Interview:
Categories
-
Join 530 other subscribers
- Follow Climate of Sophistry on WordPress.com
Recent Comments
- boomie789 on Soul Camera – How Does Your Soul Work?
- boomie789 on Soul Camera – How Does Your Soul Work?
- boomie789 on Soul Camera – How Does Your Soul Work?
- CD Marshall on Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide Paradox
- DIN on Soul Camera – How Does Your Soul Work?
- DIN on Soul Camera – How Does Your Soul Work?
- petraliverani on Soul Camera – How Does Your Soul Work?
- J Cuttance on Back to the Parallel Plates
- donaldgisbey on Is Your Astral Spirit Body Infected with a Noetic Parasite?
- donaldgisbey on Ontological Cosmology – The Cosmology of Existence (LiveStream Tonight)
- Pierre on Soul Camera – How Does Your Soul Work?
- CD Marshall on Back to the Parallel Plates
- Jopo on Back to the Parallel Plates
- CD Marshall on Back to the Parallel Plates
- Joseph E Postma on Back to the Parallel Plates
Climate of Sophistry 
I have a question about black-body temperature:
Temperatures that surface stations measure vary widely over the face of the Earth.
So, how can a body (the Earth), where vastly different near-surface temperatures are recorded, qualify as a black body in a determination of global average temperature, where that global average temperature, then, gets compared to a temperature derived from a true black-body calculation?
How can an average of NON-black body temperatures be compared to a black-body temperature?
How can it be assumed that each station temperature qualifies as a partial black-body temperature that can then be averaged to arrive at a whole black-body temperature? Emission temperature is NOT derived from a collection of vastly different temperatures. Theoretical black-body temperatures are NOT derived from a collection of vastly different temperatures over their already uniformly emitting surfaces.
Doesn’t a black body, even an assumed black body, have to emit uniformly over its entire surface, from the very start of its conceptualization?
A global-average temperature, based on a derivation from vastly different independent temperatures does NOT qualify to be compared to a temperature derived from an already assumed uniform emission from the entire surface.
I just don’t understand how that damned 33-degree-difference crap EVER gained such official acceptance, given what seems to be an obvious ridiculous comparison.
And I’m still struggling to grasp how that Harvard University Chapter 7 twists the math so convincingly. I want to figure out exactly how they screw up, step-by-step. It looks like they do the planet-emission calculation based on one frame of reference, and then they do a surface-emission calculation based on another frame of reference, and then they try to compare the result from the larger frame of reference to the result from the smaller frame of reference. … Or something like that.
Simple answer: one can only understand that it is incorrect, and there is no actual understanding to be had given that bad logic is by definition only understandable as wrong. Of course…mainstream science accepts self-contradictory logic in the first place, hence why it produces stuff like this while not actually understanding it or being able to explain it since its impossible to explain anyway…
A question on the steel greenhouse that you debunk (again) in your book.
You use the example where both the core and the shell are treated as blackbodies.
What happens if we treat the shell as a grey body?
For simplicity let the surface area of the shell be double that of the sphere and let the emissivity of the shell be 0.25
The sophists argument would be that the shell is double the temperature of the sphere and that this would in turn cause the sphere to increase in temperature to that of the shell.
The LOT says that the sphere transferred energy to the shell as heat, therefore the shell cannot become hotter than the sphere, so emissivity of the shell must change and increase to stay obeying the laws.
I’ve also read that at equilibrium absorption must equal emission. As the energy from the sphere has nowhere else to go, other than the shell all of the sphere’s energy must be absorbed by the shell and therefore must also be emitted by it. To me, this would suggest that whatever the initial absorptivity/emissivity of the shell it must increase to that of a blackbody as it comes into equilibrium with the sphere. Thus your use of two blackbodies in your book is really the only way the model could be represented.
Is my reasoning correct? Or am I missing something?
Emissivity, i.e. grey body, definitely has an effect on surface temperature for a given energy emission.
The shell could be hotter if the emissivity and absorptivity allowed for that.
However even if the shell is hotter due to lower emissivity, it does not emit more energy – it still emits the same amount of energy, and it is the energy emission, not the temperature directly but the energy emission for a given temperature and emissivity, which governs heat flow. And the result is still, even with emissivity differences, that stronger energy emissions, i.e. heat, can only ever radiatively come from the sphere. It still does totally plainly work out.
Remember, temperature is a *state* of matter and energy, *not a quantity of matter and energy*. You have to look at the energy emission rates, which is precisely what the heat flow equation and First Law does and are about.
“The sophists argument would be that the shell is double the temperature of the sphere and that this would in turn cause the sphere to increase in temperature to that of the shell. ”
The shell may indeed be warmer due to its low emissivity…*however*, also due to its low emissivity, it is emitting exactly proportionately LESS energy than a blackbody would, to make it so that it can not send stronger energy back to the sphere. It works out in the math quite precisely, to still follow all rules and regulations of heat flow and the First Law, etc.
Low emissivity can indeed require warmer temperature to get the energy out, but this is NOT AT ALL energy coming back from the shell to the sphere, or anything about the RGHE scheme.
Well this is now the new argument being used by Luke Warmers against me. It goes that sunlight can be raised to any temperature, simply by having it absorbed at the surface with a higher emissivity than the gases in the atmosphere. Your example in your book of de Saussure’s hot box achieving 110C due to a 0.91 emissivity of glass. So if his material that is transparent to sunlight absorbs IR and has an emissivity of 0.1 then we could achieve a temperature inside the box of 375C with 1000W/m2 absorbed.,
They argue that because Oxygen and Nitrogen are transparent to IR they don’t absorb the IR in the first place. It is not “trapped by it”. Therefore only the “greenhouse gases” slow the emission of IR to space. Finer details of this are not as yet forthcoming as I have resisted the basic premise, thus far, and so “you are too stupid to understand” and “go take a course in physics before you embarrass yourself further” and “I’m trying to teach you but you refuse to learn” is how things have progressed instead.
This is why I have asked them to show me examples of man made enclosed devices achieving temperatures higher than the BB temperature of the solar constant, simply by letting in visible light but having it absorbed by a barrier that has a low enough emissivity to require a higher temperature to emit that energy to space.
There seems to be a contradiction in your book about not being able to get a temperature hotter than sunlight (diluted by distance) on the one hand and lower emissivity of the glass in the de Saussure box on the other
As I haven’t heard of any examples of temperatures getting above 125C by this method (I chose the maximum flux of sunlight with earth at its closest point to the sun as the basis for this figure), I have simply been asking for proof of concept from them. I assume that if the theoretical heating potential of sunlight above the earth is higher than BB temperature of that energy, then someone will show a clear example of it. Not just a degree or two, but a significantly higher temperature to leave no doubt that I am an ignorant prick. If they are correct, I’d be happier if you were the one to demonstrate it.
For the steel greenhouse example it would seem logical to me that a shell separated by a vacuum with a lower emissivity should have same effect on the sphere as simply coating it directly. that is to require a higher temperature of the sphere. The boundary condition now being only the outer shell. Everything inside the shell, effectively part of a single larger object with a uniform interior temperature.
My goal for that Harvard Chapter 7 is to locate exactly, in their stream of mathematical argument, the place where their logic goes wrong — how exactly and why exactly. I think I’m getting closer to doing this.
I believe that it has to do with doing one calculation for an Earth-atmosphere SYSTEM and using the surface of THIS black body in one frame of reference for the calculation, and then they switch from a system view of the Earth-atmosphere geometrical sphere to a DIFFERENT set up, where there are now TWO spherical surfaces, confusing the definitions of black-body surfaces and trying to conflate the two in one instance, while separating them in another, in a ping-pong sort of geometrical reasoning that is NOT valid.
I still maintain that the whole misconception and chain of errors revolves around a confusion of surfaces and what the math means defining those surfaces and relationships of surfaces.
Here is my crack at the Harvard-Chapter-7 sophistry:
They define a mean flux with reference, first, to a sphere of ONE surface — the Earth-Atmosphere SYSTEM, and then they thicken the surface of the Earth-Atmosphere SYSTEM to TWO surfaces and try to apply the same flux derived for ONE surface to it.
That now-thick surface is still of zero thickness, if it is to be consistent with the first definition, and yet they make it TWO surfaces divided, in order to introduce an operation that mathematically occurs for a surface WITHOUT thickness and WITH thickness at the same time!
I mean, SERIOUSLY ?!!
First, Earth was like a greenhouse.
Now Earth is like a bathtub.
How about this: climate science is like a toilet.
The errors in all of these simple models of the “greenhouse effect” are so palpable I cannot understand how people aren’t rolling on the floor laughing at this “science”.
First there is no such thing as “Mean solar radiation per unit area of Earth’s surface”. This so called mean flux is the OUTPUT based on geometry and the incorrect model of radiative equilibrium and is most decidedly NOT the INPUT !
One hemisphere is continually irradiated by Fs(1-A) – the factor of 4 obviously indicates the “radiative equilibrium” OUTPUT.
Joe explains this in his “The Model Atmosphere” and on page 34 includes a much more realistic model diagram.
Secondly all of the argument is modeled on incorrect application of the “blackbody” radiation results obtained from the cavity oven experiments.
From careful experimental data Stefan, Boltzmann and Wien derived 2 “laws” which give a mathematical relationship between temperature and radiative power emissions. They also derived an approximate value for the “constant” sigma. It wasn’t until Planck found a mathematical model that produced the experimental curves from the cavity ovens experiments that the “solution” was considered accurate.
The Stefan-Boltzmann law is obtained in any domain one chooses (wavelength, frequency or wavenumber etc) by integrating Planck’s equation. Wien’s law is found by differentiating Planck’s equation and setting the resultant expression to 0.
Real mathematics says if you have 2 expressions for a mathematical relationship then mathematical transformations performed equally on both MUST give the same answer. (eg 1 + 1 = 2 X 1)
In blackbody radiation the SB law – P = sigmaT^4 equals the integral of Planck’s equation for that temperature T times pi over all units of the relevant domain.
All of the algebra I have ever seen relating to the simple model of the “greenhouse effect” involves using algebra to sum up radiative fluxes and use the resultant sum to calculate the resulting temperature
Look at their equation 7.12 (clearly states that it is valid to add 2 flux values and calculate temperatures from the algebraic sum) and 7.13 says that the temperature To – I can’t read the subscript properly – can be algebraically determined by multiplying the temperature T1 by 2^1/4.
Algebraically this is right.
So lets apply the same algebra to the mathematically equivalent relationship which is the integral of Planck’s law times the constant pi – the Stefan-Boltzmann law.
Plot 3 Planck curves – To, T1 and the expression and the fourth root of 2 times T1.
What becomes immediately obvious is that To is NOT equal to 2^1/4 T1.
In fact plot a curve for ANY flux value you like using the SB calculated temperature – I chose the famous 239.7 W/m2 from Washington University equivalent to ~255 K – and the SB calculated temperature for double that flux (eg 7.13 – f to^4 = 2 f T1^4) and it is evident that there is NO EQUIVALENCE between these 2 exactly equal mathematical transformations.
Thus it is NOT POSSIBLE to algebraically sum radiative fluxes and use the result to calculate the resulting temperature !
Note I am NOT saying that an object at ~303 K is not emitting ~479.4 W/m2 and this emissive power is double that of an object at ~255 K emitting 239.7 W/m2 !
I can mathematically prove that 239.7 (emitted by ~255K) + 239.7 (emitted by ~255K) does not produce the Planck curve for an object at ~303 K emitting 479.4 W/m2.
Their algebra fails to account for Wien’s law which shifts the peak emissions.
I say that if the algebraic sum is correct the resultant transformation applied to the Planck integral times pi MUST produce the correct result.
IT DOESN’T and all of their algebra involving algebraic sums of flux and corresponding temperatures is WRONG.
If it doesn’t apply to the blackbody relationships it DOESN’T APPLY AT ALL !
Thanks for that, Rosco.
You re-emphasize a deeper, more sophisticated level of error, on top of what I consider to be an overriding error in mathematical logic, namely equating a black-body surface with zero thickness to two separated black bodies with separation that re-define the original black-body surface as something that it IS NOT.
I think that this might be an overriding category error, at an even more basic level. By this, I mean it seems wrong to consider the surface of the emission-temperature calculation the same as the two surfaces of the Earth-atmosphere calculation. And, like you, for a different reason, I think it all goes to hell at Equation (7.12), and it is this category error that compounds what your are saying into an even worse error.
Rosco, I might have a false memory, but didn’t you do a drawing of the flux-curve-drawing exercise you describe? I can’t find it, if you did.
If my memory is correct, could you give me that link to the drawing you did? Thanks.
Okay, I sort of found it here (a very useful article to review — Postma channeling Rosco (^_^):
My contention, though, is that it is fundamentally wrong to use a solar flux, geometrically determined for a spherical surface area that is the inside of a sphere with radius of Earth’s distance from sun and ZERO thickness, … distribute this flux over the OUTSIDE surface of another sphere (the Earth spherical surface area) STILL ZERO THICKNESS, and then, in the next step, take the theoretical construct of this ZERO-thickness surface area and suddenly give it thickness that was never there to begin with in the geometrical reasoning of their original set up.
The solar flux spherical surface has ZERO thickness, conceptually, by definition. The receiving Earth spherical surface has ZERO thickness, by definition. The flux is defined for zero thickness of the area to which it applies, right? But they take that zero-defined thickness and give it a two layer thickness now in violation of a fundamental first geometrical assumption.
Hence, the so called “steel greenhouse” thought experiment had positively no basis for being introduced, … ever. There has ALWAYS been ONLY ONE surface under consideration. Introducing two surfaces, in the context of those founding calculations of flux density, was itself a flawed move, based on NOT understanding what the geometry/math means in the greenhouse-model set up.
@ WWF 2019/01/19 at 1:44 am
“There seems to be a contradiction in your book about not being able to get a temperature hotter than sunlight (diluted by distance) on the one hand and lower emissivity of the glass in the de Saussure box on the other”
Always factored for emissivity, or the usual assumption of “all things being equal”, etc. Lowered emissivity indeed requires warmer surface temperature, but this is not the RGHE, how it function, or what its mechanism is.
The limiting factor is not temperature, but energy emission rates. When all things are equal then the temperature and energy emission rate are related directly, but if non-unity emissivity is there than it is rightly about energy emission rate. When you have non-unity emissivity, the temperature would be higher, but the energy emission rate would still be limited to that supplied. None of that is about the RGHE though.
But yes absolutely, you should ask for examples of when this has actually been measured. Nothing wrong with that. Maybe it is only more important in space though, where there is no conductive and diffusive and convective energy exchanges etc. There is a colloquial saying about chrome wrenches becoming very hot in sunlight, but I tested that with my own chrome wrenches and didn’t find that result. You need to have a special balance of absorptivity vs. emissivity, etc.
@wickedwenchfan 2019/01/19 at 2:01 am
That would be true if the shell was touching the sphere, because it makes the sphere have a surface of lower emissivity. But with the gap in between the sphere and shell, the energy emission rate of the shell is still limited to that which supplies it, and so even though its temperature may become warmer than the emissivity = 1 case, its energy emission is still perfectly limited to that which supplies it…it can never send more energy back to the sphere.
Great, penetrating questions!
@Robert Kernodle 2019/01/19 at 8:01 am
I think you already did that by showing how they go from the cross-section intercept, to then spreading that over the entire surface of the Earth at once, effectively making the Earth flat, and creating a fiction in any case, etc.
haha 🙂
And, as you can see, they don’t even leave the seat up — metaphorically meaning to leave open the possibility that there is a crapless bowl awaiting a different (more respectful) use.
… still referring to the Harvard Chapter 7 presentation:
All their interspersed discussion about quantized energy, …. electrical, vibrational, rotational excitement, etc. is really not related very closely to their “greenhouse model” butchering. It’s like they tuck this butchering between layers of smoke, and those layers of smoke are supposed to hide the fact that, on this specific point, they are butchers.
Joseph, do the climate models actually use the model of solar irradiation averaged over the earth’s surface?
It still strikes me as an almost incredible error if they do. I have seen claims elsewhere that they don’t, though I’m also cynical enough to think that many climate modellers might try and evade the question. Do you have any quick-and-easy references to someone admitting/explaining that they do?
(Some years ago I might have had the technical ability and, more importantly, the patience, to trawl through the literature. But no more, and the deception is strong with so many “climate scientists” these days.)
Best regards, Michael Hart
Well yes the references are in my book…the references are found in the universal derivation of their alternative greenhouse effect, and the references are found in their universal description of their version greenhouse effect which is not how a real greenhouse actually functions, and which behaviour of a real greenhouse actually refutes their alternative invention.
Yes, you are right – they evade the question. The point is that whatever modelling they do afterwards, they write in the physics predicated upon this alternative version of the greenhouse effect. It’s written in to the code, even if the code is now trying to do, say, 3D real-time modelling, or whatever.
The logic here is to extrapolate back to the basis, and the basis of course is their alternative greenhouse effect. Of course, few people actually know that it is an alternative, and they don’t go out of their way to tell you either.
Their alternative greenhouse effect is inserted into the climate models. They simply did it all without thinking about it, without any real analysis, and actively rejected anyone doing any analysis on the whole approach.
And that latter actually makes you wonder who did this on purpose then.
Thanks, Joseph. I would hazard a guess that it may just not be possible for them to easily admit to such, and change it. Who are the individuals who might bravely stand up and say “Actually, I think this bit is seriously wrong?” (Yourself excluded, of course. I wish you good fortune. In current times, you will probably need it, though I guess you know that by now.)
… still on my “Harvard damn university” analysis:
The reason I am taking pains with the Harvard thing is related to the video’s major claim that the math is wrong.
And what I seem to be finding is this: Not only is the math wrong, but its wrongness is disguised [I’m not necessarily saying intentionally] by placing it in the context of lots of other detailed information that has the effect of boggling you mind to where you are discouraged from perceiving the really wrong shit that this OTHER detailed information disguises.
It’s like walking in a beautiful flower garden littered with, … well, … you know, … the smelly stuff.
That is precisely what happens, yes! They tricked themselves into bad math and now can’t see what they’ve done, because the figure is too complex for even them to see through. They just can’t see what they did.
It’s as though their intelligence has fragmented compartments, where one fragment of intelligence has some good stuff in it, while another fragment is missing some stuff, and then they try to put it all together, with bad fragments mixed with good fragments. The good fragments are so fulfilling to them that they concentrate on these, and let some other stuff slide. They don’t know what stuff in their bad fragments means, while still having some sophisticated command of stuff in their good fragments.
The quantum energy-level stuff seems okay, for example, but really it does not have anything directly to do with their “simple greenhouse model”. There’s no real transfer of the quantum stuff into that “simple model” — it’s all just fluff, seemingly, giving competent context for an overall incompetent whole presentation.
I can’t say that the penny has dropped on this particular example of the lower emissivity being able to achieve higher shell temperatures than the blackbody sphere. When discussing the steel greenhouse with two blackbodies the energy imparted from inside to outside was described as “heat”. Either that energy is being transferred as heat or it isn’t. It must be either heat or an alternative as it leaves the sphere, not be determined when it reaches the shell. Regardless of whether the shell has an emissivity of 1 or 0.00001, the energy it is receiving is either heat or something else. If it is heat then the maximum temperature should be determined by the temperature of the sphere. If it is something else, then what has it always been instead of heat, when you were describing it as such in the blackbody examples?
I’m putting my money on heat, for the moment.
I had a debate with a guy precisely over “black chrome” a few months back where he claimed direct solar heating to 130C in a device. But when I looked at the device, it still focused sunlight from a reflective concave surface onto the material, so I’m still waiting to have a physical demonstration of the claimed ability.
From what I can discover from theory (which I just pick up on the journey and which I could be completely wrong about) is that the reason low emissivity of chrome doesn’t let it get higher temperstures than BB temperature is because it has equally low absorptivity. It never absorbs 1000w/m2, it absorbs 10w/m2, and it emits that energy at 91C. So the laws of heat transfer are not violated and what was emitted by the sun as heat, stays as heat, regardless of the emissivity of the object it shines on. At least, that is how I have understood things up until now.
Pingback: Astrophysicist Debunks Mainstream Global Warming Alarm | PSI Intl
“If it is heat then the maximum temperature should be determined by the temperature of the sphere. If it is something else, then what has it always been instead of heat, when you were describing it as such in the blackbody examples? ”
But remember, as I keep saying, temperature is not actually the limiting factor…it just usually is because we simplify things to have unit and the same emissivity. The actual underlying limiting factor is energy emission rates, and the factor for emissivity then multiplies in with the (higher) temperature such that the energy emission rate is reduced to that which is actually coming in, etc.
Would you like the problem solved with emissivity factors included? With emissivity factors for both the sphere and shell? Because if you can understand the math then I don’t need to keep trying to explain it…not that I mind!
Black chrome actually has nearly unit emissivity, i.e. e = 1. It is almost like a blackbody. I assume he means anodized chrome, or, at least chrome which by some process has been tarnished black. When metal gets like that it gets very highly absorptive, and emissive too. Absorptivity and emissivity both approach 1. And yes, if the device was focusing sunlight, then indeed one would get higher temperatures…exactly.
“the reason low emissivity of chrome doesn’t let it get higher temperstures than BB temperature is because it has equally low absorptivity”
Yes exactly, well said. That is generally true, yes. What these examples are trying to talk about, though, is when there is, for some reason, higher absorptivity than emissivity. In general though, people invoke Kirchoff’s Law and say that “emissivity must equal absorptivity at thermal equilibrium”.
I think that the emissivity and absorptivity ratio is really seen in space where there are no other modes of energy loss. Maybe that’s why that ratio effect is not easily seen within the atmosphere.
My overall reaction to the following page is WTF ?!!
Well yes within that is contained the whole paradox of what effect emissive gases would have on the atmosphere. That is, adding emissive gases to the atmosphere would help the atmosphere to emit, because the rest of the atmosphere (O2, N2) do not emit, and something with low emissivity (O2, N2) will have a higher temperature. By adding emissive gases to the atmosphere you provide a mechanism by which the atmosphere can now cool.
This is all simply debating angels on the head of a pin…it’s no different…it’s all just extrapolating and making things up based on false premises in the first place. It’s all just “what if, then” conjecture, but by today’s standards it seems like it must be really smart.
Yes, I would appreciate a full post’s worth of education on the steel greenhouse done with grey bodies, including the mathematics. I would especially appreciate it if you go back and look at your book. The section you have written specifically on “what is temperature?” and also on the sun where you talk about not being able to “improve on perfection” in regards to the sun’s surface temperature.
Clarity is important. Especially as your enemies are currently using this confusion to undermine the credibility of those who cite your work. You can’t be everywhere at once and at the end of the day, it is the foot soldiers with lessor education that sway the readers of Facebook debates and other online forums.
Just about every thing I read on the LOT’s describe temperature as the limiting factor. Colder things can’t rause the temperature of warmer things. Then sophists scoff and mock if I repeat such things. If the sphere is 100C and the shell attains 110C then every temperature from 101C and above cannot be described as anything else than cold heating hot. Even if both objects rise together after 100C due to them basically acting as one object with a lower emissivity after this point.
It is simply unacceptable for there to be two contradictory ways of explaining things, where the full definition only gets revealed once a person’s education reaches an acceptable point. The original definition having to be unlearned in order to progress. It’s this kind of situation that creates the two tiered system in the first place, where the masses have to “trust the scientists” because the things they were told at school were only half’ truths.
It IS all consistent…but these are sophists, and their skill is merely in identifying where they can create confusion…they take the opportunity to miss the forest for the trees as a matter of strategy.
“Colder things can’t rause the temperature of warmer things. Then sophists scoff and mock if I repeat such things. If the sphere is 100C and the shell attains 110C then every temperature from 101C and above cannot be described as anything else than cold heating hot.”
But that is SOPHISTRY. It is NOT that AT ALL. It is merely an effect of emissivity and has NOTHING, ZERO, to do with requiring cold to heat hot. It has nothing to do with the mechanism of the alarmist greenhouse effect, either. They’re pretending a position…and of course, take the opportunity to mock, even though their position is a smoke screen and sophistry. You’re dealing with very, very sick people.
There is no contradiction. They only pretend there is, and they know what they’re doing, because they come up with these exceptions AS IF they are contradiction in order only to confuse and then belittle you…when these are rather *exceptions which prove the rule” because they have a perfectly consistent explanation that doesn’t change a damned thing. Do you get that strategy here? Do you see how that works? Adding in emissivity isn’t going to change the Laws of Thermodynamics.
These people…such disgusting lying sophist goblin slime.
You can’t do better than perfection in “focusing the light”. Adding in emissivity isn’t about doing better than the perfect focus! Do you see that sophistry?! You really need to identify how these people lie.
It is not possible to write things in such a way as to pre-protect and pre-nullify against any possible sophistry that may come up, using sophist strategies of missing the forest for trees, pretending that exception are contradictions when they actually prove the rule because they are explained BY the rule, etc.
If you have to write to pre-nullify all possible sophistry techniques, you would spend 1000 times more time thinking about that, than writing about the points you actually wish to get across. It is simply not possible.
As it is, if they are bringing up emissivity as some contradictory exception, in regards to heat flow, or perfectly focusing sunlight…then they are well and truly fucked, and wildly scrambling to maintain any semblance of a position. HA-HA, idiots. That’s actually great. Like brushing off a rare piece of dandruff from the shoulder…
Ok so then 3 posts coming:
1) grey body shell greenhouse
2) magnifying glass effect and focusing sunlight
3) what is temperature
Fantastic
Yes I am aware of what they are doing and why they are doing it.
Can the presence of a cooler object cause a warmer object to become warmer still?
Yes. That is the only answer and it is the assertion they are using to try the next trick. Take a look at Spencer’s “experiment” that you debunked on this blog a year or so ago.
What else is that other than claiming “no one ever said cold can heat hot, but a cooler object can cause a warmer one to get warmer still”?
I still find it amusing though, that whatever the theoretical possibilities of different absorption and emission coefficients increasing the temperature of an object beyond that of the blackbody temperature of sunlight (or any other radiation incident on an object), no one and I mean literally no one has yet been able to link me an example of where someone has actually done it.
Perhaps for your post, you can be the first to actually do so? Get one step ahead of the sophists for a change!
I would imagine that the ability to get sunlight to warm an object to, say, 200C without having to concentrate the sunlight onto a smaller area, by having different absorption and emission coefficients could have lots of useful applications. Warm a chicken in a microwave that has a surface area of 1m2 to 100C with just a 500watt microwave, by placing the chicken in a low emissivity bag. Great for camper vans running on solar power. Takes twice as long to cook but you need half the solar panels on your caravan to supply the electricity. Etc etc
Just thought I would share this, whilst on topic. From a particularly condescending Luke Warmer:
“Only idiots would claim the the skeptics are saying the air is warming the ocean. THE SUNLIGHT (let me repeat) SUNLIGHT is warming the oceans. EVAPORATION warms the AIR.water vapor , CO2 and other absorb some oft he IR photons and delay them in their path to the upper levels of the atmosphere where they can escape to space. a longer delay means the energy is in the air longer. In any system a slowing of the escape of energy out of the system (energy output) while the energy input remains the same will result in an increase in the system temperature (thermodynamics 101). thus increase green house gasses will increase the surface temperature. but in the case of CO2 on earth, doubling the CO2 concentration has a very small effect on temperature increase less than a degree C. on top of that the negative feedback of water vapor counters that rise.”
If you push this dude further, I promise you the lower emissivity of the gas compared to the surface will be invoked. But that is the final layer of condescension. This is the middle layer you are reading. You first have to get past his appeals to his own authority before you reach the level I’m sharing with you.
He’s not even referring to the actual, derived, supposed mechanism of the RGHE.
I would like to focus on this part of wicked’s luke-warmer comment:
… water vapor , CO2 and other absorb some oft he IR photons and delay them in their path to the upper levels of the atmosphere where they can escape to space. a longer delay means the energy is in the air longer.
I have not yet been convinced that the so called “delay” actually exists. CO2 emits incredibly fast, after it absorbs. There’s only so many molecules of CO2, and I seem to remember that lots of these are near the Earth’s surface, because they are heavier — partly because of this, and partly because air density decreases with altitude, there are even fewer CO2 molecules higher up in the atmosphere.
Given how few CO2 molecules there are near the surface anyway, there’s only so much IR they could absorb, and I’m thinking the Earth emits a lot more infrared than those few CO2 molecules could absorb. And, even, if those emissions that bounce off the full-energy states of all these seeped through to the upper atmosphere, there are even fewer CO2 molecules up there, and it’s COLD up there, so I don’t see those emissions staying “trapped” up there either — they just go on out to cold space.
Where’s the exact calculation that shows conclusively and convincingly that this “delay” even exists?
How fast does CO2 emit, after it absorbs?
How much total IR is available for CO2 to absorb?
How many molecules of CO2 are there to absorb this much IR?
Can 0.04% of the atmosphere’s volume, combined with, say, another 2% water vapor, really cause this “delay”? Does the concept of “delay” even make sense, in this context? — I don’t think it does, because photons are not like air molecules being held back by a blanket.
For those here reading this article-and-comments, if you haven’t already, I highly recommend reading this from JP in an earlier year:
Even if you have read it before, maybe read it again to refresh. In my opinion, it is a clear, class-act article — “rant-free”, as the title says. (^_^)
Yes the Luke Warmers have abandoned the Alarmist derivation of the GHE. That’s too easy to debunk, so the Alarmists are idiots, the people who try and debunk the GHE based on the simplistic explanation of it in undergrad courses are morons and only they have progressed to enlightenment, where the deeper truth that contradicts earlier truth exists. It’s the GHE Jim but not as we know it, not as we know it. We are Star trekking across the universe, boldly going where no physicist has gone before!
Hah that’s good…
… continuing with my Harvard Chapter 7 mission [I assume Harvard still stands behind it] …
Is this correct:
Climate science: the final frontier. These are the voyagers of the alarmship enterprise. Its continuing mission: to forecast catastrophic new worlds. To limit life-quality and new civilizations. To stupidly go where no one has gone before!
Hi Robert
Using strictly blackbody equations there are 2 major problems I see with the algebra I always see used to justify back radiation. (Blackbody equations are all we really have – concepts such as emissivity are not related to the original derivation of the various equations but are logical extensions of observations but I am talking only the maths)
The first is they equate a real flux to a difference and assign sigmaT^4 valuse to both yet only one has a sigmaT^4 value while the other is clearly a difference.
In the plot the “steel greenhouse” people equate the area under the green curve with the shaded area. They both have a value of 239.7 W/m2 but clearly are not the same thing.
By circular logic they claim to PROVE that the area under the green curve multiplied by 2 produces the red curve but as you can plainly see the shaded area – the difference of Tred – T green – is completely indeterminate unless you prescribe the answer they seek – the red curve – Tred.
Their algebra is no proof at all.
Second they claim to be able to algebraically sum radiative fluxes and even completely ignore the spectral considerations !
This is real junk science to my mind.
But using Planck’s equation to produce curves for their sums the answer is completely wrong anyway.
This plot shows the algebraic sum cited by the Washington University – https://atmos.washington.edu/2002Q4/211/notes_greenhouse.html
They explicitly say that the solar radiation alone induces a temperature of ~255 K emitting 239.7 W/m2. They explicitly add the 239.7 W/m2 from the atmosphere to arrive at 479.4 W/m2 and calculate a temperature of ~303 K. 303K does indeed emit 479.4 W/m2 but their algebra fails because of the shift in peak missions everyone knows called Wien’s displacement law.
The graph I show has the blue curve for 239.7 W/m2 – the area under the curve. It has a green curve which is 239.7 + 239.7 = 479.4 W/m2 – the area under the green curve.
But this result is nothing like the curve for 303 K – also 479.4 W/m2 area under curve.
The peak is shifted and there is no way simple algebraic manipulations can accommodate this requirement.
Thus this is mathematical proof that all of the algebraic manipulations used by “greenhouse effect” supporters is wrong.
The area under any Planck curve multiplied by the constant pi is always exactly equal to the Stefan-Boltzmann blackbody equation for the temperature used to plot the Planck curve – the area is the integral of Planck’s equation over the whole spectrum.
The laws of calculus state that their algebraic manipulations using the SB law MUST equal the same manipulation using Planck’s equation as the integral equals the SB equation (times pi).
My graphs clearly show the sum fails completely and I conclude their maths and models are junk science.
If it doesn’t work for blackbody equations it doesn’t work anywhere.
I have no idea what these sums actually represent BUT there is no doubt their maths fails completely. This invalidates ANY set of equations where the sum of fluxes is equated to temperature calculations using their algebra – how often would their models use this incorrect algebra ?
The more I think about it, the more I believe a full post, or maybe even a whole series of posts is required. Christopher Monkton’s paper, also treats carbon dioxide the same as a resistor in an electrical circuit, so I’m realising that this isn’t just a few dicks on social media here. This appears to be a concerted effort to redefine the GHE. Where “back radiation” has morphed into a process caused by a reduction of system emissivity where the surface is the blackbody sphere and the CO2 is greybody shell. The o2 and N2 equivalents to no shell because they are transparent to the radiation
Rosco,
Thanks a bunch for that — I was hoping you might get back to my request eventually. People really need to understand this. I’ll study it some more and try to make my own clarifications.
Wicked,
Monkton accepts the 33-degree-difference math, which (in my mind) immediately renders his feedback-arguments void of any validity. He refuses to see that near-surface instrumental temperature measurements are, in no way, comparable to a planetary emission-temperature calculation. His approach also seems to have other problems, which are beyond my ability to understand. But, generally, I get the impression that his genius argument is just crap used against itself, which is sort of a good thing, I guess — poetic justice for the whole radiative-greenhouse concept that is crap, from the get go.
I find Monkton entertaining, and so I cannot dislike him totally. (^_^)
As for the blackbody/graybody thing, I sense great confusion there, because the calculations seem to involve invoking the reality of one shell sometimes and ignoring the reality of a shell at another time, in accord to what the calculators seek to achieve. If we’re focusing on sun-Earth system and blackbody math, then the shell is the ONE shell of the Earth-atmosphere system. … The gaseous atmosphere (separated from this system), then, does not seem to represent any form of body to which blackbody math even applies. The one blackbody shell cannot reduce to two shells, one of which is black and the other of which is gray — nothing formally allows for this maneuver — it’s more junk.
I’ve been contemplating Rosco’s analysis for a bit now. To clarify things for myself, I made some additions to one of his plots, creating three plots, each of which focuses on a different detail:
Then, as I studied these, I tried to generalize, from a beginner’s standpoint, in words (did I get it about right?):
Wavelength of radiation is measured in micrometers. Sunlight falling on an area of Earth is composed of radiation in various wavelengths.
Power density is measured in watts per meter squared of Earth area, per each wavelength of the radiation (measured in micrometres) falling on this area.
Each wavelength of radiation has associated with it its own power for that wavelength.
Power density of a beam of sunlight, then, has to take account of all the wavelengths and unique power-generating value of each of all these wavelengths.
Shorter wavelengths are associated with greater power, while longer wavelengths are associated with lower power. Adding up all the powers generated by all the wavelengths is what a Planck curve represents visually. A Planck curve shows each wavelength of radiation and its associated power generated for that specific wavelength.
If you choose a point on a Planck curve, then you see that this point is the intersection of a vertical line intersecting the x axis at a wavelength and a horizontal line intersecting the y axis at a power density at which this wavelength generates, given temperature for which the Planck curve is plotted.
A blackbody that is at a given temperature will shed radiation in such a way that shorter wavelengths generate more power than longer wavelengths. A Planck curve for the given temperature represents the relationship between each wavelength and its respective power. The Planck curve’s unique shape for each temperature has been established through repetition after repetition of experimental trial.
So, the blackbody TEMPERATURE first establishes the Planck curve for the blackbody. Now while an algebraic relationship can be determined between the wavelength and the power for this wavelength, P = sigma x T^4, a simple algebraic solving of this equation for T will not lead to a correct prediction of T, when T is the unknown. The algebraic sum does NOT take account of the shift to shorter wavelengths at higher temperatures, whereas the integral in calculus DOES.
The “sigma x T^4” relationship, assigning a power density to a temperature, comes AFTER the temperature is known. The temperature cannot be reverse engineered correctly from the algebraic equation alone. This is hard to fathom, since we usually regard an algebraic equality as a reversible operation. But this is the difference between straight algebra and reality, the difference between addition and integration.
How can the algebra be wrong? Isn’t an equation an equation? Obviously, not always. Knowing HOW to use an equation PROPERLY is the other consideration, and this knowledge comes by way of being in experimental touch with reality.
Algebra can be correct, while its APPLICATION to reality can be wrong.
I can add two horses and three goats to arrive at a sum of 5, but what does this “5” represent in reality? — 5 horsegoats? Well, no, there’s no such thing as a horsegoat that results from the addition of a horse and goat.
What do fluxes added together mean in reality? I can’t even figure out the absurd answer to this yet. … probably something like adding ice water to more ice water, where you just get a greater volume of the same. Yeah, that seems to be it — adding more stuff of the SAME power, without increasing the power of the stuff.
Catastrophic increase in the number of horse goats csused by Climate Change. I can see the headline on CNN already!
Try this experiment:
(1) Set up three one-cup containers.
(2) Pour four ounces of green paint into the first cup
(3) Pour four ounces of green paint into the second cup.
(4) Into the third cup, pour four ounces of green paint from cup one + four ounces of green paint from cup two.
Have you doubled the greenness of the paint in cup three? Harvard greenhouse-theory logic would say “yes”.
In a similar way, watts-per-meter-squared, doubled at the same distribution of wavelengths, adds nothing to temperature. Rosco’s green curve and associated area, then, I propose, is simply a graphic artifact of invalid addition — it is a horsegoat. (^_^)
Thoughts? Criticisms? Insults?
I think you’ve just demonstrated the existence of super green horse goats. I recommend taxing horses, goats, cups and the colour green, to avoid runaway green horsegoat catastrophe by the end of the century. We must act now to keep green horsegoats to under double pre industrial levels.
Yes, tax horses, goats, cups, and the color green, which means that, in order to use these things, we must pay additional money that is really not money, but resold debt that has no reality of ever being paid off, but instead has become the non-existent backing of existing, realistically worthless money that we pay, to go further into debt that will add more non-existent backing to somebody else’s tax revenue in the future.
It’s all so rational.
… rational, as in calculating solar flux with respect to an Earth-sphere surface that has zero thickness on the scale of the astronomical-unit sun-flux radius used to calculate it, and then, in mid calculation, pretend like you never had this cosmic relationship that determines the non-thickness of that reference surface area, BUT magically assign it thickness, so that the half-down/half-up flux of the Earth-sphere surface (with no thickness and with thickness simultaneously) now doubles itself on the second surface, where there was NO SECOND SURFACE to begin with, but then there was, but then there wasn’t, which causes some people to say that the extra thickness is statistically not significant, and yet they can carry out significant calculations in this statistically not significant thickness that was never there in the cosmic-scale, original set up.
And the real madness, is that when you point this out to them they accuse you of rambling and being incoherent. When all you are doing is translating incoherent physics into incoherent English. Live/Dead cats to follow the Uber green horsegoats
I posted this elsewhere and I didn’t get a response. This sounds like what you guys are talking about so maybe? Got into a long useless conversation with someone who claims is part of the Heartland Think Tank (Although they are supposed to be against climate change). We were discussing Thermodynamics and he was making up thermodynamics. So he was using the Radiative Transfer doesn’t require energy scam. So I gave him word for word what you guys said to be sure he didn’t find a fault in the wording:
“Thermal backradiation heating is simply thermal heating from cold going to hot. Again, the Laws of Thermodynamics: a temperature can not increase its own temperature; a temperature can not heat itself; a temperature can not transfer heat to the same temperature or itself. Heat flows from hot to cold; cold does not cause hot to become hotter; hot in warming cold does not become hotter still because it warmed the cold; only the colder temperature rises when it is heated by hot; a temperature can not heat itself.”
~He demanded to know who the astrophysicists was I declined because then the info is made invalid because they immediately attack the source.
This is his reply:
“You are absolutely right except the first sentence. You forget the radiation temperature. What you are describing, is thermal conduction. Indeed, a cold layer can’t warm a hotter one. But thermal conduction is in the atmosphere a marginal heat transfer mechanism. Radiative transfer is the dominant one. In this case, the exchange of energy isn’t between the layers themselves (conduction), but between the layers and the nonlocal radiation field, and vice-versa (the definition of radiative transfer). The warm layer is not heated by a cold layer, but by radiation with a higher radiation temperature. Again: radiative transfer is about exchanges between the thermal pool and the radiation field, NOT between adjacent thermal pools (layers)! This is what I’ve been talking about the whole time: you ignore radiative transfer. It is EASY to violate the laws of thermodynamics if you are not looking at the proper mechanism! You are obviously right if you ignore RT!”
He also used a Wiki Link to demonstrate I was wrong about Thermodynamics.
Somehow he claims this is working with a measly 0.04 Co2 to heat our planet up. Jo these people are mindless zombies. Any comments? Passive and aggressive are always welcome.
Christopher M,
I don’t know the context of that person’s reply to you, but, in looking at part of what you quoted him as saying:
“The warm layer is not heated by a cold layer, but by radiation with a higher radiation temperature. Again: radiative transfer is about exchanges between the thermal pool and the radiation field, NOT between adjacent thermal pools (layers)! This is what I’ve been talking about the whole time: you ignore radiative transfer. It is EASY to violate the laws of thermodynamics if you are not looking at the proper mechanism! You are obviously right if you ignore RT!”
… he seems pretty clueless, if he is talking about a cooler atmospheric layer’s causing a warmer surface to become warmer still. This is a violation too — a violation in the context of radiative transfer.
Where is his “higher radiation temperature” located? — the cooler atmosphere? — well, if so, then that definitely is not right. What thermodynamic-legal MECHANISM allows an already higher-radiation temperature to be raised even higher by a lower-radiation temperature or by the SAME radiation temperature?
Wicked,
When all you are doing is translating incoherent physics into incoherent English.
I will attempt, in a later post, to translate my incoherent-English translation of incoherent physics into more coherent English.
Robert. Please don’t. If you translated it into coherent English, then nobody would realise just how incoherent the physics is!
In a previous post — https://climateofsophistry.com/2019/01/18/astrophysicist-debunks-mainstream-global-warming-climate-change-narrative-forever/#comment-39303 — I presented an incoherent English translation of incoherent physics.
Now I’ll try to clean that up here to present an attempt at a coherent English translation of my previous incoherent English translation of incoherent physics (^_^):
Those reading this (what? – maybe 2 whole people) might remember that I posted the following drawing:
What I’m trying to illustrate there is the geometrical and mathematical confusion that I seem to see in “greenhouse theory” math used in the “simple model” presented in Harvard University’s Chapter 7 .pdf that I’ve been studying.
Solar flux is calculated for a sphere, whose radius is “d” — the distance from sun to Earth. The solar-flux value is expressed in units of “watts per meter squared”.
Now this “per meter squared” part refers to AREA of the SPHERE of radius, “d”. Look again: the “per meter squared” refers to the SURFACE area of this sphere’s SURFACE. It does NOT refer to a spherical shell of any thickness at all. The geometrical concept of the sphere’s surface is an ideal of zero thickness. This is what the geometry means. This is what the math expressing the geometry means.
Now this zero-thickness surface-area is projected onto ANOTHER sphere — the Earth sphere, which, in the model, is also a geometrical ideal sphere with a ZERO-THICKNESS surface, as well.
So, a zero-thickness solar sphere is projected onto a zero-thickness Earth sphere, which then correctly projects onto an Earth-disc, also of zero thickness, as the solar flux intercepting Earth.
Again, note that in all this set up of the model — the very foundation upon which the model rests — there is NOT any conception of thickness associated with the surface areas for which solar flux is calculated. “Per meter squared” refers to a zero-thickness surface! This is what the geometry and math means.
At the cosmic scale of distance under consideration (i.e., 93, 000, 000 miles from sun to Earth), and at the terrestrial scale of distance under consideration (about 4,000 miles for Earth’s radius), this layer of atmospheric gas (say about 8 miles) physically agrees with the zero-thickness understanding of the solar-flux “watts per meter squared”. This is because the eight-mile thickness of the atmospheric layer is a mere 0.000000086 the radius of the solar sphere for which solar flux is calculated and a mere 0.002 the radius of the Earth sphere.
So, these great distances physically reduce the gaseous atmospheric layer to the ideal zero-thickness Earth-sphere surface. At these distances, and in accord to the ideal of the geometry and math used to calculate solar flux, the Earth-atmosphere system has ONE and only ONE surface. One more time, this is what the geometry and the math expressing the geometry mean.
There is NOT a thickness to Earth’s surface in these calculations. The model is based on this geometry and this math. The validity of the solar flux, expressed in “watts per meter squared” is based on this geometry and this math. The idealized surface in these calculations, then, CANNOT be abandoned later to add a second surface to CHANGE the model now to a system of encased spheres with encased surfaces, for which the previous flux calculation does NOT APPLY any longer.
The flux calculated for initial set up of the model cannot be divided between two layers, which, theoretically and even physically (because of the vast distances), do not exist. Let me say this again, the two layers DO NOT EXIST for the solar flux calculation. ONLY the one layer exists. Adding the second layer violates this fundamental principle of the set up. The distance between the two layers is so insignificant that no significant calculations exist there.
You cannot do calculations for a surface that has no thickness. Any such attempt at calculations for a second surface relate to the ONE AND ONLY SURFACE, duplicating some of the values there and mistakenly adding them back to themselves, BECAUSE only one layer of ZERO THICKNESS ever exists.
You cannot do calculations on an entity that does not (theoretically or practically) exist on this scale.
In other words, the second surface is STILL the first surface.
You cannot invoke the zero-thickness-one-surface condition in one part of the calculation, and then shift to a thickness-condition-allowing-two-surfaces in another part of the calculation, without contradicting yourself. Further, you cannot accept the thickness of Earth’s atmosphere as significant (with respect to Earth’s radius) in one part of the calculation, and then reject the thickness of Earth’s atmosphere as insignificant (with respect to Earth’s radius), in another part of the calculation, without, again, contradicting yourself.
It’s a situation where the Earth’s surface both has and does not have a thickness simultaneously, and this condition can be invoked at will, in order to make the math work.
This is another example of dissonance allowed to exist, and it is encouraged as accepted practice.
Let’s review:
First, there is one surface with no thickness. Then the one surface with no thickness becomes two surfaces with no thickness. If you point out the thickness between the now two surfaces, then somebody cries “rounding error”, and we’re back to the one surface again.
Ping pong, anyone?
Darn it, Robert! You went and made sense! You coherently explained how absurdly incoherent the premise of the radiative greenhouse effect is from another way of viewing it.
What is the correct physics of radiative transfer to a volume by the way? Ive always found it strange that they dealt in one dimensional objects the entire time. With no energy transfer to below the surface.
“What is the correct physics of radiative transfer to a volume by the way?”
My sense is that a volumetric GAS shell, on top of a spherical surface that is largely liquid, on top of solid, … is NOT a blackbody any longer. Once we break down the system like this, the blackbody frame of reference is gone.
Viewed from space, the Earth atmospheric-volumetric GAS shell on top of the spherical surface, largely liquid on solid, is a blackbody with ONE surface — the surface of the gas-shell-liquid-solid SYSTEM conglomerate.
The blackbody calculation can apply to this conglomerate (VIEWED as a conglomerate) to figure a planetary emission temperature, and this planetary emission temperature is for ONE surface of ONE sphere. This emission-temperature reference surface, when we are on Earth (rather than way out in space) is what I think is best thought of as being located at the “average height of emission”.
And, to refer back to the classic “steel greenhouse” no-thought experiment, those two encased spheres have no basis for even being thought about. From space, given the distances under consideration, two shells do NOT exist, from the proper blackbody perspective.
The “steel greenhouse” distorts the perspective incorrectly and makes up equations that are really disguised redundancies, where the value of the ONE sphere is somehow accounted for TWICE via the fake second surface that does not properly exist, from the correct perspective.
At least, this is how I’m thinking about it now.
Just to clarify further, the “d-prime” (d’) in my drawing is the thickness of the atmosphere that “green horse-goat” theorists both acknowledge and deny simultaneously, depending on what part of the calculation they myopically view at any one moment.
This is a little more of his reply my comments are in quotes the rest is this nut job. hope this help explain more of where he was “coming from” besides Oz.
“Co2’s heat capacity is minuscule in comparison to N2 and O2”
Radiative transfer has nothing to do with heat capacity. Heat capacity is relevant in other heat transfer mechanisms, like conduction or convection, but not radiative transfer, which is the relevant mechanism when talking about radiation-matter interactions, hence the name. Look, no heat capacity anywhere: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiative_transfer
Quantities like opacity, absorptivity and the emission coefficient do not depend on it either. Look it up in Mihalas 1978 for example (the transfer equation is there too obviously).
“Co2 does nothing for the Atmosphere (in contributing heat)”
If you ignore radiative transfer, it is easy to conclude CO2 has no effect! BUT, radiation DOES travel through the atmosphere, else we wouldn’t see a damn thing!
“the main job of the Adiabatic Lapse Rate”
The adiabatic lapse rate is not a mechanism; it is a measure of the atmospheric stratification. The atmospheric stratification, on the other hand, depends on Earth’s gravitational field, the solar flux, the tilt of the Earth, convection, conduction (to a very low degree) AND in a very important way on radiative transfer. Because radiative transfer relates the chemical composition of the atmosphere, temperature, pressure and the radiation field. It is a highly nonlocal and nonlinear process by which the radiation field influences the temperature and pressure structure, as well as the ionization and excitation levels of the various chemical species, the temperature and the pressure influence the radiation field. The adiabatic lapse rate is merely the result of all that, NOT the cause of anything. It does depend on the heat capacity though, but as I said it doesn’t impact radiative transfer.
theoretical non-existent greenhouse effect that absolutely defies the Laws of Thermodynamics
I’m curious to hear from you why it would defy the laws of thermodynamics. But if you never heard of radiative transfer, then I guess it is easy to understand why. That’s not something they teach you in high school.
“Co2 is claimed to snatch heat out of a cold atmosphere and heat up the ground even more without any work”
Not at all. CO2 traps the surface longwave cooling, ie. solar radiation absorbed and reemitted by the surface of the Earth.
Can you be clearer? The laws of thermodynamics imply bodies. Which bodies do you claim do what and in such a way. Be precise, otherwise I don’t understand your points. But my bet is that you ignore the radiation field and consider only gas layers. There is interaction between gas layers and radiation, you can’t just ignore that! Your whole argumentation rests on you not understanding the mechanisms by which heat is transferred in the atmosphere, the most important one being radiative transfer. How matter absorbs, emit and diffuse photons.
“Do you not think our movement through the galaxy doesn’t effect the magnetism of the Sun it’s the entire cycle of our Galaxy that effects our planet”
Absolutely not. The galactic magnetic field is several orders of magnitude lower than the Sun’s.
and therefore our planet
The Sun’s magnetic field only impacts the Earth’s exterior magnetic field, and much more in space.
Except this has ridiculously small effects. Your taking this out of nowhere.
“The cycle of our solar system moves in a trajectory around our Galaxy, but also other planetary systems obviously subdue our solar magnetosphere and possibly causing or triggering cyclical ice ages/hot periods within our planet.” ~Astrophysicist
And who would that astrophysicist be? This is bonkers, we all know our trajectory through the Milky Way don’t trigger an ice ages! Or has any impact!
PS: we can measure the greenhouse effect in labs!
So, the flat earth point is that the equations assume that solar radiation is received by the whole earth, when it is only by half the earth. The climate modelers are mistaken to think that the 1368 W/M2 should be divided by four getting 342. Because it would be half a sphere it would be not 342 but 684 (area of a sphere is 4 x that of a circle). In your book you say, “The justification that climate science and climate alarm give for using this is that it is “just a simple model”, and that it is an “average of the system” and that it is only used for “teaching the basic principles”.”[Postma, Joseph. In the Cold Light of Day: Flat Earth in Modern Physics and a Numerical Proof for God: A Climate Alarm Story . Kindle Edition.] Then do the climate modelers really make that mistake? Then what are the implications of that? And how did this error help their claim of a greenhouse effect? Most people would think that they probably get around to that when they are doing their models. Do they?
Christopher Marshall
You appear to have your hands full with a complete acolyte.
Try pointing out that the energy budget diagrams shows the surface energy increasing above the input value of the power source via passive self amplification. He says he can recreate the GHE in the lab. Ask him for the self amplification experiment vis passive radiation. Ask him to show where a 100W/m2 input is turned into a 200W/m2 output somewhere in the experiment. Because making CO2 warmer than air in a test tube is not the same thing. When he can make the CO2 in the test tube emit more power than the heat lamp shining on the test tube, THEN he will have achieved what he claims is possible in a planet
So, if something is not mentioned in a particular description, then it does not exist.
Cake recipes make no mention of dirty dishes that have to be washed after the batter is in the oven.
Ergo, dirty dishes do not exist in cake baking.
Great. Now I can bake more cakes, without this troublesome concern nagging at me.
Christopher M,
Looking at that longer exchange you had with radiative-transfer dude, here would be my reaction to some of his responses:
“Radiative transfer has nothing to do with heat capacity.”
Radiative transfer is ENERGY transfer. The amount of energy a system can absorb before it increases in temperature is heat capacity. If radiative transfer is adding energy, then it is adding energy to the pool of energy that could raise the temperature of whatever it is transferring energy to. Radiative transfer, then, is as relevant to adding energy to raise temperature as anything else.
“Heat capacity is relevant in other heat transfer mechanisms, like conduction or convection, but not radiative transfer, which is the relevant mechanism when talking about radiation-matter interactions, hence the name.”
Total crap. Any addition of energy is relevant to heat capacity — conduction, convection, radiative transfer — these are just different names for different energy-transfer mechanisms. What if we say “conduction transfer” and “convection transfer” to talk about energy transfers through these respective mechanisms? The fact that the word, “transfer”, is not ordinarily in descriptions of these mechanisms, and the fact that he chooses the adverbial form of “radiation” to say “radiative” added to the word, “transfer” offers nothing to raise radiation above conduction or convection. His FOCUS on the specific mechanism is what makes his claim of irrelevance total crap. His REFUSAL to consider heat capacity in relation to radiative transfer is what makes his claim total crap.
“Look, no heat capacity anywhere: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiative_transfer “
That’s because the article SPECIFICALLY focuses on radiative transfer! Look up “baking” at Wikipedia: Look, no radiative transfer anywhere:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baking_mix
An article’s subject-focus does not constitute any legitimate reason to dismiss the relevance of the article’s subject to another subject. The article’s subject-focus is just an editorial limit around what is being discussed in a single article.
“Quantities like opacity, absorptivity and the emission coefficient do not depend on it either. Look it up in Mihalas 1978 for example (the transfer equation is there too obviously).”
So what? These are NOT the relevant points. These are, yet again, different focal points. Qualities like color, smell, and taste do not depend on it either, but, again, these are not the relevant issues.
This is a prime example of diverting attention, in order to avoid rational discussion of the relevant points.
“Christopher Monkton’s paper, also treats carbon dioxide the same as a resistor in an electrical circuit”
Yes and this is the stupidest thing, EVER. How about we study the moon’s surface by looking at the mating biology of dung beetles? That’s what Monckton is doing there. Does it make any sense to study a subject by modelling something else? Why wouldn’t Chris just use what has already been provided? The heat equations for radiative transfer, and the 1st Law of Thermodynamics? Why wouldn’t you just directly use what is directly and immediately applicable given that it is specifically derived for it? Answer: Because you can’t. Because if you use actual heat flow equations and the 1st Law, then you can’t create a radiative greenhouse effect. These people are such frauds.
Such intellectual fraud EVERYWHERE.
That’s a nice diagram:
It makes sense specifically as you have sketched it out, but of course, they’re taking that tiny zoom-in and saying that this flat portion represents the entire Earth, and then they dilute the flux accordingly in order to fit the flux and mathematics into that diagram, but then they create the distance paradox and of course the flat Earth.
If the RGHE physics did apply properly just to the actual zoom-in region without the silly averaging and the rest that they do, then it would work out that day-time surface temperature should reach far beyond 100C. But they don’t, because the RGHE doesn’t exist, because the RGHE is only derived out of the paradoxical flat Earth set up.
Exactly. His explanation had zero sense-content.
“What is the correct physics of radiative transfer to a volume by the way? Ive always found it strange that they dealt in one dimensional objects the entire time. With no energy transfer to below the surface.”
1) Because it is simplest to write the equations this way, to get the final solution which is what we usually only want anyway. Heat transfer occurs at the boundary, i.e. at the surface, and so whatever happens inside the volume depends entirely only on what transfer is occurring at the surface. Treating it like this is sufficient for most purposes, but yes indeed, if you want to see the actual reaction in real-time, not just the final solution, then you need something more.
2) What you need more is called multidimensional partial differential equations. When we use these, even here we tend to simplify things to make the computation easier. For example for heat flow, we definitely need the solution to be a function of both space and time, but if we can legitimately reduce space to one dimension rather than three then we do that. I actually have a discussion of this in my book, where I treat the de Saussure greenhouse box with these equations to examine the greenhouse’s behaviour in real time either with or without the boundary conditions that lead to a radiative greenhouse effect.
What a liar. The adiabatic lapse rate is a function of only TWO exact factors: dT/dh = -g/Cp, and so, the strength of gravity, and the heat capacity. If RGHE effects had an additional effect, then we WOULD NOT MEASURE the lapse rate to be WHAT IT IS, given by -g/Cp (the adiabatic gradient) and factored for water vapour latent heat release as it condenses. And since we do not measure a deviation from the *gravity + thermal capacity + latent heat* lapse rate, then there is NO RGHE having any additional influence or effect. Finito!
That would only mean that the cooler atmosphere warms up from the warmer surface, which is NOT the RGHE, and hence not what the debunk of the RGHE is about.
Right…with his special version of heat transfer for radiation, which incidentally isn’t listed anywhere as a caveat to the Laws of Thermodynamics as compared to material transfer…lol. Sorry, but the equations for radiative heat transfer are also part and parcel to the First Law of Thermodynamics and the definition of heat!
Except the Earth enters ice-ages for 100-millennia at a time with breif periods of warmth in between…and except the Earth has been a snowball a few times for millions and millions of years…and except the Earth has been a global tropic a few times for millions and millions of years…etc. Yah, we don’t know why that has happened…but it damned sure isn’t due to the Sun and the effect of the galaxy and the solar environment on the Sun…no way!! God this idiot.
He means by looking at absorption spectra of a hot source of IR light passing through a cool gas. NOT THE GREENHOUSE EFFECT, IDIOT! I have an idea, try measuring your simulacral RGHE in an actual greenhouse! Strangely, it can’t be found there. LULZ
@theoryofthesecondsun
Great comment and question. Yes, all correct.
“Then do the climate modelers really make that mistake?”
The climate modellers then INSERT the mathematics of this false greenhouse effect, derived from flat Earth, into their more complex models even if those models are GCM (global climate/circulation models) and in whether in 2D or 3D, etc. Their false RGHE from flat Earth physics is INSERTED.
In other words, they’re inserting the result they want to see.
And then, the climate models predicted warming which never occurred. Ho hum.
“CO2 traps the surface longwave cooling, ie. solar radiation absorbed and reemitted by the surface of the Earth.”
JP treated this statement as making some sense. I suggest that he was being far too nice [for a change?(^_^)]. My own reaction to the statement is that it makes no sense. How does anything “trap cooling” ? Does this mean “trap the PROCESS of cooling” within some boundary layer of the gaseous atmosphere? – where would such a boundary layer be located? – near the surface? – so we now have cooling near the surface? … that flows into the continuum of cooling in the atmosphere above this “trapped cooling” layer?, which would mean that, by “trapping cooling” near the surface, CO2 is ADDING MORE COOLING to the whole atmosphere.
If cooling is happening somewhere below cooling, then more cooling is happening overall. Where’s the heat? It’s lost in space. [cue theme music]
Nice analysis.
Just picked up another gem from the red herring guy referred to earlier in the thread. This time at someone else. Again he loves his radiative coefficient arguments as well as arguing that because we can measure radiation coming from above that radiation must be added to the energy at the surface.
“The lapse rate is adiabatic, i.e. no heat is being added to the atmosphere. The presence of the greenhouse gases amounts to a scattering layer, and that has the effect of cutting the Earth’s surface emission coefficient in half. The Earth surface is warmed by sunlight and the atmosphere is not. There is a diurnal cycle of temperature that follows the sun. Everybody experiences it. And the down-welling IR from the sky has been observed and measured to be about 300 w/m2. How do you propose to disprove a fact? Don’t be too quick to assert that no one has a handle on the radiative balance of Venus.”
The good thing is I’m not the only layperson fighting back
The presence of the greenhouse gases amounts to a scattering layer, and that has the effect of cutting the Earth’s surface emission coefficient in half./i>
What energy is this scattering layer contributing to the surface? Lower energy, right? So what does the higher-energy surface do with this lower-energy scattered towards it? Doesn’t the higher-energy surface scatter it right back in a way that maintains the energy-density gradient, which does not change? There’s no added energy. This is the mechanism to maintain the energy-density gradient. That gradient doesn’t just happen by magic.
Higher energy is behind the lower energy, pushing it along. The lower energy cannot get through the higher energy to add anything more to the higher energy.
If this needs correction, then fix it.