• Home
  • Current News
  • Oops Anthony Watts did it Again – Introducing the Greenhouse Alarmist

Oops Anthony Watts did it Again – Introducing the Greenhouse Alarmist

Written by Joseph E Postma

Anthony Watts is a Jester. So Mr. Watts posts a “guest article” from a person named Stephen Wilde, a person who has nothing to do with me or any of the Slayers, and who’s physics musings neither I nor the Slayers have ever promoted, and goes on to associate Mr. Wilde with us and calls Wilde’s musings “Slayer physics”.

Anthony Watts

Well, this is how this guy Anthony Watts operates – cheap lies.

In a later comment, Watts claims that the Slayers send him articles every week hoping he’ll post them.  This is another lie, we don’t send our own writing to Watts (this is Watts thinking himself a gatekeeper, it would appear), and never have, except when requested.  And when requested, look at how Watts responds:

http://climateofsophistry.com/2013/06/05/slaying-watts-with-watts/

It’s worth re-reading that article if you already have, just to remind yourself of what Anthony Watts believed he could engage in and get away with of sophistry and abuse of science.

So the guy challenges us to demonstrate the physics we’re talking about – essentially that cold doesn’t heat up hot! (seriously, this is what Anthony Watts has a difficult time understanding…) – and when we produce for him exactly what is requested, he ignores it and goes on a rant about light bulbs being able to produce more power than you put into them by having them shine on themselves, because we had had a picture of a light bulb in our article answer to him:

http://climateofsophistry.com/2013/05/13/slayers-putting-up-not-shutting-up/

Anthony Watts thought he could just ignore the physics and text of our response, and so he  just says “you guys have a picture of a light bulb in your article, so, if I turn on the light bulb and it gets hot, then it debunks your article”.

No that doesn’t make any sense at all and it doesn’t address the actual physics of the article, but do you think Anthony wants to care about that?  When pressed on the issue that in science experimentation, and pedagogy, it is important to understand the actual underlying physical principles at work in order to properly quantify the results of an experiment, Anthony Watts replied:

And yet, in the diagram proposed in the essay by Postma, such fine details were not mentioned nor required. Demanding them now post facto doesn’t fly.

So according to Anthony Watts’ understanding of how science works, demanding scientific accuracy after someone botches an experiment is not legitimate.  So in fact, according to Anthony Watts, if you botch an experiment, any subsequent criticism of it is invalid.  The experimenter wasn’t wrong, it is the person pointing out that the experiment was done incorrectly who is wrong. (!) I don’t think even a child would invent such a scheme.  Well, an insecure bully child would.

As you’ll see in the review of the article links, not only did Anthony Watts botch a very basic experiment, he and Curt Wilson didn’t even quantitatively analyse their results to see if more power was being produced than was being put it.  I mean the whole thing was a rather embarrassing expose of the bully mindset and its insecurities, and it would be embarrassing for Anthony Watts if he wasn’t just such a complete idiot.  That’s the advantage of being that stupid: you just don’t know when you’re making a fool of yourself.

Here, I’ll put in order the sequence of events and other articles I’ve had the misfortune of having to write involving Anthony Watts:

http://climateofsophistry.com/2013/05/13/slayers-putting-up-not-shutting-up/

http://climateofsophistry.com/2013/06/05/slaying-watts-with-watts/

http://climateofsophistry.com/2013/06/17/closing-with-watts/

http://climateofsophistry.com/2013/10/18/burning-watts-with-watts/

http://climateofsophistry.com/2013/11/08/anthony-watts-and-robert-brown-are-liars-or-at-least-very-stupid-idiots/

The Maths and Physics of Heat Flow

The simplest equation under the simplest geometry (two plane parallel walls with unit emissivities and absorptivities) for radiant heat flow is:

1.            q_dot = σ(Th4 – Tc4) = σTh4 – σTc4

– ‘q_dot’ is the flow of heat energy per unit time per unit area, unit Joules per second per square meter (J/s/m2)

– ‘σ’ is the Stefan-Boltzmann constant which governs how thermal energy is converted into radiant energy on a surface (5.67 x 10-8 J/s/m2/K4)

– ‘Th‘ & ‘Tc‘ are a hotter temperature and a cooler temperature, respectively.

It is the most basic statement of thermodynamics that heat flows from hot to cold.  Given that Th is a higher numeric value (i.e. a number) than Tc, then the right hand side of the equation is positive and it indicates that heat is flowing (q_dot) from the larger number (hot) to the smaller number (cold).  The heat flow is that quantity which corresponds between the two relevant parameters and their geometry.

 Alarming Greenhouse Physics

Sophistry is a simple thing: you simply say things which appear to have meaning because they follow the accepted rules of grammar and syntax, but without having any ontologically (i.e. “in reality”) meaningful content.  For example:  “This sentence is a lie”.  It is easier to detect a simple sentence of sophistry, whereas if the sentence is strewn with scientific words whose definitions are overly technical and of which very few people are knowledgeable on and especially if the statements are mathematical, then detecting such “Gödelian Incomplete” sentences of sophistry becomes very difficult.  Indeed, one can brainwash entire populations with such sentences.

And so this is what proceeds with the above equation.  Simple as it is to someone like me, for most other scientists and lay-people, it can be mistranslated into physically meaningless sophistry.  This has been the work of many people, but Anthony Watts’ friend Robert G. Brown of Duke University is one of the worst offenders.  The following is precisely how the sophistry develops, in regards to the basic heat flow equation from above, and is essentially a direct quote from Dr. Brown:

“Since ‘q_dot’ is a fixed quantity because it is the heat energy from the Sun, then if the colder temperature increases, the warmer temperature subsequently has to also increase in proportion in order to keep the equation (‘q_dot’) constant.  Hence, if the atmosphere rises in temperature (which is Tc), then the ground surface (Th) has to increase in temperature as well, in order to keep ‘q_dot’ constant, since ‘q_dot’ is the heat energy from the Sun.  Hence we see that cold does indeed warm up hot”

So mathematically what they then do, once these sentences have been stated, is to rearrange equation 1 into

2.            Th = (q_dot/σ + Tc)1/4

at which point they claim proof that cold can heat up hot since if Tc increases on the right hand side, then Th must increase on the left hand side.  So now, should we believe that cold can heat up hot and that thermodynamics has been making erroneous statements all this time about heat flowing from hot to cold only, or, should we go back and check Anthony’s and Robert’s (and all other greenhouse alarmists who’s beliefs depend on this exact same interpretation) work?  Let us check their work!

First, they say that ‘q_dot’ is the heat energy from the Sun, and that this is fixed.  Then they say that the hot and cold temperatures in the equation are that of the Earth’s ground surface (TG) and Earth’s atmosphere (TA), respectively.  Let us specify these assertion in the actual equations then:

1b.            q_dotSun = σTG4 – σTA4

So now the first equation says that the heat flow from the Sun depends on the difference between Earth’s ground temperature and Earth’s air temperature.  Question: Why would the heat that the Sun produces be dependent on the difference between some things which only have to do with the Earth?  That is simply illogical and nonsensical.  The heat which the Sun produces is constant and does not have anything to do with what is happening on the Earth – the Sun is an actual nuclear source of energy and the Earth is only a tiny, tiny passive receiver, 150 million kilometres away.

So that’s it.  Robert Brown and Anthony Watts (and all related greenhouse alarmists) just made up a reinterpretation of the heat flow equation using sentences which, while appearing to be meaningful, were fundamentally devoid of logic and ontology.  The heat produced by the Sun is not determined by the temperature difference between Earth’s surface and atmosphere!

Remember what we said about the heat flow equation above: “The heat flow is that quantity which corresponds between the two relevant parameters and their geometry.

So let us try to meet the greenhouse alarmists half way and say that if the left hand side is the heat flow from the Sun, then it must have to refer to the heat flow between the Sun and the Earth as a whole for the equation to be meaningful.  Then if we have the temperature of the Sun (TSun) and Earth (TE),

1c.            q_dotSun = σTSun4 – σTE4

which then rearranged according the greenhouse alarmists logic, results in

2c.            TSun = (q_dotSun/σ + TE)1/4

Does this help them out at all?  Well now the equation says that the temperature of the Sun will increase if the temperature of the Earth increases.  Talk about a positive feedback mechanism!  Imagine that – the Sun heats up the Earth, then the Earth heats up the Sun, then the Sun must heat the Earth some more, etc etc., ad infinitum.  Well, the temperature of the Sun doesn’t depend on the temperature of the Earth.  That’s that.

So not only was all of their logic wrong, half of their logic was too!  That’s really quite funny.

It was Robert Brown’s very first statement which was the sophistry – the claim that ‘q_dot’ represents the energy from the Sun.  It does not.

1.            q_dot = σ(Th4 – Tc4) = σTh4 – σTc4

The energy from the relevant hot and cold sources are indicated on the right hand side of the equation, by the Th & Tc terms.  The Sun would be the hot term, the Earth the cool one.  The energy from the Sun is not ‘q_dot’ – this is only a dependent term called the rate of heat flow and it does indeed go to zero when the Sun and the Earth, represented in a planar geometry factored for scale, are in energy equilibrium; ‘q_dot’ is not a constant, it is a term which indicates the presence of thermal equilibrium which is when its value goes to zero.

So, these greenhouse alarmists are either really bad scientists, or they’re really good at lying to the unwary.

For a review of the simulacra of greenhouse alarmism and its relation to an ontological greenhouse, please see here:

http://climateofsophistry.com/2013/12/04/a-tale-of-two-versions/

The Greenhouse Alarmist

Let it be known that anyone who is a greenhouse alarmist, of the likes of Robert Brown and Anthony Watts, are indeed climate alarmists and they operate in full, 100% support of the climate alarm agenda of carbon vilification and productivity taxation designed to be the new cognitive control system of guilt and sin and monetary enslavement for the mass populace.  The whole thing operates upon the long-established cognitive archetype of (original) sin and guilt for being human (see the “Religion of Climate Change” category for more information).  This time, the original sin is for that of half of your breathing cycle – exhalation, which releases carbon dioxide.  As Anthony Watts and all of the other greenhouse climate alarmists will always tell you – “It’s not whether carbon dioxide causes heating (evil), it is simply a question of how much.”

Translation: “It is not a question of whether or not humans are evil, it is a question of how evil.”  Of course, they have never justified why heating should be considered evil, or that carbon dioxide can even cause any heating at all (it never has before in the geological record, so why would it now?), they have always ignored the fact that modern climate change is benign and negligible compared to the past when humans weren’t around, that we are in a millions-of-years-long ice age with characteristically lower temperatures than usual (yes, even now, still), and they of course ignore the tiny little fact that carbon dioxide is the very basis of life itself and is an essential, beneficial, green, and organic, natural atmospheric fertilizer no matter what source it comes from.

All of their alarm and their agenda rests specifically and exclusively upon the alarmistsimulacrum version of the greenhouse effect, and so to defend it ipso-facto makes one a supporter of the climate alarm political agenda whether they admit it or not or realize it or not.

Ontological Climate Math

We saw above how greenhouse alarmists like Robert Brown and Anthony Watts attempt to make a statement about the energy from the Sun and that of the Earth, but they mix all of the terms of the heat flow equation up into things they don’t mean and use parameters which don’t match what the heat flow equation is intended to demonstrate.  They attempt to make a statement about conservation of energy but mess up the whole equation with the claim that the heat flow rate from the Sun is conserved between the Earth’s ground surface temperature and atmospheric temperature, which simply makes no sense at all since the energy from the Sun doesn’t depend on the temperature of the Earth!

The ontological thing to say, and mathematically write, would be:

“In conservation of energy, the radiant power from the Sun and absorbed by the Earth (PSun) would be equal to the radiant power output from the Earth itself (PEarth).”

Mathematically this would just be:

PSun = PEarth

However, the radiant power from the Earth can be broken up into multiple terms, for example ocean, land, and atmosphere.  If we just keep it relatively simple for demonstration we can write down a total contribution from the Earth’s physical surface and one for its atmosphere, so that

PSun = PSurf + PAtmo

It is more interesting to break up the atmospheric terms into the components of the atmosphere theoretically able to emit radiant power.  The main components of the atmosphere are molecular oxygen & nitrogen, water vapour, and carbon dioxide, with characteristic emissivities (ε), and so

PSun = PSurf + PO2 + PN2 + PH2O + PCO2

and expanding the terms in general

PSun = PSurf + σ[εT4]O2 + σ[εT4]N2 + σ[εT4]H2O + σ[εT4]CO2

In radiative physics, a substances emissivity ‘ε’ is a measure of it radiant efficiency – the higher the ε, the easier it is for the substance to radiate heat energy, and hence the lower the substance’s temperature.  If a substance has a low emissivity ε, this means that it inefficiently radiates heat energy and hence it has to have a higher temperature than it would otherwise, in order to radiate the same amount of power.

Well, O2 and N2 have basically zero emissivity, which means that they can’t lose any heat energy by radiation at all!  This means they hold on to heat energy very efficiently and can hold a higher temperature than otherwise.  Carbon dioxide and water vapour however are said to emit and have high emissivity, hence they are what allows the atmosphere to cool by shedding heat energy via radiation, in as much as the atmosphere radiates by them.

Let’s look at the simpler second equation again,

PSun = PSurf + PAtmo

This is very simple: if the atmosphere increases its power output, which is exactly what happens if it increases in temperature since power emission goes as temperature to the fourth power, then for PSun to remain constant, PSurf must decrease which means that the Earth’s surface must decrease in temperature.  Note how different this ontological result is from the greenhouse alarmist’s botched equation we analyzed above – it’s the exact opposite result.

Well, what do you expect from these guys.  They mean to enslave you to a hyperreality, not help you.

 

Tags: , , , , , , ,

Comments (75)

  • Avatar

    jsullivan

    |

    Richard, our policy is to delete only spam and not valid comments. The deleted comments above were made by spammers.

  • Avatar

    Richard Hewitt

    |

    I must admit to being slightly disturbed by the amount of “comment deleted by administrator” notes there are in this thread.

    Is there no way of changing that to “comment hidden by administrator” with a link to the original comment and perhaps giving an explanation of why the comment was deleted/hidden?

    I appreciate the need to delete spam, censor personal information, or delete content which may be illegal but surely we’re all adults here who ought to be able to make up our own minds about comments without needing them to be deleted by an admin?

  • Avatar

    Derek Alker

    |

    Apologies, maths quote above from pdf attached to first post on this GWS forum thread,
    http://www.globalwarmingskeptics.info/thread-1530.html

    I am also not sure if,
    “IF geothermal contributions raise earth’s surface temperature”
    should be,
    “IF geothermal contributions raise earth’s surface energy amount”
    ???

    As at #5 Joseph A Olson 2014-04-10 13:38 correctly notes –
    A youtube video just released by Dr Pierre-Marie Robitaille, “On the Validity of Kirchoff’s Law”
    youtube.com/watch?v=3Hstum3U2zw
    in regards of “universality” opens many closed by AGW and GH “theory” doors…

  • Avatar

    Derek Alker

    |

    Thank you Joseph Postma, for an excellent verbal walk through of the relevant heat flow equations.

    I have often said,
    “Maths does not determine the physics,
    maths can ONLY describe the physics when applied in the correct, and accurate
    physical manner to a given situation.”

    For that, one has to be able to verbally walk though and check what any equations used are actually doing…

    btw – Joseph Postma a direct question.
    IF geothermal contributions raise earth’s surface temperature, what would that do to
    “The ontological thing to say, and mathematically write, would be:

    “In conservation of energy, the radiant power from the Sun and absorbed by the Earth (PSun) would be equal to the radiant power output from the Earth itself (PEarth).”

    Mathematically this would just be:

    PSun = PEarth”

    I suspect confuse an already confusing situation / baseline. Would it just be more energy to be emitted to space and / or stored within the climate system / planet / biosphere, rather than a higher temperature???…

  • Avatar

    Tim Folkerts

    |

    @ #64 Doug Cotton

    Imagine a sphere deep in space far from any star. The sphere has a surface area of 1 m^2 and has a 240 W electric heater embedded inside. Assume the emissivity is 1.0 (other values will change some of the precise numbers, but not the gist of the results).

    The sphere will adjust its temperature until the surface is 255 K, at which time it will be emitting its “quota as per Planck’s Law” of 240 W/m^2.

    Now add a “cool atmosphere” round the sphere (but leave a small vacuum space so there is no conduction). Let the temperature be set to 3/4 of the surface temperature = 191 K. As you say, the sphere now [i]”does not have to use as much of its own thermal energy for that portion of its “quota””[/i]. In other words, it does not need to use all the 240 W from the heater to maintain the thermal radiation ([i]its “rate of radiative cooling is slowed by a cooler source”[/i]).

    But of course, that “left over power” that is not being emitted as thermal radiation must do something –> it heats up the sphere. The sphere will warm up until it once again radiates a NET 240 W –> it rises to 295 K.

    Lets repeat the process, warming the “sky” to 3/4 of THIS temperature = 221 K. The sphere warms to 328 K. Repeat and the sphere warms to 355 K. Then 379 K.

    The “sky” was always cooler than the “planet”. The flow of energy was always from the planet to the sky. But the planet has gotten warmer.

    I suppose one could argue that the sky did not “warm” the “planet” here, but that is simply semantics. The planet is warmer than it would be if the cooler atmosphere was not present.

  • Avatar

    Doug  Cotton

    |

    Go back to [url=http://rankexploits.com/musings/2014/the-fullness-of-time-doug-cotton-comments-unveiled/#comment-128678]this[/url] comment.

  • Avatar

    Doug  Cotton

    |

    You can’t prove us wrong, Joseph. Many now realise the gravito-thermal effect is a reality and you can’t prove it doesn’t exist in a Ranque-Hilsch vortex tube. There’s nothing quite like this empirical evidence which thus proves any greenhouse warming effect is pure fiction.

  • Avatar

    Doug  Cotton

    |

    Regarding radiation, go back to my comment at 18:38 and maybe even read what I actually did write over two years ago – because your guesses about what you think I wrote (about how and when radiation transfers thermal energy) are incorrect.

  • Avatar

    Doug  Cotton

    |

    [i]”Your fake theoretical nonsense has no value in any direction!”[/i]

    No value? Except that the gravito-thermal effect is a reality, seen in the vortex tube, a fact which you can’t deny. And this reality explains what no greenhouse conjecture could ever explain.

    Where is anyone’s [i][url]evidence[/url][/i] that water vapour warms? [b][i]I present evidence with real data from this real world[/i][/b] of ours that it cools.

  • Avatar

    Pat Obar

    |

    [quote name=”Doug  Cotton”][b]Pat O.06bar [/b]thinks a microbolometer [i]”measures flux and direction of that flux between two different temperatures.”[/i]

    No it doesn’t. From changes in resistance it determines rates of change of temperatures. From those measurements it calculates the temperature of the source using the laws of physics and a manually “guessed” emissivity like 0.95 which the user enters into the machine. [/quote]

    -snip complete nonsence-
    Your “now deleated” response to one of my posts, states that you will have no further communication with me! Why do you post my name in this post? You are no longer communicating, but only “advertising”. To defend my self with limited “knowledge”, take your imaginary device, that you think indicates “temperature”
    with your entered “emissivity” and point it at the same area at an angle 70 degrees from normal. If that radiative temperature remains constant this indicates a Labertian surface with the same emssivity in every direction. independent of Snell’s law. Your radiometric temperature is never as high as the thermometric temperature on any surface that can never be a conceptual “black-body” with 100% emissivity in every direction, and at every frequency. Thermal radiation is hard to understand and never correct!
    All of your conceptual conjecture is based on the claims of those trying to sell something whether fake education or fake product.
    If you ever attemted to accuractly measure anything, you would be first to admit ‘I have no idea of what “is” that I am trying to measure somehow’. But also insist that my measurements however, are Golden, never to be corrected! Especially by those incapable of understanding what it “was” that I was trying to measure somehow.
    Your fake theoretical nonsense has no value in any direction!

  • Avatar

    Pat Obar

    |

    [quote name=”Tim Folkerts”]Doug says:
    From changes in resistance it [the micorbolometer] determines rates of change of temperatures. … The energy in radiation from a colder source only raises electrons between energy states in a warmer target, and then these electrons immediately emit an equivalent photon. There is no internal conversion of the electron energy into kinetic energy.[/quote]

    Which is it?
    [b]If the first sentence is true[/b], then the microbolometer is changing temperature in response to the photons from the cooler sky (in order to produce an image, the sky must be producing a change in the microbolometer).
    [b]If the last sentence is true[/b], then the microbolometer does not change in response to the photons — it simply re-emits ALL the energy and stays the same temperature. There is “no internal conversion” so the instrument is not changing temperature and is not collecting any data.[/quote]

    Very Good Tim,
    lets correct via profreading:
    (photons “to” the cooler sky)
    That same fast bolometer does indeed change temperature, Higher T, higher R. Used as an imager, that bolometer can absorb or emmit resulting on the sign of the delta T being the same as the delta R, but never both.
    Generally the bolometer has a small constant current through it, resulting from a delta V(olts) across it, that delta V increases during the interval when it is absorbing, and decreases in during the interval when emitting. With the microbolometer That rate of reversal can go from emitting to absorbing at at 10 kHz but when scanning across a surface that is at the same absolute temperature as the bolometer mount. If that delta V is AC coupled, the display spatially, correctly, demodulates that delta V, an amplitiude modulated double sideband suppressed carrier signal, to indicate something proportional to T(abs)^3 deltaT. No carrier (Flux from one to the other) is required, and no flux results when each radiance equals that opposing radiance.
    This is why the spherical Earth and its atmosphere, absorbs electromagnetic energy from one direction and emits exactly the same amount of electromagnetic energy in all other directions at lower frequencies.
    Your Climate Clowns display no understanding of the “geometery” required to approximate what “is” on a spinning, spherical, Earth. Your flat earth society, a religion, with no concept of science, can never explain, they can only “claim”!

  • Avatar

    Doug  Cotton

    |

    The explanation of Tim’s dilemma is in the PSI paper “[url=http://principia-scientific.org/publications/psi_radiated_energy.pdf]Radiated Energy and the Second Law of Thermodynamics[/url].”

    No blackbody will radiate more than its “quota” as per its Planck function. So the warmer sensor does not have to use as much of its own thermal energy for that portion of its “quota” for which it gets electro-magnetic energy directly from the cooler source. The sensor’s rate of radiative cooling is slowed by a cooler source: it does not warm.

  • Avatar

    Tim Folkerts

    |

    Doug says:
    From changes in resistance it [the micorbolometer] determines rates of change of temperatures. … The energy in radiation from a colder source only raises electrons between energy states in a warmer target, and then these electrons immediately emit an equivalent photon. There is no internal conversion of the electron energy into kinetic energy.[/quote]

    Which is it?
    [b]If the first sentence is true[/b], then the microbolometer is changing temperature in response to the photons from the cooler sky (in order to produce an image, the sky must be producing a change in the microbolometer).
    [b]If the last sentence is true[/b], then the microbolometer does not change in response to the photons — it simply re-emits ALL the energy and stays the same temperature. There is “no internal conversion” so the instrument is not changing temperature and is not collecting any data.

  • Avatar

    Doug  Cotton

    |

    (continued)

    Strictly speaking, what is rising is the supporting surface temperature. On Earth this then helps the Sun to warm the surface even more on a clear day, as we all know, because it’s had a flying start after the night before. This additional temporary energy is being added faster than it can be returned to the atmosphere, but of course it does start to return early to mid afternoon and mostly before midnight. Then the supporting temperature and the actual surface temperature are close, so the rate of cooling slows in the early pre-dawn hours.

  • Avatar

    Doug  Cotton

    |

    The article says [i]”This is very simple: if the atmosphere increases its power output, which is exactly what happens if it increases in temperature since power emission goes as temperature to the fourth power, then for PSun to remain constant PSurf must decrease which means that the Earth’s surface must decrease in temperature”[/i]

    Too simple to be correct, I’m afraid.

    [b]Contra evidence:[/b]

    The troposphere of Venus warms during its day, and so too does its surface, because it’s not all about radiation.

    [b]Reality:[/b]

    If the content of water vapour increases, yes, then the gradient of the thermal profile reduces in magnitude because of additional inter-molecular radiation, and the surface end lowers while the toop end rises.

    However, if the whole troposphere warms the thermal gradient stays (about) the same if the percentage of WV stays the same. If the temperature is rising because it’s a hot sunny morning, there will still be radiative balance because the intensity of solar radiation is also increasing. So the surface temperature also has to rise, for otherwise the state of thermodynamic equilibrium (with its thermal gradient) would be disrupted.

    [b]Evidence:[/b]

    (a) A study shows temperature negatively correlated with precipitation.

    (b) Measurements show Venus surface rises 5 degrees during its day, and Earth’s surface normally does so also.

  • Avatar

    Doug  Cotton

    |

    In a nutshell, you can just as reliably calculate the flux from the ground or water surfaces (assuming you have access to such) by measuring the temperature with a conventional thermometer and doing the same calculations using the same laws of physics. As I keep saying though, the radiative flux that you get using the Stefan-Boltzmann equation is the rate at which electromagnetic energy is coming from the source. This is quite different from the rate at which thermal energy is coming from the source itself, because that rate of cooling will be affected by incident radiation such as from the atmosphere. Some of the radiation from the Earth’s surface is pseudo scattered backradiation. I explained all this over two years ago.

  • Avatar

    Doug  Cotton

    |

    I realise of course that microbolometers are used to form IR images, but these are based on temperature differences. As it says [url=http://www.coventor.com/mems-solutions/micro-bolometers/]here[/url], “The micro-bolometer is primarily a thermal sensor.”

    So it is measuring the rate of temperature changes (due to resistance changes) in its sensor and using that information to determine the temperature of the source. If it gives you a flux value, then it has used the laws of physics to calculate that, and the calculation requires manual selection of an estimated emissivity, usually in the vicinity of 0.95. It does not measure radiative flux directly: it [i]calculates[/i] it. In any event, the radiative flux coming from the source is not the same as the rate of (one-way) transfer of thermal energy.

  • Avatar

    Doug  Cotton

    |

    [b]Pat O.06bar [/b]thinks a microbolometer [i]”measures flux and direction of that flux between two different temperatures.”[/i]

    No it doesn’t. From changes in resistance it determines rates of change of temperatures. From those measurements it calculates the temperature of the source using the laws of physics and a manually “guessed” emissivity like 0.95 which the user enters into the machine.

    The rate of (one way) transfer of thermal energy is quite different from the rate of transfer of electromagnetic energy from the source. There will always be radiation coming from any source towards the instrument, even if that source is colder. (How else could you take a photo of a colder cloud?) But that does not mean that thermal energy is being transferred by that (one-way) radiation. The energy in radiation from a colder source only raises electrons between energy states in a warmer target, and then these electrons immediately emit an equivalent photon. There is no internal conversion of the electron energy into kinetic energy.

  • Avatar

    Doug  Cotton

    |

    The outward radiative flux from the water surfaces can be calculated using S-B law with a realistic emissivity value. Well over half its electromagnetic energy (E-M) comes from the E-M energy in back radiation. This back radiation thus reduces the amount of thermal energy in the surface that is being converted to electron energy and thence to radiated electro-magnetic energy. This slows that portion of surface cooling that is due to radiation, but can have no effect on the rate of non-radiative cooling.

    When this surface radiation strikes a cooler target, much of it resonates but the E-M energy in that radiation represented by the area between the Planck curves is converted to thermal energy in the cooler target.

    All this was explained over two years ago in my PSI paper [i]Radiated Energy and the Second Law of Thermodynamics[/i]. That paper explains how and why the Second Law applies for radiative heat transfer.

    However, for the thin surface layer of water covering 70% of the planet, the radiation which is absorbed is nowhere near as much as is emitted. This does not break any laws of physics, because that thin transparent layer acts nothing at all like a black or grey body which, by definition, is not transparent.
    [b]
    That is the real physics of the situation, Joe Postma.[/b]

  • Avatar

    Doug  Cotton

    |

    Excerpts from PSI articles which display false physics will be quoted and rubbished all over a dozen or more major climate blogs. Get it right, PSI, about the now-proven gravito-thermal effect, or pack up.

  • Avatar

    Doug  Cotton

    |

    [b]Postma[/b] still thinks that the surface temperature of the oceans (where the thin surface layer is almost completely transparent and solar radiation passes down into the thermocline) is determined by that solar radiation, even though it mostly passes through the thin surface layer of water.

    It is not.

    The temperature of the thin surface layer of the oceans (which plays a primary role in determining mean surface temperatures as measured) is itself determined primarily by non-radiative processes, not by radiation.

    [b]It’s so obvious that Postma is wrong about this! [/b]

  • Avatar

    Doug  Cotton

    |

    [b]Pat O.06bar[/b] still thinks like this …
    [i]”thermal radiation which need be adjusted for opposing radiance,”[/i]

    I explained in my PSI paper on Radiated Energy why that is not the case. Opposing radiation does not interact in mid air and produce some “net” radiance.

  • Avatar

    Doug  Cotton

    |

    The greenhouse conjecture would violate the laws of physics. It is totally wrong.

    My study showing that water vapour cools is not hard to replicate. To prove me wrong you would have to produce a similar study proving water vapour warms by about 10 degrees for each 1%, as is in effect claimed by GH advocates.

    The Ranque-Hilsch vortex tube provides evidence of the gravito-thermal effect. You would need to provide contrary empirical evidence.

    You would also need to produce a valid (but different) explanation as to how the necessary thermal energy gets into the Venus surface in order to raise its temperature by 5 degrees during its sunlit hours.

    BigWaveDave (at the end of the comments on Brown’s WUWT article on the gravito-thermal effect) considers the gravito-thermal effect (seen in the vortex tube) worth your time thinking about …

    “Because the import of the consequence of the radial temperature gradient created by pressurizing a spherical body of gas by gravity, from the inside only, is that it obviates the need for concern over GHG’s. And, because this is based on long established fundamental principles that were apparently forgotten or never learned by many PhD’s, it is not something that can be left as an acceptable disagreement.”

  • Avatar

    Doug  Cotton

    |

    Well said, Rosco. It was Brown who wrote garbage trying to rebuke the gravito-thermal effect by making a connection between the top and bottom of a cylinder of gas. He completely failed to demonstrate any understanding that a gradient also develops in a solid and the new combined system has a new state of thermodynamic equilibrium. The Second Law very clearly states that such will evolve, and of course it does. But Brown, with his limited understanding of what is happening, basically threw out the Second Law as if it would not apply and there would be no state of maximum entropy – just perpetual motion he thought. Well I thought the days of “inventing” perpetual motion ended in the 19th century, but apparently Brown, co-opted by Watts, thinks otherwise.

    This of course is a vital issue for Watts to protect his domain name value, because, if what we see in a vortex tube is really happening – and I suggest it is, then the gravito-thermal effect is valid and the GHE is not.

    Bad luck, Watts, you backed the wrong horse and you can’t back out of it.

  • Avatar

    Rosco

    |

    Robert Brown and Anthony Watts are egotistical intellectual lightweights who unfortunately cannot recognise these extreme character flaws !

    Anyone who not only believes something must be forced to a higher temperature than the total available energy is capable of producing by the simple insertion of a radiation shield between it and the sink is deranged.

    I challenge them to demonstrate any of their so-called “thermodynamics” functions as they claim.

    Wilson and Watts do not even have the intellectual capability to understand their light bulb experiments establish nothing because they fail to establish any boundary condition for their “measurements”.

    Not once did they prove that the increase in temperatures observed were nothing more than preventing interfering with the designed energy loss systems.

    All they showed is that if you prevent energy wastage the otherwise lost energy can be forced to thermal effect.

    Even Neanderthals understood this simple proposition when they moved the fire from out in the ice into the cave !

    Watts, Wilson and Brown would still be camped out on the glacier !

  • Avatar

    Doug  Cotton

    |

    [b]To silent readers:[/b] This is just how absurd is Pat O.06bar’s estimate of only 0.06W/m^2 of IR radiative flux from Earth’s surface. Even the reflected radiation from the Sun (nearly half of which is in the IR band) is of the order of 13W/m^2, so let’s say 6W/m^2 is in the IR band, and some of that is in fact in the same low frequencies as are emitted by the surface. Just how Pat distinguishes these bands, or just what frequencies he is actually talking about and supposedly measuring, is (as usual) very vague. But we already have 100 times his estimate just in the 4% of sunlight that is reflected. And if there were only 1% of that (as he claims) being reflected then, as you look down from a plane in bright sunlight, you’d see next to nothing of the surface for lack of reflected visible light also.

  • Avatar

    Doug  Cotton

    |

    [b]Pat O.0.6bar[/b] (who thinks the radiative flux from the surface is only 0.06W/m^2) asks …

    [i]”Where are your measurements of the actual radiatuve [sic] flux from this surface outward to wherever?”[/i]

    What are you, Pat O.06bar measuring?

    (a) The flux of electro-magnetic energy (which is what I am talking about)

    or

    (b) only the rate at which thermal energy is transferred from the warmer source to the cooler target?

    If you think there is something wrong in [url=http://principia-scientific.org/publications/psi_radiated_energy.pdf]my paper[/url] then publish your own on PSI.

    [b]No further correspondence will be entered into[/b] – but I will look forward to reading your paper if it makes it at least as far as the PROM menu.

  • Avatar

    Doug  Cotton

    |

    (continued)

    There has been no warming since 1998 and this period of slight net cooling will be about 30 years in duration. There is no reason to assume that the long term 1,000 year cycle of warming and cooling by about two degrees will not continue, being regulated by planetary orbits, and it is due to start 500 years of cooling within the next century or so.

    You must, by now, realise that there are serious errors in the radiative greenhouse conjecture. I quote from the website of Principia Scientific International (representing hundreds of scientsists who know the “science” is faulty) …

    Dutch Professor Richard Tol has resigned from the Climate Panel of the UN. Professor Tol disagrees with the biased negative conclusions of the latest UN climate report. The consequences of climate change are being systematically over-estimated, according to him. “The Panel is directed from within the environment lobby and not from within the science.”

    I attach a plot of up-to-date temperature data from Dr Roy Spencer’s website showing the peak of the 60 year cycle in 1998, and I also attach images of the front and back cover of my book.

    Australia has not exercised due diligence in this matter and the responsibility would appear to rest solely upon your shoulders to rectify the situation.

    If I do not receive a satisfactory response covering specifically all the issues raised herein and supposedly rebutting the hypothesis in my book (the text of which was previously supplied in my earlier correspondence) then I shall most certainly take this matter further via the Government Ombudsman and possibly the media, even if in paid advertisements which I can comfortably afford.

    Yours sincerely

    (Signed: DC)

  • Avatar

    Doug  Cotton

    |

    (continued)

    This thermal gradient would produce surface temperatures about 10 degrees hotter on Earth than we observe, but fortunately water molecules in the atmosphere reduce the magnitude of the gradient so that the supported temperature at the surface boundary is cooler. Studies show this to be the case. If the IPCC were correct about their “greenhouse effect” of water, then moist rainforests would be expected to be about 20 to 30 degrees hotter than dry regions at similar altitudes and latitudes. That is not the case, and so the IPCC greenhouse effect is fiction.

    Another major problem is that the IPCC authors assume that back radiation can help the Sun warm the oceans. But it is well known that back radiation from a cooler atmosphere does not penetrate water, whereas the solar radiation reaches down into the ocean thermoclines. But, the very fact that solar radiation does penetrate several metres into the oceans, means that over 99% of it is transmitted right through the thin surface layer which could be considered perhaps just 1 centimetre in depth. But a black or grey body is not transparent, and, in any event, there is no adjustment in the models and NASA / Trenberth / IPCC energy budget diagrams that reduces the intensity of solar radiation by 99% or more for the 70% of Earth’s surface that is ocean. So they use Stefan-Boltzmann calculations quite incorrectly to “prove” that their combination of back radiation and solar radiation supposedly raises the surface temperature by 33 degrees from an isothermal state. Even that assumption of an isothermal state is wrong because it is not the state of thermodynamic equilibrium with no unbalanced energy potentials. It would have unbalanced energy in that it would have more gravitational potential energy per molecule without any compensating reduction in mean kinetic energy per molecule – that is, without a reduction in temperature at the top.

    Then the IPCC uses 1980’s assertive statements from books which claim there is a runaway greenhouse effect on Venus. Well, the temperature of any location on the equator of Venus falls by 5 degrees at night (so Venus could have cooled right down by now) but it then rises by 5 degrees in the four-month-long Venus day. How does the required energy get into the surface? The radiation from the Sun has been measured and is less than 20W/m^2, whereas about 16,000 W/m^2 would be required to cause the temperature to rise. No radiation from the colder atmosphere can do so.

    Then you may wish to turn your attention to the nominal troposphere of Uranus where it is hotter than Earth’s surface at the base thereof, even though there’s no surface or solar radiation.

    So I hope you now understand, Sir, that there is no science reviewed by suitable peers which can be correct if it concludes that back radiation from carbon dioxide (one molecule in 2,500 other molecules) is causing Earth’s surface to be warmer than it otherwise would have been.

    In the field of medicine, Australia does not tend to lap up results of Amercian research. In the field of climatology, such “science” is blatantly corrupt, as revealed in Climategate emails.

  • Avatar

    Doug  Cotton

    |

    [b]OPEN LETTER CHALLENGING AUSTRALIAN AUTHORITIES[/b]

    11 April 2014

    Attention: Paul Ryan
    Director Climate Change Science Team
    Department of the Environment
    GPO Box 787
    CANBERRA 2601

    Dear Sir

    Your reply PDR: MC 14-009992 is far from satisfactory.

    You refer primarily to climate change, not the issue I raised, namely that standard physics can be used to prove beyond doubt that all the carbon dioxide in Earth’s atmosphere has no warming effect. Likewise, water gas, water vapour and suspended water droplets in Earth’s atmosphere result in cooler surface temperatures, not warmer ones as the IPCC would have the world believe.

    The IPCC has a political agenda emphasised by Al Gore. Australia has failed in its duty of paying due diligence to proper analysis of the physics involved. Climatologists are not physicists. The issue relating to the effect of carbon dioxide is deeply entrenched in the physics of radiative transfer and thermodynamics. Would you go to a medical practice to have your teeth filled? Why then do you consider climatologists (who have very limited knowledge and usually mistaken understanding of physics) to be suitable peers of a physics-related matter?

    Here is what a retired physics educator said about my book “Why it’s not carbon dioxide after all”:

    Essential reading for an understanding of the basic physical processes which control planetary temperatures. Doug Cotton shows how simple thermodynamic physics implies that the gravitational field of a planet will establish a thermal gradient in its atmosphere. The thermal gradient, a basic property of a planet, can be used to determine the temperatures of its atmosphere, surface and sub-surface regions. The interesting concept of “heat creep” applied to diagrams of the thermal gradient is used to explain the effect of solar radiation on the temperature of a planet. The thermal gradient shows that the observed temperatures of the Earth are determined by natural processes and not by back radiation warming from greenhouse gases. Evidence is presented to show that greenhouse gases cool the Earth and do not warm it. John Turner B.Sc.;Dip.Ed.;M.Ed.(Hons); Grad.Dip.Ed.Studies (retired physics educator)
    – 2 –

    In your reply you do not even cite a single paper that you think proves that standard physics shows carbon dioxide causes warming. Yes I know there are some, but I can rebut every single one.

    For example, one of the problems involves incorrect understanding of the process described in modern statements of the second law of thermodynamics which states that the entropy of an isolated system never decreases, because isolated systems always evolve toward thermodynamic equilibrium, a state with maximum entropy. The process described explains why gravity induces a thermal gradient in any planet’s atmosphere, crust and mantle, just as we see evidence thereof in a Ranque-Hilsch vortext tube which you can read about in the article talk pages on Wikipedia.

  • Avatar

    Pat Obar

    |

    [quote name=”Doug Cotton”][b]Answers for Pat O.06bar:[/b][/quote]
    I am still trying to overfeed the troll!
    Doug Kotton,
    Thank you for your answers, rather than only promoting your (book) mad magazine!
    So your claim is that a thermometer “measures”
    thermal radiative flux? Has such “ever” been observed? How many W/m^2 does your thermometer “measure” from the surface?
    1) Where are your measurements of the actual radiatuve flux from the surface outward?
    2) Do you even know how to make such measurement?
    3) Describe your method of doing this difficult measurement.

    [quote] 1)2)& 3) I use a [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microbolometer]microbolometer[/url] which calculates the flux from the rate at which its sensor warms or cools when it is receiving radiation from the source. [/quote]

    I doubt that you even have a microbolometer.
    State the manufacturer and model number.
    Such does not use any rate at which its sensor warms or cools when it is receiving It does indeed use the diffence in temperature between its radiative surface and its mounting to approximate the flux through a known thermal impedence. When the radiative surface is at a higher temperature than its mounting it is absorbing flux from such yet higher temperature emitter. When the radiative surface is at a lower temperature than its mounting it is emitting flux to such yet lower temperature absorber.
    In any case it measures flux and direction of that flux between two different temperatures, indicating the only flux from a higher temperature emitter to a lower temperature absorber. Where is your measurement of the actual radiative flux from the surface outward to wherever?

    [quote] I then use [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wien%27s_displacement_law]/url] to convert temperature to peak frequency if I wish to know the wavelength, or the [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stefan-Boltzmann_law]Stefan-Boltzmann[/url] equation to get the flux from the temperature.[/quote]
    So you admit you only use some incorrect approximation of surface temperature, then misuse the equations of others to predict the radiant flux of some undefined surface, not even a greybody. Where are your measurements of the actual radiatuve flux from this surface outward to wherever?

  • Avatar

    Pat Obar

    |

    [quote name=”Doug  Cotton”][b]Answers for Pat O.06bar:[/b][/quote]
    I am still trying to overfeed the troll!
    Doug Kotton,
    Thank you for your answers, rather than only promoting your (book) mad magazine!
    So your claim is that a thermometer “measures”
    thermal radiative flux? Has such “ever” been observed? How many W/m^2 does your thermometer “measure” from the surface?

    4) Are you a member of the Intergovernmental Panel of Climate Clowns?
    5) Is it your belief that everything with a temperature and radiance must radiate that radiance, independent of suroundings?

    [quote]
    4) No
    5) Yes, because I believe Planck [/quote]
    From your Wiki source:
    For frequency ν, or for wavelength λ, Planckian radiation can be described thus:
    [img]http://upload.wikimedia.org/math/a/c/f/acfeddb41df4cf47caed8f0f0bc4d6b9.png[/img]
    where B denotes its spectral radiance, T its absolute temperature, kB the Boltzmann constant, h the Planck constant, and c the speed of light in the medium, whether material or vacuum.[1][2][3] The SI units are W·sr−1·m−2·Hz−1 for Bν(T) and W·sr−1·m−3 for Bλ(T).
    Note the formula only describes “radiance” never flux or thermal radiation which need be
    adjusted for opposing radiance, and emissivity at every wavelength, and in every direction, (one of Gus kirchhoff’s radiation laws). Only after this Poynting “flux” is established, can the solid angle be resolved, to establish “thermal electromagnetic radiation” (radiative flux)!
    6) For what reason is there “any” thermal electromagnetic radiation?
    [quote] 6) Because electrons change between quantum energy states [/quote]
    So you claim some thermal electromagnetic radiation is in a direction where all quantum energy states are filled because of a higher temperature? Please go learn some physics! For what reason is there “any” thermal electromagnetic radiation?

    [quote]
    And I really don’t care if you personally have different answers Pat O.06bar because none of this has anything to do with my hypothesis as detailed in my [url=http://www.climate-change-theory.com/cover-front-back.jpg]book[/url]. [/quote]
    Now we are to the level of your trolling, spaming, promoting, with no science whatsoever!

  • Avatar

    Pat Obar

    |

    [quote name=”Doug  Cotton”][b]Look Pat O.06bar[/b] –
    this is not the place to air your new brand of physics. None of what you say has anything to do with my hypothesis in my book, and so it in no way refutes what I am saying about the gravito-thermal effect, but you could start by discussing it on the article talk pages at Wikipedia, then edit WP if they agree with you. Some relevant pages are
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wien's_displacement_law
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermal_radiation
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck_function%5B/quote%5D

    I am still trying to overfeed the troll!
    Doug Kotton,
    So you have decided that the only function of the PSI blog is to only promote your (book) mad magazine!
    BTW you Doug Kotton, have no hypothesis, a hypothesis must have at least one observation that supports such hypothesis! What you claim does not even rise to the level of a poorly formed and mistaken conjecture. It is not even worth disagreeing with! You are the one challenging my measurements.

  • Avatar

    Doug  Cotton

    |

    [b]Answers for Pat O.06bar:[/b]

    1)2)& 3) I use a [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microbolometer]microbolometer[/url] which calculates the flux from the rate at which its sensor warms or cools when it is receiving radiation from the source. I then use [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wien%27s_displacement_law]Wien’s Displacement Law[/url] to convert temperature to peak frequency if I wish to know the wavelength, or the [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stefan-Boltzmann_law]Stefan-Boltzmann[/url] equation to get the flux from the temperature.
    4) No
    5) Yes, because I believe Planck
    6) Because electrons change between quantum energy states

    And I really don’t care if you personally have different answers Pat O.06bar because none of this has anything to do with my hypothesis as detailed in my [url=http://www.climate-change-theory.com/cover-front-back.jpg]book[/url].

    So if you have invented some new physics then go and argue your case on Wikipedia talk pages, or just jump right in and edit the main text and get blocked.

  • Avatar

    Doug  Cotton

    |

    [b]Look Pat O.06bar[/b] – this is not the place to air your new brand of physics. None of what you say has anything to do with my hypothesis in my book, and so it in no way refutes what I am saying about the gravito-thermal effect, but you could start by discussing it on the article talk pages at Wikipedia, then edit WP if they agree with you. Some relevant pages are

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wien's_displacement_law

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermal_radiation

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck_function

  • Avatar

    Doug  Cotton

    |

    Sorry the link to the NASA diagram is [url=http://earth-climate.com/energybudget.jpg]this[/url].

    Using about 340W/m^2 for incoming solar radiation at TOA we get about 21% of that coming out of the surface and actually transferring thermal energy to the atmosphere or space. Pat O.06bar thinks only 0.06W/m^2 comes out of the surface and none gets past the first few metres because he imagines a solid black-body hanging over his head. Well, something grey at least must be hanging there I would suggest, but it’s not absorbing any more than it did as matter in his head.

  • Avatar

    Doug  Cotton

    |

    [b]To silent readers:[/b] I wonder what makes Pat O.06bar think I have to prove him wrong, when my hypothesis is not based on radiative forcing at all. You all know that NASA net energy budget diagrams look like [url=energybudget.jpg]this[/url]. Pat O.06bar should be asking NASA to prove him wrong, not me.

  • Avatar

    Doug  Cotton

    |

    My response regarding radiation is in my PSI-reviewed paper “Radiated Energy and the Second Law of Thermodynamics” in the PSI Publications menu.

    Go and argue with Claes Johnson (on his blog) about the calculations in the cited reference by this professor of applied mathematics if your mathematics is better than his.

    In that planetary atmospheric, surface, crust, mantle and core temperatures are not primarily determined by radiation, I am not interested in discussing way out viewpoints which treat radiative flux as being equivalent to thermal flux, or treat the atmosphere as a black or grey body (which, by definition, transmits no radiation at all) or estimates of radiative flux which are little more than one-thousandth of NASA measurements.

  • Avatar

    Pat Obar

    |

    [quote name=”Doug  Cotton]
    “Where are your measurements?” asks P O.06. Well I happen to have one of those infra-red thermometers which do the measurements for me and give a similar estimate of surface temperature (based on those measurements) as does my trusty steak thermometer poked into the ground.[/quote]

    I am still trying to overfeed the troll!
    Doug Kotton,
    So your claim is that a thermometer “measures”
    thermal radiative flux? Has such “ever” been observed? How many W/m^2 does your thermometer “measure” from the surface?
    What makes you think I have made any error in my measurements of flux to and from the surface, using a fluxmeter, then my attemt to distinguish, radiative from non-radiative flux? Sensible heat flux is measurable, and proportional to thermal potential “difference”. Temperature itself is not involved in flux only a differential thermal potential for creating such flux. There has been no thermal flux, detected, observed, or measured where there is no such differential thermal potential.
    1) Where are your measurements of the actual radiatuve flux from the surface outward?
    2) Do you even know how to make such measurement?
    3) Describe your method of doing this difficult measurement.
    4) Are you a member of the Intergovernmental Panel of Climate Clowns?
    5) Is it your belief that everything with a temperature and radiance must radiate that radiance, independent of suroundings?
    6) For what reason is there “any” thermal electromagnetic radiation?
    You must be able to answer all six to be qualified to criticize my measurements and calculations, then only if they differ from your measurements! We need none of your conjecture of why, only a measurement of what is! Only after we agree on what “is”, can consideration of why, begin.

  • Avatar

    Sabin Colton

    |

    I find a good way to convince people that cold cannot warm hot is to couch the argument in IR radiation exchange. If IR is emitted by the surface, which is always warmer than the upper atmosphere, and is absorbed by the upper atmosphere, it can be re-emitted upwards and lost to space, or downwards back to the surface. The surface can absorb the IR at the same energy level it just emptied, in which case the energy change is a wash, or the equivalent energy level will be full and the IR simply reflected back upward again. No heating occurs.

    The warmists also mix up this exchange with the idea that their “greenhouse gases” can directly absorb IR and realize it as heat and thus heat the atmosphere. In this case, the IR spectrum absorption by CO2 and water vapor is not only a partial IR spectrum, with much not being absorbed, but only converts a tiny fraction to heat and is equally capable of doing the reverse, even during the day. During night, which is not part of the global warming models, CO2 and water vapor would be free to cause a one way conversion of heat energy to IR and loss to space. During the day, the IR to heat and heat to IR would be considered a wash.

  • Avatar

    Doug  Cotton

    |

    There’s a one and a half star rating for WUWT current article [url=http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/04/11/claim-odds-that-global-warming-is-due-to-natural-factors-slim-to-none/#more-107347]here[/url].

    Go give it some more 1’s guys, and remember to keep up the 1’s for future articles.

  • Avatar

    Doug  Cotton

    |

    [b]geran[/b] – you need to understand the value placed on the WUWT domain name (hundreds of thousands of dollars, maybe a million) and how this depends on maintaining the status quo. When the world eventually realises that all the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has a net cooling effect of less than 0.1 degree – but no warming effect – then who will be interested in visiting WUWT? Hence, like John Cook at Skeptical Science, Anthony has a vested interest in banning commenters like myself who explain with physics (which he doesn’t understand) that many of his articles are wrong. In that PSI also sits on the fence with Watts, Spencer et al, then PSI has a similar attitude towards myself who points out errors in Postma’s article above and his papers which are all about radiative forcing – a fictitious concept invented by the climatologists and IPCC authors. They all overlook that transparent thin surface layer of water which radiation hardly affects at all. And they all overlook the evidence now available in the Ranque-Hilsch vortex tube.

  • Avatar

    Doug  Cotton

    |

    [i]”Is it your belief that everything with a temperature and radiance must radiate that radiance independent of suroundings? [sic]”[/i] asks P O.06bar

    I wrote my answer to your question over two years ago [url=http://principia-scientific.org/publications/psi_radiated_energy.pdf]here[/url], but none of this has much relevance as to what determines planetary atmospheric and surface temperatures. There’s no surface at the base of the nominal Uranus troposphere, but it’s hotter than Earth’s surface down there, about 30 times further from the Sun.

  • Avatar

    Doug  Cotton

    |

    [b]Pat O.06bar condemns himself.[/b] He treats the atmosphere (with about 2% of its molecules doing the radiating) as if it were a solid black body. And he thinks that the surface molecules know this solid wall is up there (just a few metres above, beyond which no surface radiation passes, thinks P O.06) and so the surface molecules decide not to radiate any more than 0.06W/m^2.

    “Where are your measurements?” asks P O.06. Well I happen to have one of those infra-red thermometers which do the measurements for me and give a similar estimate of surface temperature (based on those measurements) as does my trusty steak thermometer poked into the ground.

  • Avatar

    geran

    |

    Had time to read all of the post by Joseph. Excellent.

    Final thought–Why would Anthony do this? Why would he go after other people, rather than seeking to educate folks that are swayed by the AGW hoax? What does he expect to prove/gain???

  • Avatar

    Pat Obar

    |

    [quote name=”Doug  Cotton”][b]Pat Obar[/b] thinks the radiation from the Earth’s surface is a mere 0.06W/m^2 whereas NASA energy diagrams show net radiation absorbed by atmosphere as being 15% of incident radiation, plus 6% also going to space. So Pat Obar’s estimate is about one-thousandth of NASA’s. Will Pat O.06 Obar admit his error?[/quote]

    I am still trying to overfeed the troll!
    Doug Kotton, What makes you think I have made any error? Where are your measurements of the actual radiatuve flux from the surface outward? Do you even know how to make such measurement? Describe your method of doing this difficult measurement. Are you a member of the Intergovernmental Panel of Climate Clowns? Is it your belief that everything with a temperature and radiance must radiate that radiance independent of suroundings? For what reason is there “any” thermal electromagnetic radiation?

  • Avatar

    Doug  Cotton

    |

    [b]Joseph A Olsen[/b] is correct in saying [i]”There is NO Carbon, or any other greenhouse gas, WARMING.”[/i]

    [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/w iki/Kirchhoff’s_law_of_thermal _radiation]Kirchhoff’s law of thermal radiation states …

    [i]”For a body of any arbitrary material, emitting and absorbing thermal electromagnetic radiation at every wavelength in thermodynamic equilibrium, the ratio of its emissive power to its dimensionless coefficient of absorption is equal to a universal function only of radiative wavelength and temperature, the perfect black-body emissive power.”[/i]

    Thermodynamic equilibrium includes radiative equilibrium.

    The transparent ocean surface is nothing remotely like a blackbody in radiative equilibrium. Over 99% of solar radiation passes straight through the first 1cm layer. Warming by radiation depends on absorptivity, not emissivity, as should be obvious. Just because you measure emissivity based on radiation coming from a water surface, does not mean that you can assume absorptivity is the same. This is the fundamental fallacy in all radiative forcing models. Given that 70% of Earth’s surface is water and over 99% of solar radiation passes through this surface layer, the model calculations are pretty likely to be way out. So what keeps the surface warm?

  • Avatar

    Doug  Cotton

    |

    [b]Pat Obar[/b] thinks the radiation from the Earth’s surface is a mere 0.06W/m^2 whereas NASA energy diagrams show net radiation absorbed by atmosphere as being 15% of incident radiation, plus 6% also going to space. So Pat Obar’s estimate is about one-thousandth of NASA’s. Will Pat O.06 Obar admit his error?

  • Avatar

    Doug  Cotton

    |

    The above NASA diagram also shows thermal energy transferred by radiation from the surface to the atmosphere as being 15% of TOA input, so a total of 21% of TOA input is transferred out of the surface by radiation, either to the atmosphere or space. And Pat Pbar thinks is only 0.06 W/m^2. [b]LOL[/b]

  • Avatar

    Doug  Cotton

    |

    This [url=http://earth-climate.com/energybudget.jpg]NASA net energy diagram[/url] shows 6% of the initial solar energy coming in at TOA as being radiated by the surface direct to space through the atmospheric window.

    [b]Pat Obar[/b] wants you all to believe that this is somehow 6% of 60 milliwatts per square metre that he says is all the radiation from the surface. [b]Ludicrous fissics![/b]

  • Avatar

    Doug  Cotton

    |

    Go and argue about the mathematics in [url=http://www.csc.kth.se/~cgjoh/blackbodyslayer.pdf]this paper[/url] by Claes Johnson, Professor of Applied Mathematics. I’ve had enough of your assertive garbage, P.O., though [b]that is not to say that I won’t keep correcting any travesty of physics that comes to my attention[/b]

  • Avatar

    Doug  Cotton

    |

    You guys, especially Pat Obar,just don’t understand how, when and why radiation transfers thermal energy, and when it doesn’t. Whilst this has little relevance to planetary surface temperatures (as the height of the atmosphere, the force of gravity, the specific heat and the solar intensity determine such) it is none-the-less an important issue that I explained over two years ago in my PSI-reviewed paper on Radiated Energy.

    [b]You in particular Pat Obar, continue to make a farce of PSI when you display your lack of understanding of graduate level physics.[/b]

  • Avatar

    Doug  Cotton

    |

    Blimey, I just noticed you wrote 60 milliwatts. [b]That’s ludicrous, Pat Obar.[/b] That would be a temperature of about 33K !!!!!!

  • Avatar

    Doug  Cotton

    |

    “Because of the very low “thermal potential difference” between the surface and the atmosphere < 10 meters above surface, surface radiation is limited to < 60 mWatts/ m^2." [b]No it’s not Pat. If it were then infra-red thermometers would give readings of about 100 degrees colder, around 188K.
    [/b]

  • Avatar

    Doug  Cotton

    |

    [b]About the AU $5,000 advertised offer to prove me wrong.[/b]

    Radiation from the atmosphere slows that portion of surface cooling which is itself due to radiation, because the back radiation supplies some of the electro-magnetic energy required by the surface for its “quota” determined by its Planck function.

    However, because the EM energy is not converted to thermal energy (which would violate the Second Law if it were) the rate of non-radiative cooling is not affected, and it may even accelerate to compensate.

    But, as any meteorologist knows, the whole rate of surface cooling slows down in the early pre-dawn hours. This is because the temperature gap is narrowing as the supporting temperature at the base of the atmosphere is being approached. So what is important is that temperature, and that is the case on all planets.

    It is indeed correct that the whole thermal profile in the troposphere rises by day and falls by night, all the while (in calm conditions) maintaining the gravitationally induced thermal gradient for which we now have empirical evidence, as well as a theoretical explanation.

    [b]This is what happens, everyone, whether or not it sits comfortably with you. There is a $5,000 offer coming out with my book (and being advertised in the media) if you can prove me wrong, subject to terms and conditions.[/b]

  • Avatar

    Pat Obar

    |

    [quote name=”Greg House”][quote name=”Doug  Cotton”]So now your tactic is to delete comments which expose the errors in your article.[/quote]

    Right, Doug, this is outrageous. In fact, they do not deserve you. This is how you can punish them for that: by refusing to post any comment until they have realized the enormous scientific value of you paper and published it in full length. They will feel sorry, remember my words, but you need to stay firm and write absolutely no comment. Let them ask for forgiveness and publish you brilliant paper first.[/quote]

    Nice Greg. 😛

  • Avatar

    Pat Obar

    |

    [quote name=”Mark Stoval”]I wonder if someone could supply a link to a post that explains the Slayers theories in layman’s terms. A journalistic type article perhaps. I am reading the book but my time is so limited right now that I am not making much progress.

    Thanks for any links of comments.[/quote]

    Hi Mark, my response may remotely answer!
    Joe,
    Thank you,
    Your thinking seems nicely to become more acute! Trying to be helpfull. I see that “this is mathematically wrong”, and only a false claim of the “Intergovermental Panel of Climate Clowns”

    “1. q_dot = σ(Th4 – Tc4) = σTh4 – σTc4″

    Mathematically that sigma cannot be promoted into the parentheses which would destroy the meaning of the parentheses. That evaluation of the difference in T^4 results in the maximum thermal electromagnetic potential “difference” that strictly limits the maximum flux from “hot” to “cold”.
    Stefan had a close number, Boltzmann revised that to first principals, Then the fight started, between Stefan, Boltzmann, Planck, and Maxwell. The agreement was that the parentheses are mandatory, else Rudy Clausius will come smack the shit out of all of us for trying to violate his Second Law of Thermodynamics. Look at his picture, you do not wish to fuck with Rudy.

    Because of the very low “thermal potential difference” between the surface and the atmosphere < 10 meters above surface, surface radiation is limited to < 60 mWatts/ m^2.
    Conduction and convection transfer all required energy to the radiative atmosphere which can and does radiate at whatever temperature to cold space “all” energy required to maintain radiative thermodynamic equilibrium. There can be no “radiative forcing”

  • Avatar

    Doug  Cotton

    |

    Stephen Wilde’s wild writings are to be found primarily [url=https://www.google.com.au/#q=tallkbloke+stephen+wilde]here[/url] on Roger’s tallbloke’s talkshop.

    Although Wilde recognises a role for gravity, his assumptions about the physical processes of heat transfer within the atmosphere are way out, and he displays an obvious lack of understanding of physics. I agree Watts got his wires crossed.

  • Avatar

    Doug  Cotton

    |

    Strictly speaking, as I explained in one of the four deleted comments at the top of the thread, because the 1cm surface layer of water transmits at least 99% of the solar radiation, the effect is the same as if it reflected 99%. So, if you want to still use an absorptivity value close to 1.0 then you need to reduce the intensity by at least 99%. Then you do not get within 100 degrees of the observed result.

  • Avatar

    Doug  Cotton

    |

    When Postma writes PSun = PSurf + PAtmo he is only talking about radiative heat transfer, completely omitting non-radiative heat transfer processes, which could be anything. He cannot correctly deduce whether the surface would warm or cool when non-radiative processes are added in, as they should be. To just say that PSurf reduces is like just saying its temperature drops. Postma gives no reason for the drop in temperature. I have explained why the thin water surface is not significantly warmed by any radiation, so, with radiation playing so small a part in determining surface temperature, how can just the lower PSurf explain the reason for the cooling?

  • Avatar

    Doug  Cotton

    |

    [b]Joseph A Olsen[/b] is correct in saying [i]”There is NO Carbon, or any other greenhouse gas, WARMING.”[/i]

    [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kirchhoff’s_law_of_thermal_radiation]Kirchhoff’s law of thermal radiation[/url] states …

    [i]”For a body of any arbitrary material, emitting and absorbing thermal electromagnetic radiation at every wavelength in thermodynamic equilibrium, the ratio of its emissive power to its dimensionless coefficient of absorption is equal to a universal function only of radiative wavelength and temperature, the perfect black-body emissive power.”
    [/i]

    Thermodynamic equilibrium includes radiative equilibrium.

    The transparent ocean surface is nothing remotely like a blackbody in radiative equilibrium. Over 99% of solar radiation passes straight through the first 1cm layer. Warming by radiation depends on absorptivity, not emissivity, as should be obvious. Just because you measure emissivity based on radiation coming from a water surface, does not mean that you can assume absorptivity is the same. [b]This is the fundamental fallacy in all radiative forcing models.[/b] Given that 70% of Earth’s surface is water with absorptivity less than 0.1, the model calculations are pretty likely to be way out. So what keeps the surface warm?

  • Avatar

    Doug  Cotton

    |

    On Venus the [i]”heat flow from the Sun”[/i] which enters the surface is less than 20 watts per square metre. But the radiation required to raise the temperature of any particular location on the sunlit side by 5 degrees by radiation alone would be something like 14,000 to 16,000 watts per square metre based on realistic absorptivity between 0.85 and 0.95.

    Need I say more?

    [b]What’s your explanation Joe Postma?[/b]

  • Avatar

    Doug  Cotton

    |

    [b]A Tale of Two Paradigms[/b]

    The two paradigms involved spring from two totally different assumptions about what would be thermodynamic equilibrium in an isolated vertical column of any planet’s troposphere. The mutually exclusive assumptions are:

    (a) isothermal conditions

    (b) non-isothermal conditions

    Assumption (b) is supported by empirical evidence, such as in a vortex tube and 850 experiments by Roderich Graeff. It is also supported by the Second Law of Thermodynamics.

    The second paradigm based on assumption (b) leads to a satisfactory explanation of all temperature data above and below any surface on any planet or satellite moon in the Solar System, and most likely beyond. The first paradigm based on assumption (a) does not gel with any observations.

    Take your pick.

  • Avatar

    Doug  Cotton

    |

    Yes Greg – like this retired physics educator said …

    [i]”Essential reading for an understanding of the basic physical processes which control planetary temperatures. Doug Cotton shows how simple thermodynamic physics implies that the gravitational field of a planet will establish a thermal gradient in its atmosphere. The thermal gradient, a basic property of a planet, can be used to determine the temperatures of its atmosphere, surface and sub-surface regions. The interesting concept of “heat creep” applied to diagrams of the thermal gradient is used to explain the effect of solar radiation on the temperature of a planet. The thermal gradient shows that the observed temperatures of the Earth are determined by natural processes and not by back radiation warming from greenhouse gases. Evidence is presented to show that greenhouse gases cool the Earth and do not warm it.”[/i]

    John Turner B.Sc.;Dip.Ed.;M.Ed.(Hons);Grad.Dip.Ed.Studies (retired physics educator)

  • Avatar

    Doug  Cotton

    |

    Mark – the slayers are still gullibly misled by the radiative forcing concept invented by the IPCC, Trenberth et al. Their thinking is dominated by Joe Postma’s thinking, as expressed in this article. John O’Sullivan (like Anthony Watts) has no physics background, so he just calls on authority, without thinking about what is truth. For example, Postma does not believe that gravity forms a temperature gradient, even though it is very clear that it does in a vortex tube. Also, the evidence is that water vapour cools, but PSI cannot explain the mechanism, let alone what happens on other planets.

  • Avatar

    Greg House

    |

    [quote name=”Doug  Cotton”]So now your tactic is to delete comments which expose the errors in your article.[/quote]

    Right, Doug, this is outrageous. In fact, they do not deserve you. This is how you can punish them for that: by refusing to post any comment until they have realized the enormous scientific value of you paper and published it in full length. They will feel sorry, remember my words, but you need to stay firm and write absolutely no comment. Let them ask for forgiveness and publish you brilliant paper first.

  • Avatar

    Doug  Cotton

    |

    [i]”It is the most basic statement of thermodynamics that heat flows from hot to cold.”[/i]

    [b]No it is not.[/b] There are exceptions in a gravitational field as is proven with a [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vortex_tube]Ranque-Hilsch vortex tube[/url].

    The Second Law says nothing about “hot to cold”…

    The [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_law_of_thermodynamics]second law of thermodynamics[/url] states that the entropy of an isolated system never decreases, because isolated systems always evolve toward thermodynamic equilibrium, a state with maximum entropy.

    A planet’s surface also receives non-radiative energy input which you will only understand if you understand the Second Law maximum entropy conditions. Thermodynamic equilibrium is the same as hydrostatic equilibrium in this case.

    [b]Gravity forms both a density gradient and a temperature gradient, as is now proven empirically. Then pressure is a corollary, being proportional to the product of density and temperature.[/b]

  • Avatar

    Doug  Cotton

    |

    So now your tactic is to delete comments which expose the errors in your article. PSI really has stooped to the depths now.

    The whole IPCC/NASA/Trenberth concept of radiative forcing is crap. All their energy diagrams assume that radiation which passes through the surface layer of water is heating that transparent water as if it were a grey body.

    These energy diagram concepts simply do not work on other planets, and nor do they work on Earth because, in reality, they are filled with nonsense about back radiation helping the Sun, and they fail to show the non-radiative heat transfers into the surface.

  • Avatar

    Mark Stoval

    |

    I wonder if someone could supply a link to a post that explains the Slayers theories in layman’s terms. A journalistic type article perhaps. I am reading the book but my time is so limited right now that I am not making much progress.

    Thanks for any links of comments.

  • Avatar

    geran

    |

    I’m not sure what is going on with Anthony. He seems to be anxious to insult skeptics, but reluctant to attack “Warmers”. He claims he is following science and the scientific method, but just look at his light bulb “experiment”. He refuses to learn the basics of quantum physics.

    And then his full-blown, “lights-camera-action” announcement of his surface station study. He trumpeted the “press release” several days on his website, then put out the “press release”, but when his “study” was posted on his blog, commenters immediately identified huge errors.

    Then his attitude was “Never mind”….

    Hey, PSI folks, if you are being attacked by Anthony Watts, you must be doing something right!

  • Avatar

    Joseph A Olson

    |

    When i first entered the public climate alchemy ‘debate’ in April 2009, i had respect for Anthony Watts, his website, and his Temperature Station analysis, reported in the Environment & Climate News, Aug 2009. I was a frequent contributor to Climate Realist website where i witnessed repeated abuses and contradictions of Stephen Wilde, including his startling admission to having ZERO math abilities, and therefore he could not pursue his ‘scientist’ dream, went into Law instead. But as a student he applied for a pilot RMS non-science membership program. To date he still claims “RMS Fellow” based on this tenuous program that the RMS notified him of ending, but that he successfully ‘won’ a court decision to retain. Neither Watts or Wilde have the scientific training to engage in this debate, or the ethical judgment to allow open dialogue.

    Watts openly attacked, based on others comments, the Astronomical analysis by Dr Nicola Scafetta for using a well reasoned coefficient in his equations, when the entire Carbon forcing meme uses unreasonable coefficients repeatedly. A youtube video just released by Dr Pierre-Marie Robitaille, “On the Validity of Kirchoff’s Law” will be discussed in a future PSI post, but effectively refutes the ‘universal’ quality of Kirchoff, and then by default Planck, Stefan and Boltzman. By rewriting the “Laws” of Spectrometry, this effectively destroys the hodge podge of climate alchemy fables. There is NO Carbon, or any other greenhouse gas, WARMING.

    youtube.com/watch?v=3Hstum3U2zw

    WARNING: Video contains Statistical Thermodynamics and REAL science !

  • Avatar

    Doug  Cotton

    |

    It should be obvious that the above-mentioned 1cm thin surface layer of water (which is almost completely transparent to insolation) must be receiving the vast majority of its thermal energy by non-radiative processes. Obviously radiation (of which 99% passes right through it) is not raising its temperature much. If, for example, 99% of the solar radiation passes through the 1cm layer, then the remaining warming effect is similar to the warming effect if 99% had been reflected. Hence its absorptivity is less than 0.01 even though its emissivity might well be 0.9 or similar. It’s not breaking any law of physics because it is not a blackbody.

    So, that layer must have a net input of thermal energy from non-radiative processes in order to remain at the same temperature whilst radiating with 0.9 emissivity. That net input (after deducting non-radiative losses from evaporation and conduction) must be about 99% of what it is losing by radiation, because only 1% of the incident radiation is warming it.

    Now, a similar thing happens at the base of the nominal Uranus troposphere where it’s 320K – hotter than Earth’s surface. There is no surfacethere on Uranus, and there is no significant direct solar radiation getting through 350Km of atmosphere above. Also, Uranus is unique in that it is not generating energy by contracting (because it has a solid core) and there is no convincing evidence of any significant internal energy generation or cooling off.

    So how does the non-radiative energy get into these regions at the base of the troposphere which, on Earth, are warmer than the ocean thermocline below that is absorbing most of the direct solar radiation?

    You see: you all at PSI have a lot of thinking to do to catch up with where I’ve got to in thinking this through and writing [url=http://www.climate-change-theory.com/cover-front-back.jpg]this book[/url]. And you can’t say I haven’t been trying to tell you so these last two years, now can you?

  • Avatar

    Doug  Cotton

    |

    [i]”Well, what do you expect from these guys?”[/i]

    Not much, but I expect better from PSI.

    The whole concept implied in this article is that the Earth’s surface temperature can be determined from the incident solar radiation. It can’t be, any more than you can calculate the temperature at the base of the nominal [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uranus#Troposphere]Uranus troposphere[/url] that way.

    Just for starters, a black or grey body, by definition, is not transparent. But 70% of Earth’s surface may be considered to be a very thin layer of water which is almost completely transparent to solar radiation. Nearly all that radiation passes right through the first centimetre (or similar) of the water and warms, not that surface layer, but the ocean thermocline below.

    That’s why you need to go back to my first comment above and put on your thinking cap. The solar radiation reaching the Venus surface is less than 20W/m^2.

  • Avatar

    Doug  Cotton

    |

    There is considerable misunderstanding as to how radiation transfers thermal energy from warmer to cooler bodies.

    Consider:

    Body A: The Sun

    Body B: A black disc 5cm below a water surface.

    Body C: A black disc in the atmosphere at a colder temperature than B.

    If all bodies were somehow perfect blackbodies, how much radiation passes back and/or forth between B and the other two bodies? Which of these passages of radiation transfers thermal energy, and how would you calculate how much transfers?

  • Avatar

    Doug  Cotton

    |

    You state [i]”It is the most basic statement of thermodynamics that heat flows from hot to cold.”[/i]

    In fact that is not what the [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_law_of_thermodynamics]Second Law of Thermodynamics[/url] tells us. It states that [i]”the entropy of an isolated system never decreases, because isolated systems always evolve toward thermodynamic equilibrium, a state with maximum entropy.”[/i]

    But I agree it is correct for radiation, and I wrote a paper over two years ago about radiated energy and the second law of thermodynamics.

    However, radiation is not the primary source of energy that raises the surface temperature of Venus during its four-month-long day. Think about it. Because there is a great shortage of thinking about it.

Comments are closed