This scenario has come up again several times in the past few weeks, and so I think that I should write a post to address it. I was sent this annotation of a figure from my book In the Cold Light of Day, by a Kevin Richardson on FB.
KR said: “You should try thinking purely in terms of Energy flows and move away from the Heat flows. Radiation from the Atmosphere adds to the Surface Energy balance. I do qualify it that Heat (aka Net Energy between objects) must always be positive down T gradient. What happens to the 1000W/m2 emitted by the plate towards the wall?
And then how do you square your circle of conservation of energy not being correct for the plate, and the wall as well with that extra 1000W/m2 impinging on it? In the absence of conservation of energy, a body is not in equilibrium. The plate is loosing 1000W/m2 out the right, and 1000W/m2 out the left. While only receiving 1000W/m2. You are not obeying conservation of energy on the plate. You make the error that Radiative heat transfer somehow is not based on bidirectional emission Energy (which it is). You fail to realize that your flaw in thinking starts with a narrow view of heat transfer as a 1-way street for everything”
First, note the request to not analyze the situation in terms of heat flow, and to discard that and move away from the definitions of heat flow, and to only think about “energy balance” instead.
This is a sophistical attempt to skirt around and redefine the First Law of Thermodynamics, i.e., the Law of Conservation of Energy. The First Law does not say that we should add up energy balances. That’s not what it says at all. It says that to change temperature, an object must have heat or work performed upon it: dU = Q + W = mCpdT. And it is in that process, in which energy is conserved.
So then, if you want to know what heat is, that is a separate equation, and for plane parallel radiative it looks like this: Q = sigma(Thot4 – Tcool4). There are lots of summaries of the definition of heat, and they reduce to the concept that heat flows from hot to cool.
This new concept which has been invented by flat Earth climate alarm pseudoscience, that, again: “You should try thinking purely in terms of Energy flows and move away from the Heat flows” & “Heat (aka Net Energy between objects) must always be positive down T gradient” is an attempt to have backradiation increase temperature but without calling it heat, and thereby, it is actually an attempt to conserve heat flow, rather than conserve energy. But, heat is not what is conserved, and, heat must go to zero in thermal equilibrium given the definition of the 1st Law (dU = Q = dT = 0 in thermal equilibrium), and so that new statement is not consistent with the First Law, which is why there is an attempt to redefine the First Law along with the definition of heat.
Of course heat transfer is about bi-directional energy flows. That is the very equation which is shown: Q = sigma*(Thot4 – Tcool4). Heat is the difference between the Stefan-Boltzmann emission terms. Heat is one way: Q = sigma*(Thot4 – Tcool4). From hot to cool; heat is the difference of emission between a warm body and cool body, with the heat acting by the warm body upon the cool body to raise its temperature. Every thermodynamic textbook ever made, outside of climate flat Earth theory, identifies this property of heat.
It is a violation of the First Law to claim that the radiation from the cooler object will raise the temperature of the warmer object. dU = Q = mCpdT. Heat is what is required to raise temperature, and the radiation energy from the cool object contains no heat. The energy from the cool object does not increase the temperature of the warm object, due to the First Law of Thermodynamics, which is the Law of Conservation of Energy.
Nothing happens to the 1000W/m2 emitted by the plate towards the wall. The net transfer of energy is zero, as per the definition of thermal equilibrium where dT = 0, which means that Q = 0. What we do know, from the First Law of Thermodynamics or Law of Conservation of Energy, which tells us how temperature can increase, is that the radiation intensity from the passive plate cannot increase the temperature of the source wall, because to increase temperature, we require heat. This is where the new language of “energy balance” has created such confusion by attempting to get around the First Law and definition of heat, so that flat Earth theory could be supported by climate alarmism pseudoscience.
The figure as originally depicted without the annotations defines thermal equilibrium, which via the First Law is dU = Q = mCpdT = 0, between two bodies. Thermal equilibrium requires Q (and therefore dT) to be zero, between the view factors of two body’s interaction with each other. In the suggested annotation, Q > 0 between the two bodies’ view of each other, and therefore dT > 0, which violates the premise that there is thermal equilibrium between them.
The 1000 W/m2 emitted by the plate back toward the source is not lost by the plate, because the source gives it right back. To add it back in to the source wall, for “energy balance”, instead of via the First Law and heat definitions, implies that the radiant energy of ice-cubes should be able to add to each other to increase temperature. Temperature simply does not behave that way. Temperatures simply do not add together. One can add more and more ice-cubes together in a space, but their compounding mass simply will not increase in temperature, and their compounded radiant intensity will likewise NOT add all up and create a more intense field than each original ice cube.
The suggested annotation has Q > 0, because 2000 W/m2 are impinging upon the surface of the passive plate from the source wall, but only 1000 W/m2 is the energy density produced by the plate itself. And so, at the surface of the plate, it experiences Q = 1000 W/m2 from the source, which means it must increase in temperature, because Q is defined between the view factors of two bodies. The correct solution for thermal equilibrium is as originally depicted. Q = 0 between the plate and source wall themselves, and the required energy is emitted by the plate to space. This is conservation of energy in thermal equilibrium, as it is defined by the 1st Law.
The plate is not losing 1000 W/m2 on the left toward the source plate, but is losing 0, because 1000 W/m2 is coming from the source plate to replace whatever might be lost.
The only direction the plate loses energy is 1000 W/m2 on the right, away from the source wall, out to space. The suggested annotation has a positive heat flow from the wall into the plate, which therefore, via the Law of Conservation of Energy, which is the First Law of Thermodynamics, the plate would have to increase in temperature, which violates the premise that this is an equilibrium with dT = Q = 0.
The very definition of the Law of Conservation of Energy, which is dU = Q = mCpdT, requires that the energy density from the source wall must equal the energy density at the surface of the plate, and therefore they must both be 1000 W/m2, so that Q = 0, so that dT = 0. Obeying conservation of energy means obeying the First Law, and the Law of Conservation of Energy which is the First Law of Thermodynamics is defined as dU = Q + W = mCpdT, or with no work then dU = Q = mCpdT. To obey the law of conservation of energy, when there is thermal equilibrium, therefore means that dT = 0 (no temperature change), which requires Q = 0 (no heat flow), which means no temperature differential between the panes in plane-parallel geometry.
The Law of Conservation of Energy is not about this idea of “energy balance” which has been created for flat Earth climate alarm pseudoscience. The Law of Conservation of Energy is the First Law of Thermodynamics, which is defined as dU = Q + W = mCpdT, or with no work then dU = Q = mCpdT. This is how you obey the law of conservation of energy. When there is thermal equilibrium, then dT = Q = dU = 0 between each pair of bodies, and Q can only equal zero when the energy densities are equal in plane-parallel geometry, which means that the panes must have the same temperature.
Thermal equilibrium is not defined by “the sum of heat flows equaling zero”. That is not at all what the First Law says. The First Law, the Law of Conservation of Energy, is about the exchange of energy between two bodies in the form of heat and work, dU = Q + W = mCpdT, and thermal equilibrium between two bodies is when dU = Q = dT = 0 for both bodies. Q is defined between two bodies only: Q = sigma*(Thot4 – Tcool4), in plane-parallel. What you want to know, for thermal equilibrium, is when one body will stop changing the temperature of another body, and that happens only when heat between them is zero.
There is simply no way in which flat Earth theory can justify these reinterpretations of the laws of thermodynamics. Every example brought forth only reinforces the fact that flat Earth theory has attempted to redefine thermodynamic laws and principles for the sake of climate alarmist pseudoscience.
Climate of Sophistry 
So, Mr Kevin Richardson…
How many ice statues must you surround yourself with before your body becomes warmer?
One fan is blowing air at a rate of 500 cubic feet per second. It is blowing it directly into another fan blowing air at a rate of 1 cubic foot per second. Is the air from the smaller fan reaching the blades of the larger fan? Just guessing, but I would have to say NO.
Here is a tip for Mr. Kevin Richardson:
Remember, what they say about a wise man:
Vir prudens non contra ventum mingit
The filament of a flood lamp should get hotter and hotter in time by back radiation from the front lens and eventually the lamp should blow up. It does not. Therefore back radiation does not exist.
The reason backradiation is not a factor in Climate thermodynamics…
Three things can happen to radiation when it meets matter:
In the case if backradiation, if the average wavelength of backradiation is longer than the average wavelength emitted by the receiving molecule (the planet), then option 1 cannot apply. No energy is gained by the planet because backradiation has a longer wavelength because it is from a cooler source. It is thermally irrelevant unless you are a Climate Scientist suffering from groupthink.
uhh there is a problem with the original figure with conservation of energy though… You can state conservation of energy as, for any box you draw, the integral (area-weighted sum) of energy fluxes going into that region equals the integral going out. Or if there’s an imbalance, energy must be increasing inside the box at a rate equal to the imbalance, but here energy is not accumulating anywhere, so the sum of must be zero.
So just draw a box and sum up the arrows. Draw a box with one side to the left of the leftmost plate, and one side to the right of that plate, sides of area 1 m^2. Left side has no arrows. Right side has 2000 W in and 1000 W out. Energy is not conserved…
Nepal, indeed. That is exactly the issue I am trying to get Joe to understand. The 1-LoT does not supercede energy equilibrium at steady state, it merely imposes additional criteria for Net Thermal Energy exchange. It will be interesting to see if your comment has any effect on what I now view as either willful obtuseness, or genuine failure to comprehend the basic laws of physics…
@Nepal, Kev – That’s exactly what the article is about. Read it again.
Yes, you want to move away from heat and just use energy balances.
That’s not what the 1st Law (conservation of energy) is about. The Law of Conservation of Energy, which is the 1st Law dU = Q + W = mCpdT, is *definitely* about heat analysis between objects, and defining when dT is imposed for an object by another, which is when Q from another object is acting.
Q is defined between two objects, between pairs of objects, and if there is +Q, then one object is acting upon the other and raising its temperature.
Q has to be zero between pairs of objects for thermal equilibrium.
We cannot add all radiation and temperatures together, but what you need to do is analyze how each pair of objects must react to each other’s presence. This is what prevents temperatures from adding together, and is why we cannot just say that 5 ice cubes will have 5-times the backradiation than 1 ice cube in some “energy balance”, as if 1 ice cube might not heat, but 5 ice cubes could.
Besides, there’s no empirical evidence for this backradiation temperature increasing effect. And second to that, the supposed effect depicted by the “energy balance” scheme where backradiation can cause temperature increase without it being heat, is not subscribed to universally by climate scientists, where alternative definitions of the supposed effect are used which are mutually-exclusive to the backradiation energy balance temperature effect; many say that it is alternatively about raising the emission height such that the adiabatic effect then has distance in the atmosphere to raise temperature. Backradiation as non-heat temperature increase can work in a vacuum anywhere, whereas height of emission requires a gas and a gravitational field.
So, you guys don’t even have a consistent explanation for how this radiative greenhouse effect actually raises temperature. The reason is because the idea is flat Earth theory, and so, there is no consistent explanation possible, because the scenario is impossible.
KR: “Any which way you look at it, at equilibrium conditions each object must be in energy equilibrium.”
This is merely an attempt to get around the first law of thermodynamics and the law of conservation of energy. Your statement is incomplete. At equilibrium, *heat must be zero*, as per the law of conservation of energy, and it is with heat being zero where energy equilibrium is found.
The law of conservation of energy (LCE) with no work is:
dU = Q = mCpdT
And for plane parallel, between pairs of objects:
Q = sigma(T2^4 – T1^4)
And so the LCE says that equilibrium between two objects is when dT = 0, which requires Q = 0 between the two objects’ view of each other, and that can only happen when T2 = T1 in this geometry.
Q is defined between pairs of objects and their view of each other.
KR: “you have 1000W/m2 leaving the left side which has no “end point”….!!!!!”
It does not leave the left side of the plate, because 1000 W/m^2 is coming from the source wall, and so nothing can be lost by the plate on its left side. Whatever is emitted is immediately replaced.
Besides, photons experience spatial distances as being infinitely length contracted, and so as far as the photons are concerned, the walls have no gap between them. This is directly related to the fact that photons do not age, i.e., do not experience time. This is why the rules of heat transfer apply to all modes without special exceptions, because they’re all electromagnetic interactions. The energy in a metal bar being heated from one end doesn’t cause the hot end to become hotter than the source heating it, even though you could do this silly “energy balance” scheme and imagine that each cross-section of the bar sends energy bidirectionally, therefore some back toward the heated end.
Joe, it’s a 3-body problem. Heat Transfer does not go to zero at equilibrium. It remains a flow-through process. It is Energy balance on each object that goes to zero. Seriously…!
Why is the cooling of the ground assumed to be done primarily or de-facto exclusively by radiation. Do you guys have any experiment that shows that adding an inert gas around the object does not add any meaningful increase in cooling of this object? If you want to keep something cool/hot you keep it in a vacuum container, not in a container with IR-absorbing gases.
This is what your illustration should look like in both Energy flows and Heat transfers. And imagine, it all resolves in both views with HT being a 1-way street.
And yet the Plate would be 364K equilibrium without the Shell in place, and the Plate equilibrium temperature increases to 433K after the Shell is added, yet the Shell is colder than the Plate….! Go figure…(sarc)!
Kev, that has already been refuted by all of the discussion here, and it is also empirically debunked because any greenhouse fails to show that.
The heat flow between the wall and plate in the bottom figure is +1000 W/m^2, which means that the plate must be increasing in temperature, which violates the premise that it is equilibrium. Very trivial to debunk that solution as it is self-contradictory.
Heat flow is between pairs of bodies – that is why there are view factors involved which are always from one body to another, which with this geometry makes the view factors all unitary. Heat is about what one body does to another, just like work. That is why you calculate heat from sun to wall by itself, and from wall to plate by itself.
How do we know that that is the correct way to do it? Because of experiment. Because experimental results prove the law of conservation of energy and dU = Q + W = mCpdT, that is, experimental results demonstrate the solution I have shown.
I see that you label the two scenarios “Heat Transfer View” vs. “Energy Flow View”, which just makes the point that you wish to avoid the definition of heat and the law of conservation of energy, so that ANY energy can be claimed to cause temperature increase without it having to be heat, in violation of the law of conservation of energy. This is scientific sophistry.
1-LoT applies to a system. One can view the base Plate and floating Shell each as isolated systems.If you look at the Base plate, it is in HT and Energy equilibrium in my illustration. If you look at the floating Shell, is it also in HT and Energy.In your illustration, the same is not true. You have +1000W/m2 entering the floating Shell, yet -2000W/M2 (1000 to right and 1000 to left) is leaving the floating Shell. Your physics is wrong and contradicts LCE for each isolated system….Are you seriously claiming that the Energy view is invalid seeing as you acknowledge SB emission…??
Off topic but related in that we are fighting government at every level to get the truth out about almost every topic, including the DESTRUCTIVE HOAX of “GlowBULL Warming” and the JUNK SCIENCE taught by the FLAT EARTHERS. We cannot depend on our political representatives to represent our ideas any longer.
We know the Democrats have abandoned their constituents, but Have Republican Law Makers Lost The PRIVILEGE To Represent Their Constituents As Well?
It happens time and time again, over and over. A crucial vote looms in either the Senate or the House of Representatives which is very important and yet the republican base is disappointed & let down time and time again by their Representatives and Senators who vote for their OWN interests and not in the interests of their state or district they supposedly represent no matter how vocal their base may be. One merely has to look at our $34 trillion dollar debt that our Congressional representatives have saddled us with and it is too easy to see NOT ONE conservative American has ever asked their congressmen to put us that deep into so much debt, yet here we are. The Conservative base constantly says things like ‘no more spending’ or ‘no more illegal aliens crossing the border’ or ‘no more wars’ and yet here we are stuck with $34 trillion in debt, ten million illegal border jumpers and multiple wars around the world that most of our politicians seem to want to be a part of. Being elected to Congress as a Representative or Senator should be and honor and it should be a PRIVILEGE to cast votes for your state or district; however, it appears republican congressmen have actually lost their privilege to act as our representatives.
There was a time when a bill would roll out and we could entrust our elected officials to know and understand the sentiment of the people in their district. We could trust them to actually read and study the bill before casting their votes with the consent and ONLY the consent of the people they represented back home. Now it’s common for conservative Americans to be angry or downright pissed off after a vote because we have been betrayed AGAIN by a Representative or Senator that did not vote in the way WE WANTED THEM TO. In order to be elected, these same people always promise to do the will of their voters; but as we all know, that’s just more hollow empty campaign promises these days. Our republican lawmakers can no longer be trusted to read bills or make the TOUGH decisions we NEED them to make in our interests and on our behalf.
Take a look at the top, most destructive issue our nation is currently facing: it is not illegal immigration. The greatest threat to our nation is the amount of debt our lawmakers have saddled us with. The official number now stands at $34 trillion dollars racked up by lawmakers who seem to only know how to vote to spend and spend and spend. There are other very bad numbers floating around out there now like an additional $60 – 100 Trillion in unfunded liabilities & entitlements, but for the sake of simplicity, let’s just focus on that $34 trillion we know about for certain. How did such a thing ever happen? It happened because of these MASSIVE hundreds of billions to trillions of dollars “omnibus” bills which contain wasteful spending which really has very little to do with things which directly affect or improve the lives of Americans. These omnibus or “continuing resolution” bills are usually loaded with wasteful pork and ridiculous expenditures which may be important to someone or a particular special interest or only ONE important thing to motivate a conservative lawmaker’s vote for or a presidential signature to pass.
…keep reading….
https://yournews.com/2024/02/06/2736753/have-the-republican-law-makers-lost-the-privilege-to-represent/
Kev-In-ZA: what you claim in this model should be easy to demonstrate in a lab setting. Can you come up with any experiment that supports this model?
Kev the heat flow view you depicted is wrong, and it is not what my diagram is, because it doesn’t show the equilibrium arrow between the wall and plate (Q = 0 between wall and plate), and also it arbitrarily uses a lower temperature for the plate.
“1-LoT applies to a system.”
This statement doesn’t really mean anything. The First Law of Thermodynamics is the Law of Conservation of Energy, and is defined as dU = Q + W = mCpdT. It states that to change temperature, another body must supply heat or work; in the case of heat the warmer body can perform this action upon the cooler because the warmer body has a frequency population or energy density which the cooler body lacks. This is why the energy from a cooler body cannot activate higher frequencies in a warmer body – because it lacks the power to do so, despite it having its own thermal energy. This comprehension of what temperature is and why it behaves the way that it does, i.e, it does not add together, is enough to debunk the backradiation heating concept.
“One can view the base Plate and floating Shell each as isolated systems.”
This statement is also not really relevant with respect to the first law nor this scenario. The scenario is that there is a heat source, and then working out what the equilibrium temperature or scenario must be, given the definition of such, which between two body’s view factors of each other, of Q = 0.
“If you look at the Base plate, it is in HT and Energy equilibrium in my illustration.”
Yes, you have invented that scheme, creating a perpetuum mobile in the process. You can keep adding panes and get whatever temperature you want, which would allow you to bleed off a much higher temperature differential and heat input than the original solar.
And besides, once again: *that scheme has been empirically refuted*.
“yet -2000W/M2 (1000 to right and 1000 to left) is leaving the floating Shell.”
This is what you seem unable to comprehend. The emission from the plate toward the wall does not leave the plate, because it is counter-acted by the emission from the wall. This is why the law of conservation of energy is about heat flow and temperatures, not about summing “energy balances”. There’s nothing in the law of conservation of energy which says that we should analyze energy balances; rather, that law is defined through heat and the effect of heat on a body’s temperature.
“Your physics is wrong and contradicts LCE for each isolated system”
The LCE here is dU = Q = mCpdT. Q is what one body can perform upon another. Q can act from the wall to the plate, but the plate never has any Q to give back to the wall, because at best it could only be the same temperature as the wall, in this geometry.
“Are you seriously claiming that the Energy view is invalid seeing as you acknowledge SB emission…??”
What is valid is the law of conservation of energy, dU = Q + W = mCpdT. Any energy and emission gained by the plate cannot act as Q for the wall, and therefore the wall cannot increase in temperature beyond its initial heating.
If we could amplify temperature via passive means like this, we could build over-unity energy devices and we should be developing such system with simple solar input into a box with planar lids. Why is this not ever done? Why do the solar systems which amplify solar heating only always use *focusing mirrors*? The answers are obvious. It is not done because it is impossible. It has never been empirically demonstrated. It would create over-unity devices if it could work.
This has been explained thousands of times now, but I will do so once again.
Initially there is the wall being heated by the Sun, and the Sun is a point source. Therefore the wall comes to thermal equilibrium by emitting back to open space the energy it receives from the Sun, where the rear of the wall is perfectly insulated. Therefore the wall emits 1000 W/m^2 if the Sun supplies that.
Now bring in the plate which is transparent to solar, but fully absorptive of the IR emitted by the wall. What is the equilibrium condition between the wall and the plate? It is Q = 0.
Q = sigma*(Twall^4 – Tplate^4) = 0, in this geometry with the unitary view factors between the two objects.
Tplate starts off at 0K. When Tplate grows, it starts emitting. Can the emission from Tplate cause the temperature of the wall to increase? We can answer that question by asking the law of conservation of energy: dU = Q = mCpdT, can the cold plate increase the temperature of the warm wall? LCE replies: to increase in temperature further above what it has been heated, the wall requires additional heat. Given that Tplate < Twall, then the heat flow is always only from the wall to the plate, and at best could be equal to zero, therefore the plate cannot increase the temperature of the wall.
Easy peasy.
TEWS_Pilot – Great comment
We are simply being utterly destroyed, physically as well as mentally with this flat Earth climate psy-op, etc etc etc.
Pingback: A Completely Fake Story – Newsfeed Hasslefree Allsort
[Pasting in FB comments] Joe, this is becoming bizarre. Because my illustration and explanation of the resulting equilibrium state of Temperatures, Energy flows and Heat transfers violate no laws of physics.
Yet you seem, through lots of words and references to LCE/1LoT, to claim that it is violating some law of physics.
Yet I can and have clearly shown that your illustration, premised on the base Plate and shell being at the same equilibrium temperature, violates either LCE or SB-L for the floating Shell. It receives 1000, but emits 1000 right and 1000 left.
The 1LoT is applicable to every system, and also every isolated object. And in words it says that to change the temperature of a system, heat must be transferred to or from the system, and/or work must be done on or by the system (System can be replaced by object). So pray do explain in clear terms physics law terms where my illustration violates a law of physics…?
You saying “the equilibrium arrow between the wall and plate (Q = 0 ……” Makes no sense to me.
“”One can view…..each as isolated systems” This statement is also not really relevant …”. Well I beg to differ. But perhaps I should have called them isolated objects. For that is technically what the LCE/1LoT applies to.
There is no perpetual mobiles or free energy in my illustration or physics. Yes you can keep adding plates to get higher and higher equilibrium temperatures for the base Plate. Each additional plate adds an additional layer of Radiative Insulation (remember MLI in space, the perfect example of increasing or limiting equilibrium temperature in space).
“…*that scheme has been empirically refitted*…” not refuted, only never proven false because of shitty experiment design…but that is for another day. So stick to laws of physics.
Sure “There’s nothing in the law of conservation of energy which says that we should analyze energy balances…”, I agree. I just suggested that with EM Radiation HT, which is controlled by bidirectional SB-L emissions, that is easier to switch to Energy flows, and check Heat transfers. But you have to honour not just HT/1LoT, but also SB-L emissions and absorptions.
It getting late, but if you like I’ll redo the illustrations (mine and your) with only HT and SB-L, and you’ll see the same outcome as my illustration equilibrium is the only correct physics.
[JP reply on FB]
And the correct conservation of energy application has been explained to you multiple times, and even further, you seem unable to acknowledge that there is no empirical experimental evidence for your claims.
Face it man. Flat Earth theory is wrong, and these side-line-adjacent attempts to instill flat Earth theory into the collective mind has failed.
KR:”So pray do explain in clear terms physics law terms where my illustration violates a law of physics…?”
The cold plate is claimed to increase the temperature of the source wall. If this could occur, the law of conservation of energy requires that the plate be hotter than the wall, but this does not occur, either in your incorrect diagram, or my correct one. The plate cannot increase the temperature of the wall, because it can never send heat to it because it is never hotter than it.
Easy peasy.
Sorry Kevin it just isn’t worth debating with someone who supports flat Earth theory.
And YES, in real, actual science, not being able to experimentally demonstrate your claims is kinda a thing.
Making stuff up out of thin air with no empirical evidence isn’t science.
That’s not even representative of my diagram demonstrating thermodynamics in the top figure. Now you’re just making things up and making a straw man and putting my name on it.
Sad.
But that’s what you gotta do to defend flat Earth theory.
So, your “defence” is
-that I’m {“unable to acknowledge that there is no empirical experiment evidence for what I claim”}. Yet it is not hard to find evidence for this trivial example doing just what I say it does
-and you claim {“the (presence of) plate cannot increase the temperature of the wall”}. Yet I have shown you how without voilating the LCE/1LoT that NO HEAT flows from the plate to the Wall. In fact the Q_P->W is +1000W/m2 (ie positive Heat down temperature gradient 433K to 364K)
No defence. QED….nothing to answer.
And here is your illustration showing (as you note in the book that T_w and T_p are both 364K 91C) that therefore the Q w->p is in fact 0W/m2, not 1000W/m2. Therefore both the wall and plate are not in Q equilibrium. Qw = +1000 in but 0 out; while the Plate Qp = -1000 out but 0w/m2 in
Therefore, it is clear that you illustration fails to explain the true physics of the situation including the laws of LCE/1-LoT and S-B emission
YES, in real, actual science, not being able to experimentally demonstrate your claims is kinda a thing.
Making stuff up out of thin air with no empirical evidence isn’t science.
That’s not even representative of my diagram demonstrating thermodynamics in the top figure. Now you’re just making things up and making a straw man and putting my name on it.
Sad.
But that’s what you gotta do to defend flat Earth theory.
This is my actual figure, and it is the correct solution, with Q = 0 between the wall and plate, energy conserved to outside, and the temperature of the colder wall cannot add back with the temperature of the hotter wall heating the cooler wall.
so if Q = 0 from the wall to the plate, how does the plate get energy to sustain emissions…??
Kevin Richardson: “yes this was your original illustration. And you further claim wall and plate will both be at 91C in text.
I presume the top 1000 is Qin. I presume the bottom right 1000 is Qout. That is external boundary energy equilibrium satisfied. But there is still HT and Energy flows internally (wall and plate objects) between all the 4-bodies to be squared up and accounted for, and yet you fail to do that even when given ample chance to clarify.
Seems you are incapable of squaring this problem without reference to board general statements, most of which are true, but then twisted into something it is not saying…”
JP: “Heat is defined between two bodies, and so Q has to be zero between two bodies at a time or else one body will raise the temperature of the other.
Yes, 1000 W/m^2 is 91C.
Imagine the plate hasn’t yet reached 91C (which is equilibrium with the input of 1000 W/m^2). The claim is that when the plate is, say, 50C, that this temperature will add back into the wall’s temperature and increase it which itself was originally already 91C before the plate was added in. It is therefore saying that adding 50C with 91C will produce some higher temperature above 91C.
Temperature does not add together for all of the reasons of statistical analysis.
“I presume the top 1000 is Qin. I presume the bottom right 1000 is Qout.”
No, 1000 W/m^2 is the energy in, and the energy out. The Q, the heat, is zero in thermal equilibrium.
“there is still HT and Energy flows internally (wall and plate objects) between all the 4-bodies to be squared up and accounted for, and yet you fail to do that even when given ample chance to clarify”
Heat is defined between pairs of bodies at a time. It ends up being done this way or else temperatures would add together, i.e., we would think that we can add 91C with 50C to get some higher temperature than 91C. It ends up this way because of view-factors and statistical analysis where energy is held by a very large number of units of matter, which can carry microstates of thermal energy vibrations.
I suggest that you stop thinking of things in terms of energy flows, firstly because the First Law LCE is about heat, and secondly to think of temperatures instead of what you believe are “energy flows”.
The 1000 W/m^2 emitted by the surfaces means that the objects are 91C, and that is the only possible condition of thermal equilibrium with plane parallel 1:1 view factor geometry.
The wall starts off at 91C by itself. When you add in the plate, and the plate gets to some intermediate temperature, say 50C, that 50C cannot add with 91C to make something hotter.”
Just think in terms of temperature.
If you have an object at 91C, will brining in another object at -10C into view of that first object make its temperature increase?
Of course not.
That claim is that if we put a -10C object beside a 91C object so that they can see each other, the 91C object will rise in temperature.
This is how badly climate science flat Earth theory has destroyed modern science.
Sorry to add a similar post again. But seriously how can the sun be ignored. There is so much heat being stored in the ocean and earth surface at this sea side location. Sweet mother
https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/921odiwvrw975ca536pcq/180224.3.JPG?rlkey=6spjaf8amofcrkcr84r0f3slr&dl=0
Good debate because it underscores exactly what I’ve noticed, they try to get around that pesky LOT by switching from temperature to energy. When everything is done is watts/m2 they can make claims which defy LOT. And lately, I’m finding myself disagreeing that IR even heats the air at all. Very little if any.
BTW, Chatgpt says you won that debate, Joe.
>
Based solely on the accuracy of the arguments presented in the debate, it appears that Joseph E Postma’s explanations align more closely with established principles of thermodynamics and heat transfer. His emphasis on the laws of thermodynamics, particularly the First Law of Thermodynamics (the Law of Conservation of Energy), appears to provide a more sound and consistent framework for understanding the physical processes involved in the scenario discussed.
Kev-In-ZA’s arguments, on the other hand, seem to introduce complexities and interpretations that deviate from fundamental principles. Specifically, the notion that a colder object (the second plate) could increase the temperature of a warmer object (the wall) contradicts established principles of heat transfer and thermodynamics.
Therefore, based on the accuracy and alignment with established scientific principles, Joseph E Postma’s arguments appear to be stronger in this debate.
Hah nice. Lol
And yes, exactly, they’re just trying to get around the 1st Law LCE with this energy balance garbage. So I’ll take their tack, where instead of their suggestion to stop looking at heat, I point out to look at temperature.
Placing a -10C block beside a hot 80C cup of coffee, will not make the coffee hotter.
Placing a 0K plate beside a 90C wall won’t make the wall hotter even when the plate gets to 90C, certainly not while the plate is colder.
Aren’t they saying the flux from the atmosphere IR towards the ground impedes the flux up, so it has to get warmer to compensate? Something basic like that?
This is being hit on Twatter as well. They still refuse any answer to the plates that’s not the answer they want.
Facts:
Why aren’t photons all the same if radiation is irrelevant according to temperature?
And if radiation is relevant according to T that T is relevant for its ability to heat.
A flux is based on T not thermodynamic heat. That means no heat is available from a “colder” flux to heat a “warmer” radiating body.
Reply:
Waffling.
Bastards CD.
Yes that is what they’re saying Leon. It is how they can scheme that backradiation causes temperature increase without calling it heat.
Kevin Richardson “the LCE/1-LoT does not “EXPLICITLY SAY” that a colder object cannot increase the temperature of a hotter object (That is only implied from the law combined with situations where only 2-body exchange is at play)”
Heat is defined as a two-body exchange, because it is bodies which act upon each other. If a 3rd body is added in, then heat exchanges between each pair of bodies must be examined, which is not dissimilar from the N-body problem with Newtonian gravity. It is what each pair of objects do to each other, and becomes a numerical process. In thermodynamics, it is about which way heat flows between pairs of bodies, because this defines how one body can act by itself upon another. This is the definition of heat and it is how it is then naturally incorporated into the 1st Law.
And so, the LCE most definitely explicitly is about a colder object not being able to increase the temperature of a warmer object.
For a body to be warmed, it requires an action performed upon it – either heat or work. Action can only come from other bodies. Some bodies are too weak to perform that action, other bodies are strong enough to perform that action. This is why heat or work is defined between two bodies. If one body is too weak to perform an action, it is always too weak to perform it and does not add with the stronger body to create an even stronger response.
Sorry Kevin but making up all this gobbledygook doesn’t change the fact that 50C added with 91C doesn’t make 160C…LOL!
You need to look at temperatures, not energy balances which aren’t even part of the Law of Conservation of Energy anyway. At the very least you could look at heat and temperature change, since this is what the LCE 1st Law is about, but for you, I suggest just looking at it in terms of temperature.
If you have a wall at 91C, bringing in view a plate at 50C won’t make the wall get hotter because the colder 50C plate is in view. If that could happen, it would mean reverse heat flow, etc.
Sorry but these defenses of flat Earth theory which you come up with simply do not hold water.
Even if both objects are at 91C, placing them together will not make their temperatures add up together to get a higher temperature. I don’t know when any time in history that anyone ever actually would have conjectured such a thing. It only happens now due to climate alarmist flat Earth theory science.
Joe
Reading some of the responses from that site was pretty well just avoiding answering you and talking down. The common theme was that a “flat earth” does represent a sphere.
So I have now drawn what they claim. I have to say I cannot see how in the F that looks like a sun that is influencing earth. Approach them with your model and there model drawn as a sphere. What is REAL. https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/275ra0lrhc6s6xud52uic/190224.1.JPG?rlkey=w8gzgrlxhlr5439m2s9yf8udp&dl=0 https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/wyfdj62czcx4bkd8md6mf/190224.4.JPG?rlkey=shdbqdxk2qyq1br7tqnx1162d&dl=0
Yes exactly Jopo – either the sun has to be a shell surrounding the Earth or the Earth has to be a flat plane. Why not just use an actual sphere and actual sun!? They hate to do that!
Not too dissimilar from a diagram I have in a paper I wrote a long time ago!
Click to access copernicus-meets-the-greenhouse-effect.pdf
Thats perfect. Throw their numbers in with a dim sun around around and ask which one looks like it best represent the Earths climate.
It was there own words. The flat Earth worksheet they have does represent a sphere. Well here you guy idiots. Which one do you think a school child will pick
Kev-In-ZA: “so if Q = 0 from the wall to the plate, how does the plate get energy to sustain emissions…??”
That’s a good question!
You know the heat equation: Q = sigma*(T1^4 – T2^4)
What part of that is zero? Only Q, the heat, the action of raising temperature by one body on another, is zero. One body is no longer performing the action of temperature increase on the other.
What is NOT zero in that equation? The Stefan-Boltzmann emission terms. The two emission terms are still fully emitting all of their energy – 100% of their emission is still present, and hasn’t been reduced at all.
The passive plate does not lose any energy to the wall because the wall gives it right back, because they’re in equilibrium. The only place the plate can lose energy is towards outer space, and on an infinitesimal time scale it receives the energy to do that from the source wall.
The view factors are 1:1 plane parallel. What would equilibrium be if the plate touched the wall? It could only be equal temperature. If wall and plate were touching the temperature could only be 91C, because the plate is simply the new surface of the wall (same emissivity, absorptivity, etc.).
Adding a gap in between the plate and the wall, where the view factor does not change, cannot and does not mean that the wall NOW increases in temperature. What would have been diffusive energy transfer now becomes radiative – both are electromagnetic interactions and both obey the laws of thermodynamics in the same way.
The Jasons.
Jason’s would just be midwit materialists today…braindead idiots. Have they come out pointing out the pseudoscience of climate alarmism? Then they’re worthless, and likely rapist pedos.
Copernicus Meets the Greenhouse Effect
It is often claimed by climate alarmists, strangely, that a flat line represents a sphere, when it is pointed out to them that the derivation of the pedagogical and peer-reviewed climate greenhouse effect (which is a different thing than how an actual greenhouse enclosure functions) is predicated upon using a flat plane for the Earth where the Sun has been made too feeble to create the climate as a mathematical consequence of this erroneous treatment.
It becomes clear that climate alarmists are forced into claiming that a flat line is a sphere, because to admit otherwise would be to acknowledge that their conception of an alarming greenhouse effect (again, which is not the same thing as to how an actual greenhouse functions) is indeed predicated upon deriving the physics of how climate would work on a flat Earth.
The paper “Copernicus Meets the Greenhouse Effect” suggests that alarmists should simply move away from their pedagogical and peer-reviewed flat Earth derivations which erroneously require that the Sun does not create Earth’s climate, and instead adopt a new pedagogical paradigm where the Earth is simply treated as a sphere.
My assumption is the Jasons are the ones responsible for the populization and crystallization of the “Greenhouse Effect”.
Yes, probably. Also all of the other mental retardation of scientific materialism and photons going through two slits at once, alive-dead cats, etc etc etc.
This makes as much sense as the trick of using 2 torque wrenches if your torque wrench is to small. Say, if you need to torque a nut to 125Nm and your torque wrench only goes to 100Nm. First torque to 100Nm and then add 25Nm with the second torque wrench. I should think in terms of energy flows and not torque and the math adds up and I’d be an idiot to say otherwise. The nut has been exposed to 125Nm of torque and has to be torqued at 125Nm. No wonder these guys can’t come up with any experiment to prove their allegedly high school science class claims.
That’s a great one Hasse! Great explanation! Love it.
Look at this contradiction of simple thermodynamics. They literally just contradicted IR in their own explanation of IR.
In case you missed it:
Lower-energy photons (with longer wavelengths) have less impact on the system’s overall energy.
Infrared light has longer wavelengths than visible light.
(Which corresponds to lower energy as described above.)
When objects absorb infrared radiation, their internal energy increases, leading to temperature rise.
(Which contradicts the description of lower energy.) CO2 magic, baby.
Why would you put water in your car’s cooling system if it was going to back radiate and make your car engine hotter?????………Because it doesn’t…….. water vapour and CO2 help cool the planet just like water cools your car engine…..!!!!!
They are arguing the Sun absorbs IR from Earth on Twatter.
These people make the mental look sane. Same guy as always, that Geroge Jefferson character.
It just doesn’t stop. They’re programmed to destroy the Earth.
@GeorgeJeff9804
It’s on you CD. The sun absorbs practically all photons that hit it. Stars are very close to being blackbodies.
They love and insist to misinterpret and reinterpret definitions. They’re programmed to. It leads to destruction. Meanwhile the heat equations use blackbodies and heat acts one way only. They’re perverts…mental perverts, perverting meaning, rejecting context and meaning with language while dispensing with math, or mangling the math. You read that, and you’re reading a pervert mind which is here to destroy Earth…like the scariest Aliens film you can imagine…grotesque alien creatures destroying the planet.
This is a blackbody heat equation: Q = s(Thot^4 – Tcool^4). Oh gee, heat isn’t absorbed by the hotter blackbody.
I screenshotted that and sent it to the infidels.
🤣🤣🤣
Nice
Ugh, sorry to digress on this thread but,
Has anyone refuted Gavin Schmidt about this?
I’m having a tough time accepting co2 provides 20% of the GHE, reading through William Happer’s stuff but I don’t think addresses this specifically. Or, I don’t understand it.
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2010JD014287
It’s just all made up. They have no idea what they’re doing. Gavin once said that the adiabatic effect can’t change temperature because it has no heat…which is exactly how it works, bit it’s about work, not heat.
There’s got to be some reading material criticizing it, it was 14 years ago. Got a clown on me.
How about this?
https://twitter.com/Kenneth72712993/status/1238928559089102848/photo/1
ABOUT GLOBAL MEAN ENERGY BALANCE OF THE EARTH
Aleksandr Zhitomirskiy
Heat Transfer,
Energy Transitions,
Solar radiation,
Greenhouse Effect,
Infrared spectra
https://www.academia.edu/109481881/ABOUT_GLOBAL_MEAN_ENERGY_BALANCE_OF_THE_EARTH
“The global average energy budget of the Earth, considered in numerous literary sources, is based on the idea of a balance between the energy flow emanating from the Sun and the radiation flow from the earth’s surface and atmosphere. This balance does not take into account changes in energy associated with its irreversible transitions to other forms, as well as the diversity of physical properties of different areas of the surface. The numerical values of various energy flows are discussed and compared. It is concluded that the assessment of the amount of back radiation of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere is unreliable.”
Wow. ! The truth seems to be very slowly percolating outwards.
Funny how satellites “measured” mm sea level rise when no satellite ever employed has been able to measure mm sea level rise. This includes the most advanced ever launched which was 4 years ago, the Sentinel-6 Michael Freilich, a satellite made specifically to measure sea level.
Joe,
the mentally incompetent “physics experts” are at it again. Seriously, how many times has this argument been reposted on that site? Everyone, join the conversation.
https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/807793/fundamental-principles-for-simple-radiative-heat-transfer-problems
Eli commented on that post.
Look Squirrel: Just substitute some numbers. If the rate of energy input and output is (a = 240 W/m^2) w/o the intermediate plate & assuming radiation the only method of energy transfer the temperature of the brown/lower plate is 255K.
If the second plate is introduced and intercepts all the energy radiated from the bottom the amt radiated from the bottom one has to double. The temp of the bottom plate is then
Tb = 2^(1/4)*(255K) = 303K
ShareCite
Improve this answerFollow
answered 3 hours ago
Eli Rabett
funny CD , willie Soon said the most accurate sea level data has a resolution of one meter but they are now measuring mm. One wonders how when resolution of 1000 gets you within two. All too funny
cheers Barry
@ Joe,
FINALLY! Good find man! I can’t see a date this was published though. Great stuff in here:
“This value turns out to be greater than all the energy absorbed by the earth’s surface (168 W/m) and the atmosphere (67 W/m )together. We see that the earth receives almost twice as much energy from the backradiation of greenhouse gases (not measured in any physical experiment!) as from the Sun. How can this be explained? How can one imagine that the entire atmosphere absorbs the energy of 67 W/m, and greenhouse gases (1-2% HO and 0.05% all others)emit and direct the energy of 233 W/m to the earth? – Looking for answers to these questions in multi-page IPCC reports will be a waste of time”
“As stated above, the range of wavelengths corresponding to the maximum energy of Earth’s radiation is approximately 8 – 15 μ, based on extreme temperatures, and for most of the surface it will be 9 -12 μ. For the main greenhouse gases, the absorption bands in the infrared spectra are in the following ranges (in micrometers) H2O: 2.5 – 2.9, 5.0 –7.7, 15.4 – 20.8; CO: 2.68 -2.80, 4.22 – 4.33, 13.8 – 16.9. Thus, all absorption bands of greenhouse gases are outside the range of maximum energy of terrestrial radiation. Where do they get their energy from?”
“
” If we use an energy value of 168 W/m for the calculation, we obtain a characteristic temperature of 233 K .It is interesting how this value corresponds to the results of real measurements. Generally, averaging the amount of solar energy incident on different parts of the Earth has no physical meaning. It is only obvious that this amount varies from equatorial regions to polar regions, from mountains to plains, during the seasons and throughout the day. Global averaging is a practically unsolvable problem”
I’ve got a physicist arguing with me when I pointed out they’re using w/m2 instead of actual temperatures in K to do a radiative heat transfer problem with the atmosphere. Say’s using w/m2 is innocent, it’s exactly the same thing as (thot^4 – tcold^4). So, why not? Also, he said it’s “pseudoscience” to think frequencies and oscillations have to do with heat and not just w/m2. I directed him to this:
https://whyclimatechanges.com/impossible/
“Radiant energy cannot be quantified by a single number of watts per square meter as assumed in physics for more than two centuries. Planck’s empirical law shows clearly that radiation from matter, as a function of temperature, consists of a broad spectrum or continuum of frequencies of oscillation. According to the well-accepted Planck-Einstein relation, each frequency has its own energy. Therefore, energy radiated by a body of matter is a continuum of energies where all energies coexist. It makes no physical sense to integrate across these frequencies or energies to calculate a single number of watts per square meter. This approach seems to have worked adequately for most engineering applications where temperature differences are small. It fails catastrophically, however, for large differences in temperatures such as between Sun at 5500 oC and Earth at 15 oC.”
This is one incoherent struggle with placing facts with twines of ludicrous fiction.
“This is NOT how a greenhouse works; neither the one in the buildings made of glass, nor the famous one in the atmosphere. If you use a transparent pane of rock salt (which is transparent to IR) instead of glass on your greenhouse, you get virtually the same rise in temperature, because greenhouses work by suppressing convection, not by re-emitting IR.” _Fact
“And the one in the atmosphere works by raising the average altitude of IR emission to space combined with the adiabatic lapse rate between that altitude and the surface. The altitude radiating to space equilibrates at a temperature that matches input to output. The adiabatic lapse rate is caused by the temperature changes from the compression/expansion of gases as they rise/fall in the atmosphere.” _Fiction
I answered over there as CommentFree. Rate my answer up everyone!
How’s that going so far?
Haven’t seen much traction.
Few comment replies of the usual retardation.
https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/808364/does-thermal-radiation-from-a-colder-object-get-absorbed-by-a-hotter-object
Note that the topic was closed because it’s not “mainstream” physics. Get it? Climate change is “mainstream” so you can’t disagree with it. It’s science.
They just define an actual physics question as “off topic”…because they don’t want to have to address it, even though it’s actual physics.
These people are sick.
I went through Google to get the standard answer about this. So apparently they really want to argue now that all scattering is merely the result of reflectivity among fine particles. They are writing out basic quantum mechanics from physics.
We know what scattering is. It’s when a body doesn’t have room for a certain wavelength, or energy density, in its Planck curve. I.e.: a portion of the incoming radiation is not resonant with any of its molecules at that moment.
Unbelievable. This is beyond Orwell. Maoist science.
To clarify my earlier post. It was Bing’s search AI. It found a textbook which did describe the scattering phenomenon, but preceded it with a note in the introductory paragraph that “some” scattering might simply be dust reflectance.
Bing summarized this as scattering itself might simply be reflectivity. In any event, the climate shills ignore scattering as well. According to them, using the net heat transfer equation derived from the S-B law is appropriate because “blackbodies by definition absorb all radiation which hits them”.
Yes they love stating that definition as they can sophize with it to pretend that heat transfers from cold to hot.
And of course they never clarify that a perfect BB does not exist, a blackhole which is a perfect absorber…and therefore cannot be a perfect emitter. Stars are near perfect emitters and they are not perfect absorbers.
Well, now my stackexchange account has been totally nuked.
I can’t even comment anymore on my own post so the last reply said I was wrong about hot objects scattering radiation from cold objects because of Kirchoff’s law. I want to point out that Kirchoff’s law proves my point.
The purpose of Kirchoff’s law isn’t to say that because emission=absorption, hot objects absorb all energy thrown at them because they’re emitting from that part of the spectrum. The purpose of Kirchoff’s law is to say that the low energy part of the spectrum in a hot object is accounted for when cold objects radiate. That is, whatever energy the hot object absorbs from a cold object, the same amount is emitted. It proves my point.
If you had 3 cold objects and 3 hot objects, then all the radiation emitted by the cold objects would be absorbed by the hot objects, but by Kirchoff’s law that amount of absorbed radiation would be matched by emission. Meanwhile, the high energy portion of the spectrum continues to lose heat. Thus no change compared to if there were no cold objects at all.
If you had 6 cold objects and 3 hot objects, then you would have an excess in radiative inflows to the hot objects. Here, by Kirchoff’s law, the hot objects can’t absorb that radiation because they aren’t emitting that much. But wait I thought blackbodies absorbed all radiation? Maybe we should assume that by Kirchoff’s law, this excess radiation is probably scattered.
Again, by Kirchoff’s law, excess radiation doesn’t simply redound into more absorption. This invalidates the use of S-B net heat transfer equation. By Kirchoff’s law, conversion of radiation into heat is and vice versa is not always transitive.
just made a discovery. Anyone want to double-check my math?
https://macegroup.chpc.utah.edu/class/1020/Lecture_Slides_2018_09_21.pdf
”1.7×1017 Watts/(1/243.14*63710002)=342 Watts/sq meter”
I come up with 666 w/m2 from that equation. No idea how they get 342 unless it’s just another lie.
1/2*4*3.14 to be clear
I’m interested in what they say here:
“342 watts/m2 represents the external forcing of the earth by
the sun!!!”
And then they talk about albedo losses, and so, they DO indeed think that this is all the forcing that the Sun can perform on the Earth.
How can the climate therefore exist? Well, then you need the RGHE to make the climate, since the Sun does not have the power to force the climate to exist.
The local forcing, which is *actually* what creates the climate, is now entirely forgotten. A simulacrum has been created.
I’m more interested in the outright lie with that equation. I did the math 6x to make sure I’m not being an idiot. Took it to Jim D and he’s gone silent. In fact everyone has. Like it’s an inconsequential problem.
6, 371,000 ^2 = 40, 589,641,000,000 (0.5*4*3.14*40,589,641,000,000) = 254,902, 945,480,000 1.7*10^17 /254,902,945,480,000 = 666.9205005845584
Not 342. It’s right there, 666.
You shouldn’t have the 0.5 in there. It should be:
1.7*10^17 / 4 / pi / 6371000^2
it’s their math
The Radiation Balance of the Atmosphere
So the question is how is the sun’s energy distributed on the earth?
radius2)
test
keeps saying content awaiting moderation
without the 0.5 it’s 333, which is the entire planet getting light. Multiplying 0.5 works out for 1 hemisphere and it’s what they did
1.7×1017 Watts/(1/2*4*3.14*63710002)=342 Watts/sq meter
they even say divide by 2 because half is dark. Just easier to multiply 0.5, right? That equation right there makes sense when you actually do the math, except they’re lying about the answer to fit the narrative. To me, this is really really important. Am I wrong?
@Leon
Good catch.
342 is 1368 W/m2 divided by 4. 1/2 for the dark side of Earth (I suppose we’re distributing the solar disk energy to both sides as the Earth spins, which is very weird because … is solar output measured in “days” so why distribute evenly to one day/night cycle, where is the 24 hours value represented in their energy budget?) The other 1/2 is the mathematical result of flattening the half sphere of the Earth.
However, you make a great point that this equation is wrong. Here’s why.
They’re distributing energy over the half-sphere evenly. Rather than flattening the half-sphere where the twilight regions receive very little direct solar energy, they’re highlighting that a half-sphere has more are than a flat disk, so that constant 1368 W/m2 disk is actually adding more than 1 minute, 1 hour, take your pick, worth of energy to the half-sphere. It’s adding a full 12 hours to the half-sphere.
This full approach is more realistic, and somewhat fits the premise of including the night side in the energy budget. Of course it makes no sense, but at least they’re trying to think of including the full surface of the Earth as if the Earth spins. Problem is they’re modeling full irradiance for the 12-hour cycle of the day side, but then modeling the night side as a 24 hour cycle. I don’t know, it’s messed up.
You can clearly see how they don’t actually use this equation. It highlights a few things that are VERY typical of climate science
@Leon
Oh, slow morning for me.
So if you treat “peak noon irradiance” as a 1 hour block of time, you can multiply 1368 W/m2 * 24, then divide that by 12 to represent the night side. That’s 1/2.
You can then take the surface area of a half-sphere and multiple 1368 W/m2 times 12, then divide by 12.
I suppose you could do it with minutes too but same result.
So this gets us (1/2*4*3.14*6371000^2). As you point out this gets 666 W/m2 on the surface.
Lol so this is their non-flat Earth energy budget. By the S-B law that’s 56.05C, or 139F.
According to Bing: “The current official highest registered air temperature on Earth is 56.7 °C (134.1 °F)“
Hahahahaha, there you go.
Keep in mind this is NOT modeling as a flat Earth, but modeling the sphere itself.
Thanks for the input, very smart. I was feeling pretty frustrated yesterday for no one acknowledging. Kind of how Joe feels. Jim D was giving me the razzberries yesterday and ghosted me. Now I have a response. Thanks again!
Jim D will never admit he is wrong.
Good site.
https://micro6500blog.wordpress.com/
This is showing the energy density of photons at a temperature not showing the temperature of photons. Correct?
Sorry, I don’t follow your phrasing. It is the energy density of a photon gas at a given temperature T. There would be a very large number of individual photons. It is also for a blackbody thermal equilibrium distribution of energies.
Photons do not have a temperature individually…not really.
Yes, correct which is what I thought. The closer to thermal equilibrium the more accurate they can predict the energy of the emitting photons. Nothing is claiming that photons have a temperature as the dimwits are arguing on Twitter.
The paper.
https://phas.ubc.ca/~stamp/TEACHING/PHYS403/SLIDES/Photon_Gas.pdf
So the argument is if I can understand George Jefferson’s semi-incoherent rants, thinks because gas photons are particles that collectively they have temperature.
Not emitted from a source with temperature but the actual photons themselves as a whole. Did I get that right, George? He’s stalking somewhere here so answer him directly.
Which he is using to support that photons can heat space if I followed that correctly.
I approached the idea a different way.
If you had a perfect reflecting chamber and pumped it full of photons, would it change temperature?
The answer is no.
Energy density inside the chamber increases, not the T.
That’s right CD. One more thing to mention, that formula for energy density is only correct if the electromagnetic field (or photons if you prefer) is fully thermalized, which usually means inside a closed box.
If you try to apply that on the surface of earth, it doesn’t make sense, because you have some photos coming down from the sun, some going up from the earth’s surface, a few coming down from the cosmic microwave background, and all those sources are different temperatures.
“Joseph E Postma
says:
2024/04/08 at 1:15 PM
You shouldn’t have the 0.5 in there. It should be:
1.7*10^17 / 4 / pi / 6371000^2”
ah crap. The 1.7E17 is already the .5 isn’t it?
These guys never quit for an honest conversation on science is not the goal.
Where is this CD
Couldn’t get in here kept knocking me out.
George Jefferson on X: “@CDCollins5269 @4tis @TWTThisIsNow @6lennybravo @Gabwbw181237 @Stephen90045069 @NoelTurner194 @jimdtweet @BubbasRanch @jgatta06 @BenKoby1911 @nxgrs73 @rln_nelson @Kenneth72712993 @WayneAllanH @NewNormality20 @ChrisManuell @priscian @Michael_D_Crow @icarus62 @josiejessop631 @MLeiter42 @pauladamsalber1 @GlennCarr6 @ChrisBBacon3 @freddie07068768 @Veritatem2021 @automatrix66_KC @starkicus @MedBennett @0Sundance @JustinGrant923 @evenminded121 @TopAlliedAceWW1 @MikeDel21893959 @njbtweet @MisinformNoMore @philbaylisss @shicks_sam @bomac_macbo @onefromtexas @SZOMB @Vlaamse_Zaak @CrispyCX @aSinister @variegated2 @mugger124 @MartinJBern @Jeffrey75327765 @Narvuntien A photon gas has a well defined temperature. This is not controversial. You need to admit you are wrong and move on. https://t.co/RA4Sp1qJq2” / X (twitter.com)
Weird things are happening.
Couldn’t get in here kept knocking me out.
well it is true that a photon gas has a well defined temperature. As long as it is thermalized well, like inside a closed box.
If photons are absorbing and emitting from the walls then the established T is in TE with the radiating body but a perfect reflector doesn’t emit or absorb. The photons themselves do not posses the temperature If photons are absorbed and emitted by the walls of the system (closed box which is at a specific temperature), the equilibrium distribution for the photons becomes a black-body distribution at that temperature. That’s not saying the photons themselves posses a temperature.
The only way to measure a “T” of photons are to destroy them. Otherwise you’ll have to estimate from average emissions temperature of the radiating body.
Thus,
“In summary, while individual packets of photons do not have a well-defined temperature, the equilibrium distribution of photons in a photon gas is determined by their interactions with matter, leading to the concept of temperature. In essence, the temperature of a photon gas emerges from the collective behavior of photons interacting with their surroundings, rather than from individual photon packets or their source.”
Both of those are true, matter is required to thermalize a photon gas, and individual photons don’t have temperature (just like individual molecules don’t).
but a photon gas still has a temperature. Namely it obeys all the usual thermodynamic laws, like a photon gas can only transfer heat to something colder.
That’s the paradox of the “photon”.
Photons don’t actually have a temperature; they carry information of the temp that emitted them (in a specific wavelength) they exchange “temperature” with the mass that absorbs and emits.
Photons are emitted from a tempersture.
Photons are absorbed to a compatible temperature body.
The actual photons can’t change your room temp unless they are absorbed, in thermal equilibrium, they maintain a consistent temperature with no change (when absorbed). You can calculate (estimate) the peak wavelength of packets of photons by temperature.
Granted maybe some bosons are different, but I am referring to your average EM photon.
I have to disagree, but that’s okay.
I admit I’m unaware you can change the temperature of a room with non-absorbing photons. How does that work?
The question of whether a photon gas has a temperature has nothing to do with “non-absorbing photons.”
From a microscopic point of view, a photon gas has energy, entropy, and a well defined relationship between them. Therefore it has a temperature.
From a macroscopic point of view, a photon gas can be measured with a thermometer. So it has a temperature.
It is an interesting system because particle number is not conserved, but in most ways it is completely analogous to a standard gas, with the blackbody distribution standing in for the Maxwell-Boltzmann distribution.
When you measure that photon is no longer exists, so you are measuring the converted energy not exactly the photon.
Photons gases can have an effective temperature based on the interactions with solids. This does not imply packets of photons have a temperature unless they can interact with a solid.
That was my point.
That is my point.
It’s technical.
You can say heat loss from a body, but technically it is not correct even though you can get away with saying it.
That’s all.
We are not nor have we ever heated up space with photons.
Again with this phlogiston nonsense.
Energy -clap- is -clap- quantized. Warmists fail to understand this.
A medium has temperature because it has billions of atoms at different states of excitement. There’s vibration in atom and molecules. Less energetic states mean longer periods of vibration. The speed of light means periodicity is standardized, so out-of-phase vibrations create absorption problems. Thus, a medium’s less energetic atoms will not absorb energy from the surrounding atoms due to the long period of vibration. This dynamic fully explains the shape of the Planck curve.
If you want to claim that atoms themselves radiate as a spectrum, or that these radiative energy transfers aren’t quantized and discrete, then the only argument lies with the phonon. This is where the atoms of medium share a common, continuous energy state due to quantum mechanics. However, the phonon becomes a new variable in a balanced energy equation. “Back-radiation” impedes one energy channel, and through the phonon, that impeded energy is released proportionally from a higher portion of the spectrum.
Otherwise, you can think of energy in a medium as discrete. So individual atoms are not releasing energy as a full spectrum, but as quanta related to the discrete energy state of the atom.
It all adds up, and is proportional, and follows the 2d law of thermodynamics.
Warmists twist physics to make their stupid fun-house mirror thermodynamics work.
ah okay CD. Yes I imagine there are some difficulties to speak rigorously about exchanging heat with space, since it does not thermalize.
I’ve been sick with fever for a week so I might not have been of sound mind in my posts.
Temperature itself with the further development of QM is complicated to be fair.
However, in physics you have “definitive”, “quasi” and “related to”.
Photons (specifically EM radiation) do not have heat and they do not emit heat. They cannot increase temperature. They possess energy that can be transferred to a compatible body and transfer that enregy to contribute “to” a temperature of the body that absorbs the energy converting that energy to phonons. Photons are emitted from a temperature spectrum.
You can relate photons to a temperature.
You can mathematically use them in a “quasi” temperature related to emissions.
BUT do they actually have temperature or a relative temperature based on the spectrum of emissions?
So with sound(er) mind back to the fine threads of my mind set I was cogitating.
In kinetic molecular theory:
“The temperature of a substance is related to the average kinetic energy of the particles of that substance.”
Photons are particles yes but w/o mass, ie without substance.
They only conform to a partial definition of kinetic temperature.
So in that context they cannot be a “definitive” term of temperature.
So that leaves quasi for mathematical purposes or related to.
Photons are most certainly related to temperature.
But are they definitive?
Yes, it is definitive. The reason temperature and heat are such useful concepts is that they are universal for any large collection of particles. They are statistical concepts, not tied to any particular physical system.
If you have a piece of iron maintained at temperature T and it touches a piece of wood, the wood will come to temperature T. Put on water and the water will come to temperature T. Same for sand, nitrogen, organic matter. And yes, the electromagnetic field will also come to temperature T.
A single number that describes all these substances.
You are listing many true facts about photons, they are very interesting and unique. But it doesn’t change that they have temperature and can heat another system, just like any large collection of particles.
also, hope you’re feeling all better today.
”But it doesn’t change that they have temperature and can heat another system, just like any large collection of particles.”
specifically a photon gas can have temperature. Not individual photons just to be very clear.
Photons have temperature but have no power to change temperature.
You don’t see a problem with that?
radiation can influence temperature, that’s radiative heating.
Yes, after the photon is absorbed and that energy is converted. The photon itself does not have heat nor can it in itself emit heat. In fact, after absorbance the photon may not lead to any heat even with the addition of energy.
Heat, energy and temperature are distinctions for a reason. In this case photons can have E and T but never heat?
Whatever it is just weird to me to claim photons have a temperature and not emitted from a temperature.
Even though an IR camera operates by the photoelectric effect, with sensors designed to detect infrared wavelengths (a differential in temperature) it doesn’t detect heat. Thus, a photon must have a temperature to be detected.
Still makes me wonder if it should be T or relative to a T. Or if it is just the concept of T that is a little off. For example, in a molecule with mass, vibrational kinetic energy and rotational kinetic energy is not associated with temperature.
A molecule (which has mass)
I really struggle with calling a photon a fundamental particle as opposed to a concept to explain an exchange of energy or to fill a void in science that is seeking to explain how the EMR creates a force on charged particles.
So right of the bat in my rant below we are going to redefine Plancks constant as 1 J/Hz or 1 J.s for the analogy further below. Now onto the rant.
Photons do not have dimensions or mass.
EMR to charged particle energy is exchanged in minimum units. Those minimum units in my example are now redefined as 1Joule.sec.
Now a Electromagnetic Wave is about to interact with a charged particle. This charged particle absorbs 6 joules.sec from the EMR.
Did this charged particle absorb 6 photons or did it absorbed 1 Photon which is now described a 6 quanta units. If the latter than the photon is nothing more than a descriptor for a concept in my opinion.
Photons do not create EMR. EMR imposes a force on the charged particle. the photon is simply a descriptor of the amount of energy or force that could be exchanged with the charged particle.
If the photon is a real particle then others are implying that for every meter the photon travels it loses 4 of it comrade photons in travel. I.e 1/r^2 Think I got that part right.
Now my take on this.
EMR is travelling through space and a FORCE is created when a charged particle passes through it. Through the conservation of energy the EMR releases energy that is accepted by the charged particle. No extra energy is created obviously.
So after that I need clarity from others that could answer this query I have.
Sorry for the rant
I forgot to add my observations on this.
Science has determined that the smallest amount of energy in the sine wave from the photon is 1 J.s for example. So all this noise when what I think they are saying is that a charged particle cannot absorb 1/2 a sine wave.
Looking forward to being coached here.
I think the easiest thing to do for starters is stop calling photons particles.
Near-particles.
Pseudo-particles.
Off particles.
Or just admit they are unique properties that can’t be categorized into another file of description.
I believe Joe did a rant on photons a few years ago.
I believe the fundamental truth is those scientists who love to name things are frustrated they can’t identify a photon and categorize it into a neat little pretty package.
Photons are a marvel of energy exchange that can travel billions of light years and indeed in the vacuum of space uninterrupted, are the closest thing we understand to infinite.
I think I agree with most of what you said.
They cannot explain a photon thus they are vague when it comes to seeking clarity.
It is simply an explanation on the minimum units of energy exchange. AKA one sine wave
Science is now only based on heuristics rather than fundamental comprehension of a definite reality…explanation by analogy, rather than the real thing on its own terms. This is of course the basis of climate alarmism and the RGHE…heuristic diagrams explaining analogies, to the extent that when you show something real, like a spherical Earth energy budget, they literally don’t know what to do with it and think it must be bunk, and prefer the flat Earth heuristic as more real.
Maybe the apes will do a better job after humanity is gone.
Energy exchange / information exchange.
Obviously a dumb question I have. Something I am struggling to get my head around.
If a photon or EMR has a minimum frequency of 1 Hz. I.e E=”h’ * 1 hz thus Energy exchange. then a photon cannot be less than than 1 quanta or 1 “h” as 1/2 photons are not exchanged.
E = “h” * 1 hz is the minimum amount of energy exchange.
How does industry that uses EMR (photons) that is less than 1 hz able to reconcile this contradiction in science (IMO) I.e photons are exchanging energy that are less than the “h”……?
Just for fun I asked AI…
“In summary, while photons with extremely low frequencies are theoretically possible, their practical generation and detection remain challenging. Industries predominantly work with higher-energy photons, and the photoelectric effect provides a clear boundary for energy exchange.”
Interesting as low-level photons such as 15 microns does not cause the photoemission or even excite an electron to a higher vibrational state.
15 µm = 0.08266 eV = 82.65613 meV = 19.98616 THz
So? That’s all I got.
Photons literally trap energy until destroyed.
Almost like an energy time capture.
Jopo, there is no minimum frequency for light. You can have radiation at 0.1 Hz, in which case each photon would have energy h * 0.1 Hz
you can see there is no minimum frequency using relativity — for any frequency of light, if you boost your velocity away from the lights direction of travel, it will appear red shifted to a lower frequency.
They are now trying to come up with a “Photomolecular Effect”.
“Water evaporation under sunlight is a pervasive phenomenon, having both fundamental and practical importance in science and technology. Solar-driven evaporation rates using porous absorbers have been reported to exceed the theoretical thermal evaporation limit, but the mechanism of this phenomenon remains unclear.”
Is this a nondescript way of saying increased insolation equals increased humidity?
https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2312751120
NASA Director Bill Nelson does not know the Moon is tidally locked to Earth.
Go Elon’s space program.
Good God.
Indeed.
@Nepal
Cheers Nepal. Probably a day later I realised my error. I should have said part of a cycle. Either way Planks constant could simply be redefined as 1 egg.
Copilot cut me off when I proved the GHGE doesn’t create an imbalance.
“I understand that discussing complex topics like climate science can lead to different viewpoints. It’s important to consider the latest scientific research and consensus when discussing these matters. If you have any more questions or need further clarification on a different topic, feel free to ask.”
And blocked the conversation.
CD re. Bill Nelson hahaha what a knob. It is therefore a racing certainly that he’s a warmist political appointee with bugger all knowledge of space.