Breaking: Climate Science’s Fatal Bungle of Planck Radiation Law
Written by John O'Sullivan
Game-changing new study reveals official government climate science calculations were botched from outset. Decades of “useless” computer model data exposed as “non-physical and misleading.”
Study author is Aussie climate researcher and engineer, Ross McLeod. He writes: “This analysis mathematically disproves the assertion that you can algebraically sum up different radiation fluxes and calculate the resulting temperatures.”
Canadian Astrophysicist, Joseph E. Postma, carefully reviewed the numbers and calls McLeod’s work “one of the most important examinations of the fundamentals in mathematics and physics that has ever been produced by our group, “adding, “Government scientists are caught mangling important laws of Physics.” Both men have spent several years providing climate research with Principia Scientific International.
The ground-breaking analysis set out below, shows how a botched use of Planck’s Law and the Stefan-Boltzmann Equation caused an incorrect algebraic summing up of radiation fluxes that churned out bogus global temperature results.
The Big Question posed here to discredited climate researchers is: Does the sum of two fluxes from the Stefan-Boltzmann Law equate to the Planck curve for the total flux of equivalent temperature?
This question is important because known, standard Physics already proves the following:
- A cold object emits far fewer photons and energy than a hotter one and therefore the possibility of increasing internal energy is zero. Even emissivity cannot overcome this because a cold object does not emit the higher energy photons that a hotter object does. The idea that increasing the number of photons increases the temperature went out with the introduction of quantum physics – it seems to me that if the incident radiation does not supply only more photons but also higher energy photons it cannot increase the temperature.
- Pictet proved the idea of the radiation from a cold object increasing the temperature of a hotter object is nonsense!
In short, experimental proofs trump pseudo-science hypothetical posturing any day!
It is shown by applying Planck’s Radiation Law that a sum of two discrete radiation fluxes does not equal the Planck curve for the temperature of the value of flux from the sum. For example:
P1 (= 239.7W/m2) + P1 (= 239.7W/m2) = 479.4 W/m2 does not equal the Planck curve for σT4 where T = ~303 Kelvin.
The Stefan-Boltzmann equation equates the radiant power emitted to the temperature of the emitting blackbody. However, the Stefan-Boltzmann equation does not describe the spectrum of radiant emissions.
Planck’s Radiation Law equation describes the spectrum of radiant emissions from a blackbody. There is an explicit equality between Planck’s equation and the Stefan-Boltzmann equation that seems to be assumed when fluxes are simply added together in order to produce a new higher temperature, as is done in the radiative greenhouse effect.
Planck’s Blackbody formula for spectral radiance in terms of wavelength in µm is:
Lλ = Wm−2 sr. −1 µm−1.
The procedure used to examine this assertion is to use a spreadsheet program to plot Planck curves for the temperatures corresponding to the value of the radiative flux chosen – in this example the values chosen are 239.7 W/m2 and 479.4 W/m2 .
We use the Stefan-Boltzmann equation to calculate the corresponding blackbody temperatures which are:
1. P1 = 239.7 W/m2 where T1 = 254.98 Kelvin
2. P2 = 479.4 W/m2 where T2 = 303.23 Kelvin
These values are substituted in to Planck’s equation and blackbody curves plotted. That is, plots of curves for P1 (= 239.7W/m2 ,T1 = 254.98 Kelvin), P2 (= 479.4W/m2 , T2 = 303.23 Kelvin) and the algebraic sum of P1 (= 239.7W/m2 ) + P1 (= 239.7W/m2 ) = 479.4W/m2 are plotted.
It is found that the sum P1 (= 239.7W/m2 ) + P1 (= 239.7W/m2 ) = 479.4 W/m2 does not actually equal the Planck radiation curve for the same total flux and temperature.
While the curve produced by this simple algebraic sum does indeed have an area under the curve of 479.4 W/m2 it is not spectrally equivalent to the Planck curve for T = 303.23 K & 479.4 W/m2 .
This is graphic evidence disproving the assertion that an algebraic sum of radiant fluxes is valid for calculating new higher temperatures.
P1 (= 239.7W/m2 ) + P1 (= 239.7W/m2 ) = P2 = 479.4 W/m2 does not equal the Planck curve which gives 479.4 W/m2 total flux.
Summing two identical Planck curves to produce a higher temperature violates Wien’s Displacement Law because the slope of zero on the Planck curve stays at the same frequency for two curves which are simply algebraically summed. Wien’s Law for radiation flux requires that the slope of zero moves to higher frequency.
This invalidates the algebraic manipulations inherent in climate science and its radiative greenhouse effect.
This proves that adding radiant fluxes together is non-physical, i.e., that adding radiant flux together is a false concept. As said elsewhere, the only thing fluxes might do is subtract, and we call that result heat. Definitions in calculus were used to show how one could add two fluxes of identical temperature together.
The result of doing that, however, produced a paradox, because the mathematical sum from calculus did not equate to the physics result for the Planck Radiation Law of identical total flux and temperature, and what is expected from Wien’s Displacement Law. The meaning of the paradox then needs to be understood: What was the wrong process?
First, the Planck curve for the required flux is fundamental.
Second, calculus is fundamental.
However, third, adding fluxes together is not a known process found in radiant transfer textbooks, and only the difference of flux is actually ever discussed and is called heat.
So, although fundamental calculus is obviously correct in and of itself, and Planck’s Radiation Law is also correct for a given T or flux, what is not physically correct is adding two Planck curves together to get higher temperature as this is not a process actually known to physics, because such a thing essentially makes the claim the adding something warm with something cool with produce something warmer than the warm.
That’s the wrong process. Mixing hot and cool produces an intermediary state, not a higher state than hot.