Heat Flow Science Discredits Greenhouse Gas Theory
An inescapable scientific fact can be shown to contradict a major assertion in greenhouse gas theory ‘physics.’
If you take two bodies of matter that are identical in every way except for temperature and connect them together so that heat can flow by radiation or conduction, the resulting temperature at thermal equilibrium will be the average of the two temperatures, not the sum of the two temperatures.
If you shine a light on a small black object, the rate of warming, the rate that heat flows, similarly decreases with decreasing difference in temperature forming an asymptotic curve shown by the black line in the next figure. The red line shows the temperature calculated by multiplying 4.6% times the average of the existing temperature and the ending temperature at each 10-second interval. The 4.6% has to do with the conductivity per second of heat into the black object. Similar asymptotic curves are observed for both warming and cooling of matter by conduction or by absorbing or emitting radiation. The flux of heat is determined by the temperature difference, not by the amount of flux as currently assumed by greenhouse-warming theory and by most physicists. This is a very important observation.
The next question is: How does a broad spectrum of frequencies of oscillation flow through air and space? The simplest example is a single frequency transmitted by a radio station. The radio program modulates a center frequency assigned by the government to prevent interference with other nearby stations. The radio transmitter causes oscillations of this modulated center frequency on the surface of the radio antenna. You tune your radio receiver to resonate at that specific center frequency. Resonance, also known as sympathetic vibration, is the way two oscillators oscillating at the same frequency can, under the best of conditions, average their amplitudes of oscillation, effectively transferring amplitude from the transmitter to the receiver. In this way, your radio receiver differentiates the center frequency of the radio station from all the other frequencies out there. It is the oscillatory nature of electromagnetic radiation that makes it possible for radiation, for heat, to be transmitted across air and space.
Resonance is observed to transfer amplitude of oscillation only from higher amplitude to lower amplitude, which Planck’s Law shows clearly is from higher temperature to lower temperature. Resonance occurs between a discrete molecular oscillator on the surface of the emitting body and a discrete molecular oscillator on the surface of the absorbing body. Radiant heat travels through air and space when resonance occurs simultaneously between different pairs of oscillators at each and every frequency of oscillation of all the molecular oscillators on the surface of matter.
Resonance is all around us. You experience resonance most clearly when you push a child on a swing. If you push at exactly the same frequency as the swing is swinging, the amplitude of the swing will increase. You tune radio and television receivers to resonate at whatever frequency your preferred station is transmitting. Your cellphone is tuned to resonate with the different frequencies of transmission and reception used at a local cell tower. Individual hair cells, called cilia, in the cochlea of your ears, resonate with sounds in air, sending signals to your brain, allowing you to hear. Visible colors, which are frequencies of oscillation between 400 and 789 trillion cycles per second, resonate with cells in the cones of your eyes that send signals to your brain, allowing you to see ten million different colors.
For centuries, scientists have argued whether light, in the form of electromagnetic radiation, travels through space as waves or as particles. Waves and particles, however, describe how the energies of motion of physical pieces of matter are visualized as traveling. But light is not physical matter and light cannot be observed until it interacts with physical matter. Light appears to travel by resonance.
Heat is simply a broad spectrum of frequencies of oscillation where each discrete molecular oscillator on the surface of the emitting matter resonates with a discrete molecular oscillator on the surface of the absorbing matter, radiating amplitude of oscillation for each frequency of oscillation simultaneously by resonance.
Conduction is resonance enabled by physical contact of molecules of matter. Radiation is resonance enabled by the interaction of what we think of as electric and magnetic fields via line of sight where what we think of as the velocity of light is proportional to the very short time required for resonance to occur. Frequency of oscillation is observed not to change with distance, even over galactic distances, except for Doppler effects where the source and receiver are moving relative to each other. Similarly, amplitude of oscillation is not observed to change with distance. Thus, the Planck temperature of radiation from Sun is the same close to Sun as it is close to Earth. But the thermal effect of solar radiation is observed to decrease with the square of the distance. What appears to be happening is that the density of molecular bonds on the surface of matter that resonate decreases with distance so that the amplitude increase due to resonance must be shared with increasing numbers of bonds.
Conclusions
- Greenhouse-warming theory cannot physically cause observed global warning. It is physically impossible for a body of matter to be warmed by its own radiation because its own radiation does not include the higher amplitudes of oscillation at every frequency of oscillation required to cause a higher temperature as shown by Planck’s law.
- Greenhouse gases cannot act as a blanket warming Earth because a blanket has no way to increase the amplitudes of oscillation at every frequency of oscillation required to cause a higher temperature unless it is an electric blanket providing thermal energy from elsewhere.
- Greenhouse-warming theory assumes that radiation from Sun is the same physical thing as radiation from Earth except that there is a much larger amount of it. Planck’s law shows clearly that the physical properties of solar radiation are distinctly different from the physical properties of terrestrial radiation. Radiation from Sun is observed to burn your skin. No amount of radiation from Earth can cause sunburn.
- Greenhouse-warming theory assumes that fluxes of heat are additive. Heat flux, however, is clearly observed in warming and cooling curves to be a function of the average of the existing and ultimate temperature at any moment in time. Such averaging is done in Nature by resonance between discrete molecular-bond-scale oscillators oscillating at the same frequency on the surface of the emitting and absorbing bodies. Radiation is the result of the simultaneous resonance of a very large number of oscillators at all the frequencies contained within the frequency spectrum for a body at a given temperature shown by Planck’s law.
- Greenhouse-warming theory is clearly mistaken. Reducing greenhouse-gas emissions will not decrease observed global warming. There is no physical basis to support climate models that predict major global warming in the next few decades. We can burn fossil fuels safely provided we minimize pollution.
More information
An 11-page summary of the details for a general audience
A 20-page scientific paper A Most Inconvenient Reality — Greenhouse Gases Cannot Physically Explain Observed Global Warmingsubmitted to the Journal of Geophysical Research on May 28, 2018, that describes these issues in more detail. This file includes the editor’s email rejecting the paper without review.
Dr. Peter L. Ward worked 27 years as a geophysicist and program leader for the United States Geological Survey. After retiring, he has been able to put his full-time effort, for ten years, into trying to understand what really causes global warming.
Read more at whyclimatechanges.com
Trackback from your site.
geran
| #
Well written and full of good points, Dr. Ward.
The clowns promoting the GHE typically have no background in radiative heat transfer or thermodynamics. That’s why we see such nonsense as “hindering the energy leaving the atmosphere will warm the surface”.
I especially liked your example: “Radiation from Sun is observed to burn your skin. No amount of radiation from Earth can cause sunburn.”
Reply
Carl
| #
In the rejection letter I noticed this statement, “For the discussion on the role of greenhouse gases, you simply stated what you believed.”
In my reading of your paper I saw you explain how the laws of thermodynamics contradict the notion that a body (Earth/atmosphere ensemble) can warm itself by absorbing its own radiation. Isn’t it curious how easily the laws of thermodynamics are brushed aside as simply being your personal “beliefs” when they are shown to contradict the “greenhouse effect” hypothesis?
The fact is, those who argue for the proposition that “greenhouse gases” cause a “greenhouse effect” that has raised the Earth’s average surface level temperature some 33 C are simply stating “what they ‘believe'”–beliefs, by the way, that are actually contradicted by empirical evidence, especially the observation that the supposed “most potent greenhouse gas”–water vapor–is observed to be a lower atmospheric coolant.
Reply
John Harrison
| #
This has to be the most poorly written, incomprehensible, rambling and confused article I have ever read. It has to be a scam to see how many readers will actually fall for it. I see Goran was first in line to see the emperors new clothes which, after attempting to have a sensible discussion with him recently, I do not find surprising.
Reply
John Harrison
| #
Goran and Peter. Try this thought experiment. I’ve tried it once with Goran but he found it too difficult so I shall try to make it easier by putting some numbers in. In an isolated system, a surface cooling from 100C directly faces a colder similar surface kept at a constant 20C. To what temperature will the hot plate cool, (the equilibrium temperature) – AND WHY? Now, repeating the experiment but raising the temperature of the colder surface to 40C. What happens to the rate of cooling of the hotter surface – AND WHY? Then what will be the new equilibrium temperature – AND WHY? Now, will increasing the incident LWIR intensity on the surface of the Earth raise, lower or make no difference to its equilibrium temperature. Finally, will increasing the concentration of a “greenhouse gas”, such as CO2, raise, lower or make no difference to the intensity of LWIR on the surface of the Earth and hence its equilibrium temperature. Some genuine, scientific, open-minded and honest thought is expected, no baloney or thoughtless dismissiveness.
Reply
John Harrison
| #
To the question WHY? Resort to first principals is required, detailed and in depth
Reply
geran
| #
John Harrison, I don’t know who “Goran” is. Are you playing juvenile games with names, or are you just incompetent?
I have to go with incompetent, based on your “thought experiment”. You are heating the second surface from 20 ºC to 40 ºC, and then wondering why the system temperature went up! “WHY”? Because you added more energy!
You might want to study radiative heat transfer and thermodynamics.
Or remain incompetent. Certainly your choice.
Reply
John Harrison
| #
Geran. Firstly my apologies. I was compiling that comment on my phone and I typed Geran but apparently, unbeknownst to me, autocorrection objected to that spelling.
Secondly, you obviously did not put in a great deal of thought or effort into the thought experiment and any of my students would have been given a D- for your response (if they were lucky and I was in a reasonably good mood). If you will listen, let me explain the significance. At 20C vs 100C the cold surface is emitting LWIR towards the hot surface which absorbs some of that energy ( despite what Peter was saying some of the LWIR emitted by a cold surface will be absorbed because it is a grey body. Peter was mistakenly only considering a unimolecular system interacting with photons. A multi-molecular system is a whole different ball game). However, the hot surface is emitting energy at a greater rate and therefore cools to an equilibrium temperature where the rate of emission of LWIR energy is equal to the rate of absorption which will occur when the two surfaces are pretty much at the same temperature, ie 20C. If the experiment is then repeated with the temperature of the cold surface at, say, 40C then the cold surface emits LWIR energy at a greater rate and therefore the intensity of the incident radiation on the hot surface increases which, in turn, means that the rate of energy absorption at the hot surface will increase. This ensures that the hot surface cools more slowly and this time to a new, higher, equilibrium temperature of 40C where once more the rate of energy emission is equal to the rate of energy absorbed. Both you and Peter need to ask yourselves if the hot surface did not absorb LWIR from a cold surface what is stopping it from cooling to absolute zero? So yes, the proximity of cold surfaces to a hot surface will affect the equilibrium temperature of a hot surface. Now, the significance of this to the effect of so-called “greenhouse gases” in the atmosphere is this. We know that GHGs will emit some of the LWIR energy which they have absorbed some of which will be incident on the Earth’s surface where some part is absorbed and therefore will exert some influence the equilibrium temperature. If the concentration of GHGs in the atmosphere is raised then LWIR incident on and then absorbed by the surface will increase and this will raise the temperature at which equilibrium is achieved.
Is this thermodynamically feasible? Most certainly and is recognised as such by most open-minded scientists of note. Does that make me and other scientists like me “lukewarmists”? That would be a great exaggeration as this effect on equilibrium temperatures from such a minute concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere, especially in comparison with the effect of so many other far more significant natural causes, would be so small as to be considered as irrelevant. So – not even a lukewarmist I suppose. More tepid than lukewarm. I do wish some scientists would stop banging on about the GHE being thermodynamically impossible, that argument has been totally dead in the water for some time now – time to move on to more important considerations perhaps?
Reply
geran
| #
Apology accepted, John. We all have trouble with autocorrect and proof-reading.
But, you’re still making the same mistake. You’re adding energy to the system to raise temperature, and then claiming that proves the GHE. What you must do is show an increase in temperatures without adding additional energy, which is impossible.
For example, consider the isolated room, completely sealed. There is some minor furniture, just to add mass. Now, heat the room to 25 ºC. Since no energy can leave the room, it will remain at 25 ºC forever.
Now add a large block of ice to the room. The block has a total surface area of 1 square meter, and hangs from the ceiling. Ice emits about 300 Watts/m^2, so you are adding 300 Watts to the room.
You have added energy to the room, but the room temperature will NOT increase. You could add 10 blocks of ice (3000 Watts), and the room temperature would still not increase.
Again, you might want to study radiative heat transfer and thermodynamics.
Reply
Alder
| #
” No amount of radiation from Earth can cause sunburn.”
Precautions against sunburn are necessary on ski slopes, and when sailing.
Reply
geran
| #
Alder, I hope that was an attempt at humor.
Reply
Alder
| #
It is funny in a way- with alarmism, they start from the proposition and twist or ignore facts to suit.
I would like to see comments on this site do the opposite.
Those who have skied, get sunburnt. It comes from the snow not the sky. That is the fact, reflected radiation. Now, is it heat, or temperature, or radiation without heat, or what?
Messing about in boats has the same risk, it is easy to wear a wide brim hat to keep sunshine off
your face, but the burning comes from off the water.
Have you ever lit a fire using a magnifying glass?
The glass itself is cool. Is that different? It is taking radiation and concentrating into a smaller area. Does that explain getting sunburnt off water and snow?
I do think the article has merit, the resonance aspect is very interesting.
Reply
Norman
| #
Goron
Your point has already been talked about on Roy Spencer when you go as JDHuffman. You add ice and it adds energy to the room but it also adds mass. Temperature is the average kinetic energy of the mass. I am not exactly sure why you are not able to understand this. If you add 10 blocks of ice you are adding much more mass. When will you learn to learn?
Reply
geran
| #
Norman, I haven’t heard from you in awhile. You’re still up to your old tricks I see. And apparently you’re as confused about identities as you are about your pseudoscience.
Hilarious.
Reply
Norman
| #
Geran
I kind of quit responding to your alter ego JDHuffman on Roy Spencer. It was not going anywhere. The intelligent Tim Folkerts suggested I give up the fight. I just wanted to point out your logic has already been unraveled. It is not very good point with the adding ice to a room. Yes indeed it adds energy but it adds less energy than mass and the room cools. Not your best thought.
Reply
geran
| #
Now I remember how obsessed you are, Norman. You never get the science right, so you must resort to insulting some, and clinging to, others. You mentioned Spencer, Huffman, and Folkerts, as you desperately try to grab some credibility for yourself.
Sorry, it’s still not working for you.
And there is nothing wrong with my simple example of adding ice. You just can’t understand it, as usual. The mass of the ice is not an issue. If it were, all you would have to do is just remove an equal amount of mass from the room, when the ice is added. Simple.
This blog tends toward discussions of science. Generally, the commenters are mature, and avoid an overly excessive amount of personal attacks. You probably should find a blog more suited to uneducated adolescents.
Reply
Norman
| #
Geran
You still get it wrong. Think man!
If you remove mass from the room you are removing energy as well. If you remove an equal amount of warm mass as the ice you added you are keeping the mass the same but lowering the amount of total energy. You have to try and think it through. You either ignore the energy or the mass. You have to include both. If you add ice you add both energy and mass. If you remove mass and add a similar lower energy mass then you are removing energy.
Squidly
| #
Geran, add the ice, then throw out a couple of chairs!
Holy crap, WTH is Norman even talking about?
geran
| #
Norman, as usual, you don’t even understand the context. You just jump into a comment string and start picking nits.
Adding ice was a simple means to explain something. The point was you can NOT raise the temperature of a system without the right kind of new energy. Everyone else seems to understand the point, but not you.
You will continue with your usual rambling comments, but don’t expect a response.
geran
| #
Squidly, poor Norman is a frustrated individual with no life. He uses blogging to escape reality. He can get on some blog and pretend he understands science. But, he always gets tangled up in his pseudoscience.
He’s fun to watch.
Ed Bo
| #
Norman:
Here’s a scenario to consider:
You and geran are outside in the woods on a cold winter day, at -20C (253K). Neither of you have sufficient clothing on, so even with your body doing its maximum metabolism, you are getting hypothermia. Your body core temperature has gone down from 37C (310K) to 35C (308K). You both are in serious trouble, because your power output is consistently greater than your power input.
You come across my cabin in the woods. I offer to let you come in to “warm up”. My cabin is at 20C (293K). Nothing in the cabin is warmer than that.
You would have the sense to take me up on the offer, even though everything in my cabin is still below your body temperature. You would come in, and your body temperature would indeed increase back to normal.
However, geran would claim that my offer could not help him, because “a colder body cannot increase the temperature of a warmer body”. So he goes back off into the woods and becomes the winner of a Darwin award.
Many years ago, the Science of Doom website very accurately identified the fundamental confusion that geran and his ilk display. You can read it here:
https://scienceofdoom.com/2010/11/05/the-three-body-problem/
Reply
geran
| #
Ed Bo, body temperature would be adding heat energy to your cabin.
But thanks for the grandiose display of your ignorance of thermodynamics.
Reply
Norman
| #
Squidly
You don’t really know what I am talking about? Geran on this blog and JDHuffman on Roy Spencer blog brings up this ice in the room idea often to try and show how adding energy will not increase the room temperature. The problem is he does not grasp that the ice has mass and he increased the mass of the room. So then he wants to add ice and remove warmer items. Okay the mass of the room is the same but you removed energy with throwing out warmer chairs. It is not complex. Geran can’t understand why this really is a pointless point. Unfortunately I think you may be as ignorant of physics as this one. Too bad, not a skeptic among you is able to read and understand heat transfer.
Reply
Ed Bo
| #
Geran:
You missed the point (as usual).
Here’s the key question: When you come out the cold -20C into the cabin at +20C when your body temperature is 35C, will your body temperature increase or not?
Reply
geran
| #
Sorry Ed Bo, but it is you that missed the point.
You are still adding energy to a system and then claiming “cold is warming hot”.
Learn some thermodynamics.
Reply
Ed Bo
| #
Why do you continue to avoid a very simple question? (Because you can’t answer it?)
Reply
geran
| #
I addressed your question, Ed. You just don’t like reality.
Reply
Ed Bo
| #
Baloney! You haven’t even tried!
I asked: “When you come out the cold -20C into the cabin at +20C when your body temperature is 35C, will your body temperature increase or not?”
Why are you desperately avoiding that question???
geran
| #
No Ed, I addressed your silly question. You just don’t like my response.
Let me explain some thermodynamics:
The human body is a “thermodynamic heat source”. That means it can bring new energy into a system. So when you take a heat source, wrapped in thin insulation, from a cold environment into a much warmer environment, what else could you expect but warming?
But, that does not prove “cold can warm hot”.
To prove such nonsense, you would have to bring a watermelon, at 35 C, into your cabin, which is at 20 C.
Would you then expect the watermelon could warm to 37 C?
As always, learn some thermodynamics.
Ed Bo
| #
Geran:
Well that’s a start, at least. Baby steps…
You do identify that the human body can thermalize the energy from metabolizing food, calling this a “thermodynamic heat source”.
But what you have failed to realize, no matter how many times it is explained to you, is that the earth’s surface can and does thermalize the energy from solar radiation, and that this is every bit as much a “thermodynamic heat source”.
So just as the (metabolism-powered) human body can achieve a higher temperature in a “less cold” (293K vs 253K) but still colder ambient in my example, so can the (solar-powered) earth’s surface achieve a higher temperature in a less cold (~255K vs 3K) ambient as the earth with IR absorbing gases compared to a transparent atmosphere is.
You do understand that the earth thermalizes radiation from the sun, don’t you? How on earth don’t you realize the implications of that fact?
When you completely botch such basic points, how do you have the unmitigated gall to question someone else’s knowledge???
geran
| #
That’s good, Ed. You were able to repeat the thermodynamics I taught you. “Rote” is the first step to a full understanding.
But, you still weren’t able to answer my basic question. Memorize “cold can not warm hot”. Then try the question again.
By learning, you will not have to resort to such tactics as false accusations. Here’s your own quote, accusing me of not realizing the Sun warms the planet:
”But what you have failed to realize, no matter how many times it is explained to you, is that the earth’s surface can and does thermalize the energy from solar radiation”
Perhaps you could link to just one example of what you claim?
So your homework assignment:
1) Answer “Would you then expect the watermelon could warm to 37 C?”
2) Where is even one example where I denied Earth’s surface did not thermalize solar?
Ed Bo
| #
Good grief, Geran! I break it into the tiniest possible steps for you, and you still can’t understand it!
On your third try, you finally got it that your hypothermic body could warm up when it got into the cabin, EVEN THOUGH the cabin temperature was less than the body temperature.
You did point out that this was possible because the body had a separate heat source. So you are not a completely hopeless case.
And of course, I believe that if you brought a watermelon at 35C into the 20C cabin, it would not increase in temperature, because it has not separate heat source.
But still you maintain that this same phenomenon of increased temperature is not possible for the earth, even though the sun shines on the earth.
So there are only two explanations for this bizarre belief:
1.) You think the earth’s surface does not thermalize the radiative power that hits it.
or
2.) You do not have the intellectual capacity to understand that if the earth’s surface does thermalize solar radiation, that this case is analogous to the metabolizing human body (whose temperature can increase in a colder ambient), and not to the inert watermelon.
It has to be one of these two, and I don’t know which is the more embarrassing case for you.
Oh, and you have taught me NOTHING about thermodynamics, except to understand the hugenumber of ways students can get it wrong. (I teach this stuff sometimes, and I like to anticipate the areas where the weaker students get confused. This site is a gold mine for that — really the only reason I visit here.)
geran
| #
Good grief, Ed, you only did half the homework assignment.
That is unacceptable.
Please finish the homework: “2) Where is even one example where I denied Earth’s surface did not thermalize solar?”
Ed Bo
| #
Jeez, Geran, I was just trying to give you a face saving way out, and you won’t take it!
So I see it’s: 2.) You do not have the intellectual capacity to understand that if the earth’s surface does thermalize solar radiation, that this case is analogous to the metabolizing human body (whose temperature can increase in a colder ambient), and not to the inert watermelon.
Well, it did take you three tries to realize that your body temperature would increase when you came out of the cold into a cool cabin — something that any schoolchild would know immediately…
geran
| #
Ed, being ignorant about thermodynamics is fixable. But, your not being able to own up to your own words demonstrates some serious character flaws.
Your own words:
“But what you have failed to realize, no matter how many times it is explained to you, is that the earth’s surface can and does thermalize the energy from solar radiation…”
That is a complete falsehood. You are stating a falsehood as fact. I asked you twice for supporting evidence, but you ignored my request. You must run from your own words.
Get some therapy. When you can behave like a responsible adult, come back and I’ll help you with thermodynamics.
Ed Bo
| #
Geran:
Above, you made the argument: “The human body is a “thermodynamic heat source”. That means it can bring new energy into a system.”
The only logical reason to make this argument in this context is to distinguish it from the topic of the post, which is the case of the earth.
And the only logical reason to make this distinction is if you believe that the earth does NOT have a “thermodynamic heat source” and cannot bring new energy into a system.” And the logical follow-up to this, given that everyone knows that the sun shines on the earth, is that you do not believe that the earth absorbs solar radiation, thus providing a “thermodynamic heat source”.
You see, Geran, I like to give my opponents the benefit of the doubt. I assumed you were capable of logical argument. I see that I was wrong. In retrospect, I should have known better.
I apologize for my erroneous assumption. I now understand that you are incapable of logical argument.
Now back to the real topic at hand, which you keep trying to dodge:
Later in the same comment, you said, and I quote: “So when you take a heat source, wrapped in thin insulation, from a cold environment into a much warmer environment, what else could you expect but warming?”
So take the earth, whose heat source is the thermalization of solar radiation. Without IR radiatively active gases, the surface would be in an ambient of -270C (3K) with “thin [or no] insulation”. That is indeed “a cold environment”. The addition of IR radiatively active gases, brings the earth into “a much warmer environment” (~255K, effectively), just like the walls of the cabin do.
“What else could you expect but warming?” Precisely! You have just given an excellent overview argument for the (poorly named) greenhouse effect!
Congratulations!
geran
| #
Ed, it really doesn’t make much sense to keep typing out an extravagant amount of words, when it’s been proven your words mean nothing.
Maybe you believe doing the same thing over and over, hoping for different results, will make you appear smart.
Probably not, but it is fun to watch.
Ed Bo
| #
Ahhh, so you have no counter-arguments!
And you haven’t even tried to distinguish the case of the warm body with a “heat source” increasing temperature between a “cold” and a “cool” ambient, and the case of the warm earth’s surface with a “heat source” increasing temperature between a “cold” and a “cool” ambient.
I wonder why not? Are you now endorsing the “greenhouse effect”?
Reply
geran
| #
Ed, twist and spin my words all you want. Your effort is futile. The truth is here for all to see.
Your words mean nothing.
Reply
Ed Bo
| #
Typical Geran. You paint yourself into a tighter and tighter corner, increasingly dodging the main issue with more and more diversionary bluster.
Why don’t you even try to distinguish between the two cases presented here? It should be easy for a self-proclaimed thermodynamics expert such as yourself!
But your actual behavior is sadly predictable.
Reply
geran
| #
Your words are empty. You have corrupted yourself.
https://principia-scientific.com/heat-flow-science-discredits-greenhouse-gas-theory/#comment-22688
Reply
Ed Bo
| #
Oh, is little Geran still upset that I mistakenly assumed he was capable of logical argument???
When are you actually going to try to make a real case?
Reply
geran
| #
Ed, the case was closed way back upthread. You can’t stand by your own words.
The case is closed. You just can’t face reality.
Reply
Ed Bo
| #
Geran: You’re very predictable and transparent. Every time you start losing the actual argument, you start pouting about an alleged mistreatment, just like a little kid. You’re going to take your ball and go home.
And this from someone who is banned from multiple websites for bad behavior…
Reply
geran
| #
All false, Ed.
But dream on. You live in a fantasy world, shunning reality.
You can’t stand by your own words, so your words have no value.
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
I will help you both by giving you someone else to insult.
An object orbiting above the atmosphere will have the surface facing the sun heated to 250 F. The same object laying on the surface of the Earth (under the atmosphere) will have that surface heated to 50 F. Where has this energy gone?
When you add energy to an unconfined gas (like the atmosphere) the volume of the gas increases. If the volume increase there are fewer molecules (less mass) striking a set area (thermometer) so the area is receiving less total energy. A thermometer does not give an accurate reading of the kinetic energy of a gas because in a gas (unlike a liquid or solid) there are two variables (mass and velocity of gas molecules) delivering kinetic energy to the surface area..
The missing energy is heating the gas molecules in the atmosphere.
Reply
geran
| #
Herb, where in the world did you come with the maximum temperature of Earth’s surface is only 50 ºF?
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Gera’
50 F is not the maximum temperature of the Earth’s surface it is the average. The equator gets the maximum amount of energy from the sun with the amount decreasing the further north and south you go. Where did I say 50 F was the maximum?
Reply
geran
| #
I inferred it from: “An object orbiting above the atmosphere will have the surface facing the sun heated to 250 F. The same object laying on the surface of the Earth (under the atmosphere) will have that surface heated to 50 F.”
250 F would indeed be about the max temperature of the Moon. So it appeared you were trying to claim the two temps were both “max”.
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Geran’
The average temperature on the side of the moon facing the sun is 250 F. The maximum temperature on the moon facing the sun is 250 F. The minimum temperature on the moon facing the sun is 250 F.
The Earth and moon are receiving the same energy from the sun. The difference is that not all the energy striking the Earth is reaching the surface but is being absorbed by the atmosphere so the average on the Earth is not the same as the maximum or minimum..
geran
| #
Herb, the maximum “daytime” temperature of the Moon is about 250 F. You got that right. But the Moon is a sphere so temps drop as distance from zenith increases.. Consequently, there is also a “minimum”, and an “average” that is NOT 250. Here’s one source that claims the average is about 225 F:
The average daytime temperature of the moon is 224.6 degrees Fahrenheit (107° C)
http://planetfacts.org/temperature-on-the-moon/
The calculated maximum BB temperature of a one-sided flat plate on Moon’s surface is 229.6 F.
The same calculation for Earth would yield 189.5 F, not your 50 F.
Ed Bo
| #
Herb:
Unfortunately, your errors are so basic and so numerous that it is hard to even get started on a response.
To start with, you don’t understand either temperature or pressure at the most fundamental level. For example, your assertion here about thermometers measuring gas temperatures is completely WRONG. At equilibrium, the thermometer is transferring as much energy to the gas through molecular collisions as the gas is transferring to the thermometer, NO MATTER WHAT the pressure of the gas is.
I defy you to produce a single thermodynamics text that supports what you say. (And unlike the poor predictions of climate science, basic thermodynamics has centuries of very precise, successful predictions, with repeatable laboratory experiments demonstrating this.
As to your question here, you must remember that your orbiting object has a surface pointing to the sun for many hours with very low thermal capacitance, so it heats up quickly. Points on the earth’s surface are pointing toward the sun for only a few hours with much higher thermal capacitance, so heating up much slower.
And the flip side of this is that the orbiting object will quickly get VERY cold when it is on the night side of earth, much lower than the earth’s surface will. The moon’s surface gets down to about -200C (<100K) in the long lunar night.
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Ed,
It appears you don’t understand how a thermometer works. A thermometer has a set area to be exposed to the medium being measured. This area is designed to absorb heat which is radiated by the rest of the thermometer. If the entire thermometer is submerged in the medium being measured it doesn’t give an accurate reading.
The pressure confining the atmosphere is gravity which doesn’t vary much from the top of the atmosphere to the bottom so it plays no role in an unconfined gas. The density of an unconfined gas is determined by the kinetic energy of the gas molecules (PV=nkt). An increase in kinetic energy results in a decrease in density. A decrease in density means fewer molecules striking a set area. You believe the thermometer is accurate while I believe the universal gas law is true.
Reply
geran
| #
Herb, how are you able to get every sentence WRONG?
It that talent natural, or do you have to work at it?
Reply
Ed Bo
| #
Herb:
For once, Geran and I are in full agreement! That’s saying something…
Reply