Facebook Physics: A spirited Reply

Written by Anthony Bright-Paul

I must congratulate Daniel Swahn Lindbergh for a spirited reply to my arguments which were set out in my previous post, ‘Facebook Physics: Heat Retention.’ I will attempt to answer him.

What is it that distinguishes the so-called Greenhouse Gases? They are all opaque to incoming and outgoing Infrared radiation, known as Near IR and Far IR, unlike Oxygen and Nitrogen, which are transparent to both Near IR and Far IR. facebook

We can see this most clearly with Water Vapour, which in the form of clouds is clearly opaque, both against radiation and also visually. When, on a hot day when the Sun is shining brightly high in the sky, a great black cloud passes in front of the Sun, what happens? The radiation is scattered and there is an immediate cooling that any child can sense.

In the same way the greenhouse gases may absorb and emit, that is to say ‘scatter’ outgoing IR, but being in total but 1% of the atmosphere in no way can they blanket or insulate the atmosphere. There is no way whatsoever that ‘heat’ can or could be trapped. That is just lazy and inept thinking.

A greenhouse does not trap heat – that is a misnomer, a misunderstanding. In any enclosed space, be it a parked car, an oven or even a wooden garden hut, the temperature will rise while and only while heat is being generated. In the case of a Greenhouse, that would be while the Sun is shining and generating heat. However once the Sun goes down the heat all disappears or equalizes with its surroundings, by the 1st and Zeroth laws of Thermodynamics.

The nearest thing we have to trapping heat is a Thermos or Vacuum Flask. It does keep boiling hot coffee hot for several hours, but inevitably the coffee is tepid and undrinkable within 48 hours if not 24! Even some eminent Physicists talk of trapped heat and there are plenty of Warmist websites that foster that illusion, but I am afraid that this is simply sloppy thinking and bad use of language.

As to Carbon Dioxide forming a thick blanket in order to stop heat escaping, I am afraid that you are up the creek there, since Carbon Dioxide is but 0.04% of the atmosphere. There is no way that Carbon Dioxide could in any way form a ‘thick blanket’ to quote your words. There are winds, there are holes in clouds, and the travellator of Convection carries on regardless of the theories of the Alarmist/Warmists.

I can understand your convictions, since all this rubbish about ‘emissions’ has been preached for many years particularly to children in schools, who regard it as Gospel. As to ‘Energy In’ not equalling ‘Energy Out’, have you personally done experiments on this matter, or is it only hearsay?

With best wishes to you,

Anthony Bright-Paul

******

Further reading related to the above may be found at:

https://climateofsophistry.com/2016/08/31/cup-calling-the-kettle-for-back-tea/

https://climateofsophistry.com/2016/08/31/simple-experimental-demonstration-that-refutes-the-greenhouse-effect/

https://climateofsophistry.com/2016/08/31/simple-time-dependent-model-refutes-the-atmospheric-greenhouse-effect/

and especially regarding the definition of heat:

https://climateofsophistry.com/2016/08/27/how-heat-debunked-climate-pseudoscience-and-its-greenhouse-effect/

Comments (6)

  • Avatar

    Jerry L Krause

    |

    Hi Ross (?),

    I checked out Langley’s instrument. It was a bolometer which he invented according to Wikipedia. While I do not question his observation which does not need an instrument capable of determining temperature to a thousandth a degree C or better, I am a little skeptical about this claimed extreme precision.

    Several years ago Tim Casey and I had a long email conversation until he began have software problems as one of his activities was setting up websites for others. So, this was serious. So we stopped and for some reason never got started again.

    There was no doubt that he was a scholar who was widely read. Cannot remember if he had done more (actual research) than write essays. I just find it interesting to find others who recognize his scholarship. I will read what he wrote relative to your link. I know I have tried to read everything having to do with our mutual interests. But when I very, very briefing scanned it, it did not seem familiar.

    Now, I am confused of where this comment will post, as I intended to directly reply to your latest comment.

    Have a good day, Jerry

    • Avatar

      Rosco

      |

      Hi Jerry

      My name is Ross – I have been called Rosco by old school friends for decades so I just use it for posting. The picture is in Las Vegas with a margarita in 2006 – can’t believe it is 10 years.

      I have an experiment in the Prom section you might like to discuss sometime.

      It was from 2013 and I found it interesting that fool Ed Bo was accusing me of mistakenly applying the SB equation when if you read my experiment you’ll see I am exactly right in how I use it.

      I do not add up radiative fluxes and calculate the temperature induced as he and people like Spencer actually do whilst talking mumbo jumbo about input and output matching and the object must heat up to match. Their talk is simply bullshit yet so many buy it. They say you can’t add up fluxes and calculate temperatures then they do exactly that but go further down thew road of total incompetence by transferring heat from the cooler background radiation to the hotter object to make it hotter.

      Spencer’s spreadsheet doesn’t even have proper equations in it as he adds Kelvin to Kelvin.metres ??

      He needed some parameter to allow for his iterative process in the spreadsheet so he chose the specific heat of water at 25 degrees C.

      This is 4.180 kJ/kg.Kelvin.

      He needed something involving metres for W/m2 calculations involving the SB equation so he took advantage of the 1000 kg per cubic metre density of water.

      Hence he used 4,180,000 j/cubic metre.Kelvin.

      However his equation evaluates to Kelvin = Kelvin + Kelvin.metres which any high school student knows is gibberish.

      That aside you will see I do not add up fluxes but compare temperatures and the emitted flux. I know the effect of heating caused by the spotlights used but have no idea of the power they emit.

      Cheers

      Ross

  • Avatar

    Rosco

    |

    Hi Jerry

    I always thought that radiation is capable of being focused and induce heating on objects proportional to its emission temperature.

    As the solar radiation was emitted by a temperature of ~5780 K it is theoretically possible to “reinstate” that radiative power by focusing. In this manner large arrays of solar radiation induce temperatures far larger than the TOA power is capable of.

    True the de Saussure device does not focus the radiation as a magnifying glass does – although we may be incorrect in this assumption – but it prevents convective cooling and allows the temperature caused by the solar radiation to approach its maximum potential.

    That explanation is sufficient for me. Perhaps de Saussure simply demonstrated that on a clear day the solar radiation is capable of far more heating on a plane normal to it than climate science allows.

    NASA tell us that the lunar surfaces reach similar temperatures so perhaps there is nothing surprising in his results at all. Perhaps the black interior compensated for whatever loss of TOA power the atmosphere caused.

    I haven’t read much on de Saussure but similar experiments undertaken by Langley on Pike’s Peak in Colorado.

    Langley recorded a temperature of ~113 C – as it was high in the atmosphere at noon – reduced albedo, which is after all a guess anyway – the result is not inconsistent with the solar radiation heating power and preventing convective cooling.

    “Qualitatively, we may attribute the difference between the 15ºC mean surface temperature and the 113ºC observed in Langley’s greenhouse to the fact that noon-time radiation at the surface is three to four times as intense as the mean radiation over the whole of the earth’s surface.”

    If the back radiation combining with the solar radiation hypothesis in an environment where convective cooling is eliminated is true then surely many attempts at such experiments would have produced higher temperatures than what seems to be the maximum ever induced – ~113 C – consistent with the solar radiation’s power.

    Anyway that is what I think and I have not ever seen any convincing argument against this.

    • Avatar

      Jerry L Krause

      |

      Hi Rosco,

      Thank you for the information about Langley’s observation. “Mean radiation” does not exist. Any averaged value does not exist. Langley measured actual radiation and that is what (actual observations) a scientist can only directly observe. Would like to know what instrument Langley used to make his observation. Perhaps, you could share this information with us. I will try to find it but in case I am not successful. I will appreciate this.

      Have a good day, Jerry

      • Avatar

        Rosco

        |

        I must admit I haven’t read into it to any real extent.

        Obviously everyone except climate alarmists and “greenhouse advocate” sceptics some of whom regularly bluster ridiculous “physics” here – or used to – knows that there is no such thing as “mean radiation”.

        I find it amusing how these people claim it is wrong to use the SB equation to calculate temperature from radiative input then do exactly that under the guise of some ridiculous explanation that the object must increase in temperature to match the power output to the power input. If that isn’t exactly calculating the temperature from the radiative input – something they always claim is wrong – then I don’t know what is.

        The quote I included about Langley came from Timothy Casey’s site – http://greenhouse.geologist-1011.net

        Cheers

        Ross

  • Avatar

    Jerry L Krause

    |

    Hi Anthony,

    ‘Hi Anthony’ even though I now realize that you probably only read direct comments to your facebook articles which have been conveniently published for us by PSI. Thank you PSI for providing us science articles published at many different websites. I realize (understand) that Anthony does not read comments to him which are published onthe PSI because I had commented to his excellent article (http://principia-scientific.org/facebook-physics-heat-retention/). For in my comment I had referred to the de Saussure device about which PSI had published two articles (http://principia-scientific.org/the-horace-de-saussure-hot-box/) and ( http://principia-scientific.org/paradox-three-apparently-different-systems-produce-one-observed-temperature/). But in this present article he wrote: “The nearest thing we have to trapping heat is a Thermos or Vacuum Flask.”

    No, the nearest thing we have to trapping heat is the de Saussure device. The Thermos never heats the liquid placed in it; it is only designed to be an excellent insulator so the hot coffee cools more slowly than if placed in a more inferior insulating container.

    However, the de Saussure device is a ‘closed’ system unlike the open earth-atmosphere system. So, the trapping of heat (energy) by the de Saussure device does not, cannot, support the hypothesis of the greenhouse effect of certain atmospheric gases because of this fundamental difference.

    However, until we study the de Saussure device and explain (understand) how it achieved an interior temperature, due to the incident solar radiation upon it, that exceeded the boiling temperature of water at one atmosphere pressure, we do not, cannot, really understand how the closed system of the device is different from that of the open system of the earth-atmosphere.

    PSI Readers, have a good day, Jerry

    in this comment I had referred to the de Saussure device (http://principia-scientific.org/the-horace-de-saussure-hot-box/) and (http://principia-scientific.org/paradox-three-apparently-different-systems-produce-one-observed-temperature/)

Comments are closed