than the heat source?
Yes in that case, and considering a radiant interaction only, the other object does get hotter than the heat source, but the heat source itself wouldn’t get hotter.
“You also said non of the substances receiving energy from the heat source can become hotter than the heat source.”
That is with emissivities being equal. To me it goes without saying that if the emissivities are unequal then the behaviour is different, but this didn’t need to be said because it wasn’t what the RGHE mechanism was about.
Again, if I may intrude, I do not see the argument so much anymore that back radiation increases temperature by adding heat, but that back radiation increases temperature by delaying cooling, meaning the near surface of the Earth stays warmer because the increased downward emissions of more and more CO2 somehow block how fast emissions to space from Earth’s surface and near surface can happen.
The refined argument today seems to be that back radiation exerts some sort of photon pressure on outgoing radiation to hold it back and keep things warmer than they would otherwise be. I’m just trying to understand how this violates the principles of emissivity discussed in this thread.
Can the outgoing radiation be “blocked” or “slowed down”, without changing emissivity of the surface from which it originates?
This is called the “secondary argument” for the RGHE and the basis of climate alarm and it is used when the primary argument is shown to be impossible and non-existent. Why would something need a new, secondary, different argument with different physics if its first argument didn’t work? Why the assumption that there still must be something correct to find after re-tooling once the first tooling didn’t work out? In the case of gravity we know that exists and so if one theory is shown to be incorrect then a new theory can discovered. In the case of the RGHE there is nothing at all to say that we know that it does or should exist. We know that the bottom of the atmosphere is warmer than the average atmosphere and the top of the atmosphere, but there is no a-priori whatsoever that this should be explained via some radiative greenhouse effect. Check the premises and assumptions.
“Can the outgoing radiation be “blocked” or “slowed down”, without changing emissivity of the surface”
No. A change in the atmosphere is not a change in the properties of the surface. Changing the atmosphere does not change the emissivity of the ground surface. Increasing the emissivity of the atmosphere, however, will make the atmosphere more efficient at emitting energy and hence would cause the atmosphere to cool.
“The refined argument today seems to be that back radiation exerts some sort of photon pressure on outgoing radiation to hold it back and keep things warmer than they would otherwise be.”
That’s the RGHE argument. And it is false, because photons do not perform any such phenomenon on themselves. Lowering emissivity would hold back radiant emission and hence cause an increase in temperature, but GHG’s are paradoxically said to do the opposite thing of increasing emissivity. The paradox is there because the GHG RGHE argument is false.
BTW, the first argument for the RGHE is the one found in the literature and texts, etc. It looks like this:
Here, the cooler atmosphere is indeed acting as a heating agent for the warmer surface…in violation of physics.
Robert, just as “back radiation” fails, so does “slowing the cooling” fail.
Ice cubes can NOT bake a turkey, even though ice emits about 300 Watts/m^2. The “refined argument” is that ice cubes can “slow the cooling” of a turkey. So, consider a turkey that is at room temperature. The turkey is surrounded by 10 square meters of ice (3000 Watts). Would you expect the IR from the ice to “slow the cooling” of the turkey?
Whether or not a surface absorbs IR is related to temperature and wavelengths. IR wavelengths that do not “fit” the surface get reflected. So, if the turkey carcass were at -70 ºF (-57 ºC), then the ice could actually warm the turkey. In the range of IR wavelengths, the absorber HAS to be colder than the emitter. Otherwise, the laws of physics are violated. And, violating the laws of physics is PSEUDOSCIENCE.
(But, Joseph can probably explain it more eloquently than I did.)
Joseph. I realise I am straying from the GHE by persuing this but I ask you to tolerate my questions a bit longer. In answer to my last question you said “Yes in that case, and considering a radiant interaction only, the other object does get hotter than the heat source, but the heat source itself wouldn’t get hotter.”
Why wouldn’t the heat source itself get hotter? If we are talking of a thermos flask with a heating element inside and the sides of that flask become hotter than the element to emit the same energy at lower emissivity, mustn’t everything inside the flask increase in temperature as well? Would not we simply see everything inside the flask increasing in temperature together with the sides once the sides have warmed to be the same temperature as what is inside? The increase halting only when the sides of the flask are emitting the same energy as the heat source is producing?
If not, why not? How can you have a hotter exterior without raising the temperature of everything in the interior?
The heat source wouldn’t itself get hotter because the radiation from the walls of the flask isn’t as strong until it reaches energetic equilibrium, in which case the energy from the flask and from the filament are equal. The flask can never send more radiant energy back to the filament than the filament sends to it. But with low emissivity, the flask has to become hotter than the BB case in order to send the energy required to achieve balance.
Note that while the flask is hotter than the BB case for the flux at its interior wall, it is not hotter than the filament. The filament is some thousands of degrees and is so hot that it is incandescent. If the flask were to become so hot then its own metal would become incandescent too, in which case the emissivity increases to the same value as the filament.
So, can the flask actually become hotter than the filament itself? Make note that the flask wall is some distance from the filament and that flux decreases rapidly away from the filament due to inverse square law. The thickness of the filament is tiny, and considering an average flask, negligible compared to the radius of a flask. So the flask wall would be hotter than the equivalent BB temperature of the filament flux at the distance of the flask wall, but not hotter than the incandescent filament itself. Either severely decrease the emissivity of the outside of the flask, or the radius of the flask so that its inner surface is very near the filament, and the same result is that at some point the flask becomes so hot that it would become incandescent, and at this point metal becomes highly emissive and the emissivity of the flask would become the same as the filament.
Have to make the distinction between the equivalent BB temperature of a given local flux whose source is some distance away, and the temperature of the source itself with its flux directly at its surface.
The exterior never becomes as hot as the filament. Even if it did, material emission properties change since the emission changes to new wavelengths, and then Kirchoff’s Law begins to directly apply. Emissivities become equal etc.
These are good questions though! Real physics! To even ask these questions indicates that you’re cottoning on to the fundamentals of physics better than many physics students, and even physics PhD’s, that I know.
Thank you. It’s starting to make sense now, I think (I HOPE 🙂 )
So if I bring this back to the sun and earth
The inverse square law says that effective BB temperature of the sun’s energy decreases with distance, but we can achieve hotter temperatures than this if the surface that absorbs this energy has a lower emissivity than absorptivity? [JP: Yes.] But the efficiency of such selective surfaces is limited to less than temperature of the surface of the sun itself? [JP: Yes. I think so. Kirchoff’s Law would begin to apply because the emission and absorption frequencies become the same.] The theoretical maximum must be less because the inverse square law is still reducing the amount of energy available for any surface area the energy from the sun comes into contact with? [JP: Right. Little confused as to the meaning of the last sentence, but given your previous two, you seem to be on track.]
Am I roughly on track so far?
Before asking these questions, I replied intuitively to my opponent, by saying this:
“I think the important part of your comment would be “and so the body cannot exceed the temperature of the illumination source”
“The illumination source for the atmosphere would be the earth. It is this spectrum that is supposedly enhanced the atmosphere. To change the temperature of the surface you must change the absorptivity/emissivity of the surface itself.”
Was this a correct understanding of the physics?
[JP: Yes. If I’m following in the way that I am hoping. Right. A change in the atmosphere doesn’t change the emissivity of the surface itself!]
I embedded some replies in your last comment since there were several questions.
Cool. Thanks for taking the time to clarify. It’s making sense again. I obviously need to go and study Kirchoff’s law to increase my understanding further.
It also highlights another problem with energy budget diagrams in that all energy and temperature calculations are blackbody calculations, when there is no reason to automatically assume that this is what we are dealing with.
I think I remember another post of yours where you wrote about something like this in relation to the 255K theoretical blackbody temperature of earth as viewed from space. If the earth has an emissivity of less than 1 then emitting the average 240w/m2 would occur at a higher temperature. Nor would we be able to use an average as every part of the earth is emitting different amounts of energy to space depending on whether it is night or day, near equator or near poles.
Thank you, Joseph, for answering my questions directly.
Now, geran, you were using the idea of ice cubes to cook a turkey, and I am not quite seeing how this related to my question yet. Of course, it seems obvious to me that the ice cubes could not cook the turkey. But (playing devil’s advocate), if we added some liquid hydrogen to the scenario in such a way that the ice cubes were between the turkey and the liquid hydrogen (I know, lots of details to set it up right), would the ice cubes prevent the turkey from cooling as fast as it could with respect to the liquid hydrogen?
The liquid hydrogen is colder than the ice cubes, and without the ice cubes, the turkey’s temperature would be adjusting with respect to the liquid hydrogen, right? But with the ice cubes in between, now what’s going on?
In general, as I am now seeing things, a radiation field gets set up, where a radiation density gradient sets up in one direction, with greatest radiation density near the warmer surface and least radiation density near the cooler surface. Yes, the cooler surface is radiating, but it cannot “back radiate” in such a way that it changes this field density, which would be required to “slow cooling”.
My question now is, “If the cooler surface radiates, then does any of this “cooler” radiation travel through the radiation-density gradient to contact the warmer surface again?”
If my radiation-density-gradient idea is messed up, then straighten me out there first.
The alarmist trick that I am not comfortable with is using the idea that “cool radiation” going back towards Earth’s surface raises the average height of emission (probably flawed in its simplicity) even higher into the cooler atmosphere, now invoking this cool to say that this cool radiation is not hot enough to emit at a temperature required to cool the surface. The SB-Law is invoked in reverse to justify the added heat below, but the mechanism by which this added heat must exist does not seem well explained. Okay, Earth heats, Earth emits IR radiation, CO2 absorbs IR radiation, CO2 emits radiation, CO2’s emitted radiation slows surface cooling, which raises average height of emission, where outgoing emissions are now cooler, which means outgoing emissions are not “hot enough” to cool what the back radiating cooler atmosphere added to the surface to slow its rate of cooling.
But how exactly does that extra heat come into existence. Okay, the SB-Law says it should exist, but where is it now at the atomic level — how does it exist THERE? This all seems so fabricated and reverse engineered from the top down without a bottom-up justification.
Robert, I use the “ice baking a turkey” scenario just to make a complicated subject easy to understand. Most people have never studied photon absorption/emission, or don’t fully understand thermodynamics. The ice/turkey is easy to understand. When I have tried to explain things in person, I have seen the blank stares when I mention “wavelength”. But, that same individual understands you cannot bake a turkey with ice cubes.
So, use the scenario if it helps, but discard if it confuses you. And, be cautious about playing “devil’s advocate” until you have a firm grasp of the fundamentals.
In your last several paragraphs, you seem to be be mixing some Warmist pseudoscience with your interpretation of how things should be. I got lost. So, let me try to explain what I think you are asking.
A warm surface emits toward a cold surface, and that cold surface emits toward the warm surface. That is “photon emission”, and is based on the temperatures and molecules of the surfaces. The process of emission determines the photon wavelength. The photon is stuck with that wavelength. It does not change. If the photon strikes a surface that is not accepting such a wavelength, the photon gets reflected. So, a photon from the warmer surface will likely be absorbed by the colder surface. But, a photon from the colder surface will like:)ly be reflected by the warmer surface. That is why, in the general case, “cold” cannot warm “hot”.
Again, if I am confusing you, just “erase” memory, and we’ll both deny we ever had this conversation!
I would just replace “reflected” with “resonates and re-scatters”. A small distinction…almost the same thing. Two photons resonating keep the same wavelength and only would increase in amplitude in their combined energy. Only higher frequency equates to higher temperature.
Thanks for the improved clarity, Joseph.
It occurs to me that you could do another video just on IR. The topic is so often misunderstood, yet important to understanding the AGW hoax.
Too often I see:
“IR is heat”
“All IR must be absorbed”
“IR Watts add to (are the same as) solar”
From the text on Kirchoff’s radiation laws. Why photons don’t always get absorbed (told you I needed to go study!) in regards to the conversation with Robert Kernodle:
“the n=1 level is called the “ground state” of the atom.
if an electron in one of the energy levels is hit by light, it can absorb a photon IF that photon has an energy precisely equal to the energy difference between the electron’s initial energy level and some higher energy level, or if the photon has an energy greater than the energy difference between the electron’s initial level and the n=infinity energy level. In this last case, if the photon is absorbed, the electron is knocked out of the atom—that is, the atom is “ionized”.
IMPORTANT POINT: since the different energy levels are discretely spaced, some photons will not have precisely the right amount of energy to cause the electron to jump to another level. Those photons are not absorbed by the atom.
An electron in an energy level above the ground state (i.e., with n > 1) can spontaneously emit a photon and jump to a lower energy level. The energy of the emitted photon is precisely the energy difference between the electron’s initial level and final level.
So, atoms emit and absorb photons only at special energies. Remember, each different photon energy corresponds to a different wavelength and frequency (you should review the discussion of wavelength, frequency, and energy in chapter 6).”
First sentence of the last paragraph being the pertinent one to highlight for alarmists when they start blabbing on about photons.
It didn’t keep the paragraph structure when I copied and pasted the text. This is the important sentence “So, atoms emit and absorb photons only at special energies.”
Yes…thats for what’s called “spectral” emission and absorption and pertains to individual atoms. Thermal emissions are generally called “continuous” particularly for BB’s, as such emission occurs over a wide range of continuous wavelengths, as opposed to specific wavelengths as with spectral emission. You need many more than a single atom together to generate continuous emission, such as a surface or gas.
Actually, geran (and Joseph), I think I get it. This is very helpful.
Let’s see whether I have it straight now: Photons from cooler atmosphere radiate towards warmer surface, as photons from warmer surface radiate towards cooler atmosphere. Photons from cooler atmosphere encountering photons from warmer surface can only resonate with the warmer-surface photons, because cooler-atmosphere photons have no higher energy to add to warmer-surface photons. Photons from warmer surface encountering photons from cooler atmosphere DO have higher energy to add, and so the cooler-atmosphere photons get a boost from the warmer surface photons (leading to warming).
I quickly scanned the replies following my earlier post, and so I will go back now to read them more slowly to see how badly I might have screwed up. (^_^) I was having an aha moment, and so I had to get to the verbalization of it, before I forgot.
Thanks a bunch to all for the clarification. … more crust of my ignorance chipped away here, revealing the more refined form underneath (I hope).
It’s not the photons that get a boost. It’s the matter emitting them. Photons don’t interact with themselves that way, but they do with matter. So you have it with this correction.
Okay, Joseph, thanks for the clarity on that detail.
So, I should have written, “Photons from the warmer surface encountering photons from the cooler atmosphere DO have higher energy to add, and so the cooler-atmosphere gets a boost from the warmer surface photons (leading to warming).”
One further detail question:
When the cooler-atmosphere photons encounter the warmer-surface photons, is it correct to say that the resonance there is the cause of subsequent scattering? — and is it the cooler-atmosphere photons that are being “scattered”? — and does this happen over and over again?
The cooler-atmosphere photons can only be scattered, right?, which seems like being pushed back out, away from the warmer-surface photons towards the less energetic (cool?) end of the radiation gradient.
Forgive my density or slowness on this. I’m trying to get it straight, as I evolve further from being wishy washy about believing in a radiative atmospheric heating effect to finally becoming a convert and saying that even this is bunk — a dragon-slayer convert? (^_^) … oh no, if WUWT sees these posts, then they might never allow another one of my comments over there — I’m aware of the adversarial relationship between you and the founder of that blog. … refreshing to be able to ask these questions over here.
Just so you know, five or so years ago, I was a CO2-human-caused-catastrophic-global-warming believer, but after a series of online interchanges with a very smart guy, I slowly evolved to see this alarmism as absurd, and I started looking seriously at counter arguments. I’ve also watched as the “Dragon Slayers”‘s names have been smeared by a larger group of skeptics. It’s interesting how there are factions of skepticism just as vehemently opposed to one another as an alarmist is opposed to a lukewarmer.
I am firmly in agreement with you about completely eliminating any mention of “greenhouse” from the discussion of atmospheric temperature regulation of the Earth. Not doing so is equivalent to two adults seriously talking about the “Santa Clause” effect of giving a gift at Christmas, fully knowing that Santa is a myth, but childishly holding onto the name and redefining it to mean something else, all the while emotionally tethered to its original meaning. Why fabricate this potential for confusion and risk propagating this confusion based on emotional attachments that impede rational thinking?
Very great to read about your development and I absolutely agree with and love the Santa Clause analogy. Yes…when I notice people not asking the questions I know that they are capable of asking, then things devolve from there and to me it is now apparent that WUWT and his type of people are very carefully controlled shills. With them it ends up in the Santa Clause argument because they never ask the devastating questions…and that must be on purpose, to keep people arguing about meaningless things when you could just reject Santa Clause outright.
Yes…resonance and scattering goes together. The warmer surface is already vibrating at the frequencies of the cooler surface’s longer-wavelength photons, hence the cooler surface’s longer-wavelength photons cannot induce any additional higher frequency vibrations (and hence higher temperature) of the warmer surface.
Might we say, “The cooler-surface photons merely join the dance, without adding any more steps”?
… trying to find plain-language analogies to create “aha moments” for others. The words, “resonance” and “scattering”, helped do the trick for me.
A recent insight I got was that outer space in the vicinity of Earth is BOTH extremely hot and extremely cold, depending on whether you are in shadow or in sun. So, it would make sense that Earth’s atmosphere BOTH cools AND warms the surface, which is another way of saying that Earth’s atmosphere REGULATES surface temperature within the habitable range familiar to us.
It would be very educational to discuss this regulating effect of the atmosphere, rather than discussing ONLY the warming effect. I’m not sure where to begin, other than to pose the question: “How does Earth’s atmosphere warm the surface?” Maybe that’s another thread topic.
If you have time, then how would you answer this question? And others, please chime in. After this question, we might ask, “How does Earth’s atmosphere cool the surface?” or maybe, the all-inclusive question, “How does Earth’s atmosphere REGULATE surface temperature of the planet?”
Maybe you have covered this elsewhere, but I’m a newbie here, and so I’m not sure where to find it.
Thanks once again for all the clarifications.
Well, I try to refer to the actual physics and mechanisms because analogies can be distorted and abused…as we have seen with the RGHE and climate alarm.
You have to be careful about saying that the atmosphere warms the surface. The atmosphere is generally cooler than the surface and so in general cannot warm it. Also generally, the cooler atmosphere cools the surface since when the surface is hot from sunshine falling on it the cooler air convects upon the surface and thus removes thermal energy from it. The atmosphere is simply part of the system, adding mass.
The really significant temperature regulation factor isn’t “atmosphere”, but H2O in its various phases. Due to H2O’s latent heat phases. The latent heat in ice, water, and water vapour has a tremendous temperature regulating effect because latent transition between these phases allows for a tremendous amount of heat energy to either be absorbed or emitted but without requiring or causing a change in temperature. It is the latent heat phases in H2O which keeps things both warmer and cooler, and without those latent regions things would simply maximally heat and maximally cool like any plain old material. With the latent heat regions in H2O, a tremendous amount of thermal energy can be either absorbed or emitted without any change in temperature.
Okay, I can respect your cautionary approach with analogies.
And your comments, “You have to be careful about saying that the atmosphere warms the surface. The atmosphere is generally cooler than the surface and so in general cannot warm it,” … causes a realignment of my thoughts in a good way. You’re positively correct — how can a cooler atmosphere warm the surface? So, what does the atmosphere do? — is it accurate to say that the atmosphere regulates the surface temperature?, as I suggested earlier?
A lot of people, I guess, are talking about this whole thing all wrong. l myself, apparently, have been thinking about the generality of it all wrong. How do you tell somebody that the atmosphere does NOT warm the planet without them looking at you like you have two heads? (^_^) (^_^)
The fundamental popular conception seems wrong, which, of course, is no surprise to you. I’m trying, then, to home in on the proper non-mathematical language to describe exactly what it is that the atmosphere does to maintain the temperature range that it does.
I’ll read your last comment again.
I’ve been reflecting further and reading a few articles that are giving a boost to my perspective.
Here’s what I’m thinking now: The atmosphere, as you said, adds mass. We have the solid mass of land, the liquid mass of water, and the gaseous mass of air. We have the sun shinning on all this mass, putting energy into it all. Now the system, as a whole, is DISTRIBUTING this solar energy, right? And this “distribution” of energy must abide by certain “laws” of physics. One of the outcomes of this “distribution” of energy is a certain temperature profile that enables life as we know it.
To speak of “warming” and “cooling” might be less desirable than speaking of “energy distribution”, but this involves a whole change of vocabulary in popular descriptions.
I feel that I know nothing now. (^_^) I’ve got to learn to speak all over again in a different tongue.
Robert inquires: “I’m trying, then, to home in on the proper non-mathematical language to describe exactly what it is that the atmosphere does to maintain the temperature range that it does.”
Robert, think of it this way:
The Sun provides energy to the planet. After albedo is accounted for, the solar energy impacts the surface (both land and water). The surface warms the atmosphere. As the atmosphere warms, it emits more energy to space. The fundamental laws of physics govern evaporation, condensation, expansion of the atmosphere, and emission of photons to space.
The Sun heats the planet. The atmosphere cools the planet.
That’s about as simple as you can make it.
This discussion has revealed to me that my former (and many people’s current) foundational, visceral sense of the earth and atmosphere has been more primitive than I was aware. This foundational, visceral sense, as I call it, goes much deeper than a greenhouse metaphor. More pervasively, it relates to a feel for Earth and atmosphere as a sort of house in general, with a roof — the sky — that keeps the heat in. It’s like the ancient idea of the Earth’s being encased in successive solid spheres, on which stars and planets were attached.
This is how the human body relates to the perception of ground and sky. It’s a bodily thing, and this “bodily thing” constrains how we are willing to think. I am reminded of a book that I read years ago — PHILOSOPHY IN THE FLESH: The Embodied Mind And Its Challenge To Western Thought by George Lakoff and Mark Johnson. In this book, the authors note that “abstract concepts are largely metaphorical.” The authors’ basic thesis is that the way humans are wired requires that we create mataphors to relate our bodies to the surrounding world. A sample chapter is here: http://www.ics.uci.edu/~redmiles/ics203b-SQ05/papers/Lakoff1999Chapter3.pdf
I believe that these metaphors that we use in everyday life are similar to science, in that we can improve upon them as we evolve. Just as a giant turtle holding up Earth can be replaced by modern space-time, a green house can be replaced by a better metaphor to reflect our better state of mental development.
My original positing that “the atmosphere warms the surface”, thus, came from this foundational sense of a vault overhead that keeps in the heat. This is a very ingrained thing, not really conscious, until you make it so. This unconscious sense is what I think keeps people going around in circles of confusion. The confusion is also furthered by how people conflate their own individual sense of “surface” with their own individual sense of “atmosphere”.
For example, I think when some people say, “surface”, they might mean the lower troposhpere, but how high up? — ten feet from the ground? … ten hundred feet? … they themselves are confused and do not even know it, because they have only a nebulous feel for the surface and the ground as a big house ground-floor with a big roof top.
These visceral, bodily senses of things are feeding a certain physical comfort level, and the rationale created over these to explain things reinforces this physical comfort. Consequently, when foundational concepts are questioned, physical comfort gets disturbed. The old metaphors are crumbling, and this is uncomfortable, which causes a survival reaction to try to save them.
When I spoke earlier about the “atmosphere warming the surface”, I did not know what I was talking about, because, even then, I was stuck in my old visceral feel and nebulous sense of what “surface” means. These things are insidiously ingrained at an unconscious level, and it takes some digging to get at them.
I hope that I am now straight in believing that it is the surface (i.e., ground, ocean) that warms the atmosphere (ALL of it in bulk, NOT just CO2 which magically bounces the heat back), and it is the MOVEMENT of the atmosphere in BULK that distributes this warmth, where H20 primarily and CO2 minimally help orchestrate the cooling to an extent that the heat build up is not inhospitable to life. Further, the nitrogen/oxygen/etc. greater mass of the atmosphere, with its lower emissivity, is what retains the heat that is retained.
In other words, the greater atmosphere might better be thought of as the medium that keeps a certain amount of heat close to the ground/water “surface” where living things thrive. H20 and CO2 just help regulate the COOLING and heat distribution, yes? … no?
“troposhpere” = “troposphere”
I’ve been thinking a bit more on the selective surfaces issue and I’m not convinced that a surface can be warmed by radiant heat transfer to a higher temperature than the blackbody absorption calculation for the energy per unit of surface area. My opponent has gone silent since I suggested that his device was using concentration of sunlight not absorption/emission differentials to get the high temperatures he was claiming and I can find no examples of any object being induced to naturally warm above 90C with direct sunlight at the earth’s surface. I also can’t find any devices on spacecraft used to maximise solar heating that are capable of warming to temperatures over 120C whilst in orbit. So until someone can show me a physical device that specifically warms a surface to a higher temperature than BB temperature, this remains the maximum attainable in my mind.
Thinking on the theory side, I would suggest than an object cannot emit before the energy has first been absorbed and once absorbed frequencies are stepped down to correspond to the object’s temperature and are no longer that of the original heat source. Entropy cannot be reversed and so even if this energy is transferred to a substance with lower emissivity, the maximum flux cannot exceed that of absorbing object.
So the best that a low emissivity surface should be able to do is bring a larger surface area that is not directly receiving a radiant heat shining upon it closer to the temperature of the surface that has. To give an example: if I have a cube of 1m^3 in size orbiting the earth and just one side is receiving direct sunlight which has 100% absorption, then I would expect it to get to 120C (approx) on one side, but be significantly cooler on the other sides as the 1350W/m2 is emitted from five sides over 5m^2. However, if the emissivity of the dark sides of the cube are much lower than 1 I can increase the temperature of the 5 dark sides to emit the same 1350W/m2, thus having a much warmer cube overall. But under no circumstances should lowering the emissivity enable me to get a temperature on the cube any higher than the 120C blackbody temperature.
At least that is my contention. If I am wrong I would need to see an experiment or device that demonstrates it.
Robert K and Wicked, this might help you in understanding the heat flux in our troposphere. https://climateofsophistry.com/2016/04/06/the-hydro-flask-challenge-to-anthropogenic-climate-change/
Read it already. It was because I had read it already that I was having confusion about hotter than BB temperatures of source energy being possible to be emitted from low emissivity absorbing objects.
As I said in the previous comment, if someone can show me a device that can become hotter than the BB temperature of the sun’s energy (measured in W/m2) by using nothing other than manipulation of an objects absorptivity/emissivity discrepancy then please show it to me, because I won’t be convinced it’s possible until you do.
I’ll take a look at that link you provided.
In the meantime, if Joseph is tuned in:
If you are not too busy to spend any more time on this, …I still do not have the level of clarity in my thoughts that I would like to have regarding resonance and scattering of photons coming from Earth’s cooler atmosphere to Earth’s surface (ground and oceans).
In your article, A DISCUSSION ON THE ABSENCE OF A MEASUREABLE GREENHOUSE EFFECT … http://principia-scientific.org/publications/Absence_Measureable_Greenhouse_Effect.pdf …, on page 47, you list a long quote from Doug Cotton, describing radiation between two Planck curves. Within this quote, we find the sentence, “Yes, the radiative rate of cooling will be affected, because the scattered radiation is really a part of the quota of radiation which the warmer body can radiate, so it doesn’t use up its own thermal energy for that part.”
Now, in your summary statements at the end of the article, you plainly state, (1) “Backradiation neither causes active heating, nor slowed cooling , at the surface.” You then relate this to Claes Johnson’s work, stating, (2) “Given Claes Johnson’s description of radiative heat transfer, radiation from a colder ambient radiative environment should slow down the rate of cooling, and we agree with that.” This in confusing in several respects: First, because sentence #2 seems to contradict sentence #1, and second, from the little effort I’ve spent struggling through Claes’ very interesting writings, I seem to detect that he denies the existence of backradiation altogether.
I haven’t determined whether Claes merely disagrees with calling those photons by that name or whether he is also denying the existence of those photons given that popular name.
I see that you go on to adamantly clarify that “slowed cooling” does NOT mean “higher temperature.” I always wondered how could it possibly mean this. How could a time difference increase temperature, even if this is the claim now being made by warmists?
Can you try to clear all this up a bit? … again, if you have time. Again, are those two sentences contradictory, and what does Claes mean by saying that backradiation does not exist in his own writings on the subject?
“More pervasively, it relates to a feel for Earth and atmosphere as a sort of house in general, with a roof — the sky — that keeps the heat in. It’s like the ancient idea of the Earth’s being encased in successive solid spheres, on which stars and planets were attached.”
It also connects to an old spiritual Gnostic idea that we are souls of light trapped in matter on Earth, and that we must become more Godly (higher temperature, more light) in order to escape. In general though it promotes some idea that there is something over us that is trapping things inside. Human activity is then trapping more things inside, and this is bad, etc.
“For example, I think when some people say, “surface”, they might mean the lower troposhpere, but how high up?”
Yes that is another point of obfuscation and sophistry with climate alarm temperatures. The actual physical ground temperature is not measured, and it is not known. The measurements are from about 5 feet above the surface, and so are near-surface-air temperatures. At this point you must note that this is a measurement of only the warmest part of the troposphere (its bottom) and therefore does not represent the troposphere or an average troposphere at all. The average troposphere actually has a temperature of around -18C, and at that point there is no need for a RGHE. Isn’t it amazing that they get away with overlooking such facts?
“In other words, the greater atmosphere might better be thought of as the medium that keeps a certain amount of heat close to the ground”
Sure, it is a medium and of course it holds thermal energy, and indeed holds some of it close to the ground. Now we must also consider Nikolov & Zeller’s work and also our own previous work where we point out that gravity has something to do with keeping the bottom of the troposphere warmer than the rest…that gravity sets up the temperature distribution in the troposphere. The bottom of the troposphere has to be warmer than the average troposphere, and the average troposphere seems to be about -18C.
“At least that is my contention. If I am wrong I would need to see an experiment or device that demonstrates it.”
Yes, as with the discussion about the element, although a distant surface may become warmer than the equivalent BB temperature for the given flux at that distance, such a surface would not become warmer than the element. And I think that, given Kirchoff’s Law, if it did approach the temperature of the element then Kirchoff’s Law would begin to apply and hence would limit the maximum temperature of the second surface to be equal to the filament.
So yes, note the distinction that the distant surface can become warmer than the equivalent BB temperature of the source flux at that distance, but not warmer than the temperature of the source itself.
Yes, Doug Cotton was some form of insane person who at first got in with us saying reasonable things, but then once he was associated with us started going quite crazy and being quite ridiculous and generally annoying the hell out of everybody with new crank theories which none of us supported. We then soon distanced ourselves and broke-off communication with him…only to have him to go absolutely insane stalker creeper style, pretending to be other people, pretending to be new people, pretending to be a bunch of people that supported him, etc.
Yes, I cannot guarantee that everything is 100% perfectly edited and written out in the past. Just can’t do it. Now, for:
(1) “Backradiation neither causes active heating, nor slowed cooling , at the surface.”
I think I said that it doesn’t actually demonstrate slowed cooling at the surface because of the empirical measurement discussed in that text. I think I showed that some theoretical drop in temperature would be expected from pure radiative loss alone, but that the actual near-surface air temperature dropped by ten-times the amount calculated by theory.
So then I said:
(2) “Given Claes Johnson’s description of radiative heat transfer, radiation from a colder ambient radiative environment should slow down the rate of cooling, and we agree with that.”
And so the caveat being that while we agree with that, it wasn’t measured, implying that there is a non-radiative cooling going on from the atmosphere on the surface.
Claes denies backradiation in the important sense: that it can cause temperature increase on where it came from. The most important part is that he denies the function to which alarmists and RGHE believers ascribe to it. That is all well and good. The lying liars sophistry then comes in and demands that we cannot deny the existence of backradiation: Denying the existence of backradiation is not the issue – it is refuting the function ascribed to it which is important! Denying the function ascribed to it by the RGHE believers does not mean denying backradiation, and the distinction is superfluous in any case! This why I refer to the radiant heat flow equation Q = F1 – F2; no radiation is being denied by us AT ALL!! None. The equation fully acknowledges ALL radiation. But the equation also says that the radiation from the cooler source directed at the warmer source can not warm the warmer source. That does not equate to denying any radiation, but it does equate to them ignoring the heat flow equation with their insistence that the radiation from the cooler source must heat the warmer one too.
It is why ice crystals that fall of thrust’s or leave the shuttle bay ”fizz” when they are exposed to sunlight, they spin or tumble freezing on the dark side, whilst gassing out on the lit side, the gassing is propulsive and can make out of focus little things look like big things at a distance manoeuvring strangely.
I’m pretty sure it is the only way ice can get behind the shuttle. shadow and force.
Otherwise ice drops down and in-front, like anything else falling of a shuttle, and dropping slowly into a tighter orbit., same speed same orbit but tighter circle.
Janes defence weekly all through my 20s, little bits stuck, no drag, where theres virtually zero molecules/atoms.
Watch those ice crystals dance depending on shape, along their parabolic arc as gravity is weak but instant.
Gary Ashe, was that red or white wine?
(I want some!)
Robert says: “In other words, the greater atmosphere might better be thought of as the medium that keeps a certain amount of heat close to the ground/water “surface” where living things thrive.”
Robert, the atmosphere does not keep “a certain amount of heat close”. That is the indoctrination that you have rejected. The atmosphere does not, in any way, “trap heat”.
Think of it the way: The atmosphere is a thermostatically controlled heat transfer system.
“So yes, note the distinction that the distant surface can become warmer than the equivalent BB temperature of the source flux at that distance.”
Ok, I’m not much one for trust and faith anymore. I used to like and trust Al Gore and look how that turned out! So, having learned my lessons in life the hard way, can you show me a device or recorded experiment where this is achieved? If such results have been achieved with the sun’s energy then even better.
I don’t know about spanners being heated by the Sun as I’m from Scotland. I use stainless steel and anodised pots to explain emissivity.
A stainless steel pot is shiny and has low emissivity. When placed on a gas burner the pot quickly gets hot where it is in contact with the flame, you can actually see this if you are boiling water where the bubbles appear in a ring on the base of the pot or if you are heating soup and haven’t stirred it there will be a ring of burnt soup on the base of the pot. This is because the poor emissivity extends to energy being transfered throughout the pot.
An anodised pot is dark and has high emissivity. When placed on a gas burner it will take longer for water to look like it is boiling as the internal transfer of energy is faster and the whole pot will heat up with less difference between the base where it is hottest and the rest of the pot. When boiling water the bubbles do not appear in a ring but rather from the whole of the base and it will take longer for soup to burn to the bottom of the pot and it will generally be spread over the whole of the base.
When removed from the heat the anodised pot will rapidly cool and you can touch it without burning yourself within 60 seconds or so, the stainless steel pot will take a lot longer to cool.
It would be interesting to see if the underside of the shiny spanner is as hot to the touch as the sunward side as it takes longer for the whole shiny spanner to achieve thermal equilibrium in response to localised heating.
If the mass of the atmosphere has heat capacity, then how can it NOT hold heat close to the Earth’s surface? If Nitrogen and Oxygen have less emissivity than CO2, and this limits how much cooling it can achieve, then where is the heat that the atmosphere’s heating capacity holds, if not close to Earth’s surface?
I was not aware of the Doug Cotton rift.
Again, bottom-line question: Does radiation from Earth’s cooler atmosphere, in any way, affect the rate of radiation from Earth’s warmer surface?
What does “resonance” mean? It’s an interaction, right? Does the interaction require time to happen? What is the the atom doing within which the photon from the cooler atmosphere is resonating? Is there a delay between its encounter, resonating, and scattering? — it’s not instantaneous is it? So, isn’t some time being used up to “handle” that cooler-atmosphere photon?
I totally get that photons from the cooler atmosphere cannot add heat to Earth’s surface. That’s a dead horse. But the slowed-cooling idea still seems viable, and even though I don’t believe the argument, and I do not see how a time difference could “add heat”, still I do not feel that I have the ammunition to dispose of the argument, and that’s what I’m looking for.
If that argument can be soundly disposed of, then I can rest more assured that the CO2 GHE is a dead idea. I can finally say “rest In peace, oh holy one. (^_^)
Just to clarify,
I was not saying, “keeping a certain amount of heat close to the surface” in a static way.
I know that it is a dynamic process, but there is a sort of stability, isn’t there? There is flow of something in and flow of something out, … and between the in and out, there is a maintained quantity, … as with a funnel, say, where you keep pouring liquid into the large end, and it keeps flowing out the small end, but still in the hollow between large end and small end, a pool of liquid maintains its presence.
Indeed! Agree with your attitude about things.
This used to be easy to find but Googling for it now doesn’t turn up precisely what I want.
In this document they explain the absorptivity over emissivity issue and list the ratio for some materials, but they don’t show actual temperature numbers. Here is another document directly from NASA this time.
Hope that helps.
@RK I think Geran was focusing more on the “trapping heat” concept since that’s the usual context given the RGHE. Being familiar with Geran’s knowledge set, I am sure that he knows and agrees that the atmosphere holds thermal energy.
“Does radiation from Earth’s cooler atmosphere, in any way, affect the rate of radiation from Earth’s warmer surface?”
The rate of radiation from a surface is given by the Stefan-Boltzmann Law, which has a term for emissivity. F = e*sigma*T4. For a blackbody e = 1 and so is left out when discussing BB’s. Radiation from the cooler atmosphere does not affect the surface’s emissivity because the surface’s emissivity is due to its own physical properties. And so, no, radiation from the cooler atmosphere does not affect the rate of radiation of Earth’s surface.
Resonance: Of course it requires some minuscule time to happen. Less than nanoseconds probably. The atom is thermally vibrating along with the photon. No, the time required does not mean that energy is being trapped or more heat is added etc; the cooler-source photons can’t bump up the energy of the warmer-surface atoms because they don’t have a higher frequency set than the atoms.
Now as far as the Earth’s atmosphere goes and its rate of cooling, you should go back and understand that section of the paper you referenced where I discuss that. The calculation was simple: Given the average radiation rate out of a column of atmosphere, you can calculate that the entire column should drop by about 1 Kelvin over night. What is found empirically is that most of the column remains quite stable in temperature over night, and most of the cooling of the atmospheric column occurs only in its bottom-most region and by about ~10 Kelvin. And so, cooling near the surface is somehow enhanced, NOT “slowed” from a backradiation RGH effect. Slowed cooling doesn’t exist empirically, and in any case, everything radiates at the rate given by its emissivity and temperature and such radiation cannot be stopped!
Also, as said earlier, Nikolov and Zeller (and our own previous work but N & K have really fundamentally mathematically proven it and have shown the full empirical support for it) have proven that gravity is somehow the factor that makes the bottom of the atmosphere the warmest part of the atmosphere. There is no need for slowed cooling or a RGHE heating, etc., anymore at all. It has been fully refuted.
The evidence has quite literally been staring me in the face, Joseph. Your links didn’t give me the evidence from the devices shown, but one of them said “the surface of the moon reaches temperatures close to 130C. I had up until here read top temperatures of around 120C which fit with 100% absorption BB.
As all the Kiehl Trenberth diagrams treated all absorbing surfaces as BB for their temperatures I had always used emissivity as 1 when typing values into this excellent Stefan Boltzmann calculator
But type in the moon with 1365W/m2 with 1m2 surface area and an albedo/emissivity of 0.92 and, hey presto!, 130C is the answer.
So right infront of my nose there is empirical evidence just waiting for me to take notice of.
So that’s settled once and for all.
Still, as far as I’m aware, temperatures far exceeding BB calculations haven’t been achieved. The question of how hot can a substance be directly heated by the sun at this distance from it remains? When I look at low emissivity substances 0.02 is the lowest I’ve seen, which for 1365W/m2 gives a temperature of over 1000K. As you said earlier, as an object gets hotter its emissivity increases, so 0.02 would rise and a lower maximum would be reality. But I am not aware of any observations on earth of temperatures over 100C being observed naturally. So a conundrum for me and I’m really struggling to find any Google Search satisfaction.
Okay, thanks, Joseph.
I am familiar with Nikolov and Zeller’s work, and I am particularly impressed by Nikolov’s ability to confront his critics in various blogs, where people try to dismantle his work, to the extent of nit picking details of his math — he always seems to answer their nitpicking and to hold his ground.
What I find amazing is that people can attribute the power of controlling Earth’s heat transport to one atmospheric molecule per 2500 other atmospheric molecules, and yet these same people balk at the idea that the most pervasive force in the universe influences the temperature of a planet.
A mass of gas stacked up has pressure, which “mushes” [note deft use of science terminology (^_^)] air molecules closer together near Earth’s surface, right? If these air molecules gain heat energy from Earth’s surface, then their close proximity (due to gravity-induced pressure), means that they smack into one another more frequently down near the ground, compared to up higher in the atmosphere. Just intuitively, it seems like there would be much more energy within a mass of “gravity-mushed” molecules than in a mass of spaced out molecules. Without gravity, this sort of mushing together and spacing out of air molecules (from ground level to high up) would not exist.
And it seems like this little one-in-twenty-five-hundred CO2 molecules would mostly go along for the ride in a greater fluid-dynamically active mass that would reduce radiatiive heating from CO2 (even if it existed) to insignificance. Even accepting the argument of CO2 radiative heating, I just would not see the CO2 GHE as anything substantially real, and certainly nothing substantially real to fear as a catastrophic controller of climate tipping points.
So, the GHE is either so insignificant as to be unreal, or it is, at its conceptual base, unreal. Either way, it seems dead to me now.
Yes WW good point, emissivity would increase and then the temperature would likely stop rising before it got to such a warm temperature. Of course with lenses and mirrors you can concentrate sunlight to undue its 1/r^2 dilution from our distance to the Sun, and you can get really high temperatures that way, and this is fine.
Maybe try one of the identified substances from those documents which show high absorptivity and low emissivity. Gold seems to be a good one. Anyone have a 0.999 gold coin to sit in the sun?
RK: “What I find amazing is that people can attribute the power of controlling Earth’s heat transport to one atmospheric molecule per 2500 other atmospheric molecules, and yet these same people balk at the idea that the most pervasive force in the universe influences the temperature of a planet.”
Hah, good one.
Indeed, the RGHE is simply NOT REAL. It does not exist. There are any number of reasons for why it doesn’t exist – originates with a flat Earth, dilutes sunshine over both day and night, measures temperature only at the warmest part of the troposphere not the average troposphere, reverses heat flow and violates thermodynamics, its models have been refuted empirically over the last 20 years, violates the physics of emissivity, etc etc etc.
You must grow tired of discussing this over and over again, every time some newbie who does not know it comes a long.
I just found the following in your post about equations of transfer:
“Now, “the claim is that back radiation may slow down the rate of cooling” is actually meaningless. Slowing down the rate of cooling does not equate to a temperature increase for the thing not cooling as fast. Did you know that the rate of cooling in thermal equilibrium is actually as slow as it is possible to be? At zero. If in thermal equilibrium there is no cooling whatsoever, because the rate of cooling is zero, then does that mean that the thing not doing any cooling at all, even though energy is still coming into it from some source, would indefinitely rise in temperature?”
… guess I should have scoured your blog, before I tried to make you regurgitate all this again.
Thanks for your patience.
Well…can’t be expected that people scour all of the best or relevant posts etc. What I see other providers do is to simply keep posting articles in some rotation on the same fundamental issues, and that way new people get up to speed relatively quickly. Maybe I’ll do that…lol.
But yes that’s a great quote. I forgot about it. Cooing is ZERO in thermal equilibrium! Yet the objects in thermal equilibrium are still radiating all of the energy they should be. They’re not gaining or losing any heat at all, but they are nevertheless radiating energy.
In thermal equilibrium Q = 0 but Q = F2 – F1. The F’s are still there, but cooling/heating equals 0.
Rate of heating or cooling is not a conserved quantity. Heat is not a conserved quantity.
Found a simpler proof. The surface of the moon. 130C maximum temperature. 0.92 emissivity. 1365W/m2. Kind of staring me in the face this whole time.
I am now wondering why metals don’t get much hotter. I’ve read that silver has an emissivity of 0.02. Even though this would drop as temperature rose, Im wondering why natural heating of substances don’t achieve temperatures of +200C?
This subject has really ignited my curiosity.
I have found this tool very useful for playing around with the mathematics without having to be too competent in it.
I’m back here again.
I want to make sure that I understand something:
Standard “greenhouse theory” uses the radiant temperature of Earth as measured in space and compares this to the average global air/ocean near-surface temperature to say that there is a difference caused by the Greenhouse effect making the near-surface air-ocean temp. greater than the space-measured radiant temp. — is this correct?
If this is true, then isn’t the average, near-surface, air-ocean temp. a component of the system that generates the radiant temp. measured in space? — and how could anyone then maintain that the temperature of Earth has risen, when the radiant temperature has NOT risen? I mean, have “greenhouse gases” — CAN “greenhouse gases” — raise the radiant temp. of Earth?. If no, then the Earth is NOT “warming” in any unusual way, and it WILL not warm in any unusual way, past the limit established by the solar input that determines equilibrium temperature.
If I have this straight, then emissivity be damned (^_^) — a major contention of the … “theory” has just been shot to hell by conflating totally different standards of measuring a planet’s temperature.
This is what Joe’s paper that I’ve been reading seems to be saying, … again, if I’ve got it straight.
If I’ve got it wrong, then apologies, and delete this post to prevent my smearing of the understanding. Screw ups are parts of learning, and so I can handle it, I promise.
Yes that is correct. Where “the radiant temperature of Earth as measured in space” is given by the expected energy output of Earth given energetic equilibrium with the Sun and conservation of energy, converted to a blackbody temperature.
Yes, the near-surface is of course a component of the system from which radiant energy emerges and leaves to space.
Precisely. As I have said in my one presentation and probably written somewhere, once you start with a bad premise then the only things that will be generated and the only things that will be created to support it are likewise illogical. Logical rational reality only has one way of being…only one truth. A lie or fraud can have any number of associated or subsequent lies and frauds to support it. Once you start actually thinking about things, logical contradictions and violations of physics will and can be found everywhere…particularly in the climate alarmist example.
But yes, if temperature has risen, then you need to be able to see that from outside! You have to be able to measure that temperature has risen which means that more energy is output than was before. However, since the Sun is constant, then that means that the Earth would be outputting more energy than is still coming in, and hence we have a contradiction of the 1st Law…conservation of energy. You can’t raise the temperature and then say that this doesn’t produce the increased radiation it has to by the Stefan-Boltzmann Law! They try to get around this by saying that while the near-surface air increases in temperature, the top-of-atmosphere decreases in temperature, and I guess this means that the blackbody temperature or net radiation stays the same. Bullocks of course. The system interacts with itself and exchanges heat with itself spontaneously as heat does…if you increase the temperature at the end of a rod of metal, the other end of the metal rod doesn’t become cooler! If you increase the temperature at the bottom of the atmospheric column, that increase will propagate through the rest of the column!
Do you begin to understand? Do you see how a lie works? It is 100% lie. To support a lie requires 100% other lies. Not partial truth, but 100% other lies. It is all the biggest lie of all time.
Exactly – do they actually add more energy input? Do they add energy? You have to add more energy if you want more energy to come out. You have to add more energy if you want temperature to increase. Answers: No, they do not add energy, of course not. And 2) Then they go to “delay cooling at night” argument, but delayed cooling at night wouldn’t explain getting above the -18C input of their RGHE greenhouse models…it would only explain not dropping away from -18C as fast at night.
These people are consummate liars. They are goblin lying Mordor filth.
Indeed. The Sun and apparently its magnetic activity is what governs the boundary conditions. Internally, the system is extremely highly, in fact utterly maximally damped (in the mechanical/thermodynamic response sense, no pun intended) due to the presence of H2O.
Sure, emissivity be damned, etc etc etc. In fact, you can either focus upon one thing and say that this is what damns it…or, we can say that all of these things go together and damn it in totality because a lie has any number of approach vectors which expose it. In myriad of ways in totality and in particulars, it is a total 100% lie in contradiction to physics, reality, logic, life, etc.!
They try to get around this by saying that while the near-surface air increases in temperature, the top-of-atmosphere decreases in temperature, and I guess this means that the blackbody temperature or net radiation stays the same.
Even so, this would seem to make no difference at all in the severity of the conflation of temperature metrics. All they have done is take one layer of the conflated metric, compared it to another layer of the conflated metric, then use the difference of the conflated-metric layers to compare to the erroneously associated metric with which they are conflating BOTH layers to derive a result based on erroneous conflation [I love that word, “conflation”]. If the metric is wrong, then categorizing it into different parts does not somehow magically make using it convert to right [except in the minds of those apparently doing this].
Do you begin to understand?…
Begin? This is like a tidal-wave of insight — I’m drowning in understanding now, and I’m a pretty strong swimmer.
These people are consummate liars.
I do not believe that they are intentionally, knowledgeably, lying to those to whom they speak this “logic”. I think, first, they are lying to themselves, and this self-lying gets amplified to look like projected, intentional lying to their audiences of viewers or listeners. In this sense, they are negligent more than they are liars, but, as in law I think, negligence in knowing a fact that a reasonably intelligent person should know or be able to deduce, is a soft form of fraud. Hence, these people are frauds, I’d say. They have not taken the time to think through the most basic things.
This is one reason that I aborted my mathematics ambitions. I saw my fellow students mechanically churning out the answers, seemingly without knowing what they were really doing, and I could not do that — I needed to know what I was doing at an axiomatic level, and universities didn’t seem to be geared for that slow pace and great depth of “knowing”. Maybe I judged to soon.
. . . a lie has any number of approach vectors which expose it.
I’ll choose the word, “error” to substitute into that phrase, in order to appear less confrontational [Kernodle, you wimp!]. But I really, … really like the idea of “vector” used there. Errors can get multiplied by and encased in one another to the point that erroneous thinking at the axiomatic level becomes the foundational axiom, I’d say.
This has been a very enlightening week, thanks to you.
Yes, as Carl Brehmer has said in his own articles, they measure the warmest part of the atmosphere, the part which we know must be warmest, and then compare that to the expected average temperature and then claim that there is some problem. They’re not comparing apples to apples. They’re comparing the warmest part of the ensemble to the average of the ensemble…but an average is made up of warmer and cooler parts in the whole ensemble! Think of a Gaussian bell-curve for a distribution – there are parts on either side of the average, and they’re supposed to be there! You don’t measure just the 99’th percentile components and then claim that there’s some problem with the distribution because you didn’t find the average there!
Indeed, ignorance is no excuse before the law, so why should it be here? There is some special type of fraud going on…some special type of lying with these people. Gore does it because he’s invested in it…he’s such a dark freak that his logic is the entirety of “I can make money off of people believing in this”. That’s the entire level of ***king retardation entering into this BS! Not that it’s uncommon: people believing in monarchs, gurus, religion, money, etc etc…it all comes down to the full, unabashed stupidity, retardation, and complete idiocy of “I can make money off of people believing in this”. Can you believe that that is the level of stupidity that runs this planet? That’s probably the stupidest ***king way of going about life that is possible. And it’s in charge.
The excuse of course is that it is other people’s fault for believing in it. That’s what the liars say. And this “reasoning” is exactly as retarded and stupid as their initial premise.
No man…look. I’ve been doing this for years. I and an extremely small group of people have been the only ones getting to the true fundamental logic and physics of all of this. While other people are happy to debate “CO2 sensitivity” and claim that “this is the only question” – we have been the only ones to truly examine the premises of the RGHE and we have found that it is based on flat Earth physics, violations of thermodynamics, illogical premises, illogical measurements, meaningless concepts, etc etc. We’ve extended the question to where the analysis naturally leads. It is totally natural to go to re-examining the RGHE when the claims of the RGHE and alarmism are not borne out in empirical measurement and when there are such simple and basic questions to pursue about it. And so to have others refuse to go there is intentional on their part. They refuse to. They actively refuse to. They have physically and financially and socially threatened us so many times for asking “can a flat Earth model really produce actual physics” that it simply became par for the course. It became normal to be threatened this way by Watts and Monckton and Spencer etc. And those were the people who were supposed to be the skeptics! So no…they are intentionally, actively, aggressively refusing to ask certain questions! And they aggressively try to make sure that any by-standers would avoid it. So no…these people are not negligent. They are intentional frauds and shills.
And the academics that support it in universities? Yes, they are negligent, but they are especially the ones who should know and act better of all people. Therefore they’re not just negligent, but actively harmful accessories. It was their responsibility above all to make sure science wasn’t hijacked, but they actively participated in its hijacking! If you actively help the crime but all you’re doing is driving the vehicle for the robbers…you’re still part of the crime and are still just as guilty to the degree of the crime that the robbers commit.
As for young people in university in math/physics…yes I witnessed that too and it disgusted me. In fact it made me not care so much my education anymore. Just a bunch of idiots who didn’t care or even understand the profundity of the undertaking which studying reality should be. It’s the most important thing that a person can possible do yet it’s just treated as if its some Sunday drive to some boring place your parents want to take you. Ruiners…just ***king ruiners who take their existence for granted. Sheep and the goblins who feed on them. Disgusting!
“Errors can get multiplied by and encased in one another to the point that erroneous thinking at the axiomatic level becomes the foundational axiom.”
That’s a profound comment right there. THAT is the human condition. Erroneous thinking at the foundational level…at the very first thought. That is how we’ve been conditioned. That is what the logic of “I can make money off of people believing in this” has gotten us! That is what it has produced and conditioned – a population ripe for believing any lie, for the benefit of those who produce lies so that the liars can make money off of people believing in those lies. Disgusting.
A lie has any number of approach vectors which expose it. Corollary: The truth has only a single approach vector.
I guess I have another level of enlightenment to go before believing that the “lies” are cognizant, intentional “lies”.
I understand your passion, but I choose to be cautious in using condemning words, because if not, then I fear being accused of ad hominem attacks.
In an article entitled, Everything That Is Wrong About The Greenhouse Theory, I could see subtitles that went something like this:
* Perpetuates A False Analogy
* Conflates Temperature Metrics In Mathemagical Calculations
* Violates Thermodynamic Laws No Matter Whether Adding Heat Or Slowing Cooling
* Not Supported By Paleo-Climate Data
* Not Confirmed By Current Temperature Data
* Poses Needles Mechanism To Explain What Exists Without It
* Extremely Distorts The Role Of A 0.04% Atmospheric Gas
* Extremely Underplays The Role Of All Atmospheric Gases As a Whole
* Based On Incorrect Geometry And Imaginary Solar Energy Distribution
I haven’t written it yet, but, as amateur as it might be, I’d like to. I guess I would need a # 10 reason to round it out to an even ten subtitles. Maybe, Adhered To More For Reasons Of Finance Than Reasons Of Science. (^_^)
Or maybe, I would forget writing it, and let YOU write it (or something like it) with your much greater knowledge.
Your list of subtitles would probably be a bit more extensive than my suggested list, however, since you have discovered more “vectors” than me at present.
That’s a great list. Do write!
“Needles” = “Needless”
… although “needles” might work too, since the … “theory” … seems to be a pretty thorny pain in the … well, … you know.
If you are tuned in, then check out my reasoning here for misconceptions:
I’m still trying to develop a description of why the “delayed cooling” claim now put forth to explain the greenhouse theory is flawed.
I’m thinking that the idea of photons arising from the cooler atmosphere slowing the photons arising from the warmer surface sets up a false view of what is actually going on. A photon field does NOT exist instantaneously and independently of the interactions of those cool-surface and warm-surface photons. Rather (I’m thinking), it is those very interactions of cool-surface and warm-surface photons that SET UP the field and establish the field gradient from warm to cool.
The resonance and scattering between the cool-surface and warm-surface photons, together with the associated scattering, … IS the field, NOT separate FROM the field. The resonance and scattering are mechanisms MAINTAINING the field, and any time delay is related to the time of establishing and maintaining that field, since it is NOT instantaneous — it REQUIRES time to exist.
What I think might be the false conception is thinking of the field between cool-atmosphere and warm-surface as somehow INDEPENDENT of the photons traveling from each to create it. The reason that the photon-density gradient exists between cool-atmosphere and warm-surface is because the respective photons are encountering one another, resonating and maintaining that field. Those interactions claimed to “slow cooling”, then are interactions that actually sustain the very differences between the two surfaces under consideration.
Any photons that would “slow cooling”, then would have to be ADDITIONAL photons, which would mean ADDITIONAL HEAT, which would be your Second Law of Thermodynamics violated again.
Even if the photon field WERE instantaneous, and a person conceived of cool photons slowing warm photons, then still I would wonder where in the gradient does the slowing start to occur, and then you would have no choice (no matter where, in the gradient, you started visualizing that slowing) but to to propagate that slowing down to the very top of the warm surface, which would mean you would be changing the emissivity of the warm surface that you used to start the whole calculation, which would induce an endless circular re-setting of the emissivity that would lead to an infinity of heat coming off that warmer surface, … which would be absurd. This kind of absurdity, then, would tell us that something was wrong with the conception of “slowed cooling”.
Okay, how badly did I botch it, or am I anywhere close to being correct?
* Conflates Temperature Metrics In Mathemagical Calculations……….
Gary, the web address you use for comments cause your posts to always go to moderation for some reason. Next time try just not using it, only your email. It might require an initial approval but then after will be ok with no moderation required.
At the risk of making a worse mess of things than CO2 climate catastrophe alarmists, I propose that the people arguing for “slowed cooling” are subconsciously drawing wrong pictures:
The gradient from warm to cool, pictured on the left, gets mentally re-drawn to where additional CO2 in the atmosphere gets equated to additional photons added to the cool atmosphere, which then causes photons at the warm surface to get mentally magnified (as pink dots) in the quantity required to pair with the added cool-atmosphere photons (blue dots). The blue dots are assumed to impose some sort of pressure on the now mentally-extracted pink dots to cause them to “slow down” and, thus, “delay cooling”.
But the mistake is to mentally magnify those photons to pink dots that SHOULD be left merged invisibly in that smooth color gradient (representing the photon field). There is no need to mentally extract those warm-surface photons from the gradient to pair with the added photons from the cooler atmosphere. Those “cooler” photons just join the smooth color gradient (from warm to cool) by resonating and scattering — they just join what’s already there, because they have nothing to add in the way of making that red part more intense.
Mentally magnifying those “warm” photons to pair with the “cool” photons is to be confused by those “cool” photons and tricked into extracting “warm photons” from the FIELD to encounter the “cool” ones. But this is like ADDING more “warm” photons, and to ADD more “warm” photons requires a reason, and the reason must be that the input of “warm” photons has been increased, but this is NOT possible, because the only source of input of additional warmth is the SUN, and this input has NOT changed, … so where is that required heat coming from? Nowhere. It does not exist. It magically appears. The cooler atmosphere created more “warm” photons, along with the “cool” photons too, which is just a round about way of saying backradiation adds heat.
The alarmists say that the 2nd law is not violated by “slowed cooling”. I say it is, because to say “slowed cooling” requires doing the same thing as “adding heat”. Either that heat has to appear out of nowhere, or it has to be added by the atmosphere. Otherwise, where is it’s source?, its cause?, its origin?
I’ve been reflecting more on a comment that geran made several days ago:
I can see the reasoning of this comment now more clearly, and despite my earlier defensive statement, I would now concur.
As I’m coming to think more clearly about things, I’m seeing that it is more useful to get out of the habit of thinking about heat like it was some substance (as many descriptions seem to treat it), and start focusing on heat as motion of some substance. Heat is NOT radiation, but it is the motion induced by radiation within the substance being radiated.
If this is a correct way of thinking, and if people know this, then they seem to forget it in talking about the “greenhouse effect”. Loosing track of definitions seems to be leading many people to wrongly blending ideas that should not be blended the way they are blending them.
How is it, then, that people who call themselves masters at physics can argue over the physics, if they all were exposed to the same pool of knowledge about physical laws? How can Michael E. Mann (with degrees in applied math and physics), for example, have studied the SAME physics and arrive at such a different perspective from Joseph Postma (with an advanced degree in astrophysics — presumably encompassing the same laws of physics Michael E. Mann studied)? I’m not talking abut nuances of understanding either, but BASIC laws.
What did these people learn, who still adhere to the “greenhouse theory”? Where did they find the leeway in their interpretation of what they learned to apply their knowledge as they do? Did they not really understand what they were “learning”? I’m reminded of my flirtation with mathematics again and my abandonment of it because of the calculation drones who seemed to master the manipulations without the deep understanding of why, which I required to go on.
As someone who forked off the road from hard science to visual art, I’m well in tune to a certain level of creative manipulation, improvisation, and breaking of formal rules to get at something that looks aesthetically appealing. I sometimes get the feeling that this is what some physicists have done to elevate the “greenhouse theory” to its seemingly immovable pedestal — breaking some rules creatively and manipulating some ideas to make something that’s more pretty than it is true.
Climate science, thus, sometimes seems to have become an art form where people with complex manipulative skills can come up with a picture using their advanced thought tools as paintbrushes to paint what can only be admired or rejected by viewers because of its aesthetic appeal.
I find it instructive to try visualizing how other people might think and picture things, including CO2 alarmists. Towards this end, I proceed as follows:
Let us start with an Earth atmosphere with a given amount of “back radiation” from CO2, emitting towards Earth’s surface of given emissivity.
Okay, increase the concentration of CO2 in Earth’s atmosphere, which adds more photons going upwards from the warmer surface towards the cooler atmosphere, which adds more photons coming back from CO2 towards Earth’s surface of the given emissivity.
As an alarmist, say this causes a “blockage” of photons emitting from Earth’s surface — we might picture this as the formation of a boundary layer where a greater density of warm-surface photons squish up against those newly added cooler-atmospheric photons. Yeah, it sure looks like radiation is being “slowed down” at that “boundary layer”.
But remember, the Earth’s emissivity remains the SAME, and so this “boundary layer” could not remain stable and isolated, but rather would cause another “boundary layer” of “squished-up” warm-surface photons below it. Yep, looks like more “slowing down” to me, but STILL, remember, the Earth-surface-emissivity remains the SAME.
Crap, this would seem to mean that yet ANOTHER “boundary layer” of “squished-up” warm-surface photons would have to form below the first two, … and then another, … and another, … all as parts of a cascade of “boundary layers” of “squished-up” warm-surface photons, slowly approaching the limit of this endless cascading at the very surface from which the flow of warm-surface photons gain their definition in the quantity known as “emissivity” .
In other words, if the “slowing down” MUST cascade all the way down to the envisioned limit where the word “emissivity” gains it definition as the “given emissivity”, then the “given emissivity” in this scheme MUST change, from the time we start thinking about the process until the time we reach the conclusion. But how could emissivity change, if it is a given quantity? This seems to be a contradiction.
Back to the drawing board.
Well, maybe an alternate-universe worm hole opens up at a certain point, sucking in some of those warm-surface photons, before the boundary layers of “squished-upedness” cascade all the way down to the surface. Yeah, a tiny little wizard operates a complex computer panel with a lever that performs just this function. Sounds about right to me. Designate said wizard as W and create a complex mathematical expression to represent his mysterious handiwork.
Off to contemplate my Nobel prize now.
DISCLAIMER: By undertaking the task of trying to digest this attempt at clever clarification [surely he’s delusional], the reader agrees to hold the writer harmless from cognitive dissonance caused by his own ignorance and misconceptions. Donations in the form of corrections, improvements or snide insults are welcome.
“heat” is not a “thing” .. “heat” is a “result” .. specifically it is a result of the energy state (vibration frequency state) of a molecule or compound. For instance, one cannot move “heat” around. That is, you cannot move “heat” itself from one place to another. You transfer “energy” from one place to another resulting in increasing, stasis or decreasing the energy state of the target, and thus the “result” is a change or stasis (equilibrium) in “heat”.
As a picture: Given two molecules, molecule A and molecule B. Molecule A can only further excite molecule B if, and only if, molecule A is of greater energy state than molecule B. The “result” in a change of the energy state of molecule B is the “heat” of molecule B.
Another picture, and one of my favorite analogies: Picture a bicycle wheel spinning. You can speed up the spin of that wheel by slapping your hand along the tire. Slap it harder (more energy) and the wheel spins faster (hotter). You can only increase (make hotter) the spin of the wheel, if, and only if, you impart greater energy upon the wheel than it already has. Equal energy results in stasis, lesser energy slows the spin (cools) and actually adds energy back into your hand.
Atoms and molecules work exactly like this, and if it were not for this, our universe could not exist. If the so-called “radioactive greenhouse effect” actually existed, we would not. Think about it. How could anything have cooled to allow life (among other catastrophic problems). Virtually everything in the cosmos would be in a “runaway” state. It simply is not possible in this universe.
I think I got that before your explanation, but thanks for driving it home.
Yes, I knew all along that heat was NOT a thing, but sometimes, when so many people talk about it as though it were, you get suckered into resonating with them in the same error, and then a reflex develops from this resonance that propagates the error into all aspects of your thinking. Such is the nature of advertising — it does not matter whether it is right or not, just so long as it is repeated over and over and over again. I guess I found some immunity from somewhere to nudge me out of that bad rhythm.
Maybe the extra CO2 is doing it. (^_^) I’ve also been eating more homegrown tomatoes lately too, so maybe THAT’s it.
Robert, addendum to my last comment;
Go back and read these writings by Joseph. Watch the videos that Joseph has created. Joseph proves what I have said mathematically, and it is indisputable. You would be hard pressed to find anyone that can do this better than Joseph has.
I think people think of “heat” as a thing because it is something they can “feel”. They can feel warm or cold air moving around, so “temperature” and “heat” seem to them to be objects, when in fact what they are feeling is the very same thing I described, except that the things that are changing energy state and vibration state are their very own molecules that make up their skin and nerves, etc… Interestingly enough, they too are not actually feeling “heat”, but they are feeling the change in energy state of their very own molecules in their body. It is not such an easy concept for some to accept, but physically, this is exactly what is happening.
I’m sorry if you have heard these things before. It was not my intent to hammer them into you. I was just trying to point out a couple of analogies that I have developed and used myself. The bicycle wheel one works well with a lot of lay people that have difficulties conceptualizing some of the more complex constructs and relationships. The molecule A & B scenario works very well if you have a dry erase board you can use to illustrate. The nice thing about the molecule A & B scenario is that it cannot be refuted, and it is about as fundamental as you can get, hitting at the very core of what must be required for an RGE to exist. The molecule A & B scenario strictly prohibits the RGE, and is a physical law of our universe.
Redundancy is no problem. Every time something is said, it can be said a little differently, and maybe one moment’s slight difference of exposition can lead to a different insight, even though the same basic principle is being repeated. Your own nuances are as helpful as anybody’s. And, by the way, I HAVE been watching Joseph’s videos and stumbling through his various articles, which have made a HUGE difference in my understanding [or as some might say, my brainwashing, if you are an alarmista].
As for human sensations’ predisposing our thoughts to shape up a certain way, … positively. The human mind MUST be embodied in sensory experiences and metaphors. But, as I’ve said before, evolving even these senses and metaphors is a growth process of higher intelligence.
The “greenhouse” metaphor is clearly crap. We CAN get beyond it, I think, but those sensory things you mention that have wired it in are very difficult to change.
I’ve started trying to change how I talk about heat, now that I have been around here. That people confuse heat, radiation, and energy has been one of my biggest insights gained. Straightening out this mess alone could go a long way towards improving understanding, leading more people to channel money and effort into more productive directions.
Thanks for your input.
nteresting the ways to visualise heat.
And you are right people like me do see it as a thing, not anymore for me mind.
Here’s what i see and experience, air temp’s.
That energy filled air is 98% none radiating gas/s,
That air must take away in excess of 50% of the heat created by sunlight in the Earths surface, and the only way that energy/heat gets to exit the Earths system is by being passed onto radiating gas/s i.e. the 2% of radiating gas/s.
I see self correcting imbalances, i.e. weather, that adds up to climate.
I see looking back that climate changes, slowly but incessantly .
I see an earth system that long-term, decadal [sic] emits the same amount of energy to space as it receives from space.
I see a ”science” that focus’s on the 2% of radiating highly emissive gases and reversing their role in the atmosphere to extremely poor emitters and holding out flowing energy up as physical heat.
When as i see the 98% of the atmosphere is in essence under a glass roof, as it cannot radiate infra-red through the top of the atmosphere, and has to pass its energy on to the radiating gas/s.
To focus on returning infra-red to the surface is a nonsense, as the system is self-correcting, that is the 2% having differing properties, they radiate infra-red at different heights, carried there by being warmed by the air around them, co2 i believe is -30c to start radiating at the 15 micron range.
The height varies but on average i believe it is about 7,700 meters for co2.
Around 25% or 100ppm is at that temp or lower on average.
The system is self-correcting, the warmer the air, the quicker it rises, the more radiating gas/s are lifted to an operational temperature, and more energy emitted to space quicker,
Just one stabilising mechanism of many.
I Lived through the Ice age scare 74/75 i was about 13/14 yrs old and we were all taken to the tv room in school to watch Mr Spock explain global cooling in a documentary.
That was about Radiating gas/s cooling the atmosphere, by emitting more energy out than was coming in, gradually lowing the whole Earth’s temperature.
The science was right, the alarmism was bollocks, less heat is less radiating gas/s operating at height, less heat, less lift,…………more heat more lifted emitters ever self-correcting.to a balance;….ps the ice age alarmism went on right up until i was married.
Joe, i will do as you suggest next time i post.
What’s wrong with the following article:
It seems to ascend to mind boggling heights of minutia about radiation theory, and yet it STILL arrives at a conclusion that Joseph says is total bunk. How is that even possible? What’s the fundamental misunderstanding here?
Also, I’ve been advised to avoid Joseph’s website, as a precautionary measure to prevent me from being misled. NOT gonna do it. NOT buying it.
I seem to be seeing confusion even in people who SHOULD be “UNconfusing” ME. How can somebody with seemingly advance knowledge in math and physics still be confused on a basic point (so basic) that I feel as though even I can understand that basic point?
*Heat is not radiation, and radiation is not heat – CHECK.
*Warmer body has higher-frequency energy than cooler body – CHECK.
*Warmer body cannot absorb cooler body’s lower-frequency energy, because it already has that energy – CHECK?
*Cooler body cannot contribute its lower-frequency energy to warmer body – CHECK?
*Consequently, cooler body’s lower-frequency energy is scattered, NOT absorbed – CHECK?
*Cooler body cannot contribute higher-frequency energy, thus cooler body cannot cause heat to move from itself to cooler body – CHECK?
*Cooler body’s lower-frequency energy cannot impeded warmer body’s higher-frequency energy – CHECK?
*Consequently, cooler body cannot change the rate at which heat flows from warmer body – CHECK?
*Heat progresses spontaneously in one direction ONLY (from warm to cool), and the radiation gradient that causes this one-directional progression cannot be selectively altered by lower-frequency energy from the cooler direction – CHECK?
When one article inundates you with fancy math to the gills and arrives at a conclusion that cold can add heat to hot, and another article says this is bunk, you end up sometimes questioning your own sanity or considering that some basic wiring in some even supposedly brilliant people is fried.
Which smart person is one to believe?! Ah, the slings and arrows or outrageous fortune! Make that, “Ah, the photons and molecules of outrageous climate science!”
In the list of CHECKs, “impeded” should be “impede”.
Give me a week or so to get caught up and will reply on things since last commenting.
Have been off-planet for field work…
^Friday afternoon humour…
Hi, Joseph, glad to see you back on Earth.
If my crap is taking up too much of your blog space, zap it where needed. What you are seeing are growing pains, and maybe everybody does not need to see these. (^_^) Any clarifications in response to them, however would be most appreciated.
Yes, that’s the mental picture that has been craftily developed as it seems to be more naturally intuitive, and hence can be used to brainwash the people who haven’t had their intuition improved with the actual physics and mathematics of heat transfer.
Yes, that’s the mistake, the false picture, the false intuition that can be leveraged out of people without the education and logic expertise.
Exactly. They lack the frequency, by definition.
Bravo! That is precisely their sophistry. But they do it in the open because they actually always start with the “backradiation = heat” argument, and then when you explain to them that backradiation can not possibly be heat, they switch to this “slowed cooling” argument! They just do it blatantly, repeatedly, in the open, and only me and our very very tiny group of RGHE debunkers calls them out on it, and it seems to completely unphase anyone else! It’s a blaring red light and fog horn when someone switches arguments like that…particularly when both arguments can and have been debunked.
[last comment had some severe formatting errors..reposting]
You are correct that heat is not a substance and nor is it exclusively radiation since it also passes in solid matter. Heat is a net transfer only, the greater portion of the warmer-sourced energy relative to that of the cooler. Heat is an energy in motion, in transfer, from one place to another.
You are impressing upon me as a rational individual!
I can answer this for you easily because I’ve spent my last 20 years around these people. The answer is: Because they’re idiots. In the sense that they’re other-directed, Facebook-addicted, mainstream-media-believing, fitter-inners, mild or severe autistics unable to imagine politics or intrigue or being lied to or simply making a mistake, “consensus” hiders, uninspired, functionaries, apparatchiks, extremely poorly read, unimaginative, scared of standing out or being different, materialist, good-at-test-taking, drones, for the most part. Science is not at all what it seems to be. There are a tiny number of people who make science great and who create an identity for science, and a lot of these people are absolutely climate skeptics, but there are countless hordes of follow-onners who need science to provide an identity for them and their tiny minds and these people absolutely cannot handle the idea of science making mistakes because that would mean that their adopted identity might be a mistake, and none of such people as these can handle having their identity challenged.
I hope that explains it for you.
It is so easy how this occurs. You will note that such people never address the basic laws. It is as simple as that. You will note that I and others here and others like me do repeatedly refer to the basic definitions and mathematics and show and explain how they work, while the others go from one argument about backradiation to another about slowed cooling as needed. It is quite an important distinction. How can they do it? Because they’re idiots. Because they don’t know what they’re doing. Because opening up the university system to accept more and more students has allowed lower and lower intelligences to get degrees in physics. They’re so dull that they don’t even realize when they contradict their own statements from one sentence to the next. It’s all quite easy to explain.
Yah, in other words: BULLSHITTERS BULLSHIT
Yes, that is the picture which they try to develop in people who wouldn’t know any better. There is of course no such thing as this going on – photons do not cause blockage for each other and they do not reduce the emissivity of another surface hence do not slow the radiation emission from another surface.
Of course! The contradiction is the alarmist contradiction to reality, to real physics. Finding a contradiction is a service because it indicates an error in the argument – in this case, the argument of the RGHE! No wormholes needed!
More like they’re scared of you becoming informed! Sicko’s. F whoever said that.
Because it is possible to do science within a paradigm, with blinders on, and crunch the numbers, and it is possible to take measurements which can seemingly “confirm” a theory which is actually totally wrong. Nikolov & Zeller have a totally different alternative to explaining atmospheric temperature and empirical support for their theory comes from the exact same measurements as RGHE people use to support their theory. The difference is that the RGHE climate alarmist models have in fact failed(!), it is just that none of the apparatchiks wedded to it can stand to acknowledge it, if they’re even conscious enough to comprehend that empirical failure of their models is a problem for their models…lol.
Yes…not in such a way that the interaction between the warm body and “cooler” photons causes the warmer body to heat up. Just scattering.
More careful now. Heat is not the conserved quantity. Heat doesn’t have to be fixed at some value. What you meant to say was: “Consequently, cooler body cannot change the rate at which
heat flows*energy is emitted* from warmer body.”
Well…here’s to hoping that you’re continuing on the rationalist path. The way you say certain things and certain insights indicates that you are a staunch rationalist. I think you know which way the axe falls on this!
In regards to Nikolov and Zeller and a comparison of their observations with that of the “Luke warmers”, even before I read their work, I wondered how the Luke Warmers main argument was compatible with the GHE claims of the planet Venus. It stands out like a sore thumb and is what made me reject the GHE hypothesis long before I came across the work of Joseph, Ned and Karl or anyone else.
The Luke Warmist points out that the IR absorbing properties of CO2 is logarithmic and demishes to virtually zero very quickly, yet somehow still believes that a GHE explains the surface of Venus. The two concepts are mutually exclusive. If the claimed heat trapping properties of CO2 are logarithmic then it is mathematically impossible to get the surface of Venus to 460C using CO2. There are no “water vapour feedbacks” on Venus. Infact the other 3.5% of its atmosphere are mostly made up of molecules said to cool the atmosphere here on earth by increasing albedo.
Regardless of whether Nikolov and Zeller have the correct mathematical formula to model atmospheres with a high enough degree of accuracy to completely describe how atmospheres work, it should have been obvious to anyone with eyes that overhead weight of atmosphere plays the dominant role in determing temperature. This information is in plain sight for anyone bothering to look. It’s not just planets with a solid surface, but the gas and ice giants also get hotter the deeper you descend into their atmospheres. At an atmospheric pressure of 20Bar a website concerned with only astronomy (no global warming interests) tells me that the temperature of Jupiter is 20C not -167C at 1BAR (earth’s sea level pressure). Venus is 96BAR at its surface. HELLO!!!
I came to the conclusion that atmospheric pressure caused by mass and gravity was responsible for elevating temperatures long before I found people with physics qualifications who had written on the subject. It’s just so in your face obvious. What I have been learning since then is simply the technical understand of physics to better explain the hows and whys of this blatant truth.
First the observation, then the explanation. I have seen many different explanations on why mass and gravity create higher temperatures, but only alarmists and Luke warmists close their eyes to the observation in the first place.
Crap, I was falling into the trap again! Got it — ENERGY.
I’m just glad that my other ramblings were in accord to your view.
I have grown here. (^_^) Thanks so much for spending the time to help in this process, JP.
Nikolov, from what I’ve seen, defends even his math pretty convincingly with critics of it. I forgot where, exactly those exchanges are, but I read them a few weeks ago somewhere online.
Now a question that I have: “Would it be correct to say that gravity constantly does work on the mass of the atmosphere?”
Well, work equals force times distance, W = f*d, and gravitational force is mass times acceleration, f =m*a, and so, W = m*a*d.
This force, I think we must say, acts on both parcels of air and individual molecules of the atmosphere when they fall.
The upward force and work source to send air/molecules up would come from sunlight heating the surface and from “heat pumping” from the release of latent heat as wet air rises. Something like that.
The vertical structure and workings of Earth’s atmosphere appear to be so complex that it seems like somebody could spin things any variety of ways — ignoring certain factors, focusing on certain others selectively — to arrive at any variety of different conclusions about what’s going on in terms of temperature.
There’s a lot of stuff up there to consider, and so a simple model seems out of the question — certainly a model that is simply dominated by CO2.
I’ve read many different takes on the exact processs of gravitationally induced raising of atmospheric temperature and the fierce debates over them.
I have settled, for the time being, on an explanation as close to standard thermodynamic theory as I can articulate.
That there are just two ways in thermodynamics: transfer of heat from a warmer source to a cooler source and application of work on a source.
That gravity is a force and forces do work, therefore gravity is a plausible and likely candidate for raising temperatures in planetary atmospheres.
That sunlight doesn’t need to reach the surface to provide higher temperatures. If sunlight warms the upper atmosphere then all molecular interactions from molecules higher up to lower down through conduction, will have their motion accelerated by gravity (work performed) and temperatures will still rise (all be it more slowly than direct solar heating of the surface.
There are many questions I don’t know the answer to and obviously my current mechanism explanation may be incorrect or in need of fine tuning, but the fact that ideal gas laws can be used very predictively to model the thermal gradients in atmospheres is all I really need to know to be confident that gravity and mass combined with incoming solar energy are the only parameters needed to form an effective predictive theory. Nothing in the Greenhouse Effect model comes close. As soon as a second planet is introduced everything breaks down. The con artists are even saying that Saturn’s moon Titan has a “reverse Greenhouse Effect” going on!! Total hysteria on earth over 1800 parts per BILLION ( 0.00018%) and Cowspiracy movies, but 5% on Methane on Titan and thermageddon is magically reversed by runaway heating of the void (I assume)
I understand that cherries are supposed to assist with stiff joints.
This could help explain why cherry picking seems to be such an accepted procedure for alarmists — doing so is an instinctive countermeasure to loosen their stiff brains, which, otherwise, would be so solidified as to defy even their own reasoning. Unfortunately, they do not realize that brains are not joints, and so, obviously even this is not working.
But I digress .
… off to The Meaning Of Life Thread now.
Gary I don’t know wtf is going on with your comments, but I have to remove the last one because it keeps placing itself at the top of the queue as the latest comment. Bizarro.
CO2 is to blame, for sure. My last comment was in response to the removed one, and so it too seems bizzaro (for a different reason), as though it came out of nowhere, instead of relating to the comment no longer here. I noticed when I submitted it that it appeared ABOVE the comment I had intended it to FOLLOW.
There’s demons in these here pixels. I wonder if it has something to do with linking to Facebook. Facebook is evil. It impairs people’s work performance, sucks in hours of their attention, forces sustained downward focusing into small screens that probably contributes to upper vertebra degeneration in the long run, fosters delusions of being … “liked”, when nobody really gives a F except to play the “like” game to get some sort of fake-approval points for who knows what reason, really.
… totally off topic, unless you consider that rant some sort of “emissivity” that debunks Facebook.
If conservation of energy means that “the total energy displacement in an object is equal to the amount of energy striking the object” and reflected energy + emitted energy + transmitted energy = 1, which equals “total energy”; then what GHE proponents are actually trying to say (or should be saying) is that adding GHGs to the atmosphere reduces the transmittance through the atmosphere. Instead they try to claim it reduces the Earth’s emissivity. As you point out, Earth’s emissivity would actually increase with additional GHGs thus counteracting the effect of the reduction of transmittance such that reflected energy + emitted energy + transmitted energy is still equal to 1 (as literally has to be the case to ensure conservation of energy). So adding GHGs makes no overall difference.
Some news. Watts Up With That have finally given space for a positive review of Conolly and Conolly 2014. Like Nikolov and Zeller they look at ideal gas laws to calculate temperature with air pressure, but concentrate their efforts on explaining the lapse rate inversion through the tropopause to the stratosphere.
What should have been a default position by all scientists to begin with the Conollys conclude that the entire atmosphere as high as weather ballon data can measure, is in thermal equilibrium. A combination of kinetic energy, potential energy and change of state processes.
I’m sure the websites usual Luke Warmers are having hives around now and pseudo rebuttals and condescending dismissals will soon follow.
I noted the link to those three papers at WUWT — sort of surprised to see this offered there.
I haven’t yet delved into the comments … not sure whether I will. Ordinarily, I would expect a flurry of “you don’t understand the basics” vs.”no, YOU don’t understand the basics”, of course, leaving the less mathematically inclined in a mental ping pong match leading nowhere but unresolved.
I’m surprised there are any “greenhouse deniers” left over there who still can make comments. I was blocked from doing so a couple of years ago.
Well, wickedwenchfan, I do not proclaim my basic beliefs too clearly over there. I sort of hint at it from time to time and enjoy the merry-go-round ride that WUWT seems to be to me now. I try to “play with the rest of the children”.
You know, merry go rounds have unreal horses and creatures that keep going in a circle, but they are still fun to ride. I contribute to the snarkiness and satirical commentary over there, without EVER saying directly, “I no longer believe in the ‘greenhouse effect’, nor the validity of comparing planetary emission to atmospheric temperature, nor the contribution of CO2 to Earth’s heating, etc., etc.” And I avoid disagreeing too strongly with the experts over there, who could probably beat me up pretty good with their advanced technical mastery of the lingo anyway.
They ban people that they cannot refute because being unable to do so hurts their poor little feelings and their bottom line so much.
Refuting somebody is easy, JP — all they have to do is make a bold claim that you DO NOT UNDERSTAND THE BASICS, and then proceed to construct complex mathematical arguments that only one percent of humanity can understand to back up this claim. Works like a charm.
Speaking of WUWT, what’s up with this Kristian Okulær dude who writes, in one of his own blogs, about Postma’s confusion? I have read one of his threads that seems to beautifully agree with your (Postma’s) ideas of radiation, but then he has all this negative criticism about you (Postma) being unwilling to concede certain sacred points. I’m confused, and I’m trying to work up the will to dig through his arguments to see what the crap is going on.
Robert I’ve been exposed to the strangest of behaviour in the years of doing this. There truly seem to be deranged souls among us. Goblins. It’s “concern trolling”, or what have you. People are insane, and they talk at cross-purposes constantly.
What the basis of climate alarm? Its radiative greenhouse effect. What does the RGHE claim? That radiation from the cold atmosphere adds with cold solar energy to raise from the solar heating of -18C to +30C. Is that thermodynamically sensible? No it isn’t. Is it reflective of reality in what the Sun can do? No it isn’t. Is it based on flat Earth models? Yes it is. Are flat Earth models reflective of reality? No they’re not.
All this side bullshit they invent like “slowed cooling” and all that is beside the point entirely. They do it because they’re sick in the head, irrational, shills, or whatever.
Yes Kristian has been here but was banned. Maybe his comments can be searched.
It’s funny. I was originally a global warming believer who set out to refute “right wing deniers” with the science. I went to skepticalscience first and asked questions about the science. When the answers didn’t make sense I asked more questions. Then they acused me of being a paid troll and blocked me. I then found WUWT and joined in the discussion. Eventually I was accused of being “a Doug Cotton sock puppet” and blocked me (I’m not Doug Cotton! I didn’t know who he was at the time but have seen his many ailiases in comment sections around the Internet.).
I often wonder how many other people were true believers who converted to “denialism” purely on the basis that they were ostracised after asking a question. I might not have gone public with my doubts were it not for the shove from John Cook and co. All my friends were also Greenies at the time as well so I compare the decision to that of a Gay person coming out of the closet to their white supremacist buddies.
I’m gathering that “Kristian” did not use anything close to this name when he posted here. I can’t find any posts associated with that name, but I found posts by some “David” dude who seemed to employ similar patterns of agreeing with certain basics of JP’s thoughts and then trying to hold onto some vestige of the very idea that his conceded belief defeats — ambivalent to the point of confusing things even further, using such complexity of convoluted thought that ordinary humans have a hard time grasping what his error is.
You need a PhD in math to understand the most advanced errors, it seems. And THIS is the advantage that some of these people seem to have. They have greater technical skills to create greater confusions that look great to people not steeped in enough math to know their maneuvers.
Same here WF. I read State of Fear by Crichton and then wanted to read the real science debunking his book since I believed in alarmism. Same experience after that! The pseudoscience or alarmism was very easy to spot!
“and then trying to hold onto some vestige of the very idea that his conceded belief defeats — ambivalent to the point of confusing things even further, using such complexity of convoluted thought that ordinary humans have a hard time grasping what his error is.  They have greater technical skills to create greater confusions that look great to people not steeped in enough math to know their maneuvers.”
That is exactly how it occurs and what happens. Precisely. Very well said.
Ive just read some John Cook ”stuff”.
”The back-radiation will indeed increase in part because of more CO2 and water vapor,”
Doesn’t that mean the ”front” -radiation will increase also, by the same amount, and doesn’t front-radiation exit straight out of the Earth’s system, doesn’t that mean less energy in the system, and a lower equilibrium whole system T.
Back-radiation remains system radiation, regardless of the thermo, if energy loss increase’s the planet has to cool doesn’t it ?.
I mean all things greenhouse effect, more radiating gases is more back radiation, and that’s what they push, in the basic model, his one sentence sums it up.
Why did he ignore the extra outgoing LWIR energy and the consequence. ?.
A fellow traveller for you, am i right he agrees 100% with you on energy transfers.
He differs from Ned and co-author on force created kinetic flux, in he says what i was taught, about kinetic warming at the bottom of the Atmosphere, that was along time ago, Ned and his oppo, believe there’s a turn-over further up a column of gas if i’ve understood, Ronan Connolly and family think it is a multimer effect, similar to Ned but that’s beyond me, Ned is there talking with stephen hashing it out, or was
“So adding GHGs makes no overall difference”
Unless transmittance was reduced more than emissivity increased, or vice versa (transmittance reduced less than emissivity increased), in which case you’d get warming or cooling of the body, respectively. Could that be? Or would it be as I said, that a reduction in transmittance through the atmosphere would have to be offset by an equal increase in emissivity of the atmosphere?