Debate: ‘Greenhouse Gas theory is False’

Written by Pierre Latour & Jack Barrett

UPDATED SEPT 30, 2013: Pierre Latour, Vice Chairman of PSI, recently published his takedown of the so-called greenhouse gas ‘theory.’ An alleged key component of the so-called greenhouse effect (GHE) is the trace atmospheric gas carbon dioxide (0.04%) which has been blamed for causing global warming. But carbon dioxide (CO2) has been shown by PSI researchers to only act as a coolant in earth’s atmosphere. Either PSI members are fools or they will prove to be the instigators of perhaps the most important paradigm shift in science this century.

Latour’s essay triggered a lively response among defenders of the GHE faith unpersuaded of such claims. One such critic is Dr. Jack Barrett. Below we run Barrett’s critique and Latour’s reply. We hope Dr. Barrett and others will continue this lively and open debate, plus readers are also invited to post comments for wider consideration.

Pierre R Latour, PE, PhD Chemical Engineer, CLIFFTENT@hotmail.com, July 4, 2013

Rebuttal September 20, 2013

Barrett: This is not true. 

Latour: Yes it is. Jack Barrett’s claim my article is “Not true” was not supported by his remarks and he actually agreed with much of it (7/22). He attempted to refute my explanations with mere counterclaims, no science anywhere. He did not find a single error. The consequence of his disapproval of intellectual skepticism is glaringly apparent from his adoption of the flawed GHGT, hook, line & sinker.

I wish to provide you with sound scientific and chemical engineering analysis of the faults with the Greenhouse Gas Theory, GHGT, proposed to drive Anthropogenic Global Warming and Climate Change, AGW & CC, especially as it pertains to CO2. I want to arm you for this huge, ongoing debate. I seek and receive no financial support from any government, business or organization; I finance my own work in retirement.

For the life of me I cannot get a solid, consistent grip on the underlying physics supporting the notion first proclaimed by James Hansen, Science, 1981, atmospheric CO2 has any quantitatively verified effect on Earth’s temperature. It is the duty of AGW & CC promoters to provide it, not skeptics like me. So I claim Barak Obama, Harry Reed, Nancy Pelosi and Al Gore have not explained the physics and quantified the effect to my satisfaction.

Barrett: Surely you would not expect political leaders to have the necessary knowledge and understanding to enable them to speak about physics? They are at the mercy of the scientists that do have that knowledge and understanding.

Latour: Yes I would. They talk about it all the time, without knowing what they are talking about. Your statement indicates you concur. Scientists are guilty too. Scientists seeking government research grants are at the mercy of their benefactors.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/09/20/climategate-ii-scientists-pushed-to-hide-data/

Like most politicians with only one wing, on the left, not right side, they make claims and charges with little or no relevant evidence to back it up. In American law courts these are called frivolous claims and dismissed (thrown out). When Progressives’ expensive schemes collapse due to foreseeable engineering consequences, their claim they are unintended consequences rings hollow. After repeating it for 50 years.

While it is not my job as skeptic, I will offer eight objections to their GHG Theory, each of which falsify it. It is their job to prove me wrong. I will present my assertions in simple terms with justifications; I have detailed chemical engineering mathematical analysis verified by experiment to support them.

1. GHGT science is settled, consensus is established, skeptics and deniers are crackpots. Wrong.

Barrett: The basic physics is settled and has been for many years. The modeling efforts are subject to errors and are not settled since they all disagree with each other.

Latour: Not to my satisfaction. The fact that modeling efforts are not settled proves it. Skeptical engineers have higher intellectual and scientific standards because we must apply science that works. You can never build a thermostat adjusting fossil fuel combustion with your GHGT model. Science is never settled permanently, only improved when something better is discovered. If it were settled, why does UN IPCC need to issue assessments and revisions to whole world every five years? Why don’t the GHGT researchers retire? If there is a math model for the physics of GHGT, where is it and why do climate modelers resort to statistical regressions instead? Calling skeptics and deniers “crackpots” is not an intellectual argument, it is name-calling. Sign of weakness. Skepticism is a noble intellectual position.

2. GHGT effect 15C – (-18C) = 33C is wrong.

Barrett: it’s correct, see later.

Latour: Not it isn’t. See http://principia-scientific.org/latest-news/118-correcting-ghg-theory-black-body-assumption-changes-ghe-from-33c-to-nothing.html

3. GHGT says atmosphere acts like a blanket. False.

Barrett: Blankets keep people warm, greenhouse gases keep the Earth warm, but their mechanisms are different.

Latour: Generally agree, but not quite. Blankets reduce the rate of heat transfer to/from surroundings by decreasing heat transfer coefficient. They keep you warm when it is cold and cool when it is hot. So you agree the analogy is invalid. Good. Now provide the GHGT mechanism, convection, conduction or radiation, and quantify how much CO2 keeps Earth warm.

4. CO2 is green plant food.

Barrett: Indeed

Latour: Thank you. We agree again.

5. GHGT neglects the effect of absorbing CO2 on incoming solar irradiance.

Barrett: It does not; the K/T budget shows the atmosphere absorbing 67 W m-2

Latour: I agree the K-T diagram shows what you say. I said CO2 and you said atmosphere. Atmosphere is only 400 ppmv CO2, so they are different. My statement stands. I said if CO2 absorbs incoming and emits in all directions, it would cool the surface. Since you did not take exception, I am glad we agree again. I suspect you do not know the difference between radiation intensity given by S-B Equation and radiant heat transfer from a hot body to cooler surroundings, given by the law of radiant energy transfer. Just because they have same units, w/m2 does not mean they are the same phenomenon. This is a source of your confusion.

6. Kiehl-Trenberth Energy Budget back radiation is false.

Barrett: It’s a very good summary of the flows of energy experienced by the Earth.

Latour: Just because you like it doesn’t make it true. Your comment does not refute mine, so mine stands.

  1. Thermostat adjusting fossil fuel combustion will never work.
  2. Modeling temperature data is worthless.

GHGT science is settled, consensus is established, skeptics and deniers are crackpots. Wrong.Claim is irrelevant to truthfulness of GHGT. Consensus for GHGT is very small, limited to UN IPCC and a few governments. Consensus it is false is stronger. There is nothing wrong with being skeptical or a denier, taught in universities since Athens, 420BC. Appeal to authority was overturned when Francis Bacon inaugurated the Age of Reason in 1600. Just because UN IPCC report editors say so does not make is so, in spite of EPA. They both have a conflict of financial interest. I get to think and speak for myself.

GHGT effect 15C – (-18C) = 33C is wrong. Correct value is 15.0C – 15.0C = 0C. Nothing to it. Hansen, Science, 28Aug1981, incorrectly assumed Earth radiates as a black body with emissivity = 1.0, took satellite readings of its average intensity, 239 w/m2 of surface, and deduced from Boltzmann equation, K = 100(P/5.67e)0.25, it radiates at -18C. K = 100(239/5.67(1.0))0.25 = 254.8K – 273.1 = -18.3C.

While measuring average annual thermal temperature day-night, pole-to-pole is difficult, there is consensus it is about 15C. So Hanson declared the difference, his now famous GHGT effect, GHGTE = 33C, a discrepancy due to his so called greenhouse gases H2O and CO2. While calculating or measuring Earth’s emissivity is difficult, it is certainly < 1, so radiating T > -18C and GHGTE < 33C.

Global Climate Model says emissivity of Earth surface – atmosphere system is about 0.612. If so, corresponding global T for 239 w/m2 average emitted to space would be K = 100(239/5.67*0.612)0.25 = 288.1 – 273.1 = 15.0C. GHGT = 0C. QED.

Barrett: The K/T energy budget has 390 W/m2 emitted by the surface, but only 235 W/m2 reaching space. 235/390 = 0.6 to give what you interpret as emissivity. The emissivity is the factor included in the Stefan-Boltzmann equation to allow for systems that are not perfect blackbodies. Ignoring the emissivity, the S/B equation gives an emission temperature of the Earth as 254 K. That is an approximation, but a reasonable one. Clouds, for instance, have emissivities around 0.98 and they represent 60% or so of the emissions to space.

Latour: This statement is correct. It does not contradict what I have written. Except I do not interpret emissivity that way; I use it as physics taught me.

GHGT says atmosphere acts like a blanket. False. Electric blankets do warm you, nonelectric blankets don’t. Blankets, jackets and clothing reduce the rate of heat transfer between your body and air by reducing heat transfer coefficient. That may make you feel better or worse, depending. The rate of heat transfer by conduction is q = UA(Th – Tc). Wool blanket heat transfer coefficient U < silk U. Confusion arises when GHGT defenders assert a blanket analogy that fails to specify whether q is constant or Th is constant. Human body releases energy of oxidation by IR radiation, thermal conduction/convection and perspiration. Normally Th = 37.0C, held constant by internal thermostat adjusting oxidation rate q, metabolism. So when you put on a blanket, U decreases and so does q. You may feel better if (Th – Tc) is large, but not if it is small or < 0. When that happens you take it off to keep q > 0.

Barrett: Analogies are always subject to criticisms that are transferred to the real phenomenon. It’s a well-known ploy of extreme sceptics. The real explanation of global warming is that an increased concentration of GHGs will make the emission levels higher and the emission of energy to space will be reduced. This means that the system will warm up until radiative balance with space is restored.

Latour: Some analogies are valid, some not. Analytical criticisms distinguish between them. The analogy of radiating atmospheric gases like H2O and CO2 to a greenhouse in the sky is a famous invalid analogy. Calling my critique of an invalid analogy “a well-known ploy of extreme skeptics” does not falsify my critique or validate the analogy; rather it suggests Barrett does not refute my claim.

For atmosphere to empty space U = 0 so q = 0 for any (Th – Tc). The blanket analogy is falsified.

CO2 is green plant food. GHGT does not account for plant photosynthesis chemical reaction, a cooling effect. The reaction consumes solar energy, CO2 and H2O to make O2 and sugar, starch, cellulose, carbohydrates and hydrocarbons. The rate of reaction increases with temperature, humidity and CO2 concentration, published in 1924. Most of it occurs by ocean algae, tropical jungles and Siberian forests. So as CO2 increases, photosynthesis absorption of solar radiation increases, cooling Earth. Biology counts as much as radiation physics.

Barrett: Yes, all that is true, photosynthesis removes CO2 from the atmosphere, but when the vegetation is eaten or rots the CO2 is returned to the atmosphere. See the graph:

graph

These are the seasonal variations, but year-on-year there is the increase due to our fossil fuel burning activity.

Latour: We are in agreement once again. I am well aware of your diagram. Thanks.

Most commercial greenhouses, like Walt Disney World, inject CO2 to promote growth. Denying Earth’s living flora their food, CO2, choking and starving them, is a monstrous crime against them, dependent fauna, humanity, life as we know it and our Mother Earth. It should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law in the World Court, The Hague.

Barrett: True, more CO2 is good for plant growth, but all was well in 1850 when the level was 280 ppmv. Certainly the higher levels of today produce better growth and yields, but there is no possibility of starving the biosphere.

Latour: We are in agreement again. But there is always a possibility of starving the biosphere as any competent environmental scientist knows. Any reduction of [CO2] reduces the rate of photosynthesis reaction, first order chemical kinetics in [CO2], [H2O], sunshine intensity and exponential in T. Which proves Earth’s surface is not a black-body and doesn’t even meet the assumptions of Kirchhoff’s Law. Engineers don’t automatically assume absorptivity = emissivity = 1. Real radiating bodies are not necessarily black. GHGT does not even account for deforestation! You have a habit of stating the obvious and drawing erroneous conclusions.

GHGT neglects the effect of absorbing CO2 on incoming solar irradiance. I see some overlap between CO2 absorption spectrum left side and solar incident spectrum right side at 2.0 and 2.8 micrometers with 28% of CO2 absorbing power. So first 100 ppm does absorb some incoming and emit it back to space. That would divert radiant energy to and from surface, cooling surface a bit. The Earth system emits to space at same rate with slightly higher emissivity due to introduction of CO2, so it must radiate at a lower T. That’s cool. The second 100 ppm would divert less due to Lambert-Beer Law, and cool Earth a lesser amount. The fourth 100 ppm would have a much smaller cooling effect, law of diminishing returns. Determining the effect of CO2 on average absorptivity / emissivity of 100 km thick atmosphere takes some work to quantify those little bits. I am reconciled with nature for now.

Barrett: This is not correct. Some solar radiation is absorbed by the atmosphere, mainly by water vapour and a little by CO2 and it is all taken into account in the understanding of GW.

Latour: Claim without foundation. I wrote about CO2 and you about atmosphere, mainly H2O. Where does K-T diagram and GHGT show change in energy flows, absorptivities, emissivities and temperatures with change in [CO2]?

I think the whole 400 ppm today causes about T4 – T0 = – 0.5C or so. The next 100 ppm, 400 to 500 would cause an additional -0.01C. Always < 0C. Not enough to get excited about. No tipping points. All is calm, all is bright.

Barrett: You can think whatever you choose to do, but even simple models of the climate system give +1°C for the 300-600 ppmv doubling of CO2 and then double it for the water vapour feedback.

Latour: Thank you for allowing me to think. Do you mean simple models are accurate because they are simple? How did “they” arrive at that “double it” for water vapor feedback? Do you harbor any skepticism about that “double it” or just accept UN IPCC assessments as they decline? WSJ reports UN IPCC Assessment Oct 2013 will say doubling 400 to 800 will “probably” cause 1.65C, in 70 years at current rate of [CO2] increase. Your claim does not falsify my statement.

You want a simple explanation for the GHGT effect? There it is. One short paragraph, fits on a bar napkin.

Kiehl-Trenberth Energy Budget back radiation is false.

energy

First it says nothing about CO2.

Barrett: It is an energy flow diagram.

Latour: We agree again. You can tell because it is labeled correctly. It says nothing about CO2, indeed.

More importantly, it depicts the basic mechanism of GHGT; back-radiation energy transfer from cold atmospheric CO2 absorbed by surface, the wide beige down arrow at far right, 333 w/m2. Which I proved should be zero, below. Which feeds the wide surface up arrow 396, which should be 396 – 333 = 63. If you add 17 + 80 = 160 and assume Earth surface accounting for photosynthesis has emissivity = 0.412, you find K = 100(160/5.67*0.412)0.25 = 287.7 – 273.1  = 14.6C in agreement with measurements. Atmosphere alone emissivity is about 0.83 and the surface plus atmosphere combo emissivity is 0.612.

Barrett: The Earth’s emissivity is about 0.92. You have not proved the absence of downward radiation. It can be measured. You seem to have the wrong opinion that the atmosphere – the thermal reservoir – can only radiate upwards.

Latour: How did you determine that 0.92 value? You are correct to say I did not prove the absence of downward radiation; I never claimed that. I did prove the absence of downward radiant energy transfer from cold CO2, absorbed by warmer surface and heating it further. Although a collection of CO2 molecules radiate with intensity in all directions, the heat transfer is indeed asymmetric in the direction of cooler surroundings, not warmer ones. So I do say atmosphere transfers radiant energy to cold space, not warm surface. Elementary physics. You can be forgiven from making this basic semantics error since it is so common among AGW promoters. You can see and measure intensity of down-welling radiation from cold clouds and CO2 above, just as you can see ice, but it does not follow that low intensity incident radiation is absorbed by higher intensity radiation matter heating it further. I note you did not prove the existence of that wide beige 333 w/m2 back-radiation arrow, either.

The GHGT does not follow the rate of radiant energy transfer law used commercially by chemical engineers: Q/σ = ET4 – at4. Heat transfers in only one direction, not simultaneously in two. (John H Perry, Ed, “Chemical Engineer’s Handbook”, Section 6, Hoyt C Hottel, Radiant-heat Transmission, pg 484, eqn (3), McGraw-Hill, 1950.

E = emissivity of radiating surface. Varies with its temperature, roughness and if a metal, degree of oxidation. Large variations are possible in a single material.

a = absorptivity of atmosphere. Depends on factors affecting emissivity and in addition on the quality of the incident radiation, measured by its distribution in the spectrum. One may assign two subscripts to a, the first to indicate the temperature of the receiver and the second that of the incident radiation.)

GHGT invented the back-radiation mechanism unknown to physics, transferring heat from a cold body to a warmer one, warming it further. In Nov 2011 I proved if it did, it would be a perpetual motion machine; just what promoters need to drive global warming in perpetuity. That violates of the Second Law of Thermodynamics quantified by famous engineer Sadi Carnot in 1824. I actually proved for a step change in GHGT back radiation, presumably due to increased CO2, the sequence converges to a new steady-state and a finite amount of energy is created (which is impossible). I actually derived the rate of creation from the physical properties:

Barrett: Utter rubbish! The resultant flows of radiant energy are 40 W m-1 from the surface to space, 350 – 324 = 26 W m-2 from the surface to the atmosphere and 195 W m-2 from the atmosphere to space. All measurable by satellites.

Latour: Ah ha. My suspicion in item 5 is confirmed! You do not know the difference between radiation intensity given by S-B Equation and radiant heat transfer from a hot body to cooler surroundings, given by the law of radiant energy transfer. Your “Utter rubbish” statement is not correct. Your statement just shows you know how to read the K-T diagram I provided.

All? How do satellites measure radiation intensity of surface? Or of surface to atmosphere? Or atmosphere to surface? Do they measure absorptivities, emissivities and temperatures as well? How do they average point properties? What about energy transfer rates? I accept they measure average intensity of whole globe, surface and atmosphere combo, day & night.

Es = (K*F0 + f0)(1 + K)k/(1 – kK).

K is the fraction of radiation from the first bar absorbed by the second colder bar, 0 < K < 1.

k is the fraction of re-radiation from the second bar absorbed by the first hotter bar, 0 <= k < 1.

Starting radiation rates are given: F0 > 0 and f0 => 0.

Since the denominator is 0 < (1 – kK) < 1, it follows that for any K > 0 and k > 0, the numerator term (1 + K)k > 0, and Es > 0.

Es = 0 if and only if the fraction of back-radiation k = 0.

Therefore GHGT is false because back-radiation = 0. This means you must change the famous GHGT K-T Global Energy Flows diagram right side beige arrow down from 333 to zero and up arrow from 396 to 63 w/m2 of Earth surface. Just use correct absorptivity’s and emissivity’s and it all fits known physics and observations.

Barrett: This is wrong. It is true that heat can only transfer from a hot body to a cold body if that is the only thing that is happening, like heat travelling down a metal rod when one end is heated. But, the climate system is complex and energy from cooler parts of the atmosphere can and do reach the surface. As part of the whole system the 2nd law is not violated. The resultant movement of energy is a flow towards the atmosphere and then to space as I would expect, but maybe you think this is wrong. It is an example of energy moving from a heated surface through a cooler atmosphere to a very cold space. In any case, the downward radiation can be measured and when you leave the house you can feel it. On colder days there is less of it and so on.

Latour: You are free to think so, but you didn’t refute my proof and your statement leads readers to conclude you don’t understand it. You might refute my proof by disagreeing with assumptions, finding a math error, or showing my conclusions do not follow from the math. You did none of those things. I understand energy can transfer by at least three mechanisms in complex systems; but never from cold to hot by a single mechanism of physics. Just because the atmosphere is complex does not prove back-radiation exists. I proved GHGT back-radiation does violate SLoT, which is one reason it is invalid. I agree with your “The resultant movement of energy is a flow towards the atmosphere and then to space as I would expect, but maybe you think this is wrong.” I do not think it is wrong. That statement refutes the existence of back-radiation. Thank you. We are in agreement again.

This was done to refute a well-known argument by GHGT partial skeptic, partial defender Dr Roy Spencer, “Yes Virginia, Cooler Objects Can Make Warmer Ones Even Warmer Still”.

Barrett: Your argument fails to refute the back radiation that exists. You seriously believe that a warm body such as the atmosphere only emits radiation upwards and does not emit radiation downwards and you are wrong. Any emitter of radiation emits it independently of where the radiation is directed.

Latour: So you say. Another unsubstantiated claim. I invite you to disprove it. No, I do not believe that and never said I did. Your last sentence is not correct. Radiation is a vector field, it has direction. Go out to feel sunshine and watch a laser light show. Your confusion lies in equating S-B emits with intensity with energy transfers at a rate. Radiant energy transfer rate between bodies does indeed depend on the nature and temperature of the receiver. I certainly do believe energy transfers from surface to atmosphere and from atmosphere to space; not the other way around. Just as I quoted from you above. That is how nature works.

Thermostat adjusting fossil fuel combustion will never work. A thermostat is a temperature controller adjusting energy input to a system, like a house, refrigerator and car. Earth’s atmosphere is a chemical process system. Chemical process control systems engineers like me (PhD, PE in Texas & California) design feedback control systems. Our profession has mathematical criteria for modeling and evaluating dynamic, multivariable control systems to insure measurability, observe-ability, controllability, stability and performance. I proved before Kyoto Protocol was promulgated in 1997 that Earth’s thermostat adjusting fossil fuel combustion was not measurable, not observable and not controllable. It will never work. No matter what NAS, EPA, Congress, President, Supreme Court, UN IPCC or majority of humanity believe. No matter how much money is spent on research. Because I know and can prove it. I can prove area of every circle radius R in the universe is Pi*R*R. Easy.

Barrett: This seems an irrelevant claim.

Latour: Probably because you don’t know what chemical process control systems engineering is and cannot see the valid analogy of a thermostat and fossil fuel combustion curtailment to control Earth’s temperature at some human specified setpoint. You can be forgiven because I have never met an AGW promoter, scientist or politician, who did. Which is why they keep trying to do the impossible, at other’s expense.

BTW no Congressman is licensed to practice control systems engineering, yet they practice controlling American’s lives all the time, incompetently.

Modeling temperature data is worthless. Systems engineers proved long ago one cannot prove or disprove cause and effect from correlated measurements alone. All the discussion about CO2 and T data is utterly irrelevant to the issue does CO2 affect T and if so why and how much? Only science and systems engineering can answer that. UN IPCC statistical models have no predictive power for this reason. If I said all the data since 1492 says every rooster always crows 3.14159 minutes before sunrise appears, without explaining the underlying physical mechanism, you may accept correlation but must reject the conclusion roosters cause sunrises because you know they are not the cause, for sure.

Barrett: Modeling is carried out for most processes and there is no other way of trying to understand the climate system.

Latour: We agree again. But engineering modeling of chemical process systems is a combination of science and art. The rigorous equations of mass, heat and momentum transfer are well known physics but mathematically and computationally intractable. They incorporate physical properties difficult to measure. So some simplification and empiricism is always needed, depending on the purpose of the model.

While this essay may seem long and complicated, it proves beyond any reasonable doubt with eight smoking guns, GHGT is false, AGW and CC fears are unfounded and the whole issue is a monumental fraudulent hoax for power and money. Harvard Law School would call this an indictment, trial and conviction. My brief essay is nothing compared to 2009 Waxman-Markey CO2 Cap & Trade Bill or Obamacare Law.

Barrett: You have proved that you have little understanding of the basic physics of climate change and your article is just ranting and that will get you nowhere.

Latour: Pretty presumptuous conclusion since I did not write my complete understanding of the basic physics of climate change in this little essay. It is incorrect and unfair on its face. I do not know what you mean by “just ranting and that will get you nowhere”. I am not going anywhere except to learn and teach. It is a nonsensical statement. Whatever it men it is not a very compelling argument for your position. You showed you have little understanding of the basic physics of climate change and radiant heat transfer. Your review contains no additional science. It did sharpen my debating skills though.

If you can invest an hour with this essay you can join Sen. James Inhofe (R-OK) running rings around CO2 deniers. Just ask Rep Shelia Jackson Lee (D-TX), Rep Chris Van Hollan (D-MD), Rep Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), Sen Barbara Boxer (D-CA), Sen John Markey (D-MA) or POTUS to refute it.

Total comments    22
Agree                        7
Disagree                 13
No disagreement    2

Tags: , , , , ,

Comments (212)

  • Avatar

    CW

    |

    I went to a website describing the student’s reactions and critique of professors that teach where Joel Shore is a professor—the general consensus regarding learning physics was to NOT enroll in a class by Joel Shore. Kind of a funny addition to the discussions above.

  • Avatar

    Joel Shore

    |

    The whole distraction that Joe Postma has created by refusing to accept basic mathematical principles like dividing both sides of an equation by the same number has successfully diverted attention away from this central fact: Pierre Latour’s own source clearly calculates the heat transport as the difference of two terms, one being radiation from the hotter body absorbed by the cooler and the other being radiation from the cooler body absorbed by the warmer.

    Hence, the book by Bird et al. agrees with all physics textbooks that I have ever seen and all other reputable sources in understanding the heat transfer to consist of these two contributions. Boy, isn’t that a surprise!

    Thus, the basic claims of the Slayers are doubley-undermined:

    (1) They are wrong about back-radiation.

    (2) Even independent of this fact, the S-B Equation alone is enough to give you the greenhouse effect, whether you follow every reputable scientific source in interpreting the second term in the equation as radiative energy going from the cooler surroundings to the warmer object or whether you don’t.

    • Avatar

      JP

      |

      That’s very cute Mr. Shore but the issue isn’t one of merely dividing both sides of an equation by the same number. The issue is one of conservation of energy and physics which you violate in your confused attempt to conserve “power”, by which you actually mean flux, which is a physically and therefore mathematically invalid operation. That you do not understand this exposes you as a 1) sophist 2) incompetent.

      Heat transport being a difference of two terms DOES NOT mean that the cold side heats the hot side. That is the most unscientific, anti-mathematical, and pseudoscientific claim that could ever be made about heat flow and the equations which describe it. The equations mean, and the reality is, that the hot side heats the cool side. It is this abuse of physics, with your confusion between power and flux, confusion over how to conserve energy, etc., that makes climate science and alarm such a laughable joke. haha

      Radiation from a cold source does not heat a hotter source, and a hotter source heating a colder source doesn’t require the hotter source to become hotter still. This is basic thermodynamics and conservation of energy. The S-B equation is NOT the greenhouse effect, and the S-B equation does NOT say that cold heats up hot or that hot has to become hotter to heat cold.

      This is not a serious discussion, and you are only trying to convince yourself. No legitimate scientist says that cold heats hot, or that hot has to become hotter to heat cold. This is pseudoscience that only exists among your tiny minority of climate alarm supporters.

      • Avatar

        Joel Shore

        |

        [quote name=”JP”]
        Heat transport being a difference of two terms DOES NOT mean that the cold side heats the hot side.[/quote]

        [quote]
        The equations mean, and the reality is, that the hot side heats the cool side.[/quote]

        [quote]
        Radiation from a cold source does not heat a hotter source,[/quote]

        [quote]and the S-B equation does NOT say that cold heats up hot…[/quote]

        [quote]No legitimate scientist says that cold heats hot…[/quote]

        Wow, repeating a strawman five times in one post…Are you going for a new record?

        We don’t claim that cold heats hot any more than adding insulation to your house heats your house up. The furnace heats your house up, but it can heat it up to a higher steady-state temperature if it is well-insulated than if it isn’t.

        Really, Joe, physics is not that hard to understand…Andy, frankly, I think you do understand it, but go ahead and continue in your role as a defense lawyer raising irrelevant arguments to try to sway the jury. (I am sure you are rationalizing it with a belief that your client isn’t guilty anyway, which somehow excuses your behavior.)

        [quote]This is pseudoscience that only exists among your tiny minority of climate alarm supporters.[/quote]

        Then you ought to be just bowling us over with quotes from introductory physics textbooks that disprove the greenhouse effect or that say that the second term in the S-B equation doesn’t represent radiation from colder surroundings that is absorbed by a warmer object. I’ve provided plenty of quotes from physics textbooks to support the greenhouse effect and to support the S-B Equation.

        I guess this tiny minority just happens to include every physics textbook writer.

        Of course, you will never provide us with such evidence because you can’t. (What you will do is argue a strawman by providing quotes regarding the 2nd Law, which no one is disputing…You’ll just pretend that the 2nd Law says what you say it says and not what every reputable physicist around says it says.)

        • Avatar

          JP

          |

          Radiation from colder surroundings do not heat up a warmer source.

          To quote you:

          “the second term in the S-B equation [] represent[s] radiation from colder surroundings that is absorbed by a warmer object”

          So, you ARE saying that the colder object causes the hotter source to heat up. I am quoting you. Quoting you isn’t a straw man. You are a funny sophist. With no credibility. Joel it is not like this is a serious debate…I don’t take you seriously at all. This is just for data-collection purposes to see the kind of silliness you people can come up with.

          CO2 is not insulation. Insulation does not make the heat source hotter. This is important if you understand the difference between flux input, and energy conservation.

          No textbook says that heat transfer between two objects is the greenhouse effect. No textbook says that. No textbook says that the cool side of the heat transfer makes, via some reason, the hot side get hotter.

          The evidence is that the Earth is round not flat, that the Sun is hot not cold, that we have experimental data looking for the greenhouse effect which wasn’t found, that we have real heat flow differential equations which demonstrate there is no greenhouse effect and that no heat-flow equation between a hot and cold source implies that the hot side gets hotter while heating the cool side, etc. This is about evidence to eventually convict the scientific sophists who used the language of science to lie. Good luck!

        • Avatar

          Greg House

          |

          [quote name=”Joel Shore”]We don’t claim that cold heats hot any more than adding insulation to your house heats your house up.[/quote]

          Insulation has nothing to do with the process of heating, therefore it is wrong to say that insulation heats anything up. Insulation can contribute to cooling as well. This is stuff everyone knows from the practical life, so please stop fooling the readers with “insulation”.

          • Avatar

            Joel Shore

            |

            Okay, Greg, so insulation doesn’t heat anything up…and, yet, I think you agree that your house can be warmed by the furnace to a higher steady-state temperature with good insulation than with poor insulation.

            So, let’s apply that logic to the greenhouse effect…Our planet is not warmed by the atmosphere but it can be warmed by the sun to a higher steady-state temperature with good (radiative) insulation [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multi-layer_insulation] than without it.

            [quote]
            Insulation can contribute to cooling as well.[/quote]

            Are you suggesting that a better analogy to the sun is an air conditioner rather than a furnace? Or, are you just throwing in irrelevant comments?

          • Avatar

            JP

            |

            Insulation doesn’t make the furnace hotter. Radiative insulation can’t make an input flux of 240 W/m^2 hotter. QED.

          • Avatar

            Joel Shore

            |

            I didn’t know that 240 W/m^2 had a temperature. Care to provide credible references (no…net your own blog) for this?

          • Avatar

            JP

            |

            Let it be known from henceforth that Joel Shore is unaware of the application of the Stefan-Boltzmann equation to thermal physics.

          • Avatar

            Joel Shore

            |

            Joe,

            I am quite aware of applying the Stefan-Boltzmann Equation, thank you. However, unlike you, I am also able to apply it in cases where the second term in the equation is not 0.

          • Avatar

            JP

            |

            Joel, you were previously unaware that the Stefan-Boltzmann equation could be used for determining temperatures. Now you say you are aware. You have ZERO credibility, lol.

            When the “second term” is not zero, this does not mean that the hotter source gets hotter because of the cold source, lol.

            So, you admit you do and do not know the S-B Equation, and in the case where you pretend to know it, you don’t know how to use it.

            Thanks so much for contributing…this is a great record for GHE sophistry.

          • Avatar

            Joel Shore

            |

            [quote name=”JP”]Joel, you were previously unaware that the Stefan-Boltzmann equation could be used for determining temperatures. Now you say you are aware. You have ZERO credibility, lol.
            [/quote]

            No, Joe. You said, “Radiative insulation can’t make an input flux of 240 W/m^2 hotter”. The input flux of 240 W/m^2 does not have a temperature.

            Let me explain how a physicist would solve this problem correctly. Listen and learn: You have 240 W/m^2 coming in. At steady-state, you would then need to have 240 W/m^2 leaving the Earth. However, the radiative flux leaving the Earth depends both on the temperature of the Earth and the temperature of the surroundings because both of those appear in the S-B Equation. You can’t just assume the temperature of the surroundings is zero and solve for the temperature of the Earth. The temperature of the Earth will depend on the temperature of the surroundings.

          • Avatar

            JP

            |

            Joel, you said, just right above, that you weren’t clear how 240 W/m^2 can be represented as a temperature.

            Joel Shore: “I didn’t know that 240 W/m^2 had a temperature.”

            I mean, LOL. You are obviously not a physicist.

            There is no temperature surrounding the Earth, other than the cosmic background. The temperature of the Earth is -18C as an effective blackbody temperature. The input and output to the Earth are equal. The atmosphere is heated by the surface, and a cold gas can’t increase the temperature of its source of heat. It still isn’t clear if you do or do not know about the S-B Equation.

          • Avatar

            Greg House

            |

            [quote name=”Joel Shore”]Okay, Greg, so insulation doesn’t heat anything up…[/quote]

            So, why did you lie then on this thread 30 minutes ago claiming/implying the opposite: [i]”We don’t claim that cold heats hot any more than adding insulation to your house heats your house up”[/i]?

            I’d like to know you motive.

          • Avatar

            Joel Shore

            |

            Sorry that my sentence construction was too complicated for you. Let me break it down for you:

            Saying that the colder atmosphere heats the warmer Earth is analogous to saying that the colder insulation heats the warmer house. Is it true? Well, at best it is a somewhat strange use of terminology. But, ultimately, you would have to define what you mean by the word “heats” (which has an generally-accepted technical scientific meaning as a noun but not as a verb).

            I think it would be a better use of terminology to say what I said: that the furnace heats the house to a higher steady-state temperature with the insulation present than without it.

          • Avatar

            JP

            |

            Insulation doesn’t cause the source, the furnace, to become hotter. That you avoid claiming that it does directly defeats your claims about cold causing hot (the source) to become hotter. Thanks for playing.

          • Avatar

            Greg House

            |

            [quote name=”Joel Shore”]Sorry that my sentence construction was too complicated for you.[/quote]

            Come on, you have been caught saying 2 opposite things about insulation.

            I would like to know why you lied, just tell me that.

          • Avatar

            Joel Shore

            |

            And, of course, the main point is that whatever terminology you want to use does not change the scientifically-measureable result that your house will be at a higher steady-state temperature with the insulation present than with it absent. (Assuming the same output from the furnace in both cases, of course. Obviously, if you have the thermostat set a particular temperature attainable in both cases, then the end result is that the furnace will just run less. Alas, we can’t ask the sun to just run a little less.)

          • Avatar

            JP

            |

            Insulation does not make the furnace hotter. QED. Thus there is no GHE, and its premises are pseudoscience.

          • Avatar

            Joel Shore

            |

            In our analogy, the furnace = the sun, the house = the Earth, and the insulation = the radiatively-active atmosphere.

            If you want to surround the furnace itself by insulation, then we could talk about that case.

            By the way, you can’t just assert things as fact and then say “QED”. It makes you look silly.

          • Avatar

            JP

            |

            Your analogy is confused and physically meaningless. In reality, the furnace for the atmosphere is the surface, and the furnace for the surface is the sunshine. The atmosphere simply holds heat according to its temperature, and as we know there is no additional heating above either of the furnace forcings; insulation doesn’t heat up a furnace. QED.

        • Avatar

          Greg House

          |

          [quote name=”Joel Shore”]I’ve provided plenty of quotes from physics textbooks to support the greenhouse effect and to support the S-B Equation.[/quote]

          The equation you refer to does not imply any “greenhouse effect”, and please, re-read my comment about “back shitting”. Your quotes from textbooks did not contain any mention of the “greenhouse effect”, so here you are lying again.

          “Greenhouse effect” as presented by the IPCC, which is “warming the source by back radiation”, is absolutely impossible physically, see my explanation and links to calculations above.

          • Avatar

            JP

            |

            That’s really all they have to do, isn’t it Greg…is just lie outright.

          • Avatar

            Joel Shore

            |

            [quote name=”Greg House”]
            “Greenhouse effect” as presented by the IPCC, which is “warming the source by back radiation”, is absolutely impossible physically, see my explanation and links to calculations above.[/quote]

            Really? So, the IPCC claims the Earth would warm from the greenhouse effect even if the sun disappeared? I assume you can point out where they say that?

          • Avatar

            Greg House

            |

            Please stop lying by attributing a statement to me I did not make, thank you.

          • Avatar

            Joel Shore

            |

            Okay, then define for me precisely what you mean by “warming the source by back radiation” if by that you do not mean that the IPCC claims that in the absence of the sun, the Earth would warm because of back-radiation. You are the one who claimed the IPCC said this, so please tell me precisely what they said that you interpreted in this way.

          • Avatar

            JP

            |

            Warming the source by backradiation is YOUR greenhouse sophistry, Joel. YOU define it. If you have a problem with it, take it up with other people who believe in the GHE. It is not for Greg to define for you…since it is YOUR pseudoscientific term. Nice that you’re denying it now, thanks to the education you’ve received from the Slayers and people like Greg 🙂

          • Avatar

            Joel Shore

            |

            No..Greg is the one who made this claim. What we claim is that the sun warms the Earth to a higher temperature int the presence of back-radiation from the atmosphere than in its absence.

          • Avatar

            JP

            |

            The Sun only heats the surface to the flux level of its real-time input, as we proved with observational data and basic theory, and there is no additional heating above that. There is no evidence of higher heating than the direct solar input. You know, your friend Tim Folkerts doesn’t seem to believe in backradiation any more…lol. Backradiation is radiation from a colder source, or even if from an identical-temperature source, hence can’t heat the source some more. Your claim has no logic nor any observational evidence to support it.

          • Avatar

            Don Tonaronton

            |

            [quote name=”Joel Shore”]Okay, then define for me precisely what you mean by “warming the source by back radiation” if by that you do not mean that the IPCC claims that in the absence of the sun, the Earth would warm because of back-radiation. You are the one who claimed the IPCC said this, so please tell me precisely what they said that you interpreted in this way.[/quote]

            The IPCC claims warming by “back radiation”.
            This implies nothing, because it is a deliberate lie, non-physical, an illusion. No object that has heat transfered to it spontaniously from a higher temperature “source” by any means, can spontaniously return that any of that heat to the source by any means. such would be a violation of 2LTD.

          • Avatar

            JP

            |

            Indeed!

            “No object that has heat transfered to it spontaniously from a higher temperature “source” by any means, can spontaniously return that any of that heat to the source by any means. such would be a violation of 2LTD.”

            Hence why they try to obfuscate their way around that fact.

            And so, nor does the heat energy from a source make itself a higher temperature when heating up a cooler object, as this would also be a violation of 2LTD.

    • Avatar

      Greg House

      |

      [quote name=”Joel Shore”]Even independent of this fact, the S-B Equation alone is enough to give you the greenhouse effect, whether you follow every reputable scientific source in interpreting the second term in the equation as radiative energy going from the cooler surroundings to the warmer object or whether you don’t.[/quote]

      We have been through this “second term” hoax already. No heating coming from cold to hot is possible, because it is equal to production of energy out of nothing, see my explanation above.

      The equation in question might have the mathematical appearance that can mislead, right, but no real arming effect of cold on hot can be expressed by this second term, for purely physical reasons. I think my “back shitting” example is clear enough even for the most stupid climate professor, so come on, we are done with that. Make up something else for a change, will you.

      • Avatar

        Joel Shore

        |

        So, Greg, are you saying that the Bird et al. book on transport that Latour felt was a credible source is wrong? Are you saying that every physics textbook that I have ever seen is wrong?

        Show us any direct support you can find for your point of view from ANY CREDIBLE source.

        • Avatar

          JP

          |

          No textbook says that the standard heat flow equation is the greenhouse effect. This is just a plain lie. No textbook says that the cool term causes the hotter term to get hotter. That you interpret the textbook that way is only your own subjective interpretation not supported by observation, evidence, or the textbook theory itself. Cold doesn’t make the source hotter.

          • Avatar

            Joel Shore

            |

            Again, Joel, you are creating strawman arguments. Of course, the cooler object doesn’t heat the warmer object (at least in a reasonable sense of the term). The sun heats the Earth. Just like the insulation doesn’t heat your house; the furnace heats the house.

            Here’s a statement from the 12th edition of Young and Freedman, “University Physics”: “While a body at absolute temperature T is radiating, its surroundings at temperature T_s are also radiating, and the body absorbs some of this radiation.”

            Do you agree or disagree with this statement?

          • Avatar

            Shooter

            |

            Last time I checked, there weren’t any strawmans here, unless you want the actual definition of what a strawman is. Matter of fact, it’s a strawman to call a strawman a strawman, unless you’re willing to point out what’s a strawman.

          • Avatar

            Joel Shore

            |

            The strawman is claiming that we are arguing that the colder atmosphere “heats” the warmer Earth when what we are actually saying is that the greenhouse gases in the atmosphere allow the sun to heat the Earth to a higher steady-state temperature than is possible if the atmosphere was transparent to infrared radiation, just as a furnace can heat your house to a higher temperature if you house is well-insulated than if it is not.

          • Avatar

            JP

            |

            Well that’s a totally different description of something which you’ve always claimed to be settled physics. Why HAVE you guys always claimed that the colder atmosphere heats the hotter Earth with backradiation, if what you actually meant to say was something else?

            Laughable expose of your sophistry. Thanks for the record of it.

            Insulation doesn’t make the furnace hotter. The furnace for the atmosphere is the ground surface at its own temperature and radiant spectrum, not the solar insolation. Hence, the GHE is wrong, by your own “science”, if you would but understand yourself, and science. Increasing CO2 reflects more insolation, and so, doesn’t make the solar insolation do more heating. GHE finished.

          • Avatar

            Tim Folkerts

            |

            [quote]Why HAVE you guys always claimed that the colder atmosphere heats the hotter Earth with backradiation[/quote]

            Please quote s [b]single instance[/b] of Joel (or me for that matter … or any other physicist) ever [b]saying “the colder atmosphere heats the hotter Earth”[/b] (or anything to this effect). Ideally, start by looking in this thread. As I look back, I see many [i]claims [/i]that Joel and/or I are saying this, and multiple rebuttals where we repeatedly clarify that we are in fact NOT saying this.

            NOTE: The quote must include the word “heat”.

            Otherwise, we get to say [i]”Why HAVE [b]you guys[/b] always [b]claimed that we claim[/b] the colder atmosphere heats the hotter Earth with backradiation?” [/i]

          • Avatar

            JP

            |

            No that is precisely what you guys have always said. Now you’re running away from it because you’ve been educated by us. Victory for the Slayers.

            So, that’s great, wonderful. You do not claim that a cold object can heat up a warmer source. Thank you for that final admission. I know a lot of greenhouse advocates with PhD’s that you should let know about this as well.

            “Cold does not heat hot.” – Tim Folkerts

            Thank you.

            Now all you need is to understand that “hot does not heat itself as it heats up cool”.

          • Avatar

            Tim Folkerts

            |

            [quote]”Cold does not heat hot.” – Tim Folkerts (which, just to be clear, is not actually a quote of anything I said in this thread).[/quote]
            I have been espousing that exact idea for years! Has it really taken you this long to actually notice??? To say the same thing even more clearly “there is never a net flow of thermal energy from cold to hot”.

            Please, continue to quote me on that. 🙂

          • Avatar

            JP

            |

            Oh well that’s very cute Tim, but it is all you GHE folk who have claimed all this time that cold will cause hot to get hotter, by SOME method. Problem is now you don’t have a method since you’ve thrown backradiation under the bus, lol.

            Folkerts: “there is never a net flow of thermal energy from cold to hot”

            If there is no “net” flow then there is NO flow at all, is there. Finally, you admit that cold can’t heat up hot. Nice pretence pretending you’ve agreed with this previously. Wonderful to see you finally be educated by the Slayers.

          • Avatar

            Greg House

            |

            [quote name=”Tim Folkerts”]Please quote s [b]single instance[/b] of Joel (or me for that matter … or any other physicist) ever [b]saying “the colder atmosphere heats the hotter Earth”[/b] (or anything to this effect).[/quote]

            Who cares about you two… you know…

            The IPCC claimed that the surface of the Earth is heated by “back radiation” coming from CO2 which is a part of the atmosphere. The greatest hoax ever, probably.

          • Avatar

            JP

            |

            Well exactly, Greg. This new tangent they’re on contradicts their GHE brethren. The IPCC K-T diagram and all other GHE diagrams show that the colder atmosphere heats a hotter surface…with backradiation. Even if it doesn’t, if Folkerts and Shore now deny that cold heats hot (which is totally GREAT that they now do that…congrats all around), then what do they have left for the GHE? Nothing. [i]Because hot doesn’t heat itself up either when heating cold.[/i] And insulation doesn’t increase the furnace’s temperature, and the furnace for the atmosphere is the ground surface at its own temperature and spectrum, not the solar insolation, and air is not like a glass roof. Cheers, Greg, for all the great work you do and what it has helped lead to. Of course, their subjective interpretation of both textbooks and reinterpretation of IPCC claims is hardly relevant. Small but ultimately not too relevant victory in finally getting them to understand that cold doesn’t heat hot with backradiation…but I think they have a bigger beef with the IPCC and K-T now, then they do with us 🙂

          • Avatar

            Tim Folkerts

            |

            [quote]The IPCC claimed that the surface of the Earth is heated by “back radiation” [/quote]

            Once again, show me me a quote where they use such language. Where the word “heat” is used in this context. IF they did say what you think they said, then that is wrong. But if you only THINK they said that, then YOU are the one who is wrong.

          • Avatar

            JP

            |

            Backradiation is the term you guys have always used to use. Now you don’t because you know it is ridiculous…thanks to us.

            Tim Folkerts: “Back radiation has nothing to do with the greenhouse effect, and is not a valid concept.”

            Tell it to your GHE friends, Tim. So happy that you are finally throwing such language under the bus.

          • Avatar

            JP

            |

            Mr. Shore, YOU are the one who states that the cooler object leads to the warmer object becoming warmer.

            A warmer object warming a cooler object, does not need to or become warmer as it warms the cooler object. Radiation from a cooler object does not heat, or lead to the self-heating, of the warmer object – the warmer object simply heats the cooler. Thermodynamics 101.

            The textbook DOES NOT SAY that the cooler object heats the warmer object. That is laughable sophistry. It is merely your faulty interpretation.

            “While a body at absolute temperature T is radiating, its surroundings at temperature T_s are also radiating, and the body absorbs some of this radiation.”

            -does not say that the cooler object is warming the warmer object or that the warmer object needs to become warmer as the warmer object warms the cooler.

          • Avatar

            Joel Shore

            |

            Yes, Joe, to get from the fact that “While a body at absolute temperature T is radiating, its surroundings at temperature T_s are also radiating, and the body absorbs some of this radiation” to the notion that a colder object can affect the steady state temperature of a warmer object requires some very serious and difficult conceptional steps like applying the fact that energy is conserved.

            Oh, and by the way, here’s a quote for you from Knight, Jones, Field, “College Physics”, 2nd edition:

            “Because it’s easier for visible radiant energy to get in than for infrared to get out, the earth is warmer than it would be without the atmosphere. The additional warming of the earth’s surface because of the atmosphere is called the greenhouse effect…
            The atmospheric gases most responsible for the greenhouse effect are carbon dioxide and water vapor, both strong absorbers of infrared radiation…
            [After discussing the issue of feedbacks]
            But the basic physics that leads to the greenhouse effect, and to global warming, is quite straightforward. Carbon dioxide in the atmosphere keeps the earth warm; more carbon dioxide will make it warmer. How much warmer? That’s an important question, one that many scientists around the world are attempting to answer with ongoing research.”

            Agree or disagree?

          • Avatar

            JP

            |

            Your fondness for textbooks which parrot lies is not evidence for truth, but your own misfortune. The atmosphere is not a source of heat for the surface. LOL

          • Avatar

            Greg House

            |

            [quote name=”Joel Shore”]Oh, and by the way, here’s a quote for you from Knight, Jones, Field, “College Physics”, 2nd edition: “Because it’s easier for visible radiant energy to get in than for infrared to get out, the earth is warmer than it would be without the atmosphere.[/quote]

            Publication Date: November 8, 2009, right?

            Exactly, as I said a few minutes ago, you can certainly find others supporting the same climate lie, and you did. Your previous recent quotes from older textbooks did not contain anything like that, as far as I remember. Now you have apparently switched to “climate liars support climate lie, hence it is not a lie, it must be true” strategy. Congratulations, good move.

          • Avatar

            Joel Shore

            |

            Well, if by definition any textbook that disagrees with you is not a reliable source, then we will never find a reliable source that disagrees with you.

            On that other hand, what you have created is then your own infallible religion, not science.

          • Avatar

            JP

            |

            Actually the religious aspects of climate alarm have been very well defined by multiple authors. It is also a tenet of religious faith to believe the Earth can be modelled as flat, and that a flat Earth is a reasonable approximation to the Earth. lol, nice faith you have there, Joel.

          • Avatar

            Greg House

            |

            [quote name=”Joel Shore”]Here’s a statement from the 12th edition of Young and Freedman, “University Physics”: “While a body at absolute temperature T is radiating, its surroundings at temperature T_s are also radiating, and the body absorbs some of this radiation.”
            Do you agree or disagree with this statement?[/quote]

            This is apparently a quote from a recent textbook supporting “greenhouse effect” hoax, right?

            You can certainly find others supporting the same climate lie.

            Your previous recent quotes from older textbooks did not contain anything like that, as far as I remember. Now you are apparently switching to “climate liars support the climate lie, hence it is not a lie, it must be true” strategy. Congratulations, good move.

            As I said, warming coming from cold to hot is absolutely absurd and this fact is comprehensible even on the junior high school level, see my explanation and links above.

          • Avatar

            JP

            |

            Notice now Greg that he appears to be receding from the claim that cold heats up hot…even though he keeps trying to quote sources with his interpretation that cold causes hot to heat up. Completely confused…this is their tactic.

          • Avatar

            Joel Shore

            |

            None of those sources say that back-radiation heats the Earth in the sense that the sun is unnecessary: They all say that the sun heats the Earth to a higher steady-state temperature in the presence of back-radiation from the atmosphere than in its absence, just as a furnace heats your house to a higher steady-state temperature in the presence of insulation than in its absence.

            You are relying on ambiguity in what words like “heats up” means in order to spread your sophistry.

          • Avatar

            JP

            |

            The furnace does not become hotter from insulation, and the furnace for the atmosphere is the ground surface, hence the atmosphere can’t make the ground surface warmer. The furnace for the surface itself is the Sunshine, and the surface itself doesn’t get hotter than what the direct insolation would predict with a real heat-flow equation, and the surface itself cools [i]more [/i]than the whole atmospheric column overnight indicating there is no heat trapping occurring at the surface at all, but cooling enhancement. There is nothing ambiguous about “heats up” – any person knows what that means.

          • Avatar

            Don Tonaronton

            |

            [quote name=”Joel Shore”]Again, Joel, you are creating strawman arguments. Of course, the cooler object doesn’t heat the warmer object (at least in a reasonable sense of the term). The sun heats the Earth. Just like the insulation doesn’t heat your house; the furnace heats the house.

            Here’s a statement from the 12th edition of Young and Freedman, “University Physics”: “While a body at absolute temperature T is radiating, its surroundings at temperature T_s are also radiating, and the body absorbs some of this radiation.”

            Do you agree or disagree with this statement?[/quote]

            From that ill defined statement Do you claim that the colder surroundings that the colder surroundings are transfering “heat” in some way to the higher temperature object? Do you claim the book has a statement that violates 2LTD? The electromagnetic field from the colder object always limits the power transfered from the hotter object.

        • Avatar

          Greg House

          |

          In addition to what Joe has just said, you can equally ask for a credible source proving 2+2=7 wrong. I am not familiar with such a credible source. Why would a credible source deal with such a trivial issue anyway? The impossibility of the IPCC “greenhouse effect” is obvious, even without calculations.

          The hoax lives still only because the most people do not know how exactly the IPCC described their absurd “greenhouse effect”.

          • Avatar

            Joel Shore

            |

            And, yet, I can provide you with plenty of credible physics sources that say that the greenhouse effect is just “basic physics” (as the textbook I quoted above did).

            And, yet, you can’t seem to find any credible source for your point of view, apparently because it is so obvious. Interesting!!

          • Avatar

            JP

            |

            You are confused. A textbook which says the greenhouse effect is basic physics is not credible. Learn to distinguish the difference. Traditional science textbooks don’t mention the greenhouse effect at all, because it doesn’t exist. Hence, most textbooks in the world agree with Greg House’s position, by default.

          • Avatar

            Joel Shore

            |

            What a load of crap. I gave you a quote form a major textbook by a major publisher used by probably hundreds of thousands of students each year. And, I could give you more from other textbooks.

            And, just because a textbook does not mention a particular application of the laws of physics does not mean that they agree that this application doesn’t exist. What illogical nonsense!

          • Avatar

            Joel Shore

            |

            No…The problem is that the textbooks embrace science rather than embracing your religious beliefs.

          • Avatar

            JP

            |

            Learn to distinguish the difference, Joel. Traditional science textbooks don’t mention the greenhouse effect at all, because it doesn’t exist. Hence, most textbooks in the world agree with Greg House’s position, by default. No textbook in the world says that cold heats up hot, or that hot has to become hotter as it heats cool. Hot does not become hotter as it heats cool.

          • Avatar

            Joel Shore

            |

            Great circular logic, Joe:

            (1) No legitimate textbook references the greenhouse effect.

            (2) A textbook is not legitimate if it references the greenhouse effect.

            Therefore, no legitimate textbook references the greenhouse effect.

            If your goal is to make AGW skeptics look like complete idiots, you are doing a remarkable job!

          • Avatar

            JP

            |

            It is not circular when it is a basic truth of fact. No textbook in the world says that cold heats up hot or that hot has to become hotter as it heats up cold. Thanks for playing.

          • Avatar

            Joel Shore

            |

            Notice the change here too: Originally, Greg argued that books don’t have to say that 2 + 2 = 7 is wrong because nobody would deal with such a trivial issue. However, now I have shown that there are major textbooks that make statements that Greg (wrongly, of course) believes are akin to 2 + 2 = 7 and yet there is no uproar about these books. There are no textbooks rushing to point out that 2 + 2 is not equal to 7. Even when the small minority of physicists signed a petition to the American Physical Society objecting to the statement on climate change, they did not make the claim in that petition that the greenhouse effect does not exist and violates the laws of physics.

            Why is that?

          • Avatar

            Greg House

            |

            This point of yours is certainly not a scientific one. The scientific issue is whether the “greenhouse effect” as presented by the IPCC exists or not, and we know that it does not, the notion is absolutely absurd and renders the AGW and the IPCC activities a hoax.

            Why some people did not object openly to this hoax, why some liars pretend to be “skeptics”, how people can be forced or blackmailed to make statements supporting the climate hoax and so on are all very interesting issues and deserve separate threads, but again, those are rather political and psychological topics, let us not mix it up with the scientific topic on this thread.

          • Avatar

            Joel Shore

            |

            So, again, your argument is unfalsifiable. You are not willing to take anybody as an acceptable authority so all that we are left with is your own incorrect arguments. When we explain why they are wrong, you just ignore us.

            So, basically, I agree with you: In your world, there is no greenhouse effect but tautology. However, in the real world, there is.

          • Avatar

            JP

            |

            It is not an issue of people being authorities…authorities are irrelevant if they are wrong. And they are wrong about the greenhouse effect for all the reasons you’ve demonstrated here, in your lack of ability to understand the basic problems of the theory.

        • Avatar

          Don Tonaronton

          |

          [quote name=”Joel Shore”]So, Greg, are you saying that the Bird et al. book on transport that Latour felt was a credible source is wrong? Are you saying that every physics textbook that I have ever seen is wrong?

          Show us any direct support you can find for your point of view from ANY CREDIBLE source.[/quote]

          Your interpretation of all your textbooks is incorect and quite laughable. No textbook claims what you claim. Greg is correct.

  • Avatar

    Sunsettommy

    |

    [b]Administrator note:[/b]

    [i]I see that the argument has gotten out of hand here and make this request that the name calling and anger be dialed down or I will shut this thread down.[/i]

    • Avatar

      A.Rappaport

      |

      [quote name=”Sunsettommy”][b]Administrator note:[/b]

      [i]I see that the argument has gotten out of hand here and make this request that the name calling and anger be dialed down or I will shut this thread down.[/i][/quote]

      Oh yes to you you Tommy! Please shut down
      the whole site, before it is identified as only a political action effort, with no connection to science whatesoever. You are so incompetent!

  • Avatar

    JP

    |

    [quote]Increasing atmospheric CO2 increases resistance to radiant heat transfer from surface to space. Assuming surface heat must continue to transfer at same rate and emissivity, the surface must radiate more intensely at a higher temperature.[/quote]

    1) The initial assumption is unfounded. If the atmosphere increases in temperature, then for a given external input, the ground surface has to emit LESS radiation to achieve total balance since the warmer atmosphere takes up a larger share of radiant output. This is basic conservation of energy. 2) In any other thermal mechanics situation, resistance to heat transfer is a problem of thermal conductivity and related effects, and this doesn’t require the hot end of a heated bar to have to become hotter still, etc., for example. 3) In radiant transfer situations, low emissivity is what causes higher temperature than would be expected otherwise, and higher CO2 concentration does not lower the emissivity, hence, CO2 doesn’t really impede radiant thermal output.

    If CO2 causes the atmosphere to become slightly warmer, then the ground surface itself will become slightly cooler. This is probably why ice-ages return after CO2 is bumped up during the warm periods.

    • Avatar

      Tim Folkerts

      |

      0) I can’t find this quote anywhere in this discussion. Where did you find it? Context would help.

      1) More CO2 results in the ToA being COOLER (not warmer), so the surface must get WARMER (not cooler) to conserve energy.

      2) Not true. Put a 100 W heater at the end of your “bar” and a heat sink (eg a lake full of ice water @ 0C) at the other end. The temperature difference across the bar will be determined by the thermal conductivity of the bar:
      Q = (k A ΔT) / l
      or
      ΔT = (Q l ) / (k A )

      The temperature difference across the bar — and hence the temperature of the heater! — does indeed depend on the thermal resistance.

      3) Higher CO2 concentrations raises the altitude from which thermal IR escapes to space. Higher altitudes are colder (lapse rate). Colder materials emit less thermal IR than warmer materials.
      Therefore … more CO2 results in less IR emitted to space.

      It is not an issue of emissivity in this case, but rather an issue of the temperature.

      • Avatar

        JP

        |

        0) The quote is basic GHE fraud theory.

        1) Doesn’t matter if the TOA gets cooler – if the whole atmosphere is getting warmer, then the surface has to emit less radiation, which means become cooler, in order to conserve energy. The TOA is not the whole atmosphere or representative of it.

        2) 100 years of electrical lighting contradicts that basic lie. The temperature of the heat does NOT depend on the properties of the bar, but the properties of he bar do determine its own thermal profile. A passive element doesn’t heat the active heater.

        3) If higher CO2 concentration warms the atmosphere, then the surface must become cooler to emit less radiation to conserve energy.

        • Avatar

          Tim Folkerts

          |

          [quote]The TOA is not the whole atmosphere or representative of it.[/quote]
          The TOA [i]*is*[/i] ‘the whole atmosphere’ as far as radiation to space is concerned! The CO2 near the surface does not radiate to space, so it does not matter for the overall energy balance into/out of the earth as a whole.

          If we add more CO2 to the atmosphere …
          * The CO2 near the surface emits NO energy to space.
          * The CO2 near the TOA emits LESS energy to space.
          * The ground must emit more energy to space.

          2) What? Are you claiming that [i]ΔT = (Q l ) / (k A )[/i] is a ‘basic lie’???
          You even agree that the properties of the bar determine the thermal profile! well, if the cold end is held at a given temperature (which is easy to do), and I can change the profile (ie change ΔT) by changing the materials, then the heater will change temperature!

          The only way for you to be correct would be if all 100 W heating elements were the same temperature — independent of any insulation around them!

          3) See (1) above. You are making the same mistake again. Only if higher CO2 concentration warmed the TOA would the surface cool.

          • Avatar

            JP

            |

            1) If the TOA is the whole atmosphere, that contradicts the claim that CO2 makes the atmosphere warmer. If the atmosphere warms up, then the surface has to become cooler in order to conserve energy. If there’s more CO2 in the air, then the TOA would have to emit more energy to space, not less.

            2) The thermal profile of the bar does not mean the passive bar is heating the source or the source has to become hotter. There is no active element on the cool side of the bar holding a temperature there. The equation you quote does not say that the source has to become hotter. Changing the thermal profile of the bar by changing its properties does not make the source hotter.

            3) If the atmosphere gets colder while the surface gets warmer, then this contradicts the idea that atmospheric warming is caused by CO2.

            Your claims are incoherent and inconsistent.

          • Avatar

            Tim Folkerts

            |

            1)
            [quote]If the TOA is the whole atmosphere, that contradicts the claim that CO2 makes the atmosphere warmer.[/quote]
            My Goodness! Are you really having this much trouble understanding?!

            One more time … the TOA *is* ‘the whole atmosphere’ [i][b]as far as radiation to space is concerned![/b][/i]. I even made it bold since you obviously missed that part last time.

            We live in the “BOA” (bottom of the atmosphere). The “greenhouse effect theory” says the TOA gets cooler, and the BOA gets warmer.

            2) I gotta give you credit … the first clause was right — the bar does not ‘heat’ the heater (but hen no one claimed it did). The rest is glaringly wrong. Rather than wrangle with words, do some calculations. 100 W of electrical power is provided to heating element placed in good thermal contact with one end of a 1m long rod with a rectangular cross-section 10cm x 10cm made of copper. The other end of the rod is connected to a heat sink placed in ice water. All the other surfaces are encased in 10 cm thick fiberglass insulation. What is the temperature of the heating element?
            ΔT = (Q l ) / (k A )
            = (100 W * 1 m) / (380 W/m*K * 0.01 m^2)
            = 26 C.
            So the heating element at the hot end must be 26 C.

            Repeat with a stainless steel rod, with k = 18 W/m*K . The heater at the hot end will now be 555 C in order to conduct 100 W down the rod.

            (The numbers will be slightly different due to conduction through fiberglass insulation, but this is a monor correction).

            3) See (1) above … and (1) and (3) in the previous post! Its almost like you are willfully mixing up the top and bottom of the atmosphere in order to force the answer you want.

          • Avatar

            JP

            |

            If the atmosphere gets colder because of CO2 inhibiting heat transfer, then that contradicts that CO2 makes the atmosphere warmer. If the atmosphere gets warmer because of CO2, then the surface must get cooler. As far as radiation is concerned of course. And of course, as far as radiation goes, only by reducing emissivity can something be warmer than otherwise, and CO2 doesn’t reduce emissivity. This isn’t that difficult to understand, lol. 😉

            The bar doesn’t cause or require the heater to become hotter in order for the bar to be heated. The heater doesn’t need to become hotter in order to heat the bar. All you are doing is determining the temperature required given some change in properties. This does NOT say that it causes the heater to become hotter…don’t be so silly haha. 100W at the heating element determines its temperature. You have no idea how to use that equation or what it means.

            If the atmosphere gets colder while the surface gets warmer, then this contradicts the idea that atmospheric warming is caused by CO2. If higher CO2 concentration warms the atmosphere, then the surface must become cooler to emit less radiation to conserve energy.

            Anyway Tim, as we’ve seen elsewhere and here some more, your claims are incoherent and inconsistent with traditional physics. We know that you’re just here to defend climate alarm by defending the non-traditional physics of the GHE.

          • Avatar

            Tim Folkerts

            |

            You are really grasping here, Joe.

            The electrical energy ‘heats’ the heating element; the bar does not ‘heat’ the heating element (we all agree). The ‘thermal resistance’ determines what temperature the heating element will become as a result of that electrical energy. The ’cause’ of the temperature is the combination of the heat input and the resistance. Just like size of an electric current is ’caused’ by both the voltage and the resistance — turning up a variable resistor ’causes’ the current to decrease. Your position is equivalent to saying that current is only determined by voltage but not resistance.

            And for the FOURTH time, the atmosphere is not all one temperature. Some parts can warm while other parts cool. You still talk about “the temperature of the atmosphere” as if it had to be the same everywhere.

            You still talk about CO2 as if more CO2 must warm both the top and the bottom (or cool both the top and the bottom). Once again …
            If we add more CO2 to the atmosphere …
            * The CO2 near the surface emits NO energy to space (and it didn’t before).
            * The TOA moves to a higher altitude.
            * The CO2 near the TOA emits LESS energy to space (the higher altitude and lapse rate ensure this).
            * The ground will warm due to the energy imbalance.
            * The BOA will warm up by contact with the warming ground (but since it doesn’t emit energy to space, it doesn’t affect earth’s overall energy balance).

            *********************************

            “My” physics is the physics of every textbook covering general physics and thermodynamics — ie “traditional physics”. “Your” physics is the physics of PSI — ie “non-tradition physics”.

            My physics gives hard numbers. Your physics (in this discussion, anyway) is simply endless semantics. What [i]specific [/i]sentence above do you disagree with?

          • Avatar

            JP

            |

            That’s very funny Tim, but simply accusing someone of grasping doesn’t make it so.

            You are the one who thinks that power input equals power output, which is the most anti-scientific, modern-science bashing, traditional science denying, claim that anyone can make. It isn’t post-normal science, just pseudoscience. And since you don’t understand what is wrong with claiming that power in = power out, your credibility for commenting on scientific issues is non-existent, particularly since you are here merely to defend climate alarm via the GHE.

            Yes Tim, current voltage and resistance all work together in a circuit – congratulations on getting that far. However, backradiation or heat trapping doesn’t change the current, voltage, or resistance, and so the source doesn’t get hotter or emit more radiation when radiant energy is trapped. Basic physics if you’d ever take a course in it, and it is apparent you haven’t since you think something so stupid as power in = power out.

            Tim I never denied that the atmosphere isn’t a single temperature. In fact the lapse rate of the atmosphere indicates that the bottom of the atmosphere HAS to be warmer than the top, independent of and without requiring a greenhouse effect, in order to maintain an average. There is no GHE.

            I have seen no hard numbers from your claims at all, just wild accusations and claims about cold things heating warmer things.

            You’re with the crowd that claims power in = power out, so, you kind of don’t know how to use numbers with physics in the first place. You’ve lost before you even start, because such a claim pretty much forms the basis of most of pseudoscience. Traditional science says that power in is NOT equal to power out. Your GHE pseudoscience claims the opposite of that. Your “science” is a post-modern fraud. Thanks for all the examples of sophistry…they’re compiling into an excellent piece to showcase for stupidity and they are really helping the human race become better with people like me and PSI showing the truth the lies are trying to hide.

            If the atmosphere gets warmer, the surface cools in order to conserve energy. Basic traditional physics. QED.

    • Avatar

      Joel Shore

      |

      JP: Just to add to the excellent points that Tim has made, your mistake is that you have applied conservation of energy as if the Earth + atmosphere is a closed system, i.e., you have ignored the fact that the system receives energy from the sun (and radiates energy back out into space)! That’s not a detail that you can afford to ignore!!!

      For an open system, conservation of energy takes the form of saying that the system will be driven toward the steady-state where power in = power out. For example, let’s suppose the Earth is in a steady-state and you instantaneously increase the CO2 concentration. Now, you will have the situation where the rate at which energy escapes to space is lower than the rate at which energy is received from the sun. This will result in warming of the Earth + atmosphere system until it reaches a point where the rate at which energy escapes is once again in balance with the rate at which energy is received from the sun.

      • Avatar

        JP

        |

        That the Sun inputs energy is not an unknown factor in this. If the atmosphere emits more, then the surface would have to emit less, to conserve energy in a system with constant input, because energy in = energy out. Tim’s points were all actually mistakes, Joel, so, that kind of puts you in the same boat 😉

        • Avatar

          Joel Shore

          |

          “If the atmosphere emits more, then the surface would have to emit less.”

          This is a vague statement. Emit more in which way?

          Look, here is what happens if we raise CO2 levels in the atmosphere:

          Step 1: Less radiation is now emitted out into space. That means that the TOA energy balance (which means the energy balance at the top of the atmosphere) is now that more radiation is coming into the Earth-atmosphere system from the sun than is leaving it to go back out into space. This all occurred with no change in temperature in the system, but just because the transmission properties of the atmosphere changed.

          Step 2: As a result of this power imbalance, energy is accumulating in the system, and the Earth+atmosphere system must warm. The pattern of the warming (e.g., exactly how much happens at what altitude and such, or even Earth’s surface vs atmosphere) is something that cannot be determined by these simple global energy balance arguments but can only be understood by modeling the transfers of energy within the system.

          Step 3: Once the system has warmed enough that the energy balance at the top of the atmosphere is restored, we are back in a steady-state condition again, but one with more thermal energy in the system because of the additional energy absorbed by the system, which is equal to the power imbalance integrated over time.

          • Avatar

            JP

            |

            Yes but Joel, since you don’t understand basic physics, you’ll never be able to be educated in it. Probably too old. I mean you think that power in = power out? Don’t you know how stupid that is? No real physicist would ever say something so stupid.

            If the atmosphere warms up, then it emits more radiation. Basic physics. With constant input, if there is more output from the atmosphere, then the surface must cool in order to compensate. Basic physics. This explains the glacial cycles.

            Thermal energy doesn’t accumulate – it is simply held. This fancy new, non-traditional physics you’re making up is simply silly. 100 years of electrical lighting and thermal transfer and radiative transfer mechanics disproves the greenhouse effect.

          • Avatar

            Joel Shore

            |

            Joe,

            I’ve tried to explain it to you, but apparently you are here to “witness” for your religious beliefs, not the discuss physics. As for my understanding of physics, your arguments are so ridiculous that you can’t even convince physicists / physical scientists who are extremely ideologically-inclined to your worldview like Robert Brown, Roy Spencer, Fred Singer, …

            How do you ever expect to win over any physicists who don’t already share your ideological worldview if you can’t even convince those who do?!? Those folks, Time Folkerts, and myself span a broad range of beliefs about the seriousness of AGW, but we are united in the knowledge that you are promulgating utter nonsense.

            And, let’s face it, you aren’t really trying to win over those with a good knowledge of physics anyway. You are just trying to dupe those who want to be duped and whose knowledge of physics is weak enough that they can’t distinguish between real physics arguments and nonsense.

          • Avatar

            JP

            |

            Joel, “explaining” to me bad science doesn’t mean that I will suddenly believe bad science, lol. You think that power in = power out, hence you are a pseudoscientist or some form of an impostor, lying. No legitimate scientist would ever say that power in = power out. You’ve exposed yourself badly at not being an actual human physicist, saying something so stupid and, really, pathetic and embarrassing.

            Roy Spencer doesn’t know what a time-dependent thermal differential equation is, so, it is totally right that you would be in the same lot as him. PSI is defending against the attack on traditional science that GHE advocates support, which is also the basis of climate alarm. It is now clear that anyone who defends the pseudoscience of the GHE is a lackey for the alarmist/warmist agenda.

            Don’t be such an obvious fool. Your pseudoscientific defense of the GHE is all about defending climate alarm, while posing as a skeptic. You are so obvious.

          • Avatar

            Joel Shore

            |

            Joe,

            I’ve absolutely never claimed to be a “skeptic”. But, I am amused by the fact that Roy Spencer, who has frankly done way more than you will ever do to advance the cause of the “AGW skeptics” is a lackey for “my side”.

            I think that Anthony Watts, Roy Spencer, Robert Brown, Willis Eschenbach, and Lord Monckton have all in their way advanced various nuttiness in their ideologically-driven agenda to deny the science of AGW (and, I am not saying anything new here, since I have said as much in various comments over at WUWT and elsewhere)…But none of them can hold a candle to you PSI folks for downright stupidity and scientific denial. You guys cross the boundary from just denying basic atmospheric science and empirical evidence to denying basic physics. Outside of your little PSI cult, nobody in the scientific community believes any of the nonsense that you guys promulgate.

          • Avatar

            JP

            |

            Roy Spencer doesn’t know what a time-dependent thermal differential equations is, and in his lack of knowledge, yes he helps the alarmist side because he is not mathematically educated enough in physics to understand the fraud of the greenhouse effect. Roy Spencer, at best, pretends to be a skeptic while actually defending the basis of alarm, the greenhouse effect; or he is just that stupid. Alan Watts et al. are so stupid they don’t even know how a lightbulb works, and Watts proved there is no GHE with an experiment he performed but didn’t understand, lol.

            That’s very cute and all Joel, but PSI says nothing nutty at all. We state traditional physics. Nuttiness is in saying that cold heats hot, or that power in = power out. THAT is NUTTY! You have flat-Earth science, we have physics. Almost everyone agrees with our analysis.

            Thanks for the years of example of sophistry. They will be helpful for the future of humanity to learn from such fraud that you promulgate, LOL.

          • Avatar

            Greg House

            |

            [quote name=”Joel Shore”]I think that Anthony Watts, Roy Spencer, Robert Brown, Willis Eschenbach, and Lord Monckton…[/quote]

            Maybe we should not go so far off topic here.

            Discussing climate liars in skeptic clothes and their possible motivation etc. is interesting, of course, particularly Monckton seems to be a notorious one far beyond the climate issue, but all this deserves a separate thread.

          • Avatar

            Greg House

            |

            Convincing liars is a peculiar idea. Since the liars know that they are lying they are already convinced. And they certainly will not undermine their lies by revealing their world view. They would rather lie about their world view.

            In other words, the alleged world view is a poor proof of someone not being a liar.

            As for those 3 persons, they propagate the unscientific absurd “greenhouse effect”, this is what is relevant.

            Wait, there are some exceptions. Robert Brown did reveal something: [i]”I also think that in the particular case of Viet Nam, we should have been fighting on the other side (or not fighting at all)”[/i](http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/12/01/18-annual-climate-gabfests-16-years-without-warming/#comment-1163074).

            Here is something on the same topic from another “skeptic” Willis Eschenbach: “And if Communists helped them kick out the latest occupying foreign army, because you cannot deny we were that,” meaning [b]America [/b]occupied the South Vietnam (the Republic of Vietnam)(http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/02/24/behind-bars-again/#comment-1233586).

          • Avatar

            JP

            |

            These guys kinda give themselves away, don’t they Greg? lol! It is apparent exactly what they want – serfdom for the masses. And the GHE is the current vector to try to achieve it, whether they pretend to be the skeptics or the alarmists.

          • Avatar

            Joel Shore

            |

            I hardly know where to start with such idiocy. I could mention that you took Robert Brown’s quote out-of-context, eliminating the first half of the sentence where he says, “Personally, I think Communism is stupid” and goes on to explain that supporting an incredibly corrupt government in a rebellion against French imperialism may not have been the wisest of moves.

            Or, I could discuss the paranoia of right-wing crazies who apparently believe other right-wingers who don’t pass their ideological purity test are secret communists.

            I am sure the Young Earthers talk the same way about the Intelligent Designers. Promulgators of completely bonkers pseudoscience always do think that the promulgators of pseudoscience closer to the mainstream are selling out.

            Of course, what they are actually doing is trying not to make the “skeptic” movement not look completely ridiculous in the eyes of the scientific community. I am not sure that they are succeeding, but I am quite sure that you guys are doing your darndest to make skeptics look ridiculous!

          • Avatar

            JP

            |

            The problem for you is that logic and traditional science is on our side, and such logic and traditional science would never say something as stupid as power in = power out. Your flat-Earther science is an obvious fraud, and all you have are the worst type of humans to follow you. You are welcome to have them! LOL

            Pretend skeptic scientists are so cute…with the silly things they say…lol…trying to defend climate alarm while pretending to be scientist skeptics…LOL

          • Avatar

            Greg House

            |

            [quote name=”Joel Shore”]I could mention that you took Robert Brown’s quote out-of-context, eliminating the first half of the sentence where he says, “Personally, I think Communism is stupid”[/quote]

            Right, he said that as well but then went on saying [i]”I also think that in the particular case of Viet Nam, we should have been fighting on the other side (or not fighting at all)”[/i]

            The lying/propaganda pattern in his words is easy recognizable. He just provided himself an “alibi” by stating first “Personally, I think Communism is stupid”.

            The same lying pattern is recognizable, when climate liars claim themselves to be “skeptics”, at the same time vigorously defending the very absurd unscientific foundation of the climate alarm, the “greenhouse effect”.

        • Avatar

          Joel Shore

          |

          You seem to be basically missing the idea embodied in Step 1: I.e., you think that both the Earth’s surface and atmosphere can’t heat up because then it is emitting more than it was before. What you miss is that this heating up of both of these is in reaction to the reduction in emission from the Earth and atmosphere out into space that occurred simply because we increased the opacity of the atmosphere to terrestrial radiation.

          • Avatar

            JP

            |

            If the atmosphere warms up, then it emits more, and so the surface can cool.

            Anyway Joel, the flat-Earth physics you subscribe to is embarrassing to watch you defend. Poor fella. The Earth isn’t flat.

            Power in is NOT equal to power out. I can’t believe someone would say something so stupid like that.

          • Avatar

            Joel Shore

            |

            Joe,

            If power in is not very nearly equal to power out (on a global basis, averaged over some reasonable period of time), where are the vast amounts of energy that are either accumulating or disappearing?

          • Avatar

            JP

            |

            You’re not actually a physicist, are you Joel.

            Are you completely stupid man? Are you retarded, or are you just pretending? I mean what is it? How can you not understand the English language, the language of math and physics, etc? You PRETEND to know these things…so then why are you so stupid when it comes to speaking with them?

            Power in does equal power out in any system in the universe, as a consequence of the most basic thermodynamic law, that kids learn in high school, and even before that.

            The power coming out is much less than the power coming in, and no system in the universe is 100% efficient.

            Energy? As much energy leaves as comes in. Energy and power are not synonymous…are you capable of understanding that? Your inability to understand that, your lack of comprehension of the difference between energy and power, is what identifies you as a fraud, as a pseudoscientist, as a pretender.

          • Avatar

            JP

            |

            Should read

            “Power in does NOT equal power out in any system”

          • Avatar

            A.Rappaport

            |

            [quote name=”JP”]Should read

            “Power in does NOT equal power out in any system”[/quote]

            What scientific nonsense! That is a scientific condition of, and almost a definition of “thermodynamic equilibirum”. Such never happens on this earth system, with its cyclic geometry. That does not imply that it is untrue for “thermodynamic equilibrium”, when ever and where ever that may happen. Then and there, it “is” a requirement, else temperatures “must” change, so that it is true! This “is” the physical truth, that falsifies any claim of back radiation.
            Back radiation is only a theoretical premise, with not one physical example. It is falsified by the lack of providing even one example of the premise.

          • Avatar

            Tim Folkerts

            |

            Joe P,

            You seem to be working with a very limited definition of “power”. When you say “The power coming out is much less than the power coming in, and no system in the universe is 100% efficient.” it appears you are thinking in terms of heat engines, and comparing just the thermal power in to the mechanical power out.

            Yes, it is true that the “useful” power out [i](dW/dt)[/i] is always less than the “supplied” power in [i](d(Q_hot)/dt)[/i], and that the efficiency [i](useful power) / (supplied power)[/i] is always less than 100%. But you ignore the “waste power” in your thinking [i](d(Q_cold)/dt)[/i]. When all the power is included, then [i](power in) = (power out). [/i]

            With your definition, the “efficiency” of “earth” would be ~ 0%, because the power supplied is [i]1370W/m^2*(cross-sectional area of the earth)[/i], but all the power comes out at thermal IR (Q_cold) and no mechanical work is done. While this is one way to think about it, it is much more interesting and useful to think about both the heat flow in AND the heat flow out.

            For those wanting more background, you can read up on heat engines at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat_engine
            The diagram at teh top left is a standard abstract heat engine diagram. The earth would be the circle in the center. Q_H is sunlight coming in. Q_C is reflected sunlight and earth’s thermal IR. W is zero, since the earth does not do work on any outside objects.

          • Avatar

            JP

            |

            No Tim I am working with the scientific definition of power. Power is NOT energy, and to confuse or conflate the two is PSEUDOSCIENCE. Only non-physicists or pretenders would try to assume that power and energy can be synonymous.

            The power in is NOT EQUAL TO the power out, for the Earth. There are some situations where something like that might more accurately happen, but the Earth is not one of them.

            For the Earth, power in IS NOT EQUAL TO power out.

          • Avatar

            Joel Shore

            |

            Joe,

            It appears that Tim has identified the source of your confusion.

            I’ll just add that while energy and power are not synonymous, they are closely related. In particular, if you integrate power over a period of time, you get energy. This means one can also define over some period of time an quantity called the average power, which when multiplied by the period of time gives you the energy. If you do this for power in and power out over the same period of time, then the fact that energy in and energy out have to be nearly equal (over some sufficient period of time) will imply that average power in has to nearly equal average power out over that period of time.

          • Avatar

            JP

            |

            Conserving energy in terms of power flux does not conserve physics. Only conserving energy conserves physics but equating power in with power out, especially for the Earth, does not conserve physics.

          • Avatar

            Joel Shore

            |

            Joe,

            Try reading what we write to explain this to you: If you take the equation for (energy in) = (energy out over), say, 1 year and you divide both sides by 1 year, you get (average power in) = (average power out). If you then divide both sides by the same area, such as the surface area of the Earth, you get (average intensity in) = (average intensity out).

            This concept of dividing both sides of the equation by the same value is something that is usually taught in high school algebra class (if not earlier), hence we have been assuming that you understand it.

          • Avatar

            JP

            |

            Joel, don’t you understand the difference between power and energy? Power intensity in doesn’t equal power intensity out, no matter if it is averaged over time or instantaneous. It doesn’t matter if you look at one second or a billion years, but for the Earth, power in doesn’t equal power out. The energy coming in doesn’t occur over the same area that energy comes out, and so the power input and output can’t be equal, by the most trivial mathematical and physical definition. Only energy in equals energy out. This is not the same as power. This is what confuses you and what creates the rest of the fraud of the greenhouse effect. That you have a hard time distinguishing between power and energy, removes credibility for the rest of your claims, because it all depends on understanding the difference in the first place. Thanks for playing 😉

          • Avatar

            Joel Shore

            |

            [quote name=”JP”]The energy coming in doesn’t occur over the same area that energy comes out, and so the power input and output can’t be equal, by the most trivial mathematical and physical definition.[/quote]

            Joe,

            The area doesn’t even enter in when you are talking about going between Energy and average power. You are just dividing by the time interval.

            As for intensity (which perhaps you were trying to talk about), both the (average power in) and the (average power out) can be divided by an area to get a power per unit area BUT you have to divide by the same area. If you want to get the average intensity per square meter of the Earth’s surface, you divide by both sides of the equation by the surface area. What you can’t do is divide one side of the equation by the entire area of the Earth’s surface and the other side by half of it (or the projected area or something else).

          • Avatar

            JP

            |

            The area doesn’t come in when talking about energy; it DOES come in when talking about power. Radiant power isn’t only time-dependent, it also depends on area. Any physicist should know that. In reality, the input power and output power don’t occur over the same surface area. If you want to know the power, you have to divide it over the correct surface area the energy applies to. Input and output energy don’t occur over the same area. Power doesn’t need to be conserved, only energy does.

          • Avatar

            Joel Shore

            |

            Joe,

            I am talking about converting BETWEEN energy and average power. (You can’t really talk about whether area enters into the calculation unless you make it clear what quantity you are going from and what quantity you are going to.)

            However, to get an average intensity from energy, you do have to consider the area. And, I agree with you that in that case, if we define the average intensity in the way that you seem to want to define it, then indeed you won’t get (average intensity in) = (average intensity out) because in going from (Energy in) = (Energy out), you have divided the two sides of the equations by different factors.

            The solution to that conundrum is simply not to define average intensity in such a silly way. If you divide both equations by the same area factor, then the equation will continue to be correct. This is the (or one) motivation for defining average intensity as we have rather than as you have. We’ve defined it in a way where (energy in) = (energy out) implies (average intensity in) = (average intensity out) while you’ve defined it in a way where that is not true.

          • Avatar

            JP

            |

            I’m talking about the law of conservation of energy, and converting energy into power the correct way, which means that power is not a conserved quantity. Only energy is. Power in is NOT equal to power out. Only energy in and out is equal. There is no need to numerically equate power, and it is also physically meaningless in any case.

          • Avatar

            Joel Shore

            |

            Misplaced parentheses: What I read should read “If you take the equation for (energy in) = (energy out) over, say, 1 year …”

            By the way, this concept of dividing both sides of the equation by the SAME value is a point that seems to have tripped you up before, Joe. It explains why you have sometimes been confused and said that you should only divide the (energy in) by half of the surface area of the Earth because the sun is only shining on half the Earth in order to get the average. The problem with doing that is that you are starting from an energy balance argument (energy in) = (energy out) but are then dividing both sides by a different number. This is not a legal mathematical step as it does not preserve the equality of the equation. A lot of words about how the sun is only shining over half the Earth does not allow you to perform illegal mathematical steps.

          • Avatar

            JP

            |

            “A lot of words about how the sun is only shining over half the Earth”

            So here we see open admission that such a concept is anathema to the greenhouse effect and your style of “thinking”. Very cute.

            Energy in = Energy out, only. This does not equate to power in = power out. Power in = power out is not a valid equation, and so there is no need to worry about preserving it – it isn’t valid in the first place, and it doesn’t form the basis of energy conservation, or physics.

          • Avatar

            Joel Shore

            |

            Joe,

            I guess dividing both sides of an equation by the same amount is something that goes beyond your mathematical abilities. (I actually doubt that is the case, but to think otherwise is to believe that you are intentionally deceiving others.)

          • Avatar

            JP

            |

            The total energy on either side of the equation is entirely conserved when dividing by the respective surface-areas they associate with. Power in does not equal power out, and equating input and output power is not the same thing as conserving energy. Power doesn’t need to be conserved, and it isn’t; energy is what is conserved and it is when dividing it over half the sphere.

          • Avatar

            Joel Shore

            |

            [quote name=”JP”]The total energy on either side of the equation is entirely conserved when dividing by the respective surface-areas they associate with.[/quote]

            No…If “the respective surface-areas they associate with” means that you divide one side of the equation by a different numerical factor than you divide the other side by, then no, this is not true.

            I can’t even believe we are having this discussion. It is legal to take the equation (Energy in) = (Energy out) and divide both sides by the same numerical factor. This is true whether that factor is the surface area of the Earth, the surface area of a McDonald’s hamburger, or whatever. However, you can’t divide the two sides of the equation by different factors and still equate the results.

          • Avatar

            JP

            |

            The numerical quantity of power doesn’t need to be conserved. Only total energy does. The balance equation for equality isn’t one for power, but only for total energy. The power input and output power are not the same numerical values, only the energies are.

  • Avatar

    Pierre Latour

    |

    Shore,
    You say my suggestion to account for photosynthesis is a “red herring” and quote some small numbers. What is your scientific meaning of red herring?

    Systems engineering teaches absolute values of inputs are not as significant as their variability for predicting responses. I have consensus that calling fossil fuel combustion’s contribution to atmosphere mass and energy balances a “red herring” would be justly received with derision.

    I have the rate of the photosynthesis chemical reaction; it is first order in solar intensity, humidity, CO2 concentration and Arrhenius exponential exp(-k/T) in temperature, at the leaf surface. This is another link between atmosphere’s CO2 mass balance and energy balance. Increasing atmospheric CO2 concentration or T increases the rate of CO2 consumption by flora. Seasonal effects are detectable, reliable and predictable. Deforestation counts.

    When UN IPCC forecasts are grossly in error by neglecting photosynthesis, I fail to see how my sincere suggestion to improve model accuracy deserves a snide remark like “red herring”. Your prejudice against anything that cools the Earth is well established.

    As I have told you more than once, your practice of name calling is quite unprofessional and counterproductive. It’s dumb.

  • Avatar

    Pierre Latour

    |

    Shore,
    You tell me “You are using the word “heat” incorrectly to refer to energy transfers that occur back-and-forth on the microscopic (photon) level. That is not a correct usage of the term. “Heat” only refers to the net macroscopic transfer of energy.”

    I did no such thing. I do not believe energy transfers back-and-forth. It is a vector, flows in one direction at a time under a driving force potential. I use the words heat and transfer as you, Bird et al and engineers do to designate the net macroscopic transfer of energy. Radiant heat transfer between bodies means energy transfer through the EMR field, mostly IR, from one into another. What is emitted must be intercepted and absorbed to count as a transfer. You accuse me wrongly, sir.

    You attempted to refute my description of radiant heat transfer from Bird et al, with an assertion radiating clouds are detected at the surface. To which I properly replied that is irrelevant with explanation. To which you attacked me for changing the subject. Inexperienced debaters often accuse their opponent of their own transgressions when the logic of their argument disappears.

    I was interested to note you say “in one sense it does and in another sense it doesn’t.” I suggest you let Bird et al enlighten you to help you make up your mind. You do indeed have a semantics problem or a real confusion.

    I repeat like a broken record because the truth merits repetition and some music is worth listening to more than once. People learn by repetition and practice. Good teachers do not denigrate repetition, they practice it. You even noted I was careful to use the expression heat transfer rather than intensity when I meant heat transfer, not intensity. Atta boy. I suggest you follow my leadership. Learn to express yourself coherently if you wish to teach.

    I have done as you requested. Now find me a textbook that proves the existence of back-radiant energy transfer from cold to hot as I have defined it and the equation with a real driving force that quantifies it. Your blogs do not justify any changes in my essay.

    • Avatar

      Joel Shore

      |

      “You even noted I was careful to use the expression heat transfer rather than intensity when I meant heat transfer, not intensity.”

      No, you used it to conflate two things that are different and hence to confuse. You are claiming that people who talk about back-radiation are talking about heat transfer in both directions (to quote you: “back-radiation, heat transfer in both directions simultaneously,”). However, that is false. We are talking about microscopic energy transfers that occur in both directions and result in a heat transfer from hot to cold. There is no such thing as “heat transfer” at a microscopic level…”Heat” is macroscopic concept, reflecting the net energy transfer. You are repeatedly (and, one must assume willfilly) obscuring the definition of heat as the macroscopic net energy transfer.

      • Avatar

        Greg House

        |

        [quote name=”Joel Shore”]We are talking about microscopic energy transfers that occur in both directions and result in a heat transfer from hot to cold. There is no such thing as “heat transfer” at a microscopic level…”Heat” is macroscopic concept, reflecting the net energy transfer.[/quote]

        If you define “heat” as “net transfer”, then you have yet to prove that “heat” as you defined it exists.

        In other words, only if it physically goes in both opposite directions simultaneously, only then there is the “net” thing, otherwise there is no “net” thing and logically no “heat” (in sense of your definition, of course).

        The demagogic trick you used was to simply put something you have yet to prove to exist in a definition.

        So, until now the only proof of your (absurd) “cold warms hot” concept you presented was the second term in an equation. Even the stupidest climate professor must understand that mathematically you can make equivalent equations containing ANY number of terms, but this still does not mean that those terms taken separately have any physical meaning. I have already given you a simple example of that on this thread: http://principia-scientific.org/latest-news/318-debate-greenhouse-gas-theory-is-false.html#comment-2047.

        Another much easier example would be this physiological one, it is a little bit colorful so that you could memorize it better. In the well known process of defecation shit goes in one direction, ass-toilet. So if 100g shit leaves the ass, mathematically 100=300-200, so a scientists of your caliber could claim this 100g to be “net” transfer, where 300 goes to the toilet and 200 simultaneously in the opposite direction, namely from the toilet into the ass. And call it “back shitting”, why not.

        So, I suggest you present a real physical evidence for your “back shitting” or stop claiming there is one.

        It was just rhetorical about presenting a real physical evidence for “back radiation warming” (“greenhouse effect”), because it contradicts well known physical laws. The assumption of “back radiation warming” leads inevitably to production of energy out of nothing, which renders this “effect” absurd, you know that very well.

        • Avatar

          Joel Shore

          |

          [quote name=”Greg House”][quote name=”Joel Shore”]
          If you define “heat” as “net transfer”, then you have yet to prove that “heat” as you defined it exists.[/quote]

          I’m not the one who invented the definition. I am just explaining it. That is what the definition of heat is.

          [quote]
          In other words, only if it physically goes in both opposite directions simultaneously, only then there is the “net” thing, otherwise there is no “net” thing and logically no “heat” (in sense of your definition, of course).[/quote]

          That’s nonsense. If one has 100 W going from the warmer object to the colder object and 0 W going in the other direction, the net is 100 W going from hot to cold. So, in fact, even if you were right (which you are not), there would still be a concept of “net”. It would just happen to coincide with “gross” in that case.

          [quote]
          So, until now the only proof of your (absurd) “cold warms hot” concept you presented was the second term in an equation.[/quote]

          There is no “cool warms hot” concept. The net transfer of energy is from hot to cold, so the colder object is not warming the warmer object in any strict sense of the term any more than insulation is warming your attic. And, yet, your house will be warmer with the insulation than it will be without it because the insulation allows your furnace to heat the house to a higher temperature.

          [quote]
          The assumption of “back radiation warming” leads inevitably to production of energy out of nothing,…[/quote]

          Greg, Plenty of my students use Newton’s 2nd Law to create energy out of nothing too. That doesn’t mean that the assumption of Newton’s 2nd Law leads to the production of energy out of nothing. It means they screwed up in applying it.

          We have explained to you exactly where you have gone wrong in your calculations but you prefer to wallow in your own cesspool of ignorance.

          • Avatar

            Joel Shore

            |

            There was an error in my HTML coding there.

            These words are Greg’s not mine:

            [quote]If you define “heat” as “net transfer”, then you have yet to prove that “heat” as you defined it exists.[/quote]

            And, these words of mine, not Greg’s:

            [quote]I’m not the one who invented the definition. I am just explaining it. That is what the definition of heat is.[/quote]

        • Avatar

          John OSullivan

          |

          Greg, I find your irreverent but hilarious analogy of ‘back shitting’ most helpful.

  • Avatar

    Pierre Latour

    |

    Shore,
    I have studied Bird, Stewart & Lightfoot Chapter 14 for many years. I am glad you confirm it is an authoritative source to reconcile our dispute.

    You say, “they compute the energy transport from 1 to 2 and show the result in Eqn 14.4-5.” But they actually say after Eqn 14.4-5 “This is the radiant energy emitted by dA1 and intercepted by dA2 per unit time.” They clearly do not say transport from 1 to 2 as in transferred to and absorbed by 2. This is precisely my source for my writings on this dispute. My understanding of the English language description of radiation physics is “emitted by and intercepted by” does not mean the same thing as “transport from” as in transferred to and absorbed by.

    You go on to say “they compute the energy transport from 2 to 1 and show the result in Eqn 14.4-6.” But they actually say after Eqn 14.4-6 “which is the radiant energy emitted by dA2 and intercepted by dA1 per unit time.” They clearly do not say “transport from 1 to 2” as in transferred to and absorbed by. This is precisely my source for my writings on this dispute.

    You neglected to say they followed Eqn 14.4-6 with distinctly different language “The net rate of energy transport from dA1 to dA2 is then Egn 14.4-7”, the difference between 14.4-5 and 14.4-6, with the (T14 – T24) term of my equation providing the driving force necessary for radiant energy transport, missing from Eqn 14.5-5 and 14.5-6 for intensity. That clarifies the semantics of the physics.

    You say Bird et al says “they use both transports, subtracting one from the other” when in fact they use both intensities, subtracting one from the other, to get the real transport rate.

    You say “it violently disagrees with Pierre Latour’s interpretation when discussing the radiation between two blackbodies…and later, two nonblackbodies…and agrees with ours.” Not so.

    Eqn 14.5-3 is the radiation energy transfer law I used.

    You may be shocked to learn you have misquoted my reference to support your incorrect contention, when in fact it supports mine. You also neglected to include their explanation that is identical to mine, since that is where I got it. It supports the point I made in my essay. That is professional misconduct on your part. It is evidence you review books without reading them. This is not the first time I have caught you doing that.

    I would not normally go farther, but since you accused me of being a “dishonest debater” without foundation, it is appropriate to say I have found you to be a dishonest debater with three foundations. You misquoted from my reference in an attempt to deceive. That is not honest. After you identified a fellow human being as a “wing nut” in your Amazon book review, I took the trouble of giving you the correct definition of wing nut to explain your mistake. You have a serious semantics problem all right.

    • Avatar

      Tim Folkerts

      |

      [quote]My understanding of the English language description of radiation physics is “emitted by and intercepted by” does not mean the same thing as “transport from” as in transferred to and absorbed by.[/quote]
      I would suggest that your understanding of English is mistaken here, not Joel’s. For the life of me, I can’t understand your objection. All I hear is “the authors use one set of words meaning ‘moving from one to the other’ and Joel uses a different set of words that mean the same thing”.

      If a bullet is ’emitted’ by a gun and ‘intercepted’ by a target, the bullet must have been ‘transported’ from the gun to the target; the bullet was ‘transferred to’ and ‘absorbed by’ the target.

      [quote]I do not believe energy transfers back-and-forth. It is a vector, flows in one direction at a time under a driving force potential.[/quote]
      Energy can move in several directions at once under several different driving forces. Shine two flashlight beams through each other; two distinct flows of photons will pass right through each other. Shine two flashlights right at each other; the light beans do not cancel out and destroy each other. Send a wave pulse down a string from each end; the two pulses can pass right through each other and continue to the other end of the string. http://www.physicsclassroom.com/class/waves/u10l3c.cfm
      All of these are very simple, very clear examples of energy NOT flowing in one direction at a time.

    • Avatar

      Joel Shore

      |

      So, let me see if I have this straight because I am frankly at this point a little confused.

      (1) Are you claiming that there is a distinction for a BLACKBODY between intercepting radiation and absorbing it? What we have is a blackbody that is intercepting but not absorbing radiation? [But, that everything nonetheless magically works out so that the net energy transfer is exactly what it would have been if the two blackbodies had indeed absorbed all of the energy from the other that they intercepted?]

      Or…

      (2) Are you saying that somehow intensity absorbed times an infinitesimal area does not give a power absorbed in that infinitesimal area?

      I have to say this after reading what you have written here and reading things that compatriots such as Joseph Postma has written: You guys must have an incredible amount of contempt for the audience you are talking to if you actually expect that they will swallow this sort of utter and complete nonsense.

  • Avatar

    Pierre Latour

    |

    Shore,
    I admit I don’t know everything about your GHGT. I admitted it at the outset. I told you I was a student and you were the teacher. Some reasons for the GHGT skepticism consensus are the GHGT literature is a mess and promoters are incompetent teachers. UN IPCC keeps changing it. No crime in not knowing something; deception is the crime. Calling me dishonest is unfair. It is a classic bating tactic.

    I understand you agreed with me back-radiation as I defined it does not exist until I acknowledged we reached consensus. Then you disagreed again, perhaps to be disagreeable. Your new position is back-radiation, heat transfer in both directions simultaneously, does not exist except when it does exist. And it makes no difference anyway, because it is based on statistical and quantum mechanics. It is in all the textbooks.

    That is an example of the incoherent semantics I indicated you are prone to write. You are hard to understand.

    You encouraged me to cite a reference for my position heat only transfers from hot to cold. The foundation of statistical thermodynamics based on Boltzmann statistical mechanics and Shannon information theory is my trusty textbook by Myron Tribus, “Thermostatics and Thermodynamics”, Van Nostrand, 1961. The foundation of chemical engineering textbook is Bird, Stewart and Lightfoot, “Transport Phenomena”, John Wiley, 1960. Back-radiation nowhere to be found.

    The radiant heat transfer in every refinery fired heater I have temperature controlled transfers radiant heat from fuel combustion flames through the product tubes, never in both directions simultaneously.

    When a radiating H2O cloud passes overhead, my house cools down because said cloud blocks (scatters, absorbs, emits) incoming solar power. I gather radiating cold CO2 does also. Just because they radiate down with a Boltzmann intensity does not mean they transfer heat to warmer surface below, raising its temperature.

    I don’t mean to cause any trouble; I am trying my best to explain what I understand the situation is, as a student, to help teachers teach. Ridicule me if you wish, but that is not my style.

    • Avatar

      Joel Shore

      |

      [quote name=”Pierre Latour”]
      I understand you agreed with me back-radiation as I defined it does not exist until I acknowledged we reached consensus. Then you disagreed again, perhaps to be disagreeable.[/quote]

      No, I never agreed with that.

      [quote]
      Your new position is back-radiation, heat transfer in both directions simultaneously, does not exist except when it does exist.[/quote]

      I don’t see how you are getting to this from what I have actually said: “You are conflating two different things, as I have explained before: Heat transfer, which is the macroscopic net energy flow, which is from hot to cold AND the individual flows of energy that make this up and go in both directions.”

      Read that again and again until you understand it and, if you don’t, then ask questions. Just to repeat this like a broken record:

      Heat, which is by its definition, the net transfer is from hot to cold. However, this heat transfer can be divided into two energy transfers: a larger radiative energy transfer from the hot object to the cold object and a smaller radiative transfer from the cold object to the hot object.

      [quote]
      That is an example of the incoherent semantics I indicated you are prone to write.[/quote]

      It is not incoherent. It is just using words correctly rather than incorrectly. You are using the word “heat” incorrectly to refer to energy transfers that occur back-and-forth on the microscopic (photon) level. That is not a correct usage of the term. “Heat” only refers to the net macroscopic transfer of energy.

      [quote]
      You encouraged me to cite a reference for my position heat only transfers from hot to cold. The foundation of statistical thermodynamics based on Boltzmann statistical mechanics and Shannon information theory is my trusty textbook by Myron Tribus, “Thermostatics and Thermodynamics”, Van Nostrand, 1961. The foundation of chemical engineering textbook is Bird, Stewart and Lightfoot, “Transport Phenomena”, John Wiley, 1960. Back-radiation nowhere to be found.[/quote]

      Well, if I can track down those books, I will see if and where they discuss the relationship between the radiant energy transfers back and forth and the resulting heat transfer.

      [quote]
      The radiant heat transfer in every refinery fired heater I have temperature controlled transfers radiant heat from fuel combustion flames through the product tubes, never in both directions simultaneously. [/quote]

      Yes, of course, because you put the word “heat” in there, so it by definition refers to the NET macroscopic transfer of energy, which is always from hot to cold.

      • Avatar

        Tim Folkerts

        |

        [b]Bird, Stewart and Lightfoot, “Transport Phenomena”[/b] on page 491 (Section 16.2) says “It has been shown experimentally that the total enrgy flux emitted by a black surface is
        q = (sigma) T^4.”

        Note that …
        1) this is “energy” not “heat”
        2) this is independent of the temperature of anything else around.

        So the [b]energy[/b] leaving a surface depends only on the surface, and not the surroundings according to this author. Of course, the surface would also be absorbing energy from incomeing thermal radiation, which would be the “- (sigma)(T_cold)^4” term of the typical equations. The total equation, with both the terms (sigma)[ (T_1)^4 – (T_2)^4] would be the net transfer = ‘heat’.

        Earlier on the page, the authors also discuss the idea of “no net heat exchange” when the (energy in) = (energy out). This is clearly discussing energy in both directions canceling to make the heat flwo zero.

        [i]{I am looing at an online ‘preview” so I can’t look much further to see what other discussion they have.}[/i]

        • Avatar

          Joel Shore

          |

          Tim, As discussed in my post below, I was fortunate enough to be able to get the 1960 edition out from our library and indeed it violently disagrees with Pierre Latour’s interpretation when discussing the radiation between two blackbodies…and later, two nonblackbodies…and agrees with ours (and ever physics textbook I’ve seen on the subject).

          • Avatar

            A.Rappaport

            |

            [quote name=”Joel Shore”]Tim, As discussed in my post below, I was fortunate enough to be able to get the 1960 edition out from our library and indeed it violently disagrees with Pierre Latour’s interpretation when discussing the radiation between two blackbodies…and later, two nonblackbodies…and agrees with ours (and ever physics textbook I’ve seen on the subject).[/quote]
            [quote name=”Joel Shore”]Tim, As discussed in my post below, I was fortunate enough to be able to get the 1960 edition out from our library and indeed it violently disagrees with Pierre Latour’s interpretation when discussing the radiation between two blackbodies…and later, two nonblackbodies…and agrees with ours (and ever physics textbook I’ve seen on the subject).[/quote]

            In 1960 no knowledgeable person would even think of heat transfer from cold to hot! Non had ever been measured. Your claims all are derived from the falsified claims of statistical mechanics, and the falsified claims of the theory of kenetic heat. Why not try to get real? You simply have no argument whatsoever!

          • Avatar

            Tim Folkerts

            |

            [quote]In 1960 no knowledgeable person would even think of heat transfer from cold to hot! … You simply have no argument whatsoever![/quote]
            Try to keep up! We are NOT talking about heat from cold to hot! We never have and never will.

            We [i]are [/i]saying that energy goes both ways. We are quoting a thermodynamics text from the early 1960’s that says exact what we are saying.

            Until you learn the thermodynamic definition of ‘heat’ you will continue to misinterpret what we (and every thermodynamics textbook) are saying about heat and energy flow. Until you realize that classical thermodynamics can be derived from modern statistical mechanics, you will continue to sound like a ‘science luddite’ who is 100 years behind the times.

    • Avatar

      Joel Shore

      |

      [quote name=”Pierre Latour”]
      When a radiating H2O cloud passes overhead, my house cools down because said cloud blocks (scatters, absorbs, emits) incoming solar power. I gather radiating cold CO2 does also. Just because they radiate down with a Boltzmann intensity does not mean they transfer heat to warmer surface below, raising its temperature.[/quote]

      Yes, but you have now changed the situation. This is, unfortunately, what always happens in discussions with you Principia folks: You switch to a situation where there is not another warmer object involved.

      We all agree that if the sun disappeared tomorrow, the Earth would cool. No matter if our atmosphere had hundreds of bars of CO2 in it, it would still cool (albeit more slowly in that case) because the back-radiation from the cooling surroundings to the warmer Earth is always less than radiation from the warmer Earth to the cooler surroundings. Hence, the net transfer of energy, what we call “heat”, is always from the warmer to the colder object.

      However, last time I checked, the sun has not disappeared and is not predicted to on any timescale of interest to us right now. So, the actual situation we are in is one where the steady-state temperature of the Earth is determined by balancing of what it receives from the sun and what it emits back out into space. And, the point is, that if a lot of what it is trying to emit back out into space comes back to it because the atmosphere absorbs it and emits it back, then the steady-state temperature that the Earth needs to emit energy back out into space at the same rate as it receives it from the sun will be higher.

      Did this “back-radiation” warm the Earth…Well, that becomes a matter of semantics. In one sense it did, if the sense is that the Earth is warmer than it would be in the absence of such radiation. However, in another sense it didn’t because the net energy flow is still from the Earth to the atmosphere (and then back out into space).

      As an analogy: Let’s say that you earn $100,000 per year and the government takes $30,000 in taxes. Now, let’s suppose that the tax laws change and the new law says that you are entitled to a $5000 refund on your taxes, so they send you a check for $5000. Would you say that the government’ rebate action made you richer? Well, in some sense they did in that you are richer than you would be if they didn’t give you a rebate. However, it is sort of weird to say the government rebate made you richer when the net effect of the government as a whole is to take $25,000 away from you.

      However, that latter fact does not negate the fact that you are now richer than you would have been without the rebate. Likewise, the Earth is warmer than it would be without back-radiation because the heat…i.e., net energy… loss (at a fixed surface temperature) is less than it would be.

    • Avatar

      Joel Shore

      |

      [quote name=”Pierre Latour”]
      You encouraged me to cite a reference for my position heat only transfers from hot to cold. The foundation of statistical thermodynamics based on Boltzmann statistical mechanics and Shannon information theory is my trusty textbook by Myron Tribus, “Thermostatics and Thermodynamics”, Van Nostrand, 1961. The foundation of chemical engineering textbook is Bird, Stewart and Lightfoot, “Transport Phenomena”, John Wiley, 1960. Back-radiation nowhere to be found.
      [/quote]

      Ah…but it is to be found there indeed! The first book that you mentioned doesn’t even cover radiative transfer as far as I could find, so it is not relevant. But, Bird et al. (1960), which fortunately our library has a copy of, has quite the extensive coverage of radiative transport. And, “back-radiation” is hiding in plain sight!

      I suggest you look at Section 14.4 (“Direct Radiation Between Blackbodies in Vacuo at Different Temperatures”). You will note something that may shock you: For these two bodies at different temperatures, they compute the energy transport from (an infinitesimal area element of) body 1 to body 2 and show the result in Eq. 14.4-5. They then compute the energy transport from (an infinitesimal area element of) body 2 to body 1 and show the result in Eq. 14.4-6.

      Note that no comment is made whatsoever regarding having to ignore one of these transports because it represents a violation of the 2nd Law. In fact, they use both transports, subtracting one from the other, to compute the net rate of energy transport between body 1 and body 2. Of course, the final result that they get for this NET rate of energy transport clearly does obey the 2nd Law, as it must.

      In Section 14.5, they extend this discussion to nonblack bodies at different temperatures.

      So, your own reference demonstrates exactly the point that Tim and I have been making: The net energy transport (heat) is the difference of two transports, a larger one from the hotter body to the colder body and a smaller one from the colder body to the hotter body. The latter transport is what, in the context of the geometry of the Earth, has been called “back-radiation”, although as we have pointed out many times, it is really no more mysterious than any other sort of thermal radiation that a body emits by virtue of its temperature.

  • Avatar

    Tim Folkerts

    |

    From the top post …
    [quote]Global Climate Model says emissivity of Earth surface – atmosphere system is about 0.612. If so, corresponding global T for 239 w/m2 average emitted to space would be K = 100(239/5.67*0.612)0.25 = 288.1 – 273.1 = 15.0C. GHGT = 0C. QED.[/quote]

    Hansen made one somewhat poor assumption. But your rebuttal does not actaully refute what he said. Instead, you are simply making the same point a different way.

    As seen [i]from just above the surface looking down[/i], the emissivity of the earth is indeed about 1.0. Close to 70 % of the earth is covered with water, which has an emissivty of ~ 0.95. Ice is about 0.97; rocks seem to be 0.6-0.9; leaves are around 0.95. Overall, the true average emissivity (experimentally verified) of the surface can’t be too far from 0.95. If THIS surface (the ground and oceans) were radiating the 239 W/m^2 to space (ie the atmosphere didn’t interfere), then this surface would have to be 258 K (rather than the 255 K that Hansen calculated). So he is exaggertaing by about 3 C.

    The ‘follow-up question’ is then “how is it possible for the surface to be so much warmer than [s]255 [/s] 258 K”? There are several ways to answer this, but all come down to “its the IR properties of hte atmosphere.

    Your approach is to say that — even though we can measure the surface to be about T = 288 K and ε = 0.95 (when measured at the surface) — we can treat the earth as if it were only ε = 0.62 [i]because the gases in the atmosphere block some of the IR radiation from the ground level[/i]. The emissivity required to use T = 288 K but only have 239 W/m^2 of thermal radiation leaving is 0.62

    Another approach is to say that the surface really does emit P/A = (0.95 * 5.56e-8 * 288 K) = 370 W/m^2. However, clouds & GHGs block all but 40 W/m^2. In turn, the much cooler clouds and GHGs emit their own 199 W/m^2 for the same total of 239 W/m^2. This approach is more intuitive to me and seems to be in line with Hansen’s thinking.

    ***************************************

    What you seem to be missing is that changing the emissivty from [s]1.0[/s] 0.95 to 0.62 [i]IS[/i] ‘the GHGT’. It is exactly the IR properties of the atmosphere (ie clouds and GHGs) that changed the emissivity from 0.95 (measured at gorund level) to 0.62 (measure looking down through the atmosphere). It is exactly the IR properties of the atmosphere that changed the temperature from 258 K to 288 K. You are concluding that the IR properties of the atmosphere warm the planet by 30 K.

    Whether this is couched in language of “changing the effective emissvity’ or ‘back-radiation’ or ‘thermal resistance’ or ‘effective radiating level’, these are all just different ways of saying “the IR properties of the atmosphere warm the earth from 258 K to 288 K”.

  • Avatar

    Pierre Latour

    |

    Shore,
    First your distain for semantics may explain why your writings are incoherent and you are not able to teach well.

    Where is your overwhelming evidence for radiative heat transfer in both directions simultaneously? You just agreed it only goes in one direction. The significance of the issue is existence of back-radiation requires a much hotter emitter than its nonexistence.

    If you are willing to correct the GHGT by replacing its nonexistent back-radiation with a small warming effect due to increased heat transfer resistance from increased radiating gas content, say so. Discard the heat trapping nonsense and the incorrect greenhouse analogy while you are at it. Just clean up the semantics and describe the physics right. Get rid of that nonexistent K-T 333 energy flow arrow down. You are left with 63 emitted, 40 transmitted (or less) and 23 absorbed (or more). What is the surface T increase required to get 23 out, what emissivity & absorptivity did you use and how were they determined?

    Further, don’t neglect the cooling effect of CO2 absorption of incoming solar. How much does it reduce the incoming 161, outgoing 63 and surface emitting T? If it reduces T more that upwelling increases T you have AGC. Just be fair.

    Then postulate a CO2 increase, 100 or 400, repeat the exercise and find both T changes. After that repeat the work accounting for photosynthesis, a cooling effect. Add heat from surface combustion.

    I say there is no greenhouse effect built on nonexistent back-radiation heat transfer of the GHGT. I say the GHGT as promoted is false. And gave my reasons. You have now agreed I am right.

    I agree with you “everything else is not equal”. You took the words out of my mouth as I posted on 2Oct13. Do you agree with skeptics Lindzen and Spencer? Do you accept skepticism is rational thought?

    For heaven’s sake, if you are going to promote AGW and GHGT why don’t you at least use legitimate radiative heat transfer laws that have been well-understood for decades?!?

    I am better at reconciliation than you are, because I learned long ago, calling people names is unprofessional and unproductive. Attention to semantics and definitions is helpful.

    • Avatar

      Joel Shore

      |

      [quote name=”Pierre Latour”]
      Where is your overwhelming evidence for radiative heat transfer in both directions simultaneously? You just agreed it only goes in one direction.[/quote]

      You are conflating two different things, as I have explained before: Heat transfer, which is the macroscopic net energy flow, which is from hot to cold AND the individual flows of energy that make this up and go in both directions.

      The evidence is from the fact that the radiation emitted from the colder objects, such as the atmosphere, can actually be measured as Roy Spencer has demonstrated. The evidence also comes from the very successful and well-verified physical theories, like statistical mechanics, which form our “modern” (meaning within the last century or so) understanding of thermodynamics.

      I noticed that you haven’t taken me up on my challenge to find a physics textbook that supports your view on the non-existence of any radiative energy transfer from a colder body to a warmer body. I can easily come up with half a dozen or more that support mine (and have even quoted them in previous threads).

      [quote]
      If you are willing to correct the GHGT by replacing its nonexistent back-radiation with a small warming effect due to increased heat transfer resistance from increased radiating gas content, say so.[/quote]

      It does not become any smaller than it was before. If one person says the net power transferred from A to B is 50 W and another person says that there is 250 W transferred from A to B and 200 W transferred from B to A, there is going to be no mathematical difference between what they each compute as a result of this.

      [quote]
      Further, don’t neglect the cooling effect of CO2 absorption of incoming solar.[/quote]

      It is not neglected in any quantitative calculation of the radiative effects of CO2.

      [quote]
      After that repeat the work accounting for photosynthesis, a cooling effect. Add heat from surface combustion.[/quote]

      You are just throwing up “red herrings”. The energy absorbed through photosynthesis is released when organic matter decays…So, any net effect is very small. Heat from surface combustion contributes something like 0.02-0.03 W/m^2. A doubling of CO2 contributes about 4 W/m^2.

    • Avatar

      Joel Shore

      |

      [quote]
      I say there is no greenhouse effect built on nonexistent back-radiation heat transfer of the GHGT. I say the GHGT as promoted is false. And gave my reasons. You have now agreed I am right.[/quote]

      This only shows how dishonest a debater you are. I have never said you are right. You are completely wrong on that point, as any introductory physics textbook would tell you.

      However, I said it is basically irrelevant because the difference between saying the net rate of energy transfer is 50 W and that the energy transfer consists of 250 W going one way and 200 W going the other way is not particularly relevant since they both give the same mathermatical result.

      [quote]
      Do you agree with skeptics Lindzen and Spencer?[/quote]

      No…I think that the weight of the evidence is strongly against their point-of-view. But, at least (in many cases) they are arguing things that could conceivably be correct rather than things that are based on fundamental misunderstandings of basic physics.

      [quote]
      Do you accept skepticism is rational thought?[/quote]

      Calling oneself a skeptic doesn’t make one a skeptic. Most people who call themselves “skeptics” regarding AGW really are so ideologically-wedded to a certain point-of-view that they will endlessly question evidence that opposes that point-of-view and naively accept almost an supposed evidence that supports that point of view. That is not skepticism…It is denial of science that conflicts with your ideological belief system.

      There are “evolution skeptics” too (Roy Spencer being an example of one) and I think that is also a misuse of the term “skeptic”.

      [quote]
      I am better at reconciliation than you are, because I learned long ago, calling people names is unprofessional and unproductive.[/quote]

      You clearly haven’t learned that distorting people’s positions is unprofessional and unproductive.

      [quote]
      Attention to semantics and definitions is helpful.[/quote]

      Like distinguishing between “heat” and the microscopic energy transfers that make it up?

      • Avatar

        Greg House

        |

        [quote name=”Joel Shore”]… You are completely wrong on that point, as any introductory physics textbook would tell you.
        However, I said it is basically irrelevant because the difference between saying the net rate of energy transfer is 50 W and that the energy transfer consists of 250 W going one way and 200 W going the other way is not particularly relevant since they both give the same mathermatical result.[/quote]

        Any textbook saying explicitly there is heat transfer by back radiation does not deserve the name “textbook”. Back radiation warming can not exist, because otherwise it would lead to absurd production of energy out of nothing and infinite heating in certain cases.

        As for the formula about the rate of heat transfer, I guess I understand why the IPCC rejected that approach and chose the absurd “back radiation warming” option (the “greenhouse effect”). Even if we consider the atmosphere as “surroundings”, CO2 in it’s present concentration can only influence the temperature of the atmosphere to a completely negligible extent, like 0.0001C. Accordingly, the magnitude of the change in heat transfer from the surface to the atmosphere would be similar, so there would be only an absolutely negligible temperature effect at best.

        That is why, I guess, you have talked so long on many threads about this formula without presenting any calculation.

        The IPCC apparently had a choice between an absolutely minuscule negligible effect and a complete fiction of “back radiation warming”, so they chose the latter, of course, and “made” it 33C. Well done, climate liars.

        • Avatar

          Joel Shore

          |

          Greg,

          As usual, you have absolutely no clue about what you are talking about. Your statement about it being negligible is akin to someone saying, “Well, maybe if I give you $1 million and you give me back $800,000 then it would have a sugnifi9cant effect on your wealth, but if I simply give you $200,000, it would have a negligible effect on your wealth.”

          The fact that you think that you somehow know how much of an effect CO2 can have given its concentration is laughable.

          As for calculations, there are plenty out there in the literature. Calculating the actual quantitative effect is difficult because it involves a line-by-line spectral calculation that can only be done by a full computer program (which is again why your claim to know how big the effect can be is so ridiculous). However, there are simplified models like the common model that Willis calls “The Steel Greenhouse” that are empirical but show the basic idea.

          And, in case you are wondering, the Steel Greenhouse does not rely on back-radiation. It just uses the S-B Equation.

          As for the 33 C, that number is obvious from the fact that there is a limit on how high the average surface temperature can possibly be if the atmosphere is transparent to radiation. As Tim points out, this highest possible value does depend on the emissivity of the surface, but given measured emissivities (and Tim if anything overestimated the extent to which they differ from 1 in the relevant spectral range), the bound is pretty close to 255 K – 258 K for the Earth with its current planetary albedo.

          [It is worth noting that, to the extent, that the temperature distribution is not completely uniform, the highest possible temperature it could have for an IR-transparent atmosphere will even be lower (because what matters is the total amount the Earth radiates and, hence, what is constrained is really the average of absolute temperature to the 4th power, not the average of temperature itself). I think this is why the 255 K number is most often quoted: Using real emissivities would move it up a few K but using a realistic temperature distribution across the surface would move it down a few K, so the two corrections largely wash each other out.]

        • Avatar

          Joel Shore

          |

          [quote name=”Greg House”]
          Any textbook saying explicitly there is heat transfer by back radiation does not deserve the name “textbook”. Back radiation warming can not exist, because otherwise it would lead to absurd production of energy out of nothing and infinite heating in certain cases.
          [/quote]

          Since heat transfer refers to the net macroscopic energy transfer, what the books say…and what we say…is that heat transfer consists of two terms, a term that represents radiative energy from the warmer body that is absorbed by the cooler surroundings and a term that represents radiative energy from the cooler surroundings that is absorbed by the warmer body.

          And, you can’t simply erase one of these terms. Both are necessary in order to get what the net macroscopic energy transfer is, which is what we call “heat”.

  • Avatar

    Rojclague

    |

    Joel Shore 2013-09-30 21:56

    [quote]Whether or not there is conduction, convection, or evaporation does not change the amount of radiation that an object emits at a certain temperature.[/quote]

    But S-B Law gives only the maximum T, for a perfect radiator in thermal equilibrium, that is not lsing or gaining energy fron conduction convection or evaporation.

    [quote]And, yes, a “graybody” does indeed obey KLR. KLR in fact is what says that the emissivity and the absorptivity at a given wavelength have to be equal. That would be sort of a boring statement if it only applied to blackbodies![/quote]

    Kirchoff used emissivity to mean emissive power, not the difference between a black body and a non-blackbody.
    Because you think a law is boring does not allow you to apply it wrongly. Actually it is misused it to support the CO2AGW theory.

    • Avatar

      Joel Shore

      |

      [quote name=”Rojclague”]
      But S-B Law gives only the maximum T, for a perfect radiator in thermal equilibrium, that is not lsing or gaining energy fron conduction convection or evaporation.[/quote]

      No…the condition is “local thermodynamic equilibrium”, not thermodynamic equilibrium. This is a much weaker condition. See here for a discussion: http://scienceofdoom.com/2010/10/24/planck-stefan-boltzmann-kirchhoff-and-lte/

      Whether there is conduction or convection occurring is irrelevant to the amount of radiation that a body will emit.

      [quote]
      Kirchoff used emissivity to mean emissive power, not the difference between a black body and a non-blackbody.
      Because you think a law is boring does not allow you to apply it wrongly. Actually it is misused it to support the CO2AGW theory.[/quote]

      I am not the one applying it wrongly. Again, see the discussion at that link from ScienceOfDoom.

    • Avatar

      Tim Folkerts

      |

      [quote]But S-B Law gives only the maximum T…[/quote]

      Roj, I think you are thinking about this somewhat backwards (or at least differently than Joel & I).

      If you already know that a blackbody surface is receiving a total of, say 480 W/m^2, then the the maximum temperature would be 303 K, where all of that energy is leaving as thermal radiation, and none is leaving as conduction, convection, or evaporation.

      On the other hand, it is much more common to start by knowing the TEMPERATURE of the surface, not the ENERGY FLOW. If we know the temperature of the surface is 303 K, then we know that the surface will be emitting 480 W/m^2. The 303 K surface could ALSO be losing energy by evaporation or conduction or convection; this would simply require more than 480 W/m^2 of net energy input.

  • Avatar

    Tim Folkerts

    |

    Pierre, let me give you a slightly different situation. The water is pouring into a bucket with a hole on the side near the bottom. Once again, we pour water into the bucket, and once again the water level will rise until sufficent pressure is created to push the water out as fast as it comes in, with the water simply draining out onth the ground. For the sake of argument, lets suppose the water is 40 cm deep.

    And I have a second, larger bucket with a similar sort of hole. With the same water flow, let’s suppose it fills 30 cm deep.

    OK, now start with the smaller bucket in its steadystate condition – 40 cm deep with water pouring in and leakin out.
    Now, put that smaller bucket inside the larger bucket. The water will start to fill the outer bucket and create a back-pressure. The inner bucket will get deeper. Eventually the outer bucket will be 30 cm deep and the inner bucket will be 30+40 = 70 cm deep.

    The “hole” from the inner bucket is still the same. It is only the back-pressure from the outer bucket that caused the difference, not a physical restriction like the previous analogy. In fact, on a microscopic level, some water molecules ARE moving back from the outer bucket back to the inner bucket. (The thermal speeds of the water molecules wil be 100’s of m/s, so the microscopic jostling will always have some molecules moving ‘backwards’ from the outer tank to the inner tank).

    This is the better analogy for light reaching the ‘inner container’ and having to ‘leak’ to the atmosphere and the atmosphere to then ‘leak’ to space.

  • Avatar

    Pierre Latour

    |

    Shore
    Now that you agree the fluid flow requires a driving force law analogy applies to radiant heat transfer requires a driving force law claim, and there is no such thing as back fluid flow, you can confidently conclude there is no such thing as back radiation heat transfer from cold CO2 transmitted to and absorbed by warmer surface. The GHGT is false.

    Remember incident radiation to a surface may be absorbed, transmitted and reflected/scattered. The two fractions depend on the nature of the surface and the incident radiation, naturally.
    I proved if back-radiation did exist, the back and forth would be an infinite sequence of energy transfers that converges to a bounded value for creation of a finite amount of energy. I quantified it in the essay as a function of system parameters including the back-radiation coefficient k. You can see E > 0 unless back-radiation k = 0. If you accept the energy conservation law, you must accept back-radiation does not exist, just as perpetual motion machines do not exist.

    Now for chemistry. Introducing more radiating gases like H2O and CO2 to atmosphere increases its absorptivity/emissivity/scattering, and reducing its transmissivity. This increase in resistance to energy transfer to space results in an increase in surface radiating T to get the same energy out. A global warming effect. In addition, such an introduction also reduces the solar intensity impinging on and absorbed by the surface, for the same reason. A global cooling effect.

    So the net effect on T may be > 0 or < 0, depending on the parameters and spectra. Which is why UN IPCC reports it is quite small and their predictions of its magnitude decline with time. Extrapolating their predictions, it should reach 0 by 2030, perhaps go negative, cool. Researchers would be better advised to replace their crude empirical models from T and CO2 data regression with accurate values for absorptivity of radiating gas mixtures as done commercially by chemical engineers since 1950. You are welcome.

    • Avatar

      Greg House

      |

      [quote name=”Pierre Latour”]Shore
      Now that you agree the fluid flow requires a driving force law analogy applies to radiant heat transfer requires a driving force law claim, and there is no such thing as back fluid flow, you can confidently conclude there is no such thing as back radiation heat transfer from cold CO2 transmitted to and absorbed by warmer surface. The GHGT is false. …

      Introducing more radiating gases like H2O and CO2 to atmosphere increases its absorptivity/emissivity/scattering, and reducing its transmissivity. This increase in resistance to energy transfer to space results in an increase in surface radiating T to get the same energy out. A global warming effect.[/quote]

      Except analogies do not prove anything. There may be significant differences between fluid flow and radiation. Water is matter, radiation is not. Radiation can be blocked and unable to penetrate something (resistance), but this fact alone does not prove that it can not leave the radiating body at the same rate. One can not prove such things by building analogies. I guess we’ve had enough of the IPCC blanket analogy to learn that it is a poor way to prove anything.

      Another thing is a question, how this formula mentioned above applies to gases, especially to a mixture of radiating and non-radiating gases.

      Last not least, the IPCC concept does not mention this formula or resistance at all, it is build entirely on “back radiation warming” allegedly raising the temperature above the maximum the Sun can produce. Why not focus on this thing [b]consequently[/b]?

      • Avatar

        Joel Shore

        |

        (1) Analogies may not prove anything but analogies back up by over a century of physical observation do “prove” something. (To the extent that anything can be “proven” in science, which it technically can’t be because science is inductive, not deductive.)

        (2) The extension of radiative transfer to a gas is something again that has been worked out for decades.

        (3) Talking about back-radiation and talking about the concept of resistance are two aspects of the same thing. Back radiation reduces the net flow of heat that occurs between the object and its surroundings for a fixed object temperature. I am beginning to prefer the resistance picture only because so many people seem susceptible to sophistry based on misunderstanding that the laws of thermodynamics apply to macroscopic thermodynamic quantities like heat and not to the microscopic processes.

        (4) There is no maximum temperature that the sun can produce (except that it could not heat the Earth to a temperature hotter than the surface of the sun itself). If you make it sufficiently difficult for the Earth to radiate heat back out into space, then the surface temperature will get warmer and warmer until such time as the Earth is again in steady-state with its surroundings…Witness Venus. There is, however, a maximum (average) surface temperature that the sun can produce in the absence of an IR-absorbing atmosphere.

        • Avatar

          Greg House

          |

          [quote name=”Joel Shore”]
          (4) There is no maximum temperature that the sun can produce (except that it could not heat the Earth to a temperature hotter than the surface of the sun itself). If you make it sufficiently difficult for the Earth to radiate heat back out into space, then the surface temperature will get warmer and warmer until such time as the Earth is again in steady-state with its surroundings…[/quote]

          What a crap. The contradiction is so obvious. So, if [i]”the Sun heated the Earth to the maximum temperature which is the temperature of the Sun”[/i], as you put it, and then [i]”you made it sufficiently difficult for the Earth to radiate heat back out into space, then the surface temperature will get warmer and warmer”[/i], as you put it as well, the Earth would get hotter than the Sun. Now the Earth would do to the Sun exactly the same thing making the Sun even hotter. Then the Sun would heat the already much hotter Earth again and so on. A very nice self-heating without additional supply of energy, congratulation. This is what the mankind is dreaming about. Again, do not call yourself a scientist.

          • Avatar

            Joel Shore

            |

            “as you put it as well, the Earth would get hotter than the Sun.”

            No, what I said is “except that it could not heat the Earth to a temperature hotter than the surface of the sun itself”. It is an interesting exercise to understand why this cannot happen, as an illustration of how physics actually work as compared to how people like you think it works:

            What prevents the Earth from getting hotter than the sun via the greenhouse effect is that the effect relies on the spectral selectivity of the greenhouse gases…That is, it works because greenhouse gases selectively absorb more of the longer wavelength radiation emitted by the Earth than the shorter wavelength radiation emitted by the sun. However, as the Earth’s temperature approaches that of the Sun, such selectivity becomes impossible because the emission spectra become more and more alike.

            That is the interesting thing about nature: it is infinitely more creative in how it enforces physical laws than the imaginatively-impoverished ideas of people like yourself about how nature works. So, not only are you wrong, your view of nature is much uglier and less elegant and imaginative than the beauty and reality of nature.

            Truth is more interesting than fiction.

          • Avatar

            Tim Folkerts

            |

            Good summary of the correct physics, Joel. 🙂

          • Avatar

            Greg House

            |

            [quote name=”Joel Shore”]No, what I said is “except that it could not heat the Earth to a temperature hotter than the surface of the sun itself”. It is an interesting exercise to understand why this cannot happen, [/quote]

            Yeah, and then you explained how this [b]could [/b]happen, that’s why I said “What a crap. The contradiction is so obvious.”

            It is unbelievable, how skillfully you can obfuscate the matter after being caught to have stated something ridiculous.

            It was your idea, not mine, that the Sun can heat the Earth and make it hotter than the Sun itself without any additional input of energy, just [i]”if you make it sufficiently difficult for the Earth to radiate heat back out into space”[/i], as you put it. It does not require a rocket scientist to figure out that in this case the (becoming hotter than the Sun) Earth would make the Sun even hotter and so on. Here you have again creation of energy out of nothing.

            I wonder how long it could last until you have stopped talking nonsense. By the way, I suggest you give your degree back and find another occupation, the society deserves it.

          • Avatar

            Joel Shore

            |

            “By the way, I suggest you give your degree back and find another occupation, the society deserves it.”

            Believe me, Greg, if my colleagues saw what I did here, they would likely agree with you…not because of the reasons that you think but rather because when I have given them an inkling of what I do, they have wondered why I waste my time trying to educate such clearly ineducable people like yourself.

          • Avatar

            Greg House

            |

            I can confirm for your colleagues that you are definitely not wasting your time here fooling people and pretending your … you know… has anything to do with science, because you are good at it and have achieved some success, at least by distracting people from the very simple fact that the “greenhouse effect” as presented by the IPCC in their reports is absurd and physically impossible.

    • Avatar

      Joel Shore

      |

      (1) The spectral calculations have already been done and the result is known. For gases like CO2 and H2O that absorb more strongly in the far infrared than the near infrared, visible, and ultraviolet, the net effect is warming. And, the magnitude of the radiative effect is well-quantified (within about 10%), although the value of the resulting temperature change is much less well-quantified due to feedbacks.

      (2) Your claim about the warming effect going negative is incorrect. Not all functions that have a decreasing slope go negative. In particular, the radiative effect of additional CO2 is approximately logarithmic. That means that the slope decreases with time but is always positive. (And, in fact, this logarithmic dependence is only approximate, based on what parts of various spectral lines are saturated and which are not for a certain concentration of CO2. As CO2 levels increase, the dependence or radiative forcing on concentration is expected to be somewhat stronger than a logarithm.)

      (3) I am glad to see that you reject the arguments of the Slayers who deny the basic concept of increasing the temperature by increasing the resistance to radiation from the Earth escaping to space. The issue of back-radiation is really not relevant as long as you accept the basic mathematical equations, which you do. Your claim that interpreting the second term in the S-B equation as radiation from the cooler surroundings absorbed by the warmer object results in a violation of physical laws is not correct. And, in fact, any physics textbook will support this interpretation. But, again, this interpretation is not really important for understanding the greenhouse effect as long as one agrees on the net effect on heat flow, as you do.

    • Avatar

      Joel Shore

      |

      “Researchers would be better advised to replace their crude empirical models from T and CO2 data regression with accurate values for absorptivity of radiating gas mixtures as done commercially by chemical engineers since 1950.”

      This sentence does sort of astound me because it shows that you have no familiarity with the literature of the science that you are criticizing. Calculation of radiative transfer in the atmosphere using the measured spectral properties of the various gases is exactly what is done to get quantitative estimates of radiative forcing.

      The problem (and the reason why researchers have to construct either empirical or mechanistic models) is because of feedbacks. E.g., one question is, what effect will an increase in CO2 concentration and resulting temperature increase have on the concentration of water vapor. What effect will it have on clouds (which provide both a warming greenhouse effect and a cooling albedo effect)? What effect will it have on ice and snow albedo?

      It is for these reasons that understanding just the radiative effects of additional CO2, all else being equal, is not enough to predict the temperature increase. The fact is that all else is not equal.

    • Avatar

      Joel Shore

      |

      And, as a final comment, I will just add that this is why the more knowledgeable scientists who are AGW skeptics, such as Roy Spencer and Richard Lindzen, focus on this issue of feedbacks, particularly for clouds, which are the most uncertain.

      For heaven’s sake, if you are going to disagree about AGW, why don’t you at least argue about legitimate questions where uncertainty does really exist, rather than debating aspects of radiative physics and radiative transfer through the atmosphere that has been well-understood for decades?!?

      • Avatar

        Shooter

        |

        “If you’re going to disagree…why not argue about legitimate questions?”

        And then you constantly refer to the “literature” of the pseudo-science you push, which has already been discussed here. You’re pretty much using dead points.

        Plus, CO2 isn’t a warming gas. It’s a cooling gas. And please, dear sir, explain how something cold can give off heat still. That’s in every physics textbook, you know.

        Now now, dear. That’s been understood for centuries.

        And…the Earth being hotter than the Sun? Damn, where’d all those million degrees come from? For a physicist you sure do make ridiculous claims.

        “Earth getting as hot as the Sun” and then you turn around and say that it doesn’t, and then say it does.

        Plus – there aren’t any heat trapping gasses. So your entire theory is wrong.

  • Avatar

    Pierre Latour

    |

    Shore
    You did not resort to counter-productive name calling this time. Improvement noted. By asking questions, you are asking me to be the teacher and you are willing to be the student. I know why you dodged some of my questions when I was your student; I don’t mind answering yours when you are mine.

    I trust you agree my statement “I think I probably have much more experience with how science works and applying the laws of radiation than you do.” inspired by your identical claim, is just as irrelevant as yours was.

    To be more precise I should have said: Physics teaches the fluid flows from high pressure to lower at a rate proportional to the square root of the pressure difference. My conclusion stands.

    Your sink example is from elementary fluid mechanics, required to build tank level control systems throughout the chemical industry. I am pleased you recognize it as a valid analogy to resolve the back-radiation dispute. Your blocker is called a control valve. The flow rate through it is described by O = (P – p)0.5 /R where resistance R is set by valve position, p is discharge pressure below the valve, a constant, and P is valve inlet pressure determined by water height, h and density. The real driving force is gravity.

    A1 = A2 = A3 = Agree.

    A4: Easy, less water flowed out as the valve pinched according to the equation above and the level increased at a rate proportional to the difference in flows: accumulation = input – output, Adh(t)/dt = I(t) – O(t). This is the law of conservation of matter, water in the sink. When O = I, h = constant.

    Since the pinched valve presents greater flow resistance, the pressure drop across the valve must increase to provide sufficient driving force for the same input flow, O = (P2 – p)0.5 /R2. Do you agree from algebra if R2 > R, P2 > P for the same O = I?

    When O is decreased, level h rises until P increases to P2 and O(t) returns to O = I. Hence h2 > h to increase P to P2. That is how it is not only possible but essential that the level is now higher in the tank. There is no such thing as backflow from the drain up into the sink. Water does not flow uphill in a gravitational field.

    To say it is impossible for the water level to be higher because there is no such thing as backflow from drain into the sink would be correct because backflow is an incorrect description of the mechanics involved and how nature works. It is impossible. It violates the laws of physics. I gave you the correct description. It is all about semantics.

    • Avatar

      Joel Shore

      |

      Okay, so what you are saying is you completely accept the greenhouse effect, i.e., the fact that the surface of the Earth is warmer when there is greater “flow resistance” for radiation, but you don’t believe it to be due to back-radiation.

      So, why do you keep implying that there is no greenhouse effect? (I.e., in the sink analog that there is no possible way that the water level could get higher when we increase the flow resistance?)

      Look, personally, I don’t care whether or not you accept the overwhelming evidence in the radiative case that there are radiative flows in both directions or if you prefer to just think about the net flow and believe it is all in one direction. It doesn’t make any difference to the result: You have now accepted that by stating that the water level in the sink will get higher even though in that case there is no backflow.

      Perhaps you can now renounce the nonsense about there being no way in which a radiatively-active atmosphere can cause the steady-state surface temperature of the Earth to be higher?

  • Avatar

    Joel Shore

    |

    Pierre Latour: You make the analogy to pressure, so let’s follow through with this. Suppose you have a sink where the drain is partially blocked and you have water flowing in from the tap at a certain rate. As a result of this (assuming the rate of flow out the faucet is sufficient), you will get a steady-state height of water backed up in your sink, such that the pressure is just enough to force water down the drain at the same rate as it is received from the faucet.

    Do you agree or disagree?

    Now, suppose that the drain is blocked up even more. The water level in the sink will now rise to a new steady-state level where there is a larger pressure that is again enough to drive water down the drain at the same rate as it is received from the faucet.

    Do you agree or disagree?

    So, the water level in the sink has increased even though the flow of water is from the sink down the drain.

    Do you agree or disagree?

    If you agree, how is it possible for the water level to now be higher in the sink? After all, water is not flowing up the drain into the sink?!? Would the “Sink Slayers” like yourself come along and say that it is impossible for the water level to be higher because there is no such thing as backflow from the drain into the sink?

  • Avatar

    Joel Shore

    |

    “Physics teaches the heat flows from high intensity, eT4, to lower intensity, at4, at a rate proportional to the difference.”

    What you say up to and including this is correct and not in dispute. However, you fail to realize the implications of this last statement, which are:

    (1) The rate of heat transfer thus depends on the temperature of the cold body as well as the hot body.

    (2) In the steady-state, the rate of heat transfer from a hot body that is receiving (or producing) thermal energy at a rate Q must be equal to Q.

    (3) The only way that statements (1) and (2) can both be true is if the steady-state temperature of the hot body is higher if the temperature of the cold body is higher. Or, in other words, the Earth surrounded by a radiatively-active atmosphere has to be at a warmer temperature than an Earth that is surrounded by an atmosphere that is transparent to radiation and hence the Earth is just effectively radiating out to space.

    “Your error and GHGT error is assigning to that second intensity term in the radiant heat transfer law I gave you an energy flow from cold to hot. Just because there is an algebraic term in my equation for cooler body radiating intensity does not mean it corresponds to a rate of heat transfer from cold to hot. “

    (1) It is irrelevant how we interpret that second term. The result of a greenhouse effect follows from the mathematical structure of the equation, as I have described above, not from how you interpret the terms.

    (2) You say two different things here, one correct and one incorrect. You are correct that there is no heat transfer from cold to hot. Heat is the net macroscopic transfer of energy, which is from hot to cold. However, you are incorrect in stating that there is no radiant energy transfer from cold to hot. As any physics book would explain to you, the second term does indeed represent energy radiating by the colder surroundings that are absorbed by the warmer object.

    (3) However, I re-emphasize my point (1): Whether or not you believe every physics textbook I have seen on the planet or not is irrelevant. If you accept the S-B Law, i.e., the fact that the heat transfer depends on the temperature of the colder surroundings as well as the warmer object, you have to accept the greenhouse effect. It follows from a mathematical application of that equation, without regard to how one interprets the terms.

    “But K-T labeled their diagram energy flows, and their back-radiation arrow 333 cannot be a flow, absorbed by surface, warming it further.”

    This is a complete red herring. They could just as easily have just shown the net flow of energy, rather than the back-and-forth and it would have given the same result.

    “I suspect my description of radiation physics will upset you as quibbling about semantics…”

    The point is that you are using silly semantic arguments to deny basic facts that follow mathematically from the very equation that you accept describes radiative transfer.

    • Avatar

      Greg House

      |

      [quote name=”Joel Shore”]you are incorrect in stating that there is no radiant energy transfer from cold to hot. As any physics book would explain to you, the second term does indeed represent energy radiating by the colder surroundings that are absorbed by the warmer object.[/quote]

      This is simply absurd. Or you have to admit that this “absorption”, if it exists, does not have any influence on the temperature of the hotter body. Your “net” in that context is complete nonsense.

      Let me tell you again, that the assumption of the opposite obviously leads to an impossible outcome, namely to creation of energy out of nothing. It is sufficient to consider the case, where the warmer body starts at a stable temperature, then if it was warmed by a colder body, it would warm the colder body even more in turn and the colder body would warm the warmer body and so on back and forth infinitely.

      I am writing this just for the readers, of course, not for the climate liars who know very well how things work in reality.

      • Avatar

        Joel Shore

        |

        [quote name=”Greg House”]
        This is simply absurd. Or you have to admit that this “absorption”, if it exists, does not have any influence on the temperature of the hotter body. [/quote]

        If it is absurd, you ought to easily be able to find a physics textbook that agrees with you.

        If it doesn’t have effect on the warmer body, how does this magically violation of the laws of mathematics come about? The usual laws of mathematics state that if you take a value Q and then you subtract a value, you make it lower? How can the rate at which heat is emitted by an object be lower and yet still be equal to the energy it is receiving? That’s a pretty neat trick!

        [quote name=”Greg House”]
        Let me tell you again, that the assumption of the opposite obviously leads to an impossible outcome, namely to creation of energy out of nothing.[/quote]

        No. It has explained to you countless times why your argument is wrong. Simply repeating nonsense again and again doesn’t make it correct.

        [quote name=”Greg House”]
        It is sufficient to consider the case, where the warmer body starts at a stable temperature, then if it was warmed by a colder body, it would warm the colder body even more in turn and the colder body would warm the warmer body and so on back and forth infinitely.[/quote]

        It is sufficient to understand the basic concept that not all infinite series diverge. The sum of 1 + 1/2 + 1/4 + 1/8 is not infinite. It has the value two, despite the fact it represents a process of adding energy (or what have you) infinitely many times.

        [quote]
        I am writing this just for the readers, of course, not for the climate liars who know very well how things work in reality.[/quote]

        Yes, because it makes more sense that your ideological fellow-travelers like Roy Spencer and Robert Brown are lying to you than that you actually know and understand a lot less than you think you do…Well, at least it makes sense in the bizarre reality that you inhabit.

        • Avatar

          Greg House

          |

          [quote name=”Joel Shore”]It is sufficient to understand the basic concept that not all infinite series diverge. The sum of 1 + 1/2 + 1/4 + 1/8 is not infinite.[/quote]

          This sum has nothing to do with the case in question, and you know that very well.

          In case of a perfect reflector the amount of energy exported out of the system due to assumed back radiation warming (without any additional input of energy) looks like this: 400 600 900 1350 and so on, always accelerating, it is obviously infinite, which is a clearly absurd result proving the “greenhouse effect” impossible.

          Your sum simply does not represent the case of warming by back radiation. It is clear that if you do not assume back radiation warming then you might well get a non-absurd result, congratulations. Now, please, explain the readers how assuming “no back radiation warming” can prove the existence of this very back radiation warming. It is absolutely crazy stuff, your argumentation.

          • Avatar

            Joel Shore

            |

            Greg,

            Tim has explained to you before that your sum actually looks like this: 400+200+100+50+…, so in fact, my sum relates exactly to the case in question. It is a sum that converges to a finite value.

            You insist on writing the sum incorrectly, i.e., each time the radiation comes back, you don’t just deal with this new radiation but go back and count the original radiation that you already counted over again. That is not the correct way to solve the problem. The fact that our way is correct is confirmed by just solving directly for the steady-state solution without dealing with the details of the process by which the radiation travels back and forth, but simply to look at the net radiative flows.

          • Avatar

            Greg House

            |

            [quote name=”Joel Shore”]Greg,

            Tim has explained to you before that your sum actually looks like this: 400+200+100+50+…, so in fact, my sum relates exactly to the case in question. It is a sum that converges to a finite value.

            You insist on writing the sum incorrectly, i.e., each time the radiation comes back, you don’t just deal with this new radiation but go back and count the original radiation that you already counted over again.[/quote]

            Again, I did not just count something “again”. I assumed the “greenhouse effect” by a reflector and strictly followed this assumption through my calculation, and this logically yielded the absurd result, proving the “greenhouse effect” absurd.

            Tim did not strictly followed the assumption of the “greenhouse effect” and got different numbers. Therefore his numbers do not refute mine, he simply built a different case that has nothing to do with the alleged “greenhouse effect”.

            I repeat, if you did not assume the “greenhouse effect” and got a non-absurd result, which is generally possible, you neither proved the existence of the “greenhouse effect” nor refuted the proof of it’s absurdity. This is a purely logical issue, if you have problems with understanding it, I am here to help. No, of course you understand it, you are just fooling the readers, how can I forget this.

          • Avatar

            Tim Folkerts

            |

            [quote]Again, I did not just count something “again”. I assumed the “greenhouse effect” by a reflector … [/quote]

            Greg, once again you show your lack up understanding. The GHE is NOT due to reflection, so your conclusions are doomed before you even start. With your [i]incorrect assumption [/i]of perfect reflection, then “absurd” results like you got are possible, with a diverging series.

            I, on the other hand, [i]did[/i] strictly follow the [i]correct assumption[/i] of absorption and emission of thermal IR. In this case, the series converges quite nicely. There is no runaway heating.

          • Avatar

            Greg House

            |

            [quote name=”Tim Folkerts”]The GHE is NOT due to reflection, so your conclusions are doomed before you even start. With your [i]incorrect assumption [/i]of perfect reflection, then “absurd” results like you got are possible, with a diverging series.[/quote]

            The so called “greenhouse effect” as presented by the IPCC is “warming the source by back radiation”. I demonstrated that back radiation warming is physically absurd by using a simplified example with a perfect reflector providing back radiation. Whether the reflector is 100% perfect or reflects/emits back only 1% of radiation absolutely does not matter, the calculation would be similar and creating energy out of nothing would be the inevitable (absurd) result similarly.

            You know all that very well.

          • Avatar

            Tim Folkerts

            |

            [quote] I demonstrated that back radiation warming is physically absurd by using a simplified example … [/quote]
            There is a quote attributed to Einstein that “everything should be made as simple as possible, but no simpler.”

            Your “simplified” example is too simple. There is a distinct conceptual difference between ‘back-reflection’ and ‘back-radiation’. You quite simply are wrong to use the wrong physics and then expect it to give the correct results.

            Unfortunately, you do not appear to know any of that very well. 🙁

          • Avatar

            Greg House

            |

            [quote name=”Tim Folkerts”]Your “simplified” example is too simple. There is a distinct conceptual difference between ‘back-reflection’ and ‘back-radiation’. You quite simply are wrong to use the wrong physics and then expect it to give the correct results.[/quote]

            Again, for the purpose of demonstrating the absurdity of the “greenhouse effect” it is absolutely irrelevant, by which process exactly the back radiation is produced, reflection or absorption/emission. The calculation would be similar with the same absurd production of energy out of nothing as a result.

          • Avatar

            Tim Folkerts

            |

            [quote]The calculation would be similar … [/quote]
            No, as we just discussed:
            * reflection can lead to run-away warming.
            * Absorption/emission cannot.
            There is enough difference to make the results completely different.

          • Avatar

            Greg House

            |

            Again, there is absolutely no difference whether the back radiation was emitted back to the source or reflected back to the source.

            The essential part of the “greenhouse effect” is that this back radiation [b]warms the source[/b], and exactly this leads to an absurd production of energy out of nothing, as my calculation demonstrated.

            You must be desperate, since you resort to such a nonsense, I am glad to see that.

          • Avatar

            Tim Folkerts

            |

            Clearly we are going around in circles. We will have to leave it to the REST of the world to try to decide whose position is closer to the truth.

          • Avatar

            Greg House

            |

            [quote name=”Tim Folkerts”]I, on the other hand, [i]did[/i] strictly follow the [i]correct assumption[/i] of absorption and emission of thermal IR. In this case, the series converges quite nicely. There is no runaway heating.[/quote]

            No, the body in the case you built did not radiate according to his new higher temperature allegedly created by back radiation, which is equivalent to your [b]not assuming the “greenhouse effect”[/b].

            Like I said to Mr.Shore, if you did not assume the “greenhouse effect” and got a non-absurd result, which is generally possible, you neither proved the existence of the “greenhouse effect” nor refuted the proof of it’s absurdity. This is a purely logical issue, if you have problems with understanding it, I am here to help. No, of course you understand it, you are just fooling the readers, how can I forget this.

  • Avatar

    Pierre Latour

    |

    Shore,
    I will add some semantics to help you and Barrett.

    S-B equation gives intensity of radiation, w/m2, emitted by a body at T. It is analogous to fluid pressure, kg/m2. Stephan and Boltzmann called it intensity, not heat transfer, because it is intensity, not heat transfer. (It becomes heat transfer in maximum case emitting to 0K surroundings, so it is a max heat transfer. Real transfer is always less.) All bodies radiate with an intensity and they all experience a pressure. But for a fluid to flow there must be a driving force, a pressure difference. Physics teaches the fluid flows from high pressure to lower at a rate proportional to the pressure difference. The pressure at the bottom of the sea is high but uniform so no fluid flow.

    For radiant energy to flow, transfer from one body to be absorbed by another body, heating it, there must be a driving force and that force for radiant energy transfer is an intensity difference. Physics teaches the heat flows from high intensity, eT4, to lower intensity, at4, at a rate proportional to the difference. Two identical glowing radiators facing each other radiate intensely but without any heat transfer between them.

    Your error and GHGT error is assigning to that second intensity term in the radiant heat transfer law I gave you an energy flow from cold to hot. Just because there is an algebraic term in my equation for cooler body radiating intensity does not mean it corresponds to a rate of heat transfer from cold to hot.

    Atmospheric CO2 radiates with same intensity in all directions but the direction and rate of heat transfer to surroundings depends on surroundings radiating intensity. Energy transfer is asymmetric. So if the K-T 333 back-radiation arrow signifies direction of downward radiation intensity in all directions, ok, if they point it in all directions. But K-T labeled their diagram energy flows, and their back-radiation arrow 333 cannot be a flow, absorbed by surface, warming it further. Hence we have the dispute about semantics of physics which you dismiss with derision.

    I suspect my description of radiation physics will upset you as quibbling about semantics, because you dismiss semantics when it is at odds with your notions, but a competent student should get it.

  • Avatar

    Pierre Latour

    |

    Shore,
    Since the literature describing the GHGT theory is such a mess, the theory is in scientific retreat under severe attack, few accept it and many reject it, semantics is one central issue in the debate. Anyone who dismisses the English language description of nature and scientific nomenclature as quibbling about semantics cannot be much of a teacher.

    Competent students know teachers who resort to personal attacks and denigrate English language descriptions of physics as quibbling are not saying anything. If teachers treat students with respect; it is returned in kind and they are more persuasive.

    Correcting invalid circular arguments of logic is a good thing for semantics and science.

    The chemical engineering of CO2 matters.

    I think I probably have much more experience with how science works and applying the laws of radiation than you do. It is central to my professional licenses, chemical engineering.

  • Avatar

    Rojclague

    |

    Joel Shore says

    “What that law says is that if the Earth is emitting energy at the rate it receives it from the sun, then its temperature T will have to be higher if the temperature of the surroundings are space with t = 2.7 K than if the surrounding are a (radiatively-absorbing) atmosphere at a temperature t of, say, 240 K.”

    The law you quote relates radiation energy to temperature, the Stefan-Boltzmann Law. You refer to Earth receiving and emitting radiation energy where Kirchoff’s Radiation Law could be applied

    Finally you state the greenhouse gas theory. Which is not based on radiation laws. It is explained by the chemistry of CO2. As, I have posted immediately before you, this is not a scientific theory that can be tested. It assumes what it asserts.

    You are, like most warmists, ignorant of how science works and which laws of radiation to apply and when.

    • Avatar

      Joel Shore

      |

      Roj,

      Yes, the chemistry of CO2 comes into it, but that is not what people are debating when they argue the nonsense that they are about radiation, i.e., a warm body can’t absorb radiation from a colder body…Or a colder body cannot in any way effect the temperature of a warmer body or what have you.

      I think I probably have much more experience with how science works and applying the laws of radiation than you do.

    • Avatar

      Joel Shore

      |

      And, your argument about circularity is just quibbling about semantics. Your correction of Tim’s assertion to make it non-circular does not substantively change what he was saying.

  • Avatar

    Pierre Latour

    |

    Shore,
    I do not know how to defend myself against unfounded personal attacks. Competent teachers do not use that tactic because it is known to be an invalid method of education.

    Your idea the famous Kiehl – Trenberth Diagram of Earth’s energy flows is really a diagram of radiation intensity vectors has merit; so your disagreement is with K-T.

    I am pleased you agree the law of radiant energy transfer I provided should be used by the ever changing GHGT.

    Your third and last paragraphs are incorrect.

    Your analogy with economics is invalid. You confuse S-B equation for radiation intensity with radiant heat transfer rate between two bodies just because they have the same units, w/m2. The former is a maximum value of the latter, true when radiator surroundings are at 0K. Many are confused about this distinction from physics.

    Have you had an opportunity to read the book “Slaying the Sky Dragon” you reviewed on Amazon April 17, 2011 yet? As I mentioned at the time, I always recommend book reviewers read the book before writing their review, out of fairness to authors and readers.

  • Avatar

    Joel Shore

    |

    Pierre Latour’s statement “The GHGT does not follow the rate of radiant energy transfer law used commercially by chemical engineers: Q/σ = ET^4 – at^4” is laughably false. That is exactly what it follows from.

    What that law says is that if the Earth is emitting energy at the rate it receives it from the sun, then its temperature T will have to be higher if the temperature of the surroundings are space with t = 2.7 K than if the surrounding are a (radiatively-absorbing) atmosphere at a temperature t of, say, 240 K.

    The second term in that equation, i.e., the -at^4, is exactly that due to back-radiation. If you refuse to believe in back-radiation and believe that is due to something else, it does not matter. The greenhouse effect follows from the mathematics of the equation, not from what we choose to call the terms.

    As for his claim that back-radiation contradicts the notion embodied in that equation that heat flows only from hot to cold, that is akin to saying that if someone gave me $15000 and I gave them back $5000 of it, then if I wrote net gain = $15000 – $5000, this would be proof that I never gave the person any money back….because this equation shows clearly that the net transfer of money went from the person to me.

    Any serious physicist, chemical engineer, or what-have-you understands the definition of heat. Pierre Latour does not fall into any of these categories.

    • Avatar

      John OSullivan

      |

      Joel,
      Name calling and shabby attempts to trash the reputation of an internationally respected and award winning Phd in Chemical Engineering suggests you don’t have the scientific arguments to back your claims. Attacking Pierre Latour personally rather than attempting to refute his science damages your credibility, not his.

      • Avatar

        Joel Shore

        |

        John: I explained why his science is wrong. However, at some point it is also necessary to point out that if Pierre really believes the nonsense he is saying about heat then he lacks a very basic understanding of something that a chemical engineer ought to know.

        The possibility that he doesn’t believe it but is purposely misleading those less knowledgeable than himself is, of course, another possibility. However, you know what they say about not attributing to malice what can be explained by simple incompetence.

        I think that really the only interesting question is whether people like Latour and Postma really buy their own nonsense or whether they rationalize lying to others as some sort of “greater good”. (I.e., I could imagine that these people feel that they are right about the larger issue of global warming, so any way that they can convince people to accept this larger view is fair game, even if it involves deception. They probably think to themselves, “Well Michael Mann is lying to convince people to his view, so why can’t I do the same to convince people to my view.”)

        • Avatar

          John OSullivan

          |

          [quote name=”Joel Shore”]They probably think to themselves, “Well Michael Mann is lying to convince people to his view, so why can’t I do the same to convince people to my view.”)[/quote]
          Joel, you’re now on thin ice by abandoning a scientific debate and making personal snide remarks about Latour and Postma. This exposes how desperate you people are becoming in defending your junk science.

          • Avatar

            Will Janoschka

            |

            [quote name=”John OSullivan”][quote name=”Joel Shore”]They probably think to themselves, “Well Michael Mann is lying to convince people to his view, so why can’t I do the same to convince people to my view.”)[/quote]
            [b][b]Joel, you’re now on thin ice by abandoning a scientific debate and making personal snide remarks about Latour and Postma. This exposes how desperate you people are becoming in defending your junk science.[/b]

            John,
            Now you see my question to Tommy!
            You have been polite but ineffective.
            What is the PSI position? My range runs from ingnoring such, to complete destruction!

            In the case of Dr. Shore, I would suggest chasing with a pitchfork, but not with a rifle. Dr. Shore has demonstrated that he is not worth a bullet.

    • Avatar

      Greg House

      |

      [quote name=”Joel Shore”]If you refuse to believe in back-radiation and believe that is due to something else, it does not matter. The greenhouse effect follows from the mathematics of the equation,[/quote]

      Back radiation can not warm the source, it becomes obvious if one starts with the source at a stable temperature and a reflector providing the source with back radiation.

      If we assume that this back radiation heats the source, then the temperature of the source must rise and so must it’s radiation and consequently the back radiation from the reflector, which warms the source again and so on infinitely.

      This notion of back radiation warming is absolutely absurd and not so long ago it belonged to common knowledge.

    • Avatar

      Greg House

      |

      [quote name=”Joel Shore”]The second term in that equation, … The greenhouse effect follows from the mathematics of the equation,[/quote]

      This is a total crap from the physical point of view. You can not automatically derive any physical effect from a part of a formula. Let me demonstrate it to you by a simple example and I hope that you in turn will demonstrate good memory and not repeat that nonsense again.

      So, my example. We have 3 points A, B and C on a straight line, like this:

      A————-B—-C

      A car drives from A to B with constant speed and it takes it time “t” to reach B. The speed V of the car can be expressed by this formula:

      V = (AC – BC)/t which is equivalent to

      V = AC/t – CB/t

      Now we have 2 terms and using you approach can derive from this formula an “effect”, namely that there are actually 2 movements in 2 opposite directions, from A to C and from C to B and that the resulting speed of the car depends on the movement from C to B.

      I guess, at this point it is obvious how ridiculous your approach is.

    • Avatar

      Greg House

      |

      [quote name=”Joel Shore”]The second term in that equation, … The greenhouse effect follows from the mathematics of the equation,[/quote]

      This is a total crap from the physical point of view. You can not automatically derive any physical effect from a part of a formula. Let me demonstrate it to you by a simple example and I hope that you in turn will demonstrate good memory and not repeat that nonsense again.

      So, my example. We have 3 points A, B and C on a straight line, like this:

      A————-B—-C

      A car drives from A to B with constant speed and it takes it time “t” to reach B. The speed V of the car can be expressed by this formula:

      V = (AC – BC)/t which is equivalent to

      V = AC/t – CB/t

      Now we have 2 terms and using you approach can derive from this formula an “effect”, namely that there are actually 2 movements in 2 opposite directions, from A to C and from C to B and that the resulting speed of the car depends on the movement from C to B.

      I guess, at this point it is obvious how ridiculous your approach is.

      • Avatar

        Joel Shore

        |

        Greg,

        You don’t understand what I am saying. I am not saying that you can derive “back radiation”, i.e., the direction of the radiation from these equations. I am saying it is irrelevant.

        The result that a body receiving thermal energy at a fixed rate from one source and radiating it to another (cooler body) will have a different steady-state temperature depending on the temperature of that cooler body follows from the fact that the net rate of radiative heat transfer depends on the temperature of the cooler body (and decreases as that temperature increases).

        It has nothing to do with how you interpret the terms. Once Pierre has admitted that the equation is correct, he has lost the argument amongst anybody with basic enough mathematical abilities to see this implication, which is why the Slayers have been marginalized even amongst a “skeptic” community not particularly known for its scientific or mathematical prowess.

        • Avatar

          Greg House

          |

          You said “the greenhouse effect follows from the mathematics of the equation” referring to the second term of that equation, you have said it many times.

          I have demonstrated that this approach of yours is an unscientific crap. Now please, do not pretend you did not say that.

          On the other hand I do not believe you could be that stupid. I believe you only wanted to fool the readers. You might still choose the being stupid option over being a liar, I can understand that. You do not really have a good choice here.

          • Avatar

            Joel Shore

            |

            You don’t understand the implications of your own analogy. The implications are this:

            What you and the other Slayers are arguing is equivalent in your analogy to arguing that because there is no “back-motion” from C to B, it is thus perfectly fine to just ignore this and to compute the velocity as being V = AB/t.

            What we scientists are trying to explain to you is that this is incorrect. You have to compute the velocity as (AC – BC)/t, or equivalently AB/t. Whether you do this by considering it as AC/t – CB/t or (AC – BC)/t or AB/t is irrelevant, but you can’t simply erase the – BC/t term and conclude that the velocity is AC/t.

            The fact that this point is even controversial is a testimony to the ability of people like yourself to deny the most basic scientific or mathematical facts when it conflicts with their strongly-held ideological beliefs.

          • Avatar

            Greg House

            |

            [quote name=”Joel Shore”]What we scientists are trying to explain to you…[/quote]

            Please, do not refer to yourself as a “scientist”. You are not practicing science here. What you are doing here has no more to do with real science than certain activities of Jack The Reaper’s had to do with medicine. Just make your point without calling yourself “scientist”, please, because it can be insulting to honest scientists. And please, stop calling your opponents “Slayers”. Thank you.

          • Avatar

            Joel Shore

            |

            Do you have a substantive reply to my comment?

          • Avatar

            Greg House

            |

            Really, you expect me to reply to everything you and others present here?

            These 2 comments of mine are sufficient: http://principia-scientific.org/latest-news/318-debate-greenhouse-gas-theory-is-false.html#comment-2028 and http://principia-scientific.org/latest-news/318-debate-greenhouse-gas-theory-is-false.html#comment-2056.

            This one was also relevant, since you employed arguing from (your!:D) authority and addressing your opponents in an inappropriate way: http://principia-scientific.org/latest-news/318-debate-greenhouse-gas-theory-is-false.html#comment-2079

          • Avatar

            Joel Shore

            |

            Great…You just referred me back to the original comments that I just explained the logical fallacy about.

            In other words, you have no response, except to repeat the same discredited nonsense.

          • Avatar

            Greg House

            |

            Not you, in fact I referred the readers to the original comments who should make their own mind. I do not care about you, only about your fooling the readers.

  • Avatar

    Rojclague

    |

    Blackbodies which obey KLR and S-B are the sun, space and TOA

    The earth’s atmosphere and surface are not blackbodies and do not obey KLR and S-B laws.
    They obey thermodynamic laws.

  • Avatar

    Rojclague

    |

    Tim Folkerts says

    ” Black bodies can STILL lose energy by conduction, convection and/or evaporation.”

    I do not agree

    For a blackbody, radiation energy in ( absorption ) = radiation energy out ( emission )
    Kirchoff’s Law of Radiation ( KLR )
    No conduction, convection or evaporation

    A “graybody” does not obey KLR

    • Avatar

      Joel Shore

      |

      Whether or not there is conduction, convection, or evaporation does not change the amount of radiation that an object emits at a certain temperature.

      And, yes, a “graybody” does indeed obey KLR. KLR in fact is what says that the emissivity and the absorptivity at a given wavelength have to be equal. That would be sort of a boring statement if it only applied to blackbodies!

  • Avatar

    Rojclague

    |

    Barrett says

    [quote]The emissivity is the factor included in the Stefan-Boltzmann equation to allow for systems that are not perfect blackbodies[/quote]

    The S-B Law only can be applied to a black-body. If emmissivity is not nearly 1 then energy is being lost by other means than radiation, such as conduction, convection and latent heat.

    Multiplying a fourth power of temperature by a constant factor is not logical or consistent.

    Latour also wrongly puts an emissivity factor in the S-B Law.

    • Avatar

      Tim Folkerts

      |

      [quote]If emmissivity is not nearly 1 then energy is being lost by other means than radiation, such as conduction, convection and latent heat.[/quote]

      No, these are two separate ideas. Black bodies can STILL lose energy by conduction, convection and/or evaporation. Graybodies can be kept from losing by evaporation or conduction, convection and/or evaporation (for example, by putting a solid inside a vacuum chamber).

    • Avatar

      W5OVF

      |

      [quote name=”Rojclague”]Barrett says

      [quote]The emissivity is the factor included in the Stefan-Boltzmann equation to allow for systems that are not perfect blackbodies[/quote]

      The S-B Law only can be applied to a black-body. If emmissivity is not nearly 1 then energy is being lost by other means than radiation, such as conduction, convection and latent heat.

      Multiplying a fourth power of temperature by a constant factor is not logical or consistent.

      Latour also wrongly puts an emissivity factor in the S-B Law.[/quote]

      The emissivity term has always been. It is a reminder that the S-B equation (never law) is always a definition of the maximum flux that can be produced between two thermal radiant potentials. The flux is always reduced by the effective emissivity of the emitter, times the effective absorptivity of the receiver times the effective transmissivity of the path between. The equation is exact, precise, and cannot be disproved by Climate Clowns.

  • Avatar

    Rojclague

    |

    Tim Folkets says his definition of the greenhouse gas hypothesis is

    [quote]The infrared properties of the “greenhouse gases” in atmosphere (eg H2O, CO2, CH4 and O3) make the surface of the earth warmer than it would be if the gases did not have their infrared properties.[/quote]

    This is a circular definition

    Greenhouse gases are gases that act like a greenhouse
    greenhouse gases are warming gases

    Replacing greenhouse gases by warming gases leaves
    Warming gases cause warming

    By including the work ” greenhouse” the hypothesis is assumed within the definition.

    A fair hypothesis is

    The infrared properties of gases in the atmosphere ( e.g. H2O, CO2, CH4, and O3 ) make the surface of the earth warmer

  • Avatar

    Tim Folkerts

    |

    First of all, in order to discuss “The Greenhouse Gas Theory” (GHGT), we would need to agree on a definition. I would propose something very basic like
    [quote]The infrared properties of the “greenhouse gases” in atmosphere (eg H2O, CO2, CH4 and O3) make the surface of the earth warmer than it would be if the gases did not have their infrared properties. [/quote]
    This is in contrast to a “CAGW” definition that might be something like:
    [quote]Additional CO2 due to human causes is leading toward catastrophic damage to the earth.[/quote]

    The GHGT hypothesis is entirely scientific; the CAGW hypothesis is focused more on economics, politics, etc.

    The GHGT is strongly supported by basic science; the CAGW hypothesis very open to debate and MANY fronts.

    (And of course, there are many intermediate hypotheses that could also to discusses and have varying degrees of scientific backing. But each hypothesis needs a clear definition so that specific potential faults can be addressed.)

    • Avatar

      Rigynold Adinly

      |

      Agreed Tim, but CAGW is the pervasively accepted proposition in society. If non-technical adherents accept CAGW on trust rather than sufficient scientific understanding, and call it GHGT, it must have been provisioned to them by influential elements – science educators.

      It would now take the reformation of worldview, and a shot to the ego of people who accepted this information on trust to supplant your GHGT with your CAGW. That would also require influential elements that these people trust. If they’re the same elements who misled to begin with, they have very little interest in such a self-destructive venture.

      The collusion of science and government produces such destructive consequences, and if anything, people should be paying attention to how these power dynamics end up backing science into a corner.

      Technical elements should rely upon merit and common interest instead of the falsely impelled emotions of leaders willing to use tax, prisons, law, and guns to steal funds for research. The scientists in this field are about to be hoisted by their own petards.

    • Avatar

      Don Tonaronton

      |

      [quote name=”Tim Folkerts”]First of all, in order to discuss “The Greenhouse Gas Theory” (GHGT), we would need to agree on a definition. I would propose something very basic like
      [quote]The infrared properties of the “greenhouse gases” in atmosphere (eg H2O, CO2, CH4 and O3) make the surface of the earth warmer than it would be if the gases did not have their infrared properties. [/quote]
      This is in contrast to a “CAGW” definition that might be something like:
      [quote]Additional CO2 due to human causes is leading toward catastrophic damage to the earth.[/quote]

      The GHGT hypothesis is entirely scientific; the CAGW hypothesis is focused more on economics, politics, etc.

      The GHGT is strongly supported by basic science; the CAGW hypothesis very open to debate and MANY fronts.

      (And of course, there are many intermediate hypotheses that could also to discusses and have varying degrees of scientific backing. But each hypothesis needs a clear definition so that specific potential faults can be addressed.)[/quote]

      First of all, in order to discuss “The Greenhouse Gas Theory” (GHGT), we would need to agree on a definition of what is “heat” band whbat is “temperature, including howe they differ and wher they are related, We also
      need to clearly agree on the difference between
      thermal radiant intensity and thermal radiation. the first is a result of planch’s integral and is used as a potential difference in the S-B equationb, The second is always a measurable result from a thermal radiative interaction.

      • Avatar

        Tim Folkerts

        |

        Or perhaps more specifically, we would need to agree to use the common, scientific definitions of these words. Any thermodynamics textbook will define and explain “heat” and “temperature”.

        To me, “Thermal radiation” is simply a broad term for the entire phenomenon of warm objects emitting photons. There are many ways of measuring this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiant_intensity
        Note that all of these are measurable quantities, not simply “results of calculations”.

  • Avatar

    Al Shelton

    |

    TYPO???
    CO2 0.04% not 0.4%

    • Avatar

      josullivan

      |

      Al, well spotted, thanks. Now corrected.

Comments are closed