“Power In” is NOT Equal to “Power Out”

Written by Joseph E Postma

I keep on seeing the phrase from alarmists, warmists, and luke-warmists, of this initiating assumption that, in order to conserve energy, you set the power input equal to the power output.  In other words:

Power In = Power Out

Haven’t these people heard of entropy?  The fact that for essentially NOTHING in the universe, power in = power out, is learned in high-school or even well before that.

So who are the people that claim that power in = power out, in direct and the most basic violation of thermodynamics?  Can you actually really be a physicist while claiming that power in = power out, in 100% efficiency?  Nothing is 100% efficient, because of our friend entropy – no matter how efficiently you try to get work out of a system, you can never get as much power out as you put in – there are always losses.

So there’s that, and of course, why else is power in NOT EQUAL TO power out?  Power in is not equal to power out because the energy which constitutes those powers does not come from the same surface area.  For Earth, ‘power out’ does not equal ‘power in’ because the power gets put in on only half the planet, while the ‘power out’ comes from the whole planet.

There’s twice as much surface area from which power can come out than to which power comes in, and so, if the power out equalled the power in, there would be twice as much energy coming out as comes in.  Equating flux will in general always lead to a basic violation of conservation of energy.  Equating flux, in general, is not the correct way to conserve energy.

I mean this is all very basic stuff, which I’ve written on extensively already.  The Earth is not flat, Sunshine is not cold, conserving flux is not the same thing as conserving energy, etc.

And that latter seems to be the source of all the climate confusion, among all participants of the debate.  Only me and other people at PSI (Principia Scientific International, i.e. “the Slayers”) seem to be stating the factual, traditional-science case that power is not the same thing as energy, that flux can’t be averaged, that real-time differential heat-flow equations are the only true solution for heat flow and temperature, etc.

Some people try to tell me that the Slayers saying those things is only making skeptics look like fools. Is it true?  Is power the same thing as energy?  Can flux be averaged in a non-linear system?  Are heat-flow differential equations just some curiosity that don’t really apply to temperature?  Does the cold-end of a heated bar make the heated-end warmer?  These are all, contradictions in terms.

Anyone who says that the Slayers are trying to make skeptics look foolish, is actually themselves an imposter pretending to be a skeptic or scientist otherwise, who’s role it is to defend the premise of the greenhouse effect, either from outside climate alarm or within. If you appear to be a skeptic, but spend a lot of your energy defending the greenhouse effect, and since the greenhouse effect is the sole existential basis for climate alarm, then in fact you are a defender of climate alarm politics.  Factual outcomes overrule the pretences.

The only true skeptics are the Slayers and others who independently question the greenhouse effect and understand its basic scientific flaws.  The Slayers and similar people are not just being “ultra-skeptics” for the fun of it, to fill that role out of some ultimately irrational desire to question everything like some “semantic philosophers” – no – we’re simply stating the facts of traditional science and traditional theory.  Traditional theory, like, the Earth being heated on one-side only, etc.

Look at this response I got from someone named “Joel Shore” (my italics):

Joel Shore:

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

So you see what he’s trying to do there?  Kind of clever in the way he’s trying to invert my own own argument.  I argue, as traditional science would, that we need to conserve energy, which means that the numerical value for the power flux can be a free parameter, whatever it needs to be to satisfy energy conservation, and that trying to conserve flux is the wrong way to go about it.  Shore says, instead, that flux power is what has to be numerically conserved, and that this can stand-in for energy.  Conserving flux is not the same thing as conserving energy…they’re different words, and they’re not synonyms.  Is that understandable?  Conserving energy forms the basis of physics; conserving power doesn’t.

We also see open admission that such a concept of the Sun shining over half the Earth is anathema to the greenhouse effect and that style of “thinking”.  Isn’t that amazing?  His last sentence there is all about mocking the idea that the Sun shines only over half of the Earth – that I use “a lot of words” about it, and that the concept is “mathematically illegal”.  The total energy on either side of the equation is entirely conserved when dividing by the respective surface-areas they associate with.

Energy in = Energy out, only. This does not equate to power in = power out. Power in = power out is not a fundamental equation or law in physics, and there is no need to worry about preserving it – it isn’t valid in the first place, and it doesn’t form the basis of energy conservation, or physics.   If you want to conserve energy, then conserve energy.  For that is fundamental physics.  The power is then determined by wherever the energy goes or comes from.

Power in does not equal power out, and this is different from energy in equalling energy out.  As long as people don’t understand that, or ignore it, they will remain ignorant of physics, even if they pretend to be educated in it.  This confusion is the basis of the greenhouse effect, and the climate alarm which rests upon it.  Can confusion be cured?  How do you educate someone that black isn’t equal to grey, if they’re blind?

———–

Read more from Joe Postma at his blog, climateofsophistry.com

• Elva

|

This week is full of events, and getting fuller every
day. It is precisely this quality of Venetian glass
that makes it a perfect material for earrings. It can be used to treat asthma, rheumatism and
menstrual disorders.

My site – [url=http://www.exitus.bplaced.net/index.php?mod=users&action=view&id=18716]Malachite[/url]

• Lucienne

|

Thank you for the auspicious writeup. By the way, how can we communicate?

• Curt

|

JP: In a recent post you stated the following:

“I keep on seeing the phrase from alarmists, warmists, and luke-warmists, of this initiating assumption that, in order to conserve energy, you set the power input equal to the power output. In other words:

Power In = Power Out

Haven’t these people heard of entropy? The fact that for essentially NOTHING in the universe, power in = power out, is learned in high-school or even well before that.”

Anyone with the most basic understanding of thermodynamics would understand how absurd that statement is, and that anyone making it has absolutely no understanding of thermodynamics.

The condition of Power in = Power out is a REQUIREMENT of a steady-state system (one with constant internal energy), by the 1st Law of Thermodynamics, using equations that you yourself have endorsed.

Yet you claim that this is a violation of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. So you claim that it is physically impossible for there to exist a system in thermodynamic steady state conditions.

Wow. Just wow.

• JP

|

Hi David,

Yes agreed with all that. I will have an article discussing the physics soon. I have tried to discuss the case of the difference between MATH and PHYSICS several times before at my blog. Just because you can create some math, doesn’t mean the math describes reality…it just means you have math that describes a MODEL. When asked to provide a better model, we did…it isn’t difficult, just include the Sun, and day and night. Quite easy really. I will also discuss an experimental demonstration that already exists with standard electrical lighting, and talk about the correct math some more. Just getting over strep throat so taking some time off.

• David Cosserat

|

Joe,

At #14 you say: [i]The steel-greenhouse model has been debunked many times elsewhere…people who believe in it indicate of themselves that they do not understand thermal transfer or the laws of thermo.[/i]

The mathematics of the Steel Greenhouse ‘thought experiment’ is actually correct if you subscribe to the underlying IPCC radiation energy transfer physics on which it is based. At steady state energy flow, and in the vacuum of space, their math does lead to a doubling of the energy emitted by the powered object (the ‘core’) when it is surrounded by an unpowered radiation shield (the ‘shell’). So it is the underlying [i]physics[/i] that Slayers should question, not the mathematics.

As I understand Slayer physics, it says that the presence or absence of the shell makes no difference to the temperature of the core because this is governed solely by its input power, its surface area, and its surface emissivity, according to the 4th power S-B relationship between emitted power intensity from its surface and its temperature.

On the other hand, IPCC radiative energy transfer physics says that the presence or absence of the shell does make a difference to the temperature of the core because the core temperature is governed by the S-B equation of energy transfer between two bodies, which depends on the difference between the 4th powers of their respective surface temperatures.

To ‘debunk’ the Steel Greenhouse you have to demonstrate that Slayer physics is correct and that IPCC radiation energy transfer physics is wrong. Slayers have clearly not yet achieved this goal despite all their strenuous efforts.

I realise it is a tough thing to fight against conventional thinking. This is why I believe that the ONLY way to resolve this dispute relatively quickly is by constructing a real experiment to show for once and for all whether or not the physics of the Steel Greenhouse thought experiment is correct. Just debating the alternative physics back and forth seems always to lapse into sophistry, confused thinking, and vituperation, by protagonists on both sides. And debating the math is utterly pointless for the reasons I have pointed out above.

This is why for some months now I have been painstakingly designing and constructing that real experiment. Interested readers can contact me for details at cosserat@gmail.com.

The remarkable thing is that, if a real experiment did resolve the Steel Greenhouse debate in the Slayers’ favour, it would say nothing directly about CO2, or about planetary atmospheres. But being a more fundamental physical principle, it would of course nevertheless kill the warmists’ radiation transfer theory stone dead.

Cheers!

• David Cosserat

|

Joe,

I am a bit surprised by your reply at #44. I was discussing a narrower but, I believe, exceedingly vital point in the battle against climate alarmism.

You agreed with me in earlier discussions that when two bodies radiate towards one another, the radiation from the cooler body offsets the radiation from the warmer body, creating a standing wave that “does no work”. The work (i.e. real energy transfer) is only done by any difference in the radiation “pressures” between the two.

In the K-T diagram, for all its faults (and it is 16 years old), the 333Wm2 from atmosphere to surface offsets almost all of the 356Wm-2 from surface to atmosphere, exactly as one would expect in the case of two ‘bodies’ (the [u]surface[/u] and the [u]lowest few km[/u] of atmosphere)that are at approximately the same absolute temperature. It is only the difference, 23Wm-2, that “does work” – and that [i]real transfer of radiant energy[/i] is from surface to atmosphere, warmer to cooler, in full accordance with the laws of thermodynamics.

So I don’t think it is fair to argue that the K-T diagram’s 333Wm-2 of surface warming is “silly”. In their ignorance, the climate alarmists (including no doubt Kenneth Trenberth) have indeed used that number to create alarm. But skeptics should stick to sober physics. In combatting alarmism, I believe we should take care to avoid emotive language.

• Curt

|

You are not refuting their analysis; you are merely repeating it. Their claim is that without the greenhouse effect, average surface temperature would be well below the freezing point of water.

It’s as if someone claimed that a house’s furnace could not put out enough power to keep the house warm with all of the windows open. An observation that the furnace keeps the house warm enough with all the windows closed does not contradict this.

• JP

|

Hi David,

The first problem is that the flux into the surface from the Sun is 161 W/m^2. This means that the Sun can’t melt ice and create the water cycle. The 333 W/m^2, and all the rest of the stuff, doesn’t matter much after that, as far as discussing how silly it is, like the flux from the atmosphere being 333 W/m^2, etc. The surface has to be heated by something first, before it can heat anything else. The diagram says the atmosphere heats the surface with twice the flux of the Sun…and then also the surface heats the atmosphere. The latter can be correct, the former can not. And the initiating premise of flux averaging, so that Sunshine is only 161 W/m^2, is what sets it all up to fail.

Basically the K-T diagram has nothing to do with reality, because it [i]contradicts [/i]the fact that the Sun melts ice. Such a diagram isn’t partially correct for some other aspect – it is simple entirely wrong.

• MyPlanetisOK

|

To JP. Thank you for the reply. Stimulating as usual. A few responses.

You open with, “In the IPCC K-T Energy budget, the colder atmosphere provides twice the heat of the Sun to the surface”. You are well read on this subject. Surely someone has pointed a power meter upwards towards the atmosphere at night and made this measurement. It cannot be a complete fabrication.

Yes, space is not a “body”, which is why I enclosed the term in quotation marks. I agree that precise language should be used to avoid confusion. Is “radiated heat sink” an acceptable description of space, or have you a preferred term?

I think everyone agrees with your third paragraph on heat flows and temperature differentials, or as I originally commented, “Energy steadily flows from the hot Sun, to the warm Earth, to the cooler atmosphere, and then to space”.

The car’s radiator was a heat flow analogy. I was hoping to avoid fitting a compressed air cylinder and projecting my car into space. In that setting the radiator discards energy purely by radiation. Covering the radiator with a blanket will still make the engine and radiator run hotter, because the blanket becomes the new heat loss surface. The blanket does not slow heat loss from the radiator, but the radiator has to become hotter to overcome the back radiation from the blanket.

Your comments about “the atmosphere IS an active cooling mechanism”, is presumably related to convection. The problem is that convection will occur, with or without atmospheric CO2. The effect of rising CO2 levels on convection and the ultimate delivery of planetary energy to space is a fresh area for discussion. At this point it is worth repeating that I think that the sensitivity of the climate system to CO2 is exaggerated for reasons relating to spectroscopy.

You said, “If the atmosphere comes to closer equilibrium with the surface, the surface doesn’t have to get hotter”. Firstly, the term equilibrium is troublesome. A box in a room is in thermal equilibrium with its surroundings. CO2 gas in a fizzy drink bottle is in equilibrium with the dissolved CO2. In contrast, the flow of solar heat through the Earth-atmosphere sub-system is globally in ready state, rather than equilibrium. Two bodies in thermal equilibrium will have the same temperature. My greater difficulty is the last part, “doesn’t have to get hotter”. It is difficult to see how both bodies could avoid becoming hotter in a dynamic radiative heat flow system when one of them becomes independently hotter.

• David Cosserat

|

Sorry, in the above post (f) should be 17Wm-2 of sensible heat, not 80Wm-2.

Apologies.

• David Cosserat

|

Joe,

At #40 you say [i]In the IPCC K-T Energy budget, the colder atmosphere provides twice the heat of the Sun to the surface[/i].

That is simply not true. The diagram shows:

(a) EMR flux into the earth’s surface from the Sun of 161Wm-2.

(b) EMR flux from the atmosphere to the earth’s surface of 333Wm-2.

Yes, 333 is indeed around twice 161.

But what you missed out is that the diagram also shows:

(c) EMR flux from the earth’s surface to the atmosphere of 356Wm-2.

Also, for completeness, the other energy flows are:

(d) EMR flux from the earth’s surface directly to space (the “atmospheric window”) 40Wm-2.

(e) Latent heat transferred from the earth’s surface to the atmosphere 80Wm-2.

(f) Sensible heat transfer (conduction / convection) transferred from the earth’s surface to the atmosphere 80Wm-2.
.
.
The point is that (b) and (c) are [i]almost exactly opposing EMR fluxes[/i] between two bodies (surface and atmosphere) that “do no work” (your own excellent phrase!)

They net out to an EMR energy flow of 23Wm-2 from surface to atmosphere that does indeed “do work”. But the only “work” done is 23Wm-2 to [b]heat the atmosphere[/b].

So it is not true to say that the Trenberth diagram implies that the colder atmosphere is supplying any HEAT at all to the surface, let alone twice the incoming HEAT absorbed by the surface from the Sun.

Exactly the reverse is true. The earth’s surface in the Trenberth diagram is heating the atmosphere (and, ironically, overwhelmingly by latent and sensible heat).

• JP

|

In the IPCC K-T Energy budget, the colder atmosphere provides twice the heat of the Sun to the surface. Also in a general greenhouse diagram, the colder atmosphere sends heat back into the surface, which is called heating or heat flow from cold to hot. I’ll have a post at my blog (will be posted at PSI too) soon on more related to this…different from what I’ve already said a hundred times 🙂

Space is not actually a “cold body” – space does not cool or cause cooling. Space has no temperature (don’t worry about the CMB…side distraction, only radiative 2.7K blackbody anyway). Space is simply where heat is radiatively emitted into, freely.

Secondly, for the atmosphere, the hot body is the ground surface, not the Sun, because it is the ground surface which heats the atmosphere. The hot body for the surface only is the Sun. The surface is heated by the Sun, then the atmosphere is heated by the warm body of the surface. The surface heating has its own temperature and spectrum, and can not reproduce or induce the same effect as the incoming solar spectrum. There is SOME direct solar absorption into the atmosphere, but this is small compared to the surface, and GHG’s don’t increase solar absorption in the atmosphere (in fact a NASA study shows they reduce it!).

Slowing down the cooling of the radiator is not a valid analogy, for the reason stated above, and because there is no active cooling mechanism occurring from outside the Earth. Outer space is not an active cooling mechanism. On the ground surface itself, the atmosphere IS an active cooling mechanism, and data shows that the ground surface cools by about 10 times more than expected if the cooling in the atmospheric column overnight was perfectly even. If there is a delay in cooling from the atmosphere such as to cause warming at the surface, it is killed off by the atmosphere’s cooling effect for the surface.

The lower atmosphere warming doesn’t require the surface to become warmer. If the atmosphere comes to closer equilibrium with the surface, the surface doesn’t have to get hotter.

The only role for backradiation is that it gets absorbed by a warmer surface, thus leading to temperature increase. This is the same error as has always existed. This problem still hasn’t been excused. The atmosphere being warmed by a warmer surface is of course fine; the atmosphere [i]in being warmed[/i] leading to its warmer also becoming warmed is incorrect.

Agreed about “flux”! Will have a new article out in a bit with more related to this.

• MyPlanetisOK

|

JP educates me. His papers keep the GHE discussion alive and thought provoking, and for that I admire and thank him.

Where I have most trouble accepting his conclusions is his refutation of the green house effect (GHE) which he bases on the fundamental thermodynamic principle that a cold body cannot heat a hot body. Of course heat does not flow from cold to hot, and does not do so in the GHE.

The problem is the system under consideration. The hot body is the Sun and the cold “body” is space. Within these upper and lower limits, local temperatures within the Earth-atmosphere sub-system can vary according to changing atmospheric composition.

By analogy, the energy discarded from my car’s radiator isn’t generated by the radiator. It comes from combustion within the engine. If I cover the radiator with a blanket, eventually energy flow from the combustion of fuel to the surroundings will continue at the same overall rate, but the engine and radiator will both be hotter when the new internal steady state is reached. It’s not the radiator heating the engine. Combustion is heating the engine, but it is getting hotter because increased energy is returned to the engine in the form of hotter coolant. Energy flows in the Sun-Earth-atmosphere-space system obviously differ in radiation/conduction detail, but the heat transfer concepts are similar.

Energy heating the warm Earth is not derived from the cooler atmosphere. Rather , the Sun is heating both via direct and diverted energy flows. Energy steadily flows from the hot Sun, to the warm Earth, to the cooler atmosphere, and then to space. If, for any reason, the lower atmosphere warms, the same overall rate of energy will flow to space from the Earth-atmosphere sub-system, but the temperature of the Earth’s surface will move closer to the effective temperature of the solar energy source that is driving the entire system.

In short, the GHE and its consequential back-radiation, are completely consistent with all laws of thermodynamics. It is the sensitivity of the Earth-atmosphere sub-system to injections of CO2 that is questionable. In this regard, I am perplexed by the dearth of discussion on CO2’s spectroscopic properties. Therein lies the real problem with climate models.

PS. The definition of “flux” is discussed in this thread. The term is ambiguous but in heat and radiation transfers, flux generally includes “per unit area” and has units of J/s/m^2, as JP says. Anyone disagreeing is free to attempt to alter the Wikipedia article on Flux.

• Sunsettommy

|

Both Tim Folkerts and Joel Shore are now banned for a few months.

• Squid2112

|

Whew… thanks! They were making me dizzy with their commenting in circles, deflecting, misdirecting, need a fricken GPS just to keep up .. my God man.

• Tim Folkerts

|

[quote]Tim, very cute attempt … [/quote]

Ah .. using actual definitions and actual equations is “cute”.

[quote]Energy in = energy out, in order to conserve energy.[/quote]
Translation: Joe prefers soundbites rather than the actual equations. The actual equation clearly disagrees with Joe’s statement.

[quote]E_in = E_out (Joules), for a system in equilibrium[/quote]
Notice how he tries to obfuscate and redefine the problem — now including the phrase “in equilibrium”. In this way he hopes people do not remember that he was indeed wrong to begin with. (And the system is not “in equilibrium”, it is “in steady-state”. It seems someone is “incredibly inept when it comes to the correct usage of physics terms”.)

[quote]… which is what the conservation of energy in the K-T diagram is supposed to be about.[/quote]
Do you not see the “Net absorbed 0.9 W/m^2” at the bottom of the diagram? KT specifically is saying (energy in) ≠ (energy out)! About 1 more joule goes into each square meter every second than goes out in his diagram = global warming. This is the ‘mcΔT’ energy term for added energy within the system.

• JP

|

Your equation has no conflict with any of my statements, since I simply stated the law of conservation of energy. This equation you introduced actually has NOTHING to do with the way the GHE is created or the incorrect energy conservation methods of the K-T diagram and the GHE. What you are doing is called “changing reference frames”. Nice try.

Referencing “equilibrium” is entirely central to the GHE and K-T diagrams and the attempt to conserve energy in them…equilibrium is all about it. Steady-state is synonymous with energy equilibrium, which is obviously what the subject matter is.

Very nice tries once again at sophistry and meaningless debate tactics. The net absorbed you reference in the K-T diagram to establish warming has nothing to do with the premise of how energy balance is incorrectly calculated via flux, in the first place. The specific 0.9 W/m^2 has exactly NOTHING to do with the incorrect way the GHE and K-T diagram is set up in the first place. Tim we know you’re not totally inept…you lie and sophize and change reference frames on purpose 😉 lol

• Tim Folkerts

|

[i]”Look how all the physics book and all the physics professors are misinterpreting physios — all they do is obfuscate with sophistry. If only the rest of the world understood it as well as I do, then they would recognize the proper way to interpret physics.”[/i]

We clearly will never agree on much of what you say. I think it is time to leave your playground and let you try to convince your other handful of readers that you indeed are the wisest one around.

• JP

|

No, physics textbooks and professors aren’t misinterpreting physics…only you and Joel Shore are, and a few other people that aren’t thinking about it, or are paid to lie, etc. No thermal physics text in the world has a source making itself hotter as it heats a cooler object, or with its own trapped energy, nor does any have a colder object heating a warmer object. These are all misinterpretations which only exist among the minority of GHE advocates. Traditional physics does not say that cold heats hot, or that hot heats itself with its own temperature, or that a source can trap its own heat to make itself hotter. Modern physics doesn’t say any of these things either.

You HAVE just agreed that cold does not heat hot on the other post…this is something that the Slayers and I have defended against you and others in the past, and now you finally agree that cold does not heat hot. Thank you for the admission.

Cold doesn’t heat hot, a source doesn’t heat itself further with its own temperature, a source doesn’t become hotter as it warms a cooler object, and the IPCC doesn’t know how to conserve energy correctly. These are all facts. They all demonstrate that the greenhouse effect is pseudoscience.

I would be absolutely thrilled if you left here finally understanding that cold does not heat hot. This is wonderful. Take care, Tim. You’ve been a big help in improving and developing my abilities to know and communicate correct science. I do get that, and I do sincerely appreciate your service in that.

• Joel Shore

|

[quote name=”JP”]No thermal physics text in the world has a source making itself hotter as it heats a cooler object, or with its own trapped energy, nor does any have a colder object heating a warmer object. [/quote]

You apparently are unfamiliar with one of the most popular Thermal Physics textbooks out there by Kittel: http://www.amazon.com/Thermal-Physics-Edition-Charles-Kittel/dp/0716710889/

It notes the fact that it discusses the greenhouse effect (and Bose-Einstein condensation) right on the cover. As I recall (I don’t have a copy handy), it actually presents the simple basic “steel greenhouse model”.

So, I guess no thermal physics textbook has it in there except for those that do…and then they are not really textbooks, have been corrupted, etc.

It must be fun to have unfalsiable positions.

• JP

|

Joel, as Tim now finally understands, cold does not heat up hot, and no physics textbook says this. Bose-Einstein condensation is not the greenhouse effect…has no relevance if a textbook also discusses this. The steel-greenhouse model has been debunked many times elsewhere…people who believe in it indicate of themselves that they do not understand thermal transfer or the laws of thermo.

• Joel Shore

|

Joe,

You apparentlyse don’t understand the meaning of the word “AND”. Do you really think that the people reading this are so stupid that they can’t see through your distraction about Bose-Einstein condensation? You have such a low opinion of the audience here that it is really insulting to them.

So, is your statement “No thermal physics text in the world …” false or is Kittel no longer classified as a thermal physics textbook?

• JP

|

There was ZERO point in YOUR mentioning of Bose-Einstein condensation. YOU were the one who inserted it into the discussion, it was YOUR distraction. Nice try.

No legitimate thermal physics text says that cold heats up hot. Even your friend Tim Folkerts correctly denies that cold heats hot.

• Tim Folkerts

|

Here’s the thing, Joe — I have not changed my position. 🙂

* Cool objects can ‘affect the temperature’ of warmer objects.
* Cool objects cannot ‘heat’ warmer objects.

• JP

|

That’s a nice bit of sophistry there Tim.

” Cool objects can ‘affect the temperature’ of warmer objects.
Cool objects cannot ‘heat’ warmer objects.”

So, what is “the effect” that cool objects have on warmer objects?

The effect you seek is that it causes, via some method, warmer objects to become warmer still, particularly if the colder object is being heated by the warmer object. You say this is not heating…lol.

Your words are pure sophistry and the attempt to hide in semantics.

• JP

|

The powered object simply heats up the cooler object interfering with the heat dissipation. Insulation does not make the furnace flame burn at higher temperature. A mirror does not make the filament glow at a higher color temperature, etc.

• Curt

|

JP – In your magnum opus “A Discussion on the Absence of a Measurable Greenhouse Effect”, you express the conservation of energy in a “word equation” (your term) as:

“The rate of change of heat energy = heat energy flowing across the boundaries + heat generated inside”

We’ll set aside for now the confusion between energy and power in that equation, and note that you do allow for non-steady-state conditions.

In your original post here, you did not mention steady-state or equilibrium conditions. When others pointed out that your “Energy In = Energy Out” equation only held in the steady state, it was you that then changed the reference frame to only the “equilibrium” condition.

But let’s take that steady-state special case where the change in internal energy U is zero:

DeltaU = 0 = Energy In – Energy Out

If we take the derivative with respect to time, we get:

dU/dt = 0 = Power In – Power Out

or:

Power In = Power Out

So, limiting yourself to this case, as you now insist we must do, the main thrust of your post is invalidated by your own equations.

Oh, and your statement that radiant flux has the units of J/s/m^2 is just wrong. J/s/m^2 is a power flux DENSITY. You have to take the integral of that density over the area in question to get the flux. For someone who complains about imprecision in others, you are incredibly sloppy.

• JP

|

Curt, you comment is incredibly confused.

Firstly, the word equation I do believe comes from a cited source on thermal physics…I didn’t just make it up. That IS THE basic conservation equation for thermal physics, and there is no confusion about what it means.

Steady state or equilibrium conditions is exactly what the K-T Diagram and related GHE diagrams are based on. I don’t need to specify that we are discussing such a situation since it can be assumed because it is the basis of the context – IF you have any clue what we’ve been talking about this whole time and how the equations are applied. OF COURSE we’re referring to “steady state” conditions. That being said, my paper was also all about how to handle the thermal physics when steady state is NOT present, since, the system has to be analysed in real-time and in real time, steady-state doesn’t exist. This is precisely everything I’ve discussed.

dU/dt = 0 = Flux In – Flux Out is exactly what “my” equations is, and so, “my” equation doesn’t doesn’t contradict itself. This is about the basis of how the GHE and IPCC K-T budget is created, because they DO NOT say Flux In = Flux Out in a physically realistic manner. They bungle the Flux In part. The Earth is not flat and static.

J/s/m^2 is called flux, and it is also called power density, not flux density, although you can call it flux density too if you like and if you understand what it means. Clearly you do not understand what radiant energy via the S-B Equation is all about.

Nice try.

• Curt

|

JP – The first term in the equation you used, “The rate of change of heat energy”, is a power term (e.g. Joules/sec). The second term, “heat energy flowing across the boundaries”, is an energy term (e.g. Joules). The third term, “heat generated inside”, is somewhat ambiguous, but best interpreted as an energy term as well. Either way, your equation is nonsensical, because the units simply don’t match.

There are some contexts in which this kind of imprecision would be acceptable, but certainly not in a post where you are complaining that others confuse power and energy. And you still are confusing power flux and power flux density, even in your latest response.

The main point of your original post is that “Power In = Power Out” is a ridiculous concept, it being a 2nd Law violation (which is simply absurd, of course). I point out that it is a necessary consequence of your “Energy In = Energy Out” equation, and now you say that it is exactly what your equation is.

• JP

|

Curt you are mixing everything up.

Heat [i]flowing [/i]across the boundaries is also time-dependent, hence Joules/sec, as there is no [i]flow [/i]without referencing time. Heat generated inside is also a time-dependent term as in Joules/sec, because it is energy being [i]generated[/i]. The units match if you have the most rudimentary understanding of math and physics. The terms are entirely precise. You are wrong and misdirecting everything about that.

Energy in = Energy out, but this DOES NOT mean that Flux In = Flux Out, and radiant flux is what we’re referring to when we refer to radiant power. Anyone familiar with this physics and the subject matter knows this. You should get up to speed.

• Curt

|

Energy and power have very distinct meanings in precise scientific and engineering discourse, and you are mixing them up. Using the term “flux” does not bail you out. “Energy flux” is the integral of “power flux” over time – they are distinct concepts, and you cannot get this straight, no matter how many times it is pointed out to you.

When I teach this stuff at the university level, I tell my students up front that I have a “zero tolerance” policy for confusing energy and power, even just in labeling, in homework or test problems. It gets their attention, and they learn to be precise.

But all this is small beans compared to your assertion that “Power Out = Power In”, a necessary condition of a system in thermal steady state, is somehow a violation of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. It shows that you have absolutely no clue whatsoever about what the 2nd Law really entails.

• JP

|

Curt I am using flux in the standard way of traditional physics, in associating it with the Stefan-Boltzmann equation. It uses the letter “F” in textbooks for goodness sake …because F stands for flux. At least for radiant energy in astrophysics. Your job is to understand what’s happening, rather than insist people use your particular notation. Energy in equals energy out. Flux in does not equal flux out, etc.

The IPCC and GHE diagrams are the ones who say “Power in = Power out” when what they mean is “Flux in = Flux out”, and when what they should be doing is “Energy in = Energy out”. They’re twice removed from doing it correctly. I used their phrasing to make the point that it should be about energy, and that it makes a big difference by violating physics if you try to conserve flux.

I am not the one confusing energy, power, and flux…that was the entire point of my post. The IPCC and GHE energy budgets confuse energy and flux, because they pretend to conserve energy while actually attempting to conserve flux. But flux is not conserved, which leads to their problems with bad physics.

You need to get up to speed and follow what’s actually going on here…your semantic observations is not the physics point. Thermo is simple: cold doesn’t heat up hot.

• JP

|

Correction, that was Joel Shore’s phrasing “Power in = Power out”…when what he meant is “Flux in = Flux out”, but what he and the IPCC (etc) should have actually asked for is actually “energy in = energy out”.

• Curt

|

You say, “I am not the one confusing energy, power, and flux.” But you are.

The SB equation calculates radiant power flux DENSITY (W/m^2). You have to integrate this over area to get radiant power flux (W). Then you have to integrate this power flux over time to get the energy transfer (J). That is how you properly distinguish between the three.

What you are calling flux is really flux density. It is important to keep these separate concepts distinct. For example, I am preparing some class notes now on magnetics, and I show that to get the magnetic flux “Phi” in Webers is the integral of the magnetic flux DENSITY “B” in Teslas over the area of interest “A” in square meters.

If you want to make yourself understood, you need to use these terms precisely – it took me a while to realize that when you used the term “flux” you really meant “flux density”. The bigger issue is that if you don’t use the terms correctly, you can confuse your own theory.

Now your real objection to the very simplified analyses such as the (in)famous KT diagram is that they take averages over area and time, and then present the averages in terms of flux densities. This approach definitely has its limitations, but you haven’t identified what those limitations are.

They could have simply multiplied each of these values by the surface area of the earth and shown power in and power out values. The only difference is that these would have been very large numbers that wouldn’t mean much to a typical person.

They could also have then multiplied these power-in and power-out values by a time period such as a day or a year to get energy-in and energy-out values, but the resulting numerical values would have even less meaning to people. And it wouldn’t really result in any more information.

And in all of those analyses, heat transfer is always from hotter to colder, so there is no 2nd Law violations. Your confusions are a distraction from the real and serious issues with the mainstream analyses.

• JP

|

Yes Curt, radiant flux density…this is something I’ve discussed on my blog previously. It can also be called flux since the context is always the S-B Law. Splitting hairs on semantics is NOT what this post was about, nor does it solve the physics errors that the K-T and related diagrams represent. I don’t know how you’re twisting this around into my responsibility, but it isn’t. It is Shore et al who use the term “Power” when they should be using flux (or even flux density) and then they don’t understand they should actually be using energy. Only you seem to be confused about what the units are that we’re referring to: J/s/m^2 for radiant flux or even radiant power always in context with with the S-B Law, and J when discussing energy. It is very simple. You are confusing yourself. This post is not about splitting hairs on semantics – it is on the error of attempting to numerically equate flux inputs and outputs with the S-B Equation, whether you want to call it flux or flux density is irrelevant…we all understand what the units are. In the field I work in, it is simply called flux in short form. Wikipedia lists it as “energy flux density” which is also precisely what I’ve explained it is on my blog long ago, as well. Energy flux density is synonymous with flux since we’re discussing radiant energy. The semantics you are trying to insert into this are irrelevant and obfuscatory, side-distraction, waste of time. This is precisely all about the serious issues with the typical GHE analysis. I hope you can get up to speed on all this so that you can get yourself out of the semantic quagmire you’ve stuck yourself in.

• Curt

|

I’ve been “up to speed” on all this for better than 35 years now, thank you very much. The semantic issues have been a minor part of my objections to your analyses, and you seem to have hopped on them to avoid dealing with my major objections.

First, in the steady-state case that you are dealing with, since Energy In = Energy Out, it is trivially true that Power In = Power Out as well. Yet you say that is wrong.

Second, you say that Power In = Power Out, while a requirement of the 1st Law, is a violation of the 2nd Law.

I have brought these points up multiple times, and … crickets.

• JP

|

No, sorry Curt, you aren’t following along. When Shore says “power” he MEANS flux. THAT is why the statement is wrong, and then it is also wrong because what they MEAN, flux, is NOT conserved in = out. Crickets because your semantics aren’t relevant and everyone else knows the terms.

• Curt

|

No, YOU are not keeping up. Your original post says that Power Out = Power In:

(a) is physically impossible due to the 2nd Law;

and

(b) does not automatically follow in a steady-state system from Energy In = Energy Out

Both of these assertions are absurd, and you refuse to defend them.

• JP

|

My original post was quoting Joel Shore…lol Joel Shore said that power in = power out…while what he meant to say was flux in = flux out. Either way, the statement is wrong for its intended meaning: Flux is NOT numerically conserved, only energy is. Flux in = Flux out DOES NOT follow automatically in a steady-state system with energy in = energy out. It is ridiculous to claim otherwise…so stupid. Nice trolling. The title of the post reflects the GHE believer’s confusion. Thanks by the way for helping elucidate this kind of line of obfuscation and sophistry…it’s really helping make clear how much fraud climate science all is.

• Curt

|

The difference between power and flux (density) has nothing to do with the 2nd Law, efficiency, and losses. You continue to evade my objections (because there is no valid response).

• JP

|

I agree in so far as Joel Shore’s poor terminology and which I got stuck using too. Aside from that the blog post explains what is actually being discussed, and you and I have more than sorted it out here. Thanks 🙂 In the future I will be more careful about using flux and energy, and only using power where it might be appropriate. As it is though, it is the difference between flux and energy and those quantities which concerns my analysis, etc. “Power” was an incorrect term introduced by Shore in an incorrect context and analysis, as you have kindly pointed out. I should have been more careful discussing that mistake and using that term. Other than that, the main point of the article stands out just fine: it is physically incorrect to numerically conserve flux, when the real physics is found in conserving energy. Thanks for the help.

• Tim Folkerts

|

Why do you refuse to actually do any science, retreating instead to mere sound bites and tangents?

The first law says
ΔU = Q + W

The left side is (change in energy of the system).
The right side is (net energy added to the system by heat and work) = (energy in) – (energy out).

hmmmm … that’s exactly what i said.

• JP

|

Tim, very cute attempt to turn about your own tactics, and you are the one who doesn’t know or understand the First Law of Thermodynamics, the Law of Conservation of Energy. I mean lol. Energy in = energy out, in order to conserve energy.

E_in = E_out (Joules), for a system in equilibrium, which is what the conservation of energy in the K-T diagram is supposed to be about (but doesn’t do correctly). Nice attempt to obfuscate…but a little too obvious, hahahaha.

• Tim Folkerts

|

Let’s start with the simplest, clearest, boldest claim (and ignore the blustering).
[quote]Only energy in equals energy out.[/quote]
This is NOT a statement of conservation of energy and this is NOT in general true.

(Energy in) = (energy out) + (energy gain(loss) within the system).

As a most basic example, if I put 4.2 J of energy into a gram of water, there MIGHT be 4.2 J out … or the water might warm up by 1 C … or I might turn some H2O in to O2 & H2 with no change in temperature or ….

Similarly for the earth as a whole, if the earth is warming up, then the (energy in) is greater than the (energy out).

During the day for a typical square meter:
(total energy in) > (total energy out)
(total power in) > (total power out)

During the night,
(energy in) < (energy out)
(total power in) < (total power out)

• JP

|

Tim, the Law of Conservation of Energy, the First Law of Thermodynamics, is that energy is neither created nor destroyed, and hence, conserved totally. The attempt to conserve energy form the very basis of the K-T and related GHE diagrams (which do it wrong because they attempt to conserve flux instead of energy).

Let it thus be known from henceforth that Tim Folkerts does not know the Law of Conservation of Energy.

• A.Rappaport

|

[quote name=”Tim Folkerts”]Let’s start with the simplest, clearest, boldest claim (and ignore the blustering).
[quote]Only energy in equals energy out.[/quote]
This is NOT a statement of conservation of energy and this is NOT in general true.

(Energy in) = (energy out) + (energy gain(loss) within the system).

As a most basic example, if I put 4.2 J of energy into a gram of water, there MIGHT be 4.2 J out … or the water might warm up by 1 C … or I might turn some H2O in to O2 & H2 with no change in temperature or ..[/quote]..
To reduce 1 gram of water would take 7860 joules at 100% h2eficiency. Using electricity ,the most common way would take 5 times that amount 20% efficiency. Some indeed! how much H2 and O2 do you get with 4.2 Joules of energy,by what method. Why do you deliberatly try to confuse, with nonsense?

• Squid2112

|

Mr. Folkerts, which day would you be referring to? Day to whom?

One of your many problems is that you cannot seem to pull yourself out of this notion that everything revolves around [b]you[/b]!

The Earth, as a “system”, has [b]no[/b] day or night. To the system, as a whole, this is [b]always[/b] a day, and [b]always[/b] a night. See, this is what Joe means by your fundamental problem of viewing the Earth as being flat, not rotating, etc… What you just stated with your “during the day” and “during the night”, is a load of crap and doesn’t exist on this planet. No Mr. Folkerts, you may be able to find some planet out in the universe that can do this, and I would suggest you begin your search and leave physics alone as you consistently demonstrate your inability to grasp very simple principals of reality.

Respectfully, Squid

• Curt

|

Tim said “during the day [night] for a typical square meter”. Last I checked, a typical square meter on the earth’s surface had a “day” and a “night” each 24 hours.

And I have even noticed that said typical square meter tends to get warmer during the day, and tends to get cooler during the night.

• Squid2112

|

Mr. Curt, I stand by what I wrote. Again, Mr. Folkerts is projecting a [b]flat Earth![/b] Things do not work that way. He still cannot grasp simple principals of reality. Can you?

• JP

|

I think it is clear that he can’t…he’s still stuck trying to figure out definitions and units, and thereby missing the forest for the trees.

• Tim Folkerts

|

It’s tough to discuss physics without equations to define the terms. So let me help (feel free to disagree or add your own defining equations, Joe).

[b]Power In[/b] = rate of heat input to a heat engine from the hot reservoir:
[i]P_in = d(Q_hot) / dt[/i]

[b]Power Out[/b] = rate of mechanical work done by a heat engine:
[i]P_out = dW / dt[/i]

[b]”Lost” Power[/b] is power that does not come out as mechanical work.
[i]P_Lost = d(Q_cold) / dt[/i]

[b]Efficiency[/b] is how well heat is converted to mechanical work:
[i]η = P_out / P_in[/i] = 1 – (P_Lost/P_in)

If we can agree on equations and specific descriptions of the ideas, then we can move ahead. If not, there is no point in simply throwing ill-defined words back and forth.

• A.Rappaport

|

[quote name=”Tim Folkerts”]It’s tough to discuss physics without equations to define the terms. So let me help (feel free to disagree or add your own defining equations, Joe).

[b]Power In[/b] = rate of heat input to a heat engine from the hot reservoir:
[i]P_in = d(Q_hot) / dt[/i]

[b]Power Out[/b] = rate of mechanical work done by a heat engine:
[i]P_out = dW / dt[/i]

[b]”Lost” Power[/b] is power that does not come out as mechanical work.
[i]P_Lost = d(Q_cold) / dt[/i]

[b]Efficiency[/b] is how well heat is converted to mechanical work:
[i]η = P_out / P_in[/i] = 1 – (P_Lost/P_in)

If we can agree on equations and specific descriptions of the ideas, then we can move ahead. If not, there is no point in simply throwing ill-defined words back and forth.[/quote]

[b]”Lost” Power[/b] is power that does not come out as mechanical work.
[i]P_Lost = d(Q_cold) / dt[/i]

This is the one you cannot explain:
even though you put in terms of power
rather than energy. The classical definition of entropy is delta Q devided by some T. no delta T, nor unit T, nor absolute T
Now you change that to “Lost Power”
As the energy transfered to a cold sink divided by elapsed time.
Is energy conserved by the creation of entropy, or is it “lost” as the integral
of “lost power” over time.

• A.Rappaport

|

[quote name=”Tim Folkerts”]It’s tough to discuss physics without equations to define the terms. So let me help (feel free to disagree or add your own defining equations, Joe).[/quote]
Some things do not need equations if they have nothing to equate! Only an unabigious and permenant definition is needed.

Heat- both noun and verb forms, so no one can misunderstand.

Temperature- Is this a thing, a measurement, or a concept. Again the definition, with all ambiguities included The definition must promote the particular meaning of the speaker

Warming- Adding heat or increasing temperature, with only that use.

Cooling- Removing heat or decreasing temperature, with only that use.

This is much more basic than equations.
and need equations only for value, not concept.

• JP

|

Yes the problem is that Joel Shore is incredibly inept when it comes to the correct usage of physics terms. I know what he means – at least, I know what he should mean – and so in fact he might not even know what he means. This of course has always been the benefit for the GHE alarmists, because they don’t need to be consistent, only needing to appear to use physics terms. So in terms of the radiant power, which we use with the Stefan-Boltzmann Equation and the K-T Energy budget and related GHE diagrams, we actually call this flux, although you can call it power if you know what you’re talking about. Joel Shore either doesn’t or he purposely mixes terms in order to obfuscate. Radiant flux has the units of J/s/m^2.

In terms of radiant energy, ‘flux in’ is NOT equal to ‘flux out’. This is the starting point for the GHE alarmist’s attempt to conserve energy, in the K-T Energy budget and related GHE diagrams. This is not the correct way to conserve energy. The problem is that you do not conserve physics if you attempt to numerically conserve flux. The flux input and output depends on the real-time local geometry, while the total energy in and out doesn’t, outside of the basic cross-section of collection (which is a factor for the input flux only).

So, ‘flux in’ does NOT equal ‘flux out’. Joel Shore thinking that this is some sort of a fundamental mathematical equation of physics, or an equation that needs to be conserved, proves he is either entirely inept, or purposefully lying. The problem with that is that only me, you, and a few other people are capable of knowing that to be the absolute truth.

Here is irrefutable factual truth: Joel Shore is either inept, or a purposeful liar, in claiming that ‘flux in’ and ‘flux out’ have to be numerically conserved. Full stop. At this point Tim Folkerts would be expected to defend Shore by claiming that Shore was referring to “power”, not “flux”, and this therefore identifies Folkerts either as inept, or a purposeful liar. Full stop. “Power” in and out, if you would like to differentiate the term from “flux”, has exactly nothing to do with the K-T Energy Budget or related GHE diagrams.

Only energy in equals energy out.