Earth cannot heat itself by it’s own radiation

Written by Brendan Godwin

“Heat is work, and work is heat” and “Heat, of itself, cannot pass from one body to a hotter body” are statements of the First and Second Laws of Thermodynamics.

In short, Earth cannot heat itself by it’s own radiation and the greenhouse gas theory is an abuse of the above scientific laws.

An excellent short video explains the importance of these simple and utterly invoilable statements which are daggers in the heart of the greenhouse gas ‘sky dragon.’

Very aptly explained in this youtube video – an amusing short song by Flanders and Swann:

That’s the First and Second Laws of Thermodynamics!” Lyrics licensed and provided by LyricFind.

The climate alarmist’s claim is that visible radiation hits the Earth’s surface and heats the Earth. The Earth re-emits longwave IR radiation.

Radiatively Active Gases (RAGs) absorb some of this IR radiation and re-emit it in all directions. Some of it comes back down and hits the Earth. The alarmists claim that this back radiation further warms the Earth. They claim the RAGs trap the heat. They misleadingly call it the ‘greenhouse effect’.

But we’ve all known since 1909 that greenhouses don’t work that way, they work by the glass blocking convection.  So the greenhouse effect is more fittingly called Adiabatic Thermal Enhancement or ATE.

But this back radiation is the Earth’s radiation that went up into the upper atmosphere and was absorbed and remitted back by the RAGs. We’ve now had it quite clearly explained that the Earth cannot heat itself by it’s own radiation.

And that slowing the cooling of Earth does not cause heating.


PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL, legally registered in the UK as a company incorporated for charitable purposes. Head Office: 27 Old Gloucester Street, London WC1N 3AX. Telephone: Calls from within the UK: 020 7419 5027. International dialling: (44) 20 7419 5027. 

Please DONATE TODAY To Help Our Non-Profit Mission To Defend The Scientific Method.

Comments (68)

  • Avatar

    rod

    |

    The lawsuits against the ‘warmers’ and ‘changers’ need to begin soon. Even though CO2 has minimal to negligible impact on climate, once things go more seriously south on thermometers, the alarmists, who perhaps soon after will have realized that CO2 is a gas used in refrigeration, will be jumping up and down on screamers to stop the West’s production of ‘fossil fuel’ CO2 because they FEEL it’s producing Global Cooling. Their ability to go from warming to cooling at the flip of a switch won’t matter to the gullible.

    It will be much easier for the world to deal with the deadly threat from global cooling once the dragon of CO2 insanity is slain.

    • Avatar

      Squidly

      |

      “Even though CO2 has NO impact on climate”

      There, I have fixed it for you, correctly.

  • Avatar

    Peter F Gill

    |

    I think that you will find that IPCC repealed the First and Second Laws many years ago.

  • Avatar

    John Harrison

    |

    The claim by alarmists has always just been that the presence of “RAGs” simply slow down the rate of heat transfer into space all else being equal. Their climate science is unbelievably poor in many respects but in this they may possibly be correct. However, you seem to consider the scientists involved as complete idiot’s who know nothing about how a greenhouse functions and have no basic knowledge of the laws of thermodynamics which is undoubtedly an unwise error of judgement on your part. What you need to consider is what may be the implications of any reduction in the proposed rate of heat transfer and the likely magnitude of such an effect. The effect may be time dependent in that at the end of some relevant period of time the surface temperature would be higher if the cooling were slower. This is not a physical warming of the surface and therefore involves no contravention of any of the laws of thermodynamics. I am surprised that you would think otherwise. You are arguing against your interpretation of what alarmists are saying instead of what they are actually proposing (the “warmer than it would otherwise be” hypothesis); to do so is just a waste of time and effort and is not making a useful contribution. It is unwise to deliberately underestimate your opponents in this manner.

    • Avatar

      Geraint Hughes

      |

      “warmer than it would otherwise be” is a complete nonsesnse. An emissive gas, emits out more heat into space than a non-emissive gas. Therefore transferring heat to that gas, increases the rate of heat loss into space and therefore can only result in cooler conditions. Reflected IR has no heat increasing effects, if the intensity of radiation is less than that of the heat source. I.e. If ground is 30 Degrees and air is -50, no warming to the surface from any IR emitted by the air occurs. For quick simple proof see this video. CO2 has no heating effect on the light.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FgjT_665T6U. For more proof, read up on light emitters and parabolic reflectors, if you use parabolic reflectors to re-send ALL energy back to the light filament, its temperature does not rise. But if you switch if off, it goes dark instantly just as without the reflectors.

      • Avatar

        John Harrison

        |

        Geraint. I have to disagree. You are not countering the alarmists hypothesis only your own interpretation of it. Please read my reply to Geran to see why I think this.

        • Avatar

          Geraint Hughes

          |

          You either cant read or are deliberately confusing things, like all warmists. “An emissive gas, emits out more heat into space than a non-emissive gas.” This is proven fact. If you want to know more about this and how this works read this, I have published many other articles which elaborate on this. https://principia-scientific.org/flat-plate-in-space-is-warmer-than-a-flat-plate-with-a-greenhouse-connected/ Anyone who thinks a gas which increases the rate of heat loss from the atmosphere can cause a warming is a fool.

          • Avatar

            John Harrison

            |

            Geraint. Again you are, deliberately perhaps, placing your own interpretation of what I have been saying. I am a skeptic to the core but there is is no thermodymic argument against back-radiation causing a reduction in cooling rates. It is feasible and therefore will happen to a greater or lesser degree. However, in the light of so many other greatly significant causes of global warming or cooling it can be easily shown that the “greenhouse” effect of CO2 is irrelevant so you should concentrate on that.

          • Avatar

            Squidly

            |

            John,

            “.. back-radiation causing a reduction in cooling rates.”

            I hate to break it to you, but “reduction in cooling” is not “increased heat” since “heat” cannot pile!

            And incidentally, “heat” is not a thing! .. you cannot “trap” heat, you cannot “pile” heat. “Heat” is not a “thing”, it is in fact a “result”. Furthermore, so called “back-radiation” cannot “slow cooling” either! … please show us how “back radiation” from the same object can slow the cooling of that object! … in other words, the surface, which is the actual source of the IR and thus in turn has to be the source of the “back radiation” would have to be able to slow the cooling of the object from which it came.

            This is just more sophistry and not possible in this universe. If this were possible, then what could possibly stop that same surface from increasing in energy? .. nothing .. but we know for FACT that this is IMPOSSIBLE! … for an object cannot, on any terms, increase its own energy! (ie: cannot heat itself!)

    • Avatar

      Chris Marcil

      |

      Almost all of the heat that the earth loses is due to thermal conduction called convection. Very little heat is lost through radiative processes. The earth isn’t reflective. It absorbs heat energy and emits its own based on its temp. So any light that would be blocked going one way is also blocked going the other. So then CO2 would be blocking heat from the sun as well as the earth. But the amount is miniscule either way. Any “trapping” of heat doesn’t result in a higher temp unless more heat is added to the system. In a greenhouse there isn’t any convective heat loss so the temp in there is the temp that the earth would be at if convection did not exist in the atmosphere. The further up one goes into the atmosphere the colder it gets. But this also gets us back to another alarmist error, the earth is round not flat. As heat is added on one side it is depleted on the other. The heat transfer by convection will move around the earth. Little is lost as IR light. Here is a simple experiment. At sunset go outside and touch the ground. It will be colder than a south facing wall. The reason is that the heat absorbed by concrete and materials like it absorbs and maintains much more heat than does CO2. Those are more likely a candidate for causing global warming.

  • Avatar

    geran

    |

    John Harrison, you have been misinformed. The Alarmists claim that CO2 will RAISE Earth’s temperature. They even have a term for the false concept–“climate forcing”.

    You’re trying to somehow defend the indefensible.

    • Avatar

      John Harrison

      |

      Geran. All that alarmists claim is that that absorbtion of “reflected” LWIR from “RAGs” by the surface will reduce the rate at which it cools which indeed it will but the magnitude of this effect and its implications should be questioned. You must be clear that what alarmists hypothesise is NOT that the surface temperature is not being raised by absorbtion of the reflected LWIR because they are fully aware that the rate of emission of LWIR at the surface is greater than the rate of absorbtion. What matters is the magnitude of the reduction in cooling rate; forcing is simply a measure of this magnitude and is nothing to do with the back radiation from a cold atmosphere directly raising the temperature of a warmer surface as everybody knows, even the dimmest of climate scientists, knows that this would contravene the Laws of Thermodymics. You seem, therefore, to be preaching to the converted.

      • Avatar

        geran

        |

        The IPPC/AGW/CO2/GHE is clearly about heating the surface, both land and ocean. The Warmists have been trying to sell that for years. They are that dim.

        • Avatar

          John Harrison

          |

          Geran. We are arguing semantics here as to what constitutes warming. If a lag is introduced into the cooling of a surface which is being heated intermittently (by the Sun?) and this lag is significant then within certain time scales the minimum temperature achieved by the surface will be raised. This is not warming in the true sense but is a misnomer; a bit like “greenhouse gases”

          • Avatar

            Geran

            |

            No Harrixaon, we are not arguing semantics. I am telling it like it is, and you are trying to twist reality. “Warming” means an “increase in temperatures”. Atmospheric CO2 can NOT raise Earth’s temperatures.

          • Avatar

            geran

            |

            “Harrison”

          • Avatar

            Geraint Hughes

            |

            Harrison, I want you to explain how increasing the rate of heat loss from an atmosphere can cause warming. How many loops of the loop will you perform in doing this?

          • Avatar

            John Harrison

            |

            Geraint. You are again putting your own interpretation on my explanation. The absorbtion of back radiation by the Earth’s surface merely reduces its cooling rate. The consequences of such an effect are therefore time dependent. Two surfaces one hot one cold LWIR passes both ways between them both absorb some of the incident radiation. Net flow of energy hot to cold, hot surface cools until incident equal to emitted. Same experiment but raising the temperature of the cold surface slightly. Hot surface receives and absorbs more radiation and cools more slowly and eventually approaches a higher equilibrium temperature. Has raising the temperature of the cold surface warmed the hot surface? Obviously not, the hot plate just finishes at a higher temperature than before. Similarly more CO2 radiating more LWIR towards the Earth’s surface will make the surface “warmer that it otherwise would have been” all other factors being equal. However all other factors, as you know, are not equal and the magnitude of this effect is very likely approaching zero.

          • Avatar

            geran

            |

            “Hot surface receives and absorbs more radiation and cools more slowly and eventually approaches a higher equilibrium temperature.

            There, John Harrison falls on his face. His trick fails as he gets caught violating the laws of thermodynamics.

            Typical Lukewarmer.

        • Avatar

          John Harrison

          |

          Geran. Beware of deliberately underestimating your opposition. Some alarmists are indeed uninformed but many are very clever and some of those are quite devious. This combination is quite formidable and not to be dismissed lightly or easily.

          • Avatar

            geran

            |

            Don’t fret. I’m used to all the tricks.

    • Avatar

      John Harrison

      |

      Sorry Geran. One too many NOTs there. The double negative there kind of makes a difference. My post should read, of course, is “what alarmists hypothesise is NOT that the surface temperature is being raised by absorbtion of the reflected LWIR” I must take greater care in proof reading.

  • Avatar

    T L Winslow

    |

    The title should be Earth Cannot Heat Itself By Its Own Radiation.

    An entire generation of so-called climate scientists should demand a refund of their tuition and retrain for a useful career.

    How clear can we real physicists make it that the CO2 Greenhouse Warming Theory is moose hockey?

    http://www.historyscoper.com/climatetlw.html

  • Avatar

    Ross

    |

    Hi, I am a non-scientist and perhaps i will never understand but i would love for someone to counter John Harrison’s comment above. Or the following one which was a “believers” attempt to explain to me how it works.

    During the day the Sun’s radiation hits Point X on the earth and warms it to the ‘normal’ temp. The earth rotates and during the night Point X sends some of this radiation back in to the universe through the night sky. Point X then starts the next day at a certain temperature. If however some of the radiation is sent back down to Point X because it bounces of CO2, during the night, then it will not cool down as much as it otherwise would of and therefore point X starts the day at a higher temperature. The next day’s sun will then heat it up to a higher level then previously as the starting temp was higher than previous. and hey presto global warming.

    This is a straw man… As i said i am not a scientist but would love to understand why the above is wrong. I hope that at least some one will understand the gist of the above and explain it all. Thanks, Ross.

    • Avatar

      John Harrison

      |

      Ross. The truth is that yes back radiation can and will occur due principally to CO2 and water vapour molecules re-radiating LWIR and when, not if, some of this is absorbed by the Earth’s surface its rate of cooling must and will be reduced. All arguments about this contravening the Laws of Thermodymics are just plain wrong and a distraction from what should be the main thrusts. The various hypotheses of climate alarmists and their abysmal conduct of science can easily be totally ripped apart but not by these silly arguments which are a complete and utter waste of time and effort. Climate Alarmism cannot so easily dismissed, as some of these contributors seem to believe, by waving the magic wand of Laws of Thermodymics which some seem to believe must be a totally new concept for all climate scientists (admittedly it is for a fair few of them). Sorry to be so blunt. PSI on the whole, however, is an excellent source of useful information. Keep on reading.

      • Avatar

        geran

        |

        John Harrison says “… CO2 and water vapour molecules re-radiating LWIR and when, not if, some of this is absorbed by the Earth’s surface…”

        John, it should be “…IF some of this is absorbed by the Earth’s surface…”

        • Avatar

          John Harrison

          |

          Geran. The surface of the Earth constitutes a grey body not a white body and therefore, by definition, must absorb some of the incident IR emitted by CO2. The question which you should be asking is will this have a catastrophic effect on global temperatures. We know the answer to this but the dragon slayers keep banging on about thermodynamic impossibility but that would only apply to their (deliberate?) misinterpretation of the hypothesis and this is not helpful; quite the contrary.

          • Avatar

            geran

            |

            “…by definition, must absorb some of the incident IR emitted by CO2.”

            Sorry Harrison, you do not get to “define” a new reality. Photon absorption is based on wavelengths, NOT definitions.

      • Avatar

        John O'Sullivan

        |

        The myth that ‘back radiation’ can be thermalized and somehow warm a surface further or delay cooling is as absurd as claiming ‘back convection’ or ‘back conduction’ also offer an added temperature effect. No one in their right mind claims photons bouncing back and forth during conduction/convection get more than one shot at thermalization (heating or cooling). Everyone knows such a claim would be nonsense. But somehow lukewarmers and alarmists refuse to apply joined up thinking when it comes to radiation. They don’t understand that energy flow is ALWAYS a one way sum. ALWAYS from hot to cold. Photons returning to a surface are simply reflected or scattered.

        • Avatar

          John Harrison

          |

          John. Did you deliberately and misleadingly omit the word “NET” in your comments? There is the world of difference between energy transfer and net energy transfer. The latter implies, correctly that energy transfer occurs simultaneously in both directions between any two bodies above provided both have temperatures above absolute zero. In the case of transfer of LWIR, provided that neither are white bodies then some of the incident radiation on either body will be absorbed, no matter what the temperature of the source. The energy absorbed may, in part, be converted into internal energy or kinetic energy (thermalisation) or both. Considering two closely adjacent similar surfaces at different temperatures. LWIR will flow in both directions simultaneously but the net flow of energy will be from high temperature to low. If the temperature of the cold surface is kept constant the hot surface will cool at a rate determined by the the intensity of the LWIR it is absorbing from the emissions of the cold surface, ie. in this case the temperature difference. The temperature of the hotter surface slows further as equilibrium is approached and the two surfaces are emitting and absorbing at equal rates. Increasing the temperature of the colder surface increases the intensity of LWIR incident on and therefore absorbed by the hotter surface. The cooling rate will now be slower and the equilibrium temperature higher. Now, extending this principle to the proposed influence of GHGs, say CO2, in the atmosphere. If they emit LWIR towards the Earth’s cooling surface then its cooling rate will be reduced from what it would otherwise be and, time scales permitting, the equilibrium temperature will be higher. Increasing CO2 concentration intensifies this effect.

          • Avatar

            jerry krause

            |

            Hi John and John,

            “Intuitive knowledge keeps pace with accurate definition.” (Elezvirs, Dialogues Concerning Two New Science).

            In your discussions you both have not referred the existence of the matter (soil or water {liquid or solid}) beneath the earth’s absorbing-emitting surface. This matter beneath has a density, a temperature, a heat capacity, and a thermal conductivity. Hence, you both have failed to accurately define the physical system involved in whatever thermal radiative equilibrium which does, or does not, exist.

            It seems to me that a question which needs to be answered and agreed upon is: How long does it take for a thermal radiative equilibrium to be established at this surface between the atmosphere above it and the matter (whatever it be) below it? My answer, based upon the accepted speed of radiation, is: Not long!

            To simplify the system I assume it is nighttime so there is no solar radiation involved in the system I have defined. And to further simplify this system I assume that the atmosphere is calm (which does not imply the atmospheric molecules do not have an average kinetic energy motion which related to the atmosphere’s temperature near the surface). And I review that it has been observed that ‘calm ‘ air is a good insulator so that the conduction of energy through the atmosphere is ‘slow’. Hence, if the surface cools, during the nighttime, as it is commonly observed to do when the atmosphere is cloudless (another accurate condition about our system which must be defined).

            To further simplify my system I assume the matter beneath the surface is soil composed of mineral particles whose vapor pressure is assumed to be zero and water particles whose vapor pressure depends upon the particle’s temperature. The mineral particles are assumed to be immobile and have small points of contact with each other through which a small amount of energy can be conducted if there exists a temperature gradient which we know (agree, I hope) is necessary if there is to be any possible net transfer of energy from one point to another.

            Now the critical part of this accurate definition of our system is not an assumption. It is that it is observed that at some time during the nighttime (or maybe even before sunset) there develops a temperature gradient (cooler next to the surface) and (warmer a little further from the surface).

            And it is commonly observed (if one does observe) that during the nighttime the ‘thickness’ of this temperature gradient increases as the upper layers cool faster than the lower layers.

            Now, I ask: Intuitively, what do you conclude limits the cooling of the surface, the emission of radiation (energy) from the surface or the conduction of energy from the warmer depths beneath the surface?

            Oh, I almost forgot another common observation of this accurately defined system which does include the atmosphere. This critically important observation is that temperature gradient forms in the atmosphere where cooler temperatures are just above the surface and gradually warm to greater temperatures with increasing height above the surface; often, it not always, to heights of hundreds of meters.

            Just a serious attempt to accurately define a nature system. Maybe a few errors but I observe that some enjoy pointing out the errors of others. So any errors are there to possibly entertain such readers.

            Have a good day, Jerry

          • Avatar

            John Harrison

            |

            Jerry. That’s quite some detailed and impressive analysis. Much of which I am sure we are in agreement. However, in my very simple analysis I was confining myself to explaining how, in theory, “back-radiation” from any “GHG” is able to reduce the rate of cooling of surface molecules without contravening any of the laws of tbermodynics. Do I claim that CO2 in the atmosphere can have any significant effect on global temperatures? Absolutely not. I just cannot understand why, in itself, such a simple hypothesis which to my mind is self-evidently feasible, should be the focus of some quite accomplished scientists desperate to prove that the process is thermodynamically impossible. That alarmists claim that CO2 can cause CAGW, now that is what I call an impossibility. It may have some effect which is barely discernable but I am lacking the necessary expertise to confirm or deny. The effect of water vapour, however, may be measurable especially given its broader absorption spectrum, greater concentration and the release of massive amounts of latent heat as it condenses, particularly at cloud bases. I despair at the abysmally poor quality of science being conducted by supposed experts in climate science but neither am I particularly impressed when I read so many posts on PSI which continually claim that they have the proof that the GHG effect is thermodynamic nonsense. This “proof” seems to be founded on a belief that LWIR emitted by a cool body cannot be absorbed by a warmer body, that to do so would mean the temperature of the warmer body would be raised. The idea that such a process merely causes a reduction the cooling rate of the warmer body seems so scary that it has to be dismissed immediately and roundly derided. Not a good reflection on the behaviour of we skeptics when we accuse alarmists of behaving in this manner.

          • Avatar

            jerry krause

            |

            Hi John,

            Thank you for your reply. Because of it I see I made a fundamental mistake. Which was I did not call attention to any actually observed data. So I now suggest you look at https://principia-scientific.org/the-corvallis-or-uscrn-site-a-natural-laboratory/ in general and specifically at Figure 5 which shows the measured soil temperature diurnal oscillations at 5 soil depths (5, 10, 20, 50, and 100cm for five consecutive 24hr days.

            I am an experimentalist so I try to understand (explain) the soil temperatures oscillations seen in Figure 5. For these temperature oscillations are facts which have occurred and these observation do not cease to exist even if I cannot explain their existences.

            I am not a theorist who only begins with an idea and tries find from that idea what else we might find, which by rational reasoning (logic) suggests might be observed if we make the right experiment whose factual result supports the predicted result but does not prove the idea to be true. For there could be a clearly different idea whose rational analysis predicted the same result

            Or as Einstein reportedly stated: “No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right, a single experiment can prove me wrong.” So, my explanation of the observed soil temperature oscillations are not the absolute truth. And if you agree that my reasoning does seem to explain the data, is does not make my explains any more valid than they were before you agreed with my analysis.

            And until anyone introduces an explanation of these observed soil temperature oscillations which includes a required consideration of the existence of atmospheric carbon dioxide, I will continue to consider that it has no direct influence on the temperature of anything.

            For I consider the observed soul temperature oscillations are observed evidence that the only thing limiting the emission of radiation (energy) from the soil surface, and its transmission through the atmosphere, to space, is the the conduction of energy, from the soll depths, to the surface through the soil between a given depth and the surface.

            Have a good day, Jerry

            .

  • Avatar

    Alder

    |

    Ross, the analysis (from a believer) is correct, but incomplete.
    If, there is a layer in the atmosphere that reflects radiation, then
    during the day it will not allow as much radiation to pass to the surface.

    Now, the believers say the layer allows only one-way traffic, it passes high frequency radiation but absorbs lower frequency radiation, energy absorbed is radiated out in all directions. This characteristic of CO2 etc was proposed (by that Swedish scientist)~100 years ago. I may stand corrected by stating that there is some evidence from theory and lab experiments this is correct, but there is no evidence of the effect existing on a global scale. See the ‘missing hot spot’.

    Then, there are the laws of thermodynamics, but these apply to heat. It is relevant to ask, Is radiation the same as, or directly related to heat?

    Comment on the article:
    It’s = It is
    Its = is the possessive form for ‘it’

    • Avatar

      John Harrison

      |

      Alder. Yes, the Laws ot Thermodynamics will apply to the energy transferred by radiation but what many fail to realise is that the NET flow of energy is what must be considered. Some LWIR photons can and will travel from the cold atmosphere to the warmer surface of the Earth where some of them must and will be absorbed. The absorbed photons will not raise the temperature of the surface as it will be emitting photons at a greater rate than it is absorbing because of its higher temperature. The net flow of energy therefore is always from regions of higher temperature to regions of lower temperature. Many seem to believe that LWIR photons from a cold surface cannot be absorbed by a warmer surface but this is simply not the case. Many such photons cannot be absorbed by the warmer surface but some, maybe not many, certainly will given that there will be virtually an infinite number of energy levels among the virtually infinite number of surface atoms.

      • Avatar

        geran

        |

        There’s a lot of wishful thinking there.

        There is NO “must” associated with a warm surface absorbing photons from a colder source. Photons get reflected all the time, expecially ones with very long wavelengths.

        • Avatar

          John Harrison

          |

          Geran. The Earth is not a white body therefore it must and will absorb some of the incident radiation. There is no such thing as a white body in nature. It is only the magnitude of the effect of this absorption and consequent hypotheses that alarmists have exaggerated out of all proportion taking little or no account of other natural factors.

          • Avatar

            Geran

            |

            “The Earth is not a white body therefore it must and will absorb some of the incident radiation.”

            Your “must and will absorb” makes your sentence incorrect. A surface only absorbs certain wavelengths, based on its molecular structure and temperature. By continuing to ignore the rules of photon absorption, you just keep making the same mistakes.

  • Avatar

    Herb Rose

    |

    The mistake of the believers is the belief that the sun is not heating the Earth’s atmosphere because the primary gases are transparent to infrared radiation. I have a house that is full of oxygen and nitrogen. The house is heated through a hot water radiator system where heat is transferred to the air in the house and despite what the believers say the house is warm.
    An object above the atmosphere will be heated to 250 F while the same object on the surface will be heated to 50 F. The missing heat is energy absorbed by the atmosphere, it doesn’t just disappear, and is the majority (80%) of the energy absorbed from the sun.
    People cannot comprehend that a thermometer does not give an accurate measurement of the kinetic energy of a gas. The universal gas law clearly states that the density of a gas is inversely proportional to the kinetic energy of the gas molecules. Hot air rises cold air sinks. The greater the altitude the less dense the atmosphere = the greater the kinetic energy of the gas molecules. There is a choice of believing that the universal gas law is incorrect and the thermometer is accurate or that the gas law is valid and the thermometer is not calibrated to adjust to varying densities of gases.
    The absorption of energy from the sun and the radiation of energy into space occurs at the top of thermosphere not the surface of the Earth.
    The laws of thermodynamics do apply and the cooler surface of the Earth cannot transfer energy to the hotter molecules in the atmosphere.

    • Avatar

      geran

      |

      Herb, it’s hard to follow your twists and turns but you seem to be confusing the stratosphere with the troposphere.

      The surface heats the troposphere. The Sun heats the stratosphere.

      • Avatar

        Herb Rose

        |

        Hi Geran,
        You are believing the thermometer as an accurate indicator of the kinetic energy of a gas while I believe the universal gas law. As you higher in the troposphere the air becomes less dense = temperature of gas increasing. I wish I knew how to create a link to direct you to my article in PSI called THE TEMPERATURE OF THE ATMOSPHERE but unfortunately you will have to do it on you own. In it I use the universal gas law to calculate the kinetic energy of molecules different altitude. The inverse of density (volume of a constant number of molecules) is equated to the temperature of the atmosphere at sea level (15 C). The results of calculated temperature correlates with reality. At 15km altitude water is liquid rather than being a solid with a temperature of -50 C which the thermometer says. The calculated temperature increases gradually to the top of the troposphere where the molecules reach the boiling point of water. Instead of a strange looking graph of temperatures/altitude you get a smooth curve showing the source heat for the atmosphere is the sun.
        I am sorry I can’t connect you to the article but I would urge you to look at it and see if doesn’t’t make a lot more sense than the current model.
        Have a good day,
        Herb

        • Avatar

          geran

          |

          Herb, you’re confused about a lot of things. But I can’t help, and you can’t learn, if you keep throwing out issue after issue. Just stick with one issue.

          You are claiming the temperature at 8km altitude is 32.7 C. But, we know that is inaccurate. That altitiude, verified in many different ways, is well below freezing.

          So, you’re doing something wrong.

          Again, just stick with this one issue.

    • Avatar

      geran

      |

      Poor Eli keeps making the same mistake.

      By using the S/B equation with emissivity of 1.0, assumes both plates are “black bodies”. But, when the green plate is added, it magically no longer absorbs the original 200 Watts/m^2. It transforms from a black body into some type of radiative insulator!

      Poor Eli.

      • Avatar

        Eli Rabett

        |

        Nope, consider a plate x
        x

        ——a—>x
        x
        heat coming in a = 2b or b =a/2. Insert a second plate y

        x y

        <—b’—–x—–b’ –> y
        —–a—->x y
        x
        x y

        b’=2c and a + c = 2b’ so by the majic of algebra a + b’/2 = 2b’ or b’=2/3a > b = a/2

        Since more heat is emitted from the first plate in the presence of the second, it’s temperature must be higher when you insert the second plate. The emissivity of either plate can be anything

        • Avatar

          geran

          |

          The algebra is correct, but the physics is wrong.

          If both plates are of the same composition, then energy flow is from blue to green. So green would not be able to raise the temperature of blue.

        • Avatar

          geran

          |

          test

        • Avatar

          geran

          |

          The algebra is correct, but the ph*sics is wrong.

          If both plates are of the same composition, then energy flow is from blue to green. So green would not be able to raise the temperature of blue.

          • Avatar

            Squidly

            |

            Geran, these idiots just cannot get past the fact that (A) you cannot retard energy transfer to increased the energy of the source, and (B) that the surface of this planet cannot heat itself.

            Reading all of this convoluted sophistry in their responses just leaves me dizzy. What a bunch of psychobabble double speaking bullshit it all is. And here I thought Origami was invented in China or Europe .. apparently it was invented by Eli, Herb and John.

            Holy crap .. what universe do these morons live in?

          • Avatar

            geran

            |

            Hi Squidly.

            And they are even using the same old worn out tricks. They claim they can violate the Laws of Thermo, if they state they are not violating the Laws of Thermo!

            Hilarious.

    • Avatar

      Geraint Hughes

      |

      Eli Rabett, You really need to stop lying and / or educate yourself better.

      Read this for explanation which counters the above using Eli’s own mathematical method of back radiance. When you factor in conduction, convection and evaporation you can see any supposed warming is entirely eliminated. https://principia-scientific.org/climate-models-earths-atmosphere-is-a-bigger-back-plate/ I have all the detail in my book for the above, the supposed “2 plate” warming effect is flawed in so many ways only incompetent muppets use it. (2 fool the ignorant.)

      • Avatar

        Eli Rabett

        |

        The green plate effect series shows that in vacuum, the presence of a second plate makes the rate of cooling of the first slower. Therefore, if the input to the first is constant, introducing a second plate will result in warming of the first.

        Note there are NO assumptions about the emissivity of either plate, and the only assumption is that radiation emitted from either side of the plates is proportional to temperature.

        Moreover, there is no contradiction with the second law because the NET thermal energy flow goes from the hotter blue plate to the colder green one and if you choose to differentiate between heat flow and thermal energy flow the direction of NET flow is from hotter to colder.

        So let’s start there. Do you accept this simple example before we start complicating the situation.

        Please refer to http://rabett.blogspot.com/2018/08/the-simplest-green-plate-effect.html for details.

  • Avatar

    William Kay

    |

    I’m a fervent opponent of the Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming hypothesis and the fossil fuel phase-out programs driving it. That said, I believe that a straw man argument is in play here.

    Imagine a house with zero insulation and a robust furnace burning at a fixed rate. There would be a specific ambient warmth within the rooms. Now imagine spending gobs of money equipping the house with state-of-the-art insulation. With the furnace burning at the same rate the ambient temperature in the rooms is now warmer. The insulation is not generating heat.

    Atmosphere enriched with CO2 is a slightly better insulator than normal atmosphere. I doubt the difference in temperature is even measurable let alone catastrophic; but it is theoretically sound.

    • Avatar

      geran

      |

      William Kay, an insulated house would be warmer than an uninsulated house, with the same energy input. So, you got that right.

      But, atmospheric CO2 is NOT an insulator. It does not insulate. It is a radiative conductor. It absorbs AND emits. Any back-radiation, to the surface, would have little ability to increase surface temperature. But, the energy radiated to space is a net loss (cooling) to the planet.

      The atmosphere is, over 95%, composed of nitrogen and oxygen. Nitrogen and oxygen are not good absorber/emitters of infrared wavelengths. So, you could make a case that nitrogen and oxygen are “insulators”, but not CO2.

      Don’t fall for the “insulation” trick. It’s just one of many such tricks used by Warmists.

      • Avatar

        William Kay

        |

        Imagine a flame and then some distance away a thermometer.

        You could place a brick wall between the flame and the thermometer. You could insert an aquarium filled with ice-water or simple have standard atmospheric air. Each intervening substance will absorb and emit heat; albeit in different amounts. Each intervention will yield a different thermometer reading.

        All gases absorb and emit heat. As do all solids and liquids. Some gases absorb lots of heat and emit that heat very slowly. We are told that CO2 behaves this way and thus air enriched with CO2 is a slightly better insulator than air with less CO2.

        This is plausible given the shape and density of CO2. I personally believe the real world warming caused by CO2 emissions to minute bordering on the imperceptible; but it remains plausible.

        • Avatar

          geran

          |

          William, I explained why your house-insulation example did not apply to atmospheric CO2. Instead of understanding, you came back with a “brick wall”! Pretty revealing, wouldn’t you say?

          Maybe you just don’t want to understand.

          Atmospheric CO2 is NOT an insulator, nor is it a brick wall. But you have an active imagination.

          • Avatar

            William Walter Kay

            |

            I am not saying CO2 is a wonderful thermal insulator like Styrofoam. I am saying CO2 does retard heat transfer. It apparently does a slightly better job of slowing heat transfer than O2 or N2 hence the ever so minuscule warming of the atmosphere by CO2 enrichment.
            Recall this debate started with my challenge to the straw man argument accusing alarmists of claiming CO2 was a heat source. Something they are not actually doing.

          • Avatar

            geran

            |

            William, you keep making the same mistake.

            You claim CO2 “slows the heat transfer”, and then you claim that allows increased temperatures. Just leave out the middle step, and you have CO2 acting as a heat source.

            You’re making a mistake, but are unable to see it.

          • Avatar

            Squidly

            |

            William,

            (1st) .. No, CO2 does NOT, and I repeat, does NOT retard the transfer of energy, or as you put it, because you don’t understand what “heat” is, “retard heat transfer”. CO2 is an extremely high emitter of 4µ and 15µ bandwidth IR. In other words, CO2 has very high emissivity to IR (specifically in the 4µ and 15µ bandwidths, transparent to all other).

            Note that, a high emissivity substance cannot provide a mechanism of “insulation”, nor can it provide a mechanism of “trapping”.

            (2nd) .. in conjunction with what I noted above, CO2 is the opposite of “slowing heat transfer” (again, you don’t understand what “heat” is, you cannot “transfer” “heat” to begin with, you can only transfer energy. “Heat” is a result, not a “thing”).

            (finall) .. yes, the entire “greenhouse effect” hypothesis necessarily demands that CO2 would have to be an source of heat !! … where else are you going to get the extra energy required to raise temperature?

            You alarmist/lukewarmists .. whatever the hell you want to call yourselves, as you are one in the same (lukewarmists just try to be a little more clever about it), have absolutely no understanding of the physical laws that govern our universe. You don’t understand the Laws of Thermodynamics (you reveal this as soon as you say “net transfer”) and you don’t understand what “heat” really is.

            Next time you pour yourself a cup of coffee, do us a favor and place a thermometer in your cup. Pour just enough coffee to get a good reading of the temperature, then continue pouring until full reading the thermometer as you go .. then tell us what your starte/end resulting temperatures are. Were you ever able to get the temperature above the temperature of the coffee in the pot? … now, place a lid over it and again record the temperature. Were you able to increase the temperature? … why not? … if your magical “greenhouse effect” word as you say it does, your should be able to raise the temperature of your coffee simply by placing a lid on it… that is EXACTLY what you are saying CO2 does in our atmosphere .. and more! … if it doesn’t work for your coffee .. it sure the hell isn’t going to work for our atmosphere …

            Holy crap Geran .. how many times to we have to point out the painfully obvious to these idiots?

        • Avatar

          Geraint Hughes

          |

          You analogy is backwards. If you put a thermometer in the flame, when you place the brick wall, the thermometer is unchanged. If you add an ice block between the flame and observer, the thermometer is unchanged. You could even add mirrors around the thermometer and flame and its temperature would be unchanged.

          • Avatar

            William Walter Kay

            |

            One has a heat source and thermometer. Placing anything between the heat source and the thermometer would lower the thermometer reading because it would absorb and/or reflect a certain amount of the heat.

  • Avatar

    Squidly

    |

    You know, I have been battling this whole “greenhouse effect”, “CO2 heats the planet” bullshit for about 25 years now. I know, I’ve only been a code monkey (software engineer) for the past 35+ years, developing … wait for it … models. For the past decade developing energy models. And not just theoretical models but real world models that are used in energy systems all around the world (you are using some of my work right now). These systems cannot be wrong or their systems would not work! .. If I based my development on the incredible stupidity of these people that adamatly (without any supporting evidence) espouse this magical “greenhouse effect”, “CO2 heats the planet” bullshit, I wouldn’t last 10 seconds in my field. They would have escorted me out of the building before I could have even become employed. None of the processes that have been described by these people are even remotely possible, as is proven by some of the very systems I myself have developed and continue to develop and use this very day. And if this development didn’t work in the real world as it does, our company could not exist (we would have been sued out of existence long ago).

    I am astonished at the audacity of the sophistry, mind bending mental gymnastics these people put forth. If they only utilized the energy they waste in doing this, with the more productive activity of actually learning what the hell it is they are talking about, they would find themselves much further ahead. But alas, they will continue ad infinitum with this nonsense all the while demanding everyone believe in unicorns and pixie dust.

    Finally, I have come to accept that fact that we now live in an idiocracy where “feelings” are the source of scientific “proof” .. where reality has become whatever we think we want it to be. Darwin made a lot of valuable observations of this phenomena. We are now watching it play out… this is only the beginning of it .. many people will die before it is over, either freezing to death or starving. You can bank on it!

    • Avatar

      Herb Rose

      |

      Hi Squidiffy,
      I have always maintained that the GHGT violates the laws of thermodynamics. My position has been that the atmosphere follows the universal gas law and that the thermometer is not an accurate way to measure kinetic energy (heat) in a gas. The state of water (liquid, solid, or gas) is determined by the balance between the kinetic energy of the molecules and the attractive force between the molecules. If water is a gas then the kinetic energy is greater than the force between molecules. If water is a solid the attractive force is greater then the kinetic energy. When the two forces are almost equal water is a liquid. The state of water will indicate the kinetic energy of the molecules. At an altitude of 15km water is a liquid so I believe the temperature reading of -30 F is wrong. What would the temperature reading of the cup of coffee be if the user didn’t cover the entire bulb with coffee? The would conclude that when they added more coffee the kinetic energy increased.
      Have a good day,
      Herb

    • Avatar

      Mark Erdman

      |

      Squidly, I absolutely love your analogy about the coffee cup, it is brilliantly illustrative such that any dullard should be able to appreciate the point – THANK YOU! I wish more people could grasp the subject. And I wish more people would speak up against this terribly damaging GHG religion that has led to equally damaging public policy. Well done, please keep up the fight.

  • Avatar

    Squidly

    |

    “What would the temperature reading of the cup of coffee be if the user didn’t cover the entire bulb with coffee?”

    Sorry, I don’t even know what you mean here. My prior comments stand and are factual and accurate.

    • Avatar

      Herb Rose

      |

      Hi Squidify,
      A thermometer is an instrument calibrated for use. The bulb of a mercury thermometer is designed to be submerged in the liquid being measured so the only variable measured is the kinetic energy (heat) of the medium.
      If just the tip of the thermometer bulb is exposed to the coffee a large portion of the mercury in the bulb will be radiating energy away from the thermometer instead of absorbing it from the coffee. This will result in a low reading by the thermometer. When more coffee is added and the entire bulb is absorbing heat from the coffee the thermometer will give a higher reading.
      When a thermometer is calibrated the entire bulb is submerged in ice water to get the 0 C mark and the entire bulb is submerged in boiling water to get the 100 C mark. In order for an accurate reading the thermometer must be used correctly.
      In an unconfined gas as energy is added to the gas molecules the volume expands resulting in fewer molecules striking the thermometer bulb and transferring kinetic energy to it. At sea level for every molecule transferring heat to the thermometer by a gas there are a thousand molecules transferring heat to it in a liquid. If the temperature of the gas and liquid is the same the only way the kinetic energy of the two can be the same (assuming same mass for liquid and gas molecules) is if the velocity of the gas molecules is equal to the velocity of the liquid molecule to the -2 power.
      Thermometers were not calibrated for gases where both the kinetic energy and number of molecules transferring the energy to it are variable.
      I hope this explains what I mean when I say thermometers do not give an accurate reading of kinetic energy of a gas.
      Have a good day,
      Herb

      • Avatar

        Herb Rose

        |

        Correction.If the temperature of the gas and liquid is the same the only way the kinetic energy of the two can be the same (assuming same mass for liquid and gas molecules) is if the velocity of the gas molecules is equal to the velocity of the liquid molecules times 1000 to the -2 power.

Comments are closed