Slayer’s Vindicated by Additional Independent Researchers

(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

 

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

224 Responses to Slayer’s Vindicated by Additional Independent Researchers

  1. 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.

  2. Allen Eltor says:

    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.

  3. Allen Eltor says:

    Joseph we always knew of course the Slayers were right about the fake ghg warming svam.

    Congratulations, Scarfetta’s a radiation guy, too.

  4. Gary Ashe says:

    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

  5. tom0mason says:

    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?

  6. “Trap heat” = “Sing beans”

    Heat is not trapable, as beans are not singable.

    And yet the language is allowed to proliferate.

  7. AfroPhysics says:

    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?

  8. 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.

  9. 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.

  10. AfroPhysics says:

    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.

  11. Gary Ashe says:

    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.

  12. 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?”

  13. 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.

  14. When does a blond climatologist take her local temperature reading?
    When she’s blow-drying her hair.

  15. Joseph E Postma says:

    Cute. haha

  16. GW says:

    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.

  17. Joseph E Postma says:

    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.

  18. GW says:

    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”.

  19. 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.

  20. My quote-of-the-year nomination from GW’s link:

    They neglect the fact that heating and cooling are dynamic processes and thermodynamics is not.

    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?

  21. Hahaha….oh man….goodness’ sake!

    Just spew random meaningless bullshit voila climate alarm and RGHE.

  22. And heating and cooling as dynamic processes are not part of thermodynamics???!!! LOL

  23. “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…

  24. GW says:

    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.

  25. GW says:

    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).

  26. Gary Ashe says:

    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…

  27. 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:

    What is happening is that one does not have just a hot body and a cold body, but a really hot body, the sun, constantly heating a colder (much), but still warm body the Earth, which then radiates the same amount of energy to space.

    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:

    imagine the Earth is just a plate in space with sunlight shining on it. Maybe 400 W/m^2

    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:

    The sun warms the plate, but as the plate warms it radiates until the radiated heat matches the heat being absorbed from the sun.

    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:

    Show this to the next fool with an agenda who thinks that the Green Plate Effect violates the Second Law of Thermodynamics

    No, … show THIS to the next physics PhD who miraculously got a PhD in physics without understanding what he was doing, apparently.

  28. GW says:

    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!

  29. 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:

  30. Joseph E Postma says:

    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.

  31. Joseph E Postma says:

    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.

  32. 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) (^_^)

  33. Joseph E Postma says:

    *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!

  34. “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 !

  35. As Joseph already pointed out, and I now attempt to clarify with a pic:

    Eli said …

    That’s wrong though because there are 400 W/m^2 going into the two plate system and 300 coming out. At equilibrium an equal amount of energy has to be going in as coming out So what happens??

    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:

  36. 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.

  37. 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.

  38. Rosco says:

    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 ?

  39. 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.

  40. Eli Rabett says:

    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

  41. (@ 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:

    https://climateofsophistry.files.wordpress.com/2015/01/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.

  42. 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.

  43. AfroPhysics says:

    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.

  44. AfroPhysics says:

    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.

  45. Gary Ashe says:

    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.

  46. Gary Ashe says:

    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.

  47. 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.

  48. “Figure 1.8” should have looked something like this:

    … if clarity, as enabled by visual representation, were the goal.

  49. Joseph E Postma says:

    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!

  50. Joseph E Postma says:

    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

  51. 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?

    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. (^_^)

  52. Joseph E Postma says:

    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.

  53. Joseph E Postma says:

    Afro: “Repent, and Jah may forgive you.”

    haha 🙂

  54. Gary Ashe says:

    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.

  55. GW says:

    “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.

  56. AfroPhysics says:

    “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.

  57. AfroPhysics says:

    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

  58. Joseph E Postma says:

    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.

  59. GW says:

    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.

  60. Joseph E Postma says:

    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.

  61. Joseph E Postma says:

    Love it 🙂

  62. 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.

  63. AfroPhysics says:

    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!

  64. Joseph E Postma says:

    Good one!

  65. 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.

  66. Joseph E Postma says:

    Oh man…lol! 🙂

  67. Gary Ashe says:

    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,

  68. Gary Ashe says:

    The EMME hypothesis [ Eli’s Magic Mirror Effect ].

  69. johnosullivan says:

    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:
    https://arxiv.org/pdf/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.

  70. Joseph E Postma says:

    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!?

  71. Joseph E Postma says:

    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.

  72. AfroPhysics says:

    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.

  73. EXACTLY!!!

    Man you nailed that perfectly! That is exactly the lie!

  74. And it’s because they are either unaware of or purposefully ignoring the difference between energy and heat. Sophistry!

  75. 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

  76. Gary Ashe says:

    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.

  77. 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.

  78. 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.

  79. not even a dufus … would have been a more poetic finish of that line.

  80. 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.

  81. GW says:

    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.

  82. Gary Ashe says:

    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.

  83. Rosco says:

    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.

  84. 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]

  85. AfroPhysics says:

    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?

  86. GW says:

    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.”

  87. No I don’t agree with doing that. Not cool.

  88. 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.

  89. Paradigm shifting is a hell of a job.

  90. Mark says:

    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

  91. Mark says:

    Ger de ger de ger drr ger thats all folks:

  92. 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.

  93. AfroPhysics says:

    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

  94. AfroPhysics says:

    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.

  95. AfroPhysics says:

    Am I blocked? I was just joking. C’mon 😦

  96. 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.

  97. AfroPhysics says:

    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.

  98. Not sure why some comments went to spam and trash but I rescued some.

  99. 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.

  100. GW says:

    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,

  101. 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!

  102. AfroPhysics says:

    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.

  103. AfroPhysics says:

    RK, definitely this is best blog for straight forward physics. All the other ones staunchly defend their false paradigm.

  104. 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.

  105. 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.

  106. GW says:

    “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.

  107. Great stuff GW! Just right!!

  108. 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 ?

  109. No it’s just much closer to a point source than it is a plane. 🙂

  110. Your drawing is what makes/why light diminishes in flux as 1/r^2.

  111. 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:

  112. Oh no, I’m debating the master on a detail. This will not end well for me. (^_^)

  113. That diagram shows the view factor thing really nicely!

  114. 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.

  115. 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.

  116. AfroPhysics says:

    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”

  117. If the source is close enough to a point source then that is ok.

  118. squid2112 says:

    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!

  119. barry says:

    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.

  120. AfroPhysics says:

    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

  121. @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.

  122. @Afro – they all become (b) if the source is a point source. If the source is plane parallel then they would all be (a).

  123. GW says:

    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.

  124. 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.

  125. 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.

  126. barry says:

    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.

  127. 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.

  128. GW says:

    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?

  129. GW says:

    Plus, in answer to (I think) all of your questions, both sides of both plates emit multidirectionally, as does the sun.

  130. barry says:

    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.

  131. 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.

  132. AfroPhysics says:

    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.

  133. GW says:

    “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?

  134. GW says:

    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.

  135. 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.

  136. GW says:

    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?

  137. What would the math be for the un-simplified situation?

    A mess. Or would have to be numerically estimated.

  138. GW says:

    No, sorry, I meant the simplified situation – with infinite plane parallels and point source sun. Only if you have time/can be bothered.

  139. That’s what Afro answered. Scan up a bit…he asks that exact thing and the solution is given etc.

  140. GW says:

    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!

  141. 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.

  142. AfroPhysics says:

    Robert, looks like you need to draw a new diagram.

  143. 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.

  144. 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.

  145. Rosco says:

    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.

  146. Rosco says:

    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.

  147. barry says:

    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).

  148. barry says:

    “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.

  149. barry says:

    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.

  150. Joseph E Postma says:

    “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.

  151. Rosco says:

    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.

  152. Rosco says:

    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.

  153. 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.

  154. Joseph E Postma says:

    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.

  155. 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”

  156. Joseph E Postma says:

    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.

  157. AfroPhysics says:

    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

  158. barry says:

    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.

  159. GW says:

    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.”

  160. GW says:

    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?”

  161. … 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.

  162. barry says:

    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?.

  163. 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. (^_^)

  164. barry says:

    I appreciate the conversation here, by the way.

  165. “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.

  166. “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.

  167. GW says:

    “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.

  168. 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?

  169. 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.

  170. GW says:

    “…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.

  171. 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!

  172. 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!

  173. GW says:

    “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.

  174. 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!

  175. 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.

  176. GW says:

    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.

  177. GW says:

    “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.

  178. 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.

  179. 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.

  180. GW says:

    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.

  181. GW says:

    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.

  182. 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.

  183. GW says:

    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)

  184. Joseph E Postma says:

    “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!

  185. GW says:

    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.

  186. Joseph E Postma says:

    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.

  187. GW says:

    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!

  188. Joseph E Postma says:

    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.

  189. AfroPhysics says:

    I’m actually a specially crafted jamaican troll bot 🙂
    We are out to get you!r knowledge of physics.

  190. Joseph E Postma says:

    haha

  191. AfroPhysics says:

    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.

  192. AfroPhysics says:

    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.

  193. Joseph E Postma says:

    “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.

  194. Joseph E Postma says:

    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.

    https://climateofsophistry.com/2017/10/06/slayers-vindicated-by-additional-independent-researchers/#comment-31206

    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.

  195. 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:

    …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…

    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.

  196. Important gleanings from Rosco’s latest comments:

    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.

    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.

    … 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.

    … seemingly jiving with what I just wrote preceding.

  197. Joseph E Postma says:

    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.

  198. 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. (^_^)

  199. Joseph E Postma says:

    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.

  200. Joseph E Postma says:

    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.

  201. 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.

  202. GW says:

    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.

  203. Joseph E Postma says:

    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).

  204. GW says:

    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”.

  205. 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.

  206. 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.

  207. Rosco says:

    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.

  208. Ah so they just blatantly selectively quote Clausius! Those LYING bastards! Those dirty scumbags! Seriously…those morons!!!

  209. 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.

  210. AfroPhysics says:

    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.

  211. AfroPhysics says:

    Image rendering test

  212. AfroPhysics says:

    The distinction:

  213. AfroPhysics says:

    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.

  214. Joseph E Postma says:

    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.

  215. 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. (^_^)

  216. Joseph E Postma says:

    Hey that’s not bad. I think it works.

  217. 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.

  218. Hey that’s not bad. I think it works.

    Thank God, … or whatever. There’s hope for me yet.

  219. AfroPhysics says:

    Thanks for the elucidation, JP.
    The universe is made up of 1 and 0s. We just have to figure out what that means.

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s