I received a great question on the previous YouTube video about the lapse rate which offers an excellent entry into the question as to whether heat can be trapped. It is one of the most common phrases one will encounter in the circular argument scheme for the radiative greenhouse effect, which always appears after the idea that heat can act from cold to hot as “backradiation” is refuted.
The question by pulsar22 was:
“I too do not believe in the AGW hypothesis, but heat can be trapped. Haven’t you heard about the invention of the thermos bottles? They do exist you know.”
This is actually a very good thing to discuss, for it is not heat which is being trapped, but only thermal energy. Here is a simple thought-experiment which will demonstrate that heat is not a substance, not an object, not a material, which can be trapped and transported from one place to another like you would, for example, water.
To make it simple, consider that we have a perfect thermos bottle which does not lose any temperature of its contents at all. Let us say that the contents are a hot coffee, at 65°C, which is definitely warm enough to feel and possibly even to scald your tongue. If the coffee inside the thermos is so hot, then it definitely has heat, right? It seems to be trapping heat. And you can move that thermos around with you all day and the perfect thermos “keeps that heat with it” the whole time. And so, if the thermos contents have that heat, that heat should be able to perform heating wherever you release those contents, right?
However, consider that you put that thermos into an oven at 100°C, and then released the contents there. What would happen then? Would the coffee at 65°C heat the oven up some more? No, it wouldn’t, but what would happen is that the oven would heat up the coffee!
So, what happened to the coffee’s heat? How come the thermos contains heat when the coffee reaches your mouth, but does not have heat when released inside the oven?
This demonstrates that heat is not a substance, and it shows that heat is only something which exists depending upon context of its surroundings. Well, if heat is something which only exists depending upon context, then it cannot possibly be any type of an object then, can it?
This was a problem which took real, legitimate scientists (not what we have passing for academics today, with their support of flat-Earth theory climate science where the Sun cannot create the Earth’s climate) hundreds of years to solve, and is best summarized with the First Law of Thermodynamics: dU = Q + W. dU is change in energy, Q is heat and W is work, and therefore heat must be a special form of work since they appear directly without any conversion constants together in the First Law. And work is an action, which is the induction of movement; it is a verb, which describes something which an object is doing to another object. For heat, it is the action which a hotter body performs upon a cooler body, raising the cooler body’s temperature, and the hot object can do this to the cool object because the hot object has frequency forces which the cooler body does not. Heat is always the difference between the hot object’s thermal energy and the cooler one’s, which can be shown for example as the difference between two Planck Curves:
And so the answer to the title is: No, heat cannot be trapped. And this phrase actually does not even make any sense, and falls fully foul of Gödel’s Incompleteness Theorem: any statement regarding “heat trapping” is an inconsistent sentence, in violation of ontological existence, i.e., not consistent with physics.
Climate of Sophistry 
Thermos bottle works by having a double layered outer layer with vacuum sucked air in between it
The by vacuum reduced amount of air gasses reduce the convective heat loss
Some people vacuum suck the air in between the double glass in the house. So there is less incoming heating in the summer, and less outgoing in the winter
Injecting the double layer with co2 would make the coffee cold quite quick
And that circles back to another mainstream climate science pillar
Since it doesn’t work on short distance it MUST works on long optical distance
Pingback: Can Heat be Trapped? | ajmarciniak
No, of course heat is not trapped in the atmosphere. Radiative energy is not heat until it excites a molecule. Sensible heat is the kinetic energy of of molecules and radiation can excite molecules to increase the kinetic energy which is sensible heat in the context of thermodynamics. The standard atmosphere model of the troposphere is used in meteorology and it does not recognize back radiation. Back radiation is a lie invented by climate activists. If back radiation existed then nothing would work and the universe would cease to exist. It is very easy to debunk back radiation because it did not exist before the Trenberth and Loeb papers were published in 2009. Radiative energy transfer is descibed by quantum mechanics, and sensible heat is a thermodynamic property of classical (macro) physics.
This is a video explaining radiative energy transfer using the ideal of black body radiation using the Stefan-Boltzmann principle. There is no back radiation.
@ mashowski
When a solar panel reaches a certain temperature the absorption and electric output drops
Suggesting a not 1 on 1 relation between absorption an radiating
Secondary point is that the 1 bar pressure zone we live in also has for a substantial part the temperature it has because of weight above it, along with the sun provided heat flow
That suggests again no 1 on 1 relation between “back radiation” and emissivity
Can heat be trapped?
No.
After I discovered those Yeti mugs or similar all other cups seem inferior. I like them because my ice will last longer in my drink.
In a typical ACed house the ice can stay in your drink for twelve hours. Compared to an hour or two with a glass or plastic cup.
Yes those are quite good. But my gosh, how can the heat just dissappear when opened in a hotter environment!? Hehe
Heat= (Hot)-(Cold)
How can you trap a contextual difference?
In common parlance when I say “Heat the engine up” or “Turn up/on the heat” those makes sense with this definition. Raise the temperature of the engine or space relative to its environment. I think.
What about conserve Heat? Conserve the temperature difference between the object and its environment That sounds okay. A blanket conserves your Heat.
But alarmist think you can add energy on top of itself so it gets terrible confused when they try their layman explanations.
All Heat is energy but not all energy is Heat.
At room temperature, a thermos stops heat from leaving hot coffee. In an oven, the thermos stops heat from entering, keeping the coffee (relatively speaking) cold.
By the way I tried to join the Facebook group and the weirdo admin refused to authorize my ability to comment or reply to any of my messages. I know he saw them because he cleared out my “comments waiting for approval”.
Where? Which FB group?
If back radiation were a thing would you not have an ever increasing temp as every time the radiation were returned it would add more heat to the system and return more radiation to the atmosphere and then return more heat to the system. This would seem like an ever increasing closed loop system. What would regulate such a system?
The question to ask anyone who believes backradiation from the atmosphere to the surface actually warms the surface…
How many ice statues do you need to surround yourself with before you start to get warrmer?
Climate Change Debate with Mike Fayette.
Probably because I don’t use a FB account to dox my actual identity, although it’s not like I post anything unseemly with it. Anyway deleted it finally after the latest incident. What’s the point.
All I know is I left 4 comments in your support which were polite and substantive. Guy seems like less than a midwit more of a dunce. Klaus Schwab’s rules on being polite to climate alarmists is his pinned post, as a skeptic.
@justgivemeall
I call radiative heat trapping the fun house universe. You never know, cold radiation might just randomly “stick” and melt you even if you’re out on a cold day.
But you raise a good point, how do they know when the heating stops? The answer is they calibrate their model for 1980 or something like that. Then adjust the past to fit so that 1980 becomes normal. Then, additional CO2 from that point is interpreted to cause warming.
justgivemeall, one wuwt posting had the heat bouncing up and down in a diminishing style…nothing backing it up mind you…and it somehow supported the lower rghe model. No idea is stupid enough to ge left out.
justgivemeall, one wuwt posting had the heat bouncing up and down in a diminishing style…nothing backing it up mind you…and it somehow supported the lower rghe model. No idea is stupid enough to ge left out.
By the way, warmists use Kyoto cherry blossom dates as proof of 20th century warming. Problem is, it’s about a decade and a half early.
Conclusion: it’s the urban heat island effect. Japan post-war urban construction is world historically unprecedented. I bet if you got data on that against cherry blossoms you’d have a pretty good fit. And if you included the unadjusted raw mid-century data when it was cooler, the fit would be poor.
Berkeley Earth tried to debunk UHI as a cause of warming but they actually plugged up UHI against their biased models (which assume rghe) and concluded no correlation. Don’t know how alleged former skeptics think that’s evidence of anything. No, obviously UHI is not causing the modeled exaggerated increases to the non-existent global temperature average.
But UHI really might be causing a substantial increase to raw temperature data sets, inducing a major bias. We had a paper on this recently I think.
Anyway, forget the context, but check the Kyoto cherry blossoms against urbanization and I think you can almost discount a relationship to some “global temperature average” trend. Oops, think this is the wrong forum but relevant so posting anyway.
I use to follow the wx at Tofino on van isle. Thinking that it was little changed since the station was put in the ww2 era. And being on the west coast you have the whole pacific to moderate the wx coming from the west. But a few years ago env. Canada stopped doing any averaging for it and many other remote stations saying they no longer could verify the data. Haha same equipment same computers but now somehow they can’t trust the data. The real problem of coarse was that the remote stations are all over the map and show no trends of any kind other than theones we know of like the cooling from the 40s to the 70s and then a gradual warming. Like all cons if you have to change the facts to fit the theory it’s wrong.
Not sure why it double dipped the video?
Got a new rig and windows has been well, windows.
As for the Keeling Curve, what I learned about it is that they use a single gas primary to calibrate both the Mauna Loa data and 2-3 other locations and the other CO2 places have been shut down.
You keep a sample gas for calibration because the sensors drift. But this level of calibration is only necessary for high precision. And, there no reason to use a single primary for multiple sensors. You can create a new primary when you first calibrate the sensor.
My feeling is they adulterate the gas primary which leads to the oddly linear trend in the Keeling graph.
Just a theory, not sure if it’s true.
CD, I’ve just watched that whole piece. Wallace is clearly very intelligent and seems far less embittered about his treatment than what I would be. He’s very open about what he doesn’t know. The embargo (?) on satellite data below 60°S is interesting. Ta for the link.
Everything that you wanted to know about climate models but were afraid to ask.
Lupo, A. and Kininmonth, W. 2013. Global Climate Models and Their Limitations
H/T Michael Sidiropoulos
(https://files.catbox.moe/wlyxsb.mp4)
The new phenomenon of “turbo cancer”.
https://files.catbox.moe/30j2et.mp4)
You can only use your vehicle every other day.
(https://files.catbox.moe/yjsdxa.mp4)
Water Crisis
(https://files.catbox.moe/0rtt1q.mp4)
(https://files.catbox.moe/vxjeox.mp4)
Last one, EVs.
This is off the scale amazing.
If even remotely true all bets are off.
Randall Carlson Finally Reveals Proof of Ancient Lightning Bolt Technology
Joe,
Am I right in thinking that Carbon12 to Oxygen16 is one of the energy releasing shell burning processes in stellar nucleogenesis?
Might be one of them.
33 Degree Freemason – Manly P. Hall
An engineer’s take on the Egyptian pyramids (Part 1):
Did NASA Physicists CONFIRM The Great Pyramids TRUE Purpose? | Chris Dunn
An engineer’s take on the Egyptian pyramids (Part 2):
New Evidence Links TESLA Technology to The GREAT PYRAMID | Chris Dunn
Radiation only transfers energy when the photon and molecule resonate.
Direct from the Sun the full energy spectrum, although dissipated may be concentrated by a lens into a hot spot burning paper or wood.
Ice also radiates energy, but no lens can use this to burn. The photon can not contain more energy than its source, this being so the Earths re-radiated at night photons are unlikely to interact with CO2 and its very narrow active band width.
These photons can however resonate with water producing our blanket effect warding off frost on cloudy winter nights.
This being so net zero can have no significant effect on climate lowering global temperature.
I would welcome constructive criticism to polish my words used in describing the radiation mechanism.
@brinsleyjenkins
Start with this thought: opacity is frequency dependent.
The opacity of a substance is a measure of its ability to impede the transmission through that substance of a given frequency of electromagnetic radiation.
Thanks for your thought. If it resonates its opaque, energy is transferred to the molecule not transmitted further.
Fair enough and that fits with how I described it.
Unless matter rejects and photons bounce off? A shiny surface mirror, or prism. A perfect example splitting the spectrum by frequency.
I thought in terms of interaction transferring energy or not, with unimpeded travel and reflection was not considered. Are we thinking ionosphere like effect bouncing short waves transmission? I cant see secondary bouncing photons unable to resonate with CO2 warming the Globe though, they must surely escape into space? If it something other than CO2 then net zero still can not help climate?
@brinsleyjenkins
“Unless matter rejects and photons bounce off? ”
Now you addressing the property of reflectance. The whole point of which is that radiant energy undergoing reflection does not interact with the object, except at the momentum level of photon pressure in space vacuum.
“A shiny surface mirror, or prism. A perfect example splitting the spectrum by frequency.”
But the discussion is about individual electromagnetic frequencies because at the molecular level covalent bond flexural vibrations are themselves frequency specific and not polychromatic.
“I thought in terms of interaction transferring energy or not, with unimpeded travel and reflection was not considered. ”
Thermal energy in this context by its nature must be the consequence of the absorption by gaseous matter of electromagnetic energy.
To esoteric without any answers for me. My physics are from the mid 50’s but thanks anyway.
@brinsleyjenkins
Sorry, that was not meant to be baffle gab. None of us are experts in this field (very very few people are).
Np problem Philip, I’m looking for the simpler explanation. Resonance, harmonics, and standing waves I feel comfortable with. The wine glass shattering by playing its natural frequency I understand.
The transistor was still in the lab stages as I did physics on thermionic valves and of course better understanding is sought now. Its net zero I fight as silly, at the ripe old age of 87.
@brinsleyjenkins
I have been trying to get answers to this and there’s a soft dead end in that there seem to be a couple of conceptual approaches to this issue neither of which has ever become the definitive narrative for radiative thermodynamics. One is probability and entropy based, the other treats energy quanta as calorific phlogiston like phenomenon.
I wish someone would just set up a discrete temperature gradient with spectrometers on each side of each gradient, with thermometers, etc. and just settle this once and for all.
My understanding is that while there must be resonance for energy to be absorbed, this pertains more to a counting problem in that high frequency energy is absorbed and shed more frequently, so the opportunities for resonance are greater for high frequency energy. When you look at a mass of molecules as a whole, you get the Planck curve which expresses the distribution of different densities of energy across the mass conceptually similar to a probabilistic function.
Now I’m just speculating, but if you use a combinatoric mindset, then there’s also a conductive flow of energy in a mass, where high-frequency energy times resonantly with low-frequency vibrations, and energy distributes from high to low, however there’s a natural buffer which prevents this too much since the lower frequency cycles have a longer time window than high-energy, so there’s a lot more radiation from high-energy molecules within a single cycle of a low-energy molecular vibration. This means that high-frequency energy has to stack, and that’s why it radiates more rather than distributing into the portion of lower energy molecules in the mass, explaining the shape of the Planck curve. I think the mathematics of the Planck function bear this out.
What this means for entropy is that low-frequency radiation which hits a body will only absorb into the lower-energy portion of a mass’s Planck curve, which is a very small percentage of the total molecules. On top of that, when it does absorb in this way, it just prevents conduction from high energy molecules which keeps them in a higher energy state, hence more radiation.
So the rate of radiation and overall energy state of a mass is dominated and controlled by the high-energy portion of the Planck curve. If everything else I wrote is nonsense, that’s the conclusion I’ve settled on.
Radiation can bounce between the Earth and upper atmosphere 10 times then escape to space in less than a second, so it’s hard to believe any of it is “trapped”.
Anyway, I’ve never seen a single source to explain this mechanic well. Obviously the warmists allow for a clearly wrong interpretation of radiative thermodynamics, and yet they themselves lack a comprehensive theory as well as experimental evidence in spite of promoting their interpretation.
Warmist science is based on modeled data which assumes CO2 radiative heat trapping. This obviously inappropriate scientific methodology gets a pass because they assume that it’s completely settled uncontested science that the greenhouse effect traps heat. So I wish someone would set up a proper experiment and measure radiative thermodynamics directly and settle it.
So here’s the experiment:
A radiative source with variable and controllable wavelength. Pointed at an experimental surface. Measure the wavelength spectrum coming back up from the surface.
Do it where the radiation source is colder than the surface, and measure when the source is hotter than the surface.
Also measure the temperature of the surface conductively.
You should see that while the radiation source is colder, the surface temperature doesn’t change, and that part of the spectrum reflects back.
When the source is hotter, you should see the temperature of the surface increase, and much of the radiation getting absorbed, that is not reflecting back immediately.
This kind of thing.
(https://files.catbox.moe/2j0hhg.jpg)
(https://files.catbox.moe/rehbz3.jpg)
Used this version of the model to red pill someone. Easy version to follow.
Thanks Spro I don’t see cold ever adding energy, I hope its confirmed as I expect.
If that cold to hot was ever cracked we can extract energy from polar regions?? grin
Joe,
Does 16 Gigahertz have any significance in astronomy?
I just watched this youtube
on heat trapping, and how CO2 warms other molecules, re-radiating. Little thought of depleting this energy as it happens though.
All sounds like CO2 is a problem mentioning H bomb like energy warming worries. What is skipped is the observed fact that after the initial 20ppm of CO2 heating diminishes on a log base.
I still think the Sun’s direct resonant photons are depleted, and nothing happens without them.
Not sure. But that’s so interesting regarding the Egyptians. I’ve checked the numbers, and the pyramids encode a bunch of math constants, even the speed of light. Too much coincidence to be coincidence.
You know what’s interesting though – I’ve never seen evidence of the logarithmic constant being encoded.
@Joe,
“You know what’s interesting though – I’ve never seen evidence of the logarithmic constant being encoded.”
Yes that is curious.
I have tuned the input frequency to given an exact value of 18.739mm
The value is f = 15,998,316,772 Hz
Make of that what you will.
Heat flow in modern climate science: The Q in the peak between T1 and T2 is greater than either temperature. How do they get degrees in climate science?
This debate with a flat Earther could be perfectly inverted to become a debate with an academic trying to explain to them that a flat line is a flat Earth model assumption for the Earth. For how much academics rightly hate flat Earth theory, they equally defend flat line for the Earth as pedagogical climate science and physical basis for the radiative greenhouse effect. As I’ve explained: cognitive dissonance has become inculcated as the sensation of knowledge.
I mean you could take one of these academic scientism types and go directly from them trashing flat Earth theory to them defending a flat plane for the Earth for climate science. It’s uncanny.
That is a pretty funny debate if you can stand it.
Yes it’s worth watching for fun.
But I just keep coming back to this is exactly what it’s like when listening to or debating an academic justify flat earth for deriving the radiative greenhouse effect!
Please do a post on Venus it’s been needed for a few years now. You have plenty of reference material out there it’s just the time issue to do it.
Hey guys, while working some stuff out for my arguments, I may have inadvertently debunked myself. Going back to the Q = σ(288^4 – 255^4) to show there’s no heating from the sky, Q = 150w/m2 but if you change 255 to 256 with no additional input, it reduces the heat transfer to 146 W/m2. No one has caught it yet but like chess, I can see their move. “warmer air (back radiation)means less heat heat transfer from the ground, thus this would fit into their narrative that as the air continuously heats, less radiation from the surface, so that’s why the air heats up to compensate w/no additional warming from the sun” My position would be that the 150 corresponds to the avg temp 255 and 150 can’t keep increasing the temp. But, how accurate would that be? They could just maintain that without more ghg, it would stay at 255 but because co2 increases, 255 becomes 256 etc.
Thoughts?
Let me try again.
As an object heats up, less heat transfer occurs until equilibrium and you can simply see this by using Q = σ(288^4 – 255^4) and raising 255+ each time, Q becomes less and less. An alarmist can state that this is exactly what AGW is doing.
There. Succinct.
FYI, I rely on this place to aid me in the right direction when dealing with climate clowns. They say anything and it can be confusing. I patiently await responses.
Thanks.
Ah yes, don’t mind me. 255 can’t increase because that IS the Te based on 1361. So only 288 can increase, but it can’t unless heat is sent from the atmos.
The reason I’m asking this is because they deny any heat is sent from the atmos because they don’t want to “go there”. They say arguing the 2nd is violated is a strawman because that was never their claim.
It’s all so tiring.
Leon,
the sky gets heated everyday first by the Sun (Earth is a sphere) that heat is not enough to warm the surface. Never did the math but to force the surface to be warmer from top down takes an enormous amount of energy.
Thanks for the response CD, but I wasn’t attempting to say the sky heats the earth, I know this is not true. My point was how they deny that’s their claim while making the claim indirectly. And if that’s their claim (indirectly) I would ask them how without raising 288.
No I was just stating that is something they use to slip the rest in.
Ok how about this one?
TSI + downwelling – upwelling
Is this their version of radiative heat transfer?
Basically
I am here:
John Crowley
@jpgcrowley
·
7h
Of course DWIR is an energy flux.
Of course DWIR is not a heat flux.
Joe Public
@Joe_Public2018
·
41m
So which matters more, energy flux or heat flux?
Heat is what’s important, not energy.
PLEASE REST AND RECOVER, WE NEED Stalwarts.
Brin
>
So, I think I may have found Achilles heel with the warmists. I don’t know if anyone has already asked this when debating and it seems to stupidly simple but, ask “what exactly does the RGE heat?” It’s one of those mysterious roads of logic to nowhere. Like the Winchester house in San Jose, CA with all the stairways, doors and passageways to fool ghosts. What is the RGE heating?? They can’t answer. Neat.
Interesting.
As I suspected, he’s going to attempt to say the energy from the ground that warms the air is the RGE. He’s going to say the air just gets warmer than it should be or something to that effect without saying what the RGE is heating directly.
Can’t even keep honest on what is thermodynamic heat.
“Please indicate where I confuse energy with heat; I’m just saying that IR radiation transfers energy from one object to another, causing heat to be generated there.”
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GAb6aV3WsAASC44?format=jpg&name=medium
For clarification for those who need it.
” I’m just saying that IR radiation transfers energy from one object to another.” true statement.
“causing heat to be generated there” false statement, Q is entirely based on the thermodynamic phenomenon that “can” occur from the process of energy exchange.
Internal energy is not heat only in an interaction with other bodies that can increase the temperature can that exchange be called thermodynamic heat.
This was on a thermodynamics test. Weird to state “heat” is taken out of a system when technically “heat” is the process of increasing temperature in the system. So replace heat with energy and it works out.
EXPLANATION:
Q → +ve (when the heat is transferred to the system)
Q → -ve (when the heat is taken out of the system)
W → +ve (when the work is done by the system)
W → -ve (when the work is done on the system)
From the first law of thermodynamics,
⇒ dQ = dU + dW
Since work is done on the system, therefore it will be negative
⇒ dQ = dU – dW
Energy is conserved, according to the first law of thermodynamics. In a closed system, energy in equals energy out. On the other hand, perpetual motion machines are believed to exist by a large proportion of the population. They believe that a system can be more than 100% efficient, the energy output exceeds the energy input. This is not true. The fabricated lie of back radiation is similar to the perpetual motion machine. Back radiation claims that a magic molecule called CO2 can radiate more energy than it can absorb, making it more than 100% efficient. This is the gist of the argument for the greenhouse effect. In reality, the CO2 molecule captures infrared energy emitted from the ground. Some of this energy is converted to heat and convection transmits the heat to the upper atmosphere. Some of the energy is radiated upward and escapes out to space. Energy is conserved. There is no greenhouse effect and CO2 is not a greenhouse gas. Those terms are nonsense. CO2 enables the transfer of heat energy from the surface out to space. Energy in equals energy out and the atmosphere maintains a state of equilibrium. Because of saturation in the band that CO2 absorbs, additional CO2 does not alter the equation.
One of the fundamental principles of quantum mechanics is that energy is radiated from an atom in a higher energy state to another atom in a lower energy state. There are different concepts to explain this behaviour but it has never been disproven. A fellow called De Broglie came up with a pilot wave hypothesis which was further developed by David Bohm. There is a similar idea called the transactional theory of quantum mechanics. Photons are not ballistic objects that fly off willy-nilly. A photon is a quantum of energy that is exhanged between atoms. In our weak little human brains we think that the atoms are communicating with each other. This is what Einstein objected to in the EPR paper. He called it spooky action at a distance. He was wrong. In reality there is a pitcher and a catcher, and the distance between the two is irrelevant. An electron in an excited state will exchange energy with another electron in an atom that is in a lower energy state. The excited electron will drop from to a lower energy orbit and the recieving electron will be elevated into a higher energy orbit in the atom. A good reference for this is Richard Feynman QED, the Strange Theory of Light and Matter.
To sum up, energy is radiated from a high energy state electron to a lower energy state electron. The farcical invention of back radiation was invented to justify the greenhouse hoax. Back radiation is not scientific, it does not exist. There is no greenhouse effect.