Persuading the Family There’s No Greenhouse Gas Effect
Picture a sphere suspended in space. It’s a small sphere. Small enough that it’s gravity is negligible and can be discarded as irrelevant to the calculations and thought experiments that we are about to subject it to. Let’s give it a surface area of 1 square meter.
Our sphere is in deep space and receives only a tiny uniform minimum amount of incoming energy from the background radiation of space. Again for simplicity we will disregard this energy and focus on the energy that the sphere itself is generating.
We will give our sphere an internal energy source (perhaps nuclear decay, but it’s arbitrary) supplying our sphere with 235 watts of energy. Our sphere is a blackbody which means it has the absolute minimum resistance possible to shedding the energy it produces to space.
According to the Stefan Boltzmann calculation (fP=εAσT^4) for such things our sphere will radiate its energy to space whilst maintaining a temperature of just under 254 Kelvin or approximately -18C.
There is a reasonably well known skeptic of catastrophic man made climate change by the name of Willis Eschenbach who nevertheless believes that Greenhouse Effect which underpins it is still based in solid science. From the above thought experiment he continues it by surrounding our sphere with a shell which leaves a gap between itself and the sphere so that the only way energy can be exchanged between the two is via radiation.
The argument continues that because the shell must radiate an equal amount both inwards and outwards that energy must accumulate at the surface of the sphere so that the shell can shed 235 watts to the outside. So the end result with the added presence of a shell is one where the sphere is emitting double the energy at 470 watts for the shell to be able to emit 235 watts to both the outside and the inside of itself simultaneously.
Thus the new temperature of the sphere is raised according to the Stefan Boltzmann calculation to just under 302 Kelvin or about 28C. The refutation of runaway heating is countered by stating that each second only 235 watts of new energy is being supplied and the “back radiation” halves each cycle so that when the shell is emitting 235 watts to the outside an equilibrium has been reached.
The “Steel Greenhouse” as Willis has named this thought experiment has been challenged and countered by physicist Joseph Postma many times on his blog “climateofsophistry” see here:
Hi My eldest son came to stay with me this Christmas. He lives 1000km away and I don’t get to see him very often or generally for very long when I do. He was already grown up and had moved away from home long before I had my own personal epiphany about the full extent of the climate change scam. As such his education and views on the subject are grounded in his schooling and his education in physics.
My son has never heard of Willis Eschenbach, nor has he ever seen his thought experiment. He has occasionally looked what I have previously written on the subject, but he isn’t really that interested in the topic. It was therefore a bit of a surprise when one long night of whisky and catching up he challenged my assertion that there is no Greenhouse Effect with a thought experiment that was very similar to the one Willis had designed.
My son has picked up my penchant for arguing the toss to the nth degree on any subject and a bottle of whisky tends to exacerbate such obstinacy in the face of overwhelming evidence, so by the time we went to bed he still wasn’t convinced by his dear old Dad.
As he has a life to go back to and as we didn’t have the opportunity to reevaluate things when we were both sober again I don’t know whether my arguments will hold sway with him over time. He agrees that taxing people and subsiding windmills to try and change the weather is stupid and he ridicules the hysteria of green activists just as much as any other “Luke Warmer”.
Still, our drunken conversation confirmed for me that the paradigm of the Steel Greenhouse is what is being taught in schools around the world. I think it’s worthwhile therefore that I provide you all a layman’s refutation of it, as its not easy to quote equations from Joseph Postma (pictured, below) when you’re standing next to the barbecue with half a bottle of whisky in you on Christmas Eve.
If we are ever to stop bad physics being taught in classrooms, then it is at the layman’s level where the public will be brought on side.
So, what would happen to the temperature of the surface of the sphere if there was no gap between it and the shell that has been placed around it? This is what I asked my son.
The shell in the thought experiment is also a blackbody. It is no different to the sphere, therefore, in terms of composition. It’s basically made of the same stuff. The only difference it has, is that it’s not producing any energy of its own. So by enclosing the sphere inside a shell of the same material all we have done is created a bigger sphere.
Let’s say it is a thick shell and it’s surface area is double that of the original sphere at 2 square meters. If you supply a bigger object with the same energy as a smaller object, will the temperature of the bigger object be hotter, colder or the same temperature as the smaller object?
If I stick the heating element of a kettle into an Olympic sized swimming pool instead of kettle full of water, will the water in the swimming pool become hotter, colder or reach the same temperature as the water in the kettle?
My son agreed that the bigger object must be cooler than the smaller object. In fact, in our thought experiment we can calculate exactly how much cooler it would be. 235 watts distributed over 2 square meters of surface area means a temperature of just over 213 Kelvin or approximately -60C.
It was at this point that my son raised the objection that this must be the temperature of the surface of the shell but the original sphere is still the only part of the system that is supplied with energy and that the temperature won’t be uniform throughout the object. This is correct.
Which is why I used the example of a heating element inside a swimming pool versus the inside of a kettle. Will the heating element be hotter than the water in both cases?
If you remove water from a kettle entirely does the element get colder, or will you burn out your kettle and set fire to your house?
So I got my son to agree that the sphere MAY be hotter than the surface of the shell, but it can’t be hotter than it was before the shell was placed around it. It can only be cooler. Basically because it’s still sharing it’s energy with more material and the new material can’t insulate the original object because the most effective insulation of all is a vacuum and we’ve just removed that by placing a shell on the sphere!
So now let us go back to the original thought experiment and let us create a gap between the shell and the sphere. There is no reason we should create a gap, because there is no gap between the atmosphere and the surface of the earth.
They are touching, just as surely as the shell and sphere in our thought experiment were. However, the whisky is following, your son has a lovely new fiancé whom he doesn’t wish to look foolish in front of and why would he simply give up against Dad so easily anyway? So lets put the gap back!
The sphere on its own had a temperature of -18C. With a shell around it that was touching we lowered the temperature with the coolest point being -60C at the surface of the (bigger) shell. Does it make sense that on the instant we separate the shell from the sphere, that the sphere’s temperature will now rise past the original temperature of -18C until it reaches 28C?
This defies all logic and reason and common sense. Which is probably why a bottle of whisky was required for my son to lose his and keep asserting that, yes, this is exactly what would happen. How big would the gap have to be, I asked? 1 km, 1m, 1cm, 1mm? At what point do we go from atoms to be considered touching and a temperature of -60C and the atoms to be considered separated and the temperature to rise past -18C to 28C?
Maybe it was because my own words were also slurred at this point but I couldn’t think of how to explain to my son in simple terms, why the sphere would simply return to its original temperature of -18C and the shell (if it’s surface area was still 2 square meters) would still be warmed to -60C by the sphere.
Why I couldn’t get him to accept that now there would be simply be no gradual transition between the two temperatures, from inside to outside. Our optimal insulation (a vacuum) has been restored. The shell will warm back up to -18C but our shell will remain at -60C. I expect it was the intervention of our better halves also cut our conversation short as it was getting late, that also helped thwart my attempts to bring my son fully on board.
Alas, Christmas came and went and he is now back home with his mind on other things once more.
The drunken paradigm that was impossible for my son to shake was that of the radiation that comes back to the sphere. It’s common amongst all believers of the Greenhouse Effect. So now that I’m sober, let us look at that too.
When the shell was attached to the sphere, the radiation between them didn’t disappear. Energy was still travelling back and forth between them and some of that energy was travelling in the form of radiation between molecules. Indeed the same is true of the energy passing back and forth between the molecules of the sphere itself when it was isolated in our thought experiment.
When we separate the objects, we still have the same amount of material that needs to be heated by the original amount of energy. If a bigger object becomes cooler than a smaller object when supplied with the same amount of energy, why would you expect two objects to generate hotter temperatures than one object supplied with the same energy?
So why doesn’t the inside of the sphere get hotter than the surface of the sphere when it has no shell at all? It’s not as if any of the fundamentals have changed. Energy is still travelling from the surface to the core of the sphere, with “back conduction”. It’s still being exchanged in both directions. So why doesn’t it cause any heating of the core?
The reason is that energy and temperature is defined by motion of objects. In the case of balls hitting one another, large objects. In the case of atoms, small objects. In the case of radiation, the motion which they can cause in objects. A slower object can’t make a faster object go faster.
image source: cnn.com
If you take a child running at 10km per hour and attach it to a Jamaican sprinter running at 40km per hour then you won’t help Usain Bolt break his world record. You will likely just get him arrested for child abuse. Slow doesn’t add to fast. Cold doesn’t add to hot.
The energy going back and forth between the sphere and the shell or the atoms between them, all have the same potential for generating motion of the matter that it strikes. It’s like adding three more sprinters to the Jamaican team to make a relay.
You can pass the baton between them but the average speed remains the same as Usain running on his own. You have more runners in the same way our shell added more mass. But as the shell has no energy of its own, it’s the equivalent of adding 3 babies to make a relay team with Usain Bolt. It can only slow him down as he takes and passes the baton between toddlers.
So what actually happens when new energy is added to a system? Well I could continue the Jamaican sprinter analogy, but it would become rather laboured here. Better to think of a pool table or Newton’s cradle. Hit the white ball into another ball. The white ball stops and the motion is transferred to the other ball and it continues moving. On a Newton’s cradle the motion will travel through the balls in the middle and only a corresponding ball at the other end will continue the motion of the one you let go of.
So it is with heat flow. Energy may be bouncing around within and between objects but as there is no difference in the speed or intensity of motion that is travelling, no increase in the overall motion (temperature) will occur.
When new energy is generated or added, and this new energy also holds no greater intensity of motion, then this excess simply passes through the object or objects in the same way it passes through one pool ball to the next or through a Newton’s cradle. It doesn’t matter whether there is a gap between the balls on a pool table or whether they are all still in a triangle together at the start of the game.
Likewise it doesn’t matter whether our shell is touching our sphere or whether there is a gap. Simply imagine a new ball being added to the table, bouncing around at the same speed as all of the other balls. One of the older balls at the edge of the table simply gets booted off leaving the same amount of energy as there was before. The new energy that is being added to the system is simply transferred through the sphere to the surface where it gets kicked off to space. On the Newton’s cradle imagine the string snapping on the last ball after its hit and it simply continuing on its merry way.
We can’t increase the intensity of the motion, so we can’t increase the temperature. We can only hinder it. New energy of the same intensity as what is already there simply passes through and exits.
Energy can and does travel in all directions, but heat only flows one way. So the presence of a shell, which has no power source of its own and is colder than the sphere can’t cause the temperature of the sphere to rise. This would be a direct violation of the 2nd law of thermodynamics.
A cold object can’t add heat to a warmer object, but it can and will exchange energy with it. Now you can visualise why. There is no such thing as heating via “back radiation”, so there is no such thing as a radiative greenhouse effect, which means we can abolish all funding of research into human caused climate change.
Sadly I didn’t get to explain this last part to my son. Perhaps he will read this article and come around. But if he doesn’t then the work still continues. I’m glad at least that he’s not an alarmist. There is always the next visit for the true awakening to be completed and there is always more whisky. Best of luck to you all in bringing your own family and friends into the light of the true climate change skeptics. I hope this article makes it slightly easier for you to do so.
****
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
| #
Jan 4, 2020 Plasma Climate Forcing | Path to the Atmosphere
https://youtu.be/wt2dAq6CQas
Reply
Sabin Colton
| #
The key to the dilemma of the atmosphere sending radiation back to the surface is that the surface is already hotter than the atmosphere and, thus, the energy levels in the surface of that temperature are already full. This radiation will be rejected/reflected back upward and has nothing to do with warming the surface. It’s that simple. WOW. When you are full you are full and a cooler source cannot warm you.
Reply
Al Shelton
| #
Thought: I am sitting next to my campfire. The fire is heating my legs and hands.
Does that heat back radiate and make the fire burn faster and hotter?
I don’t think so…………..
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Stephen,
You wrote: “Picture a sphere suspended in space. It’s a small sphere. Small enough that it’s gravity is negligible and can be discarded as irrelevant to the calculations and thought experiments that we are about to subject it to. Let’s give it a surface area of 1 square meter. Our sphere is in deep space and receives only a tiny uniform minimum amount of incoming energy from the background radiation of space. Again for simplicity we will disregard this energy.”
What is the background radiation space? Here at the earth I consider it primarily is the radiation from the Milky Way I have seen at night. Which is not the long wavelength radiation being emitted by a blackbody whose temperature is little more than 2K. This background radiation is somewhat similar to the solar radiation intercepted by a satellite instrument orbiting in the very, very diffuse atmosphere of the earth. It is composed of photons capable of photo-dissociating a hydrogen molecule in hydrogen atoms. It is composed of higher energy photons capable of ionizing a hydrogen atom.
The only difference between the background radiation from space and the radiation from our sun is primarily that the magnitude of the solar radiation flux is far, far greater than that of the background radiation from the Milky Way. Hence, the background radiation’s flux could never warm the tiny sphere’s temperature much above 2K even if the source of this radiation is from a sphere whose surface temperature could be assumed to be similar to that of our sun.
However, you choose to give your tiny sphere an internal fission energy source capable, at the beginning, to increase the tiny sphere’s surface temperature to 254K where the surface emits according to the S-B radiation law.
You have just invented a modern oral thesis question for the old one: How far can a bird fly?
The sphere is finite and the bird is finite.
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
John Harrison
| #
Stephen. Try this experiment for real, no thought experiment needed to accept the principal of back radiation slowing down the rate of cooling of the Earth. Suspend a heated sphere (the Earth) in an evacuated flask. You know that if that sphere was totally isolated it would continue to cool until it reached absolute zero but we cannot demonstrate that so instead immerse the flask in melting ice (the cold atmosphere containing some CO2) and plot the cooling curve for the sphere as it cools from a chosen temperature. The cooling rate gradually slows considerably as it approaches 0degC and the cools no further so it must have been costantly absorbing IR from the colder melting ice just as the surface of the Earth absorbs IR back radiated from cold but “activated” CO2. Just to be sure immerse the flask in a water bath at 20degC and plot the cooling curve again as it passes through the same starting temperature as previous. The slightly warmer water represents the atmosphere with more CO2 and therefore a higher rate of back radiation of IR. The cooling curve will reveal a still slower rate of cooling as it absorbs IR at a greater rate. The sphere will cool at an ever decreasing rate until it ceases cooling at 20degC, a higher equilibrium temperature. Why is it that the “slayers” persist in believing that the warm surface of the Earth absorbing back radiation from cold but activated CO2 contravenes the Laws of Thermodynamics. Do you truly believe that a warm surface cannot absorb IR from a cold substance, surely not. Try it for yourselves.
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
All objects above absolute zero radiate energy. All objects absorb radiated energy. The radiation is a wave structure in the electric and magnetic fields. If the wave is synchronous to the energy of the object it can add energy even though it has less energy. Think of pushing a swing. by adding incremental energy at the appropriate time, the energy of the swing is increased by a smaller energy The increased energy will result in a greater radiation of energy and since the object with greater energy can radiate energy in multiple wavelengths it can lose energy as it absorbs energy.
.
Reply
JDHuffman
| #
John H., there are a couple of things wrong with your “experiment”.
First, the reason the rate of cooling slows as the sphere’s temperature approaches the ice temperature is due to the fact that heat transfer is proportional to ΔT. So, the greater the ΔT, the greater the heat transfer. The smaller the ΔT, the less the heat transfer. No surprise.
Second, “slowing the cooling” is NOT raising the temperature. The GHE nonsense claims a cold sky can raise the temperature of a warmer surface. That’s the violation of 2LoT.
Reply
John Harrison
| #
You have not thought deep enough only stating the relevant equation without thinking about why the equation holds true, what is actually happening. First you have to ask yourself why the presence of a cooler object can slow down the cooling rate of a warmer object. You have two choices firstly the cooler object is exerting some magical unkown force which slows down the rate at which IR photons can leave the warmer surface which seems highly unlikely. Secondly, the warmer object although radiating IR photons at the same rate is simultaneously absorbing IR photons emitted by the cooler object albeit at a slower rate than it is emitting them. Is it possible I am asked for a surface at a high temperature to absorb photons emitted from a cooler object and I have explained to some of the slayers why this must happen. If there are say a million atoms on the surface of the hotter surface, not many, the thermal energy and internal energy is distributed randomly between those atoms. There will, therefore, be a very large number of vacant energy states capable of absorbing some of the spectrum of IR photons emitted by the cooler object. The only way this could not happen is if the hot surface is that of a “white body” which does not actually exist in nature.
Your second point is, deliberately I feel, a total misdirection, because neither I or any warmist of note is stating only that IR emitted by CO2 in the atmosphere will be absorbed by the Earth surface and this will reduce, to a very small degree, the rate of cooling of the Earth’s surface. This, by no stretch of the imagination, is classed as warming the Earth. The “slayers” deliberately place the wrong interpretation on the greenhouse effect because what will actually happen is that the back-radiation will prevent the Earth’s surface from cooling as fast or as much as it would if there were no back-radiation. No Laws of Thermodynamics are contravened, I am sorry but by no means can this be described as a cold gas raising the the temperature of a warmer surface except by those attempting to deceive.
Reply
Zoe Phin
| #
John,
In Planck’s radiation oven, he does not use two way flow of radiation. There’s only one standing wave (for each frequency). He understood that that if one wall got colder, the other opposite wall would heat it and vice versa. And remember, each wall prevents the other wall from emitting to the outside, therefore according to you it should heat up … and the same for the other wall.
What you say is just rubbish. There’s no two-way flow of radiation at the same time. If it was, it would be in Planck’s derivation.
Reply
John Harrison
| #
Hi Zoe. Would you believe then that an IR photon from a CO2 molecule which is incident in New York cannot occur at the same time as as 2 IR photons are emitted from Washington DC to be absorbed in the atmosphere above. Are you sure you have that right? Have you examined the features required to constitute a Planck’s radiation oven and whether the Earth/atmosphere system meets these requirements?
Reply
John Harrison
| #
Zoe. I am not sure which part of Planck’s derivation you are referring to as he quite clearly discusses radiation from two plates at different temperatures where the energy flows in opposite directions with the higher temperature plate radiating energy at the greatest rate. The following explanation is entirely valid for black body surfaces which absorb ALL incident radiation but is also largely valid for grey bodies such as exist in the Earth/atmosphere system. A body at 300K will emit IR photons with a peak frequency of 3x10exp4 GHz. The highest reasonable frequency of photons emitted from a body at a mere 77K is 2x10exp5 Ghz which means, of course, that these are far more energetic than those emitted by the warmer body at peak frequency. These more energetic photons from a cold surface incident on the warmer surface must, to some extent, be absorbed by the warmer surface. However, these more energetic photons from a cold surface are few in number and the energy they supply to the warmer surface is more than offset by the much higher rate of emission of photon energy from the warmer surface, particularly at peak frequency. The cold surface does not heat the warmer surface to a higher temperature. If the net flux of radiant energy were to be from the cold surface to the warm surface then that indeed would constitute a contravention of the Second Law of Thermodynamics. I hope I have explained myself with sufficient clarity.
Reply
Zoe Phin
| #
John, you can say whatever you want, and it won’t change the fact there is no extra 2 factor in the math. It’s simply not there. Between two opposing walls there is only one standing wave per frequency per molecule. No two way photon streams. One wave. If that was not the case there would be an extra double factor.
Since Planck’s formula doesn’t have this 2x factor, it DOESN’T EXIST.
JDHuffman
| #
John H., after all that disjointed rambling, you ended up rejecting your own pseudoscience:
” …by no means can this be described as a cold gas raising the the temperature of a warmer surface except by those attempting to deceive.”
Congratulations.
Reply
John Harrison
| #
Hi Zoe. Would you believe then that an IR photon from a CO2 molecule which is incident in New York cannot occur at the same time as as 2 IR photons are emitted from Washington DC to be absorbed in the atmosphere above. Are you sure you have that right? Have you examined the features required to constitute a Planck’s radiation oven and whether the Earth/atmosphere system meets these requirements?
Reply
John Harrison
| #
I must only assume from your rather rude comment that my argument wins. I can only imagine that in your dictionary a reduction in cooling rates constitutes heating in which case I would invest in a new dictionary if I were you.
Reply
JDHuffman
| #
“I must only assume…”
” I can only imagine…”
John H., your assumptions and imaginations appear to be all you’ve got. Warm objects do NOT absorb photons from colder objects, in any meaningful way. Cold does not warm hot. You have to believe in such nonsense to believe in the GHE. Hence, your need for assumptions and imaginations.
Nothing new.
John Harrison
| #
For your edification, presuming you have a reasonable grasp of emission and absorption profiles, a body at 300K will emit IR photons with a peak frequency of 3x10exp4 GHz. The highest reasonable frequency of photons emitted from a body at 77K (much colder that is) is 2x10exp5 Ghz which means that these are far more energetic than those emitted by the warmer body at peak frequency. I submit, therefore, without expectation of rebuttal rude or otherwise, that these more energetic photons from a cold surface must, to some extent, be absorbed by the warmer surface. Of course these more energetic photons from a cold surface are few in number and the energy they supply to the warmer surface is more than offset by the much higher rate of emission of photons from the warmer surface, particularly at peak frequency. So, you see, the cold surface does not heat the warmer surface to some higher temperature. This is something called net flux of energy and if the net flux of energy were to be from the cold surface to the warm surface then that indeed would constitute a contravention of the Second Law of Thermodynamics. I hope I have explained all this with sufficient clarity.
Reply
JDHuffman
| #
Very good, John H. It appears you are starting to get it: ” So, you see, the cold surface does not heat the warmer surface to some higher temperature.”
Correct, “cold” can not warm “hot”.
John Harrison
| #
And as I have been trying to get through to you from the beginning every reasonably intelligent warmist like myself would never and have never said that back radiation, although it is absorbed by the Earth’s surface, could raise it’s temperature. Absorption of back-radiation merely slows down the rate of cooling until a new equilibrium temperature is reached slightly, perhaps immeasurably, higher than it would have reached without back-radiation. Anyway that can now be put behind us as you now seem to be in total agreement with me. Well done you.
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi John,
Now that everyone is in agreement I will explain why everyone is wrong.
The surface of the Earth does not heat the atmosphere. The atmosphere is heated by oxygen molecules and nitrogen molecules absorbing energy from ultraviolet light emitted by the sun (490 kjoules/mole and 940 kjoules/mole). The ionosphere and ozone layer are evidence that the sun is transferring energy to the atmosphere. This energy does not register on a thermometer just as the energy coming to the Earth from the sun in space does not register on the thermometer. If you use the universal gas law to determine the kinetic energy (temperature divided by density) at different altitudes you will find that the kinetic energy increases with altitude. (P in the universal gas law is not atmospheric pressure but the pressure of gravity (as measured from the center of the Earth) holding the atmosphere on the Earth.) and that it is the atmosphere that is transferring heat to the surface of the Earth.
Herb
John Harrison
| #
Of course the above is only referring to back-radiation from carbon dioxide. We could go on to discuss the much greater effect of water vapour and even what takes place at the top of the atmosphere but I get the distinct impression that you are not ready for that yet. Never mind we have made some progress it seems. It’s been interesting chatting with you.
JDHuffman
| #
Wrong, John H. What you have been trying is to pervert and corrupt science. You have learned that “cold” can not warm “hot”, so now you try to claim “cold” can just slow the cooling of “hot”. That sounds innocent enough, but that’s not correct.
And you make your situation even worse by then claiming: “Absorption of back-radiation merely slows down the rate of cooling until a new equilibrium temperature is reached slightly, perhaps immeasurably, higher than it would have reached without back-radiation.”
So, cutting through your nonsense, your end result is “cold can not warm hot, but cold can warm hot”.
Very sneaky, but perversion and corruption of reality is NOT science.
Nothing new.
John Harrison
| #
Hi Herb. You are indeed a very intelligent fellow it seems and I would not contradict much of what you are saying. I was to some degree trying to explain, in simple terms that Mr/Mrs Huffman (I think itmust be Mr as his manners are not quite what you hope to expect from a lady), might understand, the small part played by back radiation. Thank you for the input
John Harrison
| #
Hi Herb. Please try out your explanation on Mr Huffman and let me know what success you have. Judging by the lack of coherent argument in his last tirade I suspect not much.
John Harrison
| #
Hi Herb. Don’t discount the effect of back-radiation entirely as the Earth’s surface warmed by the Sun during the day cools to some degree by radiation at night. The back radiation from water vapour in particular, will reduce the rate of cooling as evidenced by much more rapid cooling in arid conditions and why a significant proportion of global warming is due to reduced night time cooling. Have you considered Raman spectrometry in the behaviour of oxygen and nitrogen molecules?
Herb Rose
| #
Hi John,
At night the atmosphere continues to radiate energy to the surface of the Earth but since it is not receiving energy from the sun it also radiates energy into space (shrinking thermosphere)
The surface of the Earth also continues to distribute the energy it received during the day into the mass of the Earth/water causing cooling.
The reason cloudy nights are warmer than clear nights is because the energy contained in the water droplets are transferring their stored energy to surrounding gas molecules and they contain far more energy than gas molecules and are more effective in transferring that energy. It is not because they are reflecting energy (something water does not do well) back to the Earth.
Herb
John Harrison
| #
Hi Herb. We shall have to agree to differ as far as the greenhouse effect having zero influence. Sadly the slayers have taken the stance that the GHE is thermodynamically impossible which it quite plainly isn’t. I would have hoped that instead of attempting to prove otherwise they might instead of proven that the GHE effect from CO2 is negligible, especially given the significantly greater effect of water vapour. Talking about water vapour, you do not need clouds at night to reduce cooling rates. It is just the effect is enhanced by the release of latent heat as is well known. Without cloud formation cooling rates will still be reduced at night in regions of higher humidity. The GHE effect may prove to have little or no significant effect on global temperatures but as it does not contravene any laws of physics then the odds are it will occur to some greater or lesser extent. It was a great error of the “slayers” to nail these particular colours to their mast.
Herb Rose
| #
Hi again John,
I would recommend reading Dr. Gerald Pollack’s book “Th Fourth State of Water”. Water in the atmosphere does not exist as a gas (vapor) but as micro droplets. In his experiments he shows that radiated energy causes water to split into hydroxyl and hydrogen ions with the hydroxyl ions combining with water molecules to form a negatively charges outer skin of droplets with the positive hydrogen ions in the center. The negative charge is what causes water to rise in the atmosphere where increased radiation forms stronger droplets with a greater charge. Water is actually a liquid crystal with one melting point at 0 C and the other melting point above the 100 C limit of a thermometer and in the 540 calorie range needed to convert 100 C water to 100 C steam. It is water that is carrying the energy received at the surface of the Earth to the stratosphere and which cools the lower atmosphere, not radiation. (The transfer of heat in the troposphere is done by collisions of molecules not radiation.) When the water crystals melt at the troposphere/stratosphere interface they release the stored energy and fall to the Earth as rain. (If cloud formation and rain were a function of condensation and nuclei why doesn’t it occur lower in the atmosphere where the concentration of water (saturation point) and nuclei is greater?)
The affect of radiated energy in the troposphere is negligible.
Herb
JDHuffman
| #
John H., the GHE is definitely impossible. “Cold” can not warm “hot”. Warmists simply reject established physics.
Average sky temperatures are always much colder than average surface temperatures. Warmists simply reject facts and logic.
Nothing new.
Herb Rose
| #
Hi J.D,
The surface of the Earth feels hotter because there are more molecules radiating heat not because the molecules have more kinetic energy. You can cook an egg in boiling water faster than in a 100 C oven because the water is transferring more heat to the egg not because the water molecules have greater kinetic energy (they don’t). I know you believe has the magical power to figure out the mean kinetic energy of the molecules but in reality it doesn’t. Take a normal mercury thermometer and submerge the entire thermometer in a shallow pan of boiling water. See if it still reads 100 C. 20 C water will feeler a lot cooler than 20 C air.
Herb
JDHuffman
| #
Herb, sometimes you get things right, but sometimes you seem completely confused. Your apparent confusion may be due to the fact that you don’t proofread your own comments. For example, what the heck does this mean? “I know you believe has the magical power to figure out the mean kinetic energy of the molecules but in reality it doesn’t.”
If I struggle to understand what you are trying to communicate, it appears you are confusing “temperature” with “enthalpy”.
Two molecules with the same vibrational frequency have more enthalpy than one molecule at the same vibrational frequency, but cannot increase the frequency of a third molecule to a higher frequency than just the one molecule.
Herb Rose
| #
Hi J. D,
The statement was supposed to say,”I know you believe a thermometer has magical power to figure out the mean kinetic energy of the molecules but in reality it doesn’t.”
The kinetic energy of molecules not only depends on the energy received but also how many molecules that energy is distributed too. The same amount of calories will raise the kinetic energy the molecules of a gas more than the kinetic energy of the molecules of water because there are thousand times the number of molecules in the water absorbing that energy than in the gas. A 1 m^3 oven has less than i kg of molecules in it. A 1 m^3 container of water has 1000 kg of molecules. If you put a thermometer in a 100 C oven there will be only a thousandth of the molecule transferring energy to it then in the boiling water.Since the mercury in both thermometers are are expanding the same, they are both receiving the same heat/energy. In order for the kinetic energy (12mV^2) to be the same the velocity of the molecules in the water must be 1/V^-2 of the gas molecules. The individual gas molecules have greater kinetic energy but there are fewer of them (less mass). If you put the boiling water in the oven the greater kinetic energy of the gas molecules will transfer energy to the water molecules.
This is what is happening to the surface of the Earth. The gas molecules at the same temperature as the surface of the Earth are transferring kinetic energy to the more numerous but slower molecules.
Herb
JDHuffman
| #
Herb, thanks for fixing your statement. But it is incorrect. I do not believe what you believe I believe. A thermometer does not have “magical power”. It merely obeys the laws of physics.
And if all your rambling is trying to say the atmosphere is warming the surface, then you are still confused.
A thermometer indication increases due to increased vibrational frequency of its molecules. If the thermometer is plunged into a substance that has more molecules than the thermometer, it doesn’t matter. The number of molecules doesn’t matter. It is the vibrational frequencies that matter. Plunge a thermometer, indicating 25C, into 25 kg of ice water, and the thermometer indication will decrease, even though the bowl has more molecules that the thermometer.
Herb Rose
| #
Hi J.D.,
It does matter. A thermometer is designed with a fixed area to be exposed to the medium being measure. It is assumed that there will be a constant number of molecules striking this area and the reading will reflect the kinetic energy of those molecules. If you submerge not only the bulb of the thermometer but also part of the stem there will be more mercury absorbing kinetic energy and less radiating it.
Easy to test. In a shallow pan of boiling water submerge the entire thermometer. If the thermometer is measuring the mean kinetic energy of the water molecules it will read 100 C. If it records a greater temperature it means it is registering the amount of heat being transferred to it. In the atmosphere the entire thermometer is exposed to one medium and its is not measuring the flow of energy between two different mediums.
Herb
JDHuffman
| #
Sorry Herb, you are still confusing “enthalpy” with “temperature”. A thermometer measures temperature. It does not measure enthalpy. A liter of water at 10C has the same temperature as 100 liters of water at 10C, but the 100 liters has 100 times more enthalpy.
Your example is just a distraction because it references “how to use”, rather than “how it works”.
John Harrison
| #
Hi Herb. Interesting reading but your final paragraph is completely non-sequitur. I have previously become aware of the complex nature of water “vapour” and have found that it’s true nature can largely be ignored and certainly with respect to its absorption and emission spectra. You have also greatly over-simplified the process of nucleation and growth and the requirements for each to take place. I think that you are fully aware of this and why clouds and raindrops form at particular heights so we needn’t go into that. 😉
Zoe Phin
| #
John,
“slows down the rate of cooling until a new equilibrium temperature is reached slightly”
Temperature is not dependant on anything downstream from it.
In normal science:
Cold emits less. Hot emits more.
In climate junk science:
Emitting less is proof something is getting hotter.
P.S. Your definition of equilbrium is actually the conservation of heat flow, not conservatoon of energy. You believe heat flow must be preserved, therefore the source must warm up. Nonsense.
Zoe Phin
| #
Herb,
“The gas molecules at the same temperature as the surface of the Earth are transferring kinetic energy to the more numerous but slower molecules.”
Molecules move faster at the bottom of the troposphere than at the top:
https://phzoe.wordpress.com/2019/12/03/standard-troposphere/
You forgot that the velocity is dependant on the square root of mass. But in calculating kinetic energy (1/2mv^2), the mass cancels out. It has to, because mass is extensive, and temperature is not.
Vrms = sqrt(3kT/m)
KE = 1/mv^2 = 3/2kT
And temperature of GASES only cares about Translational Kinetic Energy, not Vibrational or Rotational.
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Zoe,
I thought you finally got it that the molecule high in the atmosphere move faster (more kinetic energy), that is why they are higher in the atmosphere. You still don’t understand that it is the kinetic energy of the molecules that creates the atmosphere.
Herb
Herb Rose
| #
Hi John,
I once accepted the common explanation of how rain drops form (condensation around nuclei) but do not now. In Dr. Pollack’s experiments he shows how when energy is added to water there is an “exclusion zone” where the water molecules not only expel colloidal particles (nuclei) but even salt ions (creating a zone of fresh water in salt water). If energy is evaporating water in the form of these liquid crystal nuclei could be attracted to the surface of the droplet but would be excluded from the interior. The droplets form not from nuclei but from energy creating liquid crystals. Rain droplets form when these micro crystals melt releasing the stored electrical energy and then the liquid water absorbs nuclei.
I believe you would find Dr. Pollack’s experiments very interesting.
With multiple conversations going on it is hard to keep track of what is being discussed. By my last paragraph do you mean “the affect of radiated energy in the troposphere is negligible”? My reasoning on that is radiating energy is the transfer of energy in the form of electromagnetic waves which then transfer energy to another object. The rate of this transfer (all objects radiate and absorb) is determined by the difference in energy of the two objects with it slowing the closer the energy levels. When there are collisions between objects their energy is immediately equalized. In water energy is transferred through conduction (collisions) not radiation. In the troposphere the collision between molecules is frequent enough that the radiating of energy causes little change. In the thermosphere, where there’re few molecules and rare collision energy transfer is done by radiation.
Herb
JDHuffman
| #
Zoe, you have a mistake.
“KE = 1/mv^2” should be “KE = (1/2)mv^2”.
I didn’t check your website for further errors.
John Harrison
| #
Zoe. You are putting your own interpretation on what I have described in my posts and they do not bear any resemblance to what I have in fact explained, perhaps not clearly enough. I can assure you I am not a junk scientist and do not believe anything that occurs in nature could possibly contravene the Laws of Thermodynamics. Nothing I have described is doing so and you can do the experiments I have described quite easily. A cold surface is radiating IR photons some of which will be incident on a warmer surface. Some of these photons in turn will be absorbed by the warmer surface. To deny this is to deny the principles of black body (or grey body) absorption. With black body radiation ALL of the photons incident on the warmer surface must be absorbed. However, because of its higher temperature the warmer surface is radiating energy at a greater rate than it is receiving so therefore it continues to cool but because it is now receiving energy it cools at a slower rate. However it can only cool until the rate at which is receiving radiant energy is equal to it the radiant energy it is emitting and his will be the new equilibrium temperature. If was receiving no radiant energy the warm surface would continue to cool until it reached absolute zero. The presence of a colder surface has therefore raised the equilibrium temperature above absolute temperature. The greater the rate at which the warmer surface absorbs radiant energy from a colder surface the higher will be the equilibrium temperature. I hope this helps to clarify my previous descriptions.
Zoe Phin
| #
Only where the temperature is greater, Herb.
I’m surprised you’re not embarassed repeatedly saying what you say regarding temperature.
Zoe Phin
| #
John,
You are regurgitating Clausius’ 1840s theory.
Did you forget that Boltzmann and Planck (and Maxwell) all showed him to be wrong?
Planck did not have two way photon streams between two opposing walls. If there were, then Planck’s equation would have a 2x factor. The fact that it doesn’t CONCLUSIVELY proves you’re wrong.
There are no two way photons between warm and cold. There are only certain waves going from warm to cold. Only those waves whose lengths are possible, are called photons.
Do you care that you’re wrong? No, because there are other self-serving fools who agree with you.
JDHuffman
| #
Johh H., you are just repeating the same nonsense, over and over, hoping for a different result. Have you ever heard Einstein’s definition of “insanity”?
1) A “black body” is an imaginary concept. It does not exist in reality. Trying to twist the laws of physics, based on an imaginary concept, is pseudoscience.
2) Not all photons are always absorbed. Many are reflected. The lower the photon energy (the longer the wavelength, the lower the frequency), the more likely the photon will be reflected.
3) Because an object will not cool below its ambient temperature does not mean the ambient temperature has increased the temperature of the object. Equilibrium means no ΔT.
If you disregard the above, then you must believe you can warm your 22C room with blocks of ice. Many Warmists actually believe such nonsense. Do you?
Macha
| #
How can back radiation induced slowing the cooling have any effect on 15C surface temps if it can only slow at -80C. Won’t…
Reply
John Harrison
| #
I’m not sure I fully understand your question but hopefully my reply to JDHuffman above will help.
Reply
John O'Sullivan
| #
Are any readers having any difficulties in viewing the two images above by Willis Eschenbach?
Reply
Andy Rowlands
| #
I can only see them as little white squares.
Reply
tom0mason
| #
I can not see them and if I try and load them separately I get the much reviled Google prompt for Gmail One Account Sign In.
I say No! Google is evil!
P.S. Yes I attempt to block Google nastiest (cookies and scripts) always and this may be the problem — that is to say the images demands too much Google spying and not my reasonable expectation of them not to spy on users of their products.
Reply
John O'Sullivan
| #
Tom, Andy, thanks for letting me know. I will look to get this fixed ASAP.
Reply
Bob Armstrong
| #
The calculation of temperature of a ball in our orbit should start with the calculation for a gray ball . That temperature is ~ 278.6 +- 2.3 around our orbit . The difference from that temperature is calculated by the expressions at http://cosy.com/Science/ComputationalEarthPhysics.html#EqTempEq and illustrated graphically at http://cosy.com/Science/AGWpptHypotheticalSpectra.jpg , neither of which is as clearly understandable as I wish .
I respect Willis , but the steel shell analogy is wrong . It violates the Divergence Theorem http://cosy.com/Science/AGWpptDivergenceTheorem800.jpg .
It is the gravitational acceleration of the molecules in the atmosphere towards the center which both increases their density and speed , ie: temperature causing the adiabatic “lapse rate”. And that gradient continues on into the solid planet .
Reply
Brian
| #
Jan 7, 2020 MAJOR Science Debunked, Big Earthquake, Plasma Nuclei
Daily Sun, Earth and Science News
https://youtu.be/MMn3ftBk3vA
Reply
Steve Titcombe
| #
For many months I, too, struggled with steel greenhouse thought experiment: How could something that contributed no additional power (the shell), increase the temperature of the sphere? Surely, that would require additional energy – and yet the shell provides no additional energy.
But what is being overlooked, by those that continue to struggle with that thought experiment, is the effect of Time: Specifically, that time period when the sphere continues to radiate it’s own source power (towards the shell) whilst the surrounding shell is not radiating this same source power out into free space. During this time, the sphere and shell have not reached their respective steady state temperatures. During this time, energy is being built-up within the system.
To help, I’m going to offer an analogy. I know that many dislike analogies, but this one is good, so please bear with me and let the (necessarily long) story unfold….
A person has been raised to believe that they should give away 10% of their wealth (which is represented by the funds held in their checking account) to an external charity, each month.
On the first day of the first month, when this person starts their first paid job (say at a monthly rate of $1000), they have zero dollars in their checking account, so they give away nothing to charity – so their checking account stays at zero dollars. At the end of “month one”, they receive their $1000 salary paid into their checking account.
At the commencement of “month two”, they now have $1000 in their checking account and so give away a $100 check to charity. At the end of “month two”, they again receive their $1000 salary paid into their checking account.
At the commencement of “month three” they now have $1900 in their checking account and so give away a $190 check to charity. At the end of “month three”, they again receive their $1000 salary paid into their checking account.
At the commencement of “month four” they now have $2710 in their checking account and so give away a $271 check to charity. At the end of “month four”, they again receive their $1000 salary paid into their checking account.
You will see that eventually their checking account will reach $10,000 and they will give away $1,000 each month to charity, and they will earn $1,000 for the next month – the state of financial equilibrium has been reached.
Many years pass and this hardworking and generous person rears a child and this child is also raised with a very charitable nature. However, unlike their hardworking parent, this child (now entering adulthood) does not become an independent worker in their own right but instead, remains wholly dependent upon their generous parent for their entire income. The parent, believing that “charity begins at home”, continues to give 10% of their wealth away but now, all of their charitable giving goes to their dependent child, rather than the external charity.
On the first day of the first month (donation day), when the dependent child leaves home, the dependent child has no wealth in their own checking account and so gives no charitable donation to any external recipient and similarly gives no charitable donation to their hard-working parent either. However, the parent has $10,000 in their checking account, so the parent now gives away 10% of their wealth (as a $1,000 check) posted to their dependent child – and, on arrival, this check is paid into the dependant child’s own checking account, so the dependant child’s checking account jumps to $1,000 dollars, whilst the parent’s checking account drops to $9,000. However, by the end of the first month, the parent is paid their regular $1,000 salary so the parent’s own wealth is again restored to $10,000
At the commencement of “month two” (donation day), the parent posts another $1,000 check to the dependent child. For the first time, the dependant child similarly posts a check for 10% of it’s own wealth (the $1,000 gratefully received last month) to an external charity and also posts a check for 10% of it’s own wealth back to their generous parent (the child, like the shell in the thought experiment, has two directions for giving). So, the child posts a check for $100 to an external charity and posts a check for $100 check back to their parent (leaving the child $800). The two checks sent between the parent and the dependant child always cross in the post. On their arrival, the dependant child will now have $1,800 whilst the Parent will now have $9,100 but, by the end of “month two” the parent also receives their regular $1,000 pay check, so the parent’s own wealth is restored, but this time to $10,100.
At the commencement of “month three” (donation day), the parent posts a $1,010 check to the dependent child. Similarly, the dependant child posts a check for 10% of it’s own wealth (now $1,800) to an external charity and also posts a check for 10% of it’s own wealth back to their generous parent. So, the child posts a check for $180 to an external charity and posts a check for $180 check back to their parent (leaving the child $1,440). The two checks sent between the parent and the dependant child again cross in the post. On their arrival, the dependant child will now have $2,450 whilst the Parent will now have $9,270 but, by the end of “month three” the parent also receives their regular $1,000 pay check, so the parent’s own wealth is restored, but this time to $10,270.
At the commencement of “month four” (donation day), the parent posts a $1,027 check to the dependent child. Similarly, the dependant child posts a check for 10% of it’s own wealth (now $2,450) to an external charity and also posts a check for 10% of it’s own wealth back to their generous parent. So, the child posts a check for $245 to an external charity and posts a check for $245 check back to their parent (leaving the child $1,960). The two checks sent between the parent and the dependant child again cross in the post. On their arrival, the dependant child will now have $2,987 whilst the Parent will now have $9,488 but, by the end of “month four” the parent also receives their regular $1,000 pay check, so the parent’s own wealth is restored, but this time to $10,488.
You will find that, eventually, the parent’s checking account will grow to reach $20,000 and that the parent (whilst still earning a salary of only $1,000 per month) will be required give away $2,000 each month to the dependent child. The dependant child’s checking account will grow to reach $10,000 and the dependent child will give a $1,000 check to their ‘external’ charity and will give a $1,000 check to their parent – the new state of financial equilibrium has been reached. All the ‘additional’ money in the system is accounted for (it only ever came from the gainful employment of the working parent and yet, by the introduction of a wholly dependent child, the parent has, over time, become wealthier – twice as wealthy in fact – whilst still only earning the same $1,000 salary each month. Neither the parent or their dependent child has fraudulently created any fake money. The wealth held in the two checking accounts is entirely genuine – but the (wholly dependent) yet generous child’s “back-giving” has allowed the parent’s own wealth to increase.
A dollar, when given by a poorer person to a richer person, must inevitably make the richer person one dollar richer. However, the richer person will always ‘outgive’ to the poorer person – the net flow of dollars is always from the wealthier parent to the poorer child.
The same is true with the energy conveyed by the photons from a colder object to a warmer object – the radiant energy from these photons will be thermalized by the warmer object (like the dollar from a poor person, each Joule has to be accounted for). However, the warmer object will always ‘outgive’ the amount of energy it gives to colder object. The net flow of energy is always from the hotter surface to the colder surface.
The colder object does not prevent the hotter object from emitting all of it’s radiant exitance at the level prescribed by the S-B law. Similarly, the hotter object does not prevent the colder object from emitting all of it’s radiant exitance (on both it’s surfaces) at the level prescribed by the S-B law.
Finally, the steel greenhouse thought-experiment is based upon a shell having a radius that is only just larger than the radius of the sphere – that requirement in the thought experiment is necessary to ensure that all of the back-radiation from the inside surface of the shell falls upon the surface of the sphere – none is ever allowed to reach another area upon the inside surface of the shell. By this stipulation, the energy held in the sphere is now double that which would have been held if the nearby shell was absent and hence the temperature is now greater by a factor of the fourth root of two i.e. 1.189 times greater than if the nearby shell was absent. If the radius of the shell is not just slightly larger than that of the sphere but significantly larger, then the effect of back-radiation is significantly diminished. A larger radius for the shell can again be explained in the “charitable parent and dependent child” analogy: if the Charitable Parent had three dependent children (instead of one) then the parent would continue to give 10% of their wealth away each month which would be shared equally between the three dependent children. Each of the three dependent children would again give 10% of their wealth to external charities and would also give 10% of their wealth as generous giving back to their internal family but this time, the parent would only receive one third of that which it would have got back had with one child because each of the three children distribute that internal giving as one third to the parent and then one third to the other sibling#1 and also one third to other sibling#2 (and as the two other siblings do exactly the same thing then the inter-sibling transfers count as zero net effect). In summary, the parent does get more wealth because of the existence of three dependent children but not as much as would be the case with just one dependent child i.e. as the radius of the shell increases in proportion to the radius of the sphere, the temperature-increasing (wealth) effect of the back-radiation from the inside surface of the shell upon the external surface of the sphere becomes less.
It must be understood that ‘back radiation’ between the sphere and the shell is only significant in a vacuum. As soon as a gas is present in the gap between the sphere and the shell, the standing temperature difference between the sphere and the shell is reduced (the gas molecules act like a ‘resistive’ short-circuit). As the density of gas molecules is increased, the ‘resistive’ short circuit will tend to become a true ‘short circuit’ where the sphere temperature and the shell temperature tend to each other.
In summary, all Photons convey energy and even the small amount of energy that a photon in the LWIR spectrum conveys has to be accounted for. Photons don’t have a temperature they only have energy (some more than others), and so all of the energy conveyed by all of the photons which strike the surface of a blackbody must be thermalized into the surface of that blackbody, and must count towards the total energy held within that blackbody object, regardless of the temperature of the surface which originally emitted that radiant energy conveyed by those photons.
Reply
JDHuffman
| #
Steve T., that is one of the wildest efforts to justify your pseudoscience I’ve seen in a while.
You left out the fact that the atmosphere can not “save” energy like a bank account.
You need to get even wilder….
Reply
John Harrison
| #
Steve. There is a major problem in using analogies especially such a long and complex one. It is sad however that JD, after all the trouble you have been to, attempts to cursorily, and quite rudely, dismiss your efforts without going to the trouble of reading it properly, putting his own interpretation on them instead. That does seem to be the method with which he feels most comfortable and it does save him a lot of time and trouble. I agree with much what you describe and understand the point you are making. However, your final paragraph is pretty much spot on and it puts the principle of the “greenhouse effect” in a nutshell. I hate the use of the phase “greenhouse effect” as it bears no resemblance to how a greenhouse operates but we have been stuck with it and I have yet to come across a suitable alternative tag.
Reply
JDHuffman
| #
John H., the reason you like Steve’s last paragraph is because he employs the same nonsense you use. He’s uses an imaginary object (black body) to violate the 2LoT.
Nothing new.
Reply
tom0mason
| #
A simpler way to show a family is let them see this
http://www.climate4you.com/images/GISP2%20TemperatureSince10700%20BP%20with%20CO2%20from%20EPICA%20DomeC.gif
Explain to them that temperatures have gone up and down for the last 7,000 years or so, all the while CO2 levels have gently risen over that same time period (mostly with no regard of temperature variations).
Then show them the Big Picture (http://www.climate4you.com/GlobalTemperatures.htm#An%20overview%20to%20get%20things%20into%20perspective )
so that their can get a sense of perspective about climate, and its essential difference from weather.
From 1850 to today this planet has moved from the end of the Little Ice Age gaining about 1°C in temperature. That is it, 1 degree Celsius between today’s relatively warm climate and the stormy weather and freezing winters that Charles Dickens wrote about.
‘Those who ignore history are condemned to repeat it.’
Reply
Squidly
| #
Stephen, you may want to also remind your son that “heat” is not a “thing”. What do I mean by that? .. You cannot transfer “heat” from place to place. You can transfer energy from place to place, but “heat” is the result of that energy. “Heat” is a result, not a thing. You cannot “trap” heat, you cannot “pile” heat. Adding more 130F coffee to your cup can never get your coffee cup hotter than 130F, no matter how much 130F coffee you add to it.
I also like to use the bicycle wheel analogy, molecules and the “heat” results operate just this way. Suppose you have a bicycle wheel that is spinning and lets say the RPM of that wheel represents the “heat” (or temperature). By slapping your hand along the tread of the tire you can increase the RPM (temperature) of the wheel. But you can only increase the RPM (temperature) of the wheel if the amount of energy of your hand is greater than that of the wheel, otherwise the slap of your hand will decrease the RPM (temperature). There is no scenario whereby you can slap your hand along the tread of the tire with less energy than the wheel in order to achieve a greater RPM (temperature). Less energy from your hand and energy from the wheel is transferred to your hand, thereby reducing the RPM (temperature) of the wheels.
More precisely put: Given two molecules, M1 and M2, the only way M1 can increase the energy state of M2 is if, and only if, M1 is of greater energy state than M2. There is no way around this without introducing additional energy.
Reply
John Harrison
| #
Squidly. It seems to me that you may be assuming that all the surface atoms and molecules of a body at a constant temperature all must be at the same energy level whereas that is by no means correct. If you have 10exp6 surface atoms/molecules on a body (quite a small surface area) then there will be nx10exp6 different energy levels where n is an extremely large number. Hence some will have extremely high energy levels and others very low. If you can boost the energy the energy of one of the latter you have increased the total energy of the body. This can then be applied to the so-called greenhouse effect where a photon of radiant energy from a cold CO2 molecule can be absorbed by a low energy region on the Earth’s surface. You might say this has raised the temperature of the Earth but no because in the meanwhile the Earth will radiate more energy than it has received because of its higher temperature. Don’t forget also that a body at 77K can very occasionally emit photons with greater energy (higher frequency) than the peak frequency of a body at 300K so can you explain why one of these should not be absorbed somewhere on Earth or even somewhere, anywhere, on even 1sqcm of the Earth? Conversely, why should a region of way below the average energy on the surface of any 1sqcm of the Earth not absorb a photon from CO2 emission?
Reply
JDHuffman
| #
John H., apparently there is no limit to your desperation. You are willing to twist and distort reality to any extent to promote your false religion. You imagine some way a “cold” photon can be absorbed by a “hot” surface and claim that means CO2 can warm the planet!
That’s like looking at a rushing mountain stream and seeing water splash back from a boulder, and then claiming the stream is flowing uphill!
“Cold” can NOT raise the temperature of “hot”, but you’re still trying to raise the temperature of your 22 ºC room with blocks of ice.
Some folks just can’t learn….
Reply
John Harrison
| #
JD it’s you popping up again with the same old refrain “you can’t pass heat from a cooler to a hotter”. Well that is a song from way, way back then when I had barely left primary. Do you never properly read anything which you think might possibly disagree with your firmly held, almost religious beliefs? Open your mind a little and engage the brain. You will be amazed what you might learn if you give it a try.
Reply
John Harrison
| #
JD. I’ll give you a clue to get the grey matter churning. The song I quoted was meant for kids. For the more advanced students it could have read “net thermal energy can only flow from regions of higher temperature to regions of lower temperature” nothing magical in that but it’s difficult to put a catchy tune to that. The key word is NET although THERMAL is a close second; there, that’s another clue, get thinking.
JDHuffman
| #
Well, you might have heard it before, John H., but you weren’t able to learn.
Maybe if you repeat it to yourself 50 times a day?
“Definition of Heat: The transfer of energy from a hot object to a cold object.”
Zoe Phin
| #
John,
There is no two way flow of heat, resulting in a NET flow.
It simply doesn’t exist.
Clausius WAS WRONG, and was superceded by better scientists, i.e. Boltzmann, Maxwell, Planck, etc.
Even Joule disagreed with Clausius’ double flow-net junk.
I find it so strange that a lot of climate science is stuck in pre-1850 thermodynamics.
geraint hughes
| #
If i make that steel greenhouse and test it and Joe is shown to be right, will people believe?
What would be best heat source? 100 Watt light bulb?
Reply
Zoe Phin
| #
There’s actually a patent for it. lol
Reply