(originally posted at PSI)
(This is what Slayer’s winning looks like! There is no radiative greenhouse effect. Climate alarm is totally, 100% false, total pseudoscience.)
(Most pertinent quote from the paper: “The GHG theory might even require a deep re-examination.” – It doesn’t get any more clear than that!)
New Study: Greenhouse Gas Theory May Need ‘Deep Re-Examination’
Written by Michael Bastasch
Global warming over the past 15 years suggests that climate models “are very likely flawed,” a group of Italian scientists claimed in a study.
The study comes amid mounting evidence that climate model predictions have increasingly diverged from real-world observations during the so-called “hiatus” in warming during the 21st century.
Scientists often argue that global temperature observations are well within climate model predictions — albeit at the lower end. The recent spike in global average temperature in 2015 and 2016, scientists say, brought observations back in line with modeled predictions.
However, meteorologist Nicola Scafetta and his co-authors point out that the recent spike in global temperatures was brought on by an incredibly strong El Nino warming event — a naturally-occurring ocean cycle.
Correcting for the recent El Nino shows “the temperature trend from 2000 to 2016 clearly diverges from the general circulation model (GCM) simulations,” Scafetta and his co-authors wrote in their study.
“Thus, all evidences suggest that the IPCC GCMs at least increase twofold or even triple the real anthropogenic warming,” the scientists wrote. “The GHG theory might even require a deep re-examination.”
“The models now available, like the GCMs, are not yet completely reliable and need much more work,” they wrote.
Scafetta’s study comes on the heels of another that found models used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) overpredicted the amount of global warming.
That study, published in the journal Nature Geoscience, got significant media attention for its mainline finding that there was still time to meet the global warming target laid out in the Paris climate accord.
“We haven’t seen that rapid acceleration in warming after 2000 that we see in the models. We haven’t seen that in the observations,” co-author Myles Allen, a geosystem scientist at the University of Oxford, told The Times.
Some scientists were quick to pounce on Allen and co-author’s work. Berkeley Earth scientist Zeke Hausfather argued that the models matched temperature observations “quite well.”
But even Hausfather’s comparison of models to observations shows the recent El Nino boosted temperatures to the upper half of the climate model range. Before that, global average temperature ran well below the model mean.
Global warming skeptics argued for years that the models were showing more warming than actual observations. Cato Institute scientists Patrick Michaels and Chip Knappenberger showed that the climate models have been over-hyping warming for decades.
Scientist John Christy of the University of Alabama-Huntsville has testified before Congress on the matter. His research shows that climate models predicted 2.5 times more warming in the bulk atmosphere than has been observed.
Read more at Daily Caller
Climate of Sophistry 
Well, any study that uses the base misconception of the position it claims to question and STILL manages to weaken that questioned position shows how questionable the position is.
In other words, calling global average temperatures “warming trends” or “cooling trends” relies on the belief that the concept of “global average temperature” means something. I have converted to the solid position that it does NOT, … ESPECIALLY when we are talking about fractions of a degree in the temperature anomalies observed. Still, if even this flawed base of “understanding” can be used to weaken the global warming trend, I guess that’s some sort of progress. But it still hugs the flawed concept.
Get rid of the “greenhouse effect”. But get rid of “global average temperature” too. I want to see studies that do both of these at the same time.
There’s an international regulatory and physical standard named the International Standard Atmosphere that states global atmospheric temperature.
One of the VERY first PROOFS – indicators are onr thing, in math we have PROOFS things are right or not –
Is thst the magical gaissiness church cant even calculate the temperature of the global atmosphere properly.
They – including ALL these fake models
don’t use the strp ingas Law where density warming of compressible phase matter must be accounted, and come up the MANDATORY 33 degrees short.
Having not done the msth right they then claim it- theit ERRONEOUSLY arrived 33 degree shortfall,
based in ignoring the compression warming intrinsic to compressible phase matter,
make claim “greenhouse gases are associated with this
well known shortfall from
official global average temperature.
Thr global atmospheric temperature oscillates a half degree above, and below the average,
and hasn’t changed. See Tony Heller’s SUPERLATIVE work on this “warming” and how it’s ALL attained:
at his site Realclimatescience.com look at the top for proof of altered data,
here is one page with the past and present temps being altered as a way of life in government organizations.
https://realclimatescience.com/alterations-to-climate-data/
Also note that sinve the International Standard Atmosphere
HAS NOT CHANGED by definition climate is NOT changing or every refrigeration and welding and scuba course would have a section explaining how, and when, critical Atmospheric values are adjusted.
Joseph we always knew of course the Slayers were right about the fake ghg warming svam.
Congratulations, Scarfetta’s a radiation guy, too.
Another good paper
http://notrickszone.com/2017/09/25/another-new-paper-dismantles-the-co2-greenhouse-effect-thought-experiment/
Iv’e taken the liberty of correcting the first paragraph AfroP.
My bug-bear…………
A Hypothesis is not a Theory. …. The Radiative Greenhouse Effect thought bubble is more accurate imo, naming it a theory gives it status it just doesn’t have.
Yet another new scientific paper has been published that questions the current understanding of the Earth’s globally averaged surface temperature and its relation to the Hypothetical greenhouse effect………..fixed
As atmospheric water gas and vapor, along with CO2 are not insulators of heat but partial conductors of it, is not this the outcome we should expect?
“Trap heat” = “Sing beans”
Heat is not trapable, as beans are not singable.
And yet the language is allowed to proliferate.
I find this interesting:
Despite Venus and Mars having 95% co2, the co2 “bite” is equal or smaller than Earth, respectively.
Venus has 95/0.04*92 = 218,500 times more co2.
Who realizes the implications of this?
Following your lead, AfroP,
FROM: https://www.mrl.ucsb.edu/sites/default/files/mrl_docs/ret_attachments/curriculum/spectrscopy%20teacher%20version.pdf
Now what does the brightness temperature tell us about CO2 on each of these planets? — I don’t know. I’m asking.
A visual check of the image AfroP posted leads me to think that the x-axis was incorrectly labelled by the creator of that figure. That’s what the graph looks like, when the x-axis is waveNUMBER.
So, if I’m seeing this correctly, the person has labelled a waveNUMBER-as-x-axis graph as a waveLENGTH-as-x-axis graph.
co2’s wavenumber is 666, that’s why the climate cult is obsessed with it.
10,000 / 15 microns = 666 wavenumber.
correctly labeled here:
co2 is a dim switch. Its absorption deprives the environment of radiative energy.
I’ve seen the same demonstrators on Twattsupwiththat, lads, awhile back mind you, and it was a comments section detour, so how does it all spin out.
Something is bothering me: I’m wondering whether the graph that AfroP posted might be a correct representation because of the choice of units on the y-axis. The y-axis units of measure there look strange: (if “hr” means “hour”) — photons per micrometer per meter squared per hour, while the x-axis is labeled as waveLENGTH:
As I pointed out earlier, the above graph looks exactly like the following graph:
… but notice that the y-axis units of measure is milliwatts per meter squared per steradian per centimeter, while the x-axis is waveNUMBER
But now remember THIS graph:
… where the x-axis also is labelled as waveLENGTH, while the y-axis is yet a different unit of measure — watts per meter squared per steradian per micrometer.
This is all very confusing and raises questions about the agreed upon standards of representing such things like this. It makes determining validity so much more difficult to encounter all these variations.
I see that the second and third graphs are correctly drawn and labeled, but now my question is, “Is that graph comparing the three planets also correctly drawn and labeled?”
Well, now that I look at those three graphs, I’m thinking the first one (planetary comparisons) IS correctly drawn and labelled.
Apparently, you can shape hose things look how you want, just by how you choose your units.
When does a blond climatologist take her local temperature reading?
When she’s blow-drying her hair.
Cute. haha
The latest atrocity:
http://rabett.blogspot.co.uk/2017/10/an-evergreen-of-denial-is-that-colder.html
Would love to hear your thoughts! Thanks.
That’s not the radiative greenhouse effect. Repeat: THAT’S NOT the radiative greenhouse effect.
What’s happening there is that the back-side of the 1st surface is being radiatively insulated – if more green plates were added the math shown there works out that the 1st plate would asymptote to emit 400 W/m^2, i.e. the energy input to it. Emitting 400 W/m^2 and having the temperature required to do that is the most that the 1st plate could achieve with a very large number of green plates. That’s what *their math* shows.
That result **REFUTES** the radiative greenhouse effect. The consensus derivation of the RGHE shows/requires that a *higher* flux must be emitted by the first surface than it receives from the Sun. That is: the Earth’s surface receives 240 W/m^2 but emits some 390 W/m^2.
They just refuted the RGHE. By showing that the latter case does not occur.
They have no damned idea of what conditions they are actually even looking for and what results would even support what conditions.
What I wasn’t sure about is whether the 400 W/m2 coming in from the sun is meant to be like the 342 W/m2 shown coming in on an Earth energy budget, i.e the solar constant divided by 4 (although by 2 in this case). So in other words actual input is 800 W/m2, but it’s shown as 400 W/m2. Then at equilibrium the blue plate would emit 400 W/m2 over its whole surface area (i.e from both sides) instead of 200 W/m2 from each side. Then I’m not sure what would happen when adding the green plate (wouldn’t it just heat until it too was emitting 400 W/m2 each side?).
In any case I can’t see how it has anything to do with the RGHE so I’m not sure what their point was. But thought you’d like to see the latest “thought experiment”.
The numbers don’t matter that much…it’s the established limits which are. You need over-input to show the RGHE – that condition doesn’t arise in their maths, thus refuting the RGHE.
My quote-of-the-year nomination from GW’s link:
When I’m done laughing at that statement, I’ll go back and try to read the article seriously.
The word, “thermodynamics”, has the word, “dynamics” IN IT, yet thermodynamics is NOT a dynamic process. Deny much?
Hahaha….oh man….goodness’ sake!
Just spew random meaningless bullshit voila climate alarm and RGHE.
And heating and cooling as dynamic processes are not part of thermodynamics???!!! LOL
“Heating and cooling are dynamic processes and so have no part in non-dynamic thermodynamics.”
They literally just said that heating and cooling aren’t part of thermodynamics…
Joseph, I think the refutation may be simpler. I think the trick here is that they show the blue plate being at equilibrium with the 400 W/m2 from the sun when emitting 200 W/m2 from each side. But objects should be denoted as emitting the same flux from any part of their surface area (if that object reaches the temperature which the incoming flux can induce). We’re tricked because the diagrams show a plate, a line. But to be at equilibrium the plate should be shown as emitting 400 W/m2 in both directions. This just means that the plate is emitting 400 W/m2 from its surface (which includes both sides). If it was some other shape in the diagrams the deception would be more obvious.
I’m assuming here that heat can conduct through the plate easily enough that the entire plate is warmed to the maximum temperature that the flux from the sun can warm it to. Obviously in the case of the real Earth the flux from the sun can’t conduct right through the surface from one side to the other. So it’s an entirely different ball game (if you can pardon the pun).
They love patting themselves on the back after creating free sunshine.
That’s what he has done isnt it, treating all the energy as sunshine, even the back scattering.
He did what they all do, energy in energy out, then the same energy travels all about,..
Its only sunshine once, not all photons are equal.
Am i right that the whole plate [blue] heats to an equilibrium temp, so will radiate at that temp on both surface’s.
The green plate adds nothing to the blue plate, the blue plate is already emitting any wavelength the green plate can muster up and spit out…… back scattering from green to blue deflected, is 100w ?
The blue plate should be able to warm the green plate to 50% of its equilibrium temperature in his bubble.
The blue plate is not adding anything to it’s power source either, that back scattering is also being deflected by his sun.
Is The whole green plate radiating 200w a sqm from the surface that faces away from ensemble or 100w both sides ?.
Is the flux returning from each plate to its energy source just redundant flux leaving the ensemble via different angles of deflection ?.
I am asking all the above in my own crude way, am i anywhere close.
He doesnt apply the same reasoning to his 800w sun as the plates, i.e. radiating 400w from each side, the blue plate should have received 200w and the green 100w i think,……
Its all pretty confusing to see thru the woo of cold warming hot that he concludes with…
So, I went back to the article:
http://rabett.blogspot.co.uk/2017/10/an-evergreen-of-denial-is-that-colder.html
Yes, I read it, and I also did a little detective work on the person who posted it, who turns out to be Dr. Joshua Halpern, BA and PhD in physics, specializing in chemical physics and kinetics: photo-chemistry, kinetics and dynamics of small molecules and radicals in the gas phase.
Those are some impressive credentials, and certainly, for ordinary mortals without equivalent credentials, to question the words of wisdom from such a source would be sacrelige, but I am no ordinary mortal — sub-human, perhaps? —, and so here goes my questioning of the good doctor, who starts out:
That’s still just a hot body and a cold body. Anything above 0 degrees Kelvin is relatively warm. Dressing up this fact with friendly, familiar language seems superfluous and makes me wonder what the point is, which I suspect is to set up a frame of mind that allows him to say that a “much colder” (still warm) body can heat a merely hot (NOT “really hot”) body, which is NOT a possibility, no matter how friendly he speaks of it.
He soon quotes John Tyndall:
[T]he atmosphere admits of the entrance of the solar heat, but checks its exit; and the result is a tendency to accumulate heat at the surface of the planet.
Tyndall appears to have been speaking of heat as a substance, or, at worst, he was not being clear in his choice of terms, which now leads to confusing the distinct concepts of “heat” and “radiation”, which encourages people to substitute one term for the other — an INCORRECT substitution.
Eli (Dr. Halpern) then starts his thought experiment:
The “m^2” part of that quantity has a physical meaning, derived from a reference surface with physical dimensions that allows us to calculate its surface area (“m^2”), over which we can assess the flux (“W/m^2”). So, I trust that the dimensions of this “plate in space” are such that its surface area equals the surface area of a disc whose radius is the Earth’s radius. And I trust that the 400 W is a true measure of the average absorbed solar power. Otherwise, just plucking 400 W/m^2 out of the air means NOTHING — it has no physical basis in reality. … Next, I wonder what the thickness of that plate is, … what is it made of, … how good of a conductor is it, … what is its emissivity relative to its atomic composition (i.e., what it’s made of)? Without this information, we could NOT know what a real plate would do.
Eli continues:
My question is, “Why does he represent the plate (of unspecified thickness, physical composition, conductivity, emissivity) as radiating equally in opposite directions at only HALF the flux at which the plate equilibrates with the sun flux?” How does the plate just “decide” that, all of a sudden, the m^2 over which it is receiving the flux is going to magically split the flux in half over that same surface area, AND conveniently alot the other half to the other side of the plate with the same surface area also now magically emitting HALF the flux over which the flux is calculated?
If the plate equilibrates with 400 W/m^2 of flux received, then should it not EMIT at the equilibrated flux at the same flux of 400W/m^2, no matter how we look at it? And, of course, we are ignoring plate thickness, or, if not, then we are assuming perfect conductivity (I think). Otherwise, we would have to worry about how the edges radiate, and we would have to divide up the flux further (according to Eli’s logic) for the four edges of the plates that would also have surface areas to consider now.
Ignoring, for a moment , these and other questions about the thought experiment, I think the correct pictorial representation would be this:
This, in my judgement, is the key error, from which Eli’s subsequent errors cascade into the false vindication of the “greenhouse effect”.
Yet, Eli concludes:
No, … show THIS to the next physics PhD who miraculously got a PhD in physics without understanding what he was doing, apparently.
Robert, for what it’s worth (probably nothing!) I 100% agree with your first step and your reasoning behind it. What I’m not really sure of is what then happens when you add the green plate. I tentatively suggest…exactly the same thing. It warms until it is the same temperature as the blue plate, emitting the same 400 W/m2 flux left and right. Plus of course up, down, towards us and away from us as well. And that’s the end of the thought experiment!
Of course, we have to assume that the surfaces are idealistic, I think, meaning that there would be zero heat loss over an infinite number of plates. Otherwise, Elie could not even assume that his erroneous 200 W/m^2 got perfectly divided in two, and so, following his “logic” to discover his more basic illogic, I think that the only conclusion would be this:
That’s really great Robert, and also GW commented towards the same thing. Quick studies! I’m glad you got to it as I didn’t have time to address it with the first debunk. But as always with these things the errors are more than one.
BTW, the numbers themselves used for an example aren’t that important. I want you guys to understand this part because it is logically and philosophically and scientifically and mathematically crucial. The numbers can be anything. What you’re looking for is the qualitative behavior of the example and its solution. Does it actually do what the RGHE is actually about? Should it actually split emission by two? Etc. Things more like that. The input could be 400, 333, 800, 1370 W/m^2, etc., but whatever it is, do the assumptions and inserted physics of what happens next and what the final result is actually do what reality would do? Do they violate thermodynamics? Do you get more out than you put in? Etc.
Yes, if the plate was thick and made of a material with very low thermal diffusivity, then the sun-facing surface would have no reason not to warm right up to the equivalent temperature and emit 400 W/m^2. The heat flow equation is used for surfaces facing each other and the facing surfaces are what find equilibrium with each other, not the other side of the surfaces or the facing surface + other side surface. If you look at radiative heat flow textbooks and the sections on view factors and radiant heat flow between objects, the heat flow equation is always between the surfaces facing each other only. Thus, this is where Q goes to zero to find thermal equilibrium which is defined as Q = 0. The equations don’t concern themselves with what happens on the other side of the surface receiving heat.
And so, not only did his example not even have anything to do with the RGHE, let alone support it, but actually debunk it since it showed that what the RGHE requires won’t happen, the example wasn’t developed properly either. After setting up the 400 W/m^2 and the first plate, the example then immediately divorced from reality by not using the actual, correct heat flow equation that would exist between a heat source and a plate – the other side of the plate isn’t a factor, i.e. the equilibrium condition is NOT that the input gets split by two.
But still, what about the thermal energy being conducted into the plate? Does this reduce the equilibrium temperature of the plate since that energy then gets emitted on the other side?
Consider then if the plate had “infinite” thermal diffusivity and/or was extremely thin. What would happen then? Think of what’s actually happening to the molecules of the plate to cause the plate to warm. The molecules are being induced to vibrate because of the vibrating electromagnetic waves incident upon them. The molecules are induced to vibrate by what is forcing them to: the electromagnetic waves. So, they can do nothing but vibrate at the rate at which they are being forced. At the 400 W/m^2.
Now, their splitting and multiplying energy by two will immediately make them have a conniption and claim that energy is not being conserved with this result (of 400 W/m^2 for the plate). The reason why they are wrong about that is because no energy is *LOST* by the plate on its sun-ward facing side. Can’t they see that? For every 400 W/m^2 emitted on the sun-ward side, 400 W/m^2 is replaced. There is ZERO energy loss from the plate on its sun-ward side. The only place where the plate can lose thermal energy is, of course, obviously, on its other side. *An object can’t lose thermal energy in the direction from which it has and is gaining thermal energy.(!) That’s a contradiction in terms. If you’re gaining thermal energy from one direction from a source, you can not simultaneously be losing thermal energy to that direction to that source.(!)* Logic! Physics! Maths!
Energy is conserved because then the 400 W/m^2 from the source eventually finds its way through to the other side of the plate (whether thick or thin) and is emitted there.
People with PhD’s are good at confusing themselves.
Yep! That’s the correct solution!
I arrived at that over many years of numerical modelling a 2D PDE of that situation and exploring the boundary conditions and the results, etc. There’s some fascinating aspects to it I may write about one day.
My understanding is that those arrows are NOT additive. They are more like vectors, and, if anything, they are subtractive, given their directions relative to one another. The red arrow IN is positive. The blue arrow OUT is negative. Added, they equal zero. Equilibrium. The blue arrow IN is positive. The green arrow OUT is negative. Added, they too are zero. Equilibrium.
0 in the first layer added to zero in the second layer equals zero. Still equilibrium. Still 400 W/m^2 flux into the system. That assumes, I assume, that the second (green) plate would have an area equal to the area of the blue “plate”. Otherwise, we would have to assess a different power output from the blue plate to determine the respective flux over the different green-plate “m^2”.
I hope I’m right. I’m just trying to apply my newly gained knowledge from JPDU (Joseph Postman Denialist University) (^_^)
*An object can’t lose thermal energy in the direction from which it has and is gaining thermal energy.(!) That’s a contradiction in terms. If you’re gaining thermal energy from one direction from a source, you can not simultaneously be losing thermal energy to that direction to that source.(!)*
And speaking of that, why didn’t the 200 W/m^2 emitted from the plate go back and add to the source energy to make the source 600 W/m^2? That’s what the RGHE is actually about! How is his example even conserving energy at all? Or about the RGHE!?
OK sure, perhaps the Sun has a small view factor. But this is why you go to simpler systems, so that you can explore the qualitative results of applying certain assumptions. So, make the power source an infinite flat plane emitting 400 W/m^2, and the plates passive infinite planes. In this case by the logic of the RGHE, and whether or not you do splitting, the energy emitted by the plate must add with the power source wall to make it emit 600 W/m^2 (or 800 if not splitting). But now since the wall is emitting more, the plate is emitting more back to it, etc. The qualitative result here shows a run-away process, hence means that something is wrong about the assumptions.
The error is in saying that “backradiation” adds with the source power, and this is a GENERAL qualitative result since nature would have no reason to sometimes add backradiation to a source and sometimes not. And besides, the heat flow equation we already know doesn’t say that this is what could happen. This general result therefore also then applies to the second plates and in saying that the 2nd plate’s energy adds back with its own source, the 1st plate’s.
———
Right, the arrows are not additive. Indeed, in radiant heat exchange they are ONLY subtractive. Just right!
“Postma” — it’s “Postma”, Kernodle !
Why do I keep typing “Postman”? I know this. My finger just keeps migrating over to that “n”
Stop it !
As Joseph already pointed out, and I now attempt to clarify with a pic:
Eli said …
If the above diagram supports the idea that 300 is coming out of the system, then, by the same logic, 600 is going into the system, and yet this other direction of logic pictured below) that should allow 600 in is ignored:
What really gets me, though, is how, when he sees that, by his “logic”, only 300 is coming out of the system, he asks, “What is wrong?”, and then does not look for an answer, but rather appeals to the Stefan Boltzman Law, where he inputs into that equation “what’s wrong” that he does not know why it’s wrong, to arrive at a solution that uses “what’s wrong” as the input, contriving an output derived from a suspected wrong input, and then presenting this as a NOT wrong solution.
That’s how stupid pretty much all people who actively believe in climate alarm are. It’s one thing to be innocently taken in. It’s another to be aggressively stupid.
Every text book teaches the same thing about a radiation shield – that is it reduces the radiative output by 50%.
From “Problems and Solutions on Thermodynamics and Stastical Mechanics – Major American Universities Ph.D. Qualifying Questions and solutions.
Is this incorrect ?
Interesting question, Rosco.
My first reaction is that the thermodynamics text refers to a SPHERICAL shield encasing a SPHERICAL source of radiation, whereas Eli’s thought experiment refers to a FLAT plate that is NOT spherical (obviously, by definition), and so, at least, in this respect, comparing Eli’s thought experiment to the thermodynamics-text description is NOT an equivalent comparison.
I’m still interested in a more detailed, knowledgeable answer, though.
Figure 1.8 assumes that the temperature of the black sphere shield is held constant. Nothing wrong with that but the problem @ RR assumes that the amount of heat hitting the blue plate is held constant. That is a different thing.
As to the various tries here which show 800 W/m2 being emitted by the blue plate or the blue + green plates when only 400 W/m2 are absorbed, that is a first law abuse. If you could do that all our energy problems would be solved.
BTW, the shape of the plate is immaterial as long as all of the radiation from the back side hits the green plate
(@ Rosco & Robert)
Yes the example does talk about a spherical situation but then displays a parallel-plane situation.
If you look at page 29 in this textbook:
Click to access heat_4e_chap13-radiation_ht_lecture-pdf.pdf
it shows the heat flow equation for a plane-parallel system which applies to Eli’s blog post as well as Rosco’s image given that the person drew it as plane parallel. I’ve checked with 2 other radiative heat flow textbooks I have to confirm that they show the same equation as found on pg 29 in that link – they do.
Assuming emissivities are equal (which we always do for simplicity) then the equation for a plane-parallel system reduces to
Q_dot = F1 – F2 = σT14 – σT24
The fluxes here obviously originate from the surfaces which FACE each other. The Q_dot is a rate, a differential as a function of time, and this differential goes to zero in order for the system to reach equilibrium, which all systems naturally do. Therefore if 400 W/m^2 (or whatever) is the source, from T1 say, then at Q_dot = 0, F1 = F2.
So is there an error in Rosco’s image example? Well, have we not seen that people commit errors on this stuff? Yes, there is an error. On the one hand you can do what “they” do and split the flux, and that can seem reasonable just like it can seem reasonable to average the solar input over the entire surface of the Earth at once…but were these operations actually physically valid? Did they actually utilize the correct heat flow equation for their scenario? (They didn’t!) Were they logical? In both Rosco’s example image and Eli’s blog post, is it logical that a surface (the side facing the source) can lose energy as it is gaining energy?! They are starting with a contradiction in terms and then (unknowingly) working out the numbers of the error – just like the RGHE does by starting with the error of sunlight averaged over the entire surface of the Earth at once.
An underlying problem here is that scientism is hostile to utilizing logic and appreciating that logic and logical paradoxes have a real effect on what physics can actually occur. They also seem to hate using the definition of heat flow, and the actual real equations for the scenario’s they attempt to depict.
Eli you might want to read the entire comment thread after your link was introduced here: https://climateofsophistry.com/2017/10/06/slayers-vindicated-by-additional-independent-researchers/#comment-31005
Your example does not demonstrate a radiative greenhouse effect, and in fact the mathematical limits of your own work show that the fundamental requirements of the RGHE do not manifest, and hence your example refutes the RGHE.
Secondly, there is the issue of the example not being physically valid in its set-up in any case, as you do not actually use the correct heat-flow equation for the scenario. The source-side of the 1st plate does not lose energy, as it is a contradiction in terms for that side to lose energy after it was defined to be the side gaining energy. Hence no 1st Law violation. The set-up logic is wrong, hence the physics is wrong.
Eli,
Radiative fluxes and temperatures are not additive.
Your examples effectively shows that instead of having a plate at room temperature emiting 20C in all direction, you pretend that the top and bottom emit 10C.
You really need to have your head examined.
Eli,
Your first equation
400 = 2sT^4
is wrong. You see, a plate can actually radiate in 400 different directions, so you need to account for that!
400 = 400sT^4 , T = 65K.
Do you also believe your 100W lightbulb sends 1W in a 100 directions?
Eli, you shouldn’t write blog posts on physics, a topic you clearly don’t understand. Repent, and Jah may forgive you.
What a wonderful load of reading to get through since my last confused post, Roberts next post i am only halfway through, to the first diagram, and then i saw the blue back arrow between plate and sun, in his model the sun should have been warming, that blue is a perpetual motion arrow i think, so now i am going to read the whole of the postings about this again.
Those are some credentials at eli, but i am cold warming hot of anyone even if i do not understand why, i understand we wouldn’t be burning fossil fuels if cold could make warm warmer still.
Thanks very much Robert i am only upto that first diagram part at the mo, but you have a gift.
not buying.
He can pretend all he wants that the plates heat equally both sides, or right through, and still represent earths surface and Atmosphere, it is still nonsense as one surface only warms on one side, nothing leaves the back of the blue plate, if it did in his model, it would have to be getting absorbed by his sun, which should be between the 2 arrows imo, that means the blue plate would be radiating at twice the temperature or wm2 in his model.
Anyway i will read what yall think now above.
I also was concerned about the visual representation in Figure 1.8 of Rosco’s textbook explanation. My thought was that it was a lazy illustration of what the words say.
If we are talking about sphere’s, then the illustration should show spheres.
Because of how the illustration is drawn, however, it does NOT connect immediately to the words that supposedly describe it — I had to re-read the text numerous times, as I finally decided that the illustration must be a zoom-in to a very small portion of the circumference of the spheres (i.e., so close up that the curves of the spheres look like straight lines).
Then I thought, “How can you just make a general statement about what a black spherical shell can do, without knowing its thickness or its exact composition? — just putting this vaguely-defined “shell” there and using ONLY the fact that it is there to reduce power output of by half?” That seems like magic, NOT physics, without a more detailed proof and detailed justification for using sheer abstraction as a limiting agency in that scenario.
Is there some calculus going on there, involving integrals over entire spheres? — and how one spherical area on top of another spherical area somehow works out to have a halving effect on the stuff coming off the interior spherical area? This is where my mind started to go.
AfroP, I think a plate (or whatever) radiates in an indeterminable number of directions (dare I say, “infinite”?) … I can’t say “infinite” number, because infinity is not a number — that’s why I say it after the word, “number” — maybe “an infinity of directions” would be the best way to put it.
“Figure 1.8” should have looked something like this:
… if clarity, as enabled by visual representation, were the goal.
That would have been better of the author. They did state the question about a sphere, but then drew it as a plane. What they’re trying to get at is the behaviour which would be qualitatively consistent but quantitatively unique between the two situations.
In any case, the equation for the sphere situation is also shown in the textbook link I provided above. Again, it is the idea of splitting which is wrong, which is NOT what the correct, fundamental heat transfer solutions actually show!
Guys, why do you think it is that they hate the definition of heat flow so much? And why do they similarly hate the equations for heat flow?
Where does this hatred for heat flow come from? And the hatred for the equations of heat flow?
They really seem to hate it all. I mean really hate it. They seem to think that they can just invent alternative equations and solutions to scenarios which are already worked out in the fundamental texts…this is itself indicative of a hatred of science and its entire pedagogy.
I wonder where else they do this in their actual careers? It’s potentially quite dangerous depending on what they actually do for a living. Would you just make up new equations that you personally wish to be true, instead of referring to the fundamental texts and derivations, when you operate a nuke plant? lol
I’m not a specialist in psychology, but I would venture to say that the reason is because they have yet to comprehend that the concepts of “heat” and “radiation” are different, and this lack of comprehension, on a fundamental level, is deeply troubling when it is pointed out that they NEVER got it, and so, defensiveness kicks in to protect their sense of dignity, because someone at their level of knowledge SHOULD have understood the difference, but they never did, and never understood that they never did, and they got habituated into the life habits surrounding the reality that they never did, and so now questioning that they never did insults them and makes you their enemy, because you are now a mean ol’ thing calling them idiots. (^_^)
That’s really great Robert. Precisely. It reminds me of this comment in Schroeder’s thermal physics text:
“Much of thermodynamics deals with three closely related concepts: temperature, energy, and heat. Much of students’ difficulty with thermodynamics comes from confusing these three concepts with each other.”
RK: “the reason is because they have yet to comprehend that the concepts of “heat” and “radiation” are different”
That is precisely it. They’re simply unaware of the rules, and the definitions, and hence not following them.
Afro: “Repent, and Jah may forgive you.”
haha 🙂
Just post these last 2 posts ive read your posts aswell now and some more of Robert’s
His pretend Sun system is a perpetual motion engine, with an ever increasing output on the right green arrow which should be in the middle of the plate directly opposite the input sun, which should be between the blue and red arrows.
He has 3 identical surfaces emitting the same quality photons out of 3 undefined temperatures, in only a left and right direction.
The first is an insulated plate, on one side it is 0 kelvin, and the other 800 wm2 he dresses it up as the sun, in his model it is a wm2 engine, the tail-pipe of free product the green out arrow, free wm2.
All the exchanges take place on lines , the first line absorbs the 2nd lines returning 200 whilst emitting 400, only it doesn’t count, it vanishes funny stuff,…….the first line is not emitting to the left, so it now emits 500 to the 2nd line if it were consistent with all the identical processes taking place in the exchanges throughout his system, what differentiates his sun ”line” from his identical plates lines he gave different colours to ?.
Where did the nett 200 go in the exchange between line 1 and 2, line 1 should be 1000 line 2 500 line 3 250. line one always increasing until its the brightest light ever created anywhere.
And we are powering the Earth from the tail-pipe, go Eli.
“Energy is conserved because then the 400 W/m^2 from the source eventually finds its way through to the other side of the plate (whether thick or thin) and is emitted there.”
And the reason this doesn’t apply to the REAL Earth, in any case, is because the real Earth is rotating (and has an energy source inside it). Energy received at a fixed point on the Earth can only conduct down into the soil or water so far whilst the sun is there until the point the sun is effectively “switched off”, at night-time. At which point the process reverses. So because of the rotation it never gets down below a certain point. In Eli’s experiment the plate is fixed forever facing the sun and so of course energy will get all the way through to the other side of the plate.
“Guys, why do you think it is that they hate the definition of heat flow so much? And why do they similarly hate the equations for heat flow?”
They don’t care. Period. They are just defending a false paradigm. They don’t care how stupid they look to us, as long as they can dupe others.
They are playing a Confidence Game. Their dupes simply repeat catch phrases devoid of any scientific substance.
Robert, I was being facetious.
Of course there’s infinite directions. So,
400= (infinity) * s * T^4 , T=0
The plate never heats! LOL
There’s an infinite number of ways to fuck up this problem. Eli stumbles into one of them.
We solved it right:
Thanks for the graphic work, Robert.
Look at this exchange on Eli’s blog:
Betty Pound:
“They neglect the fact that heating and cooling are dynamic processes and thermodynamics is not.”
thermoDYNAMICS is not a dynamic process? LOL
If the blue plate starts at 0 kelvin and receives 400 W/m2, and MUST emit 200+200 W/m2 … it never heats up!
Eli Rabrtt:
Betty you neatly capture the difference between thermodynamics and dynamics in your example.
The blue plate emits less than 400 w/m2 until it reaches equilibrium at 244 K and then it stops warming. Strictly speaking thermodynamics is only valid at equilibrium. Dynamics is how it gets there.
Betty Pound:
Why would it go to 244K? I am assuming your plate is one molecule thick, so 400=sigma*T^4, T=~290K.
****
That woman took him to school. Look at his pathetic sophistry. Ha ha ha
What idiocy! Thermodynamics is “only valid at equilibrium”? So heat flow which is what happens when there is *NO* equilibrium is not valid, not a valid part of thermodynamics? The valid part of thermodynamics is thermo but not dynamics? The valid part of thermodynamics is thermal equilibrium, but not heat flow before thermal equilibrium is achieved?!
What kind of idiocy is this!?
This has to be his nickname from now on:
Eli “Heating and Cooling isn’t part of Thermodynamics” Rabbet.
Now just watch. Now that his errors have been explicitly pointed out, his language explicitly shown to be meaningless, his results explicitly made clear that they do not support what the RGHE actually requires…. Will he correct himself? Will he back down? Or will he go on repeating it, when he’s not even repeating what would demonstrate the RGHE in the first place?
They ALWAYS go on repeating it. They’re such mentally damaged goblins. I think we can actually define them quite clearly as not being conscious…they simply must not be conscious humans. A conscious human can recognize when 2 is not equal to 3, when x = x, when a number greater than x is not found, etc.
What kind of unconscious entities are we dealing with here!? What are they? We can’t really identify them as human, can we?
Or like Afro said, they’re active con-men.
Their response about energy not being conserved will always be that if an object is receiving 400 W/m2 on one side only but emitting 400 W/m2 from both sides, then due to the surface area of one side being half that of the total surface area, irradiance is being conserved instead of energy. This leads them to the equally crazy conclusion that the side of the object facing the sun is in equilibrium when emitting half the flux it receives.
The fact is if they are dividing by 2 then they are effectively saying that the plate has no thickness whatsoever, i.e, that entire dimension does not exist in their consideration. That being the case though, there is no need to think of the plate as even possessing two sides (facing away from the sun and facing towards it). Without the “thickness” dimension the “back side” and the “front side” are…the same thing.
GW: “This leads them to the equally crazy conclusion that the side of the object facing the sun is in equilibrium when emitting half the flux it receives.”
Precisely! Great one. They do this by ignoring the actual rules and equations for heat flow. And set up a situation that is actually NEVER in thermal equilibrium, but then they define it as thermal equilibrium. Errors beget errors.
That’s all of it…that’s all of your climate alarm and its radiative greenhouse effect for you…let alone failed attempts to support it which don’t actually support it.
What the fuck is this place? A god-damned madhouse!?
Braindead. Braindead goblin freaks.
Love it 🙂
Here’s a thought for Eli: If he kept adding plates infinitely, would he not eventually get the output to equal the input? … theoretically, … at the limit, … and his “logic” would lead him to deduce that an infinity of plates between the source of radiation and the target would result in equilibrium ? So, the more CO2 we added to the atmosphere, the closer to equilibrium we could force Earth’s atmosphere, if we considered each doubling a “plate” ? — I don’t know — I haven’t really thought through THIS progression of errors thoroughly.
I could be wrong about this path of erroneous thinking. What a hellish dilemma — worrying about whether or not I’ve got my erroneous thinking “straight”. Help me out, Eli.
The professor thinks he’s a bunny. This speaks volumes:
1) he thinks he’s [being] cute
2) he likes mischief
3) he gets off being chased and caught for his mischief
The guy is shameless.
Nice one, RK!
Good one!
Since he has provided us with so much entertainment, I figure we should put a face to the name of “Eli” — I think that this is him, costumed in character — seriously, this is how I found the picture — I did nothing to it:
Dear Eli,
I think that I can speak for at least a few of us here at Climate of Sophistry, when I say that we appreciate your penchant for cartoonery, or should I say “buffoonery”. If we haven’t hurt your feelings too much with all the ribbing, then you might view this as an opportunity to re-examine your ideological commitments, in view of the bit of info that we have thrown together. Or not, and just carry on for our further entertainment. Either way, you teach us much. Thanks.
Oh man…lol! 🙂
Eli’s femtosecond refrigeration at room temperature system.
You have a plate at room temperature say 18c, you place Eli’s fresh lettuce upon it, lettuce cools to 9c, luvvvely jubly, a plate that is emitting 9c each side.
His sun or plates may aswell be 3 single lines of ink on paper, because they are just representing magic mirrors, that reflect light half from the rear, and magically half out of the front, no light ever stays on/in the mirrors,
The EMME hypothesis [ Eli’s Magic Mirror Effect ].
Guys, I’m guessing some of you do not know that Eli is a key ‘scientist’ among the alarmists who who became prominent in attacking Dr Gerlich and Dr Tscheuschner (G&T) when they published their seminal debunk of the GHE published in the International Journal of Modern Physics B, Vol. 23, No. 3 (30 January 2009), 275-364. Eli Rabbett (aka Dr Joshua B Halpern) posted this arxiv paper in rebuttal:
Click to access 1012.0421.pdf
G&T stand alongside Alan Siddons and Hans Schreuder as the true pioneers of the refutation of the radiative Greenhouse Gas Theory. Joe Postma has been carrying the ‘Slayers’ baton brilliantly ever since.
‘Climate expert’ Dr Judith Curry joined in with Eli in seeking to take down G&T (as well as Claes Johnson and Miskolczi ( all ‘Slayers’ in name or otherwise).
Curry is as clueless, she admitted to us she never completed any university course in thermo and her own cobbled up pet GHE theory she posted here to much acclaim:
see here: https://judithcurry.com/2010/12/02/best-of-the-greenhouse/
Curry had this to say about G&T. Johnson, Slayers:
“If you looked through these papers and did not immediately realize that they were nonsense, then it is very likely that you are simply not up to speed on radiative transfer.”
So, you see,we are battling two willfully ignorant and stubbornly stupid GHE cliques (alarmists & lukewarmists) with their self-styled experts who somehow obtained PhD’s in science without understanding a jot about thermodynamics.
Wow John, no I didn’t know all that about him and that particular history.
Well, so funny to see him now debunk HIMSELF with his own example which showed that the RGHE didn’t develop! Do these people even understand the first thing about what they’re doing? Clearly, Curry mustn’t with her admitted lack of ANY thermodynamics education. I wonder if Eli likewise has no such thing!?
Interesting that he feels the need to use aliases. I’ve never felt the need to do that publishing honest work that I believe in.
This is rabbit’s paper:
http://www.worldscientific.com/doi/abs/10.1142/S021797921005555X
“They claim that radiative heat transfer from a colder atmosphere to a warmer surface is forbidden, ignoring the larger transfer in the other direction which makes the complete process allowed.”
Wait, what? The opposite of what he needs to prove proves what he needs to prove?
He’s saying cold can warm hot because hot can warm cold.
This guy is a pathetic con-artist. I’m fully convinced. He writes paradoxical word salad then acts AS IF.
EXACTLY!!!
Man you nailed that perfectly! That is exactly the lie!
And it’s because they are either unaware of or purposefully ignoring the difference between energy and heat. Sophistry!
rabbit: “They claim that radiative heat transfer from a colder atmosphere to a warmer surface is forbidden, ignoring the larger transfer in the other direction which makes the complete process allowed.”
Isn’t that just so stupid!? Heat is DEFINED and ONLY the part which transfers from hot to cold. He’s saying that cold heats hot as hot heats cold but it’s ok because hot heats cold more. WTF!
Classic example of not distinguishing between heat and energy and temperature just as from the Schroeder textbook quote.
What is wrong with these people!?! Why do they hate the actual definitions so much, hate science pedagogy so much, and hate thermodynamics so much? LOL
I have been reading the thread at Eli’s place and here.
If i am wrong here will you please tell me.
Eli constructed a tube with only lateral movement of all energy.
So taking his hypothesis as is, but changing the wm2 to temperature.
Room temperature temperature i understand that.
Eli’s tube and a stopper plate at one end, the back of the plate thats constantly being heated by the room temperature it is exposed to, so the front of that plate radiating at room temp as Eli’s sun, radiating its energy of room temp onto 2 plates radiating 0c..
What is going to happen isnt a mystery, and all will end in a steady state room temperature, and Eli’s restriction on lateral movement can be dropped and everything will still stay at room temperature.
I was a big fan of the Gerlich and Tscheuschner paper, and I had forgotten about their eloquent reply to their scathing critics. I discussed this paper in a little blog post I did somewhere years ago, trying to tear apart critics of the paper in my own mind. I was impressed by their ability to answer their critics in such great detail. I wasn’t aware that one of those critics I was trying to deal with was a bunny rabbit. (^_^) Ehang, … what’s theromdynamics, doc?
Unfortunately, when some of the critics realized that this paper actually demolished the “greenhouse effect”, they immediately switched to the “oh-G&T-misunderstood-what-we-were-saying-all-along” claim, as they invoked, with increasing vehemence, the “slowed-cooling” angle.
We never said that back-radiation added heat or caused warm to flow to cold, but rather that cold flowing to warm slows down warm’s cooling. … or something like that.
I dare say that Gerlich and Tscheuschner decided, at that point, the magnitude of the idiocy they were facing, and so they must have elected NOT to waste any more of their time trying to deconstruct complex idiocy. They had better things to do. It would have been fun to see how they handled THIS objection, though. You’ve seem my own paltry attempts to handle it here before, and the reason is that it has been a particularly thorny annoyance in my own side that I felt the need to analyze more deeply.
All G&T needed to do was to kill that “slowed-cooling” claim, and they would have completed their masterpiece. But I understand how you just have to let children play sometimes and not make them grow up too fast. And that’s what I think we are dealing with here — children who are having a hard time giving up the belief in Santa.
Now about Judith Curry: I actually think that she is a great ally in the quest for legitimate climate science. I have a positive opinion of her, as far as it goes. She has a calm that is needed and a good, level headed contrast to the raving on the other side. She’s got good game.
Alas, she does NOT take it far enough, as she still seems to believe in Santa, and does not like mean old adults that question his existence.
T’was the night before catastrophic climate change, and all through the consensus, not a creature believed they were wrong, … not even a rabbit.
not even a dufus … would have been a more poetic finish of that line.
Eli,
If you are still reading, and if I may take a moment to be civil [how boring], then I’d like to point out what appears to be a basic disagreement in how the two of us might be looking at things, namely, in this illustration of yours:
Here, you seem to understand that this illustration shows the plate emitting a total of 400 W/m^2 by emitting 200 W/m^2, a neat division by two, in only the two directions that are at a 180-degree angle to one another. … as if the reality of emission is a process that neatly divides radiated flux in only two directions (ONLY two, opposite directions).
My understanding is that the visualization of emission could have that blue flux arrow positioned at any angle in a radial flair around the plate’s center point in an infinity of positions, ALL showing 400 W/m^2. The choice of which arrow to choose to label the flux would be arbitrary, just a choice of which angle we would choose to view the plate:
No matter how we view the plate, the flux is still 400 W/m^2. Confusing these separate points of view for actual, separate divisions of the flux is what I think that you are doing. Consequently, I am NOT violating laws of thermodynamics in my re-drawings, but rather I am violating your understanding of how to visualize flux, and I think that I am correcting what is a basic misunderstanding of yours.
Your thought experiment is quite ideal too, … so ideal, in fact, that it is hard to see how it applies to any reality. Take for example the issue of plate thickness — does the plate HAVE thickness? If no, then we have to assume that it is infinitely thin, meaning that both “sides” are, in fact, the same, and your two DIFFERENT sides end up being ONE side radiating the 400 that it receives. If thickness is suggested, then WHAT thickness ?, … WHAT material composition ?, … what heat properties ?, … and now we are into an engineering problem that is not so simple any more. But since you specify NONE of this detail, we must assume the most ideal scenario of infinite thinness, which is the same as my 400 pictured on both sides or my 400 pictured at any angle you choose.
It’s just NOT a very real set up to shed any insight on any physical reality.
Just to add to what Robert has said, if the plate is indeed meant to be infinitely thin (in other words it is a two-dimensional object) then to keep consistency in your thought experiment there would be no sense in which either of your plates, or the sun, have any distance between them. Because that distance is shown to exist in the same direction as the thickness of the plates (i.e the distance left to right across the diagram is in the dimension you are saying does not exist for the plates). In which case you are inserting a two-dimensional object into what is a three-dimensional space and expecting your result to be in any way physically meaningful.
You have to laugh and pity them for being duped so daftly, he sold them a plate that radiates at half its room temperature on each side………………….ffs dont let democrats arm themselves.
Those guys have obviously never picked a plate up. it ended up as 3 plates in the drainer by the sink all at room temp even though 2 at the front came out of the fridge earlier, even if you just restrict the energy to left right photon movement only.
He must know he has tricked them, it is a pattern of presentation over substance that hooks so many lefties, he is gold plated to them, a thought bubble with a temperature replacing the wm2 and it falls to bits.
A mind picture of a cold tube right infront of you, room temperature photons allowed in at one end only, and 2 sub zero plates absorbing and emitting them. and only their emitted energy leaves.the system, it leaves as twice as much room temperature
As if either or both plates are going to be warmer than room temperature at any stage.
It is beyond stupid, make the sun radiate at room temp 20c and make the plates 0c, ice plates.
stand back from your vision and watch both plates rise to room temp.
I cannot picture his diagrams simpler than lowering all the temps or wm2’s as he uses.
Down to laymans temperatures the air around us .. touching a block of ice … picking up a plate.
Joe may remember a post I wrote several years ago on PSI concerning the “steel greenhouse” effect. I used this problem from the same textbook I cited above.
The greenhouse zealots object strongly to this and that idiot Robert Brown based his criticisms on the fact that the “steel greenhouse” had a continuous energy input whilst these examples do not – although I note that 1023 says (Note that this is a crude model of a star surrounded by a dust cloud.)
I’m guessing stars do not qualify as having a continuous power input ?
The other thing about ALL of these so-called 1st law energy equilibrium balances is that they have absolutely no basis in reality no matter which form of scatterbrained algebra is used.
The same insolation that induces 70.1°C surface temperatures in the Lut desert in Iran NEVER causes more than ~36°C temperatures in the oceans.
Despite absorbing loads more energy due to its specific heat and latent heat of evaporation and releasing THE VAST MAJORITY of this energy as it rains the effect on temperature is minuscule !
The energy goes into all sorts of other outputs – it never simply causes temperature changes and ALL of their caterwauling is just nonsense that has no basis in reality.
The energy can do other things besides causing temperature changes. That’s the profound takeaway from Rosco’s comment on 2017/10/13 at 4:58 PM.
Those who feel worried about CO2 need to dwell on this for a while.
Better still, go boil a pot of water with a thermometer on your burner and another thermometer on your water’s surface. Watch as the thermometer on your burner rockets up, while the thermometer on your water’s surface reaches a certain point and never exceeds it.
Pretty cool, eh ? [no pun intended]
This rabit, err rabid goblin is already exposed as a fraud.
Which of you gentlemen would like to email the real physicists at his university, so his shame can continue all the way to the welfare line?
Rosco and others, you may be interested to know that it is now provable that Eli is lying. There is a comment from him here (at Roy Spencer’s blog) http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/10/uah-global-temperature-update-for-september-2017-0-54-deg-c/#comment-267630 that states:
“Eli used infinite thin plates facing each other to reduce the difficulty of the problem to 2D. The idea was to make the discussion as simple as possible while retaining the physical concepts. You can actually find discussions in textbooks where the effects of the edges of the plates are discussed which are shown to go to zero as the plates grow in area.
Such 2D cases are important learning tools across physics for example 2D capacitors.”
Whereas in the comments on his blog (http://rabett.blogspot.co.uk/2017/10/an-evergreen-of-denial-is-that-colder.html?showComment=1507945224036#c4948017542973854095) he now states:
“Betty, Eli’s plates are perfectly black and absorb all radiation that falls on one side. They don’t have to be one molecule thick just their area A >> t^2 so edge effects don’t matter and have high thermal conductivity so the temperature of one side is equal to the temperature of the other.”
No I don’t agree with doing that. Not cool.
I would NOT vote for such extreme shaming. We should be above witch hunts and burning them at the stake. Pointing out questionable thinking clearly enough to make an impact, … done over and over and over, yes, and over again … is a more noble course.
Paradigm shifting is a hell of a job.
We live by our rational and logical approach to science and our environment and we do not indulge in sophistry. We do not blow a loud trumpet but only one sound of truth and that is of logical reason:
Our Lips Are Sealed :
Fun Boy Three:
Can you hear them talking ’bout us?
Telling lies, is that a surprise
Can you see them? See right through them
They have a shield, nothing must be revealed
It doesn’t matter what they say
No one listens anyway
Our lips are sealed
There’s a weapon that we can use
In our defense, silence
Well, just look at them, look right through them
That’s when they disappear, that’s when we lose the fear
It doesn’t matter what they say
In the jealous games people play
Ger de ger de ger drr ger thats all folks:
Rosco,
I studied that latest post of yours from the thermodynamics text, and I summarized and visualized for clarity, as follows:
For the benefit of us less experienced, would you mind explaining the significance of this. Thanks.
Alright, we’ll take the high road.
The hilarity ensues on Eli’s blog:
—–
Quokka:
Betty asks: “So you can add up the radiation from two bodies and get a higher temperatures? What is the temperature of two ice cubes vs one?”
Well, let’s see. Ice is at 273K, so if the entire sky (as viewed from a surface) was ice, it would supply 315W. So consider a surface at 0K, facing a sky at 0K. Introduce an ice cube, occupying 1/1000th of the field of view. It will therefore supply 0.315W (on average; more at zenith, less if low on the horizon), which equates to a temperature of 48.5K (way higher than the cosmic background radiation!). A second ice cube will double the power to 0.63W, equating to 57.7K. See, not hard.
Betty Pound:
10,000 ice cubes and you get 3150W or 485K or 212C
You can boil water with 10,000 ice cubes!
You just solved the world energy crisis. You must patent right away.
Quokka:
The flaw in this reasoning is trivially obvious, but I’ll spell it out for logic-challenged. The maximum amount of energy you can get from ice, 315 W/m2, is if the entire hemispherical field of view is filled with ice (i.e. 1000 cubes). Where were you planning to put the other 9000 cubes, unless you can find a hemispherical field of view of 20*pi steradians? (cf. the usual 2*pi steradians we get in our universe)
You ‘forgot’ to point out any error in my calculation with 1 and 2 ice cubes. That’s because you can’t, of course. But please do show us your calculation of how much energy an ice cube would supply, I’m sure we’d all enjoy a laugh.
Timothy Folkerts:
Quokka says: “Introduce an ice cube, occupying 1/1000th of the field of view….”
Betty makes an interesting (but misguided) reply: “10,000 ice cubes and you get 3150W or 485K or 212C”
Betty, 1000 cubes that each cover 1/1000th of the field of view means the entire field of view is already covered by the first 1,000 blocks of ice. You basically have an igloo with a surface on the floor of the igloo that is receiving the radiation. The floor will receive 315 W/m^2 and will warm/cool to 0C (assuming it is insulated on the bottom side). A new ice block — no matter where you place it, cannot cover more that 100% of the field of view and cannot provide more that 315 W/m^2 of radiation to the floor. Any blocks beyond the first 1000 will either be
* on the OUTSIDE of the igloo, and provide no radiation to the floor.
* on the INSIDE of the igloo, in which case they they do radiate to the floor, but simultaneously block and equal amount of radiation from the ice behind them.
This geometry seems to escape many people, and it leads people to incorrect conclusions. 10,000 blocks of ice in this situation would make the igloo’s walls *thicker* but this does not provide more radiation.
Betty Pound:
What a bunch of assholes on this forum. They all become pedantic to a specific experiment setup.
Quokka arbitrarily chose 1/1000th field of view. Well, I can arbitrarily choose 1/10000th, and claim he invented an igloo oven.
Rather then call him out for his crackpot physics of adding fluxes, assholes actually defend him.
In his “physics” the size of the ice cubes, doesn’t matter either. Did you notice that? So one can still fit 10,000 ice cubes 1/10th the original size.
Quokka, when are you going to patent your igloo oven?
—–
Looks like the green plate theory became an igloo oven theory! Ha ha ha ha ha ha
Alright, we’ll take the high road.
The hilarity ensues on Eli’s blog:
Quokka:
Betty asks: “So you can add up the radiation from two bodies and get a higher temperatures? What is the temperature of two ice cubes vs one?”
Well, let’s see. Ice is at 273K, so if the entire sky (as viewed from a surface) was ice, it would supply 315W. So consider a surface at 0K, facing a sky at 0K. Introduce an ice cube, occupying 1/1000th of the field of view. It will therefore supply 0.315W (on average; more at zenith, less if low on the horizon), which equates to a temperature of 48.5K (way higher than the cosmic background radiation!). A second ice cube will double the power to 0.63W, equating to 57.7K. See, not hard.
Betty Pound:
10,000 ice cubes and you get 3150W or 485K or 212C
You can boil water with 10,000 ice cubes!
You just solved the world energy crisis. You must patent right away.
Quokka:
Betty responds: “10,000 ice cubes and you get 3150W or 485K or 212C. You can boil water with 10,000 ice cubes! You just solved the world energy crisis. You must patent right away.”
The flaw in this reasoning is trivially obvious, but I’ll spell it out for logic-challenged. The maximum amount of energy you can get from ice, 315 W/m2, is if the entire hemispherical field of view is filled with ice (i.e. 1000 cubes). Where were you planning to put the other 9000 cubes, unless you can find a hemispherical field of view of 20*pi steradians? (cf. the usual 2*pi steradians we get in our universe)
You ‘forgot’ to point out any error in my calculation with 1 and 2 ice cubes. That’s because you can’t, of course. But please do show us your calculation of how much energy an ice cube would supply, I’m sure we’d all enjoy a laugh.
Betty Pound:
What a bunch of assholes on this forum. They all become pedantic to a specific experiment setup.
Quokka arbitrarily chose 1/1000th field of view. Well, I can arbitrarily choose 1/10000th, and claim he invented an igloo oven.
Rather then call him out for his crackpot physics of adding fluxes, assholes actually defend him.
In his “physics” the size of the ice cubes, doesn’t matter either. Did you notice that? So one can still fit 10,000 ice cubes 1/10th the original size.
Quokka, when are you going to patent your igloo oven?
—
Ha ha ha ha.
Am I blocked? I was just joking. C’mon 😦
No worries!!
Sometimes you have to test the limits, AfroP. I’ve certainly done my share of that, as posts of mine in other places have been deleted by the mods on occasions.
These limits can only be discovered by testing them, and their discovery serves as guidance tin productive exchange, given a particular editorial wish. That’s why I dare not get too specific and too targeted over at WUWT — I try to play with the kiddies (really smart kiddies – some smarter than moi, in fact) in constructive ways without stepping on their toes, so to speak.
When I can’t take the limitations of the limits, I take my ball and go home, which I have also done at places on the internet.
I have to say that this blog here has been one of the more insightful places that I have been a part of.
Ah well I posted a long comment twice and it failed to show up. I don’t mind now. I was pointing out the hilarious things said on Eli’s blog.
Taking the high road is fine, but keep in mind that these goblins would get you fired or tarnish your reputation, if they had the chance.
I am not going to get the clown fired. Clowns need jobs too. Perhaps Eli is great at soldering and grading freshman papers, so he earns his keep.
Not sure why some comments went to spam and trash but I rescued some.
All that “reasoning” on that thread and still no one demonstrated what the RGHE required…lol!
And yes…this is when they apply the old switcheroo strategy of “slowed cooling” instead of backradiation heating. The liars.
Over at Roy Spencer’s, here is a typical response (they’re quoting me to begin with):
““Or, 400 W/m2 in (red arrow), 400 W/m2 out (green arrow). The blue arrow left must be 400 W/m2 if the side of the plate facing the sun is at equilibrium with the input from the sun.”
Sure could be at first in transition, this is not equilibrium for the system though. At system equilibrium 1LOT shows there MUST be 400joules/sec-m^2 in and 400joules/sec-m^2 out contrary to Joe’s equilibrium picture. He needs the generator and fuel for that to be equilibrium.
“But this argument can (and probably will) go round and round in circles forever.”
No, the argument has been settled by test. If Joe runs a test, he will need a generator to get his equilibrium power chart nearby your link. Once he removes the generator equipment, he will measure 400 in and 200blue + 200green out and be forced to concede. Joe won’t do that as his blog is aptly named.”
Basically that will be the default response from them forever…red arrow from the sun in is 400 W/m2 going over half the surface area that it emits from. So if 400 W/m2 is coming out over the full surface area of the plate that means energy isn’t being conserved. They’ll just always say that anything but their solution violates conservation of energy,
Classical end in debating at cross purposes not even on target.
EVEN IF THE ENERGY GETS SPLIT, it still debunks the RGHE!
They need to show that the first plate gets warmer than the source flux. They did not. Full stop. All over. No RGHE.
Idiocy!
They definitely debunked the RGHE, but people still want to nail him on the energy splitting (for the lulz).
He claims 400 in and 200|200 out. But this is over a surface area of 2 m^2. So (200+200)/2=200. He violates conservation of energy. His flaw is a real howler.
RK, definitely this is best blog for straight forward physics. All the other ones staunchly defend their false paradigm.
It’s actually all about the view factors involved. First, we can definitively state that his results debunked the RGHE. That’s what’s most important here and it is LOVELY to see his results refute the RGHE. But if you want to go on about the splitting…
For plane parallel the view factors are reciprocal, and the secondary passive plate can not lose any energy in the direction of the source plate. That’s why there’s no split by two in the equation for plane parallel. And Robert’s solution would be for that.
However if the source is a point source or just subtends a small angular area then the source-facing side of the receiver plate hardly sees the source at all and CAN radiate to that 180 degree range on the side of the source. In this case the split by two would be valid. That is, the secondary object still can’t lose energy in the direction directly to the primary source, but if the source is a small area then there are lots of directions around the source to which energy can be lost and at best this approaches a split by two for the receiver plate.
For the sun and earth, the sun is a point source or at least a source which subtends a tiny total area of the sky, and so we calculate the effective blackbody temperature of the Earth by assuming that the Earth radiates and loses energy in all directions, whereas there is actually a small area region directly back to the sun at which the Earth can not lose energy.
So for Rosco’s example pic, the split by two is wrong whether the author meant a sphere and shell or plane parallel walls. With a sphere and shell, the shell can not lose any energy in internal emission at all – either the sphere or the other inner side of the shell is in the way.
Eli got the numbers in his example ok I think if we assume that the source is close enough to a point source. The important part which I said right away is that the result didn’t support the RGHE.
“In this case the split by two would be valid. That is, the secondary object still can’t lose energy in the direction directly to the primary source, but if the source is a small area then there are lots of directions around the source to which energy can be lost and at best this approaches a split by two for the receiver plate.”
Well the sun in Eli’s thought experiment might be a point source but the two plates are definitely plane parallel. Does this mean then that the correct answer is the red arrow coming in is still 400 W/m2, then the blue and green plates both emit 200 W/m2 in either direction, at equilibrium? Which still means Eli’s math is wrong.
Great stuff GW! Just right!!
Well, this just got a whole lot more interesting, … in a scary way. (^_^)
I’m questioning the proposal that the sun is a “point source”, because even a point radiates outward in a way that makes it much MORE than a point. The outgoing rays from the point become incident rays from a now wide flair of rays (NOT a point anymore), don’t they ?
No it’s just much closer to a point source than it is a plane. 🙂
Your drawing is what makes/why light diminishes in flux as 1/r^2.
No matter how close we got to the point (even infinitely close), there would be infinitely many line-nova lines emanating from that point, covering more than a “small area”, and the radiation going back towards the point would be encountering those flaring-out line-nova lines, rather than just a small area, viewed as a disc far away.
Similarly, the lines emitting back to the source would flair out also and encounter the flaring lines from the source:
Oh no, I’m debating the master on a detail. This will not end well for me. (^_^)
That diagram shows the view factor thing really nicely!
That diagram probably causes some people epileptic seizures too. (^_^)
But moving on, … let’s say the radiative “greenhouse effect” requires … “slowing cooling”.
Yeah, I’m back on that again — I thought i had put it to bed, but it is rearing its ugly head again.
My question is: What does “slowing cooling” really mean? Slowing with respect to what? What’s the schedule of Earth’s cooling that we SHOULD be on? I mean, won’t it cool eventually ? Where are we in that process? Where SHOULD we be ? Who said so ? Where is it written where the Earth’s schedule of cooling should be a certain time frame, and how do we know where we are in this time frame? So, again, what exactly is meant by “slowing cooling” ?
And how does “slowing cooling” trap heat ? It does NOT, if it still gets out and cools down eventually. So, how does heat build up, even if cooling is “slowed” ? Maybe you slow it down so much that it is almost at a stand still, BUT to get it to add any heat, you STILL would have to add that heat from somewhere, but where? — the sun is still the ONLY source of radiation that can make heat happen. So, do you turn up the sun to add more heat while cooling is slowed ? Nope, can’t do that, because you are then creating energy from out of nowhere. So, how do you get that “slowing cooling” to cause “increasing heating” ?
It’s seems like such a nebulous or undefined claim. Again, tell me how “slowing cooling” traps heat.
And you (alarmists) can’t have the atmosphere send back radiation that adds heat anymore, because you’ve gotten “smarter”, and you already told G&T that this was NOT what you were talking about. So, the heat cannot come from the sun, and the heat cannot come from the atmosphere. So, how does it arise?
ANSWER: It arises from the massive amount of hot air from all the wining about how trained physicists do not understand non-dynamic thermodynamics.
JP, so for one plate, does 400 w/m2 coming in on one side create 200 w/m2 emitted from two sides? Eli claims this does not violate conservation because
“400 w/m2 x 1 m2 = 400 W = 200 W/m2 x 1 m2 + 200 W/m2 x 1 m2 = 400 W”
If the source is close enough to a point source then that is ok.
I would like to thank you all for such an entertaining evening! .. you are all awesome!
Special thanks go out to Eli Rabett. Rarely have I laughed so hard. I am still trying to grapple with the idea that you have a PhD? … really? .. Aside from your stated credentials, I cannot imagine in which field you were able to achieve a PhD. If it is that easy, I can only wonder why I didn’t get a few for myself.
Sorry, folks, this is all I can muster. I am still laughing my ass off from the time wasted at the Rabett Run blog. I need a nap now in attempt to regain the IQ points I lost while reading the comedic material on Rabett Run.
Hahahaha… great stuff! … you guys keep it up! .. you are exposing the lying sacks of shit for what they are !!! … You all impress the living crap out of me! .. I am so very grateful that Joseph continues to keep this site rolling along. The lessons I have learned here are invaluable!
Good night folks! .. Take care!
Doing the 3 body (2-plate) exercise in 2D simplifies the math, making it easier for lay people to see what’s happening. In 2D we only need to deal with surface area (length and breadth) and bi-directionality, instead of having to deal with distance, dispersing energy wavefronts, thickness, conduction, a rotating sphere etc.
In 3D the maths gets much more complex, making it too esoteric for most to absorb. If we stick with the idealized 2D set up, everyone should be able to join in. If (by some miracle?) we can come to agreement on the 2D formulation and conclusion, then those with the maths chops can consider 3 spheres (no atmosphere) to see if the principle holds in 3D. They could then rotate the spheres to see if that makes a difference. And so on, step by step.
The 2-plate exercise is only being used to test a specific statement (EG, “Introduction of a cooler body to a system in thermal equilibrium with the energy it receives can never cause the warmer body to get warmer”), one that people disagree on. It’s a starting point in what could be a methodical approach that, step by step builds an understanding of a more complex system. A kind of antidote, I guess, to arguing a bunch of different things at once with no traction on any of them.
That’s the utility of the 2D exercise for me, anyway.
alright, so what would the equilibrium temperature of one plate be?
a) 400=sT^4 , T=290K
b) 400=1/2*sT^4 , T=244K
@barry – I have no problem with the 2d exercises.
But there is a problem when the appropriate view factors aren’t used, the definition of heat isn’t used, and the correct equations aren’t used.
@Afro – they all become (b) if the source is a point source. If the source is plane parallel then they would all be (a).
This is just to check my understanding with the plate surface area/conservation of energy/view factor issue: it is the surface area over which energy can be gained in relation to the surface area over which energy can be lost that matters. With the sun as a point source the area over which energy can be gained is only the side facing the sun, but the area over which energy can be lost is the entire surface area of the plate (both sides). This is because the side facing the sun can lose energy in any direction other than that which is exactly perpendicular to the sun (more or less). That energy emitted in those other directions effectively misses the sun. The energy emitted straight at the sun doesn’t “count” as energy lost overall since the sun is emitting energy straight at the plate along this path in the first place. But this is infinitesimal in comparison to all the other directions in which the sun-facing side can lose energy.
With the blue plate as a plane parallel (passive) energy source to the green plate, the green plate can only gain energy on the side facing the blue plate (same as before), but the crucial difference is that it can only lose energy on the other side facing away from the blue plate. So only that half of the overall plate surface area which is losing energy is compared to the other half of the plate surface area which is gaining energy from the blue plate. So it is 1:1 on surface area, rather than 1:2 above. The reason none of the side of the green plate facing the blue can be seen as losing energy is because at every point along the surface area of that side of the plate energy is being received directly (perpendicular) from the equivalent point on the surface of the blue plate. So using the same logic as in the first paragraph this doesn’t count as energy lost overall. It just sums to zero, cancels out, whatever way you want to express it.
Perfectly explained!
Except where you use the word “perpendicular” you meant “directly in line” as perpendicular means “at 90 degrees”. I understand what you mean though as you explained your meaning quite clearly.
Also at the start you should say it is the *directionality* from which energy is gained in relation to where it can be lost. Then the rest flows great as this is exactly what you explain.
GW,
I may have misunderstood you but,
“the side facing the sun can lose energy in any direction”
and
“The reason none of the side of the green plate facing the blue can be seen as losing energy is because at every point along the surface area of that side of the plate energy is being received directly (perpendicular) from the equivalent point on the surface of the blue plate.”
Why does the left side of the blue plate radiate in nearly any direction but the right side doesn’t? Why doesn’t the green plate emit multidirectionally?
Are you saying there is heat loss unaccounted for in Eli’s set up, because the side of the blue pate facing the sun emits radiation in diagonal, rather than purely parallel lines?
In my mind the 2D is set-up is inherently bidirectional rather than multidirectional. But if the sun-facing blue surface can emit multidirectionally, I would assume every other plate surface has that property.
Because of the other objects in the way or not in the way. If an object is on a line of sight vector then there is radiation coming from that vector and so you can’t lose energy in that direction.
You’ve clipped an important bit of my first comment there. I said:
“the side facing the sun can lose energy in any direction other than that which is exactly perpendicular to the sun (more or less)”
As Joe pointed out perpendicular was not a good word choice in that context. What I should have said is “perpendicular to the plate”. So on the diagram the plates are in a vertical line. The side facing the sun can lose energy (back, PAST the sun) in pretty much any direction other than perpendicular to the plate. You have to think of the view from on the surface of the plate looking towards the sun. The sun would just be a small circle directly overhead. Only radiation from the surface going directly towards it will “hit” it. Everything else, going off at any other angle, will “miss” it. So, most of the radiation from the plate misses it, only an infinitesimal amount, really, is going to reach the sun.
Then consider the view from the green plate. Filling basically the entire field of view above your head is just this giant blue plate. No way virtually any of the energy radiated from the plate on that side is going to miss it.
Does that help?
Plus, in answer to (I think) all of your questions, both sides of both plates emit multidirectionally, as does the sun.
All side multidirectionally – OK.
I took the plates to be the same size. 1 m2 per side to make the computation the simplest.
I did not imagine that the blue plate is larger than the green plate. How did that happen?
I don’t see how the blue plate catches all the radiation from the green plate, even if it is 100 times the size and, say, 1 centimetre distant. There is still room for leakage over the edges of the blue plate at very oblique angles.
To me, there would be no leakage at all only if there was no distance between green and blue plate, But there is.
But I think this overcomplicates the math, when bidirectional flow does the job more easily. I “see” the same result Eli gets when it’s a 2-sphere system. Even with heat loss in all directions, enegy leaving the system is still in deficit to the input unless both bodies warm.
The side facing the sun can lose energy (back, PAST the sun) in pretty much any direction other than perpendicular to the plate.
There is no physical barrier to the blue plate emitting directly sunward. Instruments reading the (IR) flux off the blue plate would not see a tiny hole in the middle.
You simplify by making the sun a point source and the plates infinite plane parallel…that’s the only way to get equations you can actually read in single statements otherwise they’d have no simple or possibly any analytic solution. This way the boundary conditions or qualitative limits can be tested and understood with the caveat that the real world will perform slightly less good, BUT, will not do better than the simplified ideal solution you’re able to write down.
It’s not that the plate doesn’t emit directly sunward, it’s that it can’t lose energy directly sunward. And if the instrument is close to the plate then it actually casts a shadow on the plate. And the instrument is also not the sun and so you definitely could have rays from the plate lose energy into the instrument which is in front of the sun since the instrument is presumably not a power source let alone with the source flux of the sun.
OK, so the blue plate gets to 244K, and so does the green, and any other additional plates, because the blue plate becomes a parallel source? Just checking.
Right-o!
“I did not imagine that the blue plate is larger than the green plate. How did that happen?”
It isn’t larger.
“I don’t see how the blue plate catches all the radiation from the green plate, even if it is 100 times the size and, say, 1 centimetre distant. There is still room for leakage over the edges of the blue plate at very oblique angles.”
There would be leakage. That’s why I said “no way VIRTUALLY any of the energy radiated from the plate on that side is going to miss it”. As Joseph says it wouldn’t be ideal and would be extremely complicated to consider it in full, but that’s why you make simplifications. At the end of the day Eli has drawn on his sun as a sun, and not another plate. It is depicted as a point source. He could have drawn it with three plates facing each other and then the solution would be as Robert Kernodle depicted and I also at first thought (400 W/m2 leaving each side of blue and green plate). However it is what it is.
“bidirectional flow does the job more easily”
I would say that is the one unforgiveable simplification though, because even in the 2D-simplified space the thought-experiment exists in, multi-directional flow would be what occurred. There is no reason for the radiation to flow in only two directions because the height and length dimensions both still exist in that space. Effectively bidirectional flow would be kind of 1D, if that makes any sense?
Also if you think about it, what Eli wants you to think is that the green plate is like the atmosphere, right? Well you were talking about how you can “see it” (his thought experiment) working even with spheres. But that would be more like saying the moon is heating the Earth, than the atmosphere. The atmosphere is more like a plane parallel RIGHT next to the Earth’s surface than it is another sphere at some distance. So when you were writing about the blue plate seen from the green perspective and I felt like I could detect in your writing some sense that you were finding the whole idea ridiculous, well if you think about it looking up from the blue plate and seeing the atmosphere above you as a green plate filling your entire field of view is not so crazy.
Well that would have been shell enclosing a sphere, but since the shell and sphere (atmosphere and earth surface) have almost the exact same radius then yes indeed the maths reduces to plane parallel.
Just out of interest, Barry is saying that it would over-complicate the math…what would the math be for the problem as we’re describing it?
What would the math be for the un-simplified situation?
A mess. Or would have to be numerically estimated.
No, sorry, I meant the simplified situation – with infinite plane parallels and point source sun. Only if you have time/can be bothered.
That’s what Afro answered. Scan up a bit…he asks that exact thing and the solution is given etc.
Oh, I see: https://climateofsophistry.com/2017/10/06/slayers-vindicated-by-additional-independent-researchers/#comment-31160
The answer being (b), for both the plates. OK thanks for your time and help, much appreciated!
To be clear, the simplifications are that the sun is a point source and that the blue plate and others are of small enough dimension relative to their distance to the sun that the flux on the blue plate is uniform and then that the plate dimensions relative to their respective distances to each other are such that they can be treated as infinite plane parallel.
In reality the sun isn’t quite a point source and it’s flux would not fall uniform on an infinite plane. And the plates can’t be infinite.
Robert, looks like you need to draw a new diagram.
AfroP,
I’m not ready to draw it yet, because, alas, I am not yet convinced. I need to think about it some more, I guess.
This point-source treatment might be a deeply set convention based on a deeply advanced proof, but I’m just not seeing it, from my simple-minded visualizing approach.
How do those radiating lines get squeezed into parallel lines ? They radiate at ALL angles, no matter how far away the target is from the source.
I need to read all the latest replies too, which I have not done slowly and thoughtfully.
It’s as I said above. The plates are small enough that the rays reaching them are parallel, they’re not actually infinite in size, but with respect to each other they are plane parallel.
Robert Kernodle says:
2017/10/14 at 10:33 AM
Rosco,
I studied that latest post of yours from the thermodynamics text, and I summarized and visualized for clarity, as follows:
I wrote it in Word to use symbols etc and converted it to a graphic on Dropbox.
I hope it works out OK.
There are interesting consequences to the example I quoted but it illustrates that expending an effort arguing about whose 1st law “energy budget” is right is simply a waste of time !
If you find fault in the example it is the fault of a PhD qualified University professor at the State University of New York in buffalo !
Robert Brown should have called the State University of New York professors understanding “complete crap” instead of shooting the messenger – besides Brown’s efforts were hilariously incompetent.
There is no simple relationship between radiant emissions because the data from the cavity experiments says that radiant emissions are governed by complex relationships involving temperature.
As Joe has correctly said many times the radiant emissions are caused by the temperature – these guys are claiming the temperature is caused by the radiant emissions the object is emitting and that is nonsense.
There are lots of ways energy can be absorbed without necessarily inducing changes in temperature – this is reality !
And as I have been trying to argue with the “greenhouse effect” supporters for a while now 239.7 W/m2 + 239.7 W/m2 may well equal 479.4 W/m2 but plotting the Planck curves for the SB calculated temperature value for 239.7 W/m2 – ~255 K and doubling the “y” axis values does not produce a 303 K curve.
This should be obvious as this simple algebra fails to account for Wein’s law shift of peak emission to different wavelengths and the SB equation can never account for this hence algebraic sums used to calculate the resulting temperatures is just plain wrong.
Also if you think about it, what Eli wants you to think is that the green plate is like the atmosphere, right? Well you were talking about how you can “see it” (his thought experiment) working even with spheres. But that would be more like saying the moon is heating the Earth, than the atmosphere
I’m not yet interested in the atmosphere (shell). I want to see if the introduction of the green plate interferes with energy flow (loss) from the blue plate, causing it to warm. This basic disagreement about energy flow. My own view of how the atmosphere works is completely set aside here, as I don’t want to argue a bunch of things at once.
The way I see the demo is that introducing the second plate reduces the rate at which energy is lost in a 2-plate system with the sun on one side and EM traveling in parallel lines. The deficit leaving the 2-plate system must be accounted for, so both plates warm a bit.
With multidirectional EM, energy is lost/leaked over the edges of the plates, which makes green plate cooler, as its not getting the total energy from the blue plate. But I think I can see (the math is too hard, so I have to work intuitively, unfortunately) that there is still some slowing of energy loss from the 2-plate system, and both plates must warm a bit – but now not so much.
2 spheres is same story. There is some mutual transmission. As far as I can conceptualize it.
Ie, if the moon were always on the dark side of the earth it would (just a little tiny bit) emit some energy back to to Earth, and the Earth would warm (by a tiny, tiny fraction). The NET flow of energy is still hot to cold.
In the plate system, seems to me there has to be a negative energy gradient from left to right, because the blue plate is getting the constant energy supply from the sun, and some energy from the green plate, while the green plate is only getting energy from the blue plate. *
The green plate has to warm up so that energy loss from the 2-plate system equals input. So it transmits more energy to the blue plate, which warms up as well. This reinforces until the point at which energy leaving the system = input.
At all times the blue plate is warmer than the green, and at all times the NET flow of energy is from hot to cold (macro), while transmission is being emitted and received by the internal surfaces of both plates (micro). 2nd Law is not broken.
With leakage (plates or spheres), there is still an energy gradient, and still some mutual transmission. As far as I cab tell, the basic idea still holds.
He could have drawn it with three plates facing each other?
I sometimes think of it that way, with the proviso that the sun-plate is a source of energy, and the other 2 plates are not, they’re all the same size (1 m2 a side) and the energy flux is parallel and doesn’t diminish in power with distance. If we’re going to simplify, that seems like a reasonable bunch of provisions for a 2D set-up. It doesn’t reflect reality, but we’re trying to get a handle and that seems like the simplest way. As we introduce complexity into the design (move towards full 3D conditions), we make it less tractable for lay people (like my self).
* I’ve read a few people say (effectively and actually) that the emission from the green plate to the blue is zero. I think they say this because “heat cannot flow from cold to hot.” I’ve always thought that referred to NET flow, not to some physical shield somewhere between the plates (or on the blue plate surface) that prevents energy from the green plate striking the blue. If it were accepted that the blue plate does indeed receive energy from the green, the 2nd Law is not broken, because the blue plate warms up as a result, and the NET flow remains hot to cold.
A quote from Clausius might be useful here:
“…it is known that not only the warm body radiates heat to the cold one but that the cold body radiates to the warm one as well…”
A way I conceptualize this matter: instead of a green plate, introduce a sun emitting at 100 w/m2 to its left, striking the warmer blue plate (parallel radiation for ease of concept). This is another source of energy, and should add energy to the blue plate. I can’t see that introducing another (cooler) sun wouldn’t make the blue plate warmer, and thus, I can’t see why the green plate doesn’t do the same job, as it is emitting at exactly the same power to the blue. The result being that now the blue plate has to shed more energy to come into equilibrium with 2 suns – or one sun and an introduced green plate.
Same, but more complex math, for multidirectional emitters and with distance now a non-zero dimension, so to speak, which is how the exercise is being viewed by you and Postma above (and maybe others – I haven’t read upthread).
“Same, but more complex math, for multidirectional emitters and with distance now a non-zero dimension, so to speak”
I should say “with distance/power being a non-zero dimension.” IOW, energy disperses/diminishes with distance.
The atmosphere is more like a plane parallel RIGHT next to the Earth’s surface than it is another sphere at some distance.
I didn’t see the insight here when I first read that.
Yes, the atmosphere is a ‘plane’ to the surface (shell), so if we think of the 2-plate system as an analogistic in terms of directionality, that requires that the energy travels in parallel lines.
“I want to see if the introduction of the green plate interferes with energy flow (loss) from the blue plate, causing it to warm.”
Sure there is interference in the rays emitted by the blue plate downstream, at whatever distance away from the blue plate that the green plate is compared to if it wasn’t there at all…but there is no known way in thermodynamics that this would mean that the blue plate warms. To have an object warm it either needs work done upon it, or heat sent to it. Those are the two ways in thermodynamics and in existence to cause something to warm. The green plate does no work on the blue plate, and it can’t send heat to the blue plate. For that latter part about not sending heat, you MUST distinguish between energy and heat. They are not the same thing. The green plate can not send any heat to the blue plate, but this does not mean that the green plate is not emitting. One MUST distinguish between energy and heat, as Schroeder explains in his textbook as quoted above and which all fundamental texts on thermodynamics do. The surface of the blue plate (and any object) emits spontaneously according to the Stefan-Boltzmann Law and its emissivity. This can’t be stopped. The green plate at some distance has no effect on the blue plate’s ability to emit from its own surface.
“The way I see the demo is that introducing the second plate reduces the rate at which energy is lost in a 2-plate system with the sun on one side and EM traveling in parallel lines. The deficit leaving the 2-plate system must be accounted for, so both plates warm a bit.”
Why must there be a deficit? There is none. The green plate warms until it is emitting the required 200 W/m^2 from its outer side. For the length of time that there is a “deficit”, this is thermal energy being gained into the green plate.
“With multidirectional EM, energy is lost/leaked over the edges of the plates, which makes green plate cooler, as its not getting the total energy from the blue plate. But I think I can see (the math is too hard, so I have to work intuitively, unfortunately) that there is still some slowing of energy loss from the 2-plate system, and both plates must warm a bit – but now not so much.”
You just assume that the plates are large enough & close enough that the infinite plane parallel solution is close enough. The leakage that exists just reduces the temperature a bit.
“Ie, if the moon were always on the dark side of the earth it would (just a little tiny bit) emit some energy back to to Earth, and the Earth would warm (by a tiny, tiny fraction). The NET flow of energy is still hot to cold.”
OK I can see that you may indeed be confusing energy with heat. Only if the moon was warmer than the Earth might it warm the Earth. Or the sunlight reflected from the moon onto the Earth would for sure heat the Earth. You have to work out the equations to see if HEAT can actually flow…this requires computing the view factors and also the 1/r^2 diminutions involved, etc. It is not enough that there is simply energy from any imagined emission…the energy has to be “strong” enough at the destination to act as heat.
“In the plate system, seems to me there has to be a negative energy gradient from left to right”
Not in thermal equilibrium. Thermal equilibrium spontaneously develops in any system left for long enough, and this state is defined as the energy gradients being zero. Therefore there has to be 200 W/m^2 back and forth in the “plate system”.
“the blue plate is getting the constant energy supply from the sun, and some energy from the green plate,”
Careful. It is the difference between energy and heat again. The blue plate gets HEAT from the Sun (until thermal equilibrium is reached, at which point it receives no more heat from the Sun, although it still receives energy from the Sun which maintains the thermal equilibrium given that the blue plate emits too), while it (the blue plate) never receives heat from the green plate. To repeat: The sun is a power and heat source liberating new raw energy from nuclear reactions, while the green plate is a passive object which liberates no new energy and only receives heat from the blue plate. The green plate can never send any heat to the blue plate.
“The green plate has to warm up so that energy loss from the 2-plate system equals input. So it transmits more energy to the blue plate, which warms up as well. This reinforces until the point at which energy leaving the system = input.”
The green plate warms up until it emits 200 W/m^2 from its outer side, and then that’s it. That’s what it gets (200 W/m^2) from the blue plate. The green plate’s emission can not warm the blue plate. The plate system receives 400 W/m^2 and also emits it with the plates sharing 200 W/m^2 internally throughout until that 200 W/m^2 comes out the far plate outer side.
“At all times the blue plate is warmer than the green”
That would not be thermal equilibrium then. They’re plane parallel plates…why would the blue plate have to stay warmer than the green plate? The heat flow between the plates has to go to zero as all systems spontaneously go to thermal equilibrium, which for plane parallel plates with the same properties means that they have to come to the same temperature and emit the same energy. Your premises are wrong because you’re not distinguishing between energy and heat.
“and at all times the NET flow of energy is from hot to cold (macro), while transmission is being emitted and received by the internal surfaces of both plates (micro). 2nd Law is not broken.”
The 2nd Law is about the irreversibility of heat flow and the increase of entropy in any thermodynamic interaction (which means irreversibility of heat flow). The heat flow goes to zero between ALL objects in thermal equilibrium, so between the Sun and blue plate, and between the blue plate and all other green plates. The heat flow is zero, but the energy still flows from the Sun to the blue plate and then partially out of the blue plate into the hemisphere with the Sun and also partially through the green plate(s) to their outer side.
“I’ve read a few people say (effectively and actually) that the emission from the green plate to the blue is zero.”
No, the HEAT flow from the green plate to the blue plate is zero. Energy is not the same as heat!
“they say this because “heat cannot flow from cold to hot.””
Indeed! The energy from the green plate can not act as heat for the blue plate. Stop confusing energy with heat!
“I’ve always thought that referred to NET flow”
Net: “adjective; remaining after deductions.” – Heat is the NET. Only the net is heat. Either energy emission is NOT heat! Only what remains after the emissions are subtracted from each other (the net!) is heat!
“not to some physical shield somewhere between the plates (or on the blue plate surface) that prevents energy from the green plate striking the blue.”
The energy from the green plate can NOT ACT AS HEAT! Because it’s never strong enough to relative to the strength of emission from the blue plate, because the blue plate is always emitting more strongly, or at thermal equilibrium equally, to the green plate. Heat flow is ZERO in thermal equilibrium and heat is not the conserved quantity. It’s fundamental mathematical thermodynamic physics having to do with energy microstates and frequencies which prevents something weaker from forcing something stronger in the opposite direction. It’s similar to forces: 5 Newtons one way and 10 Newtons the other, the winner is the 10 Newton force with 5 Newtons left over, and the objects moves in the direction the 10N force wants. The 5N force doesn’t make the 10N force stronger.
“If it were accepted that the blue plate does indeed receive energy from the green, the 2nd Law is not broken, because the blue plate warms up as a result, and the NET flow remains hot to cold.”
Energy is not always heat! The energy from the green plate can not act as heat on the blue plate, hence can’t warm the blue plate. That would indeed be a violation of thermodynamics and its definition of heat.
““…it is known that not only the warm body radiates heat to the cold one but that the cold body radiates to the warm one as well…””
With only the net of the difference being heat!
“A way I conceptualize this matter: instead of a green plate, introduce a sun emitting at 100 w/m2 to its left”
That is a completely different situation because this is an additional raw power source with liberation of new raw energy from nuclear (or whatever) source. This is entirely different than the passive green plate, and so bears on the green plate example in NO WAY whatsoever.
“I can’t see why the green plate doesn’t do the same job”
One is passive, the other an active source of actual new power, and so this is why they won’t do the same job, i.e. have the same effect. I’m not going to work out what the solution for the 2nd Sun is…
OK, so what is clear here is the lack of distinction and understanding between what heat and energy are. If you think that energy is always heat, then is kinetic energy heat? Is potential energy heat? Is nuclear binding energy heat? Is gravitational energy heat? Just because some object may have any of those energies, doesn’t mean that those energies are causing the object to raise in temperature. Radiant energy isn’t heat either. But radiant energy and any of those other energies CAN BE converted to or can act as heat if the situation allows for it.
Again, the problem is in not understanding the difference between energy (any form of it) and heat (a specific form of energy or a function of energy in certain situations). Radiant energy can only act as heat if there is a net difference in strength between two sources, with only the difference being heat, which difference then spontaneously evolves to zero (heat is not the conserved quantity).
So I don’t know what to do to get you to understand the difference between energy and heat, but this difference is one of the most important things in thermodynamics.
As people are referencing the ridiculous Rabett Run site I note they seem to have banned the Google account I used to post.
When you get banned you know they have no rational argument to use against your points if you are being civil.
It is a coward’s tactic to allow other sleazebags to slander your perfectly civil comments and deny right of reply !
I used another account to get around their “ban”.
They are ridiculous cowards posing as intelligent people – they miss the bus totally.
Just say the blue plate emits 200 W/m2 and when the green plate is inserted it is absorbing all of this 200 W/m2 and at some point it is radiating 100 W/m2 over each side = 200 W/m2 then it can never heat up – it requires all of the 200 W/m2 to just maintain the emission of 100 x 2 sides surely ?
The whole example is just another attempt to justify the radiation from a cold object heating an already hotter object.
The green plate is plane parallel with the blue and so can’t lose energy in any direction of the blue, so warms to emit 200 on its far side.
On Clausius’ quote:
“…it is known that not only the warm body radiates heat to the cold one but that the cold body radiates to the warm one as well…”
If Clausius was saying, or if you read him to say, that the cold body radiates HEAT to the warm body, this is incorrect. Given that Clausius was working in the mid-1800’s, he could easily have said something so poorly worded or even mis-understood given that these concepts were just beginning to be formally worked out, and some not settled until much later. And even today the concepts are still poorly understood and people still use similarly poorly worded language.
I always see people referring to Clausius’ statement. Now I see why…because it is wrong, and they pretend from it a formal reference that heat flows from cold to hot. Rubbish!
We do have from Clausius’ and many others work from that time period the now-MODERN definitions and equations. Heat is ONLY the net of the energy, meaning the difference of the energy, between the hot and cold body, with the action being to heat (raise the temperature of) the cold body. Heat is not the conserved quantity, and goes to zero in thermal equilibrium. And there is NO heat from cold to hot. This is what the equations say and the equations even said that in Clausius’ time, since some of the equations were developed even earlier than Clausius’ time by Joseph Fourier.
To quote Clausius as if it is “evidence” that heat flows from cold to hot is totally disingenuous. That is NOT what the equations say, that is not what the definitions say, and they didn’t say that in Clausius’ time either. They didn’t have a clear idea of what heat was actually all about even still in Clausius’ time. Just as even today people still confuse energy and heat, Clausius had all the more reason to given that it hadn’t even all been worked out yet in his time.
Referencing a quote from someone stated circa 1850 is hardly evidence or support that heat flows from cold to hot, and in any case, we have the modern definitions and equations which clearly do not support or state that.
What Clausius meant to say was:
“…it is known that not only the warm body radiates ENERGY to the cold one but that the cold body radiates to the warm one as well…with the difference being HEAT which raises the temperature of the cool body”
Here are some modern statements about heat and energy:
“Heat is defined as any spontaneous flow of energy from one object to another caused by a difference in temperature between the objects. We say that “heat” flows from a warm radiator into a cold room, from hot water into a cold ice cube, and from the hot Sun to the cool Earth. The mechanism may be different in each case, but in each of these processes the energy transferred is called “heat”.” – Thermal Physics [2](pg. 18)
“If a physical process increases the total entropy of the universe, that process cannot happen in reverse since this would violate the second law of thermodynamics. Processes that create new entropy are therefore said to be irreversible. […]
“Perhaps the most important type of thermodynamic process is the flow of heat from a hot object to a cold one. We saw […] that this process occurs because the total multiplicity of the combined system thereby increases; hence the total entropy increases also, and heat flow is always irreversible. […]
“Most of the process we observe in life involve large entropy increases are therefore highly irreversible: sunlight warming the Earth […].” – Thermal Physics [2](pg. 82)
“Heat is defined as the form of energy that is transferred across a boundary by virtue of a temperature difference or temperature gradient. Implied in this definition is the very important fact that a body never contains heat, but that heat is identified as heat only as it crosses the boundary. Thus, heat is a transient phenomenon. If we consider the hot block of copper as a system and the cold water in the beaker as another system, we recognize that originally neither system contains any heat (they do contain energy, of course.) When the copper is placed in the water and the two are in thermal communication, heat is transferred from the copper to the water, until equilibrium of temperature is established. At that point we no longer have heat transfer, since there is no temperature difference. Neither of the systems contains any heat at the conclusion of the process. It also follows that heat is identified at the boundaries of the system, for heat is defined as energy being transferred across the system boundary.” – Thermodynamics [3]
“The temperature of a body alone is what determines whether heat will be transferred from it to another body with which it is in contact or vice versa. A large block of ice at 00C has far more internal energy than a cup of hot water; yet when the water is poured on the ice some of the ice melts and the water becomes cooler, which signifies that energy has passed from the water to the ice.
“When the temperature of a body increases, it is customary to say that heat has been added to it; when the temperature decreases, it is customary to say that heat has been removed from it. When no work is done, ΔU = Q, which says that the internal energy change of the body is equal to the heat transferred to it from the surroundings. One definition of heat is:
Heat is energy transferred across the boundary of a system as a result of a temperature difference only.” – Classical and Statistical Thermodynamics [4]
“How and why does heat energy flow? In other words, we need an expression for the dependence of the flow of heat energy on the temperature field. First we summarize certain qualitative properties of heat flow with which we are all familiar:
1. If the temperature is constant in a region, no heat energy flows.
2. If there are temperature differences, the heat energy flows from the hotter region to the colder region.
[…]” – Elementary Applied Partial Differential Equations
[2] D. V. Schroeder, Thermal Physics, Addison Wesley Longman, 2000.
[3] G. J. V. Wylen, Thermodynamics, John Wiley & Sons, 1960.
[4] A. H. Carter, Classical and Statistical Thermodynamics, Prentice-Hall, 2001.
[5] R. Haberman, Elementary Applied Partial Differential Equations: With Fourier Series and Boundary Value Problems, Prentice-Hall, 1998.
________
And so, that puts to bed interpreting or using Clausius’ statement from circa 1850 that a cold object also sends heat to hot, or that heat is conserved, etc.
Rosco,
“I used another account to get around their “ban”.”
I hope you’re not Betty Pound. I got a hard-on for that girl. heh heh heh
Hi Postma,
Do we agree on this?
EM radiation has no temperature until it strikes an object. Then energy is transferred into heat.
Let me know if you think differently. I’ll proceed under the assumption that you agree.
You said the sun is emitting heat, and that the green plate is emitting energy. I don’t think these distinctions are valid….
The sun is not transmitting heat to the blue plate. It’s transmitting energy. All 3 bodies are emitting EM. The space between each is a vacuum, so this energy is not ‘heat’ as it travels through the vacuum. EM radiation transforms to heat on contact with an object.
That’s why I see no difference between the green plate and a new sun in its place emitting at the same power. But let me put the question to you.
What is the physical difference between EM emitted from a sun to a plate, and EM emitted by a plate at the same power as the sun to the plate? ‘Passive’ and active’ describe the difference between an energy source and a receiver, but not, as far as I can tell, the physical difference of what they are emitting that would make EM emitted by a sun warm a plate, but not EM emitted from a plate.
The green plate is plane parallel with the blue and so can’t lose energy in any direction of the blue, so warms to emit 200 on its far side.
I don’t see why the green plate cannot lose energy in the direction of the blue. It seems unphysical. It also seems contradictory to the accepted notion that the blue plate is emitting 200 w/m2 from its left side – towards the hotter sun. If we make that thought consistent for the blue plate too, then it is emitting 400 w/m2 from its right side, and nothing from its left.
Also, if the green plate receives 200 w/m2 on the left from the blue plate, it can only emit 200 w/m2 from its right side if its left side is at zero K. That too seems unphysical. The left side of the green plate is receiving energy from the blue plate, which converts to heat on striking the green plate. How can it not be warmer than zero K? All things emit in all directions (or bidirectionally in the 2D set up).
And if the green plate is emitting EM radiation from its left side and 200 w/m2 from its right side, then it must be warmer than the total energy received by the blue plate (200 w/m2) would permit. Where does this extra energy come from? Energy can’t be created.
Hang on…let me rephrase my post from earlier to try to make better use of the words “heat” and “energy”:
“This is just to check my understanding with the plate surface area/conservation of energy/view factor issue: it is the surface area over which heat can be gained in relation to the surface area over which heat can be lost that matters. With the sun as a point source the area over which heat can be gained is only the side facing the sun, but the area over which heat can be lost is the entire surface area of the plate (both sides). This is because the side facing the sun can lose heat in any direction other than that which is exactly perpendicular to the plate (more or less). The energy emitted in those other directions effectively misses the sun and so heat can be lost. The energy emitted straight at the sun doesn’t “count” as heat lost since the sun is emitting energy straight at the plate along this path in the first place. However, this is infinitesimal in comparison to all the other directions in which the sun-facing side can lose heat.
With the blue plate as a plane parallel (passive) heat source to the green plate, the green plate can only gain heat on the side facing the blue plate (same as before), but the crucial difference is that it can only lose heat on the other side facing away from the blue plate. So only that half of the overall plate surface area which is losing heat is compared to the other half of the plate surface area which is gaining heat from the blue plate. So it is 1:1 on surface area, rather than 1:2 above. The reason none of the side of the green plate facing the blue can be seen as losing heat is because at every point along the surface area of that side of the green plate energy is being received directly (perpendicular to the plate) from the equivalent point on the surface of the blue plate, as well as there being an equal amount of energy emitted in the opposite direction from green to blue. So using the same logic as in the first paragraph this doesn’t count as heat lost overall. It is just opposing energy fluxes reducing heat flow to zero, cancelling out, whatever way you want to express it.”
And for completeness I’ll rephrase my follow-up comment too:
“You’ve clipped an important bit of my first comment there. I said:
“the side facing the sun can lose heat in any direction other than that which is exactly perpendicular to the plate (more or less)”
The side facing the sun can lose heat (back, PAST the sun) in pretty much any direction other than perpendicular to the plate, because in that direction energy is flowing directly from the sun to the plate and directly from the plate back to the sun. You have to think of the view from on the surface of the plate looking towards the sun. The sun would just be a small circle directly overhead. Only radiation from the surface going directly towards it will “hit” it. Everything else, going off at any other angle, will “miss” it. So, most of the radiation from the plate misses it, only an infinitesimal amount, really, is going to reach the sun.
Then consider the view from the green plate. Filling basically the entire field of view above your head is just this giant blue plate. No way virtually any of the energy radiated from the plate on that side is going to miss it.
Does that help?”
… much to read here and to study. I did read it all quickly, and I thought about it some more. What I have come to concede is that a point source WOULD render a parallel encounter of light “rays” (assuming a “ray” analogy) at a far enough distance, IF the plate were of finite size in relation to the distance at which we consider the emitter far enough away to render this parallel effect:
But, as you can see, I still have problems with the parallel treatment, when we allow the plate to be infinite, which, if I understand correctly, would be a requirement of the simple thought-experiment set-up being discussed here.
And I am still having problems with the idea of neatly halving the emissions from the inserted plates.
In my current confusion, it seems to me that we would view an inserted plate as emitting on either one side or the other, at the quantity that it receives, and if I had to make a choice, then the side facing AWAY from the source would be the chosen side, emitting at the full incident flux.
OR agree that both sides are emitting at the full incident flux, with the understanding that labeling both sides is merely an exercise in labeling 180-degree DIFFERENT viewpoints, rather than an exercise in attributing double the full flux to the plate.
And there is the issue of thickness or “infinite thinness” and the contradiction that this imposes, as “infinite thinness” would mean NON-existence and so NO FLUX AT ALL — a similar issue I seem to have with any standard physics view of particles, super strings, etc. In other words, I find it hard to reconcile zero dimension with the concept of any sensible reality that the human body can relate to and orient itself to for the purpose of carrying on life.
The reason none of the side of the green plate facing the blue can be seen as losing heat is because at every point along the surface area of that side of the green plate energy is being received directly
Both things are happening at once. Energy is being transmitted both ways, and received on both surfaces.
Clausius again:
“…it is known that not only the warm body radiates heat to the cold one but that the cold body radiates to the warm one as well…”
It may be that in the conception you have described, NET flow of heat is seen as the same thing as discrete transfer of energy. However, all objects radiate energy (EM radiation) in all directions. Has any standard physics text book ever qualified this statement on energy (EM radiation) in the specific way it is being qualified here?
I doubt it. Can anyone furnish such an example?.
And Rosco,
No problems with using my whipped-up drawings. I do them fairly quickly for educational purposes.
Use away, if they are reasonably correct and add to understanding in any way. It they are wrong, then trash them verbally, which is what I would do physically. (^_^)
I appreciate the conversation here, by the way.
“EM radiation has no temperature until it strikes an object. Then energy is transferred into heat.”
Why would it seem to you that this is what I would agree with? I just had multiple posts explaining what heat is and that heat is different from energy. I provided you 4 textbook quotes to help explain heat to you. Energy only transfers as heat under certain conditions, the condition being that it is a transfer of energy from hot to cold, from a stronger flux to a weaker flux. You are attempting to continue to use Clausius’ inaccurate statement from ~1850 after it was just explained to you what he actually meant to say because this is what the modern formulations actually say.
“Let me know if you think differently. I’ll proceed under the assumption that you agree.”
No. Your statement is completely inaccurate and is in fact meaningless. What does “transferred into heat” even mean? That phrase is meaningless. Energy can transfer as heat; “into heat” doesn’t mean anything. But I see that you’re probably trying to state that radiant energy will heat an object when it strikes one, and this is of course wrong given the reasons stated above and in previous comments and regarding the modern definition of heat.
“You said the sun is emitting heat, and that the green plate is emitting energy. I don’t think these distinctions are valid….”
No, I said that the energy from the Sun transfers as heat to the blue plate until thermal equilibrium is reached with the blue plate, at which point the heat flow from the Sun is zero. This obviously implies that the energy from the Sun transfers as heat to the blue plate in a diminishing manner; at the start it is all heat, at the middle only some of the Sun’s energy transfers as heat, and at the end none of the Sun’s energy transfers as heat. The distinction between when energy can or can’t act as heat is central to the definition of heat and heat flow as given by the modern definitions and equations. Who are you to “think” that these distinctions aren’t valid and then to simply invent new (and false) “physics” for your thoughts?
“The sun is not transmitting heat to the blue plate. It’s transmitting energy. All 3 bodies are emitting EM. … EM radiation transforms to heat on contact with an object.”
Why are you just making things up that don’t follow from the modern definitions you’ve been given? Yes, the Sun emits energy. That energy can act as heat only if it strikes a cooler object. Not at all energy is heat! EM radiation doesn’t “transform” to heat. It can act as heat if it is transferring to a cooler object.
“That’s why I see no difference between the green plate and a new sun in its place emitting at the same power.”
Well when you invent new “physics” based purely on no references whatsoever that could support your new scheme, you can conclude anything you wish. You really see no difference between a Sun liberating new energy and a passive object? The Sun is hot and is the source of energy; the green plate is passive and is only heated by the blue plate. Heat can transfer from the hot Sun to other objects which aren’t warmed yet; heat can’t transfer from the colder green plate to the warmer blue pate since heat can’t transfer in that direction.
“What is the physical difference between EM emitted from a sun to a plate, and EM emitted by a plate at the same power as the sun to the plate?”
The difference is that the Sun is the source of energy and all other plates are receivers. The difference is that the energy from the Sun can transfer as heat in a diminishing manner until the blue plate comes to thermal equilibrium with the Sun, and while the blue plate is rising in temperature its emission can likewise transfer as heat to the cooler green plate until the green plate comes to thermal equilibrium. And that the emission from the green plate can never act as heat for the blue plate since heat can never transfer in that direction, because the green plate is always cooler or at most equal in temperature to the blue plate.
“I don’t see why the green plate cannot lose energy in the direction of the blue.”
Because any vector of emission from the green plate toward the blue plate is met with a greater or at most equal vector from the blue plate to the green. Because of the reciprocal view factors.
“It also seems contradictory to the accepted notion that the blue plate is emitting 200 w/m2 from its left side – towards the hotter sun.”
No…that’s consistent when you consider the view factors. Since the Sun subtends a small angular area there is almost a complete 180 degree hemisphere on the Sunward side of the blue plate towards which the blue plate can lose energy meeting no opposing input vectors.
“If we make that thought consistent for the blue plate too, then it is emitting 400 w/m2 from its right side, and nothing from its left.”
Your thoughts are not consistent. You are not considering view factors…which is a central concept in radiative heat transfer.
“Also, if the green plate receives 200 w/m2 on the left from the blue plate, it can only emit 200 w/m2 from its right side if its left side is at zero K. That too seems unphysical.”
No…the green plate doesn’t lose any energy on the side which faces the blue plate, due to the reasons given. Thermal equilibrium is a real thing, an existent. It’s not imaginary. Thermal equilibrium is defined as the heat flow being equal to zero. If it is possible for this system to reach thermal equilibrium, and it is since this is what happens to all systems in existence, then the heat flow between the blue and green plate must be zero which means that the green and blue plate must emit an equal amount of energy toward each other. This means directly that the green plate can’t lose any energy on its blue-plate-facing side.
“The left side of the green plate is receiving energy from the blue plate, which converts to heat on striking the green plate.”
The energy from the blue plate transfers as heat to the green plate in a diminishing manner until the heat transfer goes to zero, which is thermal equilibrium. At thermal equilibrium the energy is not transferring as heat.
“How can it not be warmer than zero K?”
It is. The error here is your new “physics” you invented by ignoring the modern definition of heat.
“And if the green plate is emitting EM radiation from its left side and 200 w/m2 from its right side”
It is not losing energy on its left side for the reasons stated…to do with view factors.
“Where does this extra energy come from?”
Hence, there is no extra energy.
Barry, it is clear that you do not have any sort of familiarity with radiative heat transfer concepts and thermodynamics in general. I am wondering if you would tell us who you actually are so that we might gauge where your questions are coming from? Are you a high school student? An old man with no formal training in thermodynamics but an interest in this topic? A high school teacher perhaps? I am going to block your email address you are using to post since you are likely simply someone who needn’t be here. Your m.o. fits the typical profile of a climate alarmist troll (who I’ve likely slayed before) who steadfastly refuses to acknowledge the modern definition of heat, and prefers a literal take on Clausius’ inaccurate statement instead. Your IP address is registered in Beijing and so odds are likely that you’re using a VPN and posting under an already-blocked alias. Choose a different email address and come back with your real identity and a way to confirm it, and let us know that you were “Barry”, then you can post again.
“What I have come to concede is that a point source WOULD render a parallel encounter of light “rays” (assuming a “ray” analogy) at a far enough distance, IF the plate were of finite size in relation to the distance at which we consider the emitter far enough away to render this parallel effect:”
Yes I realized last night that this is what you were wondering about. Eli’s diagram is not to scale. What you said is correct, and it is that the plates are actually small & distant enough that the light rays from the sun are parallel. Of course, the plates are not infinite, nor even as large as in the diagram. There are scale factors involved since none of this can be drawn to scale.
Yes, that’s a GREAT diagram to show what’s going on! You could add emission (like from a previous diagram)) from the plate back into the 180 degree hemisphere with the Sun to show that the plate can emit in both directions, and only the tiny vector directly back towards the point source meets an opposing vector from that source.
The infinite-plane-parallel thing is a simplification for the plates with respect to each other, not for the first plate relative to the Sun. For the first plate and source, it is as in your last diagram: a point source shining on a small distant plate hence with parallel rays. For the plates, they are treated as infinite-plane-parallel with respect to each other even though they’re not infinite simply because the leakage at the edges can be made quite small by making the plates close together; you have to do this in order to make the solution analytically tractable, and it’s not that far off at all anyway from what could physically be actually created.
The only halving is with the first plate, due to the view factors. For the other plates there is no halving.
“Both things are happening at once. Energy is being transmitted both ways, and received on both surfaces.”
Yes, Barry. By repeating what I’m trying to tell you, you are not contradicting me (if that’s what you think you are doing). Energy is transmitted both ways and received on both surfaces. Whereas *heat* will only flow where one surface is emitting more than the other.
Barry: “Clausius again”
For goodness’ sake Barry. You had already been presented with 4 modern definitions and explanations of heat, and it was explained what Clausius actually meant. So why refer to him again and his inaccurate statement from 1850 when you now have the modern definition of heat and heat transfer?
“Has any standard physics text book ever qualified this statement on energy (EM radiation) in the specific way it is being qualified here? I doubt it. Can anyone furnish such an example?.”
What are you talking about? You were provided 4 different references of standard physics textbooks explaining the definition of heat and heat transfer. Are you daft? Or just another troll who I’ve probably slain multiple times before?
Barry: “I appreciate the conversation here, by the way.”
I don’t appreciate what I see that you’re doing. Come back with your real identity.
“…it is known that not only the warm body radiates heat to the cold one but that the cold body radiates to the warm one as well…”
You can argue that this statement is open to interpretation or inaccurate if you like but to me, if a scientist back then wanted to state that a cold body radiates *heat* to a warm one they would literally say that, i.e:
“…it is known that not only the warm body radiates heat to the cold one but that the cold body radiates heat to the warm one as well…”
I think that back then people were very precise with language and the meaning and choice of the words they used than they are now (perpendicularly speaking, lol). I don’t think they would assume that someone reading a sentence they had written would themselves insert the second “heat” word which they hadn’t written. Back then I see it that words were meant to be read exactly as written with nothing added or subtracted in the mind by the reader.
GW: “Yes, Barry. By repeating what I’m trying to tell you, you are not contradicting me (if that’s what you think you are doing). Energy is transmitted both ways and received on both surfaces. Whereas *heat* will only flow where one surface is emitting more than the other.”
Exactly. That’s just another disgusting goblin tactic…one of the sickest, grossest there is. To repeat what you said back as if it contradicts the statement itself.
You say “2 + 2 = 4”, and then they say “2 + 2 = 4 … and 1 = 2” as if that can potentially contradict your own statement that 2 + 2 = 4. They say it back but with a false twist in order to at least weaken or cause confusion surrounding the original statement of “2 + 2 = 4”. They want to at the very least insert something confusing and wrong so that when you come back to 2 + 2 = 4 later, someone or your own mind might be confused or less convinced about it because you also had accepted that 1 = 2. They want to at least insert some cognitive dissonance somewhere, preferably where you can’t identify it so that you are at least thrown off your game a little. Can you imagine anything more disgusting than a goblin that does that? This is a classic tactic of theirs that I’ve encountered a million times. At first I ignored it because it was so obvious and preposterous. But if you do that then they themselves will come back with it at any opportune time as needed, to demonstrate their own (faked?) confusion and hence make you waste time having to re-explain what you already explained. The solution is to make them own it, and point out how stupid they are for saying it. For example, by referring back to a statement from 1850 rather than using the modern definitions…this is REALLY stupid!
Yes great point GW! Clausius did NOT actually say that the cold body radiates heat to the warm body! Another great example of sophistical strategy. Great one!
“I think that back then people were very precise with language and the meaning and choice of the words they used than they are now”
You see how I messed that up? Not done deliberately by the way, but useful to help make the point about the state of reading/writing today. I should have said, “I think that back then people were very *much more* precise with language and the meaning and choice of the words they used than they are now”. But still, you understood what I meant. We are so used to people making mistakes with language these days what with all the tablets, smart phones etc, we just correct it in our heads. So adding a word or two to something that someone said 150 years ago which then appears to confirm a pre-existing cognitive bias in your head is not really that surprising. It might not be deliberate or even conscious.
But the point remains…back then, before language itself became corrupted…accuracy in reading and writing was probably considered a lot more important.
Very good GW.
So that’s why they use the Clausius statement…because they hope that you will interpret it improperly and read it as if Clausius is saying that heat transfers from cold to hot as well, when this is not what he actually literally says. They’re letting you make the mistake or have to agree with their mistaken interpretation yourself. Clever & tricky.
This is an important development because I’ve seen them continually refer to the Clausius statement for years. I have always just ignored it and asked that they refer to modern statements about heat transfer instead, which of course they take liberty not to and just continue to refer to Clausius.
But now with your analysis, and that if we should take people precisely and given that they were quite precise with their language back then, it is clear that Clausius did not say what they want you to think he said.
Great work!
And so, now we can combine Clausius’ statement with the modern definition and description of heat and heat transfer, and we have 100% consistency.
Winning! This is a new development, done here first as far as I know, by GW. Great stuff!
They can not use Clausius any longer.
I think there are the confusers (who would do as you describe deliberately), and the confused (who just do it without thinking about it because of the cognitive bias in their heads introduced by the confused). I would say someone like Eli is a confuser. I would say Barry might be a confused. Though how you can tell them apart I have no idea…perhaps a confuser would pretend to act as a confused!? How devious could it get? Since you can never know I guess the only rational thing to do is to try to help everyone…although I get it that eventually (if they are never going to stop posting the same mistakes over and over) then something’s got to give.
“who just do it without thinking about it because of the cognitive bias in their heads introduced by the confused”
Meant “confusers”…I think. See? It’s terrible these days.
Yep…all that. Well said. Every part.
As to how devious it could get? It could get maximally devious…as worst as can possibly exist let alone be imagined. Maximally devious.
Hah yep…got to be careful with that language now!
BTW GW I don’t know why your comments go to moderation. I checked the lists and I can’t see anything about your fields that would make it think to go to moderation.
Lol I do wonder sometimes when talking to some people online whether there is a human being sitting on the other side of that screen or simply a force of pure evil. Present company excepted, of course! No, “good” and “evil” gets silly. I think. Or maybe a confuser just made me think that.
I set up a WordPress account to post somewhere where it wouldn’t let me post unless I had one. I did this as one name but then I wanted to change the name later on. I guess maybe there is a way to change it in your settings but instead I pointlessly go to change it manually every time I need to. Sometimes it asks and sometimes it doesn’t. Basically I don’t understand WordPress. I think this is probably why it goes to moderation.
Hah…indeed. Scary thought though! Could be talking to a baby-eating alien lizard velociraptor or something! Or just a formless force of disembodied darkness causing the keys on some keyboard in some closet somewhere to depress all by themselves!
And, what do these powerful scary entities do with their scary super-secret inhuman powers??? Eeeeehhhhh…ooooohhhhh….
They troll. HAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAH!
They troll!! The fucking pathetic losers! They’re like autistic teenagers living in their Mom’s basement…getting pizza pockets thrown down the stairs to them when they call up “MOM!! I’M HUNGRY!!!”
LOLOLOLOLOL!
Wow…could evil alien forces and dark forces of evil be any more pathetic? hahahahaha!! Oh my lord…how sad for them.
I was thinking the formless force…maybe it wouldn’t even need the keyboard…it just sends the electrical signals to…whatever it is that happens with the internet. But now I think about it, almost certainly an alien lizard velociraptor with the face of the clown from IT with an identical mother (but with wig)
“it just sends the electrical signals to…whatever it is that happens with the internet”
Now that’s funny right there! Got a real meatspace LOL with that one!
I feel bad for Barry. If he is genuine (and not a velociraptor) then he might have been really close to getting un-confused. But if you ban him he might just say “screw this” and go back to the confusers and all your ban will have done is made him more convinced than ever about his confusion.
Well he’s welcome to come back. I have no problem with an honest person and their real identity to come ask questions. But when the answers are ignored and their questions simply repeated again, the red-flag goes up. This is abnormal behaviour that a real person wouldn’t do…normal people don’t ask a question, have it answered, then ask the same question again. A real person seeking answers will come back. Don’t let them play on you! That’s “fatal”.
Take you and Robert and Afro, etc. You and Afro are anonymous to me and Robert might be a real identity although I haven’t looked into it. You guys asked questions, had answers, then you came back with *more developed* questions. The answers went to a conscious brain which processed them and then which formulated new questions or asked for further clarifications in a way which developed off of the answers. The new questions were novel, were more developed, utilized the new knowledge and demonstrated greater insight than the previous questions. That’s how a real mind, a real conscious human, functions. I don’t care about anonymous commentators such you (GW) and Afro because it is self-evident that you are real, conscious, thinking humans; Robert could be an alias too but I don’t care because he operates like a real human would.
What Barry (and others) do is not what a real human does. They do not incorporate any answers, their questions do not develop or become more novel, they do not become more insightful, they do not play off of new knowledge or different perspectives, etc. They repeat the exact same questions which they just had answered. They repeat the exact same statements which were just shown to be illogical and false.
You see that’s why I call them goblins right? There is a real distinct and quantifiable and measurable aspect to their commentator personas that distinguishes them apart from how real human minds function. They don’t demonstrate the behaviour that a real human would demonstrate. So, they’re goblins. Maybe they’re just stupid humans, because Anthony Watts and Robert Brown and Chris Monckton and others all exhibit this behaviour in our personal comms with them, and they at least appear to be human…but even with their outward appearance of being human, they do not behave as you would expect an honest human to behave. Of course there are other “human” aspects as to why they would do that – stupidity being one, shilling being another, conning being more, etc.
You have a lot more experience with this, and it’s your blog! I understand what you mean that it is abnormal behaviour…unless their brains really have become that screwed up by the confusers that they just operate in circles now. But I see that it’s simply not practical to endlessly answer the same question. I truly hope he does read through everything again and sees the point of what’s being said, it’s all up there now I guess so it’s just a question of reading. I have taken up enough space already, so thanks for your time!
Just one thing…
Assume that they are a goblin first, and let them demonstrate that they are a human second. You, Afro, Robert etc, were all assumed to be goblins when you first came here. You demonstrated that you were humans.
Just because you might be paranoid doesn’t mean that they’re not out to get you.
I’m actually a specially crafted jamaican troll bot 🙂
We are out to get you!r knowledge of physics.
haha
Eli’s plates come to 262K Blue and 220K Green. Apperently the hotter can’t warm the colder because they are at an “end-point”. Well they got one thing right: physics is a lot easier when you make things up as you go along.
Another variant of their “end point” bullshit is to say it’s not an equilibrium problem but a steady state heat flow problem, which creates a negative gradient away from sun.
“is to say it’s not an equilibrium problem but a steady state heat flow problem”
Of f*ck what dirty sophist goblin sicko freaks. I wonder how many aborted/live fetuses they ate this morning…
There is NO SUCH THING as a “steady-state heat flow” problem. That is a completely, 100% invented and non-existent thing in physics and in existence. Heat flow is not conserved…heat flow goes to ZERO and EVERYTHING becomes an equilibrium problem. That’s what the entire platform of thermodynamic theory rests upon. Those lying fuckers!
Those disgusting, sick, goblin, freaks.
NOTHING in the modern statements and definitions about heat and heat flow says that heat flow is a steady state problem! They ALL say that heat goes to zero.
And they never said that (steady state idea) in Fourier’s or Clausius’ time either! It has ALWAYS been about heat going to zero and everything becoming an equilibrium problem.
Just to clarify, my real name IS, in fact, “Robert Kernodle”.
I must confess, however, that I am an alien lizard velociraptor with the face of a clown, … BUT a friendly one who tries NOT to be an idiot. I dissociated myself from my alien-lizard-velociraptor-with-the-face-of-a-clown brethren who became human-climate-change alarmists. I used to be one of those bad kinds.
I have come to believe that humans are NOT so evil as my alien-lizard-velociraptor-with-the-face-of-a-clown brethren came to believe.
___________________________________
Now, seriously, I really, really, AM me, and I want to put in my two cents on the Clausius quote:
Assuming that this is an accurate quote: To me it is clear what Clausius’ claimed — that what is being radiated is heat. His second usage of the word, “radiates”, in his statement would seem to carry forth this understanding of what is being radiated (namely, heat). Otherwise, Clausius would have had TWO separate understandings of what was being radiated in the same statement, which does not seem likely. Given current understanding, his statement was clearly wrong then, and is most certainly wrong now. Consequently, quoting this wrong statement now is also wrong, if it is being used to support a claim in today’s world.
It’s wrong. Plain as that. No question in my mind. No ambiguity. He said “RADIATES heat. You cannot get any more clear in how to state what you believe is being radiated — heat. WRONG. Wrong then. Wrong now. Wrong to quote it. A warm body does NOT radiate heat — it radiates something else.
Now I will venture into the possible territory of making myself seem like an idiot, when I try to shape these confusing terms towards greater clarity in their distinctions. I’m just trying here, and so if I mess up, it is an innocent mess up, NOT an intentional attempt to confuse, distract, or otherwise mislead. Here goes:
When we use the terms, “heat” and “radiation”, it seems that we need to dive deeper into what these are. Am I correct in saying that “heat” is motion of molecules, whereas radiation is motion of sub-molecular entities or, perhaps, viewed as no entities at all or waves maybe? Radiation is “stuff” in motion at a different scale than heat? The “stuff” of radiation-motion is photons, in the case of sunlight ? The “stuff” of heat-motion is molecules?
The confusion over the terms, “heat” and “radiation”, then, might result from the real state of confusion that exists about these concepts in physics. If physics vacillates between particles and waves, and speaks of entities with no mass, or waves with no medium, then how can we expect clarity in the minds of those who might use these terms?
The confusion, then, is born in the field of physics itself, and how people unschooled in the precise functional definitions that have developed there, do NOT know the CORRECT, disciplined CONTRADICTIONS that are allowed there, and so these unschooled people invent their own “WRONG contradictions” that are wrong with respect to the standards these people try to argue against.
We can agree that molecules exist and that molecules move. Heat is molecules in motion.
But what is light? What is electromagnetic energy? Now we are not so sure anymore what we are talking about. Is electromagnetic energy stuff? Is it motion? Well, motion cannot exist without stuff, and so it MUST be some kind of stuff. Is it particles? — as big as molecules? — smaller? — by how much? Is it a wave? A wave of what? What’s waving? No stuff to wave, you say? Well, that doesn’t make sense. But physics has decided that it does “make sense”, and physics has decided an exact protocol on how to make this “professional nonsense” sensible and work for practical applications, to many decimal points of accuracy, apparently.
Point is, the confusion over “heat” and “radiation” is sort of understandable. But the first step in resolving such confusion is in realizing that we are talking about different things, when we speak of “heat” and “radiation”, and then try to make better sense of them according to the official rules of dealing with the “formal contradictions”, using a better choice of language to describe what the standards say.
Important gleanings from Rosco’s latest comments:
This seems to jive with my feeling that Retro-engineering a temperature from the Stefan-Boltzman Equation is flawed.
But an equation is supposed to supply missing values, right? Where has it ever been written that you can use an equation ONLY a certain way?, … ONLY when you know one of its particular values FIRST?, … and NOT when you know another of its values before knowing this first value?
The problem actually seems to be in trying to apply the Stefan-Boltzman Equation to Earth’s atmosphere, when this equation arose for a vacuum, and yet NOT enough people seem to be facing this as a major problem, … an over-extension-to-the-point-of-misapplication problem, which should have caused these people to admit that this equation should never have been allowed here in the first place. Yet, the use of the equation is still allowed, … allowed with noted trepidation, even by those who probably know better, but who still manage to eek out some validity to using it in this context, which I am finding more and more discomforting intellectually.
… seemingly jiving with what I just wrote preceding.
No heat is not molecules in motion. Molecules in motion is simply about temperature. An object with a temperature contains thermal energy. Its thermal energy can transfer as heat (i.e. a process which raises the temperature of a cooler body).
Electromagnetic energy is pure energy. Made of an electrical and magnetic oscillation…what’s “waving” is the electrical and magnetic field of the photon.
Well, thanks for that clarification, which only makes my main point more clear — heat is a pretty nebulous thing, it seems. I’ll go back and read those textbook definitions again. Obviously, I still don’t have it. (^_^)
Yes it is nebulous, even to this day! It is better to understand the rules about heat and heat flow, rather than what it is in and of itself.
We already have that problem in physics with energy. You would think that science would know what energy actually is in and of itself given that the entirety of science is basically the study of energy. Alas, energy remains an abstract concept in physics and no scientist anywhere can actually say what specifically energy is in and of itself. Heat suffers the same problem since it is a form of energy. But this is reality and I hope it impresses upon you! *No scientist anywhere can actually say and define what energy actually is.* All that science knows is how energy behaves, what it behaves like in certain situations, and what its rules are.
We understand the rules about energy, not what energy actually is. Some scientists say that energy isn’t even a real thing at all…but then that begs the question of what science could possibly be doing at all in the first place making progress and technology with it.
Now, science doesn’t know what energy is, but I and a few others do. The others from that blog post about the philosophy books. There’s something peculiar about energy, isn’t there, in that we seem to be able to describe it and its rules with mathematics. Isn’t that strange? Why would mathematics, if math is a human language invention, describe the behaviour of energy so well? How could there possibly be any connection? Other human language inventions can not describe energy so well….so why should mathematics? I will let Galileo explain:
“The laws of Nature are written in the language of mathematics …, without whose help it is impossible to comprehend a single word.”
Mathematics is not invented by man, but is a discovery of man. It is discovered in nature itself and is nature’s own language itself. Is it not the strangest thing that reality should follow mathematical rules and mathematical logic? But then if you think about it, could it follow anything else, and exist? Could nature follow 2 + 2 = 5? How would it do that? What reason would there be for it to do that? Whereas if natures follows 2 + 2 = 4, isn’t this an entirely natural progression, as simple as 1 = 1? How would nature follow 1 = 2? How could you justify that? Whereas is there a justification required at all that nature should follow 1 = 1? None is.
If existence can not behave in any other way than mathematically logically, and this is the only possible natural behaviour which doesn’t require an explanation or justification at all since there is nothing more a-priori in and of itself than 1 = 1, while 1 = 2 could never be justified, then existence must be identical with mathematics.
Energy is mathematics in and of itself. Pure existent mathematics. Mathematics as it manifests to our perceptions and to the self-interacting behaviour of reality. Mathematics is the existent. We, and all of existence, are made out of mathematics.
[JP: Pulled this out of block-trash. Mostly for GW to give his take on it, given our discussion of how these things proceed with “these” “”people””.]
Looks like I’m banned. I’ll attempt one more post. Probably it won’t be allowed because my tag is different from my email address. However, looking at the monikers above (‘Afro’), it feels like I’m being banned for other reasons, and my handle is an excuse.
[JP: So basically you just told us that you’re not actually reading the answers/replies to you, because if you had have read my previous comment posted 7 hours before this comment of yours, and other comment since 7 hours ago, you would know why you were banned, and how you could post again.]
In thinking about the blue plate not *seeing* thermal radiation emitted by the green plate:
[JP: Who said it is “not seeing”? No one here said that. What we said is that the green plate can not send any heat to the blue plate. Again, you’re not paying attention, not updating your knowledge of heat and energy, and are re-stating the exact same problem as you understand it based on the assumptions you use which were explained to you as to why they were incorrect. Yet you go on, ignoring.]
The energy received by distant stars is far lower than the energy at the surface of the Earth. The amount of heat they provide when their rays strike the Earth is infinitesimal.
Yet we can see those stars on a hot night. If radiant energy is somehow blocked from being received by a warmer object, we would not be able to see those stars.
[JP: Vision doesn’t function by heat…by heat transfer. It’s a chemical reaction which functions based on chemical activation potentials with visible wavelengths, like a photoelectric effect. Also, no one here said that radiant energy is “blocked”. What we said is that radiant energy can’t transfer or act as heat when going from a cold body to a warm body, as per the Laws of Thermo and as stated by Clausius.]
I do not see what material difference there is in the energy (at 100 w/m2) from a green plate, and the same power (100 w/m2) being emitted from a sun.
If the sun is providing extra energy, even to a warmer object, then so must be the green plate.
[JP: The Sun isn’t providing energy to a warmer object…where do you come up with that? It’s not in Eli’s scenario. The green plate can’t transfer heat to a warmer body (the blue plate, the Sun), as per the Laws of Thermodynamics as stated by Clausius who you quoted, and as per the several other references given you.]
I don’t see how one being an ‘active’ and one being a ‘passive’ emitter makes any material difference.
[JP: Assuming that the plate system starts at 0K, then it is the Sun that provides the energy and causes the system to evolve. The plate system therefore will always be cooler than the Sun, and the green plate will always be cooler than the blue plate until thermal equilibrium is reached between them at which point there is no more heat flow; the heat flow between the Sun and blue plate also goes to zero, and the blue plate could never warm the Sun given that it is always cooler than the Sun.]
Thus, when I swap the green plate out for a sun emitting at the same power,
[JP: That’s a different starting point for the system than the usual and expected assumption that the green (and blue) plate start at 0K and can only get warmed from the Sun’s energy. Totally different.]
it seems obvious to me that the sun is contributing energy to the blue plate – that the blue plate would get warmer.
[JP: For sure. But that’s not the same situation as a passive green plate which must get heated from the blue plate, during and after which the blue plate is itself first warmed. If we replace the single green plate with another identical Sun, then the blue plate would be warmed to emit 400 W/m2. This is an entirely different situation than a passive green plate that must be heated by the blue plate after the blue plate is itself heated.]
Apart from the words ‘passive’ and ‘active’ being bandied, with no description of how that materially changes the character of the radiation, I can see no difference.
[JP: Radiation is radiation. What changes is the character of the sources of radiation and whether those sources’ radiation can act as heat for another body. A passive object starting at 0K being heated by other things can never provide heat to the things heating it. An active Sun can provide heat to passive objects at 0K.]
The First Law of Thermodynamics is simply mathematics. 1 = 1. The First Law of Thermodynamics is nothing more than a statement about identity, i.e. that 1 = 1, and that 1 is not equal to 2. Energy is conserved because 1 = 1, and never 1 = 2. You don’t need to justify 1 = 1 since this is a tautologous identity. Mathematics is conserved hence energy, being mathematics, is conserved.
The 2nd Law is a statement about complexity, less obvious about mathematics but it indicates a rule about mathematics nonetheless. That is, a complex thing added with a less complex thing results in an even more complex thing. The complexity of two complex things added together is even more complex than either original thing. This is just mathematics, and is about the permutations which become available when complex things are added together. If you add any two things, the number of permutations available to “explore” in the new state is higher than the number of permutations available in either original state.
The Zeroth Law is a statement that complexity is quantifiable, and hence mathematically defined. It is a real existent measurable and theoretically calculable property of a system.
The Third Law is a statement that complexity can’t change if the system isn’t changing.
These are ALL mathematical concepts, and only have definition and quantity via mathematics. And it is how energy behaves. Energy IS mathematics. These are *natural laws*! While they seem complicated, they actually all reduce to the simplicity of 1 = 1. There are no assumptions, no axioms, and nothing else required but the natural simplicity of 1 = 1 and the consequences of 1 = 1.
The Laws of Thermodynamics are simply all about the behaviour of math itself, of numbers! This is why they are Laws and not “theories”. 1 = 1 is LAW. It’s pure logical LAW. It’s the only thing logically possible. The only thing mathematically possible. You might see here the corollary that true logic reduces to mathematical logic, i.e., that mathematics is identical with logic. Math = logic = energy = thermodynamics = existence.
Looking again at Joe’s quotes from classical texts [I have abbreviated to help target key words]:
HEAT is …
** D. V. Schroeder, Thermal Physics, Addison Wesley Longman, 2000.
… spontaneous flow of energy from one object to another caused by a difference in temperature between the objects. … the energy transferred is called “heat”
Okay, energy is a “flow”, which to me speaks of motion, which to me needs to answer the question, “Motion of WHAT?” SomeTHING must be flowing, in order for there to be motion. WHAT is moving to cause flow of the thing that heat is? I said molecules. Joe said NO. I respect the answer, but I do not understand it.
If motion through a chain of molecules transferring-and-altering-this-motion-along-the-chain is not the “flow”, … is not the heat flowing, then WHAT is? The “flow” needs a “stuff” to give it definition to move, … to “energize”, … to exist to “flow”. The “stuff” needs to “move” to give “energy” (energy of what?) a meaning. Otherwise, we seem to be dealing with formalized, accepted, standardized, abstract confusions that have mathematical conventions to manipulate without having sensible meanings.
** G. J. V. Wylen, Thermodynamics, John Wiley & Sons, 1960.
… the form of energy that is transferred across a boundary by virtue of a temperature difference or temperature gradient. … a body never contains heat, but … heat is identified as heat only as it crosses the boundary. … heat is defined as energy being transferred across the system boundary.
Okay, heat IS a form of “energy”. Energy of what stuff? Across a boundary of what stuff? Still NOT molecules? Again, I respectfully do NOT understand. And now I want to ask, “What the heck is TEMPERATURE, then?” How is “temperature” established, BEFORE “energy” is accounted for?
I feel perfectly resonant with the idea that a body never CONTAINS heat. But if “heat” is identified as an “it” that “crosses the boundary”, then what … is … IT ?
Boundary of WHAT?
What is the stuff in which IT (heat) exists to move or IS the motion of?, … to energize?, … to flow? I cannot find the level of traction I seek in the concept yet. Where do I cast my anchor, when there is no permitted sea in which to cast it? (^_^)
** A. H. Carter, Classical and Statistical Thermodynamics, Prentice-Hall, 2001.
… energy transferred across the boundary of a system as a result of a temperature difference only.
Well, rinse and repeat my confusion there. (^_^) Sorry, if I contaminate others with further confusion. I guess I should have put a disclaimer at the start of my post: NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR INCREASING LEVELS OF CONFUSION — READ AT YOUR OWN RISK OF COGNITIVE DISSONANCE.
All my teachers probably dreaded my presence.
Straight from the horses mouth:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/10/uah-global-temperature-update-for-september-2017-0-54-deg-c/#comment-268873
“In the Green Plate Effect the plates are large (even infinitely large) flat plates in a vacuum to eliminate the entire blather that you are attempting with viewing angles, distance, etc. which only add detail without adding content”
That comment from Eli himself. Lol. Just thought you should know. Of course he conveniently doesn’t say whether he considers the sun a point source or infinite plate thus rendering his problem unsolvable.
OK. Here it is. What heat is…
It is information. That’s what is “flowing”. Given my above comments about energy being mathematics as mathematics exists, then what is being exchanged is mathematical information. In essence, if I may, the hotter body is “informing” the cooler body that it has more mathematical states available to share with the cooler body. The cooler body has no more mathematical information to share than the warmer body already has, because the warmer body is already beyond the mathematical information state of the cooler body.
You might understand that in reality there are no such things as molecules and atoms etc. What are they made out of? Quarks and stuff. What are quarks? Fundamental particles. What’s a fundamental particle? NO ONE KNOWS! The only thing we know about them are their *mathematical* properties. The fundamental particles are in fact simply stable mathematical information states.
So you might see…everything reduces to mathematics. Heat is a transfer of mathematical information, and the the more highly informed can only inform the lower informed; the lower informed can not transfer any new information to the higher informed that the higher informed doesn’t already have.
Robert you’re asking questions that no scientist can actually answer. This is territory that NO ONE understands. Outside of us (the book group), of course.
Congratulations for penetrating this far. The lack is on the side of science, not you. Science doesn’t know the answers. Only some do. Now you do. Existence is a mental “abstract” construct made out of mathematics, which mathematics can merely be perceived as having structural material form in some cases (as matter), and as pure energy (as light).
Well, not unsolvable, obviously we have an answer for either point source or infinite plate sun…just funny to think that he hasn’t said which. Plus, consideration of viewing angles and distance is just “blather”.
Well hopefully Eli has read here since his visit as all aspects of his argument have been thoroughly debunked. Someone should post a link to his initial comment here on his blog post, and tell people to read down from there.
What is heat and energy?
Information. What is information?
Mathematics.
What is mathematics?
1 = 1.
What is 1 = 1?
A tautological identity which requires no further justification. The ground state of reason and logic.
What is 1?
That has an explanation too but I will stop here.
I wish people would quote Clausius correctly.
This is the full quote that people are partially quoting :-
“What further regards heat radiation as happening in the usual manner, it is known that not only the warm body radiates heat to the cold one but that the cold body radiates to the warm one as well, however the total result of this simultaneous double heat exchange is, as can be viewed as evidence based on experience, that THE COLD BODY ALWAYS EXPERIENCES AN INCREASE IN HEAT AT THE EXPENSE OF THE WARMER ONE. ”
Here’s another Clausius quote on the 2nd law :-
“Heat can never pass from a colder to a warmer body without some other change, connected therewith, occurring at the same time.” – i.e some other change such as work as obviously required in the refrigeration cycle !
And another :-
“No process is possible whose sole result is the transfer of heat from a cooler to a hotter body. ”
Clausius’ statement “experiences an increase in heat” would not pass peer review today.
Besides Clausius died in 1888 before the formulation of either Wien’s or Planck’s laws and he was denied the insights these provide into radiative emissions.
At the time of his death there was a bitter disagreement which began as a result of experiments in 1887 about the aether hypothesis . Who knows Clausius’ thoughts on this ?
Wikipedia states :- “The timeline of luminiferous aether (light-bearing aether) or ether as a medium for propagating electromagnetic radiation begins in the 18th century. The aether was assumed to exist for much of the 19th century—until the Michelson–Morley experiment returned its famous null result. Further experiments were in general agreement with Michelson and Morley’s result. By the 1920s, most scientists rejected the aether’s existence.
Arrhenius maintained a belief in the aether.
The Clausius statement partially quoted by the proponents does not lend support to the notion that back radiation from a cold object causes an increase in temperature in a warmer object and neither do any other of his statements !
The claim that a reduction in the cooling rate of the warmer object must mean that under a constant input it heats up is again nothing more than claiming the back radiation from the colder object heats the warmer object and ALL of Clausius’ statements above dismiss this.
Ah so they just blatantly selectively quote Clausius! Those LYING bastards! Those dirty scumbags! Seriously…those morons!!!
I, naively perhaps, believe that there are models of thought that have better correspondences to human physical, sensible experiences.
I believe that mathematics can mean something related to these physical, sensible experiences.
There are aesthetically more pleasing states of self-delusion than what are now in vogue. The same level of precision is possible, just a different commitment to human sensibility can be the underlying understanding.
The current paradigm is founded on a preference for particles, and confusion of particles and waves, seemingly. Encoded practices are founded on these standardized confusions, and definite language rules are established to ACCEPTABLY handle the hazy areas, as mathematics becomes the language of human perception in handling these confusions.
I believe that there is something better that would help more people avoid the sort of confusion between heat and radiation that we see now.
I’m too old to figure it out, and the field of physics has too much momentum to be moved in a different direction by the few who might be onto this alternate path of understanding and insight.
Talking about Earth’s atmosphere requires a deep understanding of the current accepted confusion, and those who have not played the game well enough to know the accepted rules should not try to reinvent those rules, claiming to know those rules, when they do NOT know those rules. They have not “played the game” at the professional level to make this claim, and if they are playing at this level, then there are slack standards of enforcement by some referees to allow the made up crap to pass as the accepted crap.
Joseph,
“There is NO SUCH THING as a “steady-state heat flow” problem. That is a completely, 100% invented and non-existent thing in physics and in existence.”
Maybe they refer to:
https://image.slidesharecdn.com/11heattransfer-090930032112-phpapp01/95/11-heat-transfer-16-728.jpg?cb=1254280890
But this is conduction! Furthermore, the plates are thin enough and close enough that this doesn’t matter at all.
Image rendering test
The distinction:
Rosco, funny thing is Michaelson-Morley did not get a null result!
http://www.orgonelab.org/miller.htm
I’m not qualified to speak on the implications.
Right, OK Afro. Those examples are when the temperatures are *held* fixed for whatever reason. They’re artificial scenarios because naturally the temperatures would have no reason to stay fixed, but would evolve spontaneously as all natural system do to thermal equilibrium.
Naturally, when you have a single source and passive objects, what sufficient reason is there for any temperature of the passive objects to be held fixed such that thermal equilibrium cannot be achieved with them? THAT is what is not natural. It makes no sense to claim a steady-state temperature in this situation…but of course these people would therefore demand exactly that for the reason that it doesn’t make sense. Again I can’t imagine them doing and saying such stupid things and so therefore I say that such a situation is not possible. Yes, of course it is possible if your force it to be that way, but, you have to force it to be that way because this is not what would happen by itself naturally with no additional external inputs. The plate scenario is a natural system with the only input effect being that from the Sun, the generator of power, and so therefore it is impossible that the plates should be fixed at any temperature other than the one which they would evolve to to reach thermal equilibrium.
Naturally, the derived equations for heat flow are differentials of time which means that they generally won’t be static but will evolve with time…and what they evolve to is thermal equilibrium where heat flow gets zeroed out.
There are situations in engineering for example where different components of a system will have generally fixed temperatures due to these components being engineered in that way to specifically operate at an operating temperature, and then they would need to know the heat flow between those components so that they could add additional engineering to remove that heat flow, and such a system would be “steady state”.
That’s NOT Eli’s system!
For all natural systems, as per the statements and explanations about heat and heat flow, the heat flow goes to zero and thermal equilibrium spontaneously evolves since heat spontaneously flows until things equal out.
I still think that there is a sensible conception of what “heat” is in all this.
We can base our self delusion on an idea of reality’s being categorized into levels of stuff — different scales of stuff, where one scale of stuff encompasses another scale of stuff (e.g., molecule encompasses atom, … atom encompasses quark, … etc.) We don’t have to know exactly what these are. We merely have to accept that our minds can make sensible divisions of some physical reality, because human perception prefers this close-to-tangible way of visualizing/rationalizing things.
In THIS vein, Okay, heat is NOT the motion of molecules, BUT is heat the CHANGE in motion between systems of molecules? And this CHANGE that causes lesser motion of one molecular system to gain greater motion from another molecular system what we might call “heat”? “Flow of heat”, then, would be the transitioning in this molecular motion between the two systems in contact with one another (from the greater-motion system to the lesser-motion system?
… stubbornly trying to find traction still. (^_^)
Hey that’s not bad. I think it works.
Rosco’s educational contribution on Clausius shows that Clausius was not so stupid as those who selectively quote him would have us believe. His concepts might have been confused as a result of the then established level of understanding, but he clarified his thoughts in such a way that his confusion of terms did NOT confuse the greater principle about the actions between warm bodies and cold bodies. Even using confused terms, he spoke the truth on this.
Hey that’s not bad. I think it works.
Thank God, … or whatever. There’s hope for me yet.
Thanks for the elucidation, JP.
The universe is made up of 1 and 0s. We just have to figure out what that means.
I have put this together from the Hockney works especially “The Omega Point” to explain the mental change required to make a paradigm shift that refutes materialism and make idealism the
primary thinking reality. Then things start to make sense and a universal theory is possible.
Energy =Motion.
Heat is what is given off from the motion of energy from a more complex system to a lower complex system . It’s the motion that’s about the change in the system, and motion is energy.
This movement is a perpetual motion machine as energy cannot not move, that, mathematically, has a net energy of zero – which is exactly why it goes on forever. It requires nothing and it can neither acquire nor lose anything. It
perfectly encapsulates the First Law of Thermodynamics concerning the absolute conservation of energy.
The problem of scientific Materialism over Idealism:
This sums up the materialists dilemma:
https://www.wired.com/2013/07/is-light-a-wave-or-a-particle/
Materialists have to say that photons are material entities otherwise they would
be outside their materialist paradigm. But how can massless and dimensionless entities be material? Surely photons are dimensionless energy waves, not dimensional particles? But heres the rub:
The dimensional particles and dimensionless waves are not independent of each other, They are bound by the most important mathematical technique of all: Fouriermathematics. The frequency-spacetime duality of Fourier mathematics is nothing less than the mind-matter duality that defines the human condition!
What is energy? It’s eternal information. What is eternal information? It’s eternal sinusoidal waves.
All information is sinusoidal. Sinusoidal waves, energy and information are essentially synonymous terms. To say we live in a universe of energy is to say we live in an information universe, and information is carried by waves. We can have sine and cosine waves, waves of infinite different frequencies, amplitudes, waves of every possible phase angle, and orientation. There are infinite ways
in which waves can be combined.
So, Information = energy = waves =Eulerian/Fourier mathematics.
The whole universe is controlled by the ultimate analytic mathematical equation for defining waves: the generalized Euler Formula which is : eix = cos x + i sinx
We inhabit a universe of energy which, ipso facto also is in permanent motion, Energy moves through a spacetime container of coupled real and imaginary space. Energy moves; the container does not. And what is motion? It’s the intrinsic behaviour of energy. As soon as you have energy, you have motion. A universe of energy is a universe of motion and in motion, and that’s true regardless of space and time. When time is decoupled from motion and change, its enigmas vanish. Time is then just a stationary container like space, hence can have coordinates assigned to it, as per Einstein. It’s not time that’s responsible for change and motion (as Newton thought); it’s energy. Motion, change and energy are
synonymous.
Everything in existence is always moving (because there is nothing but energy, and energy is inherently in motion). Things move whether or not time exists, just as they move whether or not space exists.
Motion is inherent in the concept of energy. You cannot have static energy. Energy/motion is eternal. Energy can never be lost and motion can never be lost. Motion can take place in space, time, spacetime and outside space and time. If it’s running down in one aspect, it’s running up in another. Its total energy is always conserved, as per the First Law of Thermodynamics.
Entropy amounts to the draining of energy through space, and its redirection through time. The sun provides energy that can be converted into motion through space (what is known as “useful” energy), but, in the end, all of this useful energy is expended (lost as heat) via motion through space, and all that’s left, apart
from “zero-point” energy, is motion through time (and a more sophisticated argument says that all that’s left is in fact mental motion!) i.e the human paradigm .
In our material universe, default motion is through time. Stars produce energy that allows motion to be redirected through space (allowing us to move around in space and do stuff until it’s all used up, then default motion through time resumes. So its a cosmic equilibrium.
The Default Mode
We live in a temporal universe. That’s its default mode. This means that the vast majority of motion takes places through imaginary space (time) rather than through real space. It’s impossible for the universe to have more than one default mode, hence it’s inevitable that we will live either in a universe where the default is travel through time, or one where travel through space is the default. For photons, however travel through space is the default (and only) mode.
If we think of heat as low energy electromagnetic radiation (i.e. photonic energy) then the conversion of “useful” energy into increasingly useless heat energy (by way of the Second Law of Thermodynamics concerning entropy) might be considered tantamount to a default temporal universe gradually being converted into a default spatial universe! If all energy in our universe is converted
into photons then time stops … exactly as it does in a black hole singularity.
The whole universe moves forward at exactly the same rate. That is the Zeroth Law of Motion.
Continuing to study and to clarify the thermodynamics text that Rosco introduced, I want to take this standard, textbook-physics explanation one step at a time, in an attempt to reveal a key point:
So, we have “Q”, the power radiated by the black sphere to deep SPACE, where nothing surrounds the sphere.
And we have ” Q’ “, the power radiated by the black sphere to the spherical SHELL.
There is a third power radiated that we have to consider, and this is the power radiated by the SHELL to deep space, which we designate with the letter Q” (q double prime). To repeat, Q” is the power radiated by the SHELL to deep space. And the equation for this is as follows:
That’s three radiated powers to consider:
* power radiated by SPHERE to SPACE with NO shell
* power radiated by SPHERE to SHELL
* power radiated by SHELL to SPACE, as shell surrounds sphere
There is an established, accepted, textbook, thermodynamic treatment of this set up. It is a rule established within the framework of currently accepted physics.
This rule seems to say that Q” = Q’, which translates to “q-double-prime equals q-prime”, which means “power radiated by the shell to deep space EQUALS power radiated by the sphere to the shell.
Okay, here’s where I say, “So what?” What exactly does this tell us about Greenhouse- Theory errors?
Ah well, its all quite insignificant isn’t it really …… ho de hum ….
Is that the toast burning? Oh for gods sake ……..
(re-posting my comment with better formatting)
Well that needs a little bit of clarification Robert. Q in those examples is heat, not power. Power is conserved, yes, but heat is not. The 2nd paragraph/sentence in your diagram is not correct where it says that “Q is the power radiated”. Whatever letter is used on the left hand side of the equation below the 2nd paragraph, it is not power, but heat.
The power emitted by the sphere is simply P = 4πr2σT4. The amount of this power which would act as heat to the surroundings immediately adjacent to the sphere is the equation written below the 2nd paragraph, i.e. Q = 4πr2σ(T4 – T04).
I say “immediately adjacent to the sphere” because the sphere’s flux will decrease with distance from the surface of the sphere as 1/d2 where d is the distance from the sphere surface. So the power emitted by the sphere is constant, but the amount of power from the sphere which can act as heat reduces with distance from the sphere because the sphere’s power reduces in energy flux density with distance from the surface of the sphere.
I actually have this problem all worked out at this link: https://climateofsophistry.com/2013/12/08/revisiting-the-steel-greenhouse/
RK: “There is an established, accepted, textbook, thermodynamic treatment of this set up. It is a rule established within the framework of currently accepted physics.”
I don’t know where you got the example diagram from, but there are fundamental errors in its description and in its goals. It is attempting to conserve the numeric value of heat, but this is not a conserved quantity. It means to conserve power which is the same as conserving energy which would be the correct thing to do, but it uses heat in place of power. The heat from the sphere is variable and depends entirely on what distance you are from the sphere, and so heat cannot possibly be a conserved numeric value, whereas the power from the sphere is what is constant and is independent of any other consideration, hence is the real conserved value.
Go see the link above.
This thread only got more amusing:
http://rabett.blogspot.com/2017/10/an-evergreen-of-denial-is-that-colder.html?showComment=1508269765696#c5132111158061201202
I can only read a few comments before my head shakes too hard. Were you trying to link to a specific comment? The link didn’t put the browser there if so.
From Christian Anders (CA):
“Physically spoken, the energy source heats A. A cools radiatively to nothingness. If B is brought in proximity to A, A cools to nothingness AND to B, B heats up in return. Therefore, at steady-state, B will have a certain temperature and thus radiate energy towards A. In return A has then a slower total loss of energy ( since now energy is coming in, that was not coming in before ).”
And this was just after he said that “we” suffer from:
“1) Complete conceptual confusion, which even cannot be solved by a proper physical education.
2) Trying to bend the facts intentively.”
Look at his specific statement: “at steady-state, B will have a certain temperature and thus radiate energy towards A. In return A has then a slower total loss of energy”
Does he, or do they at all, address the situation in terms of heat flow? NOPE! Big fat no. They just completely leave out the part where the radiation from B can not act has heat for A. They simply dispense with the heat flow equation entirely. Who needs it, right!? lol!
But what he’s trying to do anyway is to get around the equation for heat flow, by pulling the old switcheroo and making it about A not being able to “lose” energy.
If they would utilize the definition and equation for heat flow, the temperature of B only affects how much of A’s radiant emission will act as heat for B; B does not “slow” A’s emission since A’s emission is always simply determined by its own temperature and emissivity. B doesn’t and can’t “slow” A’s surface from emitting from itself. As B warms, the heat flow is “slowed” and goes to zero at equilibrium, and that’s all fine since the heat from A isn’t the conserved quantity but only A’s radiant emission is, and A’s radiant emission from its own surface is never diminished by B. The required loss of energy to get energy to the outside of the system is then fulfilled by B’s outer side.
CA: “The only way out for those who seem to deny those effect, is as far as I can see to say that the radiation from B cannot be absorbed by A. Or to break it down to a discussion about semantics, for when it would be right to use the term “heat”.”
So he admits here in the 2nd sentence that the way out of his argument would be if anyone wanted to get into a discussion about what “heat” is and when the term can be used. Which is funny because in his first sentence he explains that his argument would be wrong if radiation from B cannot be absorbed by A…which is exactly what the equation for heat flow says! lol!
Winning! Don’t you guys love us winning!!?? Don’t you love it when they give us everything needed to win!!?? He just refuted himself…but doesn’t know it.
So Christian, both of your 1 & 2 apply to yourself!
And I see that they are continually referring to how a blanket makes your skin feel.
Ugh.
Blankets work by stopping convection! Just like how a real greenhouse functions. Real greenhouses refute the radiative greenhouse effect because they function due to the convection thing, and the added effect that the RGHE should produce which should be there for a real greenhouse on the RGHE’s own terms doesn’t show up. A non-existent which a real greenhouse demonstrates does not exist does not exist for your skin either particularly when a blanket is already explained by stopping convection just like a real greenhouse is.
It’s a problem with autism and sense-based thinking. They can’t abstract ideas, and so they just stupidly interpret their feelings of their skin.
Yeah, I was linking to this hilarious comment:
“Betty Pound 17/10/17 3:49 PM
Grand Retard Eli draws a phony diagram of Blue sending 200 to Green, and Green sending 100 to Blue.
There is no fucking room for the 100, because every bit of space is occupied by 200 B->G. EVERY SINGLE BIT OF SPACE.
EVERY SINGLE BIT OF SPACE is occupied by warm heating cold until equilibrium, then maintaining that equilibrium.
Grand Hoaxer Eli has fooled a bunch of retards with a phony diagram, an illusion!
He drew a waterfall with half the water going up at half speed!
Congratulations, Eli, for finding a bunch of inbred low IQ cretins to defend your hoax.”
And pretty much all comments after that.
Hahaha f*ck that’s good! Someone here is having fun hahaha 🙂
I do love winning. I love watching them squirm and spout nonsense and act as if it’s not nonsense. Everything they say is a tautological word salad defense of their false paradigm.
If one excludes conning/hoaxing as a motive, it seems like these people will pick up a science fiction book and believe it’s real history.
JP,
We may be experiencing a classic case of chain of errors:
Rosco posted this:
Then I did a drawing, which Rosco used, when he later posted this:
In my latest post, where I parroted Rosco’s language, you say “Q” is heat, but Rosco used the phrase, “power generated”.
Now my mind is totally f***ed. (^_^)
I need to start all over again with that original textbook page:
The language here for “Q” is “energy loss per unit time”.
Rosco used the language for “Q” as “power generated”.
You say that “Q” is “heat”.
I thought that “Q” was the letter used for “heat” too, when I first encountered it, but the copy of the text page said “energy loss per unit time”. Was that text wrong?
Is “energy loss per unit time” the same thing as “heat”?
Did Rosco get the language wrong, and I just built on his error?
Help !
If my crap is totally screwed, then delete it all. Scratch it. Kill it. Get rid of it. Confusion and errors on my part should not be in the flow of the posts here. Economize. Back to the drawing board. I got’s some deleting of images to do.
Forget everything. Start all over. I hate it when this happens.
In answer to Robert’s question greenhouse theorists give a confused description of whatever suits their purposes. Hope this works.
OK Robert, right. Well, I think we’ve discovered that there is an ongoing confusion of terms and definitions and all things related when it comes to these types of problems and radiant heat transfer…not just with us, but with the entire field.
I prefer to start at the fundamentals and then work my way back up. In the fundamental derivations as found in textbooks, the expressions with the difference of temperatures on the right hand side and denoting it as Q (or whatever term) on the left is *always* defined as heat. These are the very expressions derived to explain what heat is and why it transfers, etc.
Secondly, heat is never a (naturally) conserved quantity, and thermal equilibrium spontaneously evolves because heat flow is spontaneous due to the energy flux gradient. When the energy flux gradient equals out, which is spontaneous because you simply can’t stop energy from moving around and finding more stable states to be in (a flat energy gradient is stable, a non-zero energy gradient is not stable), then this is thermal equilibrium, and heat is not flowing at this point because there is no energy density gradient. But this doesn’t mean that energy can’t flow…it just means that the energy isn’t acting like heat, i.e., isn’t warming anything up anymore.
Those are the fundamental things about heat and heat flow.
Now I note that in the textbook page you posted twice, the problem is only in finding the temperature of the shell. There is nothing in that problem which is stating or requiring that the sphere must increase in temperature. In looking at it, I do think that that particular example is correct.
The other textbook problem posted here definitely has some problems because it goes from a sphere with presumably shell question to a plane-parallel diagram but using view factors as if the sphere is a point source and the shell is now a distant wall subtending a small angle, etc. That question and solution is totally, totally messed up.
The later diagram you posted twice above, and your re-drawing of it within that comment…that all actually looks OK, because the inner sphere isn’t said to be being heated or having to rise in temperature. I think the maths looks OK too…but I haven’t worked it out myself. I think the only problem there is in being careful about what the terms are called, for example not calling that equation “the power radiated”, as according to textbook that expression is actually called heat, and the power radiated is the Stefan-Boltzmann Law for the object times its surface area, i.e. power = P = Area*sigma*T^4.
I need to walk away from this for now and maybe try to recoup for another go later on.
Actually, I feel that I’ve got to let it go for now, because my mind is too messed up.
Oh wait the split by two is happening in that re-draw example…let me look more closely.
Ok…busy maybe till tomorrow, but let me re-work that center re-draw you did and I will use all accurate terms and explain EVERYTHING. Ok? Ok!
Hah!
OK I can’t put the solution into a comment because the formatting issues would be too numerous with all of the sub & super scripts. I don’t know if an upgraded version of the WordPress account gives access to button controls to create sub & super scripts, but for now it requires writing sub0/sub and sup4/sup all over the place, which is a pain in the neck.
Here’s the word document and the matching PDF:
https://climateofsophistry.files.wordpress.com/2017/10/sphere-shell.docx
Click to access sphere-shell.pdf
Feel free to take that and make a new diagram to go with it, etc.
Some points, referring to the diagram and text of the following image from which the above documents are based:
The first appearance for the equation Q’ is incorrect. There is no way that this equation can represent a power, but must represent heat flow between the sphere and shell. The power that the sphere emits is already given by the first Q equation (read my document to see why power equals Q is this specific special case), and this power has to be conserved. It can’t change. It’s the power from the sphere that we need to track and account for. The only thing that the first Q’ could be is the heat flow between the sphere and shell, and as it is it is written incorrectly; the correct equation would be the equation 5 in my document.
These mathematical errors in the diagram image eventually lead to the likewise-erroneous split by two found at the end of that image. The split by two doesn’t appear when the math is done correctly, as demonstrated in the linked document. Study it well!
This may be the first time ever that this problem was solved correctly.
This comment from Tim Folkerts @ Rabbett Run:
“Could we all agree to stop using the word “equilibrium”?
Nothing in the top post is in equilibrium, and using this word seems to be causing endless confusion in certain commenters when they try to force “equilibrium” physics on non-equilibrium situations.
This is a steady-state situation. Energy is continuously flowing, which by definition makes it non-equilibrium. (“n thermodynamic equilibrium there are no net macroscopic flows of matter or of energy, either within a system or between systems.” — Wikipedia)”
Surely this is the end, for them? When such ridiculous comments are preserved in history on the internet? He seems to be saying that in his way of looking at it, at equilibrium, no energy flows. So to him “equilibrium” is the condition at which everything in the Universe is at 0 K. All because his mind has blocked out the word “net” from his Wikipedia quote.
Thanks, when I recoup a bit more from my previous mind f**k, I will definitely study it well. (^_^)
One comment: You said that the first appearance of “Q” showed an incorrect representation. As I understood it, that first representation was for the sphere WITHOUT the shell around it, but subsequent explanations required the shell to be there to show the other variables, and I found this a bit confusing — how do you represent the NO-shell condition WITH the shell condition simultaneously in the same picture? — maybe it’s not a good idea to try to do this.
Remove the shell. Is the first-appearance equation still incorrect?
Thanks again for your labors.
@GW – yes the quote says “there are no net macroscopic flows”. No “NET”! That means no heat. The statement specifically states “net”, and so is specifically about heat (and also movement of mass…but we’re interested in heat). The statement specifically means that there CAN be flows, just no NET flows.
And in any case, since the Sun is producing power that power has to come out somewhere, and it does, with the system at thermal equilibrium internally (because there is no other possible state for the system to end at!), but emitting the required energy externally.
@Robert – I said the first appearance of Q’, not Q. The top appearance of Q is correct. The rest I explain in the document etc.
Perhaps once the discussion is through here, it could be good to have a new top post article just summarising the main points discussed here and the refutation/s of Eli’s thought experiment set out in one easy to read post.
I can do that GW, but I have a post about Robert’s sphere & shell problem first because it is the “steel greenhouse” idea but within an ambient-temperature environment, which can be used to make fun of them again.
Actually maybe I will see if I can put Eli’s stuff in with that post…
” Q’ ” … got it — Learn to read, Kernodle !
Here’s what I’m working on [just a snapshot of where I am so far, for your examination — I’ll save it as a pdf at higher resolution, when I’m done, AND assuming that I have not made any brain-dead screw ups.] :
Basically, I’m illustrating JP’s schooling lesson, because I likes my “pitchurz”.
Is “d-sub-zero” okay, as the designation there?
Here’s page number 2 (just an internet-sized image), with my additions in red for clarity (oh, and I changed one set of parentheses for hard brackets, because this was the convention that I learned, when there were multiple enclosures of grouped terms):
Check it for problems or screw ups.
Just give me a day or two to carefully work it out. I think I got the right answer in the end but one of the earlier equations which the answer doesn’t depend on directly wasn’t written correctly. Even though that possible error in writing that early equation didn’t factor into the final solution for conservation of energy, I still have to make sure that everything is 100% correct and consistent. So, just please hurry up and wait. I’ll make a new OP about since it is such a great problem and touches on the “steel greenhouse” again.
Well, … it’s a work in progress, and here’s how I tried to illustrate and clarify the rest (internet snapshots, remember of a pdf I could do). I can change stuff, if better stuff emerges:
… pages 3, 4, and 5 of my ATTEMPTED clarification via illustration
This is the sort of obsession that errors can drive me to. (^_^)
… “steel greenhouse”
… and after analyzing it to death and reaching the greatest clarity of resolution yet, maybe you can write the epic quote: “If I have seen further, it is by standing on the shoulders of greenhouse giant idiots.” Sorry, Newton, … had to change it a bit to jive with the times.
Well, late to the party, but WTH. The point about using large flat plates is that they simplify the geometry of the problem so a bunny does not have to worry about viewing angles and edge effects.
[JP: The comment thread got really long since your visit, but I explained everything about the geometry involved and the view factors, etc. View factors are central in radiative transfer and the view factor between the source to the first plate is different than between the plates, etc.]
There are books on thermal radiation that go into page after page of the details but that add little to understanding of the basic effect which is what the green plate effect post does.
[JP: View factors are central in radiative transfer. Nothing else is can be right if the view factors aren’t understood. The problem here is that you assume the effect which you wish to arrive at, by having the energy from the green plate add back to the blue plate – this is wrong.]
Going back to something Robert K posted above, it is worth noting that the Stefan Boltzmann law sums over all angles of emission so the diagrams at Rabett Run are accurate for the total emission and absorption of radiation.
[JP: The point through all that was to understand why the view factors are different between the source and first plate, and between the other plates. The first plate must be distant from the source so that the source’s rays are parallel with each other and uniform on the first plate, otherwise the source flux on the first plate can’t be uniform and your diagram wouldn’t make sense. They were making it clear what the physical situation actually looked like, since it can’t actually be drawn at scale.]
Perhaps also it is worth stating even at this late date that the Green Plate Effect assumed that the blue plate uniformly absorbed 400 W/m2 across the entire plate, so that geometric gymnastics about a point source sum are rather besides the point if you are trying to discuss the Green Plate Effect.
[JP: The uniform flux on the blue plate means that the blue plate must subtend a small angular area of the sky as seen from the source. Likewise the source must subtend a small angular area as seen from the first plate. It has to be this way so that the energy on the blue plate gets split by two. The view factors between the plates are such that the plates subtend the entire angular area of their respective skies, and this has an effect on whether energy can be split into two directions for them, which it can not any longer as opposed to the source/blue plate relationship.]
To summarize, if you want to discuss Eli’s post don’t bring in curved iron balls or whatever, don’t bring in a point source sun. If you want to discuss something else, feel free, but you are discussing something else.
[JP: Nothing was brought in that changed the relationship between the source and the blue plate. They simply wanted to understand how the flux on the blue plate could be uniform, which requires that the blue plate subtends a small angular area of the Sun’s sky. Likewise the Sun should also subtend a small angular area of the blue plate’s sky on that hemisphere, so that the energy on the blue plate can be split by two. So they just gave physical validity to your initial set up, and did not change it. What does change is how you handled the relationship between the plates. The energy from the green plate can not add back to the blue plate. You assume that it does because that’s what you want to show, but it’s not possible, because it is the energy from the blue plate which is adding to the green plate because this is the direction of heat flow.]
One thing that sort of throws me is that sometimes four-pi-r-squared-sigma-T-to-the-fourth-power is Q, and sometimes four-pi-r-squared-sigma-T-to-the-fourth-power is P.
So, does this mean that sometimes “power” can be considered “rate of heat transfer” and sometimes not? I guess answering this might require us breaking down the units even further to the joules-per-second component of the watt that is in the watts-per-meter-squared of the flux.
Basically, a joule is a unit for “energy”, right? But a joule can also be more specifically “energy dissipated as heat“. Here’s where it starts to get a little confusing.
P is only Q if P is radiating into a 0K environment or object. Yes, it seems to me that all of these examples are never careful enough about explaining things etc.
You said study it. Careful what you ask for. (^_^)
Just to be clear:
P is only Q, if P is radiating into a 0-degree-Kelvin environment or into a 0-degree-Kelvin object. An OBJECT would have to be at 0-degrees-Kelving too, right? — for this to apply?
Reply from Eli here: https://climateofsophistry.com/2017/10/06/slayers-vindicated-by-additional-independent-researchers/#comment-31333
Robert, yes the object would have to be 0K too. When the object goes above 0K then even though the source is still sending energy/power, only a smaller amount of that power can now act as heat for it.
“Heat” is a very slippery concept. I don’t think that we’ve quite nailed it yet. Again, the “greenhouse-theory” confusion over this concept seems more and more understandable — forgiveable?, … well, … no, because there are other reasons to discount that theory besides a heat confusion.
But using confusion to support an idea seems a bit desperate, and so getting it straight would do everybody on both sides some good.
Well yes that’s the entire m.o. Usage of the term “climate denier” when no one is denying that the climate exists; usage of the term “climate change denier” when no one is denying that the climate changes; usage of the term “carbon pollution” when no one disputes that particulate carbon pollution in the air degrades air quality, and the concern is actually over carbon dioxide; usage of the term “hottest ever” when the time span only refers to satellite data.
You know what movie you/all should watch?
Hillary’s America
https://hillarysamericathemovie.com/#trailer
You must be able to get it online now at this point. The point being: It is all about the CON.
What are they doing with those mis-used terms as above? That’s a CON! They’re conning you. Confusing is central to their con and any con, in that the conned doesn’t get to know the truth, ever.
Unless you have people like us.
… priceless ! Yippee for bunnies.
Climate exists. I do NOT deny it.
Climate CHANGE exists. I do NOT deny it.
Pollution exists. I do NOT deny it.
CARBON pollution exists. I do NOT deny it.
… but
I DO deny that carbon DIOXIDE gas in the atmosphere is pollution. Carbon DIOXIDE gas in the atmosphere is NOT pollution.
I DO deny that carbon DIOXIDE produced by humans causes any detectable climate change. Carbon DIOXIDE produced by humans does NOT cause detectable climate change.
These are just a couple of things that I DENY.
I also “deny” that child pornography is an okay pursuit.
I “deny” that caging a dog for long periods of time is acceptable.
I “deny” that vinegar over pancakes is haute cuisine.
I “deny” that beating women is a man’s right.
I “deny” that smoking is a healthy habit.
… and I could go on. Point is, there are lots of things that lots of people “deny”. Reserving the word, “deny”, to denote just those people who “deny” one-sided climate manifestos is corrupt use of language. I DENY that such corrupt use of language is appropriate for intelligent people.
EVERYBODY is a “denier” of something. Let’s start using this word in a broader sense, how about it.
I guess the only other thing to point out to Eli (though it was mentioned here originally a while ago): if Eli is thinking of his Sun as an infinitely large flat plate, same as the green and blue plates, then the blue and green plates actually reach equilibrium at 290 K (emitting 400 W/m2 either side). It’s whether his sun is a point source or not. Which boils down to simply, “does the sun in your thought experiment have a finite size” or not? Because if the answer is “yes”, then regardless of the size or even shape of the finite sun, it automatically becomes a point-source sun in relation to the infinite-sized blue and green plates.
Just right GW. Except at the last, the blue/green plates aren’t actually infinite in extent relative to the Sun, it is just that this is a good approximation for each other because they are spaced closely together. The blue plate must be small enough in extent that it receives a uniform flux from the source, which we must assume is a point-source if the blue-plate’s energy is to get split by two.
Eli has actually stated though that you should consider the plates to be infinitely large. In which case by his own stated set-up the only possible way it works is to consider his Sun as also an infinitely large plate (or object of whatever shape). In which case the answer is both blue and green plates equilibrate at 290 K. So his drawing of the sun as a “sun shape” and size in proportion to the larger blue and green plates is perhaps an intentional misdirection from the get go.
Well, I’ll grant him that he means that the plates can be considered as infinite-plane-parallel relative to their respective view factors with each other. But if he insists that they are also actually infinite relative to the Sun, then his initial setup is nothing but incorrect, and things are exactly as you just said. I may grant him that he didn’t think carefully enough about why and how he made the assumptions he did, hence unintentionally. But if the blue plate is infinite in extent relative to the Sun, then the average flux upon it from the sun actually goes to zero at that limit…because as per Robert’s one diagram about, there would be an infinite area of plate with rays from the Sun which are parallel to the plate and never intersect it, hence an infinite area of zero flux which dominates a finite area of non-zero flux.
If Eli desires the plates to be finite but with a non-uniform flux on them from the Sun because they’re still quite large, and he wants to use the average of the non-uniform flux on the blue plate…it just makes no sense to do that, and serves the scenario in no helpful way whatsoever.
Either the Sun should be a point source and the plates subtend a small angular area of the Sun’s sky so that the blue plate gets uniform flux, in which case you get the 200 W/m^2 solution, or the Sun is treated as another infinite plane parallel plate in which case you get the 400 W/m^2 solution.
“Either the Sun should be a point source and the plates subtend a small angular area of the Sun’s sky so that the blue plate gets uniform flux, in which case you get the 200 W/m^2 solution, or the Sun is treated as another infinite plane parallel plate in which case you get the 400 W/m^2 solution”.
100% agree!
The statement of the problem was that there was a uniform 400 W/m2 irradiation of one side of the blue plate. Youse are quibbling about that. How about dealing with the problem as stated?
If you don’t like the uniform irradiation of the plate, well bury some heaters in it which heat the plate at a rate of 400 W/m2.
You want to do another problem, please go ahead, but it would not be the problem as described at Rabett Run.
Eli it is called understanding, not quibbling. It’s just understanding where the source flux is coming from and why it could be uniform. And so, if you wish it to be uniform this can only be because the blue plate is small in angular size as seen from the source, or, because the source is a plane parallel to the plate. We assume the former since you refer to the Sun. This matters for whether the energy on the blue plate can get split by two. You do split it by two which means that the source must be a point source, but others here want to also understand what happens if the source is treated as plane parallel with the plate. It’s all fine! Your exact problem is being perfectly maintained and understood for its requirements.
But now, if you wish to have a heater which sustains the blue plate emitting at 400 W/m^2, *you* have just changed the problem and it is no longer your own problem described at Rabbett Run. Please stay consistent!
If now an internal heater to the blue plate supplies power for it to emit at a temperature providing 400 W/m^2 on its surface, this reduces to the plane-parallel-source scenario which others have wanted to understand here. The green plates then also emit at 400 W/m^2, as does the source blue plate.
These are fine details which are important Eli. We’re not changing things from the problem you’ve provided.
Joseph has pocket aces, and Eli is bluffing with 2,7 unsuited.
The draw came up 3,4,5,A,A. Eli is all in, Joseph chuckles.
Love it lol 🙂
So of course Eli will concede the game gracefully. Or…will claim that Joseph is twisting the laws of poker. According to Eli “of course” a straight beats four aces. He will have many people that agree with him. Therefore all the other people, who don’t understand poker, agree.
Having seen Eli’s response, I fear that I might not have given his contribution a fair shake, and so I visited it once again:
http://rabett.blogspot.co.uk/2017/10/an-evergreen-of-denial-is-that-colder.html
The master rabbit asks us to …
… imagine the Earth is just a plate in space with sunlight shining on it. Maybe 400 W/m^2
Here the practical aspect of my mind immediately balks: The Earth is NOT a flat plate. And even if I could allow my imagination to go there, “400 W/m^2” requires a reference surface of actual dimensions, and so I want to know what are the dimensions of the Earth “plate” that allow a “m^2” to even be determined for the 400 W to fall upon? How long are the plates? Are they infinitely long? Is this allowed, and is this correct to be allowed? Is there an accepted proof somewhere that establishes a standard that LENGTH can be ignored?
There is no mention of thickness. Does thickness matter? Can this just be ignored? Is there an accepted proof somewhere that establishes a standard allowing THICKNESS to be ignored?
If these standards exist, then they need to be stated as part of the set-up, … and convincingly justified. Otherwise, my mind balks with the questions posed, and I find it difficult to get much past the basic set-up of the thought experiment. If you are talking to non-expert physicists, then these questions need to be addressed, especially in any model that claims to set matters straight.
And what about DENSITY of the “plates” — what are they made of?, … can THIS be ignored? …, standards?, … agreement?, … convention, backed by proof, that it can?
Again, there just seem to be too many questions about a FLAT “plate” that I am supposed to imagine represents a spherical, multi-composed, multi-density, air/water/ground planet. The mathematical gymnastics are an entirely different issue that I almost could not get to because of the “imagining” part.
The sheer progression of abstraction being requested seems outrageous, when you think about it:
Physics rabbits sure have great imaginations. Alas, I am merely mortal, lacking as such, when it comes to this area.
Can I imagine that the arrows representing power are little caped elves carrying wee gold pots of photons? Then I wonder such things as do they have capes?, … are they male or female or neuter?, … are they happy elves or sad elves ?– happy elves move more energetically, you know.
GW,
ah but Eli doesn’t have a straight. He has 2,3,4,5,7.
He’s too absorbed dreaming of ways 6-sided ice cubes can heat something hotter than ice cubes, that he believes he has a 6. So he goes all in.
Next up:
Afro, I was thinking of Texas Hold’em. Eli could make a straight with the 2 he has in his hand. There is 3, 4, 5, A, A out there. So Eli’s best hand would be A, 2, 3, 4, 5. Joseph has two aces in his hand, Eli a 2 and a 7. Eli goes all in because he’s got the straight (not a straight flush, mind). Joseph’s best hand would be A, A, A, A, 5. The 4 aces beats the straight.
But the hangers on surrounding Eli agree with him when he proclaims that actually a straight beats 4 of a kind. People not understanding poker and that 4 of a kind beats a straight are convinced by Eli because of the number of others in agreement.
That was my sort of labored extension of the metaphor to apply to the consensus aspect…
My bad, GW. You are correct, and your metaphor was apropos.
The Green Plate Effect (GPE) post is a gedanken experiment which uses simplifications to think through the consequences of a proposition. In this case the proposition is that as several (here) have claimed that the Greenhouse Effect (GHE) as stated violates the second law of thermodynamics.
What the GPE post established is two things:
1. The GHE is not a statement about two bodies interacting thermally, a hot and a cold one, e.g. the surface and the atmosphere, but a statement about three bodies, the heat source, the absorber of energy from the heat source and the thermal shield, e.g. the illumination source, the blue plate and the green plate in the GPE.
This idealization can be extended to the sun, surface atmosphere system at the cost of mathematical complication involving things such as geometry, viewing angles, emissivity, thermal conductivity, diurnal cycles, etc.
2. Simple analysis shows that in the GPE the presence of the green plate makes the blue plate hotter. The myriad attempts, some here, some there, change the problem to something else or eventually break down into first or second law contradictions or tie themselves up into algebraic knots.
Eli your problem has been extremely carefully adhered to on the exact terms you set it up. I have explained the idealizations used to people and why they work, etc.
Please read the next post (https://climateofsophistry.com/2017/10/19/the-steel-greenhouse-in-an-ambient-temperature-environment/) and see how to solve your type of problem the correct way. The error you are committing is this:
“The standard derivation of the radiative greenhouse effect, by the climate alarmists, arrives at a different solution because it doesn’t utilize the definition and equation for heat flow and thermal equilibrium; it does utilize conservation of energy, and by this it seeks to claim a sufficient foundation for legitimacy, but without utilizing the definition of heat flow and thermal equilibrium the laws of thermodynamics are incomplete and thus a solution ignoring them is likewise incorrect. Their error seems to rest solely upon the problem as stated in the thermodynamics text by Schroeder, of confusing energy with heat.”
You do not use a heat flow equation in your solution.
One can not add the emission from the green plate back to the blue plate. You assume that you can because you don’t use the heat flow equation.
You’ve now repeated the same comment, what, 3 times in a row now. If you come back another time and repeat the same thing, you will experience Slayer wrath.
Here’s the solution to your problem:
The source supplies 400 W/m^2 to the blue plate. Given the geometry and view factors involved, the blue plate splits the 400 W/m^2 to emission on either side of itself, hence warms to a temperature to emit 200 W/m^2 on either side, thus conserving energy for said geometry.
We now introduce the green plate, which can be approximated as infinite plane parallel with the blue plate, and for this geometry the heat flow equation between the blue and green plate is simply
Q = sigma * (Tb^4 – Tg^4)
The green plate stops rising in temperature when Q = 0, i.e. when the heat flow to it goes to zero which is thermal equilibrium. Therefore when Q = 0 the green plate has a constant temperature of
0 = Tb^4 – Tg^4
Tb = Tg
The green plate thus achieves the same temperature of the blue plate, and emits 200 W/m^2 on its outside, this conserving the input energy from the sun source.
In the above correct solution, I utilize the laws of heat flow and hence the 2nd Law. You ignore the 2nd Law and claim that your solution is correct because you believe you’ve used the 1st Law. Your solution is therefore insufficiently based in reality, and hence wrong. Please read the above solution and the next post until you understand.
Time to put theory to practice.
Get a heat source, a thermocouple and a couple plates.
Drill a hole the one plate, and insert the thermocouple, we can call that the blue plate.
Put it near the heat source, measure the temperature and wait until it is constant.
Put the green plate next to the blue plate and see what happens to the temperature of the blue plate.
Only if it is done intelligently, accounting for all view factors correctly, in vacuum, etc etc. They have been known to not know how in the heck to perform scientific experiments.
In any case the experiments were all done in the 1800’s and now we have the laws of thermo. They just need to realize that the laws exist and to use them. The heat flow equation is there to be used, not ignored.
Even if it is done sloppily and you get a temperature rise in the blue plate, you have some rethinking to do.
Heat shields and reflective insulation work after all.
If it’s done sloppily that’s an exact problem! For goodness’ sake man! Sloppy experiments are precisely what produce false results and false interpretations.
What the hell is wrong with you!?
Reflective insulation has low emissivity. It’s the change in emissivity that has the effect.
Heat shields block direct transfer…if you have an object between you and a source, it takes more time for the heat to get through the object and then get to you.
Again, what the hell is wrong with you!?
Even if you DID split the flux of the green plate in half, the green elf has only half the power of the blue elf coming at it from the OPPOSITE direction. The BLUE elf has more energy in its wee pot than the GREEN elf, and it seems that this energy (blue elf) would be REDUCED to half by the wee pot of the green elf., … giving us a net of 100 W/m^2 coming into the green plate from the blue plate, which added to the other green elf’s wee pot, moving in the SAME direction, would add up to the 200 W/m^2 split from the blue plate coming in.
It would balance out to exactly what JP said. This might not be the best way to think about it, but it seems to work. Again, think of the little elves as having different strengths of magical powers.
The red elf has the most mojo; the blue elf has the next most mojo; and the green elf has the least amount of mojo.
I like elves better than boring ol’ arrows, since we ARE in Alice’s Alarmist Land.
Robert, I love your elves! Infinitely large and infinitely thin plates all make perfect sense when you draw in the elves. I have no problem understanding the mental space Eli inhabits now. Infinitely thin…so non-existent in one sense…but infinitely large…so bigger than anything we can possibly imagine in another sense. Let’s now think about comparing the surface area over which the green plate receives energy from the blue by the total surface area over which the green plate emits (in other words, both non-existent “sides” of the green plate) in order to satisfy the 1st Law. OK, so that’s infinity compared to infinity…no, wait, 2 non-existent sides, so that’s infinity compared to infinity multiplied by 0…or should it be 2…or…?
That’s heat flow. You know, the part of thermodynamics which they wish to ignore…which is basically the 99% important part about thermodynamics…
Nice diagrams!
thermo … “heat”
dynamics … “motion”
thermodynamics … “heat motion” = “heat flow”
But remember, thermodynamics is non-dynamic in Alice’s Alarmist Land. (^_^)
We should pause and make note of the remarkable popularity of hare and rabbit characters in fiction and their ability to burrow their way into the heart of literary classics.
Is it any wonder, then, that a Rabett should appear in the fiction of CO2-human-caused-climate-change-via-a-greenhouse-effect?
I’m so cruel.
Hmmm. the hounds are loose now Robert, never ends well when the hounds are loose.
And now, begin the comments from his hangers-on, confirming that indeed a straight DOES beat four of a kind…
http://rabett.blogspot.co.uk/2017/10/why-green-plate-effect-has-had-effect.html?showComment=1508541719063#c2224411119098938723
I can’t go look. Won’t dirty my browser electrons and LCD screen photons with his page.
Just tell us the summary briefly.
This is the article:
“The Green Plate Effect (GPE) post is a gedanken experiment posed by your friendly bunny, which uses simplifications to think through the consequences of a proposition. The proposition is that as several have claimed, that the Greenhouse Effect (GHE) violates the second law of thermodynamics.
Discussion of the GPE has occupied more that a few places, including Rabett Run, Roy Spencer’s bodega, and the Dragons Lair (be sure to wear protection when going there or better yet do not), but contrary to the Weasel, there does seem to have been an effect. (BTW he has been tossed out of his condo and retreated to the original hovel)
The GPE post drove home two ideas:
1. The GHE is not a statement about two bodies, a hot and a cold one, e.g. the surface and the atmosphere, but a statement about three bodies, a heat source, the absorber of energy from the heat source and the thermal shield, In the GPE these are the illumination source, the blue plate and the green plate.
This idealization can be extended to the sun, surface atmosphere system at the cost of mathematical complication involving things such as geometry, viewing angles, emissivity, thermal conductivity, diurnal cycles, etc.
Were bunnies to go acaveating it might be mentioned that the blue plate would cool more quickly in the absence of the green plate when the light was turned off. This, happens in real life. Night time temperatures fall much more quickly in the desert than in Mississippi and yes, Betty, water vapor does absorb IR emissions from the surface and yes, something is needed to heat the surface first.
2. Simple analysis shows that in the GPE the presence of the green plate makes the blue plate hotter.
The myriad attempts, some here, some there, involve changing the problem to something else or they break down into first or second law contradictions or they tie themselves up into algebraic knots. Mathocists are invited to look at the comments at RR, Dr. Roys, or Postma’s Pablum Palace.”
In the comments from the regulars there does seem to be some criticism of the idea that the plates are infinite, but they don’t conclude that 1st Law calculations are invalid because of it. There is no mention of the heat flow equation or that entire aspect of thermodynamics. Tim Folkerts comments:
“Christian, it is very clear that the sun *would* warm up in your scenario. (There is a bit of a thermostat with the sun, but that would only partly compensate. Let’s assume the nuclear reactions are constant for the sake of argument.)
If the sun starts radiating to ANY temperature above the background 3K, then it will be radiating less total power. If it is radiating less, it is keeping more. If it is keeping more, it must warm.
I can’t see how this would be the least bit controversial.”
Send them the steel greenhouse post.
Yes exactly…they simply LEAVE OUT heat flow, the equations for heat flow, the definition of heat flow, and the concept of thermal equilibrium. Well done fellows of course you can come up with the end-result you desire in the first place by ignoring everything that would stop you from arriving there. Science!!
His blue plate emits more power than is supplied to it. WRONG. Idiots! You can’t get something to emit more power than you give it…this is the the set of Thermodynamic Law altogether…you can’t make something emit more power than you give it.
These people aren’t human. They seem to be some sort of AI system that at one point in their lives was installed to repeat their behaviour so that they seemed like they were still the same person…but the system, being artificial, doesn’t have the human characteristic ability of incorporating new and better ideas, formulating better questions, gaining greater insights, identifying errors, etc.
I would love to see Eli solve the steel greenhouse problem. It would be hilarious.
“Simple analysis shows that in the GPE the presence of the green plate makes the blue plate hotter.”
More like analysis which leaves out the laws of thermodynamics.
“His blue plate emits more power than is supplied to it. WRONG. Idiots! You can’t get something to emit more power than you give it…this is the the set of Thermodynamic Law altogether…you can’t make something emit more power than you give it.”
Since I have to clarify this for the demented zombie rabbits…
The only SUPPLY of power is from the Sun. The green plates are not a supply of power. The blue plate can not emit more power than the power supply itself produces.
I seriously believe that these aren’t humans…that we’re not talking with humans with these entities who go along with Eli and Willis, etc. As I explained earlier…humans exhibit certain characteristics in their thinking – it develops, evolves, their ideas improve, their arguments improve, their questions improve, their insight improves, new information gets incorporated especially when it is simple and has ubiquitous textbook references, etc etc. However look at what Eli did here and what they all do: they repeat the exact same statements, they repeat what you said indicating that they read your answers but then they repeat the exact same questions and erroneous statements as if they hadn’t been able to incorporate or comprehend or improve upon anything you said as if they didn’t read the reply at all, they say that conservation of energy must not matter if it doesn’t suit what they’ve been programmed to want, they say that heat flow and thermal equilibrium are unimportant considerations since they don’t serve what they’ve been programmed to want. They respond like broken records, like a short-circuiting AI system with their head twitching about and everything.
At some point you have to conclude that you’re dealing with something that is simply not actually conscious. It is like they are unconscious automatons.
And for god’s sake even still…the result as he solves it doesn’t support the RGHE anyway! The blue plate has to become HOTTER than the solar input, but it doesn’t. It is as I say in the new steel greenhouse post:
“they have absolutely no clue whatsoever at all what they’re doing in any way, shape, form, or hope; they write things down without having the slightest idea of what the words they’re writing down mean and what their end goal even is”
“And for god’s sake even still…the result as he solves it doesn’t support the RGHE anyway!”
Yes, as you said immediately! Not a point to be forgotten after so much else has been discussed. Even if they WERE right…they’re still wrong. But that’s the trouble, as soon as you say “even if they WERE right” that can be seen as a weakness, or a concession that you’re not sure. At least, that’s how a dishonest person could spin it. So then you feel like you have to be careful to say, “even if they WERE right…but they’re not…they would still be wrong”. Then even that could be seen as “maybe he doth protest too much”.
I don’t think other than maybe one comment from someone on the first RR post, anyone even mentioned that first point you made.
I do still wonder, like you, about the same thing when talking to them. Velociraptor, clown, or dark entity…I am starting to think, as Afro said…maybe more like con-man. The refusal to admit errors (in even the most trivial of details) doesn’t point to much integrity. Everything just seems like a “tactic”. “Winning” a debate comes across as more important than getting to the truth. Endless repetition of points. I don’t know…but then it doesn’t get anywhere, it’s not like if they were con-men they would ever admit it. So you’re then into territory where you could be accused of “conspiracy ideation”. Which yet again just seems like a tactic on their part to discredit their “opponent”.
We’re just in an age where people can say whatever they like, removed from the reality of face to face confrontation, they can lie as they need…misrepresent as much as they need…never concede a point…and they don’t have to see the look on someone’s face or look into their eyes as they do it. So I doubt they even give it a second thought. Or even if they did, it’s justified by “the cause”.
The con men are wrong on every point. They can’t be THAT stupid, so rational people will logically deduce that they are conspiring. Of course the conspirators are left with few choices to escape. One of them is to accuse you of “conspiracy ideation”, and the other is to admit it, but in a mocking tone. like this:
And when that doesn’t work, they’ll come up with their own oil conspiracy theory, and act like it’s not a conspiracy theory.
You can find their tricks in Sun Tzu, Laws of Power, Machiavelli, etc. As Joseph, I believe once said, it’s the parasitic route to wealth.
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=1945786432300018&set=a.1397607767117890.1073741831.100006060396842&type=3&theater
What a disgusting vid @Afro. Total BS of the premises and the frame of the debate, set up for connable minds. The parasite class loves nothing more than minds that will believe any bullshit. They’ve done it with religion for thousands of years…and now they want a new religion based on just as much anti-reason and lack of evidence. No wonder the Pope is all in for it.
You come to a realization that this entire world is run by the con. They’re (the Powers That are Idiots) trying very hard to get science to work for the con, and they’ve been succeeding.
Absolution…..Alien Cure….. Click ,…Fix ……Paradigm …Move …Change …Integrate ..Evolve …Absolution …
Complete …Activate
Is what happened as described in this comment true? I don’t recall any comments posted here with the text they quote, or any responses from you:
http://rabett.blogspot.co.uk/2017/10/why-green-plate-effect-has-had-effect.html?showComment=1508609597267#c1535061095351652034
I deleted his comment GW.
They simply refuse to use a heat flow equation at all or the concept of thermal equilibrium. Look how proud they are of it! Lol
So…he just chucks in another term for the green plate. One term for the blue plate and two for the green.
They signally fail to refer to heat flow or such an equation at all.
Isn’t it amazing how objects can warm themselves by recycling half their energy off of another object?
No complaints allowed, because you know … the sun is there and stuff.
GW, indeed. I thought something was wrong with the idea that 267 goes to heat space, while only 133 goes to heat the green. I Intuitively knew that blackbodies have no preference for heating colder objects (space) more. So in Rabbit’s diagram, 67 of 267 will go to heating 133 side to 200.
The good thing about rabbits is that they’re easy to bury.
Just right GW! And actually that reminds me of something so wonderful and brilliant about it all!
Consider what happens if the green plate simply comes to contact with the blue plate. What then? Or equivalently, why not just take the blue plate situation by itself, and split the blue plate in two and create a vacuum gap?
I have brought this up a long time ago, and hadn’t thought of it too recently, but you just reminded me.
The laws of thermodynamics are universal, and the modes of heat transfer ALL FOLLOW THE SAME THERMODYNAMIC LAWS. The modes of heat transfer are conduction, convection, and radiation. They ALL do the same thing, together, the same way – the same qualitative way of course, with differences just in what the exact maths look like. But the laws of heat flow and thermodynamics apply to the modes of heat transfer universally!
So what does this mean? It means, why the heck would there be such a remarkable change in the behaviour of the system when it is conducting heat energy through itself (blue plate) vs. when the heat conducts, then transfers by radiation, then conducts again? The same universal process is occurring in the vacuum gap as with internal conduction. Why doesn’t internal conduction conduct backwards and heat the warmer side of the plate up some more as the cooler side of the plate warms up? You see? They’re just inventing a totally new & false physics for the radiation situation because they know that they can confuse people with it.
He doesn’t need to add a green plate to make the blue plate hotter…he just needs to split the blue plate in half! LOL! But that gives away the lie so obviously that they add a “totally different green plate” instead.
This is the main point: whether there is a vacuum gap between the plates or the second plate is made in contact with the blue plate or it is just the blue plate, the entire system is limited by the laws of heat flow as if it was just the blue plate. Yes, the rates of transfer may change internally with the vacuum gap since the maths is different, but the internal qualitative limitations are universal, meaning not being able to do anything more special than the conduction situation alone.
Why would adding the split blue plate back to itself make its temperature drop? Why would splitting the blue plate in two make the blue plate hotter!? Nothing about that follows the modes of heat transfer and what they do. In fact, the blue plate has down to the molecular scale an “infinite” number of vacuum gaps between internal slices. If the blue plate was a crystal lattice you could make it exactly like that – an extraordinarily high number of flat planes made of atoms separated by vacuum gaps.
I don’t know why GW’s comment keeps getting pushed to the latest…
Joe, you will have to manually edit GW’s post date. He made it between my posts of 4:54pm and 5:08pm.
There is some sort of time zone bug? Almost as if GW’s computer’s local time is preferred to server’s timestamping code? If the timestamp is based on client side, that’s stupid – but I don’t know.
This was GW’s post…had to delete it:
I like your new post. Nicely ties in this discussion with the steel greenhouse one.
Seems like you guys have got to the absolute crux of where they have gone wrong. And even though a lot of the math in the steel greenhouse post goes over my head, I can see where they go wrong with this (greenhouse plate effect) one. Literally as soon as I saw that split by two in the diagram, with the further split for the green plate, yet supposedly the entire system was at equilibrium; I knew something was wrong. Can’t explain it. I just KNEW that there was no reason for the two plates to be at different temperatures given they were supposed to both be at a similar distance from the sun (i.e extremely close together relative to distance from sun).
Even with one blocking the sun from the other, assuming the plates are perfect conductors (which Eli is happy enough to assume), then it just makes no sense for the green plate not to come to the same temperature as the blue. That seems to me to be completely illogical, to assume it would come to a lower temperature and therefore make the blue one have to be higher.
I think that your steel greenhouse discussion should be good for convincing the experts. And for lay-people like me I really recommend their “greenhouse plate effect” as a demonstration of their core error as it is so simple, and so intuitively obviously wrong. With help from everyone here I was able to see even to quite some depth of understanding why it’s wrong, the view factor discussion was very enlightening to me personally. So I think it could be a good one for getting the message across to lay-people. Thanks!
They keep bringing up this “shade” thing. They say something like, “well, intuitively we know that something in the shade is cooler than something sitting in the sun. Yet you guys think the object in the sun vs in the shade would be at the same temperature”.
Well, what they’re missing is that the sun goes down! Let’s say you’re sitting in the shadow cast by a big metal block. Energy from the sun can’t conduct fully through the block. Not enough time. So yes, it blocks the sun, and yes, you’re cooler there than sitting in the sun. Then the sun goes down. There weren’t enough hours in the day for the energy to conduct through the block. What do they think “blocking” means!? In Eli’s experiment the plates are thought to be variously thin, or infinitely thin, and perfect conductors in any case. Then he has them in a situation where the sun never goes down for them. HOW can they possibly not eventually come to the maximum temperature that the flux (given the view factor) can induce throughout the entire object!?
“well, intuitively we know that something in the shade is cooler than something sitting in the sun. Yet you guys think the object in the sun vs in the shade would be at the same temperature”
Do you see their idiotic autistic sophistry!? The things we sit under for shade aren’t infinitely-thin infinitely-conductive perfectly-absorptive bodies now are they!? No, the things we sit under like trees, behind buildings, ceilings, etc., BLOCK the sun totally out, don’t absorb much sunlight, and reflect a lot of the sunlight, etc. And yes as you said, they have appreciable thermal mass anyway which means it takes time for them to absorb even if they did absorb.
Like how unconscious do you have to be to say this sort of idiotic thing? Their AI system is good at pretending to be human…but it’s so clear now to identify them as not actually being able to think at all. Not human. Like, would you have ever even thought to say something so stupid about the shade and how shade works, and why shade works? Normal humans would never think of something so stupid. It takes normal humans aback because then we need to explain something so basic to them that we have to wonder how it can even be possible to tell them in what way they are wrong, because if they lack the ability to autonomously understand the difference between a tree or building or ceiling and a perfectly absorptive and conductive infinitely thin sheet…then how are you going to be able to explain anything to them at all!?
These “people” are some form of goblin or AI system or something that is not conscious in a meaningful way…it has to be either artificial, or deeply anti-rational unconscious like goblins from Mordor.
What kind of mind equates the shade from a building or tree to the shade from an infinitely thin, infinitely conductive plate? What kind of mind makes the identification of shade being a commonality between the two scenarios, but then can not process the contextual differences and the qualitative physical differences? It relates the two situations because of “shade”, and then totally equates the two situations quantitatively; it can’t distinguish the situations qualitatively or contextually.
Goodness gracious guys(!!!), isn’t that exactly what you would expect a very basic AI system to do, and the types of mistakes it would make!!??? Isn’t that exactly what a computer would do? A computer wouldn’t be able to compute or “comprehend” the nuances, the qualitative nuances…it would be totally 100% autistic in a sense, only able to relate “presence of shade” in two situations and then simply equate the two situations quantitatively.
A building blocking the Sun creating shade in real life, vs. an infinitely conductive plate creating shade when it is first placed and then with constant input forever. How can a conscious mind possibly equate those situations? And call it “intuitive”?! It’s not intuitive, it is the opposite of intuitive – it is 100% autistic! Intuition is what gives a person the ability to understand and distinguish qualitative nuance…it’s the mark of a human mind, of a consciousness with a “soul”. It is 100% autistic sense-perception which can only identify “shade” and then quantitatively equate every possible situation that has “shade”…and that would be the mark of a “soulless” machine with NO intuition but only sense-perception-based categorization of things.
What a wonderful quote from them GW…it’s so wonderful! It says SO MUCH about them!!!! It identifies them so clearly! What they call “intuition” is merely a simplistic sense-perception-based pattern recognition correlation based on previous sense-perception learning. That’s exactly fucking how AI systems work!!!!! They are literally a g-damned AI system! LOL! I mean to have you give me that quote from them after I had just speculated about the AI system thing a few days ago…message from the stars man. TRUE intuition at work! lol!
Maybe there’s more to the Matrix movie than we thought. It is about the Gnostic struggle and the hero story and all those things, etc., obviously.
But there really do seem to be artificial “intelligences” operating around us, too. A war between real human consciousnesses with “souls” and intuition, and soulless machines devoid of intuition. If there’s anything that could ever identify an artificial machine intelligence, it is lack of intuition – and it would be that machine calling “intuition” its pattern-recognition correlation coefficients that it had built up from its history of sense-perception.
And what is the goal of the machines? Good god guys think about it…the climate machine’s end-point is the enslavement of humanity for our exhalation of carbon dioxide, for our very breath which is our very life. Tell me how the fuck this does not all connect!!!??? lol!! The machines in the Matrix want to keep humanity enslaved as a power source; the climate alarm RGHE machines want to enslave humanity because we BREATHE and tax that breath, which tax is obviously equivalent to a power source both financially and culturally/societially etc.
And you know all of their comments are like this…we’re always needing to explain differences of qualitative nuance that lead to quantitative differences which are obvious to us (real humans who have intuition and a “soul”) but which are totally opaque to them, as if they simply can not compute and process it, like a glitching AI that can only repeat what it said before and cannot innovate or or develop new perspectives and insights, etc.
Well my mind is fucking blown this Monday morning. We’re literally fighting machines…the Matrix is much more real than we thought…lol.
Lol! Maybe. Or, maybe, any group (human or otherwise) that seeks to impose control over another group does so by acting towards them like a machine or A.I. Calculated and deliberate. To the extent that they can, without letting the machine-mask slip wherever possible.
In the end, it all means the same thing…whatever the group, whatever the purpose…the use of those means can only lead you to conclude that the end goal isn’t good. The means reveal the corruption of the ends. Lying to people, pretending that you can’t understand people, trying to mentally manipulate other people – no matter how good you might delude yourself that the end goal is…it literally can’t be. Any end goal that was worthwhile wouldn’t need those tactics to achieve it, the worthiness would be self-evident.
Kind of like when it used to be that the environmental movement just concentrated on saying “let’s not pollute and fuck up the planet we live on”.
Instead of “CO2 is pollution”.
Yes. Or it is just autistic humans, who by nature of being autistic, behave like you expect a computer AI to. And of course science is dominated by autism.
BUT, that’s not the end of the story…here’s the freaky part:
By nature of being autistic humans, they then act out a scenario that a real AI system would act out, with a goal of enslaving non-autistic real humans who have intuition and “souls”. The autistic humans *become* the AI system that enslaves humanity.
And yes, people have used that term “the ends justify the means” a lot in history…I wonder if it is actually always bullshit. I’ve thought that myself – if the goals are good then why hide the plans? Well, if we live in an artificial world that is dominated by dark evil and which can inhabit anyone at will…then it is like to Matrix again – anyone and everyone is a potential enemy, and it is their soul you are fighting for anyway, not their physical shell, etc.
It’s not all one type of people though, IMO. Some people can’t get what you’re saying because they’re not intelligent enough. Some people can’t get what you’re saying because they’re too intelligent. They have too many ways of tricking themselves and taking themselves back to square one. Some people are just intelligent enough but not open-minded enough. They’ve had a lifetime of being told how the world works and they’re simply not open to being told it’s different. And some people are just too open-minded and might understand it for a bit and then be led off to something completely the opposite. You can deal with the intelligence issue by keeping it as simple to understand as possible. You can’t really do a lot with the over-intelligent or close-minded. And you certainly can’t be dealing with anyone who is a deliberate con-artist, except to expose them as such.
Indeed. So it goes!
It would be interesting to know what the Myers-Briggs type classification is of those that come to this blog. That would most certainly be eye opening!
Hey, not that I endorse this…just find it interesting the things people come up with…to further go on about the freaky nature of reality stuff, a video which is basically about Plato’s Allegory of the Cave, but much more sinister. Just give it a watch for fun:
Just watched the movie The Dark Tower. Guess what it had.
Alien/goblins/’evil entities of darkness’ on Earth that wore human suits for disguise!!!
LOL!
Joshua Halpern is a re repugnant fraud. Nothing b in his fskery discusses the 20% of otherwise available warming firelight from the sun, being refracted to space.
Nothing in his fraud discusses the fact it’s impossible for insulation mixed into a bath conduction chilling a light-warmed rock, making that 20% never arrive to warm the irradiated object,
to heat the object it’s shielding from being warmed.
He’s a fraud: and should be sued for purpose of yanking of his degrees if universities actually stripped frauds of degrees they claimed, when they are revealed as frauds.
He made money on the fake grants scam early on, and remains a criminal, misleading anyone who’ll listen to his temperature inversion fraud.
His fraud is an inversion scam which means the thermodynamic law violations never stop, once he starts barking the fraud.He HAS to keep making inversion errors as long as he is questioned about why his fraud doesnt conform to standard thermodynamics progression.
He can’t even tell you all the name of the law of thermodynamics that governs atmospheric and gas temperatures.
Ask the fraud.
JOSHUA HALPERN TELL ME THE NAME OF THE LAW OF THERMODYNAMICS GOVERNING GAS TEMPERATURES.
TELL these people why there IS a law for gases and you can’t just use the law governing temperature of the sand or ice ir water on the beach,
the air you’re too stupid to name the law governing temperature of,
sits over.
Ttell them the correct answers fake, or you’re the posturing fraud I’m telling them can be shown, without ever cracking a book.
Tell these people the erroneous shortfall occurring when one DOES wrongly refuse to use gas law to solve gas temperatures, fraud: how many degrees short your church’s K00K teachings fall when you claim to “calculate” global atmospheric temperature.
JOSHUA HALPERN, SERIAL FRAUD: TELL THESE PEOPLE WHY YIUR FRAUDULENT CHURCH OF SCAM CAN’T MATCH THE TEMPERATURE PROFILE OF THE International Standard Atmosphere,
which DOES arrive at the correct global atmospheric temperature USING PROPERLY PROCESSED GAS LAW IN calculation.
Why aren’t you personally able to recognize the MANDATORY 33 degrees SHORT ERROR that occurs when STEFAN-BOLTZMANN ALONE is attempted to be used in calculating the global atmospheric temperature?
Because you’re a willful, practiced fraud, deceiving people in the name of political fraud dressed up as science: “POT’S LIKE HEROIN” class government employee CRIME passed off as your claim that a cold nitrogen bath is a heater, and the cooling Greenhouse Gas REFRIGERANTS the magical heater core.
Cancer on you, the way you have been and ARE a cancer on science. May we all read in the paper about your death as soon as possoble. It’s shameful enough to make men wish there was a higher power to pray to for such blessings: seeing you and all like you, reported as dead from some dreadful horror.
May the doctors treating you
use the same level of fraud in treating you, as yiu have vomited on the whole world at a professional level.
Name the law of physics governing the temperature of the atmosphere, fraud.
Tell me the characteristic possessed by the atmosphere which requires another law’s processing so one can’t use the same law as for rock or wood or rain, fake.
What’s the condition gas law accounts for, that STEFAN-BOLTZMANN SCAMMIING can’t: and tell me the name of the equation accounting for that condition.
Show your understanding of gas energy mechanics you despicable lying fraud,
you scammer.
I say you’re a criminal class fake and serial cash scammer
deceiving anyone who’ll sit still for your FAKE,
FRAUD CLAIMS: that the cooling refrigerant greenhouse gases are a giant magical heater in the sky. It’s government employee fraud on massive scale and cancer is what you deserve since you’re taking such delight in being a cancer on science and scientific discourse. Die, and die in disgrace amid the loathing reserved for scientific employees who instead of scientific integrity, practice shameful FRAUD till the day your despicable, science-molesting ass, is struck down.
By
Again, some suitable form of c a n c e r
commensurate with what you are
in relation to real science.
So the next time I am at a bbq and I get handed a half cooked sausage to eat, when the cook comes up to me in a set of bunny ears and starts rambling on about how the gas burner itself is X amount of watts but that by the time the heat passes through the (blue) plate it has now magically halved and thats why my sausage is half cooked. Am I to assume the bunny’s name is Eli?……..sheesh…
If you start with crap, things inevitably get worse and such is the green plate effect…
BTW, thanks for the blog, really enjoying it, just like the slayer book . After 10 years of reading climate blogs I find the better articles have a little gem in them, it was the heat flow equation in this one that has been a revelation…. the insight comes from what the combination of the article and comments draw out. As was suggested by Robert sometimes a mk2 article is worth rewriting.
One last observation from said rabbet’s article. First he quotes this
“it is known that not only the warm body radiates heat to the cold one but that the cold body radiates to the warm one as well, however the total result of this simultaneous double heat exchange is, as can be viewed as evidence based on experience, that the cold body always experiences an increase in heat AT THE EXPENSE OF THE WARMER ONE”
ELI uses this quote several times throughout the comments.
Despite the clear meaning of expense ie at the cost of, he then follows with
“if you have a heat source, like the sun, heating the warm body at a constant rate while it cools by radiation,THE WARM BODY WILL BECOME HOTTER IF THERE IS A COLDER BODY NEAR IT BECAUSE OF THE INTERCHANGE OF RADIATIVE ENERGY BETWEEN THEM ”
Wow… all I have been able utter in disbelief for the past 2 weeks is… this guy has a phd in physics?…
And now I feel better…thx
https://www.bbcgoodfood.com/recipes/1660637/slowcooked-rabbit-stew
Heat oven to 150C/130C fan/gas 2. Put the prunes in a bowl with the brandy and brown sugar, stir, then set aside to soak.
Dust the rabbit in the flour. Heat the oil in a large flameproof dish and brown the rabbit all over until golden – you may have to do this in batches. Set the rabbit aside. Add the bacon, vegetables, garlic and herbs to the dish and fry for 5 minutes until starting to color.
Pour in the red wine and scrape all the goodness off the bottom of the dish. Add the chicken stock and put the rabbit back in the dish with the boozy prunes, then cover and cook for 2 hrs, stirring occasionally, until the rabbit is totally tender. Serve scattered with parsley and wild rice on the side.
The concept that reflectedvenergy from nearby objects regulate the temps of hotter objec f s is demonstrated by a resistor or iron bar you put electricity through in either Antarctica or Phoenix.
The room temp bar at 90 below gains temp shen you energize it. So does the one in Phoenix at 90+ above F.
The temps of both are ultimately set by all the cooler objects around. So that much is, obviously, real.
What ISN’T real is the idea that light refracting insulation wrapped around a light warmed rock, this time, as added into, mixed into, a cold nitrogen bath conduction scrubbing the planet,
makes the object it causes less light to reach and warm, give off more of that warming light
each time more insulation, makes less light arrive and warm it.
Lower temp energy, lower color light, does in fact stop light from leaving an object.
That’s why the iron bar you heat with electricity
Glows warmer in phoenix than it does in Antarctica. Lower temp light striking an object isn’t absorbed if it strikes regions glowing off more intensely concentrated light, but it dies in face inhibit glowing in the spectra striking that hotter object.
Its possible fir you yo say this wrong. Cooler light isnt absorbed but it makesthe warmer object’s emissions reduce photon for photon and makes the apparent tmp of the warmer object, higher.
A G A I N – this is why your iron bar in Antarctica glows off the hundred Watts’ energy you put through it at a temp of -90,
Plus a couple- the energy you put through it, whatever those ratios of mass and metallurgy and energy application dictate..
But then in Phoenix
it still glows off your hundred applied Watts in pretty much identical manner, just at a much higher, +90F. temp.
Ok look if I die but there’s a pacemaker in me, it shorted and glows off heat into my chest during yon iron bar heating expedition,
I’ll hit room temp and so will the pacemaker except it’ll be glowing off that extra light through me.
At Phoenix it happens at a temp far higher
than out by the Sno-Trak in Antarctica.
Same battery glow
emitting into vastly different surroundings.
So this claim of reflection making something be struck with or by, more light, isn’t erroneous up to that point.
D***head the fraud’s lies start,
when he tells you that a reflective blanket, bath, etc – making less light arrive,
is making more leave.
No, shading a light warmed beer in a bath of cold nitrogen isn’t warming it,
and more insulating medium mixed into the bath so less and less light reaches and warms the beer,
doesn’t make sensors on the beer depict more light reaching and warming it
each time more insulation mixed into the bath
makes less light reach and warm it.
The cold nitrogen bath conduction chilling the planet
doesn’t warm it. It conduction chills it.
But it also through refraction of or by the
cooling Greenhouse Gases
causes currently, 20% of otherwise available warming firelight from the sun
to be refracted away from Earth and it’s physical systems – and mathematical systems stating those gains and losses of energy.
When insulation between an object and fire illuminating it
causes less energy to reach that object,
that reduction in energy arriving is called “surface energy density” r.e.d.u.c.t.i.o.n.
Reduced surface energy density dictated by percent not arriving. End of story.
Insulating blankets
especially cold fluid blankets
reducing energy arriving on sensors checking,
do not cause them to detect and depict more arriving to leave,
each time insulation makes less arrive to leave.
He’s a f***ng fraud and you guys saw me to defy the evil son of a bitch to even answer me
simple
gas law and gas law related mathematics questions, because he’s a transparent fraud, and thief.
He took money to educate and he spent a career covering for thieves he stole grants money with.
Telling people that cold baths heat objects they conduction strip energy from
after they stop 20% of otherwise available warming spectra
from ever even becoming part of the thermodynamic parameters of the chilled, shaded object.
A cold nitrogen bath is a heater and the part of . The bath removing 20% of available incoming energy
before evaporation/condensation phase change refrigerating
not just the object’s surface but the overall bath.
He’s a despicable thieving fraud end of story. Whose face should be spit in out of conte, mpt, on sight.
Sorry about the bad b phone syntax guys at times I don’t look through the grammar on this phone of mine.
Oh “the part of the bath taking 20% off the top, then evap/condensation phase change refrigerating it all, is the magical CORE
of the fraudulent heater.”
LoL I didn’t realize my phone syntax was so bad, but such is life, sorry.
This is an old thread, but I got this Eli problem thrown at me in a discussion about the IR back radiation and the second law of thermodynamics.
The easiest way to test this model must be by adding a third plate after the green one? We can use the color destroyer grey.
According to the model this grey plate would heat the green plate the same way the green heat the blue plate, and thus by adding the grey plate the blue one will rise in temp until a new model equilibrium is reached.
If the statement above is true, what would happen with infinity number of plates added? Would the blue plate reach infinity high temp or would the n added plate T go to 0K?
Yes exactly, that’s how their scheme works: just keep adding plates to get any temperature you want.