‘Greenhouse Gases’ Not Behind The End Of The Warming Pause
During the years 2000-2014, the global temperature hardly increased, and that period has been called the temperature pause or hiatus.
The debate among the climate community has resulted in more than 200 research studies in some cases with opposite results about the reasons.
This amount of papers can be compared to the research studies of Earth’s energy balance and the greenhouse effect. I have found about 10 publications for both subjects.
During the years 2000-2014, the emissions of carbon dioxide were 126 gigatons carbon (GtC) being 31% of the total emission after 1750, but the greenhouse (GH) gases were not able to increase the temperature.
According to the IPCC, the temperature increase should have been 0.4°C from 2000 to 2014 (Ref. 1).
It looks like that the pause ended to the super El Nino 2015-2016 because the temperature has been thereafter about 0.2 °C above-the-pause average.
Research study about the pause and the ENSO
The impulse for my research study came from a story figure on WUWT that showed shortwave (SW) radiation variations during the pause.
A curve showed increased values around El Nino 2015-16 and thereafter. I decided to find out what could be the impact of this finding on the temperatures.
In Fig. 1, I have depicted the total solar irradiance (TSI), SW radiation and LW radiation from 2000 onward. This data is available from the CERES databank maintained by NASA.
Fig.1. TSI, SW radiation and LW radiation trends normalized to the altitude of 20 kilometers.
TSI has been in decreasing mode since 2000 but it is surprising that SW radiation has an increasing trend with a maximum during El Nino 2015-16.
I decided to carry out a research study about the factors which should explain the temperature variations during the pause including ENSO events.
I have used two dynamic models with the same structure naming them as the Ollila model and the IPCC model. In my own model, I have used the results of my earlier research studies. This newest study has been published, Ref.2.
Both models include the same terms
dT = dTSW + dTENSO+ dTANTR + dTCLOUD, (1)
where dT is the total temperature change, dTSW is the temperature impact of SW radiation, dTENSOis the temperature impact of ENSO event, dTANTR is the temperature impact of greenhouse (GH) gases and other anthropogenic factors, and dTCLOUD the temperature impact of cloudiness changes.
The term dTCLOUD has not been used in the IPCC model because this effect has been integrated into the term dTANTR.
The temperature effects of SW radiation and anthropogenic factors have been calculated using the equation applied both in the IPCC model and my model
dT = λ*RF, (2)
where λ is the climate sensitivity parameter having a value of 0.5 K/(W/m2) in the IPCC model and in my model 0.27 K/(W/m2) and RF means radiative forcing (W/m2).
The IPCC has normalized the anthropogenic factors to correspond to SW radiation changes at the top of the atmosphere.
Therefore, SW radiation changes and anthropogenic factors per the IPCC can be applied directly in Eq. (2). I have used the total RF values of the IPCC reports.
In my own model, I have used only the carbon dioxide effects, because of the impacts of other GH gas changes are below 0.001°C during the pause, Ref. 3.
dTANT= 0.27 * 3,12 * ln (C/280), (3)
where C is the concentration of carbon dioxide (ppm). The temperature effects of ENSO events I have calculated in both models using Eq. (4)
dTENSO = 0,1 * ONI, (4)
where ONI is the Oceanic El Nino Index used for reporting and assessing the magnitude of ENSO effects. ONI is the three months running-average value of the seawater temperature in the area of Nino3.4.
The coefficient value of 0.1 is based on the empirical data between global temperature and ONI.
Trenberth et al. (Ref. 1) have used the same method and the same value. By using the correlation analysis, I found out that there was a delay of 6 months between the ONI index and the global temperature.
The temperature effects of cloudiness change I have calculated using the relationship from my earlier research study (Ref. 4)
dT = – 0,11 * CL-%, (5)
where CL-% is the change of cloudiness in percentages.
The equations above do not include any dynamic factors, which means that they do not describe in which way the changes would have their temperature effects during shorter time intervals when all-climate drivers variate continuously.
I have used the climate drivers – i.e. the input data – in monthly steps. The residence time of the mixing layer of the oceans is 2.74 months and the same of the land is 1.04 months (Ref. 4).
The accurate simulation method for stepwise changes of inputs can be found in my research study (Ref. 2).
The results of the study
The results showed some surprises and new findings. I have depicted the essential results of my model and the observed satellite temperature of the UAH in Fig. 2.
Fig. 2. The results of the Ollila model.
In Fig.2 we can see that the model calculated temperature (a black curve) follows well the observed global temperature. The ENSO effects and the SW radiation changes are the main reasons for temperature changes.
During the super El Nino 2015-16, the temperature impact is slightly more than 50% about the total temperature change. This kind of observation has not been reported before.
Another important observation is that La Nina 2017 was very weak, but the temperature remained at about 0.2°C higher level in comparison to the average pause temperature of 2000-2014.
The reason can be identified directly, and it is the SW radiation. The overall effect of cloudiness is small, but its impact is in the right direction.
Fig. 3. The results of the IPCC model. The curve ”Forcing by all anthropogenic factors per IPCC” includes other factors than GH gases, and therefore its temperature impact is lower than the impact of GH gases only.
I have depicted the results of the IPCC model in Fig. 3. The black curve is the model calculated temperature and the red one is the GISTEMP. The IPCC model has a rather great error during the El Nino 2015-16 and thereafter.
I have calculated the Mean Absolute Error (MAE) in four different cases for the period of 2000-2018:
- The Ollila model versus UAH 0.075°C
- The Ollila model versus GISTEMP 0.082°C
- The IPCC model versus UAH 0.191°C
- The IPCC model versus GISTEMP 0.128°C.
The error of my model is relatively small with respect to both temperature curves and it is about 100 % smaller than the same as the IPCC model the correlation is 0.82.
The reason for the IPCC model greater errors is pretty clear and it is the positive water feedback duplicating the impacts of anthropogenic (GH gases) changes and the SW radiation changes.
The increase in temperature from the beginning of 2001 to the average of 2018 was according to UAH 0.29 °C and according to Gistemp 0.50 °C.
Respectively the increase per the Ollila model was 0.23 °C and per the IPCC model 0.73 °C. The error of my own model was thus +0.06 °C with respect to the UAH temperature and -0.31 °C with respect to the Gistemp.
The IPCC model error was +23 °C with respect to the Gistemp and 0.44 °C with respect to the UAH. The conclusion is that the IPCC model runs too hot due to the too great radiative forcing of carbon dioxide and the positive water feedback. Thinking these errors for 20 years only, we can imagine how great errors might be to the end of 2100.
We have a new climate change factor in the form of an SW radiation increase since 2014. We will see in which way the IPCC shall take this matter into account.
By knowing the practices of the IPCC, I would not be surprised if this change will be assessed to be anthropogenic by nature. It would be interesting to see, what are the pieces of evidence.
One may also observe in Fig. 3 a great difference between the impacts of GH gases and the total anthropogenic factors about 0.2°C in 2011.
In order to concretize this issue, I use the numbers of the year 2011 in AR5 for the change from 1750 to 2011.
The anthropogenic term includes the impacts of aerosols (-0.27 W/m2), the albedo changes due to land use (-0.15 W/m2) and the cloud adjustment (-0.55 W/m2); totally -0.97 W/m2 corresponding to the temperature impact of -0.5 °C. The RF of GH gases in 2011 per the IPCC was 3.18 W/m2 corresponding to the temperature impact of 1.6°C.
A question is that what is the scientific method and data that the IPCC knows the radiative forcings of aerosols, land-use, and the cloud adjustments of the year 1750? I think that they do not know these figures even today.
For me, these factors are really pure adjustments to tamper down the over-all temperature impacts and to cover up the sky-high impacts of GH gases.
The observational data between the temperature and the absolute amount of the atmospheric water do not show this mechanism, Fig. 4.
Fig. 4. Short- and long-term effects of water vapor on a global scale.
It can be noticed that for 1982–2003, the global temperature anomaly has been increasing but long-term water vapor amount has been decreasing destroying the theory of positive water feedback.
This figure illustrates very well that the global temperature effects of ENSO events happen about 50 % through the absolute humidity changes in the atmosphere.
It means that the positive water feedback works in short-term events like ENSO but in the long-term trends, this effect disappears.
Water is about 12 times stronger GH gas than carbon dioxide.
The great impact of SW radiation in the El Nino 2015-16 came as a big surprise. Therefore, I looked for the radiative information during the earlier super El Nino 1998-98.
The CERES data started in 2001 but the ERBE data was available and the results are depicted in Fig. 5.
Fig. 4. Super El Ninos of 1997-98 and 2015-16.
Fig. 4 shows that also during super El Nino 1997-98 the temperature impact of SW radiation has been slightly over 50 %.
The retrospective analysis reveals that the pause ended by 2014. The most important factor has been the abnormal positive SW radiation anomaly.
I sent this paper to six different journals in category 2. I did not expect positive publication decisions, but I gathered information about the rejection comments of reviewers.
The collection of rejection comments would be another story. It is a well-known fact among the contrarian researchers that they do not get papers through in the categories 1 (Science and Nature) and in category 2 (more than 100 journals) if the content is clearly against the IPCC science.
In the final phase of this process, I received a useful comment from a reviewer that there is a research study of Loeb et al. published in 2018 (Ref. 5).
Some readers may know that Dr. Loeb is a responsible person for the CERES data in NASA and he surely follows the observational data trends. There is a comprehensive analysis of the CERES data in this study.
The researchers showed that the SW radiation change was due to the end of hiatus and it is also the dominant reason for the “increased temperature tendency during the post-hiatus period” as they have formulated this matter.
As an example, about the rejection comments, there was a comment that a reviewer did not accept the SW radiation changes to have any impact on El Nino temperatures or thereafter. Maybe this reviewer would have rejected also the paper of Loeb et al. – do you think so?
So, I cannot say that I was the first one who found out the role of SW radiation in the temperature changes after pause even though I did my work independently without knowing the study of Loeb et al.
What I can still say is that I have observed the role of SW radiation as an important part of super El Nino temperature impacts. I have not been able to suggest the mechanism and it may be a pure coincidence.
We can see in Fig. 2 that the El Nino 2010 was in a category “strong”. It could have developed into “very strong” super El Nino but the SW radiation anomaly was in the wrong phase.
I also carried out the analysis between “the anti-IPCC model” and the IPCC model showing that the IPCC model does not work properly.
Loeb et al. found that the correlation of SW radiation flux anomalies to the low-level cloud cover was 0.66. They did not go further to analyze what factors could cause variations to the low-level cloudiness changes.
As we know, Dr. Henrik Svensmark has proposed a theory about the cosmic radiation modulating the cloud formation process and having major impacts on the surface temperature through cloudiness changes.
This is, of course, a forbidden subject to any researcher wanting to belong to the climate establishment, because the IPCC wants to avoid any theories about the cosmic forces having a role in the climate change.
References:
- Trenberth KE, Zhang Y, Fasullo JT. Relationships among top‐of‐atmosphere radiation and atmospheric state variables in observations and CESM. J. Geophys. Res. Atmos. 2015;120:10074–10090. https://doiorg/101002/2015JD023381
- Ollila, Antero. The Pause End and Major Temperature Impacts During Super El Niños are Due to Shortwave Radiation Anomalies. Physical Science International Journal, 24(2), 1-20, 2020. http://www.journalpsij.com/index.php/PSIJ/article/view/30174/56612
- Ollila, Antero. The Potency of Carbon Dioxide (CO2) as a Greenhouse Gas, 2014, URL: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/274956207_The_potency_of_carbon_dioxide_CO2_as_a_greenhouse_gas
- Ollila, Antero. Dynamics between Clear, Cloudy, and All-Sky Conditions: Cloud Forcing Effects, 2014. URL: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/274958251_Dynamics_between_clear_cloudy_and_all-sky_conditions_Cloud_forcing_effects.
- Loeb NG, Thorsen TJ, Norris JR, Wang H, Su W. Changes in earth’s energy budget during and after the “pause” in global warming: an observational perspective. Climate. 2018;6:62. DOI:103390/cli6030062.
Dr. Antero Ollila is an Adj. Ass. Prof. (Emeritus) at Aalto University in Finland and runs the website ClimatExam.
Read more at www.climatexam.com
PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL, legally registered in the UK as a company 
incorporated for charitable purposes. Head Office: 27 Old Gloucester Street, London WC1N 3AX.
Please DONATE TODAY To Help Our Non-Profit Mission To Defend The Scientific Method.
Trackback from your site.
Brian James
| #
Feb 12, 2020 Universe Science | The Truth Ties Everything Together
PLASMA COSMOLOGY: We do a new video every day updating the science, and the activity of the earth and sun.
https://youtu.be/zsfDQJyMNfU
Reply
T. C. Clark
| #
Anterro, Lord Monckton found an error several years ago in the formula used by IPCC which exaggerated the feedback and thus over predicted temp increase. Also, the data show a slight decrease in temp between 1941 and 1979…..even the “hockey stick” graph shows this decrease while CO2 of course increased. That nearly 4 decade “problem” has not been explained by IPCC.
Reply
Antero Ollila
| #
My main objective has been to find out the real warming effects of GH gases. Here is a link to my web page story: https://www.climatexam.com/post/2015/01/27/climate-sensitivity-06-degrees-calculated-by-three-different-methods
Reply
Jan Sevenhans
| #
Greenhouse is a nice word for all the energy storage of the atmosphere.
H2O water vapor is the king of the greenhouse with 540cal/gr latent heat and the ocean is the emperor of the climate with 80cal/gr liquid water as liquid water is almost 1000x more heavy than water vapor …
Reply
Zoe Phin
| #
The higher the temperature, the more CO2 absorbs. It’s very incorrect to assume the opposite! You’re covering up the cause and attributing it to the effect.
What causes ENSO?
Reply
Antero Ollila
| #
The researchers have a theory but the problem is that nobody can forecast when El Nino starts and what is its magnitude. I guess that you have also this issue under control.
Reply
Zoe Phin
| #
Well it can’t be geothermal, because it’s negligible, right? So it could only be from sudden extra downwelling IR from greenhouse gases!
Reply
Zoe Phin
| #
Please consider this:
http://phzoe.com/2020/03/11/40-years-of-climate-change/
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Antero,
El Nino is a result of the inertia of water, the rotation of the Earth, and geography. The Earth rotates 1000 mph at the equator. The inertia of water causes it to flow slower giving it an apparent westerly flow. Because the water flows west it absorbs more energy from the sun. This flow of water is blocked by Indonesia, the Philippines, and other islands causing a pool of hot water to form.( In the Atlantic the flow of warm water is deflected north by Brazil forming the Gulf Stream.) When the pool of hot water becomes warmer than the Pacific Equatorial current, the current flows under the pool of hot water striking the islands and forcing the hot water east along the edge of the current forming El Nino. It will start when the temperature of the pool of walter becomes hotter than the current.
Herb
Reply
Zoe Phin
| #
Herb,
I don’t get it, what warmed the water?
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Zoe,
Because the water is flowing west it is exposed to sunlight longer and absorbs more energy.
Reply
Zoe Phin
| #
To flow west, a vacancy is needed. The water is also running away from sunlight. Makes no difference.
I can understand how geothermal under the ocean can show up first in the shallow waters of western parts of oceans.
Herb Rose
| #
Zoe,
The water is moving east at a slower rate than the land because of inertia. If you travel west you will need to reset your watch back an hour to make it align closer with the sun. They are called time zones. You don’t understand gravity, thermodynamics, equilibrium, or the rotation of the Earth
Antero Ollila
| #
A common explanation for the El Nino is like this: A
common explanation for El Niño is the Walker circulation decrease, which eliminates the
upwelling of cold seawater, causing the ocean surface water temperature to increase. With a simpler term, the mixing effect of of the surface water is reduced and that is why its temperature increases. This means a sharp increase in temperature. The opposite effect La Nina means that the mixing effect starts to increase. Because of this, La Nina takes almost double time and its peak is much smaller.
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Antero,
That is an excuse not an explanation. Does the Earth rotate east? Does water have inertia? Simple explanation.
Herb
Reply
Zoe Phin
| #
Warm flows to cold. What is this prevention of cold going to warm idea?
Reply
geran
| #
Antero, the confusion starts at your Fig. 1. You stated “This data is available from the CERES databank maintained by NASA.” But. there was no link to the source There was no way to clarify what the graph is indicating. For example, where is the “SW” being emitted from? Earth does not emit 240 W/m^2.
You have a lot of explaining to do…..
Reply
Antero Ollila
| #
I have been working so long with these radiations that I did not notice that in this story I had not explained the acronyms: SW is shortwave radiation and LW is longwave radiation. Shortwave radiation is the same as solar insolation.
Reply
geran
| #
???
I think you are avoiding the issue. You can’t be as stupid as to believe I was asking what “SW” stands for.
What is your source for Fig. 1, so I can figure out your mistakes. Obviously, you don’t have a clue how to answer a responsible question about your “work”.
Reply
Antero Ollila
| #
I recommend you read first the whole research article. There are detailed answers.
Reply
geran
| #
Antero, show me the “research” for your “research article”. Your confused pseudoscience is NOT research. You can’t even explain your confused Fig.1, or reveal where you got the data.
Antero Ollila
| #
If you know whar SW means, then you should know what is the origin of this radiation. It looks like you try just to make your own show. If you do not have matter-of-fact questions, I do not see any need to answer your questions.
Reply
geran
| #
It appears you are trying to divide solar into SW and LW, or you are trying to compare solar to LW emitted by Earth. But, neither of the two is valid science. You cannot identify your source for Fig. 1.
You are lost in your pseudoscience, again.
Antero Ollila
| #
This blog story is based on my published research work and there is a reference to the original paper. If somebody wants to find all the details with references to all measurement data, they can be found in my paper. Actually, if you have read the blog story, you should have found the explanations for SW radiation fluctuations.
Reply
geran
| #
Wrong Antero, your nonsense is based on your imagination and supported by sloppy attempts like your Fig. 1, which you avoid clarifying or verifying.
I did some quick research of my own. I looked up the word for “clown”, in Finland. It’s “pelle”.
.
Reply
Antero Ollila
| #
I think you have already made yourself to be a pelle. You use these webpages just for raising conflicts and to represent your own strange laws of physics.
Reply
geran
| #
Antero, your Fig. 1 makes no sense. If you can’t support your stuff, then maybe you too know it’s nonsense. Calling people names doesn’t cover for your incompetence.
chris
| #
Greenhouse Gases could not increase the temp because the ghe is not real.No need to invent back radiation when there is plenty of radiation coming in from the sun.
Reply
Andy Rowlands
| #
I was under the impression that not only does the ‘greenhouse effect’ violate the laws of thermodynamics, and as temperature changes cause CO2 changes not the other way round, it is difficult to see how it can have any effect on temperature.
Reply
Antero Ollila
| #
Hi guys, forget the GH effect. It is not an issue in this story.
Reply
chris
| #
But you stated that the objective is to find the real warming effects of gh gases. Since it isn’t an issue the next step is to say that there is no radiative gh gas theory.
Reply
tom0mason
| #
The Earth’s energy budget is not a finite thing! Its an ever changing continuum of an open system, a system that depend on many internal and external variables.
At any moment energy into the system DOES NOT equal energy out!
As the weather and climate is at it’s most basic a chaotic process, and small changes in a chaotic system can precipitate variable effective changes farther down the road. Any and all the figures for an ‘Energy Budget’ should be seen (at best) as guesses with huge error bar values. Unfortunately however often THAT diagram is taken as absolute with measured values (from the past) but it is not.
Energy flows are not smooth and even, ‘energy in’ is to some degree ‘lumpy’, ‘energy out’ is often very ‘lumpy’. If they didn’t then climatic periods of cool or warmth would not exist. These energy flows do not have to balance over any arbitrary time period. They only have to balance ultimately, i.e. when the process ends!
https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/thumbnails/image/change_in_leaf_area.jpg
It is well known and studied that nature can dramatically change the energy flows of the weather (and climate), so this amount of change (NASA diagram above) in the last few years should vary climate somewhat over the coming decades. This planetary greening indicates solar energy being retain on planet — plants transform solar energy into chemical energy. Changes in plants and forests can have large impacts on the climate. See https://e360.yale.edu/features/how-deforestation-affecting-global-water-cycles-climate-change
Also the last few years has seen quite a few volcanic eruptions, and these too have an effect on the weather and the climate (more lumpiness in energy flows).
The sun’s activity changes,
Vegetation extent changes, (and so animal populations change),
Ice cover changes,
Cloud cover changes,
Ocean currents …
etc., etc.,
The Earth’s ‘Energy Budget’ is a highly variable process not a fixed calculation — chaotically changing, as it does, from day to day, month to month, season to season, year to year, century to century.
Trenberth and the UN-IPCC is wrong, that model is wrong!
Anyone who believes that they can just calculate the trend by averaging the sum of some of the known parameters is just fooling themselves, weather and climate are chaotic in nature and NO amount of mathematical jujitsu can average out how a chaotic system behaves. What is needed is a better understanding of the all the process, dependencies, feedbacks and the inherent chaos at it’s heart. All else, even this piece, is just math without understanding the basic process!
Reply
Antero Ollila
| #
To TomOmason. The correlation between my climate model and the UAH temperature is 0.82. It is not a measure of cause-and-effect but it is a measure of the accuracy of my model. For every four terms in my model is a physical impact that is based on other research studies.
Reply
Physicist
| #
The SW insolation reaching the surfaces of planets like Earth and Venus is nowhere near sufficient to explain the observed global mean surface temperature. There is an obvious need for an additional source of thermal energy into the surface. But, as Prof Claes Johnson explained, atmospheric radiation cannot be that source as it undergoes a resonating process and is not thermalized in the warmer surface. The ONLY correct explanation is at https://www.researchgate.net/publication/318008633_Planetary_Core_and_Surface_Temperatures
Reply
Antero Ollila
| #
Once again. This is an attempt to introduce the so-called “pressure theory” as an explanation. No further comments.
Reply
Antero Ollila
| #
Quote: “The Earth’s energy budget is not a finite thing! Its an ever-changing continuum of an open system, a system that depends on many internal and external variables.
At any moment energy into the system DOES NOT equal energy out!”
This quote means that you do not have an idea of what is the energy balance. It is based on the average energy flux values of a minimum of one year and usually at least five years. The energy balance is based on the observed flux values and it shows that the balance can be closed at the surface, in the atmosphere, and at TOA. It is very, very powerful evidence that the flux values are real and very accurate.
If you want to analyze shorter time periods than a year then you have to use some other analysis methods. I have not used energy balance in this research of mine but simple climate models for simulating the reasons behind the monthly temperature changes. Did you not noticed that?
Reply
Zoe Phin
| #
Not all fluxes are actually measured. Some fluxes are gap fillers and mislabeled.
Reply
Chris
| #
Flux doesn’t sum. Each source must be considered separately. Heat can only transfer from hotter to colder.
Reply
T. C. Clark
| #
What about “net heat exchange between hotter and colder bodies will be from the hotter to the colder”? What happens to two twin bodies side by side at the same temp?
Reply
chris
| #
If they are at the same temp then there will not be any heat exchanged.
Reply
Antero Ollila
| #
Because of the discussion about so-called reradiation and its capability to transfer energy from a cold body to a warm body continues, I copy here two sections about the college textbooks:
++++++++++++++++++++++++
A black body or blackbody is an idealized physical body that absorbs all incident electromagnetic radiation, regardless of frequency or angle of incidence. It does not only absorb radiation but can also emit radiation.
Although a blackbody does not really exist, we will consider the planets and stars (including the earth and the sun) as blackbodies. Even though by definition, they are not perfect blackbodies, for the sake of understanding and simplicity we can apply the characteristics of blackbodies to them.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Stefan-Boltzmann radiation law according to college physics:
All objects emit and absorb radiation. The net rate of heat transfer by radiation (absorption minus emission) is related to both the temperature of the object T and the temperature of its surroundings Ts. Assuming that an object with a temperature T is surrounded by an environment with uniform temperature Ts, the net rate of heat transfer by radiation is
Qnet = σeA(T^4 – Ts^4)
where e is the emissivity of the object alone. In other words, it does not matter whether the surroundings are white, gray, or black; the balance of radiation into and out of the object depends on how well it emits and absorbs radiation. When T >Ts, the quantity Qnet is positive; that is, the net heat transfer is from hot to cold.
++++++++++++++++++++++
The law of energy conversation:
Energy cannot be destroyed; rather, it can only be transformed or transferred from one form to another. When a photon emitted by a cold body hits a warmer body, it will be absorbed and its energy will not disappear but it will be transformed into heat.
For me, it looks like many commentators should read again the physics books used in colleges.
One funny thing just occurred to me. Somebody familiar with the emitted radiation spectrum by the body of 15 C degrees should know that its wavelength zone is about from 3 to 100 micrometers. Another body – like an atmosphere in 10 C degrees – has a wavelength zone a little be higher (lower frequency). The body of temperature 20 C degrees has a wavelength zone a little bit lower (higher frequencies).
Let us assume that a photon with a wavelength of 10 micrometers hits a body of 15 C degrees. What are the possibilities that this body in 15 degrees can react to this photon 1) rejecting it or by 2) by absorbing it? This photon could have been emitted by a body in which temperature is something between 10 to 20 degrees. Now those guys with their own physics say that this body of 15 C degrees absorbs only a photon from a body hotter than itself. Actually this body has no means to know what was the temperature of the body emitting this photon.
Reply
geran
| #
Pelle, you have misrepresented the S/B Law. The S/B Law does not involve an “environment”. You are preverting physics.
Why?
Are you just incompetent, or getting paid to pervert reality?
Reply
HerbbRose
| #
Hi Antero,
You are correct (except there are no photons). It is the structure (bonds) of an object that determine what radiation it absorbs and radiates. If you put two different objects in a closed system, where neither object absorbs the wavelength the other objects radiates, they both will reach the same energy level as they lose and absorb energy from the electric/magnetic field they are in, equalizing with it
Herb.
Reply
Zoe Phin
| #
“net rate of heat transfer”
The word ‘net’ is redundant. You showed Q as positive, and hence you have one way heat transfer. A negative Q means the second object heats the first object, i.e. heat is received.
“When a photon emitted by a cold body hits a warmer body, it will be absorbed and its energy will not disappear but it will be transformed into heat.”
You did not show that, so how can you conclude that? From the point of view from the cold object all you showed was it is being heated. A negative Q means it is receving heat.
The colder body has kinetic energy. The hotter body can add kinetic energy to it based on the differential the cold body lacks. No kinetic energy is transferred from cold to hot via EM radiation. None.
Reply
Zoe Phin
| #
“Actually this body has no means to know what was the temperature of the body emitting this photon.”
Completely untrue.
A hotter body has higher intensity (count) of photons at every wavlength compared to cold body.
Photons, having effective mass exert a pressure, known as radiation pressure.
Imagine two water hoses facing each other and enclosed in a tube. One emits more water per second than the other (higher pressure). What will happen?
The higher pressure water hose will beat back all the water from the other hose until that hose emits no water. Simple!
Same holds true for photons. Those wavelengths that cold and hot share in common will be forced back into cold by hot’s higher intensity at those wavelengths, thereby making cold effectively never emitting at those wavelengths, plus the differential of intensity is added to cold.
There is simply no potential for energy to flow from cold to hot. But from hot to cold, there is a potential for flow, and its actuation is called ‘heat’.
Reply
T. C. Clark
| #
So, what happens when a high intensity laser is aimed at a little pointer laser? Do those mass-less photons collide?….sort of like a 50 caliber machine gun firing against a 30 caliber machine gun?…the larger ammo knocks the smaller bullets backwards? Doesn’t a warmer object heat a cooler object up until both are at the same temp…both emitting the same no. of photons at the same rate at each other ….thus equilibrium…thus neither warms the other at equilibrium?
Reply
Zoe Phin
| #
“both emitting the same no. of photons at the same rate at each other”
Not a single electronic device can detect this two way flow. We can only detect a differential.
An IR thermometer at 10C will not “see” another 10C object. An IR thermometer at 20C will not “see” another 20C object.
There will not be a voltage change.
That’s why all IR thermometers come with a non-radiation thermometer in the device. This thermometer will read 10C or 20C. So if the IR sensor has no voltage gain/loss, the reading is 100% based on this other thermometer.
Two way photon travel is strictly PHILOSOPHICAL.
There is no photons emitted between objects at equilibrium. There is ZERO disturbance in the EM field. There is ZERO potential for electrons to drop to a lower energy orbit. Thus there is no two way emission. The objects are acting as one. The space between is still.
Reply
Zoe Phin
| #
P.S., photons are not mass-less.
Photons have no rest mass, but they are never at rest!
You can derive their effective mass:
E = mc^2
E = hf
m = hf/c^2
The Standards Institute has redefined the kilogram in 2019:
“The kilogram is the mass of a body at rest whose equivalent energy equals the energy of a collection of photons whose frequencies sum to [1.356392489652×10^50] hertz.”
Reply
T. C. Clark
| #
Does the Standards Institute have a mass at rest? The earth rotates on its axis and rotates around the sun and the solar system rotates around the Milky Way center and the Milky Way is hurling through space…towards the Andromeda Galaxy. Lots of motion to add…. Einstein said mass increases with speed and thus no mass can attain the speed of light because it would become infinite mass….thus photons are mass-less. At any given instant of time, there are neutrinos moving through the Standards Institute mass examples….neutrinos have mass…does the Institute compensate for the extra mass?
Reply
Zoe Phin
| #
Who cares what Einstein said?
Reply
T. C. Clark
| #
E^2= (M,C^2)^2 + (PC)^2 A tank of water has a 2 inch drain pipe at the bottom….a one inch pipe fills the tank….the level of water goes down unless the pressure in the one inch pipe is increased to match the outflow…or increased enough to raise the water level…analogous to a hot body and cooler body. The moon emits photons to earth but the earth emits more photons to the moon…the moon does not raise the temp of the earth – the moon slows the cooling of earth by a small amount….the earth heats the moon a small amount…remove the earth and the moon would be slightly cooler than with the earth.
Reply
Zoe Phin
| #
Temperature is not an extensive property like water.
Heat is also not like water. You can capture a waterfall’s water into a cup, but you can’t capture the phenomena of falling water into a cup. Heat is like falling water, but not the water itself.
The formula you show supports my argument.
Reply
Zoe Phin
| #
How are the moon and earth’s photons passing each other? They are virtual? If they are then you debunked radiation pressure.
Reply
T. C. Clark
| #
The photons that reach earth from the sun are thousands of years old…of course time is zero at the speed of light…the photons have spent thousands of years bouncing off protons in the sun’s core…not bouncing off each other….the neutrinos that emerge from the sun are also thousands of years old….held by the sun’s gravity since neutrinos have mass. A man in the Alaskan wilderness in winter sleeps with his sled dogs…the photons from each keep each warmer than they would be if apart.