No Virginia, Cooler Objects Cannot Make Warmer Objects Even Warmer Still
Two former NASA scientific ‘heavyweights’ go toe-to-toe in online debate over whether the science of man-made global warming is a “hoax,” as President-elect Donald Trump has claimed.
Trump’s ridicule of this hot topic is causing a huge stir among world leaders. So herein we reprise key points in an epic debate waged online and in private emails. The two opposing are well-respected ex-NASA scientists, Dr Roy Spencer and Dr Pierre R Latour.
Defending the supposed “greenhouse gas theory” (GHE) of climate change is “lukewarmist” Roy Spencer. His powerful advocacy of this cornerstone of mainstream climate science nonetheless requires us to believe that trace amounts of atmospheric carbon dioxide (less than 0.04 percent of total) with added human emissions (even smaller still) significantly warms earth’s climate. 
Spencer’s article ‘Yes, Virginia, Cooler Objects Can Make Warmer Objects Even Warmer Still’ (July 23, 2010) is regarded by believers in the greenhouse gas theory (GHE) as one of the most authoritative defenses. It claims that CO2 is causing the climate to be “33 degrees warmer than it would otherwise be” absent this gas. The crux of the argument which Latour powerfully disputes is Spencer’s bold admission:
“Well, I’m going to go ahead and say it: THE PRESENCE OF COOLER OBJECTS CAN, AND DO, CAUSE WARMER OBJECTS TO GET EVEN HOTTER.”
Yes, believers in the GHE are shown to require to fall back on a nonsensical notion that cooler objects (eg carbon dioxide) can somehow make warmer objects (i.e. the earth’s atmosphere) even warmer yet. That is, even warmer than by the power of the sun alone. This claim is hotly contested by scientists at Principia Scientific International (PSI) better trained in the laws of thermodynamics, who argue it is impossible under the known scientific laws. PSI’s “champion” in the debate is another ex-NASA man, Dr Pierre R Latour. Latour is a “Slayer” (or “denier”) – a scientist who shows empirical evidence disproving the GHE (named from the book ‘Slaying the Sky Dragon: Death of the Greenhouse Gas Theory.’)
Dr Latour’s authoritative rebuttal of the GHE in his ‘No Virginia, Cooler Objects Cannot Make Warmer Objects Even Warmer Still‘ (January 2012).
In it Latour writes:
“I have admired and learned from Roy Spencer’s work on AGW & GHG for several years. He taught me a lot. He is well recognized in his field. Now I write to return the favor and teach him about the errors in his posting and how he can learn from my field. I read all 350 blog responses, and identify the correct ones at the end.”
However, Latour then pulls apart a thought experiment Spencer relies on about two heated plates placed in close proximity which are said to be passing heat back and forth between them under what climate scientists call “back radiation” heating. Dr Latour and other opponents of the “back radiation” heating notion point out that in no other branch of science (other than climate science) does any evidence of heating from “back radiation” exist. The “existence” part for Roy Spencer comes from his “detection” of the claimed phenomenon from hand-held infrared thermometers. This idea IR hand themometers can “read” the supposed added heat from “back radiation” is likewise discredited by Latour and other applied scientists including Canadian space scientist, Joseph E Postma. They proved that an IR thermometer operates on the principles of a differential – if the target is cooler then the voltage differential on the thermopile is negative and the response curve is calibrated to report a corresponding temperature. Cold does not heat up hot– cold doesn’t flow heat to hot.
Indeed, according to Latour and other PSI experts from the applied and “hard” sciences “back radiation” heating is only proven to exist in those discredited computer models that government academics like Spencer put such faith in. In the real world applied scientists don’t rely on thought experiments – they use hard empirical data.
As Latour writes:
“Examples are all around us. Chemical engineers design and operate radiant, convection and conduction furnaces, kilns, forges, chemical reactors and boilers for refining petroleum, manufacturing chemicals and generating electricity since 1920. We no longer need more experiments. No back-radiation is observed. Conducting this experiment will allow nature to tell which prediction is correct…..Major furnace constructors like Babcock & Wilcox, Foster – Wheeler, Stone & Webster, Selas, KTI, KBR, Combustion Engineering, and Lummus have developed and built proprietary furnace designs world-wide for decades.”
Dr Latour pointedly reveals that Spencer’s claims regarding Kirchhoff’s law are “not precisely correct” and irrelevant to his claims about hot bodies absorbing cold radiation.
indicating a superficiality in Spencer’s approach (like climate scientists generally) Latour continues:
“Unlike Spencer, I tend to include the physics of what happens on the molecular, atomic and photon level; it often overturns common sense and experience, leading to a more complete understanding of physics and natural phenomena. I do not arbitrarily dismiss physics because I do not understand it; only if I do and know it to be irrelevant. I am aware professional radiation physicists may have more precise descriptions of the un-absorbable colder T criteria from particle physics. Claes Johnson gave a plausible explanation of cutoff frequencies in the book “Slaying the Sky Dragon”(2011).”
Spencer imagined a physical situation and claimed what would happen; a radiating plate would get warmer if another colder, non-radiating plate were introduced, with no supporting physics or evidence. Then he claimed it was correct because he claimed it to be so.
This is a circular argument, an invalid tautology; claim something and use it to prove the claim. Logic shows this proves nothing. Circular arguments should be avoided in a court where the judge and jury understand and reject invalid tautology.
So perhaps President-elect Donald Trump may be onto something when he calls the science of global warming a “hoax.”
Read Dr Roy Spencer’s full article at: www.drroyspencer.com
Read Dr Pierre R Latours’ full article at: www.principia-scientific.org
Trackback from your site.