Why did Anthony Watts pull a Bait and Switch?

Written by Alan Siddons & John O'Sullivan

Anthony Watts of the science blog Watts Up With That appears to have pulled a bait and switch to dodge Principia Scientific International’s (PSI) direct and forthright answer to his (and Dr. Roy Spencer’s) “put up or shut up” challenge.

On May 10th of this year, Watts and Spencer challenged PSI’s “Slayers” to provide a realistic model of earth’s energy budget, one that did not incorporate additional heating by “greenhouse gases.” We obliged.

Postma Earth Energy Budget

But rather than acknowledge our response and cogently address our thermal model (illustrated above), Watts incongruously posted an “experiment” to attack us once again. An upcoming article will provide details about Watts’ experiment proving the opposite of what he intended. For now, however, the crux of the debate remains: Is radiative forcing – in other words, heating by greenhouse gases – a real phenomenon? Here and here we have clearly indicated no.

To clarify matters for anyone less familiar with the present debate, the Greenhouse Effect (GHE) has for 30 years been the centerpiece of claims about man-made global warming. The basic contention is that sunlight doesn’t provide enough heat to account for the Earth’s temperature, but additional radiation from about 1% of the atmosphere’s gases does account for it. These gases respond to the heat radiated by the Earth’s surface and send that energy back, which makes the surface warmer. Thus in effect the Earth is heated by its own radiation, much like a battery charging itself with the electricity it produces.

Spencer’s so-called “time-dependent” Earth model, then, presupposes the existence of such a heating mechanism and from this assumption he derives what he calls “reasonable surface temperatures.” Convinced his model proves that the GHE is real, he dared us to present an alternative. In promptly doing so we also demonstrated that Spencer’s version (below) is not only far from being “time dependent,” it’s not even capable of generating enough heat for clouds to form — let alone enough heat to melt ice. Reasonable surface temperatures indeed.

SPENCER GHE MODEL

Yet after calling for an alternative to a heat source that augments the Sun, Watts instantly ignored or perhaps forgot that his call had been answered. He wandered instead into another playground, distracted by a picture which he found amusing. So it’s natural to ask: Is Watts seeking to confuse readers by pretending that what occurred did not occur? Or is the confusion inadvertent?

Anyway, Anthony Watts has now produced a video, New WUWT-TV segment: Slaying the ‘slayers’ with Watts, featuring a homespun experiment with a mirror, an infrared camera and a 65 watt incandescent lamp. Judging by comments to his post, Watts has certainly succeeded in drawing attention away from the original issue. We will address some of Watts’ most recent remarks nevertheless.

“[Slayers] tend to ignore real world measurements”

Astounding. Please open your eyes, Mr. Watts. PSI members have both performed experiments and used respected third party empirical data to validate our views. Look here, here, here and here. For example, in his PSI paper Observations on ‘backradiation’ during Nighttime and Daytime, professor Nasif Nahle carefully compiled a series of real time measurements of thermal radiation from the atmosphere and surface materials both night and day. Nahle demonstrated that radiant heat transfer from the atmosphere to the Earth’s surface simply does not occur. A cooler system radiating toward a warmer system is physically untenable as a heating mechanism.

“Most of what that group does is to spin sciencey sounding theories and pal reviewed papers by a mysterious members-only peer review system.”

On the contrary, Mr. Watts, offering pseudo-scientific garbage like Willis Eschenbach’s heat-magnifying shell and Ira Glickstein’s photon-slicer is your specialty. Our group deals with standard scientific principles. And we don’t mince the 2nd Law of thermodynamics into incomprehensible confusion like crafty lawyers would. Actual scientists understand the matter clearly. This is from the Thomas Jefferson National Accelerator Facility, for example:

Heat always moves from a warmer place to a cooler place.

Heat transfers in three ways:

  • Conduction
  • Convection
  • Radiation

It’s as simple as that: heat always moves to a cooler place, which includes heat transfer by radiation. By the same token, this excludes radiant heat transfer to a warmer place, a point that Mr. Watts and his fans emphatically contest. Which places them on the outskirts of standard science, not us.

As for “a mysterious members-only peer review system,” no. In fact, PSI has pioneered a new kind of open peer review system: PROM (peer review in open media) which allows anyone to post feedback on all the papers submitted to us. Every such paper must pass PROM review and remain up for public scrutiny for a period of no less than one month. During that time authors must respond to any criticisms submitted to PSI on their work. PSI weighs the merits of feedback from members and non-members alike and compels authors to modify or withdraw the paper when objections are deemed valid. Thanks to the thoroughness of our open PROM system, every paper eventually published by PSI has been found in need of some amendment beforehand.

Now for some of Watts’ more serious misconceptions, however.

“a greenhouse atmosphere has higher temperatures near the surface, but lower temperatures at high altitudes”

Yet this trait is common to every planet’s atmosphere, irrespective of that atmosphere’s composition. Has Watts ever bothered to look?

Relative planetary temp and pressure

As you’ll notice in every case, atmospheric temperature increases with depth and decreases with height. Above 0.1 bar of pressure, all planetary atmospheres do this. The presence of radiating trace gases aren’t responsible for this but the interaction of gravity with a gas’s ability to hold onto heat. Indeed, as this NASA page shows, the rate of atmospheric cooling (or heating) for a given unit of altitude can be predicted by accounting for the planet’s gravitational acceleration (<g>) and its atmosphere’s heat capacity (Cp) alone. For more information about this phenomenon see A Discussion on the Absence of a Measurable Greenhouse Effect, PSI publication.

Incidentally, it is also the case with every planet’s atmosphere that its lower-altitude temperature exceeds a blackbody-based prediction. In other words, the same method for predicting a minus 18 degree Earth also fails everywhere else. Each planet’s atmosphere is warmer than predicted, even when it is principally composed of hydrogen and helium.

But will this prompt greenhouse theoreticians to reconsider their tenets? Don’t hold your breath.

“To be honest, I laughed when I saw this”

Now we are veering toward the biggest misconception yet. Watts here is referring to a picture that shows a bright light bulb facing a mirror. The caption explains that the mirror’s reflection doesn’t heat the light bulb or make it shine any brighter. This is only common sense, however, because anyone can readily verify such a thing for himself. Even a concave (light-collecting) mirror will demonstrate that an object cannot be brightened by its own radiance. The light it shines can only illuminate something that is shining less.

Believing that an object actually can be brightened by its brightness is rather queer, in fact, like standing inside a bucket and giving an honest effort to lift it off the ground. Yet Watts sincerely believes that by means of its own radiant power an object can increase its radiant power, and he finds it funny that others consider that a joke.

But this ties in to another of his odd beliefs, for Watts also objects to us mentioning that other greenhouse theorists propose that radiant energy is doubled when it is doubled back to the radiator.

“I’ve never made a doubling claim like that, nor am I aware that any of the others named have claimed a doubling”

This is a veritable WHOPPER. Because two of Watts’s greenhouse stars, Eschenbach and Glickstein have clearly explained on Watts’ own pages that radiant energy is doubled if certain conditions prevail.

Willis Eschenbach, for instance, has it that a steel shell suspended around a cold steel sphere will radiate back the sphere’s thermal light and increase its radiance from 235 watts per square meter to 470 watts per square meter. Check our math, but isn’t 470 equal to 235 times 2?

Likewise, Ira Glickstein has it that a greenhouse atmosphere is somehow able to split a single outgoing photon into an incoming photon and an outgoing photon, such that an incoming photon scale that would read “1” in the absence of greenhouse gases will read “2” when they’re around. Pardon us again, but doesn’t 1 + 1 = 2?

The Glickstein Photon Slicer

Here’s the real question, though: How can Anthony Watts be utterly unaware of what his own greenhouse explainers have been explaining? One might also ask whether Watts is aware that Eschenbach and Glickstein are merely regurgitating the basic concept of greenhouse theory as taught in universities. Outgoing surface heat rays turn into incoming atmospheric heat rays, which double the surface’s heat rays.

Richard Lindzen believes this too. His is one of the names we mentioned.

In Greenhouse Effect, A Scientific Analysis, professor Lindzen explains,

The basic idea of the greenhouse effect is illustrated by Figure 1. Suppose that the atmosphere and clouds can be represented by a single layer of gas and clouds at some temperature Tα , and that this layer of gas and clouds can be treated as a perfect emitter. The layer therefore emits radiant energy both upward and downward at the rate σTα 4 , while the surface emits upward at the rate σTs4 , where Ts is the surface temperature. At the top of the atmosphere, the total outgoing radiative flux, given by σTa4 , must balance the net incoming solar flux of 240 Wm-2, giving Ta = 255 kelvins. But the surface receives energy from both the sun and the atmosphere, and the thermal equilibrium of the surface requires that

σTs4 = 240 Wm-2 + σTa4 = 480 Wm-2.

 

And there it is again. Eschenbach transforms 235 watts per square meter into 470, Glickstein conjures 2 out of 1, and Lindzen turns 240 W/m2 into 480. Since on Watts’ own website Spencer wrote approvingly of yet another paper where Lindzen explains how surface heating by a back-radiating atmosphere works, and since another Watts favorite, Christopher Monckton, endorses both Lindzen and Spencer, we just naturally assumed that Watts himself was in on this doubling business. But no —

“I’ve never made a doubling claim like that, nor am I aware that any of the others named have claimed a doubling”

it would appear that Watts objects to it. So we await his refutation of Lindzen et al.  

Lindzen GHE model with Double Radiation

 

 

Tags: , , , , , , , , ,

Comments (44)

  • Avatar

    Hilario

    |

    February Almedia Plumbing, located in Greenville, R.
    t wasting time just to collect additional money from
    you. It is law that plumbers be licensed by the state a licensed plumber must prove they are trained with the necessary experience.

    My homepage :: [url=http://hawkeyepromo.com/category/plumbing-companies/]plumbers Waco Texas[/url]

  • Avatar

    Tom Cubbage

    |

    Neither the clouds above the earth nor the atmosphere is a polished mirror that reflects heat directly back. So Anthony’s bulb-mirror experiment has no relevance to anything core to the AGW assumptions re GHG. To me Anthony’s attempt to mind wrestle with PSI is worthless ego-tripping. It is time to get Anthony to focus on falsifying AGW theory. I could care less about the side squabble, but when Anthony starts accepting that there is a GHG effect with any positive CO2 impact above 150 ppmv, I wonder what he is up to. The issue is about CO2 and nothing else.

  • Avatar

    DougCotton

    |

    (continued)

    Focus carefully on what I am explaining, because this is the solution to the dilemma.

    Suppose the bulb is initially at [i]T[/i] degrees. Let’s say that electricity is capable of raising it to a maximum of [i](T+d)[/i] degrees. However, in the absence of the mirror, radiative cooling rates will indeed be greater than with the mirror in place. So its initial equilibrium temperature is [i]T[/i] and that is because it has cooled by [i]d[/i] simultaneously.

    Now, with the mirror in place it will cool by less than [i]d[/i], and so it appears to warm above the initial [i]T[/i].

    But the Sun cannot warm Earth’s surface to a mean of 288K, so all this is irrelevant. It is the gravity effect which explains all atmospheric, surface, crust, mantle and core temperatures, and this is supported by empirical data from several planets and satellite moons in our Solar system. It is also confirmed by data for Earth, both above and below the surface.

  • Avatar

    DougCotton

    |

    [b]The fallacy in Anthony Watts light bulb experiment[/b]

    Anthony Watts did in fact respond to PSI by carrying out an experiment in which he did indeed show that a light bulb became hotter when a mirror reflected its own radiation back on itself. I don’t doubt his measurements, but I have not seen PSI address the result of this experiment. Correct me if I’m wrong and it has already been answered along the correct lines below.

    It is well known in physics that the presence of a cooler body can indeed slow that portion of the cooling of a warmer body which is itself by radiation. It cannot slow the other portion of cooling which is by non-radiative processes. Furthermore, radiation from the cooler body cannot add thermal energy to the warmer body, because its electro-magnetic energy is used for immediate re-emission of identical radiation, and that energy is not converted to thermal energy in the warmer target.

    A globe may well be raised to a warmer temperature when a mirror reflects its radiation back upon itself, but the reason is not what you think – the back radiation is not adding thermal energy to the bulb.

    • Avatar

      Greg House

      |

      [quote name=”DougCotton”]A globe may well be raised to a warmer temperature when a mirror reflects its radiation back upon itself, but the reason is not what you think – the back radiation is not adding thermal energy to the bulb.[/quote]

      Doug, this is absurd. Think again. And no, I will not read your “papers”.

  • Avatar

    ewiljan

    |

    [quote name=”Frank”]About the statement: “Heat always moves from a warmer place to a cooler place”.

    For radiation, a molecule in an object sends out a photon unknowing whether it is towards a colder object or a warmer object. The receiving object receives that photon and gets an increase in energy, irrespective of whether it’s from a warmer or a colder object. So at least during the time of a single photon transfer, the theory is not true.

    But also during longer times, the theory can be falsified. Take for instance an infrared laser diode. It will transfer radiative heat to any object, cooler or warmer than itself.

    I’m not saying that your radiative model is wrong, I just don’t think you should hold on to your shortened version of Clausius’ formulation of the 2nd law of thermodynamics too much.[/quote]

    That is thought as Alberts view of a photon also,but wrong! A photon is but a mediator
    of an energy transferfrom an electermagnetic
    field. that field does indeed know where it is going, or it could not get through both
    slits.
    Photons are not like bullets going
    in every direction, as many interpretated
    the photo electric effect.
    Thermal ectromagnetic radiation follows the
    spontanious part of 2LTD in all cases,both
    closed and open.

    • Avatar

      Frank

      |

      Sorry Ewiljan, but even if you look at light as a wave phenomenon, it doesn’t know where it’s going.

      The double-slit experiment works also with acoustic or even ordinary water waves, and those waves certainly don’t know or mind where they are going.

      The interference just happens because the slits act as separate sources which interfere. Huygens found that out already in the middle ages.

      • Avatar

        ewiljan

        |

        [quote name=”Frank”]Sorry Ewiljan, but even if you look at light as a wave phenomenon, it doesn’t know where it’s going.

        The double-slit experiment works also with acoustic or even ordinary water waves, and those waves certainly don’t know or mind where they are going.

        I disagree, The wavefront gets split into two
        separate coherant wavefronts that interfere.
        The field interferance pattern .the energy pattern at the absorber, if there is one, 2LTD.
        then the gauge boson photons meadiate the energy transfered at each point on the absorber.If the absorber is disallowed i.e
        higher temperature,no energy transfer occurs.

    • Avatar

      thefordprefect

      |

      1st part
      I have asked on many threads but never had an answer for my 3 bodyp proble:
      Place 3 (or for that matter 4 equally spaced bodies 1 light second apart in the centre of a 100% reflective evacuated sphere 4 light seconds diameter at -273°C (this of course is not really relevant as 100% reflective sphere will not radiate)

      Each BB radiates in the IR Range
      Each blackbody has an initial temperature that is different to the others.

      The interior of the sphere will contain IR from all BBs being reflected around until absorbed. It will also have all the shorter wavelengths reflecting around, but lets just limit this to just the IR which all the bodies emit.

      slayer theory states that
      “As a corollary, the absorptivity of spontaneous radiation from a cooler source to a warmer
      target must be zero” so this implies:

      Some will not get absorbed because they originate from the coldest body

      Some will get thermalized on the coldest BB but not on the Hottest BB.

      some will get thermalized on warm and cold BBs

      T

      • Avatar

        thefordprefect

        |

        2nd part
        The source of the IR is not known (it has been bouncing around for over 1 second)it cannot be marked (not even by direction!) as originating from cold or hot (we are only looking at the long wave end of the BB radiation – not its peak)
        When it hits any object it would have been in transit for at least 1 second.

        What tags it Cold IR, Warm IR, or Hot IR?
        What physical property of the BB allows each to know the source of the IR and “reflect” or absorb it?

        This should be a simple question to slayers as they understand their own theories.

        Please, slayers, help out by answering how the bodies know to absorb or reflect quanta of IR from a cloud of similar IR originating on different temperatured bodies.

        • Avatar

          Joe Postma

          |

          The spectrum tags the whole bulk of the radiation from the colder source, as the colder source. The radiative transfer is q ~ s(Th^4 – Tc^4) , and so ALL of the cold-sourced photons are accounted for and have the effect that they do. Science FULLY includes ALL of the photons from the cold source by that radiative transfer equation.

          • Avatar

            thefordprefect

            |

            Whay are you taking about!
            In my sphere there is a cloud of radiation from uv to long wave.
            It is a cloud
            It is mixed together there will be Ir from hot mixed with IR from cold There is no (NONE!) tag. there is no standard BB spectrum there are just different levels wavelength. Possibly more IR than visible

            What is the magic that can cause some to be resonantly scattered as douglas cotton claims and some to be thermalised?

            You claim that all of the cold sourced photons are accounted for – but how? They are resonanly scattered by all otherbodies.
            Will the sphere eventually fill with cold photons with nowhere to go?

  • Avatar

    Frank

    |

    About the statement: “Heat always moves from a warmer place to a cooler place”.

    For radiation, a molecule in an object sends out a photon unknowing whether it is towards a colder object or a warmer object. The receiving object receives that photon and gets an increase in energy, irrespective of whether it’s from a warmer or a colder object. So at least during the time of a single photon transfer, the theory is not true.

    But also during longer times, the theory can be falsified. Take for instance an infrared laser diode. It will transfer radiative heat to any object, cooler or warmer than itself.

    I’m not saying that your radiative model is wrong, I just don’t think you should hold on to your shortened version of Clausius’ formulation of the 2nd law of thermodynamics too much.

    • Avatar

      Greg House

      |

      [quote name=”Frank”]The receiving object receives that photon and gets an increase in energy, irrespective of whether it’s from a warmer or a colder object.[/quote]

      The notion of a photon is simply a reflection of the fact that the notion of waves can not explain some properties of light.

      If someone claims that “photons” have certain physical properties, they need to prove it. You can not derive physical properties and effects of radiation simply from the term “photon”. Being a countable noun, the term photon suggests something, right, and is therefore a little bit misleading. Some people even portray radiation as a bunch of balls etc, this is not science.

      So, the right question would be, if the radiation from cold can supply warm with energy, and the answer is no, because it would otherwise lead to an endless mutual warming if the warm object were initially at a stable temperature, which is absurd.

      • Avatar

        Frank

        |

        I’m going to assume here that you aren’t also questioning the entire body of literature and experimental data that supports quantum mechanics, so I’ll just respond to the last paragraph.

        My answer to your last question is “yes, under certain conditions that promote energy transfer in that direction”. So, if for some reason the warmer object cannot return the energy, it basically gets heated by the colder object.

        It would not necessarily lead to endless mutual warming — the colder object still loses the energy that it gives to the warmer object, so energy is conserved.

        Here’s a thought experiment: set up two black bodies side-by-side, properly isolated except for radiative energy transfer between them, one at T1 = 75 deg C, one at T2 = 100 deg C. Put a one-way mirror between them, so that IR radiation can only pass from the colder to the warmer object. My prediction is that the cool-down trajectory of T2 in the presence of the colder object is slower from that in absence of the colder object, because the warmer object absorbs energy from the colder, but cannot send any energy back.

        Note that in this experiment, there is no energy source, as with the two recent experiments on WUWT (which I think are flawed by this very fact).

        • Avatar

          thefordprefect

          |

          Frank 2013-06-07 04:34

          I have done a test using 2 different temperatured objects. Both with no energy source input.

          Compared to roomtemperature an object cooler than the hot object but hotter than room temperature when placed a distance away from the hot object slowed the cooling of the hot oject.

          http://www.climateandstuff.blogspot.co.uk/2013/03/a-cool-object-reduces-energy-loss-from.html

          There are other experiments using constant power into a hot and warm objec and a roomtemperature object (uncooled/heated). All show that a warm object will allow a hot object to maintain a higher temperature than if facing a cool object. This shows a transfer from warm to hot.

          • Avatar

            Frank

            |

            @thefordprefect:

            Nicely documented experiment! I would like to hear the authors comment on this.

            I do still think that active heating of one of the objects confounds the picture. You never know what part of the behaviour is due to the thermostat. Could you repeat your experiment and just switch off the power at some point?

            Thanks!

          • Avatar

            Frank

            |

            Nice! Wish I’d seen this earlier.

          • Avatar

            ewiljan

            |

            [quote name=”thefordprefect”]Frank 2013-06-07 04:34

            I have done a test using 2 different temperatured objects. Both with no energy source input.

            Compared to roomtemperature an object cooler than the hot object but hotter than room temperature when placed a distance away from the hot object slowed the cooling of the hot oject.

            http://www.climateandstuff.blogspot.co.uk/2013/03/a-cool-object-reduces-energy-loss-from.html

            There are other experiments using constant power into a hot and warm objec and a roomtemperature object (uncooled/heated). All show that a warm object will allow a hot object to maintain a higher temperature than if facing a cool object. This shows a transfer from warm to hot.[/quote]

            Both wrong conclusion in both cases.
            You have in both cases three objects
            Anything that interferes with radiative heat transfer must cause a lowering of that transfer.
            If the “thing” interfering, has no power and no thermal mass, it immediately assumes a
            temperature that will radiate any absorbed energy “to” a diffrent but colder object.
            No back radiation is ever required, and none
            occurs.

        • Avatar

          Greg House

          |

          [quote name=”Frank”]My answer to your last question is “yes, under certain conditions that promote energy transfer in that direction”.
          …Here’s a thought experiment… Note that in this experiment…[/quote]

          Yeah, this is a nice example of tautology. If X is possible, then X is possible. Congratulations, you are a great thinker.

          Your “thought experiment” is not real, it is not an experiment, it is a fictional story. In fictional stories anything is “fictionally possible”, right.

          • Avatar

            Frank

            |

            Not a tautology. Your question is, “if the radiation from cold can supply warm with energy”. I say, “yes, under certain conditions […]”.

            I also don’t see how an experiment that turns out was actually done by thefordprefect can be fictional.

            Anyway, welcome to my troll list.

            To all the other Principia folks: I had hoped the discussion on this site was a bit more intelligent, with people with open minds, but I’m a bit underwhelmed at the moment.

      • Avatar

        Frank

        |

        For completeness, I’ll add that I expect a cool-down trajectory because of non-ideal conditions. Even in a highly reflective box around the two objects with high vacuum, some energy is still going to leak out.

  • Avatar

    John Marshall

    |

    i think the GHE theory is debunked from first principles let alone violating the 2nd law of thermodynamics.
    Insolation reacts with the IR sensitive molecules (GHG’s)and they adsorb the SIR and emit the LIR. At least 50% of this emitted LIR finds its way to the surface to add to the heating effect. Radiated IR is the same frequency as that emitted by the already energy saturated GHG’s so it cannot be readsorbed and back-radiated since it is within the emitted spectra. Also when the LIR, emitted through insolation adsorption, is measured at the surface it is this that is claimed by the warmists as proof of backradiated energy creating the GHE.

  • Avatar

    Kevin

    |

    I’m still catching up. I watched Anthony’s experiment. The thermometer rose in temperature. What got heated if not the light bulb? The air around the light bulb? Is that air around the light bulb similar to atmosphere? What am I missing?

    • Avatar

      Joseph E Postma

      |

      What is missing is a scientific analysis of what actually happened and how it relates to the greenhouse effect. Such will be forthcoming soon.

      • Avatar

        Kevin

        |

        ok, thanks. Will wait to read. At this point, I’m thinking convection happened in Anthony’s experiment and not radiation.

        • Avatar

          Joseph E Postma

          |

          There is that…convection. But there is more, too. It is surprisingly simple once you apply the basic physics to it.

          • Avatar

            Kevin

            |

            Cool. Look forward to the response.

  • Avatar

    DougCotton

    |

    There is far more than just a “doubling” for Venus. It has been estimated from actual measurements that only about 10W/m^2 of incident Solar radiation makes it through to the surface of Venus. Yet the SBL value for the observed 730K temperature on the Venus surface (also measured by probes sitting on that surface) would be about 16,100W/m^2. So how does that 10 become 16,1000 which is far more than enters the top of the atmosphere?

    [b]Can you adapt your model please (any PSI member) to show the energy transfers on Venus and why and how sufficient energy gets into the surface of Venus in order to maintain such temperatures?[/b] I await with interest – approximate figures will do, as I cannot see for the life of me how that energy could get there by radiation alone.

    • Avatar

      ewiljan

      |

      On Venus all temperature increase below
      what radiates back to space is adaiabatic
      compression no more heat is requiredfor an increase in temperature.
      Even when the CO2 turns to a supercritical
      fluid. it is a compressable fluid.

  • Avatar

    Sunsettommy

    |

    It is amusing that Anthony and a few others at his blog complained about not being able to comment on the articles HERE but after 5 days or so they don’t appear to want to comment here anyway.

    I posted TWO comments at Anthony’s blog in the relevant atricles announcing the comments being turned on so they have no excuse.

  • Avatar

    Sunsettommy

    |

    I have used the bathtub water analogy to point out the obvious that adding cooler water to very warm water does not warm up the water but cools it down some.

    Here is what I posted at facebook:

    “Then if I add some cold water to warm water in the bathtub it will get a little warmer?”

    Yet I get this in reply:

    “Don’t be silly. You know the argument being made here.

    According to your argument the temp of the water poured into the tub is irrelevant. Doesn’t work that way.”

    I earlier stated: “So you would say a 40 degree object can warm a 50 degree object?”

    His reply was: “Yes. It did. And again, I think the real issue is garbled phrasing.”

    Then I bring up the tub water that he garbles.

    Ha ha ha…

    • Avatar

      Greg House

      |

      This is a good one, in case you missed it: [i]”It the case of conduction, you can test that by touching the handle of a hot frying pan. No magic, no math. If you touch it quickly, it is not too hot. (Well, not right next to the pan, of course!) But if you grab it, the temperature will increase until it burns you. Thereby proving that something cold (your hand) can make something hotter. It really is that simple.”[/i] (http://climateofsophistry.com/2013/05/27/the-fraud-of-the-aghe-part-12-how-to-lie-with-math/#comment-2332)

    • Avatar

      Greg House

      |

      Yes, I can explain it.

      I am sure your new “test” is fake, like all the other “experiments” “proving” back radiation warming we have seen before, the last two from Watts and another warmist published on WUWT recently.

      • Avatar

        thefordprefect

        |

        Greg
        The file contains 65000 seconds of data on 6 channels of temperature. You are welcome to have a copy. I certainly have not faked any data and the setup is as shown. By all means criticise the methodology and if time I will repeat the tests to your satisfaction. Or better still try it yourself!

  • Avatar

    Roger Clague

    |

    You quote Watts

    [i]”a greenhouse atmosphere has higher temperatures near the surface, but lower temperatures at high altitudes”[/i]

    It is interesting that he includes this. His post is about reflection towards a the light-bulb. A test of a basic physics claim about radiating surfaces. This an observation of vertically varying temperatures in a real atmosphere. The lapse rate. Not at all similar. Why?

    The same move from back-radiation to lapse rate to explain the earth’s surface temperature has been made by Lindzen.

    In 1990 he talks of downward IR supplementing sunlight. This based on Houghton (1977). Lapse rate is not mentioned

    http://www-eaps.mit.edu/faculty/lindzen/cooglobwrm.pdf

    In 2001 he has the 240Wm-2 doubling to 480Wm-2. but also he moves half way to discussing a diagram of T against height ( and pressure , the lapse rate

    http://www-eaps.mit.edu/faculty/lindzen/198_greenhouse.pdf

    In 2007 he dismisses a diagram containing downward IR and immediately discusses a diagram of the vertical profile, the lapse rate.

    www-eaps.mit.edu/faculty/lindzen/230_TakingGr.pdf

    Watts will also move to a lapse rate explanation. However wants it to be a greenhouse lapse rate in his greenhouse atmosphere.

    • Avatar

      josullivan

      |

      Roger, superb points there. What you show is that these so called experts can’t get their story straight. Lindzen et al. are shown to purloin any other natural phenomenon and pretend that is the GHE. This proves that we may likely only need those other phenomena and should seek to apply Occam’s Razor to dispense with the superfluous notion of a GHE on any aspect where it fails to stand as a distinct and separately proven (ie measurable)element in the process.

  • Avatar

    Squid2112

    |

    @Rosco

    To your point about “When a photon is emitted the energy state decreases”. One thing I don’t believe I have seen mentioned by GHE believers, and don’t quite understand. If LWR is to leave the surface and back-radiate from GHG’s, and then warm the surface again, even if (and this is purely hypothetical as I don’t believe it can be done) a cooler object (atmosphere) could indeed warm a warmer object (surface), then this is still a net negative.

    Let me explain. Firstly, the energy emitted from the surface acted to “cool” the surface by a certain amount. The back-radiated heat at the very most could only equal what was originally lost anyway, so at best you would be back to a zero sum game, and this is assuming perfect efficiency (no lost energy). So, you still did not actually “heat” anything. Even if you subscribe to this back-radiation heating the surface hypothesis, it is still broken on extremely simple grounds. In no way could the surface ever be heated by the atmosphere to a higher temperature that it already was. Forget about all of the fancy physics (Laws of Thermo) for a second. This is 1st grade math! And “cooling slower” does NOT constitute heating.

    My advice to the folks here at PSI, and you have been doing a grand job of this so far, would be KISS (Keep It Simple Stupid), because the very simplest of terms is what empirically proves, beyond doubt, that the GHE is bogus and cannot exist within this universe.

    • Avatar

      josullivan

      |

      Squid, well said. Thanks!

  • Avatar

    Rosco

    |

    There are 2 things I never see accounted for by advocates of greenhouse theory.

    First is mass. Radiation is emitted by objects that have mass and temperature.

    It does not simply spontaneously generate.

    The problem for energy “doubling” caused by atmospheric gases is mass.

    A cubic metre of ground and water surfaces a few mm thick have a density at least a thousand times higher than the atmospheric layers.

    The second fact that seems ignored is that energy is lost when a photon is emitted.

    It is theorised that absorbed energy causes electrons in atoms to change to a higher energy orbit and cause bond “stress” in molecules. When a photon is emitted the energy state decreases – i.e. the object cools a little.

    The belief that gases with low mass density – let alone the trace gases we are talking about where there less than 50 grams of them per cubic metre – at proven low temperatures can supply more energy is W/square metre than the Sun …

    Well words fail me.

    I can pull white rabbits out of my hat – “one pill makes you large and one pill makes you small but the one that mother gives don’t do anything at all Go ask Alice when she’s ten feet tall”

    Yeah, you guessed it – fairy tale stuff.

  • Avatar

    Joseph E Postma

    |

    “[Slayers] tend to ignore real world measurements”

    LOL, like ignoring the real world data which proves there is no GHE, despite THEIR sciencey-sounding flat-earth beliefs…

Comments are closed