## Incomplete Thermodynamics

In the last post we examined the equations conserving energy, defining heat flow, and thermodynamic equilibrium for a power-generating sphere enclosed by a shell.  We examined the equations for when the system either existed in an ambient-temperature environment above 0K, or not.  The objection by the climate alarmists is to say that the shell serves the system in the exact same way that a universal ambient-temperature environment does, and therefore if the existence of such an environment means that the sphere will attain a higher temperature for a given fixed power production by the sphere, then the shell will make the sphere get to a higher temperature too.

The equation for a given fixed power PspO emitted by the sphere in an ambient temperature environment at TA was

1) PspO = 4πRsp2σ(Tsp4 – TA4)

Equation 1 tells us that if the temperature of the sphere is equal to the temperature of the universal ambient-temperature environment, then the sphere is not producing any power of its own.  If it’s not obvious, the equation is derived by taking the power which would be emitted by the sphere without reference to background, 4πRsp2σTsp4, but then subtracting the amount of power that is already present due to the universal ambient-temperature background at the radius of the sphere which is 4πRsp2σTA4.

The climate alarmists believe that the shell is the same thing as a universal ambient-temperature environment, so let us proceed in that manner.  The shell’s interior energy flux is σTsh4 if the universal ambient-temperature is 0K (which we will assume for sake of simplicity in the equations), and if the shell is supposed to now provide an ambient-temperature environment for the sphere in a manner as a universal independent ambient temperature, then since the shell provides an energy at the surface of the sphere equal to 4πRsp2σTsh4 the new equation for the fixed power emitted by the sphere is simply

2) PspO = 4πRsp2σ(Tsp4 – Tsh4)

To do anything more with the equation requires understanding what the temperature of the shell is.  What we will not do however is commit a gross violation of the law of conservation of energy by demanding that the larger shell emits at the same temperature and surface flux as the smaller sphere would by itself, as Willis Eschenbach does; rather, the shell must emit outwards the original raw power produced by the sphere PspO, and so

3) Psh = PspO = 4πRsh2σ Tsh4

and the temperature of the shell is

4) Tsh4 = PspO/4πRsh2σ

We can now take equation 4 and put it back into equation 2 in order to simplify terms, which gives

5) Psp0 = 4πσTsp4 * Rsp2Rsh2/(Rsp2 + Rsh2)

for the power emitted by the sphere, and for the temperature of the sphere

6) Tsp4 = (Psp0/4πσ)((Rsp2 + Rsh2)/Rsp2Rsh2)

If we consider the two limits for the shell radius, where Rsh → ∞ and R­sh → R­sp, then the temperature of the sphere goes to that given simply by its own power output over its surface area since the temperature and local flux of the shell goes to zero as from equation 4 when the shell radius is large, whereas the internal power generation of the sphere is half of its total output and its temperature increases by the fourth-root of 2 when the shell radius is near the sphere radius.  The latter result is the one the climate alarmists wish to focus on.

We readily grant that the solution to the equations show what they show, when solved in this manner.  One must also readily grant that the solution to the equations showed what they showed in the previous post where the sphere didn’t need to increase in temperature.

Two sets of equations claiming to describe the exact same problem, but ending with different results.  The one commonality between the solutions is that they are both conserving energy externally: that is, the raw unique power produced by the sphere is conserved by the power emitted outward by the shell.

The specific difference between the two solutions which leads to the different results is that one solution also utilizes the equations for heat flow and the concept of thermodynamic equilibrium and the formal statement of the First Law of Thermodynamics, while the other solution signally does not use any equations for heat flow or thermodynamic equilibrium or the formal statement of the First Law; the climate alarmist solution is the latter, and is referred to generally as the radiative greenhouse effect.

The climate alarmist replacement for a consideration of heat flow and thermodynamic equilibrium is to require that any secondary emission, no matter its source or the nature or characteristics of its source nor the nature of the emission, will add with the energy of the original power source and thus cause the original power source to rise in temperature.  This would indeed conserve energy if the energy from the secondary emissions behaved and were conserved this way, and this is what leads to the climate alarmist RGHE solution.

However, if one incorporates into the model the equations for heat flow and the concept of thermodynamic equilibrium and the formal statement of the First Law of Thermodynamics (conservation of energy), then secondary emission from cooler objects which gained their thermal energy from the original power source does not add back with the power source to increase its temperature as this would violate the definition and directionality of heat flow, and it would also be inconsistent with the formal formulation of the 1st Law of Thermodynamics which states that an object can only increase in temperature if it receives heat.  The climate alarmist solution treats all emission to function as heat, whereas the definition of heat flow and the concept of thermodynamic equilibrium states that emission can only act as heat if it is flowing from a more intense source to a less intense source, i.e. from warmer to cooler.

The climate alarmist RGHE solution for the sphere-shell problem is thermodynamically incomplete.  It doesn’t utilize all of the physics that it should.  It conserves energy externally, but in a way that is internally actually inconsistent and contradictory to the 1st Law of Thermodynamics which is the law that is about conservation of energy.  That is, the Laws of Thermodynamics tell us to conserve energy, but to conserve it in a specific dynamic way where heat only flows from hot to cold and where thermodynamic equilibrium is the preferred end-state for any system (powered or not) and where thermodynamic equilibrium has the definition of heat flow having been reduced to zero.  The climate alarmist RGHE solution disallows thermal equilibrium to ever exist even conceptually because the inner sphere always emits more total power from its surface (greater than its actually-internally-generated power) than the surface of the shell emits; this conserves the internally generated power from the sphere on the surface of the shell, but it disallows that thermal equilibrium should ever exist between the sphere and the shell.  The climate alarmist RGHE solution does not incorporate any statements let alone equations about heat flow anywhere at all, and this is quite unlike any textbook on radiant heat transfer that exists.

The Slayer solution does use the definition of heat flow, does use the concept of thermodynamic equilibrium, and does use the 1st Law of Thermodynamics as formally stated.  The climate alarmist RGHE solution signally does not, and hence is ontologically incomplete, and hence does not connect to reality.  The climate alarmist solution is wrong, whether the shell radius is extremely large or extremely close to the sphere’s radius…it is wrong, always.  The correct solution starting off from the exact same physical scenario but also incorporating the definition of heat flow and the formal statement of the Law of Conservation of Energy is the Slayer solution in the previous post.

Make your choice:  the full set of laws and equations of thermodynamics, or just one of the laws incorrectly utilized as it is.

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

### 91 Responses to Incomplete Thermodynamics

1. Very good. I think that the steel greenhorse has been ridden to its death now (^_^) :

2. AfroPhysics says:

Alarmist: We don’t need no stinking heat flow, we got this …

3. Joseph E Postma says:

That is precisely what they are doing.

4. Yes I should have put that in the OP. If the shell radius equals the sphere’s then it should have the sphere temperature, but the equation says this is not possible. Hence, a contradiction, a paradox, which exposes the foundations as impossible.

5. Something very wacky with comments today…now John Francis’ is moving to most recent continually…

6. No animals were harmed in the appropriation of the beat-the-dead-horse graphic for this blog.

A few alarmists feelings might have been harmed, but alarmists tend to be mere horse’s, … well, … you know.

7. Lol

8. John Francis, apparently has discovered how to travel in time, as his post shows up on the date, 2017/10/23 at 2:49 AM, … which is TOMORROW. That explains why his posts are appearing as most recent.

What he does is go back to today, from tomorrow, where he really is and somehow make his tomorrow’s today appear in our time line, which is quite a feat. Can I get a ride on your time machine?

9. Ah ok…time machine. Of course! 🙂 lol

10. AfroPhysics says:

Yeah, but where did he get the 1.21 Jigga watts to get the Delorean to 88 mph?

11. John Francis says:

It’s nice to be at the cutting edge

12. John Francis says:

Reductio absurdum. If the shell radius is infinite, its tempererature is clearly that of the local temperature at infinity. If the shell radius is equal to that of the sphere, its temperature is clearly that of the sphere. Therefore intermediate shell radii have a temperature between the two extremes, and never higher than than that of the sphere, assuming the temperature at infinity is lower.

I admire Willis greatly, but he’s wrong on this one.

13. Eilert says:

See here: https://objectivistindividualist.blogspot.com/2017/10/thermal-radiation-basics-and-their.html by Charles Anderson, which also shows the absurdity of the RGHE using energy density.

15. Mark Shooter says:

I like you articles. It appears the Climate Alarmists are redefining the RGHE. I received the following response from someone last month. This is the second time someone claimed this is what RGHE is.

“All of the terrestrial IR eventually makes it out to space. If it didn’t the planet would warm indefinitely. What greenhouse gases do is cause the altitude from which that IR escapes to be high in the atmosphere, where the lapse rate means temperatures are low and consequently so is radiative intensity. Think of it more like a river dam rather than an insulating blanket.”

Can you comment on this please.

16. Yeah, great link — I’ve read most of this guy’s writings.

17. Here’s what I don’t get about the whole “greenhorse” thought experiment:

If an alarmist can claim that surface-area difference between shell and sphere is negligible, then how can the shell even exist?, … since the NON-negligible radius that defines the shell determines its NEGligible surface area?

If you admit that the shell has a significant radius defining its existence in your thoughts, then you seemingly would HAVE to admit that the shell has a significant surface area defining its existence in your thoughts. Otherwise, you would be using a spherical shell with a radius-and-no-surface-area to uphold your claim. This would be absurd, because a spherical shell, by geometrical definition, MUST have a surface area. Selectively admitting to the spherical shell’s radius, while, at the same time, denying its surface area is a huge contradiction.

In other words, saying that the surface area of the shell is negligible AUTOMATICALLY forces you to be talking about the sphere WITHOUT a shell. You have just argued away a key thought in your thought experiment. The real experiment is in trying to fool people that you are not a fool for trying this.

No surface area = No radius = No definition = No existence = No argument.

QED
(“Quintessential Education for the Deluded”)

18. geran says:

The common mistake here is trying to use equation 1, in this situation. Equation 1, often called the “radiative heat transfer equation”, fails in this case where a constant power source is involved. That’s why the “solution” ends up with the temperature of the sphere being a factor of the fourth root of 2 (1.189) higher than the temperature of the shell.

That violates both 1LoT and 2LoT!

The correct solution for Rsphere = Rshell, which does NOT violate the laws of thermo, is Tsphere = Tshell.

The “steel greenhouse”, correctly solved, is further evidence against the GHE.

19. Exactly right Geran!! Their solution for Rsphere = Rshell where Tsphere not = Tshell exposes their underlying illogic leading to paradox. So wonderful! Pure ontological mathematical logic. So great!

20. Does “Rsphere = Rshell” mean “radius of sphere equals radius of shell” ?

If yes, then wouldn’t this mean that the word, “sphere”, in context of the argument equals the word, “shell”, which would mean NO SHELL at the lower limit, which would mean “the sphere is hotter than the sphere”, or “the sphere is hotter than itself” which would be the contradiction or an absurd conclusion?

I am not me, but you cannot trust anything I say.

21. Joseph E Postma says:

That’s exactly the point!!! Yes!! 🙂

A fatal, fundamental self-contradiction, an internal paradox, which therefore makes their entire premise leading up to it impossible. I should make one more OP to follow up and finish this, on this exact point. At least it’s early in the comments here.

22. Joseph E Postma says:

“All of the terrestrial IR eventually makes it out to space. If it didn’t the planet would warm indefinitely. What greenhouse gases do is cause the altitude from which that IR escapes to be high in the atmosphere, where the lapse rate means temperatures are low and consequently so is radiative intensity. Think of it more like a river dam rather than an insulating blanket.”

That argument is called the “tropospheric hotspot”, and there have been many, many papers demonstrating that it has not become enhanced, and hence, the physics behind the prediction is wrong.

23. Knowing what I know now, I went back to Willis Eschenbach’s original article on the “steel greenhouse” here:

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/17/the-steel-greenhouse/

Reading through the article, I immediately felt myself hit a brick wall:

Now imagine that the planet gets completely surrounded by a thin black steel shell, located a few thousand metres above the surface, as shown in a cutaway view in the picture above, and in Figure 1 below. What happens to the surface temperature of the planet? (Assume the shell has the same outer surface area as the surface. For an earth-sized planet with a shell two kilometers above the surface everywhere, the difference in area is only six hundredths of one percent.)

The “brick wall” is in bold type within the quote. WHY would I assume a contradiction?

If you instruct me to imagine a sphere with a certain radius, and a shell, which MUST be defined by ANOTHER radius that is GREATER than the first radius, now surrounding the sphere with the smaller radius that defines the sphere in relation to the shell, and then you instruct me to “assume the shell has the same outer surface area as the surface”, then you are asking me to do something that is contradictory, right from the start. So, NO, I will NOT assume this, because to assume this is to agree to use a contradiction as a feature of the thought experiment.

You are asking me to assume that a shell exists that does not exist.

You cannot arbitrarily decide to accept one defining characteristic of a “shell” (i.e., a radius), only to eliminate another defining characteristic of a “shell”, which is a surface area DEFINED by that radius later. This is absurdity in the disguise of good reasoning.

Words mean something, and words connect into extended meanings of something that rely on adherence to ALL the features that those words describe in relation to the thing those words describe.

A shell, surrounding a sphere, is, BY DEFINITION, a LARGER spherical surface area surrounding a SMALLER spherical surface area — it does NOT matter what the percentage difference is between the sphere’s surface area and the shell’s surface area. If you imagine a shell, then you MUST imagine the different surface area that DEFINES the shell in your thoughts. Otherwise, the shell can no longer exist in your thoughts reasonably.

The thought experiment IMMEDIATELY becomes unreasonable right here at this opening paragraph, and it should be rejected for this reason alone. All the rest of the words in the article are just crafted arrangements of further contradictions on top of the main foundational contradiction. The words flow like they make sense, but they make no more sense than this:

`Twas brillig, and the slithy toves
Did gyre and gimble in the wabe:
All mimsy were the borogoves,
And the mome raths outgrabe.

… which is great for an epic, fantastical novel, but, as scientific explanation?– I don’t think so.

‘Twas baffling, and the surfaceless shell
Did extend in space to surround the sphere:
All flimsy claims did cast their spell
And the gullible came to revere.

24. Joseph E Postma says:

Great stuff Robert! Wonderful!

25. “Think of it more like a river dam rather than an insulating blanket.”

… truly the damndest thing.

26. Joseph E Postma says:

You see it now and what I mean…these people just make up unadulterated and the purest of bullshit. They write words and demand you accept them because you can read it, while their words literally say NOTHING.

And this…THIS is the defense of climate alarm and its radiative greenhouse effect!!

Do you see how insane it is? How insane that main-stream science isn’t paying attention to even these simplest of little details that changes the entire narrative-paradigm!?

Premise: “Imagine a shell that doesn’t physically exist, yet has all of the physical influence as if it physically existed.”

You can read that and you can imagine it. You can read Frosty the Snowman and imagine a walking, talking, singing and dancing snowman.

But should you accept it as reality?

The climate alarmists demand that you do.

27. No,… “imagine a shell that exists in some of my points, but does not exist in some of my other points, and then combine the points that I make about the existing shell with the points that I make about the non-existing shell into a well worded narrative that I assure you is talking about the same two entities … that both exist and do not exist simultaneously.”

“… imagine a shell that ceases to have a surface area, whenever I deem it so, and allow this shell to continue to exist, even though I encourage you to allow its surface area to collapse onto a sphere that it surrounds, to become now the same as the sphere, but which we agree to call a separate shell anyway.”

So, in OUR universe the shell ceases to exist, but we can still assert that the shell exists, because in ANOTHER universe, the shell DOES exist, but in OUR universe, it is now the same as the sphere in our universe, and in the universe where the sphere must now be enclosed by the existing non-existing shell, we must allow THAT alter-verse shell to exist NOT there anymore, but in yet ANOTHER, THIRD universe, and we have to keep going to different universes infinitely, which means we can NEVER find the shell in existence, no matter how many universes we traverse.

28. Fantasy Response:
Even if I “think of it as a river dam”, am I still not required to think that something is being blocked, held back, or trapped? And what is that something being dammed? Heat? — no, it can’t be heat, because heat is NOT an entity that can be dammed. Photons? — I don’t think photons can be dammed like this either. Warm air, perhaps? — Isn’t that what a greenhouse does? – trap warm air, by preventing convection?

Clearly, we have convection happening, and so it cant’ be warm air. So, what is it that I am supposed to think of with respect this “river dam”?

ANSWER: Nothing, because nothing is being held back or being dammed. This “river damming” is just a disguised name for “greenhouse glass” that blocks convection and traps warm air. Earth is NOT like a greenhouse. No matter how many ways you try to make Earth into a greenhouse, it is NOT.

29. Mark Shooter says:

That argument is called the “tropospheric hotspot”. I looked into this, I don’t think that’s what he was referring to.

I think he is referring to the altitude where CO2 is radiating to space and increasing CO2 levels is/will affect this altitude. Somehow because of the lapse rate, this will effect the temperature at the surface. He says this is the RGHE.

Are they trying to move the bar since back radiation isn’t working out?

Thanks,

30. Joseph E Postma says:

No, that is indeed the tropospheric hot spot thing.

Yes of course they move the bar. They move it everywhere. In fact they make sure to never keep it fixed anywhere as a matter of course. By not fixing it they thus protect any one argument from being debunked…even though they have all been debunked, they just move the bar to another debunked position pretending they don’t know.

They’re evil disgusting goblin idiots.

31. Joseph Reynen says:

The problem of an iron shell around the planet, with an uniform surface temperature and ignoring the sun, is an one-dimensial problem. The fact that some people show a picture with a sphere and a surrounding sperical shell does not mean that they apply spherical mathematics!
The flat earth mathematics describes the one dimensional problem, provided that the correction of the Stefan Boltzmann relation by Christiansen of 1883 is used.
The classical Stefan Boltzmann relation for heatflux [W/m^2] between two parallel plates with the same surface conditions, sigma for black surfaces and eps =eps1 =eps2 for the emission coefficients of the 2 surfaces, is written as :

q(1→2) = eps*sigma*(T1^4 – T2^4) (1)

For two parallel plates with different emission coefficients, given by eps1 and eps2 :

q(1→2) = sigma12*(T1^4 – T2^4) (2)
1/sigma12 =1/sigma1 +1/sigma2 – 1/sigma
sigma1 = eps1*sigma
sigma2 = eps2*sigma

see : http://tech-know-group.com/essays/Christiansen.pdf [ref 1]
Above link is in fact a translation of C. Christiansen :
« Annalen der Physik und Chemie, Leipzig 1883, page 267 » [ref 2]

When , instead of two flat plates, two segments are taken from the surfaces of an inner sphere1 with radius R1 and an outer sphere2 with radius R2, then we can define the ratio of the surfaces :
A2/A1 = (R2/R1)^2
In 1883 Christiansen [ref 2] has given the heatflux by the relation (1) also for different A1 and A2 : the corrected SB coefficient sigma12 becomes :
q(1→2) = sigma12*(T1^4-T2^4) (3)
1/sigma12 = 1/sigma1 + 1/((A2/A1)*sigma2) -1/sigma

And by equating the the total heat exchange, we obtain the heat flux from sutface 2 to surface1 :
A2*q(2→1) = A1*q(1→2) → q(2→1) = (A1/A2)*q(1→2)

The Christiansen relation (3) is in fact equal to the Christiansen relation (2) in which the emission coefficient eps2 is corrected by the ratio of the interacting surfaces :
eps2cor =(A2/A1)*eps2 (3a)
NB For A2/A1>1 eps2cor can become >1 !
But eps2cor is not a real emission coefficient but an artificial one : it only serves to correct the value of the heatflux from surface 2 towards a value for surface 1.

For A2/A1=1 the relation (3) becomes equal to relation (2).
For A2>>A1 q(1→2) = sigma1*(T1^4-T2^4) (=1)
Only the emission coefficient of the surface 1 has an influence.
PS
The radius of the earth is about 6300 km. The top of the atmosphere is usually taken at a height of 10 km. It turns out that the ratio A2/A1 becomes (6310/6300)^2 = 1.0032. It means that the whole idea of the use of the spherical iron shell as an analogon for the atmospheric effect of a temperature increase is non-sense and the Christiaansen relation for two flat plates could have been used.
Besides, as indeed already noticed in the very first comment by Stefan Wilde in this thread,
the atmospheric effect of the lapse rate is defined by gravity with an environmental lapse rate of ELR = – 6.5 K/km, and not by the IR-sensitive molecules in the atmosphere.

32. What greenhouse gases do is cause the altitude from which that IR escapes to be high in the atmosphere, where the lapse rate means temperatures are low and consequently so is radiative intensity.

This may well be about the “hot spot”, but I too do not think that this is what is being consciously alluded to here. I think this alludes to the retro-engineering trick using the Stefan-Boltzmann Law to claim a temperature increase, simply because the equation has a temperature term in it.

They say that since the effective radiation height is now moved higher up, radiation escapes into space from a cooler temperature than it otherwise would, which means (they say) the temperature lower down must now be higher, because the equation dictates that this is so.

… something like that.

It’s a more complicated version of the “slowed cooling” claim, which may well force an implication of a “hot spot”, but I don’t think that those making this argument realize the “hot spot” is implicated here, if it is.

Again, this is pushing the Stefan-Boltzmann Law too far, I think. It’s a sneaky trick that forces temperature to be dependent on radiation instead of the other way around, which I think is how the SB Law was conceived.

This is the version of the “slowed cooling” claim that is still somewhat a pain for me to resolve.

33. Eli Rabett says:

On this matter Izen has video https://youtu.be/DFC3DOEyoz0

And Dr. Doom has a challenge https://scienceofdoom.com/2017/11/05/two-basic-foundations/

34. Eli, a video of bad physics and pseudoscience doesn’t suddenly correct it…lol. You avoid the equations for heat flow and the concept of thermodynamic equilibrium, and thus come up with something that doesn’t exist and can’t occur since by the definition and set-up and process of leaving out the physics involved, you create a fiction.

35. Oh also, nothing in Dr. Doom’s post supports what he’s pretending it does. All of the references he provides debunk the radiative greenhouse effect, as they all demonstrate that heat only flows from hot to cold, despite whatever loose language is used in some texts; only the difference of energy intensity is heat, and either emission is not heat, but only energy intensity.

1. Is the equation of radiative transfer correct or not?

Iλ(0) = Iλ(τm)e-τm + ∫ Bλ(T)e-τ dτ [16], which Doom translates as The intensity at the top of atmosphere equals… The surface radiation attenuated by the transmittance of the atmosphere, plus.. The sum of all the contributions of atmospheric radiation – each contribution attenuated by the transmittance from that location to the top of atmosphere.

Isn’t this just a very verbose way of talking about “back radiation”? Yeah, throw in a phrase like “attenuated by transmittance” — that’ll convince ’em.

So, the answer is … “NOT TRUE” Why?, you ask. Because you are taking “the surface radiation attenuated by the transmittance of the atmosphere” and adding back part of this again as one of “the contributions of atmospheric radiation” — that’s magic, NOT math.

37. Joseph E Postma says:

He’s a sophist. He’s literally merely stating a basic equation, and then leaving it to the unsuspecting reader to assume he must know what he’s talking about and that the RGHE exists. Total BS. The equation has nothing to do with the RGHE, or anything for his case. And neither do all the textbooks references he has listed either.

Isn’t that amazing? I mean can you believe that they are such blatant lying sophists? They reference sources which support them in no way whatsoever, and then just pretend otherwise.

“Here’s some pictures of bananas. They prove that I’m holding an apple.”

That’s literally what they’re doing. And because you can read that, they demand you accept it, even though the logic and reasoning and proof is non-existent and totally sophistical.

This is what computer AI’s would do. They would form sentences that are readable, but they would not understand them. A computer AI would be able to produce a correct syntax (a readable sentence), but it would not understand the semantics (an understandable sentence).

A computer AI would be able to produce an argument with correct syntax (statements and references etc. by correlating similar words and statements etc.), but the AI would not be able to produce a proper semantics in the argument since it doesn’t actually understand or know what it is doing, like a human would. There’s no mind in the machine. The AI is just aggregating things to try to imitate the quantitative properties of an argument, and it could be quite good at that. Dr. Doom’s argument at that link with all the textbook references *looks* like a real good presentation. It has all of the proper quantifiable formulaic syntax one would expect for a good presentation and argument, etc. But it doesn’t have a meaningful semantics in the context of what it is trying to do – support the RGHE. The qualitative nature of the argument doesn’t make sense. None of the references and that equation are actually about the RGHE nor do they support it….*but*…they do contain much of the language and words which could be used to do so.

This is the heart of the difference between an AI and a real human mind/soul. The attempt with AI though is only for it to pass the Turing Test, not that it should actually have a qualitative semantic comprehension of what it is doing. That is, the Turing Test only requires that a human can’t recognize that it is talking to an AI. And of course materialist autistic scientists just think of themselves as a computer anyway, and so they think that this is a sufficient definition of intelligence. And so, a computer AI could indeed pass the Turing Test is you have it “writing” about things which most people have no knowledge. A computer which can form what looks to be a good argument for the RGHE by parsing together the correct words, and a few references and equations which have high correlation factors to the argument, would pass the Turing Test simply by scaring-off any interlocutor from engaging with it, for the sake of not embarrassing ones-self misspeaking on material with which they are not familiar. It’s a clever way to pass the Turing Test, that’s all. But the AI still doesn’t actually understand what it is doing, doesn’t experience the qualia or the semantics of what it is doing. The AI can parse together the words and a few references which are associated with its argument, but it can’t tell if the words and the references actually meaningfully support it. The equation it referenced doesn’t support the RGHE although that equation is all about radiative transfer, and the references do not support the RGHE although the references are all about radiative transfer; the correlation is that the RGHE is supposed to be about radiative transfer, but the AI can’t tell if other references about radiative transfer actually support the radiative transfer inside the RGHE.

You can also turn this around and amuse yourself that materialist autistic scientists behave precisely as you would expect an artificial intelligence lacking a human mind/soul would do.

38. Doom’s attempt to emphasize formality in his choice of words is throwing me:

The intensity at the top of atmosphere equals… The surface radiation attenuated by the transmittance of the atmosphere, plus.. The sum of all the contributions of atmospheric radiation – each contribution attenuated by the transmittance from that location to the top of atmosphere.

I translate this as:
Sun radiates to top of atmosphere. Atmosphere alters this amount, so less reaches surface. Surface radiates towards atmosphere. Atmosphere alters this Earth radiation. This altered Earth radiation, absorbed by the atmosphere, must now add to its own source again to equal the full amount of the NOT-altered radiation coming in at top. To me, that seems like counting part of the radiation twice. Hence, I spoke of back radiation.

But, again, maybe my mind is screwing with me.

And some of those text-book passages Doom displays seem to use the wrong language, regarding the distinction between “radiation” and “heat”.

Based on discussions here in this blog, that language is bothersome, because it blurs what I have come to think of as more distinct concepts (heat vs. radiation)

39. Particularly, one of Doom’s text-book references speaks precisely about SOLIDS, in regard to black-body assumptions, and so he seems to imply that we accept conclusions based on this reference to SOLIDS as equivalent to conclusions that he might draw in reference to atmospheric GASES.

40. Joseph E Postma says:

DO keep them distinct, because they are. There are many different forms of energy that have different effects and play different roles; kinetic, potential, binding, etc…and heat. Heat is a specific form just as the others are. Energy is the same thing in an of itself, sure, but what it physically does or represents depends upon context and this is what confuses them so much.

The quote is in reference to emission outward at the TOA. The emission outward at any specific location is given by the emission which makes it directly there from the surface (some of the radiation from the surface is absorbed by the atmosphere), plus the radiation from the atmosphere itself (some of which may be absorbed by the atmosphere). Note that that equation is NOT heat flow. For heat flow one would need to subtract the emission from the atmosphere at that location and so you’d have a difference of terms, and different terms.

41. Joseph E Postma says:

If a gas is emitting like a blackbody then it is OK. This is why we use “effective temperatures” because then it lets us use known equations, otherwise, one would need to numerically compute or measure at every single wavelength. But yes there are assumptions involved.

42. Okay, … some radiation makes it out unimpeded, more or less, but some is intercepted, transformed and THEN makes it out. The unimpeded must add to the impeded to balance out, … is this about right? BUT, it’s RADIATION and NOT heat we’re talking about, and Dr. Doom might be steering us towards a confusion of the two.

As for the assumption part, I guess it just depends on how brave one might be to endure the fallout from questioning even the most basic assumptions here. If we question the gas-emitting-like-a-blackbody assumption, then that’s almost another whole issue to deal with, apart from the application of this assumption to the problem at hand. I’m not suggesting that we might go there in this context.

… baby steps. (^_^)

43. John Francis says:

Anyone here viisited stefanthedenier.com? Some of his ideas are crazy, but many orthers are intriguing. It is relevant to what we are discussing here

44. Gary Ashe says:

I have now you mentioned him, but not at the address you mention, quite a good read actually, he just looks at claims through the mechanics, or physic’s.

https://globalwarmingdenier.wordpress.com/author/stefanthedenier/

45. AfroPhysics says:

Eli probably once understood physics. It didn’t pay well, and he turned to the dark side of the force. Now he is a happy (?) bullshit artist.

Eli, do tell your story. Repent and Jah may forgive you.

46. Gary Ashe says:

That video that E-lie put up.
It takes full account of the macro states of the emitters/absorbers and photons going forward.
And ignores them for the back radiating photons.

Those returning photons are being absorbed and re-emitted in that ”model” instead of being deflected straight back to the emitter, in effect never leaving the emitter is that right ?.

47. Gary, THAT was my take on E-lies video.

I think he fails to account for the fact that all emitted photons are NOT all ABSORBED photons.
If ENERGY of EMITTING SOURCE PHOTONS is GREATER than energy of target, then ENERGY of TARGET PHOTONS coming back towards original emitter is LOWER.

Lower- energy photons returning to source, thus, are scattered, NOT absorbed, thus, they cause NO energy changes, thus, NO HEAT TRANSFER.

Click to access 19860018367.pdf

Introduction To The Theory Of Atmospheric Radiative Transfer
NASA Reference Publication 1156

p. 21 —
In the scattering process, the photon interacts with a particle of the medium in such a way that, macroscopically speaking, the direction of the travel of the photon is altered, but its energy remains constant. It can be imagined that the photon “bounces off” the particle in a particular direction, with no exchange of energy with the scatter. Thus, neither the internal nor the kinetic energy of the particle is changed, and consequently the “temperature” of the medium is unaffected by pure scattering.

E-lie did a good job of putting that video together, but well-crafted errors are still errors.

48. Is “heat transfer” an acceptable choice of words? Or is “heat flow” better? I’m still grappling with how to speak correctly, using these easily confused terms.

Energy transfers. … Does energy “flow”?
Heat flows. … Does heat “transfer”?
Fix me.

Energy is like motion.
Heat/Cool is like a CHANGE in motion.

A change can “occur”. But we do not usually say that “heat occurs”.

49. Gary Ashe says:

Thermo = Temperature
Dynamic’s = changes

Imo Robert.

50. Joseph E Postma says:

Well it might be worth writing a textbook and request some standard phraseology to be used from here on out or something.

Note that I have usually been using the phrase “energy transfers as heat”.

It’s all fine as long as you understand the difference between plain old energy and specifically heat. Of course, this is what the sophists then love to use for their confusion. But they aren’t interested in making it better…they want to go all the way and wreck things entirely. They don’t want to highlight the distinctions for sake of clarity and improvement, they want to eradicate them for sake of sophistry and harming.

51. GW says:

What’s wrong with that video is:
a) the plates are shown as three-dimensional when half the point of the green plate effect concept was supposedly to keep it as simple as possible, i.e two-dimensional.
b) despite being three-dimensional the plates only emit in four directions (not shown as emitting from the top and bottom)
c) it seems like they are dividing the flux based on the number of sides, considering the green plate is shown emitting at about a quarter of the speed that the blue does.

As far as I’m concerned, wrt arguing against the green plate effect, as soon as someone suggests that the back-radiated photons from green are not absorbed by blue, or are reflected, or are at some different energy level or something, then that person inadvertently concedes the entire argument to them. Because they can just argue “how would a photon ‘know’ when it should be absorbed or reflected.” The point is, the GPE is such a simple example it is not even necessary to invoke anything like that. Photons from green DO go to blue and they DO get absorbed by blue, but this is irrelevant since up until equilibrium there is always MORE photons going in the other direction. So for those photons that the blue absorbs from the green, it’s always a case of two steps forward, three steps back or whatever.

So to start with the green plate is introduced at 0 K and so doesn’t emit any photons. Let’s just make up some numbers to illustrate the point…when it’s halfway to the 244 K let’s say it’s emitting 10 photons a millisecond or something. Those are received by the blue, and absorbed. BUT the blue at 244 K is emitting 20 photons a millisecond so heat is still transferring from blue to green. So green’s temperature is rising. Blue’s temperature doesn’t decrease though because it’s comstantly receiving ‘new’ energy from the sun whilst this all happens. So green gets to three-quarters of the way to blue’s temperature. It’s now emitting 15 photons a millisecond towards the blue and blue is absorbing. But, that’s irrelevant since blue is still emitting 20 photons a millisecond towards green and so heat is still going from blue to green. Then eventually both blue and green are emitting 20 per millisecond towards each other. Green’s temperature has stopped rising. They’re at equilibrium. Heat flow from green to blue has stopped.

And there’s no need at any point to invoke any idea about photons from green not being absorbed by blue. I think that just does more harm than good to this argument.

52. To determine whether energy “transfers as heat”, we would look at temperature change, yes?

I get the feeling that our grounding in these discussions needs to be temperature, … where temperature is the given for making statements about radiation, instead of radiation being the given for making statements about temperature. Or, if this is too general, then we need to be darn sure what we are doing when we use radiation as grounding to make statements about radiation. I get the feeling that equations using both variables (temperature and radiation) are not equally “strong” in both directions across the “equals” sign. But I don’t know whether math has developed a concept for this — “conditional equality”?

… just brainstorming here.

53. To GW:

… as soon as someone suggests that the back-radiated photons from green are not absorbed by blue, or are reflected, or are at some different energy level or something, then that person inadvertently concedes the entire argument to them. Because they can just argue “how would a photon ‘know’ when it should be absorbed or reflected.”

… “concedes the entire argument to them” ? — I’m having a hard time agreeing with this statement. If lower-energy encounters higher-energy, then there is NOT any “knowing” to “know”. Nature “knows” that stronger things dominate weaker things. How does gravity “know” to cause acceleration towards the center of Earth, rather than cause acceleration outwards in the opposite direction of Earth’s center? How does a negative charge “know” to move towards a positive charge, rather than away in the opposite direction? I just do not see how invoking this “knowing” argument does anything but enable denial of an even more basic grasp of nature.

Photons from green DO go to blue and they DO get absorbed by blue, but this is irrelevant since up until equilibrium there is always MORE photons going in the other direction.

This is NOT my understanding. My understanding is IF photons from green DO go to blue and IF they DO get absorbed by blue, then the photons from green have a higher energy than the blue and would, therefore, increase the energy of the blue, which contradicts the understanding that they are arriving from a lower-energy plate. I do NOT think that it is irrelevant at all, because in order to dismantle wrong ideas on every level, we must address the errors on every level, … every angle, every variation, every crack, crevace, and gap of misunderstanding.

Now it might very well be that some photons from green DO get absorbed by blue (I’m not sure), and that these absorbed photons are in such small proportion to the majority of photons getting scattered by blue, that the effect is one of overall scattering, or the effect of overall maintenance of phton field strength near the blue that is stronger than phton field strength near the green. I don’t know whether I’ve got the right idea here or not, but I’m trying to establish relevance of this level of discussion where you see none (which I think is a problematic point of view).

Isn’t there a gradient between the two plates? Before equilibrium, this gradient is establishing itself? After equilibrium, this gradient is maintaining itself? And what I might call “photon-field-gradient-maintenance”, sophists might call “slowing of cooling”? The sophists see each plate as if the other does not exist, when they want to talk about it. But, in truth, BOTH plates ALWAYS exist in RELATIONSHIP to one another, and BOTH plates ALWAYS exert a contributing influence in establishing and maintaining the gradient between them BOTH. You cannot just choose to see the photon from green going to blue, as though blue were not there. Blue is influencing the field where the green photon must traverse. And green is influencing the field in a way that allows blue to allow green to do so. And the rule is that blue dominates, because its field strength is greater. Strong wins over weak. That’s how photons “know”.

The very fact that you endeavored to explain things from this point of view, despite your statement about irrelevance, indicates that you have some understanding of it that might be valuable. So, again, NOT IRRELEVANT. I appreciate your instinct to defy your own declaration. (^_^)

54. GW says:

Well, no-one knows exactly what photons do, how could they? And perhaps you’re right about scattering/reflection. My only point is that as I see it, it’s not necessary for the GPE discussion to consider it, but more importantly, if you do it only gives them something to gripe about, it gives them an easy “out”. OK, when I say, “concedes the entire argument” I may be exaggerating a little, but I just don’t see the point in giving them ANYTHING to work with in response. Let them see that even in their own terms, even with the way they look at things (all photons being absorbed) it still works out that blue and green come to the same temperature.

Once you consider the view factors involved, and that the sun is constantly producing ‘new’ energy, you can walk through the energy flows from start to finish, in the way I described, without ever having to raise the issue of scattering/reflection. It all makes sense WITHOUT that. And this will work better for explaining it to them.

Then, once the main point is eventually conceded, you can discuss the scattering/reflection element until the cows come home…but it’s an unnecessary complication at this point and just gives them ground to dispute it all.

There is a gradient between the plates before equilibrium, but as I see it all that means is that blue is emitting photons at a higher rate than the green, up until the point that green has received enough that what it emits balances out to what it receives. “Slowing of cooling” is not an issue because the blue plate isn’t cooling, it remains at the same temperature because for every photon it loses to the green, it gains a fresh replacement (a ‘new’) photon from the sun.

And yes I do think it’s valuable…it becomes so at a later point, though. Or if they start trying to divert by bringing up mirrors, heat sources raising up their own temperature through reflected emissions, etc. However, that is all just a diversion, the beauty of the GPE is that it’s so simple no other analogies or distractions are relevant. If someone starts diverting to mirrors, etc, you know already you’re dealing with a sophist.

55. GW says:

MAJOR slip up in my 1:09 PM comment:

“Heat flow from green to blue has stopped.”

WRONG! There is NEVER any heat flow from green to blue. Meant to say:

“Heat flow from blue to green has stopped”.

56. GW says:

Yes looking at the video of Izen’s again that is exactly what they’re doing wrong. They show the blue plate emitting at a quarter of the rate compared to what it’s receiving. It’s as if they think that having four directions (even though, as I said, they should be considering at least six, from the top and bottom of the plate as well) that the blue plate can emit in, must mean that they should divide the rate of the incoming photons by 4 to get the rate of emittance…completely nonsensical…especially since objects actually emit in an infinite number of directions…

57. GW says:

According to Izen’s video, which Eli has endorsed, they think that an object needs to receive 4 photons/packets of energy (joules)/whatever it is that the little spheres are meant to represent, before it emits one…in each of four directions. You can literally see that they envision the photons piling up inside the blue plate until there are four there, so that one can be emitted in each of the four directions once this has occurred. But in reality there are infinite directions in which the object can emit. So in a more realistic portrayal of Izen’s/Eli’s understanding, the object could never receive enough photons to emit anything. The object would receive but not emit. This is literally the level that we’re dealing with.

Since it’s the RATE that the photons are emitted and received which relates to power (joules per second) they are saying that since their blue plate (in the video) has to receive four from the sun before it emits 1 in each direction (which actually only means, the object emits 1, and NOT 4, because the number of directions is inapplicable to this situation, since there are infinite possible directions) then they are saying that the object emits at a quarter of the power of the energy it receives.

It should be obvious by now that there is no meaningful sense in which you can “count” photons or try to account for energy flows in this manner, due to the effect of infinite number of possible directions of emittance rendering all such calculations meaningless. Clearly number of photons received/emitted can not relate in any way to “total number of joules” of internal energy within an object. The best you can do with thinking about photons really is to relate the RATE at which they are emitted (necessarily in ALL, infinite, directions) to power.

58. GW,

I understand your strategy, but, unfortunately, those wishing to argue in favor of the “greenhouse effect” will look for any angle possible to make their case. If you don’t address the photon thing now, then eventually they will dig it up as an alternate path to “prove” their claims.

You can’t just tell them, “Okay, I will only talk in terms of this approach, but refuse to say anything on that approach you now bring up.” Otherwise, they would have YOU in a trap — of refusing to address their detailed, atomic explanation, thereby labeling you as someone who is avoiding deep scientific understandings.

And I realize that “slowing of cooling” is not an issue, but THEY do NOT. What I was suggesting is that they are confusing the mechanism of maintaining a gradient by the means you suggest with the idea of something’s being held back and causing a build up.

But there is NOT any “build up”, any more so than is required to perpetually maintain that gradient between the two plates.

More photons from greater CO2 concentrations seems to mean that any particular intensity of this gradient gets pushed a little farther outward from the position it occupied before the additional CO2, but, in my mind, this also increases the surface area from which radiation leaves, thereby maintaining the balance. Of course, they will say that the surface-area increase is negligible, and we get back into the “rounding error” stupidity again in a slightly different context.

I find it highly contradictory that someone can say effective height of radiation moves higher up, which means acknowledging a significant radius increment, and then deny that the surface-area increase resulting from this significant radius increment is insignificant. That’s full-out, bullshit denial.

59. GW says:

I guess I just can’t see why photons from green won’t be absorbed by blue. And more to the point, I don’t see why this is a problem anyway, since there is always a higher rate of emission of photons from blue to green at all times, up until equilibrium. IN A WAY it’s much the same (the end result) as saying photons from green DON’T get absorbed by blue, since whatever is absorbed is effectively “sent back”, and then some.

I am not sure whether there is even a DIFFERENCE between these two statements:

1) Blue absorbs photons from green.
2) Blue doesn’t absorb photons from green.

Given that there is always a faster rate of emission of photons from blue to green than green to blue, up until equilibrium. And also given that attempting to count individual photons is a futile endeavour, as is assuming that a count of photons relates in any way to the ‘total number of joules’ of internal energy within an object.

This has got my head into a bit of a jumble, I must admit. And there are perhaps numerous self-contradictions within my comments. What I AM sure about is that Izen’s video is flawed for the reasons I’ve explained. What I’m NOT sure about is whether or not blue absorbs photons from green, or if indeed that even matters.

For me, I look at the process of conduction and just think, “no-one worries about back-conduction”. Or an even clearer example for me, is osmosis. The movement of the molecules is completely random, i.e molecules from the area of low concentration WILL cross the semi-permeable membrane into the area of high concentration. Just as photons from the green WILL be absorbed by the blue. But, because there are simply more molecules in the area of high concentration, overall it tends to the situation where the high concentration area loses molecules and the low concentration area gains, until it’s the same on each side of the membrane – equilibrium. To this understanding I only add that the high concentration area (blue plate) is replenished by molecules (photons) from the sun and so its concentration (temperature) does not decrease, as would be implied otherwise. Therefore at equilibrium the low concentration area (green plate) must have risen to have the same high concentration (temperature) as the blue did all along, but the process of ‘osmosis’ was still happening exactly the same throughout.

60. GW says:

With the “osmosis” example I’m talking about the movement of water molecules, specifically. Might have just been simpler to have talked about diffusion across a membrane rather than osmosis. But hopefully the point was clear anyway.

61. GW,

Again, referring to … https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19860018367.pdf

Introduction To The Theory Of Atmospheric Radiative Transfer
NASA Reference Publication 1156

p. 21 —

It is important to grasp the conceptual differences between scattering and absorption.

In the scattering process, the photon interacts with a particle of the medium in such a way that, macroscopically speaking, the direction of travel of the photon is altered, but (in all cases considered in these notes) its energy remains constant. It can be imagined that the photon “bounces off” the particle [of the medium] in a particular direction, with no exchange of energy with the scatterer [the medium]. Thus, neither the internal nor the kinetic energy of the particle is changed, and consequently the “temperature” of the medium is unaffected by pure scattering.

In the absorption process, on the other hand, the energy of the photon is completely transferred to the particle [of the medium], and the photon ceases to exist in its original form. The kinetic energy of the particle [of the medium] is thereby raised — the “temperature” of the medium increases.

Now applying this to what you wrote,

I guess I just can’t see why photons from green won’t be absorbed by blue.</blockquote

… if I understand what I have read correctly, the reason why photons from green won't be absorbed by blue is because blue photons have the same energy as green photons, thus green photons
cannot add energy to blue photons — green photons "encounter their twins" in blue, and maybe they can "change position with them" [not sure] or "bounce off", but they CANNOT add any energy to an
energy that is already the energy level from which they arrived.

NOTE: If I have details wrong here, then somebody tweak the fix for me — Thanks.

GW, you also wrote,

I am not sure whether there is even a DIFFERENCE between these two statements:

1) Blue absorbs photons from green.
2) Blue doesn’t absorb photons from green.

The difference that I see (again, if my understanding is correct) is that statement (1) says something that other conditions of the thought experiment cannot allow, according to the definition of “absorb” used above. Statement (2) seems consistent with this definition AND with other conditions of the thought experiment. Statement (1) is a falsehood. Statement (2) is a truth, under these conditions.

I think that both of us might be working on some important angles here, and so, I do not discount anything you are saying — I’m just trying to meld the points of view into a more comprehensive knock-out punch. (^_^) … My head STAYS jumbled in these discussions. That’s why I have to keep plugging away, until I find my own errors or until other, wiser people point them out.

To use JP’s analogy about AI, … I’m one of the good kind that (at least) TRIES to understand what being an organic, sentient entity means, during its endless repetition of symbols and combinations.

So far, I’m one step above a monkey typing on a keyboard — I still aspire to greater heights.

62. … messed up my block quotes, damn it !

Hopefully, it still is understandable.

Again, damn it ! — I proofed it three times and STILL missed the errors. Grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr !

63. GW says:

Thanks Robert. I certainly appreciate your input, and I know you’re not some kind of lizard velociraptor dark entity AI monster, so no worries there! I also get the sense we’re discussing something important here so hopefully we will get somewhere. I do trust that you have the best intentions as hopefully you do with me. OK, so the trouble I have with these photonic energy level ideas is best summarised by looking at this sentence:

“if I understand what I have read correctly, the reason why photons from green won’t be absorbed by blue is because blue photons have the same energy as green photons, thus green photons
cannot add energy to blue photons”

and I would immediately think, if that’s the case, then how could blue photons add energy to the green? By the same logic, it seems they wouldn’t.

With the GPE I tend to start at the end. I see their conclusion…two plates at roughly the same distance from the sun, yet for some reason one is higher in temperature AT THE EXPENSE OF the other one being cooler…and this is supposedly “at equilibrium”. I see that and immediately, intuitively, KNOW that something has gone wrong. It’s not “at equilibrium” since one is warmer than the other. End of story. There’s no reason why the warmer one wouldn’t heat the cooler one until the two were at the same temperature. Then THAT would be equilibrium. Something’s definitely not right. So what I do is then try to work back from the conclusion, to try and see what they’re doing wrong. Now, we’ve been through it all already on the other thread and for the most part I’m happy; but this photon absorption vs. scattering thing is a stumbling block. Perhaps the final one, for me personally.

Anyway, so where were we? Yes, by that logic, it seems the blue photons couldn’t add energy to the green…yet we know they must. So, this takes my mind in a few possible directions:

1) There must be something about energy from an energy source (such as the sun) which makes it “different” to energy (back-radiation) from a passive source. ‘New’ energy vs ‘old’ (recycled) energy.

Or

2) There must be something about energy coming from a higher temperature object (such as the blue plate before the green plate had warmed) that makes it different to energy coming from a lower temperature object (such as the green plate, before it warms). Then, as the two objects approach equilibrium, this difference must decrease, until they’re effectively the same energy types.

Or

3) I stick to my guns, and think that the green does absorb photons from the blue, that all photons are the same, but because more photons are always travelling from blue to green at all points up until equilibrium, it doesn’t make any difference that green absorbs.

The trouble with 3) is, it clearly doesn’t work in ALL situations. I THINK it all works fine in the case of the GPE. But it leads to funny conclusions when considering what might happen when energy sources are perfectly insulated from their surroundings…do they then heat themselves up more, infinitely, through their own reflected emissions!? That seems insane. But, it follows from thinking that all photons absorbed raise the temperature of an object. It also seems to be what our GPE believers think would happen. Which in itself is kind of a red flag.

But, MAYBE 3) could apply so long as it was combined with 1).

OR, it could simply be that 2) is the case.

64. GW says:

Looking at your earlier comments again I would say your thinking was along the lines of number 2. I maybe just misunderstood your meaning from that quote I took in my last comment. So I would say you think of things along those lines and I might be more of a 1) and 3) combined type person. Is that right? If so…does it even make any difference which might be right? Could it even be the case that…there IS no difference!?

65. Mark Shooter says:

Would the concept of vibration help the discussion? Are not the molecules (?) of blue and green vibrating, one faster then the other. The radiation from the slower vibrating green is not going to make the vibration of the faster blue molecules vibrate faster. I could be totally wrong though.

66. No that is exactly precisely 100% correct Mark. Succinct, physically meaningful, correct and logical. Perfect.

67. It can not be stated more simply perfectly.

68. GW says:

So, would that be a 2)…with the controlling mechanism being molecular vibration?

69. GW says:

Or a 3), but with the green photons absorbed by blue lacking the energy required to raise the temperature of the blue further?

70. Joseph E Postma says:

OK let me address your 1 – 3 then on PC for a sec.

Your 1 & 2 are both correct. As I discussed in this steel greenhouse series, an independent ambient environment by definition has its own power source and supply of energy. Anything brought into this “universe” of this ambient environment will start off at that temperature of the environment since the environment provides the energy to do so. This energy can’t heat itself, and it can’t heat an object to a temperature greater than itself. This latter now gets into a source and a passive object. The source (sphere for ex.) is what is now providing the ambient environment, and a passive object brought in will then attain the temperature provided by the a environment at its location which is sustained by the source (sphere). The difference is if the energy is from a raw power source thus sustaining an environment, or if the energy is secondary energy which we might call passive energy. The vibration thing applies too – at most the passive object’s energy vibrations would be equal to the source’s. So your 1 & 2 are related, thinking of things in terms of vibration, but also considering if it is raw new energy or not.

Your 3 would be OK if we were dealing with mentally healthy people, but we’re not. I agree with your 3 too, because the degree of vibration which an object provides is also the same thing as the number of photons it provides, in the sense that the rate of vibration and the intensity of emission (number of photons) both increase together. Hotter objects have both higher frequency vibrations (higher frequency light) and more photons at any given wavelength (hence more total photons). And so for your 3, the point at which the vibrations are equal is also the point at which the number of photons are equal. I wonder if there’s a law of conservation of number of photons?

71. Joseph E Postma says:

@GW says 2017/11/09 at 1:53 PM

Yes that too.

72. I think you got your “blues” and “greens” mixed up near the end, but I get your point, and I’m thinking about it.

73. GW says:

Robert, yes I did, I keep getting blues and greens mixed up. But glad you got what I meant anyway.

Joseph: the one thing I didn’t consider was that it could be all three. It’s like Murder on the Orient Express. Spoiler alert. Sorry.

Well this is going to take some mulling over.

74. Well, I had to write out a whole analysis of GW’s last long comment, in order to arrive at the question, “Yeah, why DOES the green plate sustain a lower temperature than the blue plate? The GREEN-plate temp should be the SAME as the BLUE-plate temp at equilibrium, in that thought experiment, right?

I now vote “end of story” at that point too.

And if the height of the atmosphere above Earth’s surface is so insignificant, compared to Earth’s radius, then why isn’t the temperature at the height of the atmosphere EQUAL to the temperature at the surface?, .. just from logic? If atmosphere and surface are the same by logic, then (by logic), the temperatures should be the SAME. The fact that they are NOT the same in reality is NOT an indication of any “greenhouse effect”, but rather an indication of the illogic (NON-reality) of assuming that the atmosphere is considered the same as the surface.

It’s the atmosphere !

NOT the surface !

Assume that a banana skin is the meat of the banana. Now eat it, and see whether that assumption has any basis in reality. Let me know.

75. Joseph E Postma says:

If science would only be that simply logical…we’d truly have access to an entirely new world.

Logical is meaningful. Simple analyses like that *clearly* demonstrate that something is wrong.

“They” wish that it would be wrong to point out the illogic! That’s what they wish for. They wish for it to be wrong and socially unacceptable to point out illogic…that’s what’s behind liberal hysteria and SJW “reasoning” (non-existent as it is)…they wish to make logic illegal. And science is more than happy to go along with it….it has in fact been trained for it with its acceptance of illogic as being the foundation of existence in its ridiculous interpretations of relativity and quantum mechanics. But that’s another story.

76. Since I exerted the effort, I may as well display the process of arriving at my latest conclusion, for all those who might wish to torture themselves with the boring minutia of my thought process, as a study in how pondering minds work [I’ve left out a “lot” of the “the’s” in most of it, to avoid verbal bulk — reads like a non-English speaker wrote it]:

RK –
“if I understand what I have read correctly, the reason why photons from green won’t be absorbed by blue is because blue photons have the same energy as green photons, thus green photons
cannot add energy to blue photons”

GW –
“and I would immediately think, if that’s the case, then how could blue photons add energy to the green? By the same logic, it seems they wouldn’t.”

RK New Response:

BLUE plate is “warmer” than green plate, right? GREEN plate is “cooler” than blue plate, right? Sun (RED) is hotter than either BLUE or GREEN plate, right? If yes, yes and yes, then red photons from sun energize blue-plate atoms more than blue-plate photons energize green plate.

Sun (RED) photons have greater energy to offer than blue-plate atoms possess. Blue-plate atoms “have room for more energy” that sun photons now offer. Hence, sun “heats” blue plate.

If blue plate is warmer than green plate, then blue-plate photons (like sun’s red photons) have more energy to offer green-plate atoms. Green-plate atoms (like blue-plate atoms) “have room for more energy” that blue photons now offer. Hence, blue plate “heats” green plate.

Sun (RED) exists constantly at higher energy than BLUE plate, as blue plate exists constantaly at higher energy than GREEN plate. BLUE plate has certain amount of “room” for receiving RED phtons. BLUE plate “fills up” this room, gets as hot as possible (given its capacity), equilibrium exists between RED and BLUE, where no more RED photons can raise energy of BLUE-plate atoms any further.

BLUE plate has same effect on GREEN plate, where equilibrium exists between those too. GREEN-plate atoms have a certain amount of “room” for BLUE-plate photons’ energy. GREEN plate gets as hot as it can, according to this amount of “room” to receive BLUE-photon energy.

RED photons always have higher energy than BLUE-plate atoms can accomodate, because BLUE plate has a limit to energy-absorbing capacity. But GREEN plate has same capacity to energize as BLUE plate, and so GREEN plate should be able to “fill up” this capacity to same extent that BLUE plate can. BLUE-plate atoms and GREEN-plate atoms are same constitution, and so they can energize the same, using same energy of RED photons, where BLUE plate “communicates” RED-photon energy to GREEN plate, until GREEN energy equals BLUE energy.

In effect, the GREEN plate is a mere extension of the BLUE plate. In effect, they are the same plate, because they, presumably, are composed of the same ideal substance, UNLIKE Earth surface and Earth atmosphere.

I guess you’ve seen my recipe for slow-cooked rabbit stew — was it in this thread or another – I forgot. (^_^)

I know one rabbit that’s been stewed.

77. GW says:

Joseph, here:

“Your 3 would be OK if we were dealing with mentally healthy people, but we’re not. I agree with your 3 too, because the degree of vibration which an object provides is also the same thing as the number of photons it provides, in the sense that the rate of vibration and the intensity of emission (number of photons) both increase together. Hotter objects have both higher frequency vibrations (higher frequency light) and more photons at any given wavelength (hence more total photons). And so for your 3, the point at which the vibrations are equal is also the point at which the number of photons are equal. I wonder if there’s a law of conservation of number of photons?”

My mind has some sort of internal breakdown when it comes to thinking about “number of photons” or accounting for numbers of photons. I think it’s because if photons travel along infinite directions from an object, we need infinite photons emitted from an object for that to equal one photon emitted…in each of all possible directions. I just can’t (and will never be able to) get my head round that kind of thinking. So where you’ve written “number of photons” I mentally replace with “frequency (rate) of photons emitted” – which then (so long as I don’t think about directionality) makes sense to me. I THINK that this substitution doesn’t materially change your meaning. If rate of emission of photons equals (or at least is proportional to) rate of molecular vibration then I think I am with you!

Robert: That makes sense to me! As long as:

“BLUE plate is “warmer” than green plate, right? GREEN plate is “cooler” than blue plate, right? Sun (RED) is hotter than either BLUE or GREEN plate, right? If yes, yes and yes, then red photons from sun energize blue-plate atoms more than blue-plate photons energize green plate”

Here it is only true that green is cooler than blue before equilibrium. So at equilibrium between blue and green, both blue AND green have no more room for EACH OTHER’S energy, OR from the sun. I think that is what you’re saying anyway. Just to check.

78. GW, I think we agree.

As for the infinite-number-of-photons dilemma you mention, maybe it’s best (at this level of visualizing) to ditch the picture of photons as independent little balls flying around, and replace this particulate picture with the picture of photons as vibrations of a “photon field”. In this way, as I’m thinking, the photon field can have infinite potential to materialize individual vibrations of this field wherever we might wish to discuss them.

I think quantum theory does something like this.

Of course, propagating this photon-field picture throughout all levels of discussion is another level of mental gymnastics that I have not attempted yet.

79. Maybe I should have said “vibration peaks”. What is this field that vibrates made of? — Who knows? Probably not possible or necessary to know. What is important is that our minds might have more comfortable traction in a field of one thing rather than in a multiplicity of completely independent thingS.

The one thing can vibrate in an indeterminate number of locations and ways, whereas an indeterminate number of things vibrating independently in an indeterminate number of ways gives our minds NO boundaries within which to conceive of the indeterminate nature of these things.

My mind is more comfortable with infinity between 0 and 1 than it is with infinity from 1 to forever, even though (I’m thinking) the former can be mapped to the latter. At least, I know where 0 and 1 are more certainly than I know where forever is. Of course, ask me to locate the 0 or 1 precisely, and I cannot do that either, but still I have a better idea of where they are than forever. (^_^)

80. GW says:

Balls to thinking of photons as balls.
Yes, that may help. Thanks. And with distance this field sort of fans out. Therefore the same vibration is spread over a larger surface area by what could receive it, the further away from the source you get. Hence flux decreases with distance, given enough. Which there certainly isn’t enough, between green and blue, to make any difference; but with the sun to the blue plate, there is. So that should put to bed all ridiculous counter-arguments they make along the lines of, “well according to the way you look at things, why wouldn’t the plates get to the same temperature as the sun’s surface?”
.

81. Also,the plates do NOT receive the same total energy produced by the sun as a spherical body, where all that energy is being produced throughout its entire spherical volume. I’m assuming that the sun, in this thought experiment, is not flat, … or is it?

It’s so far removed from any reality, that it’s just a fantasy anyway, created by somebody in precisely the way he wanted to produce the preconceived result that it was designed to arrive at. Sound familiar? (computer climate models)

When you start trying to specify the exact nature of the elements in the thought experiment, things seem to break down. For example, do we assume that the two plates are made of the same substance with the same physical properties? Do we assume that the sun is made of different materials with different processes for “possessing” a temperature? The sun is GENERATING continuous power. The plates are RECEIVING. Can a receiver ever achieve the same energy as a generator? What about attrition? What about emission over a sphere compared to emission over a flat surface? There’s a lot of energy coming off the hemisphere of the sun facing away from the plates that the plates never “see”. Oh, well, let’s make the sun flat then. Still made of the same stuff as plates? Plates still merely receiving? Generating from that which is received? — is that even a proper use of words?

So many questions … JUST about the set up of the thought model, let alone what the model might reference in reality. Again, sound familiar?

82. GW says:

Yes, it seems the thought experiment was set up with enough wiggle room to create all sorts of stumbling blocks and curiosities in order to create maximum potential for sophistry! But I am happy with the simplifications as represented in this comment:

With the result that both blue and green plates reach an equilibrium temperature of 244 K (emit 200 W/m2). Also, here: if the sun was meant to be like a plate, instead of a sphere, we got an equilibrium temperature of 290 K for blue and green (emit 400 W/m2):

I think either way it was all done and dusted back then. But I was curious about this absorption vs scattering idea and I think I’m getting there with that too…hopefully!

83. AfroPhysics says:

There is an “is/ought” dichotomy in philosophy. The pseudo-do-gooders are stuck in the “ought” trap. They then created a pseudoscience to radicalize their monions to “do good”. Eh, this needs more development.

84. nasty says:

“thermodynamic equilibrium has the definition of heat flow having been reduced to zero. The climate alarmist RGHE solution disallows thermal equilibrium to ever exist even conceptually because the inner sphere always emits more total power from its surface ”

Indeed, the system is NOT in equilibrium, heat is being continually pumped into the sphere and must flow out.

So the ” RGHE solution” quite correctly “disallows thermal equilibrium to exist”.

[JP: You are so fucking retarded. You are such a dumb-fuck. ALL TEXTBOOKS demonstrating how to solve these equations have heat constantly pumping in from a source, you fucking idiot. Thermal equilibrium is when the system stops changing in temperature which means that heat isn’t flowing to the secondary objects in consideration with the heat flow equation. But energy is still being produced by the source and heat is still flowing to the outside of the 2-body system.

You are such a sick, disgusting fucking piece of shit.

If the RGHE does indeed “quite correctly disallow thermal equilibrium to exist”, then that means that the temperature of the system should increase indefinitely because the only way temperature stops increasing is if thermal equilibrium can be achieved. Thus your argument debunks itself because you propose infinite runaway.

But you don’t fucking understand any of that do ya. You have literally ZERO fucking clue of what you’re talking about. You can’t work out the math yourself, you can’t do the lines of physics yourself, you don’t know what thermal equilibrium is and why if you can’t have it then temperature couldn’t stop increasing, you don’t know what the heat flow equation is and how it account for the resulting flow, etc. And it is people like you who do policy research on sustainability because of MUH CLIMATE ALARM RGHE. You fucking retard. You’re a braindead, unconscious, bicameral, low-IQ, fucking retard. Fuck you and your fucking plans to kill people, you sick fuck. Tell me, how many people do you plan on killing? Tell us your bed-time fantasy that puts you to sleep on manic days where you imagine how many people you need to murder and impoverish for the sake of your Sky God? How many and how much sacrifice does your sky god ask of you, you sick disgusting fuck face?]

85. Nest up: JP tells nasty what he REALLY thinks.

Don’t mince words now. (^_^)

86. Joseph E Postma says:

These fucking degenerates…

87. Indeed, the system is NOT in equilibrium, heat is being continually pumped into the sphere and must flow out.

What is the ratio of “heat being continually pumped into the sphere” and heat that “must flow out”?
Is this a physical constant ? Is this a standard NON-equilibrium constant ? — like the ratio of knowledge flowing into a brain and misconceptions of knowledge flowing out?

In other words, how does the sphere “know” how much of the “heat” to hold onto and how much to let go of? Are there heat demons in there? … or heat elves? — I like elves, so I go with elves.