• Home
• Current News
• MOMENTUM, KINETIC ENERGY, AND THE MISUSE OF PHYSICS AND MATHEMATICS

# MOMENTUM, KINETIC ENERGY, AND THE MISUSE OF PHYSICS AND MATHEMATICS

Written by Alberto Miatello

Some days ago I was reading the debate between Gary Novak and Pierre Latour regarding the absurd hypothesis by the former, suggesting we “eliminate” the kinetic energy equation and replace it with the momentum equation.

Of course, I have no problem in totally supporting what Pierre Latour (who is a very competent and expert Chemical Engineer) wrote. His statements and calculations were totally correct, whereas those by Gary Novak were totally wrong, and no absurd claim of “corrupted science” can change that.

Therefore, my arguments below are only further evidences of the bizarre and indefensible statements by Gary Novak, maybe other readers can add their own.

Actually, the “arguments”  by Novak regarding kinetic energy and momentum, are quite similar to those sophistic  paradoxes  from the philosopher, Zeno of Elea, in 5 B.C. when he said that the fast Achilles could not reach the turtle, because any times he moved on the road, he had to make ½ + ¼ + 1/8 of cm., and so he could not reach the turtle making the same road, because he had to run “infinite little spaces”.

The Zeno paradox was an error, of course, because the limit of ½ + ¼ + 1/8 …+ 1/n is mathematically converging to 1, and doesn’t tend to infinity, first of all. Moreover Zeno was forgetting the TIME, both Achilles and the turtle are traveling on a physical space/time = velocity, so you can always compare the velocities of both.

But Zeno was living 2,500 years ago, and NOT in 2013 as Gary Novak!

So, it is clear that Novak is confusing momentum (p = mv) with kinetic energy , which is Force x displacement (Fs) = ½ mv², when he wrote that kinetic energy should be mv (???) and not ½ mv², as any high school students know.

In doing so, Novak “forgets” that kinetic energy refers to acceleration, work and power, namely totally different concepts than momentum only.

Momentum is very important in Physics, because it is commonly used to calculate instant impulses, and energies involved in collisions, shocks, etc., such as car accidents, shootings, etc.

However, considering momentum only is useless when trying to know how much WORK (= kinetic energy)  is performed  by a moving body, on a limited space or distance (s), and undergoing an acceleration (a).

Novak wrote that ½ mv² was “paralleled” by Einstein to his famous equation E = mc² and that’s correct, but of course Einstein was not the first scientist using kinetic energy equation, both Leibnitz and Newton (that Gary Novak likes) two centuries before knew this very well and used concepts like force, energy, kinetic energy, etc.

Moreover, Newton was also one of the inventors (along with Leibnitz) of calculus.

So, Newton knew that ½ at² was the space (s) traveled with a velocity (v) in a time (t) and with acceleration (a), because he knew that – since v = at – if we make the integral  s = ∫v dt and s = ∫ at dt, then we get:

S = a ∫t dt = a ½ t².

And so, if we  multiply F = ma per s, we get:

(1)

Fs  = ½ m a²t²,

and , as  v = at, then a²t² = v², so

(2)

Fs = ½ mv²

that Gary Novak dislikes…

Fs means Force x displacement (space) = Work = kinetic energy.

EXPERIMENTAL EVIDENCE OF KINETIC ENERGY  EQUATION

It doesn’t take a collider of subatomic  particles to prove this – but only a stone, a chronometer and a bridge on a river or on a sea (taking care that no boat is passing under you).

Now, Fs can be re-written as: mas , and a (acceleration) is = g (gravitational acceleration).

Then, if you take your stone, having a mass = m under gravitational acceleration g,  and let it drop and splash from the bridge into the river, then we can re-write our kinetic equation as follows:

F  s = m a s =

m  g  s = ½ m v² = ½ m a²t² = ½ m g²t²

(3)

mgs = ½ m g²t²

then m simplifies with m and disappears, and g with g², thus we finally get:

(4)

s = ½ g t²

or

(5)

t = √(2s/g)

And those are  the famous equations of falling bodies, that were discovered by Galileo at the end of 1500, proving that the velocity of falling bodies is not influenced by their masses, but ONLY by gravity (g) and air resistance.

If you remove the air, in a vacuum chamber, and let a feather drop with a hammer, or any other heavy objects, then you can see that they  reach the soil at the same time, as Capt. David Scott too showed on the Moon and also demonstrated to TV viewers: (‘Mythbusters’) – ‘Galileo’s Hypothesis Hammer and Feather Drop.’

And that’s another experimental evidence showing that Mathematics,  Physics and experiments are perfectly matching, provided you make the correct and precise calculations, and use the correct laws of Physics. And at last you can let your stone (not so much influenced by the air resistance) drop, and take the time of  fall.

Then if it takes – say – 3.6”, then you make : 3.6² = 12.96. (12.96 * 9.8) /2 = 63.5 meters, more or less, and you can be sure that you’re above the Golden Gate, in San Francisco. Or maybe you found that your stone “splashed” in 2.89”, and so 2.89² = 8.36 . (8.36 * 9.8)/2 = 41 meters, and you were on the Brooklyn bridge, in NY.

Therefore, sorry for Gary Novak, but any times we calculate the distance traveled by a falling body, having ONLY the duration of fall (or having just space without knowing time), we are CONSTANTLY using the kinetic energy equation and the law of falling bodies, that is another form of writing the kinetic energy equation, and – sadly for him – we have to square the time to find the correct solution.

THE ROCKET AND THE ENERGY

Another  confusion, and whimsical calculation by Novak was the one of rocket. Novak compared a rocket, undergoing a negative force from its own weight, and a loss of fuel mass, while traveling, with the simple situation of 2 falling bodies (1 having a mass 4 times bigger than the other), undergoing only gravity (+ air resistance), to work out a bizarre calculation regarding the alleged – in his mind – “huge” energy that the “corrupt” Physics would miscalculate for the rocket.

Sorry for Gary Novak, but maybe he didn’t realize that thousand rockets have successfully been launched , after 1940, and maybe (maybe) that was accomplished because “corrupted” physicists and engineers have correctly calculated the energy rockets needed.

It is totally wrong, for instance, what Novak wrote about the energy involved in rockets traveling.

Correct rocket equation, is as follows:

(6)

m *dv/dt – Fext = ux* |dm/dt|

where:

m* dv/dt = momentum

Fext = rocket weight (under gravitation near earth surface)

ux = velocity of expelled gases

dm/dt = loss of rocket mass due to fuel consumption

So, if we integrate the equation above when rocket is in outer space, undergoing no gravitation and Fext, we get

(7)

vf                    mi

∫dv      =  ux ∫dm/m

vi                     mf

namely:

(8)

Vf– Vi  = ux * ln (mi /mf )

Where mf is the final mass of rocket (without fuel), and mi the initial mass (full of fuel), and vf is the final velocity and vi is the initial velocity.

Let’s make a practical calculation.

If we have a rocket whose mass without fuel is 2,000 kg. and whose mass with fuel is 20,000 kg., then we have that mf/mi = 20,000/2,000 = 10

Then, if we suppose that gases are expelled with a velocity (ux) of 2 km/sec. , our final velocity of rocket would be (starting from 0):

(9)

Vf = 2 km./sec. * ln 10 = 2 * 2.3 = 4.6 Km./sec.

Now, and that’s interesting to debunk what Novak said, let’s calculate what would be the final velocity of rocket, if we increase a lot the % of fuel content, and reduce the “initial ” full mass, so that initial mass is only 200 kg. and mass with fuel is 20,000 kg., so mi/mf = 20,000/200 = 100

Thus, we have:

(10)

Vf = 2 km./sec. * ln 100 = 2 * 4.6 = 8.6 km./sec.

Thus, even if we increase 10 times the fuel energy of our rocket, as a ratio with its own mass, then the increase of velocity will just be 2 times!!

And that happens because – as any serious engineers and physicists know very well – the logarithmic equation (8) is a strong limit to the increase of rocket velocity!

So, this is exactly the contrary of what Novak said!

Serious physicists and engineers are making  calculations regarding rockets taking care mostly to the rocket speed, and they know very well that there is no fancy “huge energy” that a rocket can receive from external forces, but the actual velocity and energy of a rocket are mathematically very constrained and limited.

To summarize: the problem is not with alleged “corrupted” Physics and Mathematics.

Mathematics is commonly called “the language of Physics”, and the language on Natural Sciences (Chemistry, Engineering, etc.)

The problem arises only when someone is misusing  Physics and Mathematics.

Alberto Miatello

September 5, 2013

• ### ewiljan

|

[quote name=”Joel Shore”]Sounds like a lot of whining because the measurements in the literature of emissivity of a wide range of materials don’t come out in a way that agrees with your ideology. Unfortunately, nature doesn’t care about your ideology.

If you believe that the emissivity of most terrestrial materials is dramatically different than 1 over the wavelengths of interest, why don’t you provide links to measurements that support this?[/quote]

I provide “no” links to Climate Clowns ever!
Where is your fake literature that claims
off normal emisivity of a a “wide range of materials”. None is to be found that has measured such emissivity! Indeed the number
of teams capable of measuring emissivity at angles gerater than 35 degrees from normal, is less that five world wide

I do not ‘believe” that the emissivity of most terrestrial materials is dramatically different than 1 over the wavelengths of interest. I have measured such! The total
BDRF for water (75% of surface) is greater than 50% at angles greater than 40 degrees from normal, at all wavelengths between 0.4 microns and 34 microns. The emissivity itself,
not projected area of most surfaces approches
zero as incidence angle approaches grazing. The earth’s surface neither receives nor emits power into PI steradian. It is much closer to one steradian.

This in itself means that your Clomate Clown
Solar energy received by the surface of the earth is high by at least a factor of two.

• ### Pierre Latour

|

Alberto Miatello,
Good work. Your critique is superior to mine. Nothing wrong with using up to date science, proven since 1687. Best we can do. That’s what Zeno did and he is famous.

Helps when you can connect mathematics to nature. It gets easier when you understand stuff and make something out of it, that works.

If Novak wants to redo science created since 1600 he is free to try but he has his work cut out for him. If he does it right, he will get to where we are relaxing now, eventually, perhaps. (Just go to school.)

BTW: Has UN IPCC properly defined what they mean by anthropogenic climate change and specified the physics of the role of CO2 on it to back up their charge it is harmful? Has anyone quantified the effect? What difference does it make?

• ### GHEbreaker

|

Sorry Joel, but there are at least 12 compelling evidences of Physics , proving that GHE is a totally bogus theory, having no serious basis in Physics, and it is backed only by ideology and propaganda, and we “Slayers” showed that many and many times.
Maybe the most evident and blatant error in GHE theory is in the name “greenhouse” itself, meaning that our atmosphere would “protect” our surface of Earth from the “colder outer space”, as a greenhouse plastic tent, or a blanket (or an igloo) are protecting our body or the inside of a greenhouse, or the inside of the igloo, from the outer colder temperature.
But unfortunately for GHE supporters, outer vacuum space, surrounding our atmosphere, is neither cold nor warm, it has NO temperature. In Thermodynamics only MACROSCOPIC bodies have a temperature, and in outer vacuum space you find only a few atoms/molecules x cubic meter. So our atmosphere is a colder layer surrounding a warmer surface (soils + oceans), and therefore it COOLS the surface. That’s Physics! Thus, without our atmosphere Earth would be very HOT, and NOT very cold! Those who deny this are the true deniers! No serious comparison can be made in Physics between our atmosphere and the greenhouse/blanket/igloo, that are surrounded by colder GASES, and NOT by the outer vacuum space having NO TEMPERATURE as our Earth atmosphere. Here on Earth, in Equator/Tropical areas you can find at most 54°-55° C (327-328K)as in the Death Valley, whereas our Moon Equator (receiving the same 1367 W/m^2 solar radiation as our Earth, but with NO atmosphere) reaches more than a DOUBLE temperature, 117° C = 390K. So, our atmosphere is COOLING and protecting our surface from solar irradiance, through convective cooling phenomena and the water cycle. Those in the scientific community who are fearing to admit this, are doing so just for conformism, or for fear to lose money from politicians, that’s the inconvenient TRUTH!

Alberto Miatello

• ### Joel Shore

|

(1) Whether or not the mechanism of the atmospheric greenhouse effect is in all ways analogous to an actual greenhouse (which I agree it isn’t, although it is analogous in some ways) is irrelevant.

(2) The only significant communication of energy between outer space and the Earth and its atmosphere is via radiation. Space behaves radiatively as if it is at about 2.7 K.

(3) The maximum temperature on the moon is irrelevant. The global energy balance arguments that tell us that the Earth (with its present albedo) in the absence of an IR-absorbing / emitting atmosphere could not have an AVERAGE temperature greater than 255 K put an upper bound on the AVERAGE temperature. (And actually constrain with an equality the average of T^4 over the surface. This is all modulo issues of the emissivity of the Earth’s surface which is, for wavelengths relevant to terrestrial radiation, generally very close to 1.) There are many temperature DISTRIBUTIONS compatible with this, and whether one like the moon’s (with huge diurnal differences) or like the Earth’s (with much more modest differences) occurs involves other issues beyond simple global energy balance like heat capacity and length of the day.

And, this all leaves us exactly where we began, namely, with Slayer arguments appealing only to those AGW skeptics who are most ignorant of physics.

• ### Joel Shore

|

On further thought, my last statement is a little too simplistic, since some people attracted to the Slayer arguments clearly do know more physics than other who are smart enough to reject them. The criterion for being duped by Slayer arguments probably has something to do with the gap between how much physics you know and how much you think you know. At any rate, it’s an interesting sociological question, but not really relevant to the science.

• ### ewiljan

|

[b]The maximum temperature on the moon is irrelevant. The global energy balance arguments that tell us that the Earth (with its present albedo) in the absence of an IR-absorbing / emitting atmosphere could not have an AVERAGE temperature greater than 255 K[/b]

This is completly false. Only the complete misuse of the S-B equation and the violation of kirchhoff’s law could resuly iks such a fake conclusion.

• ### Greg House

|

[quote name=”Joel Shore”]The global energy balance arguments that tell us that the Earth (with its present albedo) in the absence of an IR-absorbing / emitting atmosphere could not have an AVERAGE temperature greater than 255 K put an upper bound on the AVERAGE temperature.[/quote]

I know this calculation, it is false.

They implicitly put into the calculation the assumption that while one side of the Earth gets warmed by the Sun, the other side is at 0K temperature, at the absolute zero. Clear nonsense. This way they get a much lower temperature as a result.

• ### ewiljan

|

Alberto,
Could you please expand on your concept that space has NO temperature? It is unclear from your writing of what temperature is, let alone what it may mean by having NO temperature!
Please explain what “temperature” in (“the temperature of an isotherm”), might possobly be? Untill “temperature” is correctly defined, all of the AGW stuff is nonsense!

• ### Tim Folkerts

|

“[b]So our atmosphere is a colder layer surrounding a warmer surface (soils + oceans), and therefore it COOLS the surface.[/b]”

If this principle were true in general, then putting ANY cooler object around ANY warmer object should cool the warmer object.

But the cooler insulation around my warmer home in the winter results in my home being WARMER, not COLDER.

Since this is clearly false, we cannot use the general principle that you asserted. We must find a more robust rule.

[b]”But unfortunately for GHE supporters, outer vacuum space, surrounding our atmosphere, is neither cold nor warm, it has NO temperature. In Thermodynamics only MACROSCOPIC bodies have a temperature …”
[/b]
Any collection of particles can have a temperature. Perhaps the simplest way to address your concern is the Zeroth Law. Put an object “in the vacuum of space” and wait for the object to stop changing temperature due to exchange of heat between space and the object. Then the object will be the same temperature as “space”. The object will be 2.7 K, so space is ALSO 2.7 K.

• ### Greg House

|

[quote name=”Tim Folkerts”]If this principle were true in general, then putting ANY cooler object around ANY warmer object should cool the warmer object. But the cooler insulation around my warmer home in the winter results in my home being WARMER, not COLDER.[/quote]

We can put a barrier (insulation) between things at different temperatures and prevent them from getting colder/warmer by conduction/convection accordingly. This is what insulation does, no more.

As for earth or any other object and the space, no insulation from space would keep the object warmer, because there is nothing in the empty space that could cool the object by conduction/convection. No colder air, no colder liquid, no other colder objects in contact with our warm object. No conduction, no convection.

I can’t believe you do not understand that, this is a junior high school stuff.

If we put you naked in space (at night, no sunlight), you would feel warm like in water at 37C, because nothing would cool you, there is no air cooling in space.

I am just curios, for how long are you guys going to fool people with this false “insulation” comparison?

• ### Tim Folkerts

|

[b]”If we put you naked in space (at night, no sunlight), you would feel warm like in water at 37C, because nothing would cool you, there is no air cooling in space.”[/b]

What???

Counterargument 1: Your body would radiate according to the SB equation. This would be ~ 500 W/m^2 @ 37 C, or ~ 10,000 Cal/day per square meter. Since people are over 1 m^2, a person would be radiating ~ 10,000 Cal/day (not counting any other energy used by your body for other functions). This will not instantly freeze you, but it will cool you significantly faster than in 37 C air.

Counterargument 2: If this were true, then if we put ANYTHING in space with no sunlight on it, there would be nothing to cool it. The earth could not cool at night! The moon could not cool at night! Any object in space would simply stay the temperature it is!

• ### Greg House

|

We are not talking about a dead body, unless you are a zombi. You will radiate in the space exactly like you would radiate if we put you in a refrigerator. In the space your internal metabolism will keep you warm, but the difference is, again, that there is no colder air in the space that would additionally cool you by conduction/convection.

And please do not obfuscate the issue. Insulation is only a barrier preventing things from warming/cooling each other by conduction/convection and colder things from getting warmer by radiation from warmer things.

The atmosphere only partly insulates the earth from the sunlight, that is all. “Cold space” is nonsense.

• ### Tim Folkerts

|

I’m obfuscating? I pointed out a very clear, very basic error in what you said: [i](“If we put you naked in space (at night, no sunlight), you would feel warm like in water at 37C, because nothing would cool you, there is no air cooling in space.”) [/i] You would NOT feel as warm as if you were in water @ 37 C — you would in fact feel cold because you would in fact be losing a LOT of energy. Rather than focus on this, you head off into zombie-land!

Cold space is a fact. It is measurable. It cools the earth.

• ### Greg House

|

In vacuum there is no matter and no temperature. There is neither anything cold nor anything warm there. Vacuum can neither warm nor cool.

Our human body is heated by internal chemical processes. Since in vacuum there is no coolant like cold air, we would not feel cold at all there.

“Cold space” and “space cools”, if you mean vacuum, is complete nonsense.

• ### ewiljan

|

[quote name=”Greg House”]In vacuum there is no matter and no temperature. There is neither anything cold nor anything warm there. Vacuum can neither warm nor cool.

Our human body is heated by internal chemical processes. Since in vacuum there is no coolant like cold air, we would not feel cold at all there.

“Cold space” and “space cools”, if you mean vacuum, is complete nonsense.[/quote]

Carfull there Greg, Space also provides little or no electromagnetic field effect, that
can limit the amount of thermal radiation from any emissive surface. True space does not heat or cool. It also does not prevent such cooling by an object itself.

• ### Tim Folkerts

|

[b]”So, our atmosphere is COOLING and protecting our surface from solar irradiance, through convective cooling phenomena and the water cycle. Those in the scientific community who are fearing to admit this”[/b]

Let be improve that at bit.
[i]… our atmosphere is COOLING and protecting THE HOTTEST PARTS OF our surface … [/i]

I have no trouble admitting that convection and evaporation cool the warmest areas. Now you have to let go of your fear and admit that the atmosphere warms the coolest areas of the earth (through descending warm air and/or infrared radiation).

The only remaining question is “which effect has the greatest impact on the overall average temperature at earth’s surface..

• ### Greg House

|

Certainly not the “greenhouse effect”, since it does not exist.

Warmer air can of course move and warm colder things, but this is not the “greenhouse effect” as presented by the IPCC. They refer specifically to “back radiation warming”, and this is impossible.

• ### ewiljan

|

Mr. Miatello,
Thank you for you clear and detailed explanation of all the mistakes Gary Novack made with his rocket example. I hope more learned folk can take the time to explain, rather than just claim
their opinions are correct! This is science at its best.

• ### Joel Shore

|

Alberto,

As a physicist, I basically agree with what you wrote, modulo a few quibbles (e.g., m* dv/dt is not momentum). And, I’ll just add that the rocket equation comes from the correct application of the Law of Conservation of Momentum [or, more precisely, as it is stated, that the rate of change of momentum of the entire rocket-gas system with time is equal to any external force acting on the system].

One of the many silly things about Gary’s outlandish claim that “real kinetic energy is simply momentum, mv” and “Momentum transforms into other forms of energy with conservation” is that it doesn’t even make sense in terms of units. How can something with the units of energy, M*L^2/T^2 (where M = mass, L = length, and T = time) equal something with units of momentum, M*L/T? That is like someone asking me what the mass of an object is and me telling them that the mass is 2.5 seconds.

It all reminds me of the Far Side cartoon about Einstein (http://www.esreality.com/files/inlineimages/2010/78320-einstein-farside.jpg), which I always thought was sort of amusing for the same reason: Only to someone who is not a physical scientist would it be conceivable to imagine debating what power the velocity is raised to, as only one result has the correct units.

The one thing I give Gary credit for is that I think he has a bit more logical consistency than the rest of the Slayers: It is at least logically consistent to claim that the Laws of Physics are incorrect AND there is no atmospheric greenhouse effect. To claim there is no greenhouse effect but not to dispute the laws of physics is inconsistent since the effect follows from a correct application of those laws.

That is why anybody with a good understanding of physics (and who is not actively trying to deceive others), even if they are skeptics on AGW, does not dispute the basic physics of the greenhouse effect. Such skeptics argue instead that the feedbacks are negative and so forth, arguments that (which not supported by the weight of the evidence, in my opinion) are at least not in direct contradiction to the known laws of physics.

• ### ewiljan

|

[b]That is why anybody with a good understanding of physics (and who is not actively trying to deceive others), even if they are skeptics on AGW, does not dispute the basic physics of the greenhouse effect. Such skeptics argue instead that the feedbacks are negative and so forth, arguments that (which not supported by the weight of the evidence, in my opinion) are at least not in direct contradiction to the known laws of physics.[/b]

Joel Shore,

• ### Joel Shore

|

ewiljan,

(1) The demonstration of the greenhouse effect is given by the fact that the Earth’s surface is at a higher average temperature than would be possible if the atmosphere were transparent to terrestrial radiation. And, modern satellite measurements of the radiation emitted from the Earth have shown that this is true for exactly the reason that it should be true, i.e., because the radiative spectrum from the Earth quantitatively agrees with what is predicted by the well-confirmed theory of radiative transfer (upon which the entire technological field of remote sensing depends).

(2) Radiation from objects at different temperatures can be measured and agrees with the modern theory of radiative transfer. As I demonstrated to you, every physics textbook that I can find in their discussion of thermal radiation interprets the 2nd term in the Stefan-Boltzmann Equation as arising from radiation emitted by the surroundings that is absorbed by the body. Even if you don’t interpret it this way, the fact that the net radiation emitted by a body depends on the temperature of its (radiatively-active) surroundings as well as its own temperature is enough to give you the greenhouse effect independent of whether or not you believe in the accepted physical interpretation of that term in the equation.

Again, this is why every AGW skeptic who is not completely ignorant of physics (real scientists like Roy Spencer, Fred Singer, and Robert Brown, as well as entertainers like Christopher Monckton and Anthony Watts) do not deny the basic laws of physics and accept the reality of the greenhouse effect.

• ### ewiljan

|

[b] The demonstration of the greenhouse effect is given by the fact that the Earth’s surface is at a higher average temperature than would be possible if the atmosphere were transparent to terrestrial radiation. [/b]

The temperature of any solar sysyem planet or atmosphere cannot be determined by the laws of radiative heat transfer,unless the emissivity
of eack body at each wavelength, and each direction has been determined! Kirchhoff,s law of radiation. What you call a demonstration is nothing but childhood games with arithmetic using incorrect numbers. No Greenhose effect has ever been demonstrated.

[b]Modern satellite measurements of the radiation emitted from the Earth have shown that this is true for exactly the reason that it should be true, i.e., because the radiative spectrum from the Earth quantitatively agrees with what is predicted by the well-confirmed theory of radiative transfer (upon which the entire technological field of remote sensing depends).[/b]

None of what you claim above is true, and almost none of what you claim has even been attempted. What are we to make from your false claims.

[b]Radiation from objects at different temperatures can be measured and agrees with the modern theory of radiative transfer.[/b]
The only thermal electromagnetic radiation that has ever been measured has been that from a higher temperature surface to a lower temperature surface. Give me even one example of your fake ” back radiation” ever being measured
textbook that I can find in their discussion of thermal radiation interprets the 2nd term in the Stefan-Boltzmann Equation as arising from radiation emitted by the surroundings that is absorbed by the body.
[b] Even if you don’t interpret it this way, the fact that the [u]net[/u], only, radiation emitted by a body depends on the temperature of its (radiatively-active) surroundings as well as its own temperature is enough to give you the greenhouse effect.[/b] No back radiation, and no greenhouse effect has ever been demonstrated. Again all you offer is warmist failed theory.

• ### Joel Shore

|

Most materials, such as sea water, ice, and even snow have emissivities very close to 1 in the mid-far infrared where they are radiating at terrestrial temperatures (see http://www.icess.ucsb.edu/modis/EMIS/html/em.html ). And, note that because of the fourth power in the S-B equation, a 4% reduction in emissivity corresponds to only a 1% change in the absolute temperature.

That addresses the only issue of substance that you raised in your comment.

• ### ewiljan

|

[quote name=”Joel Shore”]Most materials, such as sea water, ice, and even snow have emissivities very close to 1 in the mid-far infrared where they are radiating at terrestrial temperatures (see http://www.icess.ucsb.edu/modis/EMIS/html/em.html ).[/quote]
What Climate Clown Bull Shit. Typical measurement of radiance of snow. Radiance is equilivant to -30 C. The temperature of the reflected sky. Result is, Snow temperature = -30 C. emissivity of snow 100%. (they never bothered to measure the temperature of the snow). Slopy (SNIPPED) again. Please show where you (SNIPPED) have measured, or have any concept of “how to measure” “emissivity” from any surface at an angle other than normal. Please show the error bars on any measurement of emissivity, at any angle, due to reflectivity? Joel All you have are (SNIPPED) lies!!!

[i]You have once again,been making personal attacks with the name calling.They are snipped out to clean up your comment,but if you keep this up I will consider new moderation responses up to deleting your comment totally.[/i]

• ### Joel Shore

|

Sounds like a lot of whining because the measurements in the literature of emissivity of a wide range of materials don’t come out in a way that agrees with your ideology. Unfortunately, nature doesn’t care about your ideology.

If you believe that the emissivity of most terrestrial materials is dramatically different than 1 over the wavelengths of interest, why don’t you provide links to measurements that support this?

• ### Greg House

|

[quote name=”Joel Shore”]greenhouse effect … the effect follows from a correct application of those laws.[/quote]

The so called “greenhouse effect” (warming by back radiation) is equivalent to creation of energy out of nothing, which is obviously impossible.

It is only at the first glance that the “greenhouse effect” seems plausible, because generally things indeed are capable of warming other things, but if one looks closely into the issue, the absurdity of the “greenhouse effect” becomes obvious.

The assumption of “greenhouse effect” leads to 2 impossible things: a)a part of the system getting more energy than the whole system and b)more energy coming out the system than has entered it.

The IPCC seem to have known that, because in their 2nd report they “let” “greenhouse gases” radiate in only one direction to the surface to avoid an obviously absurd outcome: http://imgur.com/gDRQL15. If the same radiation to space had been added, there would have been more energy coming out than in. This is how they made impossible look possible.

• ### Joel Shore

|

Since all models of the greenhouse effect, be they simplistic ones or full scale climate models, explicitly incorporate conservation of energy, your claims are nonsense. They stem from your own ignorance in how to find the steady-state solution to a simple model.

And, no, the IPCC does not “let” greenhouse gases radiate only in one direction. That is more nonsense of yours.

• ### Greg House

|

[quote name=”Joel Shore”]And, no, the IPCC does not “let” greenhouse gases radiate only in one direction.[/quote]

Of course they do.

Again, (http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/publications_and_data_reports.shtml#1) the IPCC second assessment report, 1995, “Working Group I: The Science of Climate Change” page 58, (https://docs.google.com/open?id=0B1gFp6Ioo3aka3NsaFQ3YlE3XzA). Or imgur.com/gDRQL15.

In the picture “greenhouse gases” radiate 324 W/m² [b]only in one direction[/b] to the surface. If the same 324 W/m² radiation from “greenhouse gases” to space were not “missing”, the system would radiate away more energy than enters the system, which would be equivalent to creating energy out of nothing and clearly absurd. The absurd “greenhouse effect” can “work” only on paper if cooked properly.

For such a manipulation with a financial report those responsible would need to do some time in jail.

• ### Joel Shore

|

There is 165 W/m^2 in that diagram going out into space that is labeled as emitted by the atmosphere and there is another 30 W/m^2 that looks like it is emitted to space by clouds. So, no, your claim that the greenhouse gases are shown as emitting only in one direction is another falsehood of yours.

[And, in answer to what I imagine might be your next question: No, a thick atmosphere does not have to emit the same amount up and down. One way of seeing this is that the emission up into space will come from higher in the atmosphere (than the emission back down to earth) where it is colder and hence the emission is less.

Another way to see it is to do a simple random walk simulation you can do by flipping a coin. Start your imaginary walker at x = 0 (“the earth’s surface”) flip the coin and if you get a “heads”, move him to x+1, if you get tails, move him to x-1. The game ends if the walker gets back to x = 0 (“the surface”) or gets to x = 10 (“escapes to space”). You’ll find that about 9 out of 10 walkers end up back at the Earth’s surface and only 1 out of 10 out in space. [As I recall, the general formula if you work out the probabilities is that if your “atmosphere” is N steps thick then 1/N of the random walkers will escape to space.

• ### ewiljan

|

Joel,
What total nonsense! For Greg OK, theb rest of us are not impressed with your Bull Shit.

• ### Greg House

|

I think I’ll skip your “random walk” nonsense.

So, again, in the IPCC picture the “greenhouse gases” radiate only in one direction to the surface. Regardless of what in the same picture they meant by “emitted by atmosphere” (also in one direction only!), it is much less than what the “greenhouse gases” radiate to the surface (165

• ### Greg House

|

Sorry, the software mutilated my comment apparently, I’ll try again.

I think I’ll skip your “random walk” nonsense.

So, again, in the IPCC picture the “greenhouse gases” radiate only in one direction to the surface. Regardless of what in the same picture they meant by “emitted by atmosphere” (also in one direction only!), it is much less than what the “greenhouse gases” radiate to the surface (165 is less than 324), so even if they meant just “greenhouse gases” when they wrote “atmosphere” in the same picture (absurd, but let’s assume it), the correction would lead to energy production (324-165=159) out of nothing. More energy comes out of the system than enters the system. Absurd.

As for your “does not have to emit the same amount up and down”, according to the IPCC the “greenhouse gases” radiate in all directions, hence differences in thickness of the atmosphere can not play any part and the overall radiation out of the atmosphere must be the same in both directions. Both the thicker and the thinner parts, every single part radiate in both directions.